THE GOVERNMENT PLAN.
1E Reform Bill sketched out by Mr. Disraeli on Monday evening is a very bad one, which may, by great self- denial and caution on the part of Liberals, be licked into an indifferent one. A good Bill it cannot be made, for it does not secure, or profess to secure, the ends for which the nation or any of the great parties within the nation desire Reform, tout it can be made into an endurable compromise, and things have come to a pass which makes any endurable compromise preferable to delay. It does not secure adequate representa- tion to the workmen, or to the North, or to minorities, and it cannot be made to secure them ; but it can be tinkered till it lends to secure them, and we must be content with that. The '-fery first object of Reform, the raison d'etre of Reformers, is 'not attained by its provisions. If the workmen are not to be • admitted within the constituency, Reform has no motive, and a franchise based upon 61. rating will not give the workmen any appreciable power. That figure admits only 100,000 new electors, and they are so widely distributed that their suffrages will do, little more than increase the vote already given for the -middle-class nominee. John Smith will have a majority of -one-fifth, instead of a majority of one-tenth. It is a share of power, not a share of the right to appoint the depositaries of power, which the workmen have demanded, and this Mr. Disraeli refuses to bestow. Mr. Gladstone did bestow it, not indeed very liberally, but still honestly, but Mr. Disraeli does -not. If his figure were adopted the workmen would only lave to recommence their agitation, supported by a few -more friends among the constituencies and in Parliament. At the same time the change in the qualification sanctions that blank reduction according to rental which ends in the government of mere numbers. If it is expedient to reduce 'ten pounds to eight, why not to six or two? The proposal 'risks the danger the nation fears, without securing the " finality" it desires, or the political justice about which its conscience is uneasy. The masses are not included in the -constitutional pale, our progress to democracy is not checked, and the impediment to legislative progress is not cleared 'decisively out of the way. Mr. Disraeli says, and it is barely 'possible may believe, that his fancy franchises are checks, but -we question if they are even drags. The educational fran- chise is of course sensible enough, as a " clergyman, graduate, professional man, or certificated schoolmaster " is usually well qualified to vote, but it will amount to nothing in elections, and all the remaining three franchises are bad. The first admits every man with 301. in the savings' bank, and will be rejected, for these two reasons. It admits the very worst class of electors which ingenuity could select out of the country, -namely, domestic servants, and it makes the vote depend upon a fluctuating qualification. John Smith, footman, may have -a vote which if he marries the cook and spends half his savings on a shop rated at Si., that is, if he commences to bear his part in the national burden, he will lose. The second proposal, to admit the fundholder, is just as objectionable, for nearly the same reasons. There is no guarantee whatever that Brown with 501. in the Funds is a man fit to vote, while if the fund- holder puts his money in business, that is, adds by his enter- prise to his own value in the community, he loses his qualifi- cation. These objections would be final even if nobody ever bribed, but, as a matter of fact, any rich man could under these franchises secure a life seat without consulting any con- stituency at all. He could in a small borough pass a Reform Bill of his own, call a new constituency out of the ground for each Parliament. In Andover, for example, 200 new electors —labourers—would register themselves as fundholders a year before the dissolution, and would seat their man in defiance of the householders and everybody else. Moreover, any man with three or four sons grown up could acquire three or four votes by a deposit in their names, which it would be irra- tional to call a bribe. The fourth franchise, giving a vote to every man who pays 11. a year in direct taxes, is a little better, because it would give a vote to every income-tax-payer with- out a house, but involves some grotesque absurdities. Not only would ratcatchers be enfranchised, as Mr. Bright pointed out, but all pedlars, costermongers, and footmen who choose to pay the tax on hair-powder for themselves. So far from acting as checks, the fancy franchises would include an electoral order far below the level of household suffrage. A householder, however poor, is a citizen, a man paying for the support of the State, bringing up children, doing his duty in some shape as a member of society ; but a man may possess all the fancy franchises and yet be a waif in society, without ties, or obligations, or possibility of independence. That is no argument to the advocates of manhood suffrage, but how is a Tory to give it any decent reply ? There is nothing for it that we see but to accept the educational and income-tax franchises, reject the rest, and reduce the borough suffrage to 5L of rating. If the Tories like that very poor arrangement, well and good ; if not, they must go, and Mr. Gladstone will once more try his hand. It is wretched work at best, but what help I Mr. Disraeli next proposes to reduce the county qualification from 501. of rental to 201. of rating, that is, speaking broadly, to 251. of rental. Lord Derby, however, observed, according to the only detailed report of his speech yet made public, thit if the House preferred 141. rating as the basis in counties lie should not object. Why, then, not propose it? We do not much care for any particular figure, because we believe a 251. qualification will enfranchise more Liberals than a lower one, but political leaders should not play blind-man's buff with franchises. Either the figure, 101. rental, selected by Lord Derby in 1859 was a good one, or it was not. If it was, 251. is a bad one ; if it was not, why was it then proposed ? Does Lord Derby perchance dip into a lucky bag for his franchises, pro- posing any one which he may happen to draw ? However, the figure to which he assents will do very well, and to ask why the Tories proposed 1,0/. of rental, suggest 201. of rating, and really believe in 147. of rating, is merely to ask why Tories are Tories. All through the business they have been doubting whether they should give the nation a half- penny or a sovereign, and as they cannot make up their minds which would be most profitable, they in weariness split the difference, and give ten shillings. Fortunately that will buy dinner, and so the nation can afford to be placable, but the figure selected for argument increases the general impres- sion of careless weakness left by the entire measure.
The rest of the franchise proposals are of minor import- ance, and we turn to the second branch of the subject, the geographical redistribution of power. Mr. Disraeli's proposi- tion on this point is not in itself unfair or stupid, but it is wretchedly feeble. He is not impertinent to the beggar, and does not refuse to relieve him, but he gives him only a spoon- ful of very nice mincemeat. He disfranchises Yarmouth, Lan- caster, Reigate, and Totnes, and those boroughs, by the con- sent of all men outside their limits, have deserved their fate. They have been corrupt beyond endurance, have indulged in what Scripture calls a "superfluity of naughtiness," and the penalty is not beyond their deserts. It would be awkward, no doubt, if Bristol or Liverpool should ever be convicted of the same conduct,—very awkward, because Parliament could not be logical,—but Englishmen rather like awkwardnesses, and would pardon the big place while smashing the little one, without remorse or blushes. The difficulty, therefore, will hardy arise, and meanwhile justice is done on the little criminals, which is pro tanto a clear gain to morals. Then the Government asks twenty-three boroughs,—Lichfield,Cockermouth, Hertford, De- vizes, Great Marlow, Bodmin, Cirencester, Huntingdon, Ripon, Maldon, Ludlow, Tewkesbury, Leominster, Andover, Knives- borough, Lymington, Richmond, Harwich, Marlborough, Eves- ham, Wells, Thetford, and Honiton,—to give up one seat each, out of courtesy and patriotism, thus creating thirtyvacancies. Of these, Mr. Disraeli proposes to give nine to the Northern unrepre- sented towns, namely, single members to Hartlepool, Darling- ton, Burnley, Staleybridge, St. Helen's, Dewsbury, Barnsbury, Middlesborough, and some place in the Black Country ; four to "London," namely, two to the Tower Hamlets, one to Graves- end, and one to Croydon ; one to Torquay, of all boroughs on earth.; one to the University of London ; and all the rest but one to great counties, North Lancashire, North Lincolnshire, West Kent, East Surrey, Middlesex, South Staffordshire, and North Devonshire. The remaining one is given to South Lancashire, which has now three, probably as a reward for the election of Mr. Gladstone. These proposals are perfectly fair. and really meet existing evils in some feeble way, but then they are so very small They strengthen the North by one sixty- fifth of the House, and reduce the number of vast cities with inadequate representation by one, the Tower Hamlets. The petty boroughs will benefit by losing a member, the cause of corruption being usually the existence of the second seat. The first is usually beyond dispute, and if we must have either, we infinitely prefer a borough like Calne, where a Peer chooses a nominee and finds it his interest to select a statesman, to a borough like Totnes, where the fight is between bribery and intimidation, bribery supporting Mr. Pender, and intimida- tion Mr. Seymour. But why should we stop short at boroughs with a population of less than 7,000 Why not raise the figure to 10,000, and so obtain fifteen more seats with which to redress the absurd inequality between the power of the very great and the very little towns. Liverpool has now two mem- bers, and Harwich two, that is, a town with 8,000 people Sias as much power as a town with fifty times as many. Har- wich is to lose one, but this, though it reduces the anomaly, does not extinguish it. If real power and power in Par- liament are to be approximated, Liverpool ought at the very last to have a third member, whose seat, again, would enable Liverpool to represent its minority. There is no need of lump voting, or pluralities, or dualities, or any other new scheme unintelligible to the stupid British mind. Let things -remain as they are, each man voting for two members, and .then the heaviest minority must seat the third. Surely this would be a very small concession indeed to the educated
-who, after all, are 'strong enough to give both Government and Opposition endless trouble. Mr. Disraeli can hardly object to this extension of his plan, for his resolution only deprecated thelyal disfranchisement of any borough, and no borough will under this compromise be totally dis- franchised. The main anomalies of the existing system would then be, if not removed, at least endurable, for a few years more, till the public has become enlightened to the real necessities of the situation, or has found a leader strong enough to stamp his convictions into the national mind.
Thus compromised, Mr. Disraeli's Bill may, we think, be passed. It will not even then admit the masses or secure proper representation to minorities, or prevent the commence- ment of a new agitation for the redistribution of power, but it will invigorate the electoral order, will sanction the idea that minorities have some rights, however few, and will enable Parliament to recommence active work, and what with Mr. Gladstone's " moderation," Mr. Disraeli's obstinacy—it was lie, we -believe, who rejected pluralities—and the British im- penetrability to ideas, we must all of us, Tory, Whig, Radical, and philosopher, be content with that. The Tory has got a Bill which will land his son in universal suffrage • the Whig a Bill in which Grampound and Old Sarum lose limbs, but not lives ; the Radical a Bill under which the rights derived from tax-paying are once more repudiated ; and the philosopher a Bill in which there is not an idea, except that what has been shall also always be ; and there is no help for it all, and the Bill, after due snipping and polishing and varnish, may have to be passed.
Previous page
