MAJORITIES AND MINORITIES.

exposed it in the market-place,paint-pot and brush by its side, that all who objectedmight indicate by a dab of paint the A- PAINTER, we are told, desirous of rendering his work perfect, particular strokes that did not please them. The result was, that the Picture was erased. It was cleaned and setup to undergo a aimi- lar process from those who approved, and with precisely the same issue. It must be so with any manifold work subjected to popular criticism, where every man thinks, or fancies that he thinks, for himself, and pays no attention to the considerations which should limit the range of criticism. The man may dislike pictures alto- gether : his criticism would be sweeping, but valueless. Another man may dislike the subject chosen, and may abuse the picture because it is not something entirely different from what it was in- tended to be : his judgment would not materially affect the esti- mate of rational people. A third class may think the subject ill- conceived, and ineffectively presented ; while a fourth may judge the artist's conception to be satisfactory, but may perceive that it is very inadequately carried out in detail. It is evident that the only criticism which has practical value must proceed from the two latter classes : the remarks of the other two are beyond the region of criticism proper, and should be called antagonism. In dealing, therefore, with the judgments passed upon the new Reform Bill, we not only may, but must pass by, as utterly irrelevant, the opinions of those who think that no change at all is wanted in our electoral system ; and also of those who think that the change wanted is a simple extension of the suffrage to all or nearly all the grown males in the country, and the assign- ment of Members to districts in the exact proportion of the popula- tion. These views are capable of being defended, and are held by many perfectly rational persons : but no criticism upon the details of the new Reform Bill that proceeds upon the assumption of the soundness of such opinions can amount in value to more than the simple assertion of the opinions, and therefore of opposition to the essential principle of the Government measure, which is the com- bination of extension of the suffrage with checks upon the un- limited supremacy of the numerical majority. We hold it there- fore to be the merest delusion or pretence on the part of sectional politicians and their organs in the press, to put forward, under the shelter of general approval of the Ministerial bill, such criticisms as if adopted would rob that bill of one of its two opposing princi- ples, either of which implies the other, and the absence of either of which would be not the modification of a detail but a total altera- tion in the general aim and conception of the measure. We do notwithstanding find, that Ministers are urged by the organs of what we may call the " Metropolitan Borough politicians" to aban- don such parts of their carefully-prepared scheme as seem likely to interfere with the practical monopoly of the representation hitherto enjoyed by politicians of this order in certain great towns. We put the opposition to the credit of this motive, because, stripped of irrelevant witticisms and inapplicable analo- gies, the arguments seem to us to leave as their residuum simply the fact that the majority of electors in those great towns, having for a long time past returned Members of one complexion, are not particularly pleased at the prospect of seeing a third Member of a different complexion foisted upon them as the choice of the minority. We do not think that an enlightened party view would be found to encourage among extreme Liberals this opposition to a measure which, while it deprives them of the monopoly of certain towns, opens the counties which have for years past been equally monopolized by the other side. We think that Manchester, Bir- mingham, Wolverhampton, etc:cetera, may well be content, even in a party point of view, with a proposal which, while it gives a chance to their Conservative minorities, gives the same chance to the Liberal minorities of Dorsetshire, Cambridgeshire, etesetera. But we should refuse, except as a passing hint, to argue the question thus, or to test its justice and expediency by any conjecture as to the relative numbers it would add to either side on a vote for having the crown made of painted tin. Still less is it worthy of men of sense to carry into the discussion of such a proposal any consideration of the election heats and rivalries of their respective boroughs, or to imagine that Ministers of the Crown are herein gratifying a spite against the Democratic boroughs for not return- ing more compliant Members. Such motives and such modes of viewing the question are parochial, and may safely be left to time and reflection for their cure. The only points worth discussing in reference to the proposal of allowing minorities in certain cases a share of the representation are, whether it is just, whether it is likely to work beneficially, and whether it is rendered necessary by the other changes proposed by the Government bill. Now the function of an elector is not to discuss and decide ..„,sstions, but out of such candidates as present them- se levi re s etohasreeeleteetrsthe number required according to his judgment of talents, and general fitness, whatever be the standard by which b. cni-n,q his iudgment. That el.otoral system would be perfect which enabl.J • .ieetor actually to have a representative of his own choice in the House of Commons ; and every step towards such a system is a step towards perfection. It has over and over again been pointed out that a fallacy is patent in the application of the principle of absolute decision by majori- ties to the election of Members of Parliament. We abide by the decision of the majority in the last resort on legislative questions, because, discussion having preceded, it becomes necessary to deter- mine a course of action ; and the sovereign authority in our oon- stitution has been vested in the majority of Parliament, subject to the consent of the Crown, in preference to vesting it in any other imperial board or person. But no such necessity exists in the

process of electing Members of Parliament. The choice of one Member does not necessarily exclude the choice of another; the opinion of the majority does not necessarily exclude the operation of that of the minority. It may be remarked, moreover, that measures under discussion in the legislative assembly are capable

of being modified by the minority, and are constantly so modified; so that in fact the minority does exercise a very real and highly important influence upon the final decision. No such modification is capable of taking place in the person of the candidate at an elec tion ; yon cannot take Mr. Cobden's sound economical principles and blend them into a compound Member of Parliament with Colonel Sibthorp's martial ardour; you cannot affirm the principle of the Member and subject him afterwards to the operation of a Com- mittee before he is passed and approved. The minority must be provided with another moans operandi, and that can only be by some eml-odiment of the principle of the representation of minori- ties. We do not contend just now for the particular mode, nor for the particular limit of the Government bill. It is the principle it- self for which we have long contended, and the recognition of which by the Government we hail as an important advance. We are quite aware of the objection that will be commonly made against a partial application of the principle, which, if right at all, is right universally. But as this country has not been used to aim at uniformity in its electoral arrangements, and as the operation of the principle in question must be subject to some doubt, we are well content that it should be tried simply as an experiment ; and we conceive that nine boroughs and forty-nine county constitu- encies will afford a sufficiently extensive field for the experiment. And what are the reasons urged against it? Lord john Russell, in announcing the intentions of Government, put prominently for- ward the irritation natural to a vast minority like that of the West Riding, or Manchester, or Liverpool, at seeing the whole representa- tion of their district in the hands of their political opponents, who outnumber them by not a fiftieth part perhaps of the whole num- ber of electors. And no one can deny such irritation to be both natural and justifiable : indeed, the absence of such a feel- ing would indicate a political apathy, which popular politi- cians should hesitate to countenance by the arguments they carelessly employ. It is, we think, an object worthy of a statesman to endeavour to remove the causes of this irrita- tion, as it would be generally to improve the political ma- chinery with the especial view of easing it of friction. But our Liberal objectors pooh-pooh the feeling altogether, and tell the Manchester Conservative that he is fairly represented by the Mem- bers for Liverpool, and the Liverpool Liberal that Messrs. Bright and Milner Gibson are his real representatives. This argument has done service in another camp in old times, and probably will perform the like service in the coming Parliamentary discussions on the Reform Bill. It is the standing defence of the maintenance of small boroughs—of the inequalities of the assignment of Members to population. Its vice is, that it ignores the right of the indivi- dual elector to choose his own representative of his own opinions. But for the homage due to this right, we know no reason why so much stress should be laid upon proportioning Members to popula- tion. Practically the representation has of recent years, taken in the mass, corresponded to the political opinions of the country; and unless we assign a great importance to the right of the in- dividual elector to be directly represented, it would puzzle us to justify the extreme urgency with which the abolition of small bo- roughs has been advocated. It has been urged besides against this principle of representing minorities, that the experience of the last few years has proved that there is no necessity for it, for that all the great reforms of that period have begun by being the opinions of minorities, and have rapidly spread through discussion till they have brought over the majority and have become the law of the land. We are happy to admit the fact; we hear it constantly urged as a reason why no reform of the electoral system is required ; and when extreme Liberals allow it in bar of any reform, we shall think they are entitled to use it themselves in bar of this particular change, but not till then. The question is not whether truth tends at present to make its way, or whether agitation effects its ends, but whether discussion would not run a more equable course, and truth be less subjected to objectionable agencies, if the provision in dispute were adopted.

These are the serious arguments that have been advanced against the proposal,—that it violates the principle of decision by majorities lying at the basis of popular institutions ; that it is not needed to soothe the irritation of minorities, because the minority in one place is represented by the majority in another place ; and that it is not needed to promote enlightened legislation, because the

ence of our recent history shows that enlightened view. •+e enabled to prevail under our present system. We have shown that fallacy vitiates the first of these arguments ; that the two latter are As applicable .1. bar of any electoral leturto as of this particular one, and that Liberal pautietaus ‘,..oeut use the argument with- out at once cutting the ground from under their own feet, and en- couraging that political apathy which is the fatal poison of a popu- lar constitution. Arguments of a different character have, however, been used ; and ridicule has been called in to aid the poverty of argument. Thus we are told, that the wrongheads are sufficiently numerous in Parliament at present, and that if fewer opinions were represented than at present legislation would be all the wiser. Doubtless, if the English nation were wiser and better-informed, Parliament would perform its functions somewhat more rapidly and with better effect ; but it is unfortunately the theory of our constitution that opinion, whether right or wrong, should be the basis of legislation ; and therefore any argument based on the folly of opinion is directed not against a special provision for securing to opinion its due weight in the election of Members of Parliament, but against the principle of representative govern- ment. The same writer who is so fearful of an invasion of wrong-

heads into the House of Commons does indeed go on to tell us that

representative government is a very rough bungling piece of ma. chinery, so bad that any attempt to refine upon it is useless : a somewhat singular tone for a writer to adopt in an article intended as a laudation of such an attempt by the Government. For on this principle, so long as a representative system has been shown by experience to effect tolerably good legislation, " a mean," as he says, "between very good and very bad government," there is every reason against attempting to alter or improve it; a conclusion we should not have been surprised to find in the Quarterly .Review, and which may be found there if any one will refer back to its arguments against the Reform Bill of 1832, but which did rather astonish us in the columns of the Examiner. Nor are we better satisfied with that thoroughly French dictum about the danger of introducing into a constitution a principle intended to counter- balance its leading principle. A writer who deals so freely in irrelevant analogies will perhaps take it as an answer, that we do introduce into the steam-engine a counterbalancing principle in the shape of a safety-valve, and find it upon the whole conducive to the advantage and security of those who employ the engine.

But the most brilliant points of the Examiner we have not yet

touched. Keen as they are, and shot with right good will, they shake a real political conviction as much as the needle arrows of the Lilliputians could have toppled Gulliver over. Menaces are thrown out of the darkly horrible fate that awaits the miserable wretches for whom destiny is preparing the seats at the disposal of minorities. They will be called—we shudder as we pen the words —" minor thirds," " hon. Members for the minority of Guzzle- down," two-fifths of a complete Member, and so on. Tellers will count five of them as two votes—will reckon them by deci- mals ; other Members will remind them that they are not made as they themselves are—that they are a bankrupt composition at the rate of four shillings in the pound ; the House will be warned against giving credit to minors ; and their mouths will be stopped by advice to hold their tongues till they attain their majorities. Well, we believe such is the insane ambition of numbers of Eng- lishmen, that there would not be wanting men, and men of mark and substance, to encounter even this terrible artillery of chaff. But we do not see any reason for supposing that a House of Com- mons which has been hitherto quiescent and serious at the sight of a Member for two hundred electors of Tamworth presuming to open his lips among them—which has not been used in speaking of its Members to couple with their names the number of the ma- jority which returned them—should be suddenly seized with this fancy when the Member for six-thousand-minus-one electors of Manchester presumes to give his opinion in the presence of the two Members for six-thousand-plus-one electors of the same borough. Seriously, the House of Commons has always been ex- tremely jealous of any attempt on the part of Members for large con- stituencies to assert a peculiar importance on that ground; owing perhaps to the fact that such Members are frequently by no means either the most able or the most popular Members of the House.

Our readers will not think it necessary that we confute seriatim such statements as that you may have either a round table or a square table, but not one which combines both qualities. M. Bayle, to whom we are indebted for the observation, should have remembered that an elliptical or an octagon table is quite a pos- sibility in nature. Nor will the advocates of the representation of minorities be utterly discomfited by the novel and profound dis- covery that pyramids will not stand upon their apices, though there is an instance in the rocking-stone of something like this ar- rangement,—a licence which, allowable to nature once in a way, we are assured is utterly beyond the capabilities of legislation. In truth, the natural analogy, whatever it be worth, tells for us ; since all bodies derive their stability from precisely the principle we wish adopted in returns from electoral districts—the principle that each of the masses making up the whole contributes to the result with the exact force proportioned to the number of its con- stituent atoms. Nature can least of all things be pressed into the service of the absolutism of majorities.

Enough of this trifling. We should not have noticed if--10.nAdt the quarter from which it proceeded. ta.mlial artiole, stamped se that it may do is attribiltaractsaatiog of a well-known public unequiv.....onal-rizaal; a icion that, however sincere the chiefs of tbhey those whote contact withthsincetay. isIntomt shared

be

Government aret are in perceived by the public, that the particular portion of the new bill selected for attack is, as the Times newspaper mosttattrul.nsyanred- marks, the hinge of the whole measure—that Liberal journalist, coherence to all its parts. Ifth rehiamnsealfvo towe assay iliwhaalt removal of journalist, and one peculiar ysituated,ereseftos

is plainly a most essential part of the measure, which in Committee would certainly be tantamount

the bill as a whole is hollow, and that means are sought to throw out the bill, the public will conjecture that the professed laudation oftiltoethrexejec" tion

public ,noort

motive to such conduct to frightenfrislgohwthton lisoiunnisdthtrsheinreathlambaontidonin.g both of it. And the

fear for their places or their seats, o on the part of professing Liberals, and will see more respectable than a

which might possibly be endangered by persistence of nothing the ersistence of Minis ters against a determined opposition. Nothing, we believe, could be more damaging to the public character of Liberal politicians with them notion that this was their line of tactics. It remains wi and Members of Parliament than a well-grounded or even p. lausible to convince the public that there is no ground for such euspiciou•

Nothing will do it so effectually as a hearty outspoken support of the bill in Parliament, in society, and throughout the country. We have never once through the whole course of the preliminary discussion on the reform of the representation shrunk from frankly avowing our conviction, that any great extension of the suffrage must be accompanied with provisions for securing, under any and every state of popular feeling, a hearing in the House of Commons to other classes besides the ten-pound householders and those below them. We as frankly avow, that we look to this principle of the representation of minorities as one means for effecting that security. If Radicals oppose it on that ground, we join issue with them, and assert the absolute necessity of some such provision ; and we beg them finally to remember that the present Government is not a Radical Government, and that Lord Aberdeen is not a Radical Minister. It would be absurd to demand from, or to attempt to force upon, such a Government, amendments conceived in a Radical sense. Such attempts, if successful in embarrassing the Govern- ment, could only recoil upon the authors, by throwing obstacles in the way of a large and liberal extension of popular power.