THE FRANCHISE BILL.
LTO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."
SIR,—It seems to me that all your articles on the Reform ques- tion have evaded the essential issue. The Franchise Bill is just or iniquitous according to the Redistribution. At present the county franchise secures a certain representation to the minority of income tax-payers. So far as the boroughs go, taxation and. representation are completely divorced. The only taxes that reach the majority of electors are the taxes on drink and tobacco, which could in no case be reduced, and whose reduction they themselves would admit to be an evil. The county franchise secures 187 seats in England and Wales to those who pay the whole of the sensible taxation. If they are to be deprived of representation, the question ought to be fully and directly con- sidered, and not settled by a side-wind.
2. The present county electorate forms one-third of the entire body of county householders. It would probably form two- fifths of the new electorate. It is entitled, then, to two-fifths of some 260 seats, not two-fifths of 187. It is not just to ask it to part with any portion of its present power till the whole power to which it is entitled is secured to it.
3. You say that Mr. Gladstone has promised a safe and moderate Redistribution Bill. That is, he has promised a Redistribution in his own interest and that of his party. Will he give the counties 260 seats, or anything like it ? If not, the- Redistribution Bill will be a fraud ; for it is utterly false to say that the small towns in any way make up either to the counties or to the Tory Party for their present inadequate representation.
4. You agree with me that minorities ought to be represented. But there is little or no hope of extorting such representation from the present Government, unless by refusing to pass any Bill which does not provide for it. And this is not a question for minorities.
5. I abhor equal electoral districts much more than you dos But there is no connection between equal electoral districts and equal representation. It is quite possible to give every natural constituency a share of representation directly proportioned to its population without breaking up any. There is something signally disingenuous in the persistent confusion of the two points by the whole Radical Press.
6. Neither Mr. Gladstone nor any other Liberal Minister would carry a fair Redistribution Bill if he could, or dare if he
would. The first step must be to disfranchise or enlarge- something like one hundred boroughs in England and Wales alone, most of the Scottish groups, and al], I think, but five of the Irish boroughs. And the loss of seats would fall in enormous proportion upon the Liberal Party ; while the transference to the counties would in most cases favour the Tories. Also you are demanding for Mr. Gladstone that blank cheque about which there has been so much talk of late.
7. If the House of Peers have not a right to throw out this Bill, what have they a right to do ? You and I may not agree upon the question whether the Constitution should be dealt with piecemeal or wholesale, whether the Franchise and Redistribu- tion should be separated ; but surely you will not deny that this is a very great question, or that it is one never yet submitted to the country. If a Second Chamber is not to exercise its revising power on a question of this kind, what is it for ? It seems to me that half your objections to the action of the Lords are objections to the existence of a Second Chamber, and the other half objections to its present constitution. I differ with the first, thinking a Second Chamber indispensable, as history has proved it. I might agree with you on the second ; I doubt if the House of Lords as at present constituted is strong enough for its functions. But either argument is absolutely irrelevant when the question is,—What is the function of the existing Second Chamber at a particular moment ? On this point I have seen no argument on your side that would not prove, either that the House of Lords should never reject a measure carried by large majorities in the Lower House, or that there should be no House of Lords.
Lastly, you know, as I know, that the true reason of Mr. Gladstone's course is one which he dare not give. He dare- not propose a Redistribution Bill, because it must either be palpably and ridiculously insufficient and unfair to the counties, or it must alienate one-third of the Liberal Party by threatening their seats. The Franchise Bill is to give him a momentary dictatorship through the gratitude of the new county electors, and enable him to carry once more by brute force a measure which in argument cannot be defended.
You charge the House of Lords with something like hypocrisy, with throwing out the Franchise Bill on a pretext which is not their real reason. This is simply and obviously absurd. I should vote without hesitation for the enfranchisement of the county householders. I would stake much more than most Members of the House of Lords are staking, rather than allow a separate Franchise Bill to pass. The Peers, as great land- lords, generally popular with the tenantry, are probably much more favourable at heart to household suffrage in the counties than I; and there is, therefore, not the least reason to doubt that the line they have taken is perfectly sincere. Besides, everybody knows that county household suffrage roust pass within two years. But misrepresentation has been the weapon of your party throughout this controversy. Till now you have never even admitted that the nominal ground of the contest was separation and not enfranchisement.
I have stated as shortly as I could the points which, as it seems to me, you have persistently ignored. By printing my letter, you will, however tardily, give an answer to that charge.
Previous page
