LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
MR. STRIITT ON THE FRANCHISE BILL.
ITO TEE EDITOR OF TER " SPECTATOR."J
your issue .of April 5th, you quote some remarks- of mine-on the Reform Bill, as an instance of an assumption on the part of Conservatives, "that -the more numerous a class is the more dangerous and unconstitutional it is to give it any repre- sentation adequate to its numbers." I beg to entirely deny making such an assumption. I freely admit that if any interest is to predominate, it should be that of the most numerous claw, provided that there is no difference between that and other classes in other respects ; but, Sir, it surely might be reasonably maintained, as every English statesman of eminence and almost every-political English thinker has maintained in the past, that it is unwise, since it is an unfortunate fact that we ere in England divided into distinct classes more than elsewhere, that any class, however numerous, should have an influence predominating over that of all other classes combined. I think it cannot be denied—though flattery of the working-classes is so
popular now, that it may be—that the artisan class, though more numerous, is less educated and more ignorant than the classes whose power it is entirely throwing into insignificance with the aid of this Reform Bill;. and that if one argument— their number—is in favour of their having increased power, there is another—their comparative ignorance—which must bear the other way. And I deny, Sir, the fairness of your argu- ment that I do not admit the force of numbers, simply because I attach more weight to that of education, considering that the happiness of millions are concerned who will under the Reform Bill still remain unenfranchised, including the 250 million in- habitants of India.
I did not, however, in my speech go as far as that, though the reports of it might mislead the reader. I look upon Consti- tutionalism as dead and buried, and Democracy as already present with us. I did not, therefore, attempt to argue that any person should be kept out of the exercise of the franchise permanently ; but I did insist that it was unwise, so soon after the lest Reform Bill and such a short time since the commence- ment of compulsory education, to bring in such a revolutionary measure, which hands over to one class the entire government of the country. To show that it was not numbers in themselves I .dreaded, I went further, and said that I believed a residential franchise would not give so much power to the artisans as the present Bill; and if I was right in my surmise, I would formally consider an amendment, moved to enlarge the- operation of %the Bill. Every one of your arguments and your entire .article would equally be an answer, if it is an answer at all, to any one raising doubts about the wisdom of granting man- hood suffrage. What we Conservatives want is a little logic, not arguments that go a great deal further than the manipu- lators of them are prepared to go themselves. One word, Sir, as to the confidence-in-the-people argument. I freely admit it is a telling electioneering cry,—very telling, notwithstanding the need of Corrupt-Practices Act a and Sunday-Closing Bills. The Conservative Party have not, perhaps, let the , Liberals have the whole benefit of it. Perhaps even an "ingenuous new Member' had better have held his tongue, even though he did say he "objected to this vital question being made a game of brag between the political parties," Truth had better be kept in the background in the future. What will pay with our intelligent constituencies is flattery, and let both parties daub it on wholesale.—I am, Sir, &c., [Mr. Strntt probably knows very little about the Spectator, or he would not insinuate that we either flatter the people or praise flattery in others. We have always objected to manhood suffrage, on the distinct ground that every man who pleases can gain for himself a vote under the present borough franchise, and under the coming county franchise ; and that nothing but mischief is done by enfranchising great numbers of people who do not please to make the very small sacrifice requisite for ob- taining the Vote. Of course, we accept Mr. Strutt's explanation as to the drift of his speech. We had no better report than the Times gave us to go upon, and that was very brief.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
