MR. KENNEDY AND THE BISHOP OF CARLTSLE
[TO THY EDITOR OP TH1 " SPICTATOIL."]
SIR,—The vehement rhetoric of Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Tuckwell, and Mr. Evans makes it easy to condemn them, and yet pass by without an answer the really difficult question they have endeavoured to answer. That question is,—What should a working-man do if he has real reason to believe that he will lose lais employment unless he promises to vote at the next election for the candidate to whom he is conscientiously opposed P It is easy for a Bishop, or for me or you, who cannot possibly be in the like position, with a light heart to tell the poor man that he is a coward, if he does not defy his employer and take the consequences ; bat is it as right as it is easy ? It would be demoralising as well as idle to discuss the question, if it were one of such speculative casuistry ; but those who are engaged 1n the contest, which will go on with increasing fierceness till the end of next November, know that it is a practical one. There are working-men who will be turned out of their employ- ment if they will not promise to vote against their consciences, and who will then be boycotted by the neighbours of the employer. This may mean ruin and the workhouse to the man and his wife and children. And a man should be helped, not denounced, when, like Mr. Kennedy, or Mr. Tuckwell, or Mr. Evans, he tries, however awkwardly, to answer the question. It is undoubtedly true that a noble army of martyrs and con- fessors have, in religion and in morality, won for us conquests which could have been won in no other way ; and this form of resistance to the intimidation of voters would be the most effectual now. But" all men cannot receive this saying." All men are not called to be martyrs by God and their conscience, and still less have we the right to call them to the sacrifice while we look on.
No danger of consequences to himself or those dear to him would justify a man in committing a murder ; but it is not equally clear that if a man could only save his wife and children from being burnt in their house (as has happened in Ireland) if he swore not to give evidence against a murderer, he would not be justified in so swearing. And when the Judge told him that no such oath could absolve him from the duty of his giving the evidence he had sworn not to give, could we say that the law so laid down is immoral, and that the man who obeys it is adding sin to sin? The law declares that no contract obtained by fraud, duress, or force, is binding ; is it immoral for a man from whom a contract has been got by such means to appeal to the law for the protection which it offers him It is, indeed, said that the working-man does not care two straws for his vote; and if this were so, it would be true that his conscience would not be greatly aggrieved by promising to vote as his employer required, and that he would feel it more immoral to break that promise under the protection of the ballot than to keep it. Bat such is less and less the fact as to the new voters. Those who are engaged in preparing for the coming election know that great numbers of these voters are eagerly conscious of their new right and duty as citizens ; and if they dare not defy intimidation, they ask themselves whether they may not rightly avail themselves of the protection in the exercise of their vote which the law has expressly pro- vided for this purpose. Yon, Sir, reply that the Ballot Act is an immoral Act, and that men ought not to avail themselves of it. But why is it more immoral than other laws which give us protection, in exactly the same way, against other forms of duress ? I repeat, that to discuss this question as one of abstract casuistry is immoral and demoralising ; but every man who may be called to give practical advice upon it should make up his own mind as to what that advice should be. My own conclusion is this :—That every case must be judged by its own merits, having regard to the man's own conscience in the matter. I should advise a man who had only himself to consider to defy intimidation, without regard to consequences. I would not interfere between a man and his conscience if he told me be believed it to be right to refuse the promise, though the so doing involved his wife and children, as well as himself, in most grievous consequences. The man who has the courage for such a sacrifice is right to make it, and to leave the result to God. But I could not advise it, because I could not make it myself. And to the man who had, under intimidation, promised to vote
from the rest of Ireland, it would be grossly unjust in the Irish against his conscience, I should not hesitate to say that the law "gouty father" to refuse it solely on the ground that Ireland had expressly released him from the promise by the Ballot Act, [We are fully aware of the great urgency and painful signifi- cance of the practical question. That is why we should wish to see protection societies established in all districts, without respect of parties, for the purpose of prosecuting intimidators and giving compensation to all honest men who could produce reasonable evidence that they had lost employment by their vote. None the less, it is impossible to say that it is not wrong to give a dishonest vote, and not wrong to lie about the vote you have given.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
