Chapter 3

FRANCHISE AND REDISTRIBUTION

JULY TO DECEMBER, 1884.

In the summer of 1884 the Government Bill for extension of the franchise had strong and even passionate support throughout the country; but that policy threatened a breach with Lord Hartington, who in the opinion of many was by prescriptive right Mr. Gladstone's successor. Still more entangling were the difficulties in respect of Egypt, over which the Government was so hopelessly divided that no coherent policy could be pursued. Sir Charles notes that on July 18th Mr. Gladstone,

'who had the greatest abhorrence for City dinners, proposed the extinction of the Lord Mayor's ministerial banquet; the fact being that the Government of London Bill and the failure to send an expedition to Khartoum had made the Ministry so unpopular in the City that he did not think it wise to subject himself to the torture which such banquets are to him.'

'The Tory game,' Sir Charles wrote on May 24th, 1884, to his agent, 'is to delay the franchise until they have upset us upon Egypt, before the Franchise Bill has reached the Lords.' [Footnote: This letter is also quoted in Chapter XXXIV.]

When the Franchise Bill went up to the Lords in the first week of July, it was rejected for a reasoned amendment which declined to alter the franchise except as part of a scheme dealing with redistribution of seats.

'On July 5th there was a Cabinet to consider what was called the crisis--our relations with the House of Lords over the franchise, and Spencer was present.... The question to be considered was that of dissolution or an autumn Session. Lord Granville, Hartington, and Lord Derby were for an immediate dissolution on the old franchise, which was at once negatived.'

'On June 21st there was mentioned the attitude of the House of Lords. Lord Granville said something in favour of life peerages. I asked Chamberlain whether he thought that it was seriously meant, and writing passed between us in which he replied: "Serious, I think"; to which I answered: "You won't have it, will you?" Answer: "No."'

'On July 7th Mr. Gladstone explained to me his plan for dealing with the House of Lords, which was not so objectionable to me as the schemes known as "Reform of the House of Lords." It was to imitate the French constitution, and in cases of difference to make the two Houses sit in Congress and vote together. From the practical point of view it would be as difficult to carry as the abolition of the House of Lords, and if carried would not be of much use to the Liberal party except on occasions when their majority was absolutely overwhelming.

'On July 8th offers of compromise came to us from the Lords, but they would not offer terms which we could accept. We decided to propose to them a solemn resolution by both Houses pledging us to redistribution. This they refused.'

The extent of real agreement which existed between the two sides had not yet been divined; and it was Sir Charles who set on foot the work which finally averted conflict.

'Early in July I began to take time by the forelock by preparing, without instructions from the Cabinet, a Redistribution scheme; and the first memoranda drawn up by Sir John Lambert for my use were written in that month, although it was not till after Parliament had separated for the recess that we got seriously to work. In the evening of July 14th Mr. Gladstone broached to me his views on Redistribution, and we practically hatched the Bill.'

Party feeling ran high, and the Queen intervened.

'On July 9th in the morning Sir Henry Ponsonby came up to see the Duke of Richmond and some of us, and tried to settle the deadlock, but failed.... The Cabinet decided that Chamberlain must not take the chair at a meeting at the Agricultural Hall to denounce the House of Lords.'

Liberals in general were, however, speaking out, and at a Cabinet a week later they had 'some fun with Hartington concerning his Lancashire meetings, with strong resolutions directed against the House of Lords for doing that which he privately approved.' Also, there was a tremendous demonstration in the Metropolis.

'On July 21st I saw the Franchise Demonstration on this day from the Speaker's window, the procession passing from three till six.'

'After the Cabinet on August 5th we congratulated Chamberlain upon his Birmingham franchise meeting, and he told us that Birmingham was "thirsting for the blood of the Lords"--saying to Bright: "You are too lenient with them. We won't stand them any longer." I told him that as the _Times_ had said that he was too violent, I had no doubt the Queen would say so also, to which he replied: "Probably, and if she does I shall most likely ... deny her right to criticise my speeches, although she may, if she likes, dismiss me, in which case I will lead an agitation against the Lords in the country." I answered: "Yes, but you cannot go alone in such a case, and therefore should not appear to contemplate doing so." He replied: "I am not going, but perhaps she can dismiss me. What then? I am not going to tie my tongue." I retorted: "In that case it would surely be even more essential than usual that I should go too." He closed the matter by saying: "If it really arose out of the agitation against the Lords and the interference of the Crown with the liberty of speech of ministers, I do not see how a Radical could stay in. Remember, I have observed Mr. Gladstone's limits. I have said nothing about the future; only denounced past action."'

Mr. Chamberlain's outside agitation coincided with Sir Charles's work towards a peaceful solution. On August 9th

'A Committee of the Cabinet was appointed to deal with Redistribution--to consist of Hartington, Kimberley, Childers, Chamberlain, and me, with the addition of Lefevre. They forgot James, who was anxious to be on it, [Footnote: Sir Charles wrote to Sir Henry James on the matter, and received a reply admitting that he had been "slightly touched" by the omission of his name, but saying that he would still give his services.] but I soon got rid of the Committee and went on by myself with Lambert.'

Parliament was prorogued on August 14th, but very soon compromise was in the air.

'On August 21st and 22nd I had interviews with Hartington at his wish, nominally to talk over the sending of Wolseley to Egypt, but really to see what I thought of a compromise with the Lords on the basis of Lord Cowper's letter in the _Times_--introduction of the Redistribution Bill in October.'

The situation was profoundly modified by speeches from Lord Salisbury, which made it clear that the plan "hatched" between Mr. Gladstone and Sir Charles was not likely to have any terrors for him. Lord Kimberley wrote in September:

'Now that Salisbury is going in for electoral districts, it will become a sort of open competition which party can go furthest. I should not be surprised if he were to trump us by proposing to abolish the House of Lords.'

'I had now decided to agree with Lord Salisbury in advance, and divide the counties into single-member districts if Mr. Gladstone would let me; and Trevelyan, to whom I had broached my scheme, wrote: "I very much approve of the scheme of dividing counties. I hope to goodness you will be able to carry it out."'

The original draft, completed on September 18th, followed the lines laid down in consultation with Mr. Gladstone. The object of obtaining fair representation, and doing away with over-representation of vested interests, was thus attacked and began with two great industrial centres.

The scheme for England treated Lancashire and Yorkshire as urban throughout, and divided them into single-member districts; but the remaining 'rural' counties of England were divided into two-member districts. Thus, 'the net increase of county members was 53.' Boroughs which had less than 10,000 inhabitants (53 in all) were merged into the counties; those with a population of between 10,000 and under 40,000, which had two members, lost one. Thus, having added to the under- represented, Sir Charles took from the over-represented, and adds: 'this gave us 33 more seats.' Sir Charles in a secret memorandum added that he thought the fixing of so low a limit as 10,000 showed 'an altogether indefensible tenderness to vested interests.' 'I should carry the loss of one member far higher than the 40,000 line adopted, and should take away one member up to the point at which I began to give two' to a new constituency. Dilke was in favour of carrying merger of small boroughs to a greater extent than was adopted in the Act.

'Summing up, on our English borough scheme,' he said, 'I am struck by its _extreme_ timidity. I do not see how it is to stand the revolutionary criticism of Lord Salisbury.' 'My plan for the Metropolis gave to it its legitimate proportion of members: 55 in all.... These figures should be compared with 22--the previous number.'

As to Ireland, he admitted that 'if you take its population as a whole it was over-represented in our plan; yet the difference in favour of Ireland is very small; moreover, Wales is vastly better treated than Ireland.' Lord Spencer 'thought there would be a howl from Belfast,' and wished for the representation of minorities. 'But the Irish Government made no practical proposal,' and the whole of this intricate business was left almost entirely to Sir Charles.

'On September 29th Mr. Gladstone wrote at length conveying his general approval of my plan, and stating that he did not intend to "handle" the Bill in the House of Commons; and so wished to defer to the opinions of his colleagues. He gave me leave to add 12 members to the House for Scotland, instead of taking the 12 from England; and he congratulated me upon the "wonderful progress" which I had made.... On the same day on which I had received Mr. Gladstone's