CABINET MINISTERS ON REFORM.
BOTH Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Hartington have spoken this week, and both have said something on Reform. Though neither of them spoke for the Government, and both, indeed, as we understand them, expressly disclaimed speaking for the Government, yet it may, perhaps, be assumed that Mr. Chamberlain, at Bristol, gave the wheel a decidedly stronger turn in one direction than Lord Hartington applied to it, at Manchester, in the opposite direction. Mr. Chamberlain ex- pressed a very strong personal desire to see the Franchise ques- tion wholly separated from the Redistribution question,—first, because he holds that even if there were no redistribution, the admission of the county voter to the franchise would be exceedingly right and desirable ; next, because he holds that you cannot settle the question of the proper redistribu- tion of power till you have passed the Franchise Bill, and counted the new county voters whom it will admit. Further,he maintains that it cannot be questioned for a moment that it will extend to Ireland, because, "The whole of the Liberal Government, and I think, with one exception, the whole of the Liberal Party, supported in 1879 and in 1882 resolutions in favour of an identical suffrage for the Three Kingdoms." Apparently, Lord Hartington must have regarded this remark as going a little too far in the direction of com- mitting the Cabinet, which had not yet decided the question, for he said at Manchester on the following day that the ex- tension of the household franchise to Ireland was still a moot question, which the Liberal Party ought to discuss carefully and settle at once. And, while not ignoring "the difficulties, perhaps the great dangers that there would be in making any distinction between England and Ireland in the matter of the franchise," he thought it necessary to insist that "there are many in the country, not only among the Conservatives, who do view, and will view with considerable dislike and apprehension any measure which is likely to increase the number or the powers of what I am afraid we must call the Irreconcileable party in Parliament ; and you must recollect that the more conclusively you prove the impossibility of separating the question of the Irish franchise from that of the English franchise, the more you will excite the opposition and increase the number of the opponents of any measure for the reduction of the franchise at all." That, perhaps, explains the tone of com- plaint in which Lord Hartington talked of the Leeds Confer- ence, which he reproached for urging on the Franchise question before discussing its difficulties, in strong contrast to the tone of eulogy in which Mr. Chamberlain spoke of the achievements of the same Conference. Nevertheless, as we said, we hold that Mr. Chamberlain succeeded in giving a more decided turn to the wheel in one direction than Lord Harlington gave in the other, and this, too, whether Mr. Chamberlain's colleagues choose to take offence at what he has done or not. It is not very easy, after such manifestations of opinion as those of the Leeds Conference have been publicly supported by one of the Cabinet, for the other Members of the Cabinet to make their scruples heard. The time is passed for such suggestions in arrest of judgment as Lord Harlington
offers. Either the Cabinet must take up a bold position, or it must be well aware that all the country will say that Mr. Chamberlain has been overruled by the timidity of his colleagues ; and a Cabinet once openly regarded as" timid," is not a Cabinet that can hope to do very much more in Parliament. It is the same with the Irish complication. As our readers know, our own view is decisively and strongly with Mr. Chamberlain. We regard it as quite childish to suppose that any increase of the Irreconcileable party,—even if it gets a very large increase,—can add an iota to the danger of in- surrection. The more clearly we recognise the full strength of the Irreconcileable party in Ireland, the more effect will our positive refusal even to consider the disintegration of the Empire have in daunting that Irreconcileable party ; and as for any in- fluence that the frank recognition of their Parliamentary strength can exert in the direction of the wishes of the Irre- concileables, we have not the slightest belief in its existence. While England admits the Parliamentary principle for Ireland at all, she is bound to promote steadily the true representation of Irish wishes in Parliament ; and to delay a just Reform Bill on the ground that it will bring about a truer representation than any we could otherwise obtain of Irish wishes, is simply delaying it because we do not want to face the truth. If in 1879, and again last year, the whole Cabinet and almost the whole Liberal party repudiated any such hesitation as this, it is hardly likely that they can find anything in the present state of Ireland to justify that hesitation now. We hold, then, that Mr. Chamberlain has not only anticipated the answer to Lord Hartington's difficulty, but has anticipated an answer that Lord Harlington will himself feel obliged to treat as sufficient for the occasion. None the less, if Mr. Chamberlain had reserved his reply for the deliberations of the Cabinet, it would, perhaps, have had all the greater weight. Men like Lord Hartington may possibly resent having their hand forced, even by statesmen so vigilant and apt in the successful manipulation of Ministerial scruples as Mr. Chamberlain. We hold that Mr. Chamberlain's argu- ment is unanswerable, but we cannot help wishing that he had not taken the public into his confidence till after his colleagues had heard, and been convinced by, the statement of his reasons.
There are two points on which Mr. Chamberlain's speech appears to us to be much less statesmanlike than it is in refer- ence to the extension of the Franchise Bill to Ireland. The first is his reiterated plea for manhood suffrage in the abstract, though he admits that there is no question of embodying it in the Bill of next Session. It is surely a very unwise thing for a Minister to repeat so emphatically the private views which he has consented to waive in practice, on the very eve of the intro- duction of the measure in which he has consented to waive them. That can produce but one result,—a feeling amongst all who do not agree with him that he reserves the right to reopen the whole question, so soon as he shall see fit. Is that a wise im- pression for the Minister to diffuse who has consented to put his own views by, and to lend all his weight to the framing of a measure in which all his colleagues can heartily concur t We do not think so, and this is not the first time that Mr. Chamberlain has given a sign to the political world outside, that he is not content with the scope of the measure which the Government are likely to introduce. In the next place, though it is perfectly true that "the wider you lay the foundations of your liberties and institutions, the more stable those liberties and institutions will be," the sense in which that maxim must be interpreted depends on what you mean by the widest possible extension of liberty. Now, it is surely making political liberty as wide as you can make it, if you give every one who cares for political issues, the means of easily gaining the right to pass his judgment on those issues. It. does not widen the foundations of an Art society, if you. include in it multitudes who do not know, and do not care, what perspective means, or what is the difference between (a colours and water-colours, or how the etcher draws on copper,. or the lithographer on stone. It is not artistic width to insist on appealing to the ignorant multitude as to artistic questions. And so we insist that it is not political width to insist on in- cluding in the franchise a great multitude of people who would never walk the length of a street to get their names put on the Register, who would not alter a single arrangement of their lives to secure the right of voting, though they might as easily secure it now as under manhood suffrage, Yet it is perfectly true that there is not a grown-up man earning his own liveli- hood anywhere, who could not, by taking a very little pains, secure a vote, either under the household franchise, or under the lodger franchise, as the law now stands in boroughs, and as the will soon stand in counties as well as boroughs. While the County Franchise remains as it is, it is certain that large classes, most deeply interested in the franchise, and most eager for it, are excluded from any chance of exercising it. But let Household Suffrage be once extended to the counties, and we venture to say that no grown-up man with a real interest in politics need be without a vote, if he cares enough for politics to take a little pains in order to get it. Manhood Suffrage means making a vast multitude of persons who do not care a straw for politics, voters, in spite of their own complete indifference to the possession of a vote. And that, we say, seems to us as foolish and unstatesmanlike as it would be to insist on swamping an Art society with a mass of members who do not know a straight line from a crooked, or on securing the "stability "of Lloyd's, by enrolling all the soldiers of a score of regiments of the Line among the names of the Underwriters. Surely, it is manifest enough that what makes universal suffrage in the United States so unsatisfactory, is the enrolment of so many voters who care no more for the distinction between Democrats and Republicans than they care for the distinction between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. It is not adding to the breadth of any liberty to force upon in- different people the privilege of passing judgment on matters in which they take no interest and desire no control. Once more, we differ from Mr. Chamberlain in thinking that because minorities have been over-represented hitherto, there is no danger of their being under-represented under a uniform system of Household Suffrage. It is absurd to say that because there has been no intoxication where -there was no fermented liquor, there will be no intoxication after you have provided fermented liquor in large quantities. It must be of the very essence of the Franchise Bill and the Redistribution Bill to throw power everywhere into the hands of the majority. Now, no one can deny for a moment that if three members of party A and two members of party B live and vote in each compartment, every compartment will return a representative of party A, while none of them will return a representative of party B. That would not be a fair represen- tation of the opinions of a country divided in the proportion of three to two between party A and party B. Mr. Chamberlain virtually replies, 'Oh! if there are three of party A in one division and only two of party B, then there are sure to be three of party B in another and only two of party A.' We want to know why it is sure ; why it may not be quite easy to contrive that there shall be no such compensation ; why we are secure against that " jerrymandering " which has been so great an evil in the United States, and why it is not eminently reasonable and right to observe the utmost precautions against it. We insist that in this matter Mr. Chamberlain is not taking his usual moderate and reasonable attitude. It is plain good-sense, when you are for the first time running a great risk, to take pains to insure yourself against that risk. It is common candour to admit that an evil which greatly afflicts other countries in which the suffrage has been as widely extended as ours will soon be, is likely to afflict us also, unless we take the utmost precautions to avoid it.
Previous page
