MR. GLADSTONE verses MR. LOWE.
MR. GLADSTONE'S rejoinder to Mr. Lowe on the County Suffrage is of wider scope, and more wise and thought- ful as a political essay, than any which we have had from his pen. In it he pleads again, though in a quieter and more considerate strain, that argument for enfranchising those who are " our own flesh and blood which so exasperated the intellectual critics of 1866, and so excited the enthusiasm of the masses that he has been ever since the special hero of what may be called the sentiment, as distinguished from the policy, of a wide suffrage. We say of a wide suffrage, for though it is obviously true, as Mr. Lowe is so anxious to point out, that Mr. Gladstone's argument on this point goes beyond household suffrage, and tends at least to universal suffrage, it is evidently not true that that is the practical step which he wishes to advocate at present, while it is also clear that many of his arguments point to household suffrage and nothing more, and that those even which seem to go :furthest would be all but satisfied by granting that suffrage everywhere. For the best part of Mr. Gladstone's argument for identifying the State with all those whose good conduct tends to make the Commonwealth a power for good, and whose ill-conduct tends to make it a power for evil, insists that every family, every independent house- hold, should be thus identified with the State ; and this con- dition of course is satisfied by a household suffrage. Further, he insists generally, and we thinkwisely, on the security for political steadiness and sobriety implied in the position of the head of a family,—of one who has the welfare of others in a special sense dependent on him ; and this condition of course is satisfied by household suffrage only, and would not be satisfied by universal suffrage. Mr. Gladstone is very much intent in this part of his paper on pressing the principle that " the more closely and the more largely the power of human will, affections, and understanding can be placed in association with the mainsprings of the State, the greater will be the augmentation" " of the vital power of the State." And obvi- ously both the will and the affections of men who are respon- sible for the destinies of others, are enlisted in the service of the State in a very much more grave and definite manner by the possession of the franchise, than are the will and the affec- tions of those who are not in this serious way answerable for the future of others than themselves. Political recklessness is, of course,,far more likely, in a mere unit of society,--an individual with his fortunes in his hand,—than is political recklessness in a father and husband, who is compelled to think gravely of what he desires for others, as well as what he desires for himself. It is the greater unselfishness,—or as many would perhaps express it, though less correetly,—the nobler and wider selflshness,—of those whose affections are more deeply concerned than even their individual interests in the progress of political life, which gives a sobriety to their political aspirations such as we could not secure, in anything like the same degree, in those who speak mainly for themselves. Mr. Gladstone's argument, then, though, as he frankly admits, it suggests a presumption for a suffrage far wider than household suffrage, is certainly far stronger, and far more strongly held by himself, so far as it demands the concession of household suffrage, than it is so far as it goes beyond this, and offers a preliminary, though only a preliminary, case for a wider suffrage. In fact, a suffrage which must qualify the great majority of men at some part or other of their life, and might qualify any grown-up man at.any time, is quite wide enough to make our " own flesh and blood " aware that there is no class- exclusion, without being so wide as to make accurate registra- tion a difficulty, and therefore to open the political machinery to the influence of wholesale and not easily detected fraud. And obviously what Mr. Gladstone is aiming at is rather to get all kinds of wants and grievances fairly represented through the suffrage, and all classes by its means directly interested in the prosperity of the State, than at working out any abstract principle of political right whatever. The following remark- able passage represents adequately enough the real scope of Mr. Gladstone's convictions on this subject :— "I may fairly retort the question which has been put, and ask the adversary to furnish his list of groat and engrossing subjects, in which. the higher orders have, daring the last half-century, been mainly right, and the people wrong. Nor let him, with Protean elasticity, tura on. me and say, Aha l there it is ; you evidently mean that mere num hers, as they have judged more justly, should have all the power.' 1 mean no such thing. The nation has drawn a great, perhaps the greatest, part of its lights from the minority placed above ; but has drawn them from a minority of that minority. Look back upon that dark time of our domestic history, which followed the peace of 1816. As it is in the higher order that the very highest forma of personal character are ex- hibited, so in the political sphere there were never wanting those who taught, amidst surrounding antipathies, the lessons of liberty and of wisdom. Moreover, I should be the first to assert that, while the main propelling force has come from beneath, such a force cannot in ques- tions of reconstruction bo self-directing, and that there has remained for the leisured classes the performance of a service in shaping, guiding, modifying the great currents of conviction, sympathy, and will, which has been secondary, but yet invaluable, But our religion itself did not take its earlier root, and find its primitive home, in the minds of kings, philosophers, and statesmen. Not many rich, not many noble were called. The wisdom and the culture were mostly plotting against our Lord, while the common people heard Him .gladly. But the regenerating forces of the Gospel made their way from the be to the summit of society ; and the highest thought and intellect of man, won with time to the noble service, hired, as it were, at the sixth, ninth, and eleventh hour, wrought hard and with effect to develop, defend, and consolidate the truth. Paradox it may seem to he, but foot it is, that the immense advantages, which leisure and learning have conferred are largely neutralised, and in some oases utterly outweighed, by ■the blinding influences of a subtler, deeper, and more comprehensive selfishness:—
.E pot l'allotto to totelletto logs.'
"The Reply, in one of its most dashing portions, observes that I give reasons for the enfranchisement of the peasant which only touch him so far as he forms part of the genus home. This is as true with respect to some of the reasons which I have given, as it is untrue with respect to others, I do believe, and have very long ago publicly professed a belief to that effect, which I desire to make at least intelligible, perhaps in seine cases even acceptable, to others. That those who contribute to the purposes of a society should share its powers, is almost an axiom in the foundation of a voluntary institution, What I hold tie to the larger combination of men in political society is, not that it is an axiom, but that there is a certain amount of presumption in its favour. Such a presumption is liable to be set aside by counter-pleas, as in the cases of women, minors, pan pelt, criminals, and so forth.' but it exists, and it supplies not the ease, but the inception of the case, for enfranchisement, Nor does this presumption of policy merely embrace what is due from the society to the individual ; it contemplates quite as much what the individual can supply to the society in point of vigour and cohesion, It surely seems difficult to deny that vigour and cohesion will be greater, whore all the parts can be thoroughly welded into the working machinery, than where a proportion, and a large proportion, of them, remaining outside it, are borne along by it ae so much dead-weight. Augmenta- tion of vital power in the State is what every wise end good .eitixon should desire. The more closely, and the more largely, the power of human will, affections, and understanding can be placed in association with the mainsprings of the State, the greater will bo that augmenta tion. Enfranchisement tends to attain this end, therefore enfranchise- ment is presumably to be desired."
And no doubt this passage fairly represents the religious earnestness with which Mr. Gladstone advocates the inclusion, after some fashion or other, of all classes in the exercise, or at least the potential exercise of political rights. So far as the suffrage is denied to them because they are regarded as enemies of the Constitution, so far as they demand it because they resent that imputation, and resent still more the unjust treatment which is close akin to that imputation,—so far, Mr. Gladstone regards the extension of the suffrage as a thing which we owe to " our own flesh and blood," just because they are our own flesh and bleed, and not aliens, on a wholly different platform of human development. Mr. Lowe, on the other hand, looks down upon this attitude of mind with supreme scorn. His view is that what you want in a political constitution is a working machinery for getting good rulers and wise measures, and he cannot for a moment understand how good rulers and wise measures can come out of the votes of people who know little or nothing of states- men, and still less of statecraft, of economy, and policy. How can those who know nothing themselves be competent to select those who know much ? How can those who have no leisure and no knowledge have the art to discriminate amongst those who have, which of them are the wiser and better for the purpose of legislation and administration ? Mr. Gladstone is evidently on the right track when he replies that however great the paradox in this assumption may be, Mr. Lowe himself must admit that to some considerable extent at least the paradox is real. No one denies that the first great Reform Act of 1832 was productive of enormous benefit, yet the £10 suffrage was as clear an application of the paradox, if paradox it be, that you can trust the relatively poor and ignorant to look after their own interests and those of their families, better than you can trust the relatively rich and educated to look after the interests of the poor for them, as was the Reform Act of 1867. On Mr. Lowe's pre- mises, this is almost as inexplicable as the expediency of the later and wider Reform. While he sees so keenly.the mischiefs of the vulgar-minded selfishness of the many, of their liability to wide corruption and to superstitious pre- possessions, he forgets the far greater mischiefs of the refined selfishness of the few, and of their liability to ignore com- pletely the miseries which they do not share. He forgets that it is not nearly so easy for the poor to rob the rich without robbing themselves,—even if they wished it, which, in de- cently civilised States, they seldom do,—as it is for the rich to injure the poor without injuring themselves. He forgets that by virtue of the mere width of base for the wishes of the masses, a great deal of the worst selfishness is excluded,—a great deal which is possible almost unconsciously to the wishes .of the few, even though they be a well-educated few.
But while agreeing warmly with Mr. Gladstone on the main issue, we cannot go with him through the whole extent of his reply to Mr. Lowe, at least if we rightly understand the drift of the following passage :- " But the new electors would be so numerous, as to throw the old into a' hopeless minority.' I had pointed out that the very same objection had applied to all our onfranchisements. Every great en- largement downwards has brought in a number, exceeding that of the .former possessors of political power. True, says the Reply; but why exaggerate this natural defect of representative government?' Here is as pure a petitio principii as the annals of illogic (to coin the word for the occasion) can supply. If the admission of those new-fledged majorities dial. cates or saps the fabric of the Constitution, then indeed
their numerical force is the natural defect of representative just But experience, to which the Reply here and there ust pur- ports to offer a lip-service that in heart it withdraws, has shown ns that these admissions have not dislocated or sapped the State, but have also greatly consolidated what they had greatly enlarged. 'Broadening downward' the walls, they have made the structure harder to overthrow. This natural defect' has up to the present time been found no defoot at all, but a source of strength and peace, and a guarantee of permanence, and therefore more like a natural
virtue."
Now, if by this Mr. Gladstone only means that it is far safer to get the wishes of the masses fairly represented, than to get only the opinions of a select and educated clique fairly repre- sented, we quite agree with him. But if he means, as he seems to mean, that it is no defect at all in a representative system to render it very difficult to get any hearing for the wishes and beliefs of a minority,—even though it be of a respectable minority,—so long as that minority are not anywhere able to convince the majority of any of the con- stituencies, we entirely differ from him. The object of representation must be to represent. And therefore, of course, wishes and beliefs which are in a minority ought to be repre- sented as in a minority, but ought not to be excluded alto- gether. This passage reads as if Mr. Gladstone thought it a merit and not a defect in a representative system to silence altogether the voice of an important section of society, so long as that section is not able anywhere -to gain over an absolute majority of a popular constituency to its view. Yet surely, if many minorities had an unrepresented belief, and would be thank- ful to be allowed to combine to express it, simply for the sake of adequately expressing it in the presence of the nation, it is a gross blot on a representative system, as a representative system, that it renders this uniformly impossible. Majorities may be blind and selfish as well as minorities, though experi- ence shows that majorities of the people are almost always less blind and selfish than privileged minorities fighting for the preservation of their privileges. Still we cannot at all agree with Mr. Gladstone, if he really means that it is one of the advantages of an extended suffrage that it renders it much more difficult than it used to be,—as under our present system it cer- tainly does,--to secure any hearing in Parliament for the views of earnest minorities who have not yet got the popular ear. That seems to us a great blot in the representative system as such, and one which it is quite right and necessary for statesmen to seek to remedy by every means in their power. We should be sorry to reckon Mr. Gladstone among the number of those who, like Mr. Bright, throw contempt on all efforts to supply a cure for much the worst defect modern electoral systems. The more truly Parliament represents minorities as well as majorities, the less injustice there is likely to be, and the less reaction against those exaggerations of public feeling which the exclusive representa- tion of majorities does so much to promote.
Previous page
