Mr. Moran to Mr. Seward
Sir: In view of the interest manifested in the United States in the present political situation in England, I venture to lay before you some observations upon it which I trust will not be unacceptable to the government. And allow me to say that I do not pretend to a superior [Page 204] knowledge of the domestic politics of this country, but shall simply narrate facts as they stand. To begin, the political situation is by most English writers pronounced to be very unusual, a sudden subversion of all ordinary constitutional practice, quite abnormal. It will soon be seen in what its peculiar character consists; but it is not so strange or sudden as superficial observers fancy.
There is in power, no doubt, a conservative government, that is, a cabinet representing what is still called the tory party. It was for the want of consistency, however, in sustaining the doctrines of that party that Lord Carnarvon and Lord Cranborne felt that the ministry was not true to the party principles and they resigned. The plain truth is, however, that scarcely a veteran could be found now-a-days to abide by the old tory principles, the right divine of the royal authority, the duty of “keeping down” the people, protection and such doctrines; and there are many leading men among the conservatives who differ only in degree, if at all, from the liberals. Such men are Colonel Wilson Patten, Mr. Adderley, and Lord Stanley. The party is kept as one chiefly by the fact that its members have usually acted together. It possesses only a minority in the House of Commons, and got into power chiefly through a casual and temporary failure of unity among the liberals. The opportunity offering, it became urgently necessary to strike out a course that should render a tory government possible, if not actually popular, and Mr. Disraeli, who is by genius more of a litterateur than a statesman, struck out a policy which should reconcile the past of the party with its desired future, should reconcile tradition with progress, concession with something that looked like unity and should, above all, aid conservatism in competing with liberalism for popularity. He did invent his device. Mr. Gladstone had proposed a borough franchise based on a seven-pound rental. Mr. Disraeli proposed simply a household suffrage, with no limit, save that the registered elector should pay poor rates. Thus he offered a far more liberal extension of the franchise, and yet restored in spirit the ancient “scot and lot” system, the system under which that burgess should bear his “lot,” or share, of the “scot,” or money levied for the municipal uses of the place where he lived. The liberalism of the plan frightened many “consistent” tories like Lord Carnarvon, who is nevertheless a really liberal man. It delighted the bulk of the party as promising a final settlement of the franchise question.
The liberal party was weakened in various ways. Lord Palmerston had never impeded liberal measures, but had adroitly staved them off as much as possible. He was personally liked; his great age made opponents forbearing; and thus he kept down all strong party feeling. When Lord Palmerston died, the lead of the party naturally fell to the next most conspicuous member, William Ewart Gladstone, the friend and colleague of Peel. But many, especially among the whig section of the liberals, mistrusted his leaning to a liberalism too strong for them; low church, on the other hand, suspecting him—it is believed erroneously—of high church proclivities; and all rather charged him with an infirm temper—an idea which is more the result of his somewhat stern features and great earnestness than of real temper properly so called. The defection of liberals who thought him too forgiving helped his opponents, and he was thrown out on Lord Dunkellin’s amendment, to base the franchise on rating instead of rental. But for general purposes the liberals still hold a majority; and thus the government passes its measures solely by leave and license of the opposition.
Such was the position of parties when Mr. Disraeli introduced his budget of measures for the reform of the electoral system, including [Page 205] three bills to extend the franchise severally in England, Scotland, and Ireland, one to re-arrange the boundaries of parliamentary boroughs in England, and one to provide a more effectual check against bribery of electors. The English bill, as you know, is passed, notwithstanding the blunder, as some believe it, about personal rating, which disfranchised all “compound householders,” or occupants of houses owned by a landlord who has “compounded” for the rates or taxes on them in the lump, at a heavy discount allowed by the parish, and who recharges the amount paid in the rental; the tenant thus being exempted from one form of irksome and inconvenient payment. The liberals opposed the change, but it was allowed to pass, and it stands for probable reconsideration in a future Parliament. The, grand business remaining before Parliament is to complete the series of reform measures, so as to come into operation simultaneously with the English act in 1869; but the work has been hindered lately by a remarkable succession of ministerial crises.
The condition of Ireland, the outbreaks of Fenianism, the indifference rather than the active disloyalty of the majority among the population of the three Roman Catholic provinces had drawn serious attention to the “grievances” of the island; and among the grievances least justifiable, and least likely to be amended by the mere progress of improvement, was the existence of the established church in Ireland. It is vindicated as a “missionary church,” preaching the true doctrine of the Anglican faith; but it is supported by a compulsory impost, levied in the shape of clerical tithes mainly from a Eomanist population. It was to abolish that grievance by “disestablishing” the church—though with ample consideration for existing interests—that Mr. Gladstone introduced his three resolutions, asserting the principle, declaring that until further legislation no new appointments should be made, and inviting the Crown to place its “rights “at the disposal of Parliament. Ministers acknowledged the justice of extending religions equally in Ireland, but preached the policy of “levelling up” rather than “levelling down,” with a hint at endowing other creeds besides the established Protestant faith. So spoke Lord Mayo, the secretary of state for Ireland, early in March last; although the idea of endowment has since been disavowed by himself and his colleagues, and it is believed they had not definitively made up their minds when they first alluded to the subject. On the 3d of April Mr. Gladstone carried his motion that the House of Commons should go into committee on his resolutions by a net majority of 60, and on the 30th he carried his first resolution, in committee, by the larger majority of 65. Here was a ministerial crisis; and according to usage, ministers ought either to have resigned, or to have appealed to the judgment of the constituencies by dissolving Parliament.
This is the crucial difficulty of the whole situation. The very circumstance that a general election must follow the completion of the reform measures, renders a dissolution now equally objectionable to popular feeling and to sound judgment. Two elections within so short a period would entail a vast expense on nearly every class in the country; the principal exceptions being publicans, election agents, and bribed electors, who would reap a double harvest. At the same time, the conservatives very wisely represented that the proper arbiters on the new and great question of the Irish church would be the new constituencies, and not those already doomed to be extinguished, or rather merged. Therefore, said the liberals to the ministers, you must not dissolve, but resign. On the contrary, the ministers rejoined, with perfect warrant from the usage and settled opinion of the country, that a cabinet—especially one which has come into office in presence of a Parliament elected under a [Page 206] government of the opposite party—has a constitutional right to choose either of the two alternatives, resignation or dissolution. Moreover, those who began the unfinished work of reform should finish it; and therefore, argued the official party, let other questions stand over, leave us in peace to finish the reform measures, help us to acquit ourselves of the task quickly, and then we will dissolve as soon as you like; we will have the election in October or November if possible. In these views many of the soundest and most advanced liberals heartily concurred; but it is understood that Mr. Gladstone was advised by those immediately around him to persevere with his Irish bill. It was then resolved by the government to take the opinion of the house upon another subject, and if successful on that, to let the Irish question pass, not without resistance, but without making it a question on which the cabinet should stake its strength. The liberals exclaimed against the “unconstitutional” idea that a defeated government, convicted of having no majority in the representative chamber, could continue in office. But two influences imposed some check upon the more impatient liberals: the growing dissent of the most advanced and intelligent of their statesmen from a factious fight, and the fear of a dissolution, which probably would not have increased the liberal majority with the present constituency.
The measure chosen by the government for a trial of strength was the boundary bill, to which several boroughs took strong objections. The most obvious were, that the boundaries of the towns were often fixed arbitrarily, and not in accordance with the municipal boundaries; and that in some cases districts which would yield new liberal electors to vote in counties where they might contribute gains to the liberal cause, were arbitrarily annexed to towns where they were not wanted; some towns being actually star-shaped on the new outline of their parliamentary bounds. The committee on the bill stood for the 12th of May, but the result was that no trial of strength took place. The influence among the liberals heretofore pointed out, gathered force so much that quiet counsels prevailed, and the government, on its part, made a marked concession by agreeing that the objections advanced by the several boroughs should be referred to a select committee. All parties agreed. The committee was ultimately appointed, the cabinet naming the members with scrupulous fairness as between the parties, with Mr. Walpole, a member of the boundaries commission, to connect the two inquiries, and it has been getting through its work in a very satisfactory manner.
Thus all seemed smooth, when another ministerial crisis unexpectedly occurred in the committee of the whole house on the Scotch reform bill. Mr. Baxter moved and carried an amendment to provide the seven additional members which were to be conceded to Scotland by disfranchising all English boroughs under a population of 5,000, and the amendment was not only carried, but accepted by the government. Then Mr. Bouverie struck out a proviso in clause three, which placed the actual payment of rates among the essential qualifications of the voter. Poor-rates are a novelty in Scotland, the poor-law having been introduced so late as 1832, and not having yet been adopted by the whole country, though it is constantly extending, and Greenock is probably the sole electoral burgh still ignorant of poor-rates. Mr. Disraeli moved the adjournment of the debate till Monday, the 25th, and everybody understood that, whatever the Scotch members might say, he was resolved to abide by that principle of rating which he held to reconcile extended suffrage with respectability and therefore with conservatism.
The juncture found the position of parties in the main the same, and yet not without rather important differences. In the first place, [Page 207] speaking quite generally, the Scotch members formed no insignificant section of those liberals who were for leaving the present government undisturbed in order to get this very bill, and yet now those gentlemen were opposed to the cabirfet. On the other hand, the influence against undue pressure on the government had gained ground to an unexpected degree. The ministers had avowed that, saving the principle by which they had elected to take their stand, they were willing to consult the wishes of Scotch members and the local feeling and usage north of the Tweed, in a manner the most frank and practical. The week passed in quiet, informal council meeting on both sides, with still more quiet and informal negotiations between the two sides. The tories foresaw a more than probable liberal increase under the new constituency, but they desired— especially their leader did, and his colleagues stood by him—to finish their own work with eclat and to retire with dignity. And if some of the liberals were impatient of office, or others merely intolerant of a tory administration, under the lead of so inconsistent a strategist as Mr. Disraeli, the section of the party to which reference has more than once been made, representing as it did the old “Peelites,” the late government, and the most independent thinking statesmen, had acquired the mastery.
Mr. Gladstone had introduced his Irish bill without opposition; the second reading stood for Friday, the 22d instant; and independently of the fact that the second reading is usually accepted as determining the judgment of the house on the principle of a measure, additional importance was attached to the proceedings this time, from a belief, not without some warrant, that Mr. Gladstone intended to exact a pledge from the government that it would actually undertake to accept his bill so far as to support it in the House of Lords. That the government would refuse everybody knew, and hence there seemed the possibility of a third of those ministerial crises which Mr. Bright had already declared “too much for his nerves.” Mr. Gladstone, however, made no such unparliamentary demand; the opposition of the government—so necessary for consistency, and so essential to the position of ministers in the House of Lords, where the progress of the bill will no doubt be arrested —was quietly tolerated by the liberals; and the measure passed that telling stage by 54, a majority less than those which had carried forward the resolutions.
The incident was a favorable prelude to the meeting of Scotch members on the 23d, which terminated in a resolve to meet the government in a compromise, the Scotch members agreeing to disfranchise all who are exempted from poor-rates on the score of poverty, and the government, it was understood, agreeing to allow the franchise where there might be persons qualified, although there should be no poor-rates yet established in the town. The actual agreement on a middle term, however, necessarily stood for the evening of the adjourned debate in committee.
I have said that the position is not so anomalous as it looks—that is, “constitutionally.” In point of fact all parties seem now to be agreed that it will be best to finish the reform measure, and to leave any appeal by way of dissolution to the new constituencies. Thus the tory government, the government without a majority, is not allowed to “remain in power,” as the phrase is; it is simply permitted to finish a particular task in which all parties are engaged, which they all wish to get finished without hinderance, and which must be got out of the way before an appeal to the new constituencies—created in England, but yet to be finished off in Ireland and Scotland—can be possible. The peculiar [Page 208] interruption in the progress of that necessarily complex and lengthened task occasions a situation wholly without precedent, but involving no political principle.
As before remarked, the question of the new Scotch constituencies may be regarded as practically settled. On Monday evening, the 25th instant, Mr. Baxter demanded for that kingdom the 10 members it is proposed to extract from the representation of England; but the government refused, and was sustained in this refusal by a majority of 39 votes in a tolerably large house. Last evening they obtained a still larger majority against Mr. Graham’s amendment to divide Glasgow into three electoral districts. But they have yielded the promised seven, and thus succeeded in removing from serious controversy the Scotch part of their reform measures.
Next will come the Irish bill, but from present indications that will be carried in a form acceptable to both the ministry and the opposition. All, therefore, looks clear for an early closing session, it being now understood among members that the opposition have given up all present intention of displacing the ministry this year. They will, it is believed, go over to the new Parliament, indebted to the prime minister for securing by his tact a continuation of the leave and license of the opposition to finish the work in hand. The new elections will, in all probability, take place next spring, when will be made visible for the first time the constitution of the constituencies created by the reform measures passed in 1867 and 1868—measures characterized by Lord Derby, the prime minister under whom many of them were carried, as a “leap in the dark.”
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant,
Hon. William H. Seward, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.