TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE LEEDS CONFERENCE.
THE Leeds Conference proves that the Liberal party in the country knows its own mind, and that it is not only in favour of introducing a Household Franchise Bill for the Counties as the forerunner of an adequate Redistribution Bill, —a course which we long ago recommended as the wisest,— but that it is not willing to run any more risks by putting off to another Session, or evai postponing to any secondary place in the coming Session, the taking of the first step. The half-Liberal and the Conservative journals are evidently annoyed by this re- solve, for they are well aware that so influential an expression of opinion as that of between two and three thousand Delegates of Liberal Associations cannot but produce a very grave impres- sion on the mind of the Government. We do not wonder at the irritation felt. The truth clearly is that on all the points which most urgently demand remedial legislation,—Parliamentary procedure, county government, and the government of London being the most important,—very different measures might be passed if the counties were already enfranchised, and the Redis- tribution Bill which must accompany it, were passed, from those which might be passed if the enfranchisement of the counties and the redistribution of seats were still uncertain and problematic. We have no doubt at all that the proceedings of the last Session have deeply impressed the mind of the country. There we have seen the time of Parliament frittered away by Mr. Warton, who represents 1,085 electors, by Mr. Ashmead- Bartlett, who represents 1,.081, by Mr. A. J. Balfour, who represents 1,081, by Lord Randolph Churchill, who represents 1,060, while some of the weightiest men in Parliament, with twenty or five-and-twenty thousands of constituents behind them, have been compelled to hold their tongues just because these Obstructionists were determined to talk. No wonder that the Liberal Party is determined to make these idlers feel what it is to have a constituency which is itself identified with the business of the country and is determined to see it done, and the only way in which they can be made to feel this adequately is to press on the measures which will make short work of these trivial constituencies, and put a serious sense of responsibility into the Parliamentary acts of even unscrupulous men. Then, again, as to county government, it is not to be denied that there is a serious anomaly in reforming the government of the counties without giving the householders who are most likely to be affected by that reform any opportunity of representing their own views and wishes on the subject. And even as to the Government of London, though we are of course very desirous to see a good London Government Bill passed by the present Parliament, and in the next Session, if a really good one can be so passed, is it not notorious that the Metropolis is the least adequately represented city in the kingdom ? and that the enormous power which the City possesses to resist all due muni- cipal reform, would vanish in an instant before any measure which really gave to the population of the metropolis something approaching to its fair weight in the House of Commons? These are, we are convinced, the main considerations which have induced the Liberal party to express so very emphatic a desire to see the first step taken at once towards the next Reform Bill.
At the present moment, we have many of the disadvantages of democracy, without the advantages. The House of Lords can always plead that the counties are entitled to much more weight than they possess in the House of Commons ; and that, if the true opinion of the counties could be known, it would be found to agree better with that of the territorial party than with that of the great towns ; and this lends a colour of reason to the Lords in their obstruction of Liberal measures which it is most important to clear up, and either to justify or to remove. Therefore, we say that the Leeds Conference has judged wisely in demanding that the great reform to which the Government are pledged shall now take precedence of every other ques- tion, and not be left to the risk of a secondary place in the legislative proposals of the next Session. We have seen for many years back that a secondary place in the business of any Session is very likely indeed to mean much the same as no place at all. Further, it is far from im- possible that in the present condition of the Irish party, a defeat of the Government which might involve a dissolu- tion might take place on some purely administrative issue, and the whole result of the election of 1880 thus be lost to the
party of Reform. For if Parliament were once dissolved without. the Government having brought forward the most important of all the political proposals to which they pledged themselves, the Liberal electors would think that they were being trifled with, and would certainly mark their sense of annoyance by a very much diminished interest in the next general election. The Con- servatives are fond of the sneer that Reform is brought forward not because the country needs it, but because the exigencies of the Liberal party require it. But why should the exigencies of the Liberal party require it, if the country does not earnestly desire it ? The county franchise is not at all a popular cry in the present county constituencies. On the contrary, as we saw in Rutland the other day, it appears to be a very. unpopular cry. If it were not the sincere and eager desire of the country, both in the great cities and in the huge class of county non-electors, it would be very bad policy in the Liberals to urge this ques- tion on the people. But the truth is that the people do most urgently desire it, and desire it for the best of reasons,— because they see that the representatives of the pettiest con- stituencies are the most disturbing element in the present House of Commons,—because they see that the fond dreams of the House of Lords are more or less excused by their hopes and guesses as to the wishes of the county non-electors,—because they see that no great readjustment of local government of any kind is possible till there is some clear test of popular feeling, not only in towns, but in rural districts. No reasons could be better than these for urging on household franchise in the counties, and that great redistribution of seats which must immediately follow and complete this great reform.
The supposed difficulty as to the separation of the House- hold Franchise measure from the Redistribution measure on which the Conservatives rely to compel the introduction of a highly complex Bill, upon which they would hope to divide the Liberals themselves, is not in reality a difficulty at all. It is said that the House of Lords will be fully justified in throw- ing out the County Franchise Bill, unless it is accompanied by a sufficient redistribution of power to give the counties with their enlarged electorates their fair share in the State. But in the first place, it is quite certain that the Lords will find a justification somehow for doing what they want to do, and they would probably find it much more easily in the com- plete measure than in the preliminary measure. One thing is not denied,—that the country has expressly voted its determina- tion that the counties shall have household suffrage. If the Lords repudiate the reform on which the last general election turned, they will do that of which even the most Conservative of their own members will gravely question the wisdom. The country has not decided on the details of any scheme of redistribution, and it is every way more constitutional to give the House of Lords an opportunity of conceding, with a good grace, what the country has determined on, than it is to handicap that con- cession with a number of details never sanctioned by the elec- torate. But further, it is childish to suppose that the Liberals can propose any scheme of redistribution of which the Lords could fairly complain that it does not give enough weight to the population and wealth of the counties. The Liberals would certainly never allow themselves to be " hoist with their own petard," and that would bo the result of their proposing a scheme of redistribution which had any tendency to cheat the county populations of their due.
On the mere question of procedure, Mr. John Morley is obviously quite right in calling it absurd to assume that the passing of a County Franchise Bill necessarily involves an immediate dissolution. On the contrary, it was not found possible to dissolve after passing the Household Franchise Bill of 1867. It was necessary to decide on the boundaries of the new constituencies, and to complete the new Registers, before a dissolution was possible ; and so the Session of 1867 was fol- lowed by that of 1868, in which the measure of the previous year was completed. That is a final answer to the assertion that the passing of a County Franchise Bill would involve the dissolution of Parliament in its fifth Session. On the contrary, it would imply, and necessarily imply, its continuance to a sixth session at least, and the sixth session is usually, and in general quite rightly, the last. But a sixth session would leave room for the proper discussion of a Redistribution Bill, whether that Bill were—as it probably would be—rejected by the House of Lords and so submitted to the decision of the people, or passed into law. The Leeds Conference has performed a very great political service to the country, and performed it at the right time. When the Cabinet meets, there will be no room for hesitation as to the first work to be done.
Previous page
