Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

do away with the almost inspired importance attached to all newspaper communications.

The next war may not give us quite so much pleasant reading. We may miss a little of the seasoning of bygone days. We shall not suffer by it. About a year ago a British force was crossing one of our Indian rivers on its way to the front. With it was the usual representative of the press, and he had written his usual letter. He tells how crocodiles and palm trees people the water and adorn the banks, and hands the eloquent production to a prosaic English officer, who remarks that neither crocodiles nor palm trees are within many miles. Matter of fact man! The correspondent is describing India, and he replies-the best answer ever made, the secret of much of the discussion, the essence of what our soldiers have long known to be true What does that matter? The British public must have its crocodile, and it must have its palm tree.'

MELGUND.

THE NEXT REFORM BILL.

MANY, I believe, will agree in the opinion that a portion at least of the short period that now remains before the general election may with advantage be devoted to a consideration of some of the questions which will have to be dealt with by the new Parliament. Whatever the result of that election may be, there seems to be good reason for concluding that a Reform Bill is likely to be one of the earliest measures to engage public attention. The Liberal party has pledged itself, as soon as it has the power, to extend household suffrage to the counties, and to redress some of the existing inequalities in the distribution of political power. The almost complete unanimity which exists among the party in favour of an extension of the suffrage and the redistribution of seats must offer an additional inducement to a Liberal Government to give a Reform Bill precedence to almost all other proposals of domestic legislation. If, however, the balance of political parties should not be turned at the general election, and the Conservative Government should continue in power, it may very possibly happen that a Reform Bill will be introduced. The feeling which induced the Conservatives to deal with the question of Parliamentary reform in 1867 may not improbably again prevail, and they may say to themselves, As it is inevitable that the suffrage will be extended, and that the question of redistribution will have to be dealt with, it is better that we, as a party, should have the arrangement of the measure, rather than that we should leave it in the control of our opponents.'

[ocr errors]

Such being the position of the question, I cannot help thinking that it is very desirable to direct attention to some considerations connected with Parliamentary reform before the subject is involved in the vortex of a keen party struggle. It is the more important that this should be done, because in recent discussions little else has been attempted except to prove the justice and expediency of extending household suffrage beyond the existing Parliamentary boroughs and to bring into strong relief the inequalities in the present distribution of political power. It is needless to attempt to add anything here to the arguments which have been repeatedly adduced to show that there are no valid reasons why the present difference in the county

and borough suffrage should be maintained, or why political power should be so unequally distributed that 47,000 people living in ten small English and Irish boroughs should return ten members to the House of Commons, while only nine members are returned by Liverpool, Glasgow, and Manchester with a population of 1,349,000, and only eight are returned by four metropolitan constituencies with a popnlation of 1,671,000. It is, however, easy to show that even if it is decided to extend household suffrage to the counties, and to make the present distribution of political power more equal, little more will really have been done than to have taken the first step towards the solution of a difficult and complicated question. It may, for instance, be at once asked whether it is intended in the first place to extend the suffrage, and subsequently to bring forward a scheme of redistribution; or whether the extension of the suffrage and redistribution will be regarded as inseparable parts of a single measure. If household suffrage is to be granted to the counties, is residence to be insisted on as a qualification? If not, it will necessarily happen that in removing one anomaly, another will be called into existence, for there will be residential household suffrage in the boroughs, and non-residential household suffrage in the counties. Again, it is to be particularly remarked that little consideration has yet been given to the principles on which a measure of redistribution should be based. It is not enough to say that the small boroughs must return fewer members in order that more may be returned by the large borough and county constituencies. Are we going to move in the direction of equal electoral districts? Are Manchester and Liverpool to be divided into five equal wards, each returning a single member? Or is some arrangement to be adopted which will afford a constituency, in proportion to the additional members it may receive, an increased opportunity of securing the representation of different phases of opinion? Finally, it may be asked—and no question can be deserving of more careful consideration-whether much of the good which may be done by the one hand may not be undone by the other, if, as a result of extending the suffrage, the cost of elections be increased, and thus a seat in Parliament becomes more difficult of attainment, except by those who are either wealthy themselves or are able to command, possibly by a certain sacrifice of independence, the resources of some political organisation. It can scarcely be necessary to say a single word to show that these questions ought to be carefully and calmly considered, before contending political parties are once more engaged in a struggle over Parliamentary reform. In the hope of rendering some assistance, however slight, to such a discussion, I propose in the following paper to consider the subjects above referred to, in the order in which they have been enumerated.

There are few points connected with Parliamentary reform on which a greater difference of opinion is likely to prevail than the

1880.

particular mode of procedure which ought to be adopted in dealing with the two questions of an extension of the suffrage and redistribution. There are many who are certain to argue that the two subjects should be dealt with in two separate Bills, to be introduced at different times. It is contended that an extension of the suffrage is not only in itself more important than redistribution, but is a If a number measure which could be much more easily carried. of boroughs are scheduled for disfranchisement, a considerable pro- . portion of the members who represent these boroughs will inevitably feel a disinclination to support a measure which dooms to extinction the particular constituencies with which they are connected. On the other hand, however, it may be urged that the opposition which will thus come from the representatives of the boroughs threatened with disfranchisement cannot be removed by postponing the introduction of a measure of redistribution until an extension of the suffrage has been secured. Whether this arrangement were adopted or not, it is perfectly certain that in the discussions which must precede the passing of a measure for the extension of the suffrage, constant reference would be made to redistribution. The opponents of an extended suffrage would know the support they would be likely to receive from the representatives of the boroughs to be disfranchised. A direct inducement would thus be offered to exaggerate the extent Unfounded alarm to which disfranchisement would be carried. might in this way be excited, and some at least might be led to oppose an extension of the suffrage who would not do so if they knew the details of the measure of redistribution which it was intended subsequently to bring forward. I think, however, it can be shown that there are other and much more weighty reasons why the character of the proposed scheme of redistribution should be known at the time when Parliament may be asked by a responsible Government to sanction an extension of the suffrage. Many people will undoubtedly be placed in a most unfair and embarrassing position if they are asked to decide upon an extension of the suffrage without knowing either the extent to which disfranchisement will be carried or the method of redistribution which will be proposed. It may easily be imagined that there are those who may consider that the good which would result from an extension of the suffrage would be wholly or almost wholly neutralised, if in order to remove the present inequalities in representation, the whole country were to be divided into equal electoral districts, returning a single member each. Under such an arrangement no town with a less population than 48,000 would be entitled to a member; such towns would simply become parts of certain electoral districts, and in each of these districts the majority would exercise almost uncontrolled power. I shall presently consider some of the consequences which might be produced by such a change in our system of representation. The

briefest reference, however, to the subject is sufficient to show that many who are strongly opposed to the continuance of the present arbitrary distinction between the county and the borough franchise, may hesitate to pass a measure for the extension of the suffrage, if they are ignorant of the nature of the scheme of redistribution by which it is to be accompanied. It is also to be borne in mind, that if in the first instance a measure simply referring to the suffrage were passed, it might very possibly happen that any subsequent attempt to deal with the question of redistribution might prove to be unsuccessful. It has in the past been repeatedly shown that the amount of popular support which is given to an extension of the suffrage is sure to be much greater than that which can be enlisted on behalf of any scheme of redistribution. The sense of injustice aroused in constituencies which are not represented in proportion to their population is much less keen than that which is excited where thousands who are denied the vote feel that they are as well qualified to exercise it as those who enjoy the suffrage. If, therefore, redistribution is postponed until a measure of enfranchisement has been passed, there will be left a smaller reserve of popular enthusiasm wherewith to surmount the difficulties of passing that particular part of the measure of Parliamentary reform which is sure to meet with the greatest amount of opposition.

As several reasons have now been adduced which seem to me to show that an inseparable connection between an extension of the suffrage and redistribution ought to be maintained, I will next proceed to direct attention to some of the many questions which suggest themselves when we consider in what practical way these reforms can be carried out. With regard to the extension of household suffrage to the counties, it seems to be often supposed that all that is required to be done is to pass a simple enactment declaring that the county householder shall enjoy the same electoral rights as the borough householder. It can, however, be at once shown that the problem does not admit of being thus easily solved. As previously remarked, the borough and county suffrage at the present time rest on entirely different bases. Residence is an indispensable qualification for the exercise of a borough vote, whereas a man may vote for a county, and, except on the day of election, never spend a single hour within its borders. A man may own half a borough, and, if he does not reside within seven miles of it, he cannot obtain a vote; but however far away a man resides from a county, if he owns within it a freehold or rent charge of the annual value of 40s., or a copyhold or leasehold, either during the life of one person or for a period of not less than sixty years, of the annual value of 5l., he obtains a vote for the county.' It will, therefore, be at once seen that the subject

If the copyhold, or leasehold, which confers the suffrage, is situated within the limits of a Parliamentary borough, it must be either land or some tenement

« AnteriorContinuar »