Trittto to qt
REPRESENTATION BY CLASSES.
Kineweston domes-Ion, 2011; July. Sin—The imitations of the English constitution have generally gone be- yond it in the direction of universal suffrage, and have either partially or wholly wanted the conservative element which the House of Lords supplies. The tendency reform must take is therefore obvious, and it is wiser to make it safe by joining it to a new and salutary principle, than blindly to oppose it. The suggestion you have made of a direct representation of education and intellect seems to be just what was wanted. But allow me to ask, whe- ther, by combining different professions into one constituency, you do not throw away some of the advantages of the plan ? Each profession has inte- rests of its own, which draw it together, and ought to be attended to by Parliament. The medical men have long wanted legislation to regulate their profession ; but Parliament could not understand the question, or find time for it. The ministers of religion have in each denomina- tion matters which unite them closely together and separate them from others. The attornies have their tax. The different scientific and phi- losophical societies have interests to guard which have been shamefully neglected by Parliament. These interests, and the like, are the same in Yorkshire as they are here in Somerset. There is no advantage in break- ing them up into provinces ; rather the contrary, because the central influ- ence of the metropolis will on the whole be salutary. I fear that if different classes are combined in one constituency, for each county or district, as you propose, either that which is a little the most numerous will carry its mem- bers, or two will combine together, or they will compromise and take some person of local credit who cannot represent the wants and wishes of any pro- fession. Even at the worst, better Members than the average will be re- turned—much better than those who represent the most Democratic consti- tuencies; but Parliament will not have the same opportunity of seeing what can be said on behalf of each interest, whieS it would have if each sent its representatives separately.
Let me beg you, therefore, to consider whether we ought not, so far as the representation of intelligence is concerned, to get lid of the idea of locality, and to form each profession, which is of importance enough to combine and act for itself, into a national constituency, electing its members by polling. papers, such as are used by various benevolent societies. With regard to the mode of introducing the change, our countrymen are
practical—they are slow to appreciate a great comprehensive scheme—they will not like a batch of seventy Members—they prefer bit-by-bit reform; and this is the best method, if only the reform contains a principle. I think we should;' therefore - confine the experiment to the seats now vacant ; allotting two, to the London University and the graduates of the Scotch Universities, and distributing the others among the principal professions as far as they will go. This may be done at once, and without any disso- lution of Parlialnent. After the next general election we may go further. More seats will. then, doubtless, be suspended and it might not be amiss to rend out at once a general commission to inquire into boroughs notorious for bribery and treating, and to issue no writs at the next election wherever there is grave suspicion, or a considerable portion of the constituency desires disfranchisement as the only means of destroying corruption.
When we have once thoroughly established the representation of education, we may safely face the question of extended suffrage.
F. H. DICKINSON. (Mr. Dickinson does not object to the principle discussed in our paper of last week, and in a second article today; but prefers a somewhat different machinery for carrying it out. We have byd d .no means ma e up our min s on the details of a scheme for embodying the principle, and Mr. Dickinson's pro- posal has the advantage of securing to each profession a means of enforcing its views and wants upon the attention of the Legislature. Had we to de it merely, with the professional classes, their lines of demarcation are sufficient'', recognized, and result in sufficiently special interests, to justify the proposal of representatives for each profession, as both plausible and practical. But our own form for the embodiment of the principle was constructed on a far broader view of classes. We recognized the four permanent and universal elements of a nation as the ground of our division, and proposed to secure to each its share in every imperial decision. We had no idea of making Parliament the field for continual special discussions affecting the minor distinctions of our social life. Every now and then a bill may be required to regulate the internal arrangements of a particular profession, or its duties and privileges with re- spect to the rest of the community ; but by the greater number of questions that come before Parliament, classes are affected only in that broader signi- fication that we have given to them. Our present opinion is decidedly that a lower class of representatives—men of narrower views and of meaner at- tainments, men in fact of specialties—would result from Mr. Dickinson's proposal than from the one we indicated. And we are particularly at issue with him on the question of Metropolitan influence. It appears to us that it would not be salutary, but would practically issue in handing over the return of professional representatives to a clique in London, which would be enabled from its central position and facilities for combination to play off one provincial section against another, and gain an effective control over the decision of all sections together. But it is in the practical absurdity that would result from the application of Mr. Dickinson's method to the non- professional classes that we see the strongest reason for preferring our own broader distinctions. If doctors, lawyers, and parsons, were each to have special representatives, why not grocers, bakers, haberdashers ? Why not growers of wheat, feeders of cattle, growers of barley, especially when malt is a standard topic of contention in Parliament ? So far as at present en- lightened, we see manifold reasons for not ceding the pas to Mr. Dickin- son's method. But we are at present only in the deliberative stage, and we welcome discussion and variety of propositions.—En.]
Previous page
