HL Deb 18 June 1883 vol 280 cc751-6
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, seeing the noble Earl (Earl Granville) in his place, I wish to ask him a Question on a matter of some public interest—namely, Whether the intimations of policy that were given by Mr. Chamberlain, President of the Board of Trade, at Birmingham, last week, are to be looked upon as the views of Her Majesty's Government? The language to which I refer is reported as follows. The right hon. Gentleman begins by saying that the House of Commons is not so Radical as the country, and not so Radical as the Government; and then, after discussing questions of representation, he ends as follews:— Now, shall we put the dots on the is? What do we want? We want, in the first place, a suffrage from which no man who is not disqualified by crime or the receipt of relief, who is expected to fulfil the obligations of citizenship, should be excluded. We want equal electoral districts in order that every vote may have an equal value; and we want, I think, the payment of Members in order that any man who has the capacity to serve his country, who has honesty and intelligence, and who is selected for that purpose by his fellow-countrymen, shall not be excluded for want of means. That is what we want. What we shall get is a different matter. We may have once more to take a composition. Then he goes on to say that a composition will not be looked upon as a discharge. Of course, it is obvious that the plain and natural meaning of that language is that that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government; it follows so necessarily from what is stated in the rest of the speech, and the announcement is made in so uncompromising a manner, that it would be evident to anyone reading it that Mr. Chamberlain was simply doubting how much this Radical Government would get out of this Conservative House of Commons. I have ventured, using Mr. Chamberlain's own words, myself to put the dots on the i's in order that I may get—as I have no doubt I shall get from the noble Earl—the avowal of a policy which might be stated in a more formal manner, and in a more suitable locality, and which I shall be glad to have explained by the noble Earl.

EARL. GRANVILLE

My Lords, the noble Marquess has, with his usual courtesy, given me Notice of a Question as to whether the views of Her Majesty's Government are those expressed by Mr. Chamberlain on the subject of the lowering of the franchise, and on the question of the payment of Members. I think that the same Question is to be asked by Mr. Warton in "another place," where there will be the advantage of Mr. Chamberlain's presence. I was at Birmingham myself last week; but not at the same time as Mr. Chamberlain. But I had the pleasure of seeing my right hon. Friend as soon as I received the noble Marquess's note; and he informs me of what is obvious from the text of his speech, and from the words quoted by the noble Marquess—namely, that his statement was the expression of his own individual views, and of what he believed to be the views of his constituents. In no sense whatever was he stating those views as embodying what would be proposed as a legislative measure, by himself, or by Her Majesty's Government. I am not sure that I need give any further explanation on the subject; but, for the information of the 'noble Marquess, I will say that I myself, and the Members of the Government in this House, entirely agree with the Members of the Cabinet in the House of Commons, who have all voted in favour of getting rid of what to us is an unwise and unjust anomaly—the difference between the franchise in boroughs and counties. I believe I am right in thinking that all Members of the Cabinet agree with what is stated to be the opinion of many Members of the House of Commons, that any measure for the reduction of the franchise must be followed by a measure for the redistribution of seats. It may be a want of curiosity on my part, but I have never asked my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack whether he is in favour of universal suffrage; I have never asked the President of the Council whether he is in favour of equal electoral districts, and I have never asked my three noble Friends behind me whether they think that Members of Parliament should be paid or should not be paid. I think this signifies less, because I expect, and indeed believe, that Her Majesty's Government, during the present Parliament, will be able to bring in a Bill or Bills on Parliamentary Reform, which will give, in the most authentic and effective manner, the views of the Government on the subject.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, as far as I understand the noble Earl, Her Majesty's Government do not themselves believe in manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, and payment of Members; but Mr. Chamberlain believes in them in a modified way. He believes in them in Birmingham; but he does not believe in them in Downing Street. There is some difficulty, however, in realizing the divided individuality which the noble Earl attributes to Mr. Chamberlain. We have, I believe, no precedent for it in our political history. Mr. Chamberlain, when joined with Her Majesty's Government, will repudiate manhood suffrage, will decline to vote for equal electoral districts, and will refuse payment to Members. But when he goes down to Birmingham he will vote for all these. I do not understand this plan of splitting Cabinet Ministers in two. The noble Earl gate us a specimen of that the other night. We blamed Lord Derby for announcing beforehand, on entering upon a negotiation, that he was in no case prepared to go to war. The noble Earl answered—" Oh, yes; but when you were in Office Lord Derby said the same thing on your behalf. Lord Derby stated in reference to Constantinople that in no case would England be allowed to go to war." So that in this particular case the noble Earl defended Lord Derby of the present against the attacks of his Colleagues in the past by saying that when Lord Derby was your Colleague he did the same thing. That appears to me precisely to be what has taken place in the case of Mr. Chamberlain. He talks of getting a composition. But what does he mean? He is a Member of the Government from whom the composition is to be obtained. So that Mr. Chamberlain, who is in favour of manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, and payment of Members at Birmingham, will beat down the Government, and is kind enough to say that he will accept some composition from Mr. Chamberlain in Downing Street. But he will not admit that this is a discharge for the future. I do not think that Parliamentary annals contain precedents for this division of character. But I have seen a precedent in the case of a Predecessor of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, whose acts and deeds are nightly represented in a theatre in this town, and who was disposed to commit himself for a contempt of Court, because he allowed himself to make love to a ward in Chancery without obtaining his own consent. That is very much the division of character to which Mr. Chamberlain has committed himself. But while I object on Constitutional grounds to this division of Ministerial responsibility, I cannot deny that, on prudential grounds, it has its admirable side. It is delightfully safe. It is what we call hedging. He is safe against either event. He is in the position of a man betting against his own horse. If it should happen in the future that manhood suffrage is carried it will be carried by the splendid exertions which Mr. Chamberlain, speaking as an agitator at Birmingham, has made. If it is not carried it will be repelled by the prudent Government of which Mr. Chamberlain, as President of the Board of Trade, forms a part. I should like to know whether, in the opinion of the noble Earl, this is consistent with the traditions and Constitutional usages which he has inherited? We used to imagine that on the most vital questions of the day the Ministry had one opinion; that, at all events, while they were in Office, they would support one set of opinions, and that any of them who wished to go further would not seek to gratify his desires, at any rate, until he was free from the responsibilities of Office. But now we have a wholly different doctrine. It appears that Ministers may not be agreed upon any one important matter which it is necessary that the Government of this country should consider. We had an instance of that lately in what I venture to consider is not a small matter, though it concerns a small space. We had the scandal as to the Contagious DiseasesActs, from which we are not free, and in which a Resolution against the Government in the House of Commons was carried by Members of the Government. We remember also how, at the beginning of the Session, Mr. Chamberlain announced that unless Ireland had an extension of local self-government she never would be at peace, and how Lord Harlington immediately retorted that it would be madness to extend local self-government in Ireland. And now we find, not only on the burning question of Ireland, but on questions of manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, and the payment of Members, Her Majesty's Government are absolutely disagreed. There is no longer any pretence of a united Cabinet in the Government that rules us. Now, in the face of the Constitutional doctrine which the noble Earl and his Colleagues have adopted, I think it would be becoming in future not to speak of the Government doing this or doing that; but to say — "A fraction of the Government has resolved on this, and a fraction of the Government to which I do not belong entertains such and such an opinion in such a case." We should then have an accurate representation of the state of things which exists in the Councils of the Government.

EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, as the noble Marquess put his Question first and made his speech afterwards, perhaps I may be allowed to add one word. The chief point of his speech was a comparison of Mr. Chamberlain's speech with his position in Her Majesty's Government and in the Cabinet. It appears to me that Mr. Chamberlain's position is very much like what the position of the noble Marquess was the other day when, speaking in his semiofficial capacity as Leader of the Opposition, he spoke of the desirability of retaliatory tariffs. The noble Marquess and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) in Birmingham stated that individual predilections should be free; but neither of them, as I understand, stated that he represented the views of those with whom he is associated, and both ended by saying that the thing itself was perfectly impossible.