• . .t
TOPICS OF.. THE. DAY. .
THE NEXT BATTLE FOR THE LIBERALS. . .
AIR. DISRAELI has nicknamed the _Liberals in reference to _their dislike of the personal . franchises,—the franchises tending to diminish the distance bet ween,Household and Manhood suffrage,—the ;" Reactionary Party.% In the next stage, however, of the Bill now .before the House, it is not likely that they will appear in that light. The truth is that the Liberals have hitherto distrusted the Government measure, because they saw that in many respects it was neither intended nor adapted to conduce to the spread of Liberal ideas. A large part of the new constituencies are not unlikely, as Mr. Disraeli acutely sees, to cry out against new light. Bat "the residuum" being now reluctantly bidden,—as far as the House of Commons can bid them,—to enter into equal poli- tical rights with their less dependent neighbours, and the question of the adjustment of relative power between consti- tuency and constituency fairly entered upon, the Tory party will be compelled to retire on its natural and anti-popular ground, —the defence- of the right e of sMall constituencies,—while the Liberals 'will, both by virtue; of their principles and by the force of party self-interest, become the advocates of the com- paratively intelligent, energetic, and progressive constituencies, as against those small stagnant pools of electoral power which are called the petty boroughs.
For in the section of the Reform Bill which we have now reached, the cry for Equality, which has done so much already —so much that seems to us mischievous, as well as that is useful, — to affect the borough franchise, will all tell in favour not of classes with prejudices deeper and ignorl ance denser than any other part of the community, but of classes with much more energy, life, and political con- viction in them than the petty monopolists likely to suffer by that cry. It has never seemed to us hitherto intrinsically reasonable to say that every householder in the same Parlia- mentary borough should have exactly equal voting power with every other householder, and that the householders in different Parliainentary boroughs should all vote on precisely the same conditions. . That has always seemed to us a spurious kind of equality,—equality at the poll often resulting in singularly unequal results, singularly unequal representation. We never could see any reason in saying,that it was a_law of nature that all the 63,700 householders in Manchester should have a precisely equal voting power, and all the 1,350 householders in Chichester should vote on the same terms as the house- holders of Manchester, when this really means that each elector in Chichester has, practically, forty-seven times as much representative power as each elector in Manchester. That seems to us a very strange kind of equality, and as we have never pretended to care for equality at the poll so much as for real and substantial impartiality of effect in the representative result, now that so large a " residuum " of dependent voters is to be introduced, it does seem to us a point of very great practical importance to insist on bringing the intelligent and acute voter of the great cities to something more like equality of position with the ignorant and depen- dent voter of the small boroughs. It is the Tory policy which has forced upon a class in great measure unfit for it an equality of voting power with classes of great political education. It should be the Liberal policy to do all that is possible in the measure for redistributing the seats, to equalize the real influence on the constitution of Parliament exerted by the resident in great cities and the resident in stagnant boroughs. If we are to have equality for "the residuum, in electoral rights, let us have something more,—equality for those above the residuum in representative influence. If equality is to be the cry where it tends to mischief, let it be the crialsti.where it tends to repair the mischief. If Parliament shrinks so sensitively as it does from anything like "invidious " inequality between voter and voter, let it shrink a little more from the most invidious of all inequalities, inequality in representative power between the voters of important constituencies full of activity and intelligence, and the voters of unimportant consti- tuencies who stand for the mere cyphers which increase the importance of some great landlord's name. We have never cavilled at nominal inequalities which may promote real and substantial equality, but we do cavil at a nominal equality which promotes real and substantial inequality. Now, of course, it is hopeless to expect in the present Bill anything beyond a diminution of power of the small boroughs, —constituencies alwaye bad, which this Bill is probably ex- pressly intended, and certainly expressly adapted, to make worse. But Mr. Disraeli has limited his purpose so as not even to confess the evil and attempt its diminution: ,HG confesses openly that he does not intend his redistribution of seats to be in any degree a remedy for the evil of unequally distributed power. It is only an attempt, he says, to intro- duce a few of the greatest borough constituencies, which are at present:wh.011y Without a Voice in Parliainent, into the area of Parliamentary representation. • But alniost, in the same tlx. in which he said this he virtuallyrecanted it by preposing a num- ber of new divisions of county constituencies,—constituencies already represented, even though inadequately represented,—in the House of Commons. The truth is, that Mr. Disraeli dare not add to the influence of the great boroughs without putting an equal weight into the scale of the great counties. And hence, even when he is abjuring all pretence of redistributing the power of the constituencies, he contrives a county make- weight for those new borough constituencies which he feels himself compelled to introduce. It is clear, then, that Mr. Disraeli is not merely finding room for a few wholly excluded and very important constituencies ;—he is also guarding against even the least transfer of power from the small boroughs.„, to the great, so'an.xious is he to balance the new borough con- stituencies which he introduces with new county constituencies of equal influencei' yire 'think the,Liberals: ought not to be content with this,—that they should Secure, at least, 'some substantial transfer of pOwer frOM the small and dePendent borough constituencies,--town constittiencies only: in.name,. to the large" and and independent' 137nloigh, "constituencies.. Equality in 'representative infixteiice betsfeed 11Fse- ` holder in . Manchester' and a ' householder in -Chichester is not, of course, to be hoped for:'. That wouldin;olve soniething like` e•Epial electoral districts, for which good Liberals, are being fast driven by the new Tory policy to contend.. But on.'a clear recognition of the greater right, —bec'ause greater political intelligence and activity, as well as greater population--of the large cities than the small. boroughs; to Parlianientary influence, we should at once insist., At present each Malichester householder has not only forty- seven times less representative influence than' eachChichester householder, but he has probnbly threetireee intelligence and independence. - Sohe is WrOned.botlt: ways ; forty-seven Manchester householders hgve 1s infln-s ence than one Chichester householder, and yet it lettat dred times as much political independence, ability, and capacity. No doubt the great boroughs, like the'small,swill-hkeitheir modes of electoral corruption. The public-houselieepers of Mary- lebone have almost as much electoral influence as the land- owners of Honiton. But there is at least thus much in favour of the great boroughs,—that not only is there usually a much larger proportion of political intelligence there, caused by the mere general vitality and animation of the place, but there is that political vitality and animation a great store of reme-- dial power,—of vis medicatrix naturce,—for such corruption as exists. There is not life enough in a place like Totnes to feel the evil, disgrace, or annoyance of being: misrepresented by means of bribed votes. But in large and living towns, if the- same mischief arises through public-house agencies, we shall soon have some effective, even if rough remedy. We may even see Liberals before long assenting, in despair of a better and juster remedy, to the' Permissive Bill, if it be found that the independence and pelitiealiitelligence of the great boroughs are drowned in their beer. ' We haie, never approved of the Permissive Bill. - But of the two injustices,—the the in- justice' 'of''cli:uaring the 'political mind of the ceiniminiq in beer supplied by the money of candidates, and the- injAliCet of denying ordinary people a wholesome and harmless in- dulgence,—we should Probably prefer the latter. Anyhow, there is no doubt that even "the residuum" will be kept in check in great cities by the political ability and energy of the place. In petty boroughs there is seldom indeed enough popular vitality to resent wholesale tampering ;with's. the constituency, 4nd therefointh'e effect of this Bill "inw in Y a 'e"the resiauum";eIiilp;Obably b ilmat% chievous. • ' " • -4' • S' • ,"" - " .11 We trust therefore- the Liberals maSt be relied upon to vote as a party for such eitenshin of the 'rediirrilitttion of seats as shall at least sensibly increase the power, of the large, active, and intelligent constituencies, and sensibly dimi- nish that of the small, torpid, and venal ones. If only the limit of population for the loss of one member could be fixed at 10,000, instead of 8,000, and the seats gained given to the great borough constituencies, something would have been' done, and the Tories would be shown in their true light as reactionaries against any true electoral equality between the boroughs which think their own political thoughts, and boroughs which are only speaking-trumpets for the thoughts of the " propertied " classes. ' •
Previous page
