Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

a Guildhall speech is never to be criticised with cold exactitude, and the bill itself, as it was presented on the 18th of March, 1867, was listened to with anxious interest by a densely crowded house, though so many propositions had previously been submitted to members and to the country. It cannot be denied that the plan now proposed, when taken in connection with the difficulties and prejudices with which the authors of it had had to contend, was wide and inclusive in its character.

house, met with such an unmistakable rejection that it was withdrawn in almost as great a hurry as that in which it was said to have been prepared. On the 18th of March the "real original" bill was introduced by the chancellor of the exchequer in a long address. The expected measure had already raised anticipatory dissatisfaction both in the government and the opposition. As we have seen it had caused a split in the ministry, and had been discussed and opposed and altered till everybody was wondering what would be its similitude either to the original proposition of its framers or to the measure which the Liberals had been obliged to abandon because of a provoking resolution by which they lost a ma-habitant occupier, whether as owner or tenant, jority and had in consequence to resign office and to see most of their proposals and intentions appropriated. The question now was, how far would those proposals be altered or modified in accordance with professed Conservative opinions?

Mr. Disraeli afterwards said at the civic banquet at Guildhall: "What is the Tory party if it does not represent national feeling. ... The Tory party is nothing unless it represent and uphold the institutions of the country. For what are the institutions of the country? They are entirely, in theory, and I am glad to see they are likely to be in practice, the embodiment of the national necessities, and the only security for national privileges. Well, then, I cannot help believing that because my Lord Derby and his colleagues have taken a happy opportunity to enlarge the privileges of the people of England we have not done anything but strengthen the institutions of this country, the essence of whose force is that they represent the interests and guard the rights of the people." This was an after-dinner speech, and was of course cheered to the echo. It was in effect a very bold and happy way of avoiding the recollection that Lord Derby and the Tories had remonstrated against parliamentary reform; that the premier had only yielded with the utmost reluctance and professed foreboding; that there had been divisions and resignations in the Conservative councils, and that the bill itself was, after all, very much a compromise. Still

The franchise in boroughs was to be conferred on every man of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, who for the whole of the preceding two years had been the in

of any dwelling-house within the borough, and had during the time of his occupation of it been rated to all rates (if any) made for the relief of the poor in respect of these premises, and had before the 20th of July paid all rates due up to the preceding 5th day of January.

The franchise in counties was to be conferred on every man of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, who on the last day of July in any year, and during the preceding twelve months, had been the occupier as owner or tenant of premises of any tenure within the county, of the ratable value of fifteen pounds or upwards, and had during the time of his occupation been rated to all rates made for the relief of the poor, and had paid before the 20th of July all rates due by him on that property since the preceding 5th of January.

In addition to the franchises thus made to depend on the ownership or occupation of property, it was also proposed that there should be an educational franchise, to be conferred on all graduates or associates in arts of any university of the United Kingdom; on any male person who has passed at any senior middle-class examination of any university of the United Kingdom; on any ordained priest or deacon of the Church of England, or minister of any other denomination; on barristers, pleaders, attorneys, medical men, and certificated schoolmasters.

A pecuniary franchise was also to belong to every man who on the 1st of July in any year,

THE CONSERVATIVE REFORM BILL, 1867.

and during the two years immediately preceding, had had a balance of not less than fifty pounds deposited in a savings-bank or in the Bank of England, or in any parliamentary stocks or funds, or had during the twelve months immediately preceding the 5th of April in any year been charged with and paid twenty shillings for assessed taxes and incometax. Another clause of the bill, which was perhaps its most novel feature, provided that a person registered as a voter for a borough by reason of his having been charged with and paid the requisite amount of assessed taxes and income-tax, or either of such taxes, should not by reason of being so registered lose any right to which he might be entitled (if otherwise duly qualified) to be registered as a voter for the same borough in respect of any franchise involving occupation of premises and payment of rates, and when registered in respect of such double qualification he should be entitled to give two votes for the member (or, if there were more than one, for each member) to be returned to serve in parliament for the borough.

The provisions for the redistribution of seats were that Totness, Reigate, Great Yarmouth, and Lancaster should cease to return any member; that Honiton, Thetford, Wells, Evesham, Marlborough, Norwich, Richmond, Lymington, Knaresborough, Andover, Leominster, Tewkesbury, Ludlow, Ripon, Huntingdon, Maldon, Cirencester, Bodmin, Great Marlow, Devizes, Hertford, Dorchester, and Lichfield, should henceforward only return one; that the Tower Hamlets should be divided into two boroughs, each returning two members; that the following counties, or divisions of counties, should be divided into two parts, each returning two members to parliament: South Devon, West Kent, North Lancashire, South Lancashire, Lincoln (parts of Lindsay), Middlesex, South Staffordshire, and East Surrey; that Torquay, Darlington, Hartlepool, Gravesend, St. Helens, Burnley, Staleybridge, Wednesbury, Croydon, Middlesborough, Dewsbury, and Bursley, and the University of London, should each return one member to parliament.

The bill was based on the principle embodied in Lord Dunkellin's motion. Thus, in

229

stead of drawing a £5, £6, or £7 line to cut off what had been called the residuum, that is to say the class whose extreme poverty rendered them most liable to be bribed or improperly influenced, the government boldly adopted household suffrage, with the qualification of the payment of rates; thus excluding from the franchise compound householders, who did not pay their rates personally, and those whose rates, under various acts, were compounded for by their landlords, and all lodgers. Mr. Disraeli calculated that his bill would admit 237,000 additional voters, but would leave 486,000 still excluded from the borough franchise, and that the result of his whole plan would be that one quarter of the voting power would belong to the aristocracy, another quarter to the working-classes, and the remaining half to the middle classes. Such was his proposed "balance of political power."

When the question of the second reading was brought forward Mr. Gladstone, who had conferred with a meeting of his parliamentary followers at his own house, consented against his own opinion, but in deference to the views and wishes of a large portion of them, and to avoid disunion in the Liberal camp, to allow that stage of the bill to pass without a division. But he expressed the strongest objections to it, and enumerated the following features in it which he regarded as highly objectionable:-The omission of the lodger franchise; the omission of provisions against traffic in votes of householders of the lowest class by corrupt payment of the rates; disqualifications of compound householders under the existing law; additional disqualifications of compound householders under the proposed law; a franchise founded on direct taxation; the dual vote; the inadequate redistribution of seats; the inadequate reduction of the franchise in counties; the proposal to adopt votingpapers; and the collateral or special franchises.

The dual vote, almost universally condemned, was withdrawn. After much discussion and with considerable difficulty the bill went into committee; and the formal clauses, containing the title and excluding from its operation Ireland, Scotland, and the two universities, were passed.

On the 5th of April about 140 members of the Liberal party met at Mr. Gladstone's house to determine on the course which, under the circumstances in which they were placed, should be adopted with regard to the government bill. It was decided at this meeting that Mr. Coleridge should propose the following resolution before the house went into committee on the reform bill:-"That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to alter the law of rating; and to provide that in every parliamentary borough the occupiers of tenements below a given ratable value be relieved from liability to personal rating, with a view to fix a line for the borough franchise, at which all occupiers shall be entered on the rate-book, and shall have equal facilities for the enjoyment of such franchise as a residential franchise." Much discussion took place with regard to this proposal, and some difference of opinion was expressed; but it was understood to be decided that the motion should be brought forward on the 8th of April, the day on which the house was to go into committee on the bill. However, on that very evening a meeting, consisting of between forty and fifty members of the Liberal party, was held in the tea-room of the House of Commons. At this meeting it was agreed that the persons composing it should unite for the purpose of limiting the instructions to be proposed by Mr. Coleridge to the first clause of his resolution, which applied to the law of rating. They then appointed a deputation to Mr. Gladstone to convey to him the feeling of the meeting, and to assure him that the members composing it would continue to give him a loyal support in committee. Mr. Gladstone, finding that by the defection of so many of his supporters he was almost certain to incur a defeat, yielded to their demands, and the resolution was altered accordingly. Mr. Disraeli accepted the altered resolution, and the house then went into committee on the bill. Thereupon Mr. Gladstone gave notice of several important amendments, which Mr. Disraeli declared to be the relinquished instructions in another form, and distinctly announced that if they should be carried, the government would not proceed with the bill. As most of

the members who composed the meeting at the tea-room still held together, and were known as "the tea-room party," a majority of twenty-one defeated the first of Mr. Gladstone's resolutions. After this he could not hope to carry his remaining resolutions; he therefore announced his intentions in a letter to Mr. Crawford, one of the members for the city, who had asked him whether he intended to persevere in moving the amendments of which he had given notice. In reply to this question Mr. Gladstone wrote:-"The country can hardly now fail to be aware that those gentlemen of the Liberal party whose convictions allow them to act unitedly on the question are not a majority, but a minority, in the existing House of Commons; and they have not the power they were supposed to possess of limiting or directing the action of the administration, or shaping the provisions of the reform bill. Still, having regard to the support which my proposal with respect to personal rating secured from so large a number of Liberal members, I am not less willing than heretofore to remain at the service of the party to which they belong; and when any suitable occasion shall arise, if it shall be their wish, I shall be prepared again to attempt concerted action upon this or any other subject for the public good. But until then, desirous to avoid misleading the country and our friends, I feel that prudence requires me to withdraw from my attempts to assume the initiative in amending a measure which cannot, perhaps, be effectually amended except by a reversal, formal or virtual, of the vote of Friday the 11th; for such attempts, if made by me, would, I believe, at the present critical moment, not be the most likely means of advancing their own purpose. Accordingly I shall not proceed with the amendments now on the paper in my name, nor give notice of other amendments such as I had contemplated; but I shall gladly accompany others in voting against any attempt, from whatever quarter, to limit yet farther the scanty modicum of enfranchisement proposed by the government, or in improving, where it may be practicable, the provisions of the bill."

The discussion of Mr. Gladstone's first re

CONCESSIONS OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY.

solution showed that a very great confusion of opinion existed in the ranks both of the ministerialists and of their opponents; for while Sir William Heathcote, Lord Cranborne, and Mr. Beresford Hope, all stanch Conservatives, strongly assailed the government, the measure was supported by Mr. Roebuck and several advanced Radicals, who hoped, and as the result showed, not without reason, that they would be able to transform it into such a measure as they desired. The tea-room party were, in fact, able to take advantage of the discussions, and the evidently yielding tendency of the government, to obtain concessions practically identical with household suffrage in boroughs.

On the 17th of May Mr. Hodgkinson, member for Newark, proposed to add to the third clause of the bill the following words, which would have the effect of abolishing the system of compounding for rates in parliamentary boroughs:-"That no person other than the occupier shall be rated to parochial rates in respect of premises occupied by him within the limits of a parliamentary borough, all acts to the contrary notwithstanding." The system which this motion was designed to destroy had all along been regarded and represented as one of the great Conservative safeguards of the bill. The government, as was well known, had secured a majority. Mr. Gladstone, aware of this, came into the house expecting, as a matter of course, that the motion would be rejected; Mr. Disraeli's own colleagues entertained the same expectation; when, to the astonishment probably of every one present, Mr. Disraeli, acting entirely on his own responsibility, accepted the amendment --which had the effect of nearly quadrupling the number of electors on whom the franchise would be conferred-and afterwards persuaded his colleagues that the adoption of this proposition was an improvement of the measure. When the committee again met, Mr. Ayrton moved a resolution reducing the period of residence required for the franchise from two years to one. The motion was resisted by the government, but on a division was carried by 270 to 197. Mr. Disraeli at once announced that he could not proceed with the

231

bill without consultation with his colleagues; and another ministerial crisis seemed to be impending; but on the following night he announced that the government had decided to bow to the decision of the house and persevere with their measure.

Meanwhile the bill went steadily forward, the Liberal leaders now hoping to make it all that they had desired, and the government, conceding a ten-pound lodger franchise, abandoning the fancy franchises, reducing the county qualification from £15 to £10, raising the standard of semi-disfranchisement from 7000 to 10,000, and consequently the number of boroughs condemned to lose one of their representatives to forty-six. They proposed to distribute the seats thus placed at their disposal in the following manner: two to Hackney, two to Chelsea with Kensington; one each to twelve boroughs which up to this time had not been represented. Additional members were to sit for each of the following counties or county divisions-West Kent, North Lancashire, and East Surrey; to divide South Lancashire into two, and Lincolnshire, Derbyshire, Devonshire, Somersetshire, the West Riding of Yorkshire, Cheshire, Norfolk, Staffordshire, and Essex, into three electoral districts, each of them to be represented by two members. It was also proposed that the Universities of London and Durham should be combined for the purpose of returning a joint representative, instead of the member being given to London University alone, as had originally been intended.

Mr. Disraeli, however, did not succeed in the attempt to amalgamate the High Church University of Durham with the somewhat Liberal and freethinking University of London. After two divisions, in one of which the word "university" was substituted for "universities," and in the other the motion to add the word "Durham" was rejected, the proposal made for extending to the counties the system of voting by papers, which had already been adopted for the universities, was also rejected..

It was evident that the new ministry, in spite of the previous declarations, was prepared, or had been persuaded, to recede from

almost any propositions founded on those declarations, should their persistence threaten to prevent the measure from passing. Mr. Horsfall's proposal for giving a third member each to Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham was at first strongly opposed by the government, but was at length conceded by Mr. Disraeli, who also added Leeds to the list of towns which were thus to have increased representation.

So often had the chancellor of the exchequer, representing the ministry, protested, hinted at a possible resignation, taken time to consider the position of the government, and yielded, that these proceedings had almost become formal observances when amendments 'were persisted in by the opposition. At the beginning of the session, when the bill was disclosed in which it was proposed to proceed by resolutions, Mr. Lowe had said a simple bill was wanted which would bring the question to an issue. He was ashamed to hear, addressed to him as a 658th part of the house, such language as this: "If the house will deign to take us into its council, if it will co-operate with us in this matter, we shall receive with cordiality, with deference, nay, even with gratitude, any suggestion it likes to offer. Say what you like to us, only for God's sake leave us our places!"

It seemed as though Mr. Disraeli had retained the principle on which he had proposed proceeding by resolutions,-that he was determined to pass a reform bill which should be composed of resolutions from both sides of the house, and to make those compromises which would enable the ministry to maintain its footing.

Nor had he concealed this intention; for in the discussion on the second reading of the bill he had said: "All I can say on the part of my colleagues and myself is, that we have no other wish at the present moment than, with the co-operation of the house, to bring the question of parliamentary reform to a settlement. I know the parliamentary incredulity with which many may receive avowals on our part that we are only influenced in the course we are taking by a sense of duty; but I do assure the house, if they need such assurances

after what we have gone through, after the sacrifices we have made, after having surrendered our political connections with men whom we more than respected, I can assure them that we have no other principle that animates us but a conviction that we ought not to desert our posts until this question has been settled. . . We are prepared, as I think I have shown, to act in all sincerity in this matter. Act with us, cordially and candidly, and assist us to carry out as we are prepared to do, as far as we can act in accordance with the principles which we have not concealed from you this measure, which we hope will lead to a settlement of the question consistent with the maintenance of the representative character of this house. Act with us, I say, cordially and candidly; you will find on our side complete reciprocity of feeling. Pass the bill, and then change the ministry if you like."

There could have been very little doubt of the difficulties which had been experienced, or of the surrenders that had been made by the time that the bill had passed. The chancellor of the exchequer was believed to have controlled the ministry. Mr. Gladstone had not long before been charged with coercion towards his colleagues, and it was insinuated that he ruled his party. It was now Mr. Disraeli's turn to be assailed on the same ground.

"I say if we wish to make progress with this bill," said Mr. Bernal Osborne, "let us have no law. Let us rely on the chancellor of the exchequer. I say this without any innuendo respecting his sincerity. I always thought the chancellor of the exchequer the greatest Radical in this house. He has achieved what no other man in the country could have done. As I have said before, he has lugged up that great omnibus full of stupid, heavy country gentlemen-I only say 'stupid' in the parliamentary

[blocks in formation]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »