Mr. Stansfeld, in presiding yesterday week at the inauguration of
a Radical Club and Association for Southwark, had the courage to say a good word for the direct representation of Labour in Parliament,—the suggestion on which Mr. Bright always throws cold water with so much energy. Mr. Stansfeld pointed out that without very special efforts, the natural difficulties in the way would prevent the direct representation of labour in Parliament ; and that though it might be plausibly enough said that in electing a Mem- ber you ought not to consider to what class he belonged, but rather what personal qualifications of mind and character for re- presenting the people he possessed, yet that in point of fact one of the most adventitious of qualifications for a Member of Parlia- ment,—the possession of wealth,—practically so vastly outweighs the moral qualifications, that while Parliament is crammed with embodied money-bags, it has but two men who can pretend in any way to understand by personal experience the political needs of the working-classes. This being so, it is obvious that the mere fact of belonging to the working-class, though not the most important of all qualifications, is much more important for legislative usefulness, in a Parliament composed as ours now is, than almost any other qualification, short of the highest. And to this statement of the case by Mr. Stansfeld we confess that we cannot see any possibility of an adequate reply. And for the same reason, a larger sprinkling of tenant-farmers would be equally desirable.
Previous page
