LORD SALISBURY'S VIEW.
THERE run through all Lord Salisbury's recent speeches, and especially through his speech of Wednesday in Dorsetshire, two threads of thought which separate them widely from most Tory speeches. He wants to resist a change in the Franchise altogether, and he thinks it quite possible that if he goes to the country with that cry, it may send his party back to power. As to the first idea, there is no reasonable ground of doubt. Lord Salisbury knows what he means, and it is not by accident that he deliberately chooses two grounds of objection to the Franchise Bill, of which one is irremoveable, and the other, in his judgment, most unlikely to be removed. He does not, indeed, say that household franchise in the counties must be in itself bad, for many of his followers are committed to it ; but he says it is bad just now, because many counties will be swamped by urban votes,—that is, the votes of artisans bred and working in the towns, but living outside them ; and because a reduced franchise must be extended to Ireland, and Irish householders in three Provinces at least hate England. The first reason is one that can never pass away. No scheme of redistribution which Parlia- ment would accept, or which would be fair, can prevent artisans living in the suburbs from becoming voters under household suffrage ; or if voters, from voting on the impulses and motives which govern townsmen. They will, therefore, under any scheme, swell the urban strength in Parliament, and whether their Members are called Borough Members or County Members, they will equally reduce county voting force. For example, Croydon must have a Member, and whether he is Member for the Borough of Croydon, or for the Croydon District of Surrey, is, when it comes to voting in the House, of no im- portance. This objection, if it is sound, is therefore final, and stops a reduction of the franchise altogether. So, in practice, does the objection about Ireland. If we are to wait till Irish householders love England, we may wait a century at least, and then, if history may be trusted, find ourselves no nearer the object than before. Southerners and Northerners in America have lived together longer than that, under laws so equal that both approve them, and would part to-morrow for ever, if only parting were politically possible. Lord Salis- bury, in fact, wants no reduction of the franchise. And he thinks it possible to resist it. He tells his followers to do so, he warns them that the Bill will not pass, and he hints to them that, if they are active, a Dissolution this year will not be dangerous. His notion is that whether the majority of the people of the United Kingdom are Liberal or Tory does not matter, for the people do not vote in masses, but are subdivided into constituencies so arranged that three or four thousand votes carefully distributed over the country would turn the scale. "Accidentally" these 3,000 voted Liberal in 1880, and that election, therefore, was, even from the Liberal point of view, only an "admirable accident." Accidentally, if Tories are shrewd, and form close political organisations—and solemnly deny that they are caucuses—the scale may turn the other way; and then the Tories will come into power, and then not only will the kingdom be much better governed, but the reduction of the franchise will be postponed until either the suburban artisans cease to vote, which is impossible, or till Ireland is English in sentiment, which will be on the Greek Kalends.
We can quite understand Lord Salisbury wishing these things, for he dreads reduction of the franchise, and does not believe that the Lords can govern in defiance of the Commons, but we are in a perpetual perplexity as to why he believes them. It seems to us almost incredible that a man competent, in the opinion of a great party, to govern a country like this, able enough to see that the only hope of his party lies in the Commons, clear-sighted enough to per- ceive that, if the Union is maintained, English franchises must be extended to Ireland, should believe that reduction of the franchise can be seriously postponed by the casual majorities of a few petty boroughs. Even supposing, what we should deny, that these boroughs are not specimens, representing, whenever they turn, infinitely larger masses of citizens ouiside their borders, what could a change in their votes signify in a matter so grave Except as specimens, the three thousand possess no force, and the moment the boroughs were seen not to be representative, the moment the actual majority of the nation ceased to be reflected in the House of Commons, a cry would rise
for Redistribution such as has not been heard since 1.830,—a cry which would not be stilled till every borough under the mathematical minimum-50,000 souls—had either been dis- franchised, swamped in a district, or grouped with other boroughs. Lord Salisbury's argument, if it is true leads straight to large constituencies and equal electoral dis- tricts, and not to a postponement of new franchises ; and it is difficult to us to believe that he does not see this. The influence of habit and of caste must be ,strong indeed, if it can induce a man so astute and so experienced to believe that three or four thousand men, constantly, by his own admission, vacillating in opinion, can, merely by exer- cising their legal powers, stop the rush of the English Demo- cracy. Why, the Peers themselves could do it better ; and yet it is not on the Peers that Lord Salisbury relies. Is he in reality more conventional in his mind than people imagine, or is he only talking to convince followers who are ? We will not answer the question at once, for we should like to ask another,—where, even with the franchise as it stands, Lord Salisbury finds his evidence of coming change? We cannot see a trace of it. What is it that Government has done, or left undone, that when the question is put to the people they should reverse the decision of 1880? One Tory leader says it is "foreign policy" generally ; but what is there in our foreign policy visible to the people at large but "peace with honour "? Another Tory leader says it is our policy in South Africa," but where did he ever hear a householder voluntarily mention the name of that troublesome cluster of colonies ? Another tells us it is " Egypt," but if we can judge from pro- vincial newspapers, speeches, and meetings, the mood of the people about Egypt is quiet submission to any policy the Government approve. We say that without pleasure, for we desire a different and franker policy ; but we never wish to conceal facts, and have no manner of doubt that, as far as the voters are concerned, the Government may pursue in Egypt any course it pleases. We do not say Members will bear any course, but they will remonstrate, if they remonstrate, on their own judgments, and not at the bidding of their con- stituents. On home politics there is scarcely any division of opinion, for on the one grand question, Ireland, the majority think exactly what they have for years past thought,—that the law must be obeyed, but that for the rest, every reform that can be devised to satisfy Irishmen should be granted at once. It is not the householders who are bothering about Irish franchises, but a few influential gentlemen. There is no cause of discontent operating, and if there were, the Dissolution which Lord Salisbury hopes for must be on the Franchise Bill, which will at once reduce all other questions to insignificance. Lord Salisbury says the country is not asking for that Bill, and keeps throwing out objection after objection to catch waverers; but he either misapprehends or wilfully con- ceals from himself the true moving force in all franchise questions, that instinct of the masses which enables them to see unerringly when a measure will and will not develope popular power. The urban populations may care little about labourers, and less about suburban folk, and nothing at all about uniformity, or boundaries, or double fran- chises ; but they care intensely that the people should rule, and see quite clearly that uniform household suffrage, to be followed by redistribution, is a long step towards that end. Lord Salisbury admits that in resisting a lowered fran- chise he is checking Democracy, but under some unaccount- able hallucination thinks Democracy will not mind being checked. Either he is wrong in his premiss, and it is not democracy which is advancing; or he is trying to keep back the most gigantic force of modern time with a minute army of scaramouches, the three thousand voters in petty boroughs who, he says, vote at each election mainly by "accident." In other words, either Lord Salisbury is arguing for effect, in order to inspirit timid persons behind him to resist the Bill,—and that would be our own explana- tion—or he is no statesman at all, and does not comprehend that whenever a Reform Bill is proposed, it is the partisans of Democracy and Aristocracy, the people and the few, and not a few thousand wavering voters, who rush into the field.
Previous page
