THE PEERS ON THE HUSTINGS. T HERE is something to our
minds not a little humiliating in the discussion raised on Friday week by Sir William Hutt about the interference of Peers in elections. It suggests that there are still many men in the Liberal party who are as much slaves of use and wont as their opponents, who are un- willing to surrender a tradition, even when it recalls nothing but a humiliating recollection of former weakness. With household suffrage the law of the land, a House of Commons as sovereign as popular Assembly ever was, and life peerages in the near future, the Member for Gateshead, an old and, in his way, a sound Liberal, was " quite exercised," as the Americans say, about the interference of Peers in elections. He wanted to change the annual resolution of the Commons rendering any election void in which a Peer may interfere into a statutory provision, under which any spiritual or tem- poral Peer interfering at an election should be held guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable therefore to a period of imprison- ment. The proposal, of course, was mere talk, intended for Gateshead rather than the House, for there was not the re- motest chance of any such provision passing the Lords,—who are not likely to imprison an Archbishop for a sermon in defence of the Irish Church,—but it was objectionable for reasons other than mere expediency. It was an announce- ment that the Commons and the nation were still afraid of the Peers, still doubtful if Mr. Smith could be elected when a lord had declared himself opposed to his election, still half afraid that the Lords might somehow or other attract all power to themselves, still not quite sure that the rights of the nation are not held in some way by sufferance of the aristocracy. There is no earthly reason except this why a Peer should not vote if he likes for the election of the man who is to legislate for him, as well as for the remainder of the community. A Peer is a human being, and, as a rule, a householder. His intelligence is very often as great as that of an artizan or a twelve-pounder. He pays taxes, and rates, and fulfils all duties required of the citizen, just like anybody else. He has sometimes a keen interest in politics, and sometimes under- stands them, while his chance of being independent is quite as great as that of the nearest blacksmith, or parish clerk, or other recognized county voter. It cannot be on the ground of inherent incapacity that Liberals object to him, and to argue that he has too much capacity is to give up at once all idea of confidence in the electors. If they are prepared to vote black is white because a lord tells them to vote it, they are not fit to govern, and had better revert to the old system, under which the Peer governed without the trouble of asking their per- mission. Under that system the old resolution was, it may be, defensible, though it did not in the least prevent the Peers from returning the House of Commons, but at present it is a meaningless and discreditable acknowledgment of inferiority. The Peer is a citizen, invested for the good of the community with a right of revising laws passed by the House of Commons, not a superior being who enjoys that right inherently, and must be closely watched lest he extend it too far. To place him under exceptional disabilities, to declare that Sir W. W. Wynn may interfere as much as he likes, but that Lord Wynnstay would be too formidable to be trusted with a vote, is a display of timid jealousy scarcely to be distinguished from political baseness, an acknowledgment that the Order is too strong at once for the people and the law.
So far from diminishing the power of the Peers or their influence over elections, this prohibitory resolution greatly increases both. It is perfectly well known that the Peers do interfere in elections in every conceivable way short of ap- pearing on the hustings and recording their votes. Their sons sit in the Commons. Their agents are the most efficient electioneering agents in the counties. Their opinion is in- cessantly asked by the electors till at this moment the Duke of Devonshire—we quote him because he is a Liberal— selects, though he does not exactly nominate, the members for four counties. What is the good of making him irresponsible for the exercise of that immense authority ? Why should he not, on the contrary, be compelled, if he wishes to retain it, to fulfil the duties of the post he has assumed, to come forward on the hustings, to defend his can- didates, to show by his speeches and proposals that he has claims other than his wealth to the position those counties are willing to accord ? Is it because wealth and rank are sacred. that we exempt their possessors from the turmoil other men have to- go through, and the exertions other men have to make, and the publicity other men have to endure I No arrangement could be so well adapted to maintain the power of the Peers as that which shrouds it in secrecy, and which Sir William Hutt desires to perpetuate by legislation. The resolution once abolished, the Duke of Omnium must act in his own person, and he will not act either so efficiently or so oppressively as he can, and very often does, through Mr.. Fothergill. It is only because the Duke of Portland is for- bidden to appear in elections that his agent can hint to the• Duke's tenants that in his Grace's opinion they ought to sup- port the Conservative candidates, and yet his employer be- considered irresponsible. Secure in his castle, protected in his seclusion by law, the great Peer appears to the electors a. very mighty and somewhat mysterious personage, whose wrath- may bring down endless calamities ; and the way to dissipate- his injurious prestige, to reduce him to the standard of ordinary mortals, is not to deepen the seclusion, but bring him into the light, make him sign his own edicts, and express- his own wishes, and hum and ha before a hostile crowd like everybody else. Jove is the stronger for his clouds. even though he wields the lightning, and Jove with- out clouds or lightning either would receive very much less respect. Are the English Peers who may not vote- more powerful at elections than the Irish Peers resi- dent in England who may, or less powerful ? We all know that deep as is the reverence of Englishmen for rank, they reverence these Irish less than English Peers ; that their equality of privilege with other citizens, their right of speech- and of interference and of enduring missiles reduces them to- their natural level, varying with their ability, their possessions, and their popularity. Lord Palmerston was a very formidable- person on the hustings, but Lord Fermoy had barely the hold. of an ordinary candidate, and was, we believe, turned out of Parliament because he could not overawe a furrier.
But it is said the Peer, if allowed to assist in the election of a Commoner, will have a double representation. How will he, any more than the county member who assists the candidate for• his county town ? He is seated himself, but he assists his friend, or his party's friend all the same, and without the smallest ill result to the community. So common is this practice, that in half" the constituencies of Great Britain a member is the strongest ally or bitterest opponent of the candidate who aspires to be his- colleague. What is the difference between Lord Westminster who is seated in the Upper House assisting Captain Grosvenor- who wants a seat in the Lower, and the Premier whose seat- is secure for Bucks assisting Mr. Smith to turn out Mr. Mill f The difference, if there is any, is that Mr. Disraeli's inter- ference is rather the more efficacious of the two ; yet nobody objects to that. The Peer is invested with certain legislative rights for the good of the country, just as the Premier is in- vested with still greater rights, and neither ought to be debarred in any way from fulfilling his duties and exercising his privi- leges as a citizen and an elector. The Upper House is a part of- Parliament, not a separate and dangerous entity, so terrible that • it must carefully be fenced off from any interference with the Lower, that its influence must be exercised underhand, and be therefore, like all other underhand proceedings, tainted with guile, selfishness, and tyranny. The true attitude of Liberals towards Peers is not that of terrified worshippers deprecating some demon, but that of men who regard them as leading citizens, neither more nor less, and refuse to think protection against their influence either necessary or expedient. They- ought, no doubt, to be prohibited from intimidating ; but so- ought the untitled squires and great employers of labour, who- are just as able to intimidate, and who, like the Peers, may and do intimidate while Members of Parliament. The only difference between them is a title, and the resolution now means nothing except that the Commons are afraid of the influence a title may have upon elections,—surely a fear very unworthy of a democratic assembly. The French Corps, Legislatif, representing a people sufficiently jealous of aristo- cratic interference, is, at least, more dignified than this. When the Bill regulating the assumption of titles in France was pro- posed two years ago, it was rejected distinctly on the ground that titles had no force or efficacy, and if anybody liked to assume them so he might. The British representative body, on the other hand, declares them so efficacious, that if a man with a title intervenes in an election the election must be void 1
Previous page
