TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE PROSPECTS OF THE FRANCHISE BILL.
THE great majority of 130, by which the second reading of the Franchise Bill was carried on Monday, is in many quarters supposed to secure the passing of the Franchise Bill, even as against the of Lord Salisbury and the House of Lords. That majority is most satisfactory, from every point of view. In the first place, it shows only one Liberal, Mr. Goschen, in the Conservative lobby, for we can hardly call Sir John Ennis a Liberal. And next, though we are told that of the nineteen unpaired absentees,—absent from illness or other un- avoidable causes,—considerably more were Liberals than Con- servatives, the majority is, nevertheless, larger than any which the Government has yet obtained. Mr. Albert Grey himself, who told the electors of North Northumberland at Hexham, on January 5th, that unless he could get security for a good Redistribution Bill, by which he meant "proportional re- presentation," he should feel obliged to act as if the Redistribu- tion Bill were sure to be a bad one, voted in the majority of 130, and that without obtaining any security such as he had asked for, or rather, after having received the assurance that if the present Prime Minister retains office, no such guarantee is forth- coming. Doubtless, Mr. Grey will justify his course by saying that in that speech he was anticipating the abolition of the 40s. freehold franchise, and that the Government have retained this small consolatium to the feelings of the proprietary classes. Nevertheless, it is clear enough from his speech in Parlia- ment that this was not his chief ground for being so easily dissuaded from his intended course ; that it was the intensity of the public feeling in the northern counties in favour of the Fran- chise Bill which constrained him to abandon all conditioning for guarantees, and to vote frankly with the great party as a member of which he was returned. All this, we say, is most satisfactory, and we quite admit that the more prudent Peers will be very reluctant to redeem Lord Salisbury's pledges by throwing out a Bill carried in the Commons with such a majority as this. Still, danger is not over, and we earnestly hope that the Easter Recess may be used to strengthen the hands of the Liberal Members, so that there may be no fear of reverses in Committee such as would retransform the timid Conservative Peers into devoted followers of Lord Salisbury. We must remember that there are two great dangers ahead. One is the almost avowed wish of the Irish Home-rulers to have the next appeal to the country made under the present franchise. Mr. Parnell has virtually admitted that he under- stands the conditions of the Irish campaign far better under the present franchise than he does under the altered con- dition of things, and Mr. Parnell is most skilful in finding excuses for voting against the Government when he wishes to do so. The defection of the Home-rulers at any critical moment would reduce the majority of 130 to a majority of 70, even if all the other Liberals remained true. But it is all but certain that in any division in which Mr. Parnell and his followers thought it safe to vote against the Government, a good many hesitating Liberals would think it safe to vote against them, too. Besides, it is not merely in votes on the Franchise Bill that there is danger. If the Government carried with them a very narrow majority on some question of confidence,—and such questions now arise every day,—it is certain that Lord Salisbury would use such a reverse with great effect in addressing the Conservative Peers, and would argue that the people would be grateful to the House of Lords for securing a speedy dissolution, even though the Franchise Bill itself were admitted to be popular. He would declare it to be obvious that the people distrust their leaders so much on other matters, that they would prefer even leaving the Franchise Bill as a legacy to the Conservatives, to longer delay in ejecting the Government from office. And many of his followers would believe him. For this reason, we are most anxious that the Easter Recess should be used for the purpose of showing Liberal Members everywhere that it is the will of the people that the Liberal Government should be strengthened in every possible way till the Franchise Bill has become law. So, and so only, can we defeat the intrigues of its foes, who are sure to attempt to dispose of it by a side-wind, i.e., by routing the Government which has it in charge on some other issue, now that they see how very difficult it will be to defeat the Government on the Reform question itself. Meetings ought to be held all over the country, to express the desire of the people that this Government shall
be supported in the House of Commons on every question on which it may be sought to defeat them, till the Franchise Bill is passed. Without such a demonstration, we much fear that. the great promise of the division of Monday night may not bear fruit. The best way of defeating the Reform Bill is now a flank-march on the Egyptian question. And we will answer for it that that manceuvre will be tried, and tried again, when- ever opportunity arises. And it is on that question that the knees of doubtful Liberal Members need the most peremptory strengthening.
But, next, the special dangers of the Franchise Bill are not over. We think little of the various obstructive motions of which Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Rallies, Mr. Collins, the Lord Mayor, and others have given notice as amendments to the motion for going into Committee on the Franchise Bill. These wilt be easily defeated. Mr. Chaplin's motion is intended to condemn the inclusion of Ireland in the Bill ; Mr. Raikes proposes to make it an instruction to the Committee that a Redistribution Bill should be incorporated with the present Bill ; Mr. Collins proposes the same thing, in different language ; the Lord Mayor proposes to defer the Committee for six months,. which is nothing but a proposal to reverse the vote of Monday, night. All this is moonshine. And the other amendments to the motion for going into Committee are of the same sort, namely, feeble renewals in different forms of Lord John Manners's- defeated Amendment. But what may endanger the Franchise, Bill is Mr. Albert Grey's proposal in Committee to add a new- clause to the Bill, which is to run as follows :—" Notwith- standing anything in this Act contained, in the event of a vacancy in the representation of any constituency, or of a dis- solution of Parliament taking place, and a writ or writs being issued, before the first day of January, 1887, for the election of Members to serve in the present or any new Parliament,. each election shall, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine,. take place in the same manner in all respects as if no alteration. had been made by this Act in the franchises of electors." That amendment means that the operation of the Franchise Act is to be postponed for two years and a half, unless, indeed, as we suppose, the present Parliament shall previously carry a Redis- tribution Bill and repeal this provision. The intention is, of course, to compel a dissolution under the present franchise, if such a dissolution takes place before the Redistribution Bill is. carried. Now, we believe that that course would be at once absurd, unjust, and impolitic, and we are sure that if Mr. Albert Grey's resolution were carried, it would cause so general and deep a dissatisfaction, that the majority who carried it could not hope to be a majority again in the next Parliament. We will shortly state our reasons for this belief.
In our opinion, the only unfortunate sentence in Mr. Glad- stone's speech was his admission that it is intrinsically desirable to have the Redistribution Bill and the Franchise Bill carried by the same Government, as parts of one and the same scheme. For our own part, we think it reasonable and natural enough that a reforming Government which should have achieved one part of its task amidst general expressions of popular confidence, should go on to complete its work, without wasting the power which must be wasted by an intermediate dissolu- tion. There is no reason why a Government which has suc- ceeded, to the full satisfaction of the people, in solving one part of so great a problem, should not finish its work. But that goes entirely on the ground that when the Govern- ment is evidently in full possession of the confidence of the people, including both the present electorate and the newly- enfranchised classes, it is a pity to waste power, and time, and money, in a needless dissolution, which could only result in the return of the same party to power, and the retention of the same Government in office. If there were any serious doubt as to the confidence placed in the Government by the newly-en- franchised classes for the completion of its work, we should say those classes ought certainly to have their share in choosing the Parliament and Government entrusted with the task of com- pleting the work. It seems to us a matter of mere justice that two millions of new electors who are admitted to be entitled to the vote should have their say, if they wish to have it, on the question how the seats are to be redistributed and how their votes are to be taken. Why should three-fifths of the electors take out of the hands of the other two-fifths the decision of so great a matter, except on the clear understanding that the two- fifths are perfectly satisfied with the Government that is now in power, and would certainly entrust to the same Government the execution of the rest of the reform? If the two-fifths are en- titled to vote at all, they are surely entitled to vote on the ques- tion of such a redistribution of seats as would secure to them a fair share of power. But, after all, Mr. Albert Grey's pro- posal is not merely indefensible in justice and policy, it is unconstitutional and absurd. Only conceive a reform of the London Municipality passed, and then deliberately delayed till some gigantic reconstruction of the houses of the poor had been carried out by the present virtually abolished Munici- pality! Yet that would be reasonable, compared with the proposal to take a general election for the purpose of a great Reform Bill,—an election involving considerable chances of a change of Government,—under an electorate already condemned as insufficient for the purposes of the State. Does any one suppose for a moment that two millions of voters enfran- chised by the present Bill, would consent to stand by and see the most important political task of the century perhaps carried out by an electorate already superseded as in- sufficient for the foundation of our representative system ? A more grotesque proposal we never heard of. Lord Beacons- field might just as well have advised the Queen to defer Mr. Gladstone's Ministry for six months, or a year, till he had finished his Afghan war, as this Parliament advise the nation to take the next general election on the register of an elec- torate which it had itself declared to be inadequate for the welfare of the State,—and that, too, for the very purpose of preventing that electorate from having its say on a subject of such supreme interest to it, as that of withdrawing confidence from the present Government, or confirming them in power. To tell these new electors that they certainly shall vote as soon as the matter which interests them most has been deter- mined without their aid, but shall not vote so long as that matter is pending, is to give with one hand what you take away with the other ; and if there be any better mode of ex- citing revolutionary feeling than that, we have yet to discover it.
Previous page
