THE BALLOT.

Colonist, Issue 90, 31 August 1858, Page 3

THE BALLOT.

In the House of Representatives, on Thursday, July 8, on the order of the day for the second reading of the " Regulation of Elections Bill," the question ofthe ballot came under discussion. The Coloniai. Treasurer opened the debate, grounding his main argument in favour of the measure on the necessity of eliciting and protecting the genuine expression of individual opinion. He treated the question as a practical question, denying that any abstract principle of right requires that voting should be open, and citing Guizot in support of this-position. On the fundamental princi--s>le, that the franchise is a trust and not a property, le declared his cordial agreement with the opponents of the measure, and pointed out that prominence was given to this view in the Governor's speech. The freedom of individual opinion, menaced by the democratic doctrines of America, and by the tendencies of all societies on the American model, he declared to be essential to the right development of Representative Government, which, according to its true idea, was not government according to the will of the many, or of the few, but government according to the Divine and Electoral rule of right, so far as that rule was discovered to the consciences and apprehended by the understanding of those to whom the suffrage is entrusted. The great danger in a colonial community \vas, that individual opinion would be overborne by the will of a real or apparent majority. He contended that the Ballot would support the weak minded against the intimidation of turbulent, professional politicians, and would diminish the influences of faction and class prejudice, and of that false pride which induces a pertinacious adherance to party opinions, in.spite of conviction; that it would do away with treating (though he admitted it might not prove effectual against bribery) ; that it would give no opportunity to the Trimmers, who under a system of open voting, rush in to swell the majority of a victorious party; and that the suffrage would be exercised with less reference than at present to private motives. On the whole there was fair ground for the belief that the balance of advantage, in this country, was in favor of secret voting.

Dr. Monro contended that secret voting would lead to political secrecy generally, that it would interfere with the free and open discussion of public questions, and would consequently be fatal to political intelligence and political progress. He maintained that if men were afraid of the consequences of voting, it was better that they should not vote at all, than vote secretly. While they abstained from voting, they might nevertheless take an active part in the discussion of public questions, and contribute to the formation of a healthy public opinion; but if they were to vote in secret, and if secrecy was to be of any use to them, their whole life must be an act of political concealment, perhaps of hypocrisy. He argued that the franchise was a public trust, not an individual right, that it was to be discharged openly, and that there was no obligation on the State to protect the holder of it from the consequences of his. vote. That it was not desirable (even if possible) to make things too easy; that a certain amount of difficulty, opposition, < and danger brought out the higher qualities of human nature, and that this law was true equally in the physical and the moral world; and applying this law to voting, he thought that a knowledge of possible injury from the conscientious exercise of his privilege would encourage and develop on the part of the voters generally, a feeling of responsibility and independence. He admitted that the ballot would probably be conservative in the first instance at all events. By conservatism in this country, he meant a state of society which offered no field for the exercise of the clap-trap of the demagogue. But he considered it a false and selfdestructive conservatism. The basis of demagogism was ignorance. They should seek to remove that by school instruction, and by those processes of education which were found in the acquisition and engagement of property, and above all in the amplest exercise of local self-government. These were the foundations on which to rear a healthy and lasting conservatism; as to any conservatism, as to any secret practices among people of British origin, he utterly distrusted them. He thought them opposed to the genius of British institutions, and not only empirical, but also mischievous. . Mr.'Buown stated that, generally, -his political intimates had been in favor ofthe ballot; still he did not consider that any necessity had been shewn for its introduction ; while so far as his own provinoe was concerned, he had no reason to believe that the electors Had any desire to do secretly what they would not do openly. The hon. member pointed out the fallacy of an argument used by the Colonial Treasurer, who had attempted to institute a parallel between the use ofthe ballot in clubs and in constituencies; the one having reference to-private companionship, the other to public duties, If a parallel were to be drawn at all, it would

rather be between the use of the ballot in the exercise of a public trust by constituencies, and in the exercise of another public trust by the members of that House. If tlie principle were good, the Beprcsentatives ought also to vote by ballot, instead of openly dividing. But no one would seriously propose such a change as that.

Mr. Daldx pointed out the difficulties that would arise in the application of so complicated a system to our numerous voting places, and argued that at outstations corruption would be infinitely facilitated. He also observed that in place of having to bribe many voters, a candidate would now have only to bribe one poll clerk. The hon. member, however, laid the greatest stress upon the fact of the ballot not having been demanded by the people-of the country. There had been no manifestion of feeling in favor of it. Mr. Hall contended that, as the franchise was a trust to be exercised for the benefit of the whole community, it should be discharged in the face of the entire community. Experience shewed that publicity, such as this, was the most efficient check upon the abuse of trusts, and the best modern legislation was based upon this idea. He thought it wiser to train the people to a clear appreciation of the value and importance of this trust, than endeavor to remove every possible inconvenience from its public discharge. Intimidation, in this country, was not to be apprehended. Bribery, it was admitted, would not be diminished by secret voting, which would introduce evils of another kind. To be useful to a voter, it must entail upon him an abstinence from political discussion, or constant hypocrisj*. The experience of France was against it, that of America still more so. The hon. gentleman quoted from Tremenhere to shew that secret voting did exist in some of the States, and had there' led to repudiation. Australia could not be quoted, as the ballot had only just been introduced there. Mr. Hall then described the machinery proposed by the. Government, which 113 declared to be so complicated al. to be unworkable in many districts.

Mr. Carleton, after shewing that the Colonial Treasurer was not thoroughly acquainted with the American system, argued that the ballot would only afford increased facilities for corruption; that protection was not needed for the working classes, for Jack was not only as good as his master here, but better It would not protect the master, nor would it protect the man who desired to give an open vote, lest he should be accused of breaking promise; it would only protect tbe man who desired to play false. But he would not permit himself to dwell upon mere practical considerations, where there was a principle at stake. He protested, as an English gentleman, against a measure whose object was to enable men to dissemble with impunity. His own time had been spent, for years, in persecuting untruth, whether in the person of a Governor, or in the persons of those who professed, or to speak more strictly, pretended to profess a higher calling. He was called Quixotic, but should still persevere, and never rest until he had shamed something like truth into the colony. And in accordance with the course he had hitherto pursued, he should give his vote against a measure which essentially implied deceit.

Mr. Ward joined in the objections to the ballot. It had been rejected by the Imperial Parliament though strongly urged from without, and after the fullest ventilation, had been condemned as an unwise innovation, unsuited to the circumstances of the country. The evils at which it aimed—intimidation and undue influence in elections—were less to be feared in this colony than in the mother country. The hon. member ai'gued that the introduction of the ballot was contrary to the spirit of English constitutional changes; that such an essential alteration should be shewn to be not only desirable, but necessary and urgently demanded. But in fact the proposition was received with indignation by that portion of the public with which he (Mr. W.) was acquainted, nnd had not even been suggested by the elections of the province to which it was deemed most applicable. In every sense this measure was "un-English." He added that under other circumstances than those in which the present government stood with respect to the House, a measure of such importance could not have been introduced to the Legislature without involving in its rejection the resignation of Ministers.

Mr. Weld, instead of entering into all tlie arguments that might be adduced for and against the measure, contented himself with stating what had been the deciding point in his own mind. He believed the House would agree with him, that English principles should be our guide and model. But the political system which had made England what she is, was a system based on publicity, on free open discussion ; yet we were asked to import an element of secrecy into a sj'stem the very essence of which was publicity-^-to _,6 away with the responsibility of the voter to public opinion. He, for one, had no faith in patent schemes or pet projects for patching up the old constitutional edifice by elements foreign in its nature, taking out a stone from its foundation and putting in a brick. Neighboring colonies might do so, if thsy thought fit, but he preferred looking to England. He knew his hon. friend tlie Colonial Secretary, with whom he so generally agreed, was prepared to laugh at the somewhat hackneyed word " un-English," but he was sure his hon. friend was the last man who would propose anything he might think at variance with English Constitutional principles; he would adopt the word because its frequent use shewed that it represented a principle in the minds of men, and should vote against the bill, because it was at variance with that principle of openness which was so essential to free institutions, because in fine it was " un-Eng-lish."

Mr. Williamson supported the ballot, on the ground of protection being required for voters, giving a number of instances which came within his own knowledge, where undue pressure had been exerted. Mr. Ollivier, after much reflection, had resolved to oppose the introduction of the ballot: his objection to it was based solely upon the belief that it was premature. The ballot was alleged to be called for in England' to protect the masses against the tyranny of wealth and an overpowering aristocratic influence. But New Zealand had no such influence at work; all she had at present to complain of was impurity in her elections, —the result of treating, bribery, personation, and the like. If these evils were corrected—and that lie contended the other bills in the series would correct—then there would be no necessity for resorting to so objectionable a practice as the secret vote. He agreed in the opinion which Sir J. Macintosh had put forth, on the improbability of accomplishing secrecy in voting. He objected to the mode in which the Government proposed to give effect to the ballot; he thought it would fail by reason of its intricacy. At the same time he confessed he had no sympathy with the arguments which had been used against the ballot; it migbt be "un-English," but so also were the practices which demanded its introduction.

Mr. FonsAmi said, that the objections raised by hon. members who opposed the bill appeared to be either sentimental or theoretical. He was disposed to view it as a practical question. He could not agree with hon. members who asserted that vote by ballot was, in principle, essentially "un-English."' It certainly was not the practice at present in England, but there were growing indications of feeling leading to the supposition that it might ere long be brought into practice. There certainly was nothing in the principle itself repugnant to British institutions. Changes in political affairs, quite as great as would be the introduction of vote by ballot, had been introduced during during the last half century in England; and it might with equal propriety have been urged by those at the time who objected to these changes, that they were " un-English." Fifty years ago, it woidd have been "un-English," in this sense, to advocate the repeal of tbe Corn Laws, or that a couple so disposed ought to be permitted to get married in a Methodist Chapel. He had ho sympathy with sentimental objections. The present system was admitted to be fraught with many evils. He was not prepared to say that the ballot would cure them, but he believed the change would not make matters worse, on the contrary, it would in al! probability cure some of the evils at 'present complained of; and, if the measure were found not to work, it would be easy to return to the old system. Ho should therefore support the motion. Mr. Stafford mainly confined himself to reply. He had not expected to hear any novel arguments adduced, and certainly had heard none on either side. The question had been maturely considered by the Government before the bill was drawn ; and he believed that the ballot in certain cases presented considerable advantages over the present system, although it was never pretended that it would ensure complete perfection.

The question was then put, and upon a division being called for, the following was the result :•—Ayes, 11; noes, 14. J

Vote by ballot accordingly negatived