And he who hath it feels a power H. D. M. LINES. SUGGESTED BY GUIDO'S PORTRAIT OF BEATRIce cenci. SHE walks on earth mid earthly things, Herself as pure the while As moonbeam cold on mossy springs, The murmur'd music of her tongue Smile sweeter than the smile of mirth, When hope has only fled from earth, B. WOMAN. WHEN the first star at day's decline And softer hues begin to shine Like sapphire o'er the ocean's breast; When turning from their toil away, The workmen seek their lowly home, Whose holiest love to man is given, C. B. W. ON THE BALLOT. An Argument in favour of the Ballot. By Wm. Douglas CHRISTIE, ESQ. 8vo. Hooper, Pall Mall East, 1839. In examining the merits of a scheme which professes to render so exten sive a benefit to the commonwealth, as the facilitating the exercise of the elective franchise, the calmest and most dispassionate deliberation, we think, is required: more especially when, as in the case of the Ballot, the arguments on each side possess apparently an equal share of plausibility and pretensions to justice. Too generally, owing to a failing in our nature, which is not perhaps altogether to be deprecated, we approach the consideration of such subjects in a spirit of party, and with our minds imbued with certain prepossessions, which indisposes us for properly appreciating evidence, and alienates us from the search and elucidation of truth. Mr. Christie, in the pamphlet which is at present before us, we willingly admit has conducted his inquiries with a moderation and equanimity which political controversialists of either party would do well to imitate; and, although we entirely differ from the inferences to which his mind has been led on this subject, we must nevertheless ascribe all the praise which is due to the candour and good-feeling which are so conspicuous throughout his work. We cordially admit, that "this is no question of party, nor one on which those who are "for, and those who are against, an extension of popular power, must "necessarily differ:" that "it is to be presumed, rather that persons of all parties will join in supporting such a measure, if only they agree in thinking that the will of the state should be fulfilled, and that it is better to "have a system of election which may raise, than one which must degrade, "the humbler classes of society; and provided it can be shown that no evil or evils will be entailed by the adoption of such a measure, sufficiently "large to overbalance the good that it is likely to produce." To these hypotheses, we say, we fully subscribe; at the same time we must express our decided conviction that the Ballot is calculated, not to raise, but to degrade, the humbler classes of society; that its adoption would occasion greater evil than good; and that it would be found ineffectual to afford that protection to a dependent voter, which the advocates of the measure attribute to it. We hope to be able to make good the allegations with which we have set out. 66 66 66 The first pages of Mr. Christie's pamphlet are allotted to a statement of the circumstances in which the electors, under a representative system, are placed, with regard to the exercise of the elective franchise: he shows the opposition to which they are liable in the discharge of this duty, and thence he infers the necessity that exists for a method of secret voting, as a remedy for the evil of which he complains. With regard to his observations on the practicability of the Ballot that is, as far as its mere machinery is concerned-we have little objection to offer but as respects the permanent privacy with which an elector may act under a system of secret voting, we have long entertained a distrust, which Mr. Christie's pamphlet has done nothing to remove. We shall first of all offer a few remarks upon the impossibility of combining an efficient system of registration with the Ballot. Mr. Christie lays considerable stress upon the value of a good method of registration,-and justly, since it is obvious that without this adjunct, any plan for collecting the suffrages of a constituency must be altogether abortive. Now we affirm that his measure strikes a death-blow at every thing like efficient registration. We may see this, by observing how the registry in towns and counties is kept in order at present,-chiefly by the exertions of agents employed by the two sections in politics to challenge adverse votes. But under a system of secret voting, this rivalry-the most effectual means of excluding improper persons from voting is done away with. Fraudulent votes might then be registered and employed with impunity; since, if every man's political opinions, or, what amounts to the same thing, his intentions, with regard to voting were veiled in obscurity, which party would step forward to challenge a vote, which, were it suffered to remain, might possibly support their own cause at the next political contest? Mr. We now come to consider what kind of reception the electioneering canvasser may be expected to meet with amongst those whose votes it is his object to acquire; and how far he may be supposed capable of eliciting a correct declaration of the way in which the elector is about to vote. Christie has discussed this portion of the subject with considerable ingenuity the following are his words:" Now supposing any such question put (respecting the disposal of an elector's vote); the answer must either "be a direct one, that the vote is to be against, or is to be according to, the "wishes of the questioner; or it must be an evasive answer; or there may "be no answer at all. I will consider these different cases separately. 66 66 66 : "If there be a direct answer, and an unfavourable one, there can in this case certainly be no reason to discredit its truth; and the landlord, or "customer, or master, may, as under a system of open voting, proceed, if he receive such an answer, to inflict punishment. So far it would seem "at first that nothing is to be gained. Bribery is of course out of the ques"tion, under either open or secert voting, in the case of men who would "give this honest answer. But as regards intimidation, it might have been hoped that the Ballot would rescue these bold, honest men from punish..ment. We shall be able better to judge whether there will not be a gain even to these men, and also how great that gain will be, when we have "considered the case in which a direct and favourable answer may be given. "In this case the questioner cannot conclude at once, and for certain, "that the vote will be as it is said. It is not necessary, indeed, that the "answer should be false. A landlord, or master, or customer, disposed to "exercise in an unjustifiable manner the influence that he possesses, would "most naturally suspect the dependent voter of a desire to avert its exer"cise; and so a man who is known to be ready to bribe, would be prone "to ascribe to the expectation of money, some effect upon his respondent's 'veracity. Thus, even though no lie were told, the questioner could not "be satisfied that he had been told the truth. And the natural consequence of this again, even without the intervention of lies, would be, that questioning, with a view to bribery and intimidation, would be diminished, if, indeed, it would not almost entirely cease; for a briber can gain nothing like the certainty that will alone justify him in spending money, neither can the intimidator be satisfied that the vote which is promised to him will not really be against him. The practice of impro66 per questioning must necessarily be diminished, when the motives for it 66 are diminished; and indeed the motives will be almost entirely taken 66 away. 66 66 66 66 66 66 "Now the great diminution of improper questioning thus brought about, "will obviously operate for good, in the case which has been already con"sidered, the case where a dependent voter will dare to give an unfavour"able answer. Those honest men who, under a system of open voting, "their honest obnoxious votes being seen, would be punished, will now pass unquestioned, and vote according to their opinions and their duty, "unharmed. Thus, where a moment ago it seemed that there could be no gain, the gain will be almost all that can be desired. If the questions were put, the gain might certainly be none; but the questions will not be "put. 66 66 There yet remain the cases where an evasive answer is given, or an answer is refused. In these cases, a strong suspicion that the vote is to "be adverse will certainly be warranted. But yet, as against intimidation, 66 66 "(as to bribery, there is none, in such cases, to be dealt with), there will "here be no inconsiderable gain to be derived from secret voting. For first, though the questioner may strongly suspect that the vote will be an 'adverse one, yet he is by no means certain: and as it is possible that the " evasiveness or the refusal of an answer has arisen from notions of duty, "and that the voter may after all vote according to the wishes of the ques"tioner; and as, while there is a chance of this, he will be loath to inflict 'punishment and alienate a friend, even thus alone in these cases a smaller amount of punishment must be inflicted. But, secondly, even if the in"timidating questioner is not restrained thus, he will commit an act of "much greater tyranny, and one more likely to provoke public indignation, "if he proceed to punish on suspicion, however strong, than were he to do "it upon certain knowledge. Thus public opinion too, in these cases, will "serve more effectually to restrain punishment. Thirdly, and lastly, the great "diminution of the practice of questioning, as already explained, will ope"rate also in these cases. Fewer questions will be put, likely to call forth "'evasive answers, or refusals to answer, both because even the most "favourable answer cannot be relied on (and this even though no lie be 'told), and because also these answers, which may warrant pretty strong "suspicion, will yet be not nearly so good to proceed upon as the certainty "afforded by a system of open voting. 66 "answer, 66 "Thus then, having admitted the power of questioning, I may yet con"clude that, under the Ballot, questioning of voters can serve but in an insignificant degree the evil purposes against which Ballot is directed. "There will, in truth, be little or no questioning. The direct favourable which is that wanted by every one that questions, cannot possibly "justify the briber in bribing, neither can it assure the intimidator. Thus "at once will the motive to questioning be very much diminished, if not entirely taken away: questions consequently will not be put to those who "would give unfavourable, or (what is the same thing) evasive answers, or "who would refuse to answer; and these men will now escape the punish"ment which under the system of open voting they would inevitably incur. "The power of questioning, then, which can give no assistance whatever to "bribery, can also, at most, give but a very insignificant aid to intimidation. "The efficacy of the Ballot will certainly survive the shock of this objec"tion: at most only a piece can be taken out of it." Such is the very ingenious way in which Mr. Christie discusses the different descriptions of answers, which may be given to the political canvasser under the system of Ballot. It will be seen that he deduces protection for the man who gives an unfavourable answer, an evasive answer, or for one who declines answering at all, entirely from the assumption that so much doubt and uncertainty must attach themselves to even favourable replies, under the secret system of voting, that the landlord, master, or customer, would be altogether discouraged from making enquiries on the subject. We regard this assumption as altogether unfounded in experience. Are there no ways of ascertaining a man's political sentiments besides proposing a direct enquiry to him on the subject? Is it to be supposed that the voter will observe a deep silence and reserve on the various political topics which agitate the popular mind, at all moments and in all companies after the election has ended? In the midst of his domestic circle, or surrounded by those with whom he is constantly associating, will no expressions drop from his lips which may be regarded as the index of what is passing in his mind? We think it is generally found that the more uneducated classes of society are those where just the reverse of conduct prevails. It is amongst courtiers, not amongst those who are to derive protection from the Ballot, that the Machiavelian policy, which teaches a man to think one thing and say another, can be promptly and effectually observed. The very next week to the election, it may be, a meeting is convened by the municipal authorities to petition parliament for a repeal of the corn-laws, or in favour of the extension of the elective franchise, or for some other purpose equally energetic and likely to elicit professions of a party bias. Are we to imagine that landlords, or masters, or customers, will derive no information from the proceedings of these assemblies, as to the side their tenants or vassals have espoused? Mr. Christie says he is entitled to avail himself of any contemporaneous changes in the electioneering system, which may subserve the interests of his measure; but he altogether overlooks the probability that contemporaneous changes may be made use of by those who wish to thwart the progress of that measure, equally effective, and such as may defy the most vigorous enactments of the law. May we not suppose a far more elaborate and harassing system of worming out the political opinions of dependent voters might be employed, than that which now prevails? We already find political canvassing is adopted as a profession by some men, might it not furnish a livelihood to many more? We think a regular and systematic spy system would inevitably follow the introduction of the Ballot. At all events, Mr. Christie's assumption ought to be founded on the most general experience of the way in which the middle and lower classes of society in this country have demeaned themselves on political subjects: and we are strongly of opinion that experience does not justify us in entertaining any such expectations as those which Mr. Christie has indulged in, while speculating in the above chain of hypothetical reasoning. The garrulity of "the people" has been proverbial in all ages. Have political subjects now lost their fascinations for the popular taste-fascinations which ere this have originated the most violent convulsions of empires, subverting ancient and deeply established dynasties by their exciting influence over the human mind? Is this the age in which a measure is to be tried? is this the country where its efficacy is to be essayed, for repressing that ardour for political discussion and political investigation which the middle and lower classes have heretofore regarded as their birth-right, compensating them in some degree for their inferiority to the higher orders in the state? We can hardly conceive it possible that such a change should be effected as this; and without it, upon Mr. Christie's own showing, the Ballot must be wholly inefficacious. This is palpably the result. Can we come to any other conclusions from the following admission-" If questions were put, the gain might certainly be none; but "the questions will not be put." Can Mr. Christie himself, we submit, arrive at any other conclusion respecting the efficacy of the Ballot, than that at which we have arrived; if he can only believe the British nation incapable of attaining to that perfection in duplicity, which is necessary to render the Ballot efficacious? We feel the more confident in the result which we have predicted, from the admission Mr. Christie elsewhere makes, that canvassing is likely to continue under the Ballot, and that under any system of election its continuance is desirable. We now come to what we conceive the most startling and dangerous portion of the system which will spring from the introduction of the Ballot,we allude to the abolition of the present prerogative of parliament in adjudicating on controverted elections. Mr. Christie appears to have been aware of the ultra tendency of his measure, as regards this part of it,—at least if we may judge from the very quiet and unostentatious manner in which it is proposed by him. "I may observe, in passing," are his words, "that "votes can now no longer be reconsidered after the election, with a view to abstracting them from one candidate or the other; but whenever a num"ber of votes, greater than the number of the winning over the losing can"didate has been disallowed, it will be necessary to cancel the return, and "order a new election." Now if ever there was a really monstrous proposition made, we think this is it. Two candidates, A and B, contest a borough; A carries the election by a certain majority. Now, under the existing election laws, B may get his opponent unseated, either by proving a single case of bribery or intimidation against himself or his committee, or 66 |