THE LIBRARY
OF
THE UNIVERSITY
OF CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGELES
SPEECHES
BY
SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH DILKE,
BART., M.P.,
AUTHOR OF ' GREATER BRITAIN."
March, 1871, to March, 1872.
4^^ ^ ' n
LONDON :
ROBERT J. BUSH, 32, CHARING CROSS, S.W.
1872.
St ^^^
DA
dhAf
CONTENTS.
PAGE
Black Sea , . . . . .1
The Ballot ..... 24
Land . . . . .32
Free Schools ..... 39
Redistribution . . . . .48
Electoral Reform .... 58
House of Lords . . . . .70
Civil List ..... 76
405911
SPEECHES BY SIR CHARLES DILKE,
BART, M.P.
BLACK SEA.
A Speech delivered in the lloxiae of Commons on the dOth of
March, 1871, in moving a Resolution on the suhject of
the Black Sea Conference.
Mr. Speaker, — When, Sir, three Aveeks ago, this Motion
stood fixed for debate, it was postponed upon a statement by
the Premier that, so far as the Government were concerned,
they could not adequately discuss its terms until the publica-
tion of the proceedings of the Conference had su'pplied them
with their answer. At the same time it was declared that a
day would be given to its consideration. After that. Sir, I
must be allowed to express my deep regret that the Prime
^linister should have attempted to throw on me the responsi-
bility of the postponement of a measure, the success of which
I have very much at heart. Sir, we have now before us the
proceedings of the Conference, and if I refer to the point at
all, it is only because I wish to repeat now, Avhat on the
former occasion I said — namely, that the case that I have to
lay before the House was not affected by the fact that the
Conference was sitting, and is not now affected by its termi-
nation. The Motion calls in question the policy, under all the
circumstances of the case, of going into the Conference at the
outset. What, Sir, were those circumstances ? They were these.
A great Power declared her intention of violating her treaty en-
gagements. On that declaration, never withdrawn, but, on the
contrary, expressly declared to be " irrevocable,"we went into a
Conference. We went into that Conference — as I shall attempt
to show — without necessity, and with indecent haste. We ac-
cepted it on the suggestion of the friend of the violating Power,
JB
2 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
and at the worst moment of an appalling war, in wliicli the
Power proposing the Conference was engaged. We went into it
without concert with the Power who was our chief ally in the
war closed by the torn-up treaty, and on the suggestion of
her enemy. Those, Sir, are the circumstances to which the
Motion on the Paper alludes. I shall attempt to show that
it was both unwise and unjust to accept the Conference with-
out concert with each of our allies, and that it was fatal to
the respect in which treaties should be held, that, at such a
moment, and in such haste, we should go into a Conference
at all. By accepting the proposal of Prussia, I maintain
- — and I think that it can be proved — we have weakened
the securities of peace. It is, I should hope, hardly neces-
sary to discuss at length the character of the Piussian Note.
We ^ are, doubtless, all agreed that Earl Granville was
right when he said of it, that it was " a declaration of an in-
tention to violate " a treaty. The Turks called it a "denun-
ciation." Austria called it a "repudiation" — which is better
still. Repudiation is a harder name than even violation.
Violation may be the act of a Power that is only violent and
grasping ; but repudiation is the crime of a Minister who, like
the Russian Chancellor on tliis occasion, disi^lays a., cynical
contempt for public law. We are agreed, then, as to the Cir-
cular. Violent, however, as \yas its language, I admit that
our condemnation of it was sufficient. I admit that nothing
could have been better than Earl Granville's reply. I have
not to-day resorted to warmer words in describing tlie doctrine
of the Russian Chancellor than those which, throughout the
correspondence, Earl Granville habitually made use of. Well,
our allies agreed with us, and we marked our reprobation of
the Circular in an answer which every one approves. But, a
week or two later, we marred the effect of our answer — we
destroyed the utility of our answer — and we compromised the
dignity of the country and the security of peace by going into
a Conference upon that Circular, and that a Conference sug-
gested l)y Prussia, Avhich in this case meant — suggested by
Russia herself. Well — but we made a bargain. We extorted,
I shall be told, a promise that there was to be " no foregone
conclusion as to the result." Well, I know we said so. We
said so very often. I asked a gentleman, who is addicted to
arithmetical calculations, if he would kindly teU me how
Black Sea. 3
many times the phrase occurs in the Papers. This eminent
authority informs me —
"That 'no previous assumption' occurs 10 times in 8
despatches, 'no foregone conchision' 9 times in 7 despatches,
and 'no assumption' once, making a grand total of 20 such
phrases in IG despatches, not to mention 3 'foregone con-
clusions' in the index, and 2 'foregone conclusions' in the
Protocols ; or 25 in all."
There can be no doubt, then, that at least we said that there
should be " no foregone conclusion." Why, not content with
saying so ourselves, we made everybody else repeat our shib-
boleth. Indeed, Earl Granville, in the character of Jephthah,
obtained Biblical results ; for Prince Gortchakoff, for one, could
not pronounce his shibboleth at all at the first time of trying.
In No. 57 we made Count Bismarck telegraph to Prince
Gortchakoff, to make him telegraph back again to say that
there was " no foregone conclusion." The first time he said,
by telegraph to London —
"The formula is to be that the Conference shall meet
without the previous assumption of any foregone conclusion.
That is also our view. Each one will bring to it his own
unfettered opinion."
This was all wrong ; so we applied to him again, Avhen, in
order to be quite sure, he dictated the words in English, as
the House will find at No. 1 1 G. He did not exactly know
what the phrase might mean; but, Avhatever it was, he was
ready to swallow it whole and agree to it at once, in order to
get into the Conference. Count Bismarck was more frank with
us. He told us plainly, that the phrase upon which we
plumed ourselves was so unnecessary as to make our anxiety
iibout it appear ridiculous. At No. 82 he said —
" A Conference without a clear understanding that it was
subject to no previous assumption as to its results, would
defeat its own objects, and be useless."
For my part, I think that, understanding or no under-
standing, it was useless, in face of the Czar's official declara-
tion that his decision was " irrevocable." Why, Sir, Russia
would not have gone into the Conference unless there had, in
fact, been a "foregone conclusion." Why did she indignantly
refuse to go into a Conference on the subject in 18G7, upon
4 Speeches of Sir Chakles Dilke.
the suggestion of Austria, and yet accept at once when
Prussia proposed one now? Because, in 1867, there really
■would have been "no forgone conclusion"; whereas on this
occasion everybody knew that there was one. Look at
Xo. 112. General Ignatieff is a great authority on foreign
affairs in Eussia. lie is admired as a skilful diplomatist
throughout all Europe. Well, in N"o. 112, General Ignatieff,
Eussian Ambassador at Constantinople, is asked by Sir Henry
Elliot if he knuws the "basis" fixed for the deliberations of
the Conference. I must, in passing, say that General Ignatieff'
is as famous for frankness as Count Bismarck, and that in
consequence he is the enfant teri'ihle of Eussian diplomacy.
Did he know the basis for the Conference ? Of course, he
did. He says —
"The basis must, of course, be the late declaration of my
Government that the neutralization of the Black Sea is at an
end."
Of course, it must. But, Avhat every diplomatist knew. General
Ignatieff alone Avas found to speak. The form of the Eussian
Circular might have prevented any doubt as to the "basis"
upon which the Conference would meet. As the Turks said
of it, at No. C7 —
"In it Eussia does not invite the assent of the other
l^arties, but merely signifies to them her decision."
It was on the 30th November that Eussia said that there
should be "no forgone conclusion." If the House will allow
me to speak for one moment of myself — I only do so because
it bears upon the question — two days after that date I was
myself in St. Petersburg. What did I find ? I found the
whole official press declaring that though Eussia had said
that there was to be " no foregone conclusion," yet that she
had not the smallest intention, in any event, of withdrawing
from the position that she had taken up. The Journal de
St. Petei'sbourrj — tlie Eoreign Office paper — a paper the proof-
sheets of the political part of which are daily read by one
of the chiefs of that office — that paper reprints articles on
foreign policy from the semi-official papers, and those rejirints
are read in Eussia as official utterances, just as much as
though they were signed "Gortchakoff" or "Alexander."
Now, reprinting an article from The Gazette oj the Academy
Black Sea. B
— itself <i semi-official paper — the Foreign Office journal said,
in announcing the agreement for a Conference —
" We believe that the Russian public will await with con-
fidence the result of its deliberations. There is no ground for
believing that the Russian Government yields one iota of its
just demands. Let Europe, which admits their justice, clothe
them in a legal dress by the decision of the Conference. The
stability of Europe will gain thereby, and the dignity of
Russia will not be lowered."
This was early in December, and the article appeared, I
believe, on the same day on Avhich Prince Gortchakoff assured
us, in our own familiar English, that the "formula" for the
meeting of the Conference was " no foregone conclusion."
This is not all. Some weeks later, — long after Russia had
accepted our so-called "basis" for the Conference, — a paper
more official still, if that were possible — the official journal —
published a few out of many addresses that had been put into
the mouths of the peasants in different parts of the Empire.
By so doing, it gave, in the opinion of all Russians, an official
recognition to those selected. Well, the one placed in the very
first position, and honoured by large type in the " official
journal," was one in which England and Austria were coupled
together as the " insolent Powers " whom the Czar was
thanked for "humbling." This was just before the first
meeting of the Conference that met " without a foregone con-
clusion." There is only one thing more that must be said upon
this point of the "foregone conclusion," and that is this —
one of the grounds on which I have often heard the policy of
the Circular defended in Russia was, that England could not
be expected to resent it, when governed by a Cabinet pre-
sided over by a Minister whose opinion was contrary to
neutralization. Well, it does seem to bear upon this point of
tlie " foregone conclusion" that, in the debate on the Address,
that ^Minister should have stated from his official place, and,
as it were, almost in his official capacity, the view that he had
held as a private member. At all events, we seemed to see
from his speech that England went into the Conference with a
"foregone conclusion." This was the view taken of the speech
in Russia. The most important independent paper in Russia,
The Moscow Gazette, of the 7th of !March, says of it —
" Thus it was once more proved out of the mouth of the
6 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
English Government, that the neutralization of the Black Sea
had no importance for England."
Now, there is another defence that is made for our conduct
in going into the Conference. It is said that Earl Granville's
answer to the Circular was couched in terms so severe that,
seeing that it was followed by a second Note from Russia,
more courteous than the first, the whole correspondence
amounted to a virtual withdrawal of the Russian claim. As
to that statement, I have only this to say — that the Russian
second Note contained no mthdrawal from the position
taken in the first, and that at the time at which it was
written a conversation took place between Prince Gortchakoff
and Sir Andrew Buchanan, in which the Russian Chancellor
said — you will find it at p. IG — "The decision of the Czar
is irrevocable, and I cannot, therefore, discuss the point of
form." !More than tliis : — the Russian second Note was ex-
plained away by the official papers at St. Petersburg; and
in explaiiung it they resorted to terms as offensive as any
that had been made use of upon the first occasion. The article
on this subject in The Golos was ascribed by rumour — but
well-founded rumour, I have reason to believe — to a very high
functionary of the Russian Foreign Office. I need not quote
these articles to the House ; but will only say that in St.
Petersburg no one could be found who ever heard of the
Russian second Note being meant for a withdrawal. Now, I
assert distinctly that our Government was aware of this. Why^
even now it is afraid to print the communications which its
own Ambassador addressed to it, as to what was said and
thought in Russia, At p. 16 there is an extract, five lines
long, from a despatch. When I turn to the index I find that
we are supposed here to be given — " Rumours and opinions at
St. Petersburg." Yes ! But there is not one word in the ex-
tract about either " opinions" or " rumours." There are several
places in the Papers where the Foreign Office index-maker
has behaved in this tantalizing way ; but on this occasion
one is really tempted to ask seriously what can be the
nature of those opinions which were prevalent in St. Peters-
burg in November, and which it was "prejudicial to the
interests of England" to reveal in February? I am not ex-
l)erienced in these matters ; but I really begin to believe that
the much-used phrase "prejudicial to the public interests,"'
Black Sea. 7
means "prejudicial to the interests" of right honourable gen-
tlemen who sit on that bench. I can tell the House what
was the oj^inion at St. Petersburg, and that was, that England
had agreed to a Conference in order that it might attempt to
save its honour by a farcical formality." We are now offered,
by apologists for the conduct of the Ministry, a fresh defence.
We are told the Protocol signed at the first meeting of the
Conference is a virtual withdrawal of the Circular. It is
a fact, not without interest, that there should be found
honourable gentlemen who take that view. I may say, in
passing, that we told France in a despatch that "nothing but
mere formal matters were discussed" at the first meeting ; so
I had thought that this Protocol was "a mere formal matter."
It seems, however, that it was more than that, and one news-
l^aper has called it " a landmark in the development of inter-
national morality," and many fine names besides. Still, after
all, when we come to read it, the only remarkable thing about
it is that it tells us nothing we did not Icnow before.
Russia herself — whatever her acts — has always had for the
principle of the efficacy of treaties what may be called a
Platonic love. Each time that she has broken treaties the
violation has been accompanied by a declaration that nobody
was more ready to observe them. Did Russia make any
difficulty about signing this declaration 1 None whatever ; no
more than she did about the " foregone conclusion." Provided
she got all she asked, she Avas very glad, indeed, to set her
hand to any number of declarations, which could always be
repudiated at a future date. Russia is far too sensible, and
far too cynical a power, ever to stick at declarations. There
were, I beUeve, two forms proposed — the milder one, of
course, by us ; the stronger one by Austria. If we are to
trust the semi-official papers of Vienna, we positively put
pressure upon Austria to make her consent to a Protocol,
which would have been— I was going to say a sham, but the
whole Conference is a sham — not merely a sham, but an open
and notorious piece of humbug. Austria refused, and insisted
on the stronger form — at least, so say the Vienna papers of
January 18. But, after all, what does even the stronger form
amount to but a declaration that in international morality a
principle exists Avhicli nobody has denied? Prince Gort-
chakoflf himself Avrote, in his answer to the Austrian reply —
8 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
"It is well understood tbat a transaction concluded by
common consent cannot be modified but by common assent :"
as the House will observe, almost the very words of the Pro-
tocol. But he Avent on to say that the Treaty in question
having been violated, had ceased to exist. This refers to the
hoUow i^retexts alleged in the Circular 1 But such pretexts can
always be found by a Power that wishes to find them. They
could hardly be weaker than in this case. Piussia had "slept
upon her injury." She had treasured up these pretended
breaches of the Treaty, to bring them out at what she herself
had the audacity to call "a favourable opportunity." Sir
Henry Elliot called the pretexts " extremely futile " ; and I
agree with him, for I consider that their futility was only ex-
ceeded by the arrogance with which they were expressed.
Still, as I say, such pretexts can always be found. What is
needed is that the other Powers should refuse to recognize
them Avhen they are found. On the very same day on which
Prince Gortchakoff wrote that treaties " could not be modified
but by common assent," he wrote also to Austria, "the Russian
declaration has solved the Black Sea Question by a unilateral
act," — a statement which well illustrates the worth of declara-
tions such as these. I will say no more about the Protocol,
It lays down no new principle ; it is impUed in every treaty ;
and may be said to be actually expressed in that Treaty which
Piussia — respecting the principle — declared she meant to
break.
I have now shown, as I venture to think, that we went into
the Conference on a declaration by Russia that .she intended
to violate her treaty obligations, and without that declaration
having been in any way withdrawn. This is certainly the
Russian view. The Golos — an inspired paper of great au-
thority—said on the 21st of this month, eight days ago, that
an article in The Times, on the result of the Conference,
though clever, is untrue, inasmuch as it asserts that Russia
has practically withdrawn the Circular. The Golos goes on —
"Some think it well that the English should amuse
themselves with such a view, but we cannot agree in this
o])inion. Our adhesion to any Conference was announced
beforehand in the Circular itself; and in going into one we
did so, only to allow Europe to make our declaration into a
treaty and harmonize it with the Treaty of Paris. From the
Black Sea. 9
moment of our declaration the restrictive articles ceased for
us Russians to exist, but they were not yet abrogated by the
other Powers. The Conference converted our unilateral Cir-
cular into an act of universal obligation, and made it a jmrt
of International Law. It is, then, out of the question to talk
of any withdrawal of our Circular."
iOven the official papers — if one may use such a phrase as to
a porti(jn of the press of a country in which all papers are
more or less official — even the official Press does not attempt
to disguise the completeness of the Ptussian triumph. The
Journal de St PHershouhj of the 15th of ]March, for instance,
says —
" Let us hope that the foreign newspapers will end by
admitting how much wisdom and moderation there was in the
step wliich Paissia took four months ago, and of which the
assent of Europe has now admitted the complete justness."
For my part, I frankly admit the wisdom — the worldly
wisdom — but I have my doubts about the moderation. The
same paper on the next day — the 1 6th — sets to work to show
how the victory was won, and ascribes the result to physical
force —
" However wise the intentions of the Great Powers, it is
doubtful whether those intentions would have borne fruit had
the language of the Imperial Cabinet been less firm, and had
it not been backed by a knowledge of the vast progress made
by Russia since 185G, and which would give her, in the event
of a struggle, far greater jjower than she possessed at the
time of the Crimean War."
The Golos of the 17th of March was even more jubilant
than The Journal —
" Russia has won a great victory, and her triumph is the
close of a struggle of fifteen years ago. Her enemies beat her
in arms, but in agreeing to destroy to-day that which they
built up then, they themselves pronounce their condemnation.
One cannot even conceive a more brilliant triumph than this
victory of reason. Every stipulation that restricted our rights
in the Black Sea is struck from the Treaty of Paris ; Russia
enters once more on her right of ha\'ing in that sea a war
fleet, unlimited in size and strength, and of erecting naval
•arsenals. This is the grand result obtained by our diplomacy.
If some cowards have feared that we should have bought it
10 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
only by concessions on our part, the event shows that their
fears were totally ungrounded. Russia could not have hoped
for a more glorious solution of the question left unsettled by
the Crimean War."
Well, in spite of all these repeated statements, I suppose that
we are to be asked to believe that Russia has repented, having
seen the error of her ways. For my part, I do not think so,
and I repeat that the Russian declaration — never in any way
Avithdra^^^l — was the basis of the Conference. I have now to
show that we went into that Conference at a moment when, of
all others, our doing so was undesirable : I shall attempt to
show that the invitation of Pnissia was really that of Russia,
and that there was also no previous concert with our allies.
As for the Prussian origin of the Conference, I do not know
that any attempt will be made to-day to deny that. It has
been denied, and I vdU consider the denial presently ; but for
the moment I wish to consider the action of Prussia in detail,
and to try and see how far Russia was behind Count Bismarck.
According to the latter — at No. 54 — the Conference was to
be one " to take into consideration the question raised by the
overtures made by the Cabinet of St. Petersburg in the Cir-
cular." The word "overtures" is superhuman in its excel-
lence. WTiat we called a " violation," what the Turks called
a " denunciation," what the Austrians called a " repudiation"
and an "abrogation," Count Bismarck called "overtures" — a
far prettier word. AVell, we jumped at this proposal, and in
No. 184 we warmly thanked Prussia for having "assisted to
obtain some of the results Avhich Her Majesty's Governmenthad
desired," though what those results were I cannot conceive.
We had previously thanked Prussia with effusion, as the
French would say. The index precis of No. 37 says — " Her
Majesty's Government pleased with friendly conduct of the
Prussian Government." Now, what had been Earl Granville's-
view of the position of Prussia 1 What I have just quoted is
the view of the Cabinet as a whole ; but what was Earl Gran-
ville's first impression 1 We find it in No. 35, where he thrice
expresses his disappointment. I do not wonder that he should
have done so. Count BernstorfF had just informed him that
Count Bismarck "advised the avoidance of polemical des-
patches circulated in the press" — referring, of course, to Earl
Granville's publication of the English answer. I do not know
Black Sea. 11
that a more insulting piece of advice was ever given to a great
Power. Well, as I say, in No. 35, we have only Earl Gran-
ville's opinion before he had consulted his Colleagues. In
No. 37 we have the opinion of the Cabinet. Earl Granville
had expressed " disappointment" at the conduct of Prussia.
The Cabinet did not express disappointment. On the con-
trary, they expressed "pleasure" — that is to say, that on the
very same day on Avhich Earl Granville had expressed his
"disappointment" at the conduct of Prussia in the afternoon,
on the same day, in the evening, he had, in the name of the
Cabinet, to express his "pleasure," and to agree to the idea
of a Conference. It appears that Prussia took the Kussian
side in this matter from the first. She continued to take it
to the last. Those Protocols show us the Prussian Ambas-
sador declaring that his instructions were merely to support
the Russian view. Perhaps there was no treaty ; but there
was at least an understanding. At all events, from the public-
newspapers themselves, we know that the Emperor William
is the Czar's " devoted friend,'' and that the Czar stands-
towards the Emperor William in the relation of being " yours-
till death." Not only is there now proof of an undei'standing,
but the papers show us that our Government knew it at the
time. No. 11 is a singular despatch. Earl Granville relates
the first conversation between Count Bernstorff and himself,
which took place after the receipt of the Piussian Circular. lie
asked — " Whether Count Bernstorff supposed the Czar of
Russia had reason to hope for support from Prussia or any
other Power ? " That is a question as direct as any of those
that are put here at torture time, and, like some of those, it
remained without an answer. The despatch contains na
answer. The index contains no answer. There was nO'
answer. There was no answer — that is, at the time ; but on
the 17th of January there was an answer. There was an
answer in the Protocol of the first sitting of the Conference,
and that answer is contained in the Prussian Plenipotentiary's
speech — for his first statement to assembled Europe was — ■
"That his Court had instructed him to support and to
recommend the desire of the Imperial Government of Russia
to see the stipulations of 185C, relative to the navigation of
the Black Sea, submitted to a revision, which should eliminate
certain clauses."
12 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
That was the answer. I am no enemy to Prussia; but 1
maintain that on this particular occasion, thanks to the neces-
sities of the war, the invitation of Prussia was that of Prussia
itself. Xot only, Sir, did we go into the Conference upon an
invitation such as I have described, but we went into it in so
great a hurry that we forgot even to consult our allies. I am
not speaking of our going into the Conference without the
presence of a Plenipotentiary of France. That is, compara-
tively speaking, a trifling matter, and one on which I lay less
stress. I am speaking of the absence of previous concert.
Take, for instance, our preliminary dealings with our chief
ally in the war terminated by the Treaty of 185G. France
had, with singular disrespect, been left by Prince Gortchakoff
to hear of his Circular from the newspapers. It was held
back, and only communicated to her — -ten days later — -on the
IDth of November. Xo cause is assigned for this insulting
and extraordinary delay. The first communication that France
received from us was, when she suddenly learnt by telegraph
that we invited her to attend a Conference, projiosed by
Prussia and accepted by us without inquiry. The facts are
startling Avhen stated in this naked way ; still, I think that
each clause of the proposition is capable of proof. No, 37
shows that we, in reality, agreed to the Conference on the
25th November. On the 27th we telegraphed to France for
her "concurrence." On the very same day, however, on
which this telegram reached Tours — that is, on the 28th, and
long before we had heard the views of the French Govern-
ment — we instructed our Ambassador at St. Petersburg, and
!Mr. Odo Russell, at Versailles, to state that we accepted the
Prussian proposition. On the 30th November only was it
that Earl Granville received a telegram from France, express-
ing her amazement at the Prussian origin of the Conference
that we asked her to attend, and by No. .55 we see that Earl
Granville did not venture to deny that Prussian origin. Lord
Lyons was more bold. In No. 79 he wrote that he had
said —
" What Prussia proposed was a Conference to be held at
St. Petersburg, without any special conditions. This proposal
Her Majesty's Government rejected, and made a proposal of
their own, in which it was expressly stated that the Con-
ference was not to be held at St. Petersburg, and in which
Black Sea ' 13
certain preliminary conditions were laid down as indispensable.
It is not to the Prussian proposal, but to this English pro-
posal that the French Government is asked to consent."
These words were afterwards approved by Government in a
despatch. We see, then, that having, in writing to St. Peters-
burg, and in writing to Versailles (No. 85), distinctly admitted
that the proposal we accepted was a Prussian proposal, in our
communications at Tours we asserted the very contrary.
What did the Cabinet mean when they approved of Lord
Lyons saying that Count Bismarck having projjosed a Con-
ference at St. Petersburg, we had " rejected " this proposition?
I suppose it will be said that we rejected St. Petersburg, and
proposed London. But rejecting St. Petersburg would not
amount to rejecting the Prussian proposal, and St. Petersburg
was not the Prussian proposal at all, nor London ours. At
p. 24- we see that St. Petersburg was the suggestion of Piussia,
not of Prussia ; and by Xo. 58 we find that London was the
proposal of Turkey, I repeat that St. Petersburg was not the
Prussian proposal, and I fear that Lord Lyons' statement, that
we "rejected" the Prussian proposal, is one of those which
the Prime ^linister calls "unauthorized" ; but in this case it
was approved by Government. Well, there is another way in
which to escape from the dilemma. Lord Lyons said that
the Prussian proposal which we rejected was for a Conference
"without conditions," and he says that we, in what he is
pleased to call "our proposition," made certain " special con-
ditions." I am afraid that the plural here must be looked
upon as another of these "unauthorized statements." We
never laid down but one condition, and that condition was a
self-evident proposition, as far as words went, and a mockery
as far as facts. It is our old friend "no foregone conclusion."
Still, we can hardly have " rejected 'the Pru.ssian proposal on
this ground, inasmuch as Count Bismarck very gravely said to
Mr. Odo Russell —
" That, in his opinion, a Conference with a foregone con-
clusion would defeat its object, and be useless ;"
so that this can scarcely have been his proposition. If we
were right when we told M. de Chaudordy that we "rejected"
the Prussian proposition, Prussia certainly did not know of
the rejectiun, for long afterwards, in No. 82, we find Count
Bismarck saying that —
li Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
" As the Powers have accepted his proposition, he leaves
the day for the meeting of the Conference to us."
Russia, too, thought it then, and thinks it still a Prussian
proposition, for as late as the IGth of March — last week —
the official journal said — " In spite of the English Press, a
Conference proposed by North Cxermany was accepted.'' I
think that nothing more discreditable was ever revealed in a
diplomatic correspondence ; and, for my part, I consider that
we were guilty of the meanest equivocation. On discovering
the Prussian origin of the Conference, France began to
hesitate, and finding cajolery in vain, we, in turn, commenced
to buUy her. On the 15th of December we entered upon a
course of telegrams, and on the 1 9th Earl Granville sent Lord
Lyons that mysterious despatch, of which an extract is given
in No. 119. I do not know whether the index to Parlia-
mentary papers is intended to contain a 'precis even of passages
Avhich have not been printed ; but, at all events, it is so here. I
do not know, I repeat, whether this is the customary course ;
but it is certainly a convenient course for those who are not in
the secrets of the Administration. Possibly in tliis case, and in
the others to whicli I have already made allusion, some portions
of the despatches which seemed dangerous were struck out
only at the last moment, and the index Avas forgotten. The
gentleman at the Foreign Office who corrects the proofs must
take warning for another time. No. 119 is an extract which
has no guile in it at all. Nothing can be more moderate than
its tone. It expresses Earl Granville's wish that the Con-
ference should no longer be postponed, and that is all. But
when we turn to the index Ave find —
" liussia and Prussia urge the early meeting of the Con-
ference, which must take place even without a French Repre-
sentative."
In the extract there is not one word about Russia ; not one
word about Prussia ; not one Avord that is imperative ; but
from the index it seems that France Avas right, and that the
co-operation of the confederates A\\as carried even to the point
of insisting that the Conference must take place Avith or
Avithout France. "Why Averc these parts of the despatch struck
out at the last moment ? Because Ave let them pass Avithout
remonstrance— that is the reason Avithout doubt. Probably
this imperious missive was hid from France. At all events,
Black Sea. 15
such was our pressure and such her misery that she consented
to send a Plenipotentiary, provided we asked for a safe-
conduct. I will not go into the history of this negotiation.
The whole narrative is a commentary on the policy of going
into a Conference of this character in the middle of the most
horrid of modern wars. It was on the 1 7th December that
France consented to be represented at the Conference. It was
■not till the 10th January, at night, that M. Favre was per-
mitted to receive Earl Granville's letter. On the 14th he
sent to Count Bismarck a request for a safe-conduct. No
answer was returned, although the safe-conduct had been
promised us. On the 18th we wrote a begging-letter, No. 178,
repeating our request to the Prussians to let out M. Favre.
On the 21st we wrote again. No. 186; but our only answer
was that on the 23rd Count Bismarck telegraphed to all the
•German paj^ers one of those wondrously vexatious paragraphs
which he knows so well how to compose —
" Count Bismarck has now declined to furnish M. Jules
Favre with a safe-conduct."
I need hardly add that wc did not remonstrate. But we had
not waited for M. Favre. Five days before he got our letter,
we pressed the Government at Tours to name another Pleni-
potentiary. We did not think the Government of Defence
sufficiently solid to be recognized as the Government of
France ; but wc did think it solid enough to compromise, if
need were, French interests, or to help us barter away our
honour. When asked to recognize the Government of Defence,
we often answered that when France should recognize that
Government, then would we. We were not sure, Ave said,
that these men could speak in the name of France. Yet aU.
the time Ave pressed with humiliating persistency for the
attendance of their Representative at a Conference at Avhich
the highest interests of Europe Avere at stake. Anybody
would do. Anybody might come. If not !M. Favre, then
M. Tissot. If not the head of the (Jovernment, then tlie
Secretary of an unrecognized Legation. Anybody — provided
that the Prime ^linister would be enabled to Avalk down to the
House of Commons and to say — " France Avas invited, and
France came."
There is only one more point in the Papers to which
I Avill allude. The last of all the Papers, and the last
16 Speeches or Sir Charles Dilke.
words of tliat I This is not a, case of "all's well that ends
well." I must say that, looking to the fact that this Paper is
far later in date than any of the others in the series, it certainly
was tempting fate to keep back the Papers in order that this
one might be printed. I have shown already how we
tried to cajole France into coming to the Conference, I have
shown how we tried to bully her. By this Paper I am
enabled to show that not only cajolery and bullying, but
even bribery was tried. This was a Conference either upon
the Eastern Question or upon the validity of treaties ; it was not
a Conference about the war. Prussia would have refused to go
into a Conference about the war. "Why Avas France invited to
attend ? Because she is, as the Queen's >Speech at the begin-
ning of this Session told us, an " indispensable member of the
European family" — though in this case she came near being
dispensed with altogether. She was asked, because without
her consent the acts of the Conference would have had no
value. This is why France was asked. She was not asked
because of .any private advantage to be gained by her in
coming, but for European objects. Yet we see by this PajDer
that our Government told France, and wishes it to be known
that it told France, that any day after the meeting of the
Conference was formally over, but before the members had left
the table — at which, 1 believe, by tlie way, they always lunch
— the French I'lenipotentiary might raise a discussion on the
terms of peace. Can anything be more discreditable than
such a bribe ? I have now, Sir, attempted to show total want
of concert with one of our allies. AVith the others, the concert
was only partial. As to the absence of France, 1 do not lay
stress on it — still, it was our fault for going into such a
Conference at such a time. Earl Granville himself said "that
he would not have consented to enter the Conference unless
France had been invited" to attend. But there are invitations
and invitations, and if you invite a man to dinner on the day
on which he is to be hanged, that can hardly be considered a
very serious invitation. You will tell me, no doubt, that
France has come in now. Yes. Four months later, under
peace ; under a different Government ; under a set of circum-
stances, that is, which you cannot have foreseen. Yes;
France has come in, and has given an unwilling assent to
your proceedings. Yes ; unwilling — as you may see by p. 38
Black Sea. 17
of the new Papers or Protocols — that is, by the Due de
Broglie's sjjecch at the only meeting of the Conference which
he attended.
I believe that 1 have now shown that which I set out to
prove— namely, that we went into the Conference on the
Russian declaration, without that declaration having been in
any way withdrawn, and that we did so in an extraordinary
hurry and at the worst of moments. Why 'I Why did we go
into the Conference ? Did our allies ask us to do so 1 Not
one of them — not one. Was there any need? Did we go
into the Conference to avoid an otherwise immediate war ?
Not a bit of it. Ptussia Avas not less desirous of peace than
we ourselves, although glad, of course, to get without fighting
all that she would have gained by a successful war. Why, I
repeat, did we go into the Conference 1 The Prime Minister
has lately made some statements on this subject, to which,
with the permission of the House, I will allude. He said
that—
" To have declined a Conference would have been to have
kept open a European quarrel with one ally prostrate — namely,
France, and with Austria, our next best ally, in the position
of actually having taken the initiative some years ago, in
proposing the abrogation of the condition now in question."
That was one of the Prime Minister's two defences, and one
which I will ask the House to consider. This statement, in
plain words, can only mean that in refusing a Conference we
should have stood alone. Is that so ? I do not dwell upon
the fact that, at the moment of the issue of the Circular,
France was far from prostrate, but was coping upon alhiost
equal terms with Prussia. I do not dwell on this ; but I
come at once to our other allies. Now, as for Austria, she
answered this attack for herself — Count Beust answered by
anticipation our Prime ^Minister when he answered Prince
Gortchakotf. Look at No. 28. This was a reply to a confidential
despatch from Prince Gortchakoff, in which he reproached
Austria with now leading the anti-Russian i)arty among the
nations, although in 18G7 she had taken the initiative in the
opposite direction. Count Beust, No. 28, answered this
statement at great length, and he afterwards said to Lord
Bloomfield —
"That he was glad to have been able to answer Prince
18 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
Gortchakoff 's observations regarding his despatch to Russia,
now three years old, on the subject of a revision of the Treaty
of 1856."
This was made as an official communication to Lord Bloom-
field, and is contained in No. 43. Austria herself, we see, was
indignant at the allegation with regard to her views, which
was made confidentially by Prince Gortchakoff, and repeated
here publicly long after it had been contradicted — repeated
by the Premier. I must go further. This argument about
Austria was worth nothing if it did not mean that we should
have stood alone. Now, not only was Austria with us, but
so were Italy and Turkey too. If those who are going to
speak on the other side of this question are willing to confine
themselves to what appears in these Papers, I am willing.
The Papers show that Austria was more firm than we were,
and that Italy and Turkey followed steadily in our steps. If,
however, you are going beyond the Papers — if we are to be
told that other Powers advised us to accept the Conference —
then I must ask leave to go outside the Papers too, and to
show how firm was the language of the King of Italy, and
that that language must have been brought to the know-
ledge of the Government. At the same time, the Papers are
strong enough — I want nothing more. All of them teU one
way. Nothing can be stronger than the language of Count
Beust to M. de Nowikoff. Turkey, as we see at pp. 14 and
18, was as firm. At p. 29, Italy formally contradicts a
rumour that her policy diff"ers in any way from that of
Austria and England, and by No. 50 we, in the most formal
way, thanked both Austria and Ifcily for their " prompt and
cordial" co-operation. At No. 41, Austria, and at No. 44, Italy,
and in numerous places Turkey, told us that " the views of
the Governments were identical " ; but none of these said so
after we had agreed to the Conference. Indeed, so emphatic
is the line taken by all our allies in support of our original
position — and, consequently, rather against than for our sub-
sequent action — that Government have strained every nerve
to try and find something that makes the other way. At
p. 50, under the No. 101, we have their only success ; and it
is certainly a ridiculous abortion — an extract three and a half
lines long, evidently picked out of a parenthesis in the middle
of a despatch —
Black Sea. 19
"Austria," Count Beust said, "is far from desiring to
prevent a peaceful settlement of the question in dispute, and
has not the slightest wish to encourage the Porte to take an
energetic line."
That is all I Not another word ! One of those gentlemen of
the road, known as Queen's messengers, and who live in fear
of my honourable friend the ]\Iember for Warrington, was
hardly sent all the way from Vienna to Whitehall with those
three lines and a half in a large bag. If I thought so, I
would gladly vote with my honourable friend for their total
and immediate suppression. Certainly that innocent docu-
ment might have gone by post, and even on the smallest and
most public of postal cards. No, Sir, that is a short bit from
a long despatch — a despatch relating a conversation between
Lord Bloomfield and Count Beust. What can have been the
character of this conversation, of which it was detrimental to
the public service — that is, to the right honourable gentle-
men on that Bench — that a word should be revealed to an
expectant Parliament beyond these three lines and a half?
Now, in this case, it is not necessary to call rumour to one's
aid. It is plain, from the tone of even these three lines, that
we urged Count Beust to lower his tone, and consent to
condone the offence of Ptussia ; and he replied, in terms of
commonplace conventionality, that his tone was not immoderate,
and "that he was far from desiring to prevent a peaceful
settlement of the question in dispute." Of course, he was
"far from desiring" that which no one desires — war; but he
believed — and, as I think, justly — that the course taken by
our Government was of all courses the most likely to lead to
war, if not immediately, at any rate in the future. So much
for the Prime Minister's statement as to our allies. Now, to
turn to his other singular defence for his policy in going into
the Conference upon the Russian Note. These were, I think,
his words —
" If we had said to Russia that .she must take the con-
sequence of her act, we should have placed ourselves in a
position of estrangement from that Power at a time when we
had a most sacred duty to discharge— namely, to keep
together in co-operation the neutral influences of Europe, in
the hope that at some happy moment we might be able to
20 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
contract that range of destructiveness wliicli we liad long seen
extending."
"Well, I think, Sir, that the right honourable gentleman
had best not have made that statement. It is strange that,
with the knowledge he must necessarily possess of both the
sets of Papers, Avhicli he has advised the Crown to lay before
Parliament, he should have used such an argument as that
which I have quoted : that he should have argued that we
were bound to co-operate with Russia in respect to the war
at that moment of time, when only a few weeks earlier she
had, in the most insulting manner, declined co-operation. I
must say. Sir, that I think that the right honourable gentle-
man forgot the date — I do not know whether he ever forgets
dates — I hope he forgot the date. Why, the Piussian Circular
was issued on the last day of October ; but on the 1 Gth of
October — that is, a fortnight earlier — we had addressed to
Russia that extraordinary despatch which is numbered 202 in
the Papers relating to the war. That was the despatch of which
my honourable friend who sits near me, the honourable
Member for Nottingham (Mr. Auberon Herbert), once said,
that it was " like a toad in a rock — the wonder was how it
came there at aU." That despatch was one in which we
invited Russia to come to an understanding with us as to the
terms on which peace between France and Germany might be
made, and to co-operate with a view to joint action. This
despatch was telegraphed, and was communicated to Prince
Gortchakoff on the 17th of October. What was the result?
Our Ambassador was "snubbed." The Russian Chancellor
said —
" That he could not see that any advantage could be
hoped for from England and Russia agreeing as to what
niiglit be reasonable terms of peace."
Our Ambassador insisted, and the Prince finally agreed to
submit our telegram to the Czar. What did the Czar say ?
The Czar said that he thought " that any agreement between
the neutral Powers would prove a barren and impracticable
measure." So much for the chance of co-operation with
Russia. If the Prime Minister had borne the dates in mind
when he was speaking, he would have found that two days
after our attempt at "co-operation with Russia," the Czar
Black Sea. 21
called hi.s ^linisters together at Tsarskoc-Seloe, and declared
his intention of denouncing his treaty obligations. Really,
Sir, I am at a loss to conceive how a Minister can assert that
the chief reason why we ought to have forgotten our dignity
and closed our eyes to future danger to European peace, was
that a fortnight after this we were bound to use all efforts to
try and secure the co-operation of Russia in respect to the
war. Why, then, I ask again — why did we go into the Con-
ference ? I cannot, for the life of me, imagine why. The
pretexts of the Premier are not worth much, as I have shown.
Why, then, were we in so terrible a hurry ? Russia hesitated.
She promised not to act. At page 26, she called her own
Circular "the abrogation of a theoretical principle, without
immediate application"; and, in No. G3, we find General
Ignatieff — usually bold enough — telling the Grand Vizier
that—
" The Czar's honour being satisfied by the step that he
had taken, he had no intention at present of proceeding
further by the creation of a fleet in the Black Sea."
No Avonder that Russia hesitated and took this humble
line. She was without allies. Our allies were all Europe
except Prussia, and the Prussian arms at that moment were
taxed almost beyond their powers. The odds were so over-
whelming that Russia could not, for a moment, have ventured
to brave a struggle. The country was not aroused. Addresses,
it is true, were voted by many of the towns ; but I have it on
the authority of many distinguished Russians of all parties,
that enormous pressure was put on to secure congratulations
that should have been spontaneous. In !Moscow, where alone
in Russia a true public opinion exists, there was no enthusiasm.
The subscription which was started to pay for the Black Sea
fleet collapsed. The Golos — -one of the most popular papers
in St. Petersburg — opened a list, arud at the end of two days
had collected thirty-eight roubles — that is, not 5/. So dead
did the whole thing fall, that the Imperial Cabinet had to
trump up a ridiculous story of an American alliance, and to
exile to Olonetz, on Lake Ladoga, the St. Petersburg corre-
spondent of the Independancc Beige, for revealing this " State
secret," which never, in fact, existed. !Men talk of Russia's
colossal power. Colossal size ; but not colossal power ! It
is as easy to exaggerate the strength of Russia at the moment
22 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke. 1
jr
a.s it i.s difficult to over-estimate her future might. Eussian
statesmen know their weakness. They know that they are faij
more v-uhierable in Central Asia than we in India. They knowi
that in Poland, which as late as 1 8G3 required 200,000 men, and ,
a long struggle, Austria has a weapon against them, which, if
pressed, .she knows how to wield. The truth is, that Russia was ■
frightened, and that we were frightened too, and that we stepped
out of our way and gave her a success which was not merely a
diplomatic victory over us, but a conquest of the international!
principle, and a triumph over public law. How sad must be!
the consequence of our .step. There was an opinion growing
fast before the war, and which would have grown again after
its cessation, wliich had for direction to extend the .sphere of
treaties. "What becomes of that opinion after the startling,
success of the Ilussian Chancellor 1 This declaration was an,
attempt to carry into public matters that kind of open!
c)riucism which shocks in private life. \Miat becomes of all
our treaties — not political only, but commercial too — if such
a doctrine is to prevail ? I do not suggest that we should
have insisted that the Russian Note should be withdrawn. It
would not have been necessary that it should have been with-
drawn. It would have been enough for us to have shown
that we looked upon it as an empty threat. It would have
been enough for us to have rested our case upon Earl Gran-
ville's Note until the times had changed. AVhat do you think
that Ru.ssia would have done? Would she have invaded
Austria in the depths of winter ? If so, Austria was prepared
to take the consequences. Would she have invaded Turkey I
If 80, Austria and Turkey, supported by our fleet, were there.
She would not have invaded either. I have no wish to fight
for the neutralization of the Black Sea. I am not, indeed,
myself a partisan of neutralization, which has,' however, in my
opinion, no bearing on the question. It would not have been
necessary to fight. I do not wish to fight for Turkey. We
should n()t have had to fight for Turkey. These are not the
lM)iiit3. The point is, that the Executive Government has,
through an exaggerated timidity, permitted the obligations
of treaties to be pul^licly released. I know that in these times
it has become the fasliion to mock at treaties, and that a
cynical view is taken of their obligations. It would be a sad
day, however, and one to be deplored, whenever our Govern-
Black Sea. 23
ment should back that view with the weight of its ap-
proval. How are you ever to have peace — except the peace
of exhaustion — unless you have an adequate sanction to
enforce international agreement, and where are you to
find that sanction except in treaties ] Yet treaties will
habitually be broken by certain Powers, unless the breaking
of them is habitually discountenanced by the moral and
peaceful Powers. A great deal has been said of late of the
decline of England. For my part, I believe that this country
was never more rich in all the elements of power. If, owing to
our action in the present case, some discredit may have
attached to our name, it is no fault of ours. It is not the
fault of England, but comes of the timidity of her statesmen,
and the weakness of her rulers. It is said that the policy of
the Government has been a peace policy. I do not think
that it has been either a peace policy or a safe policy. It may
be a policy for a time cheap — although your Estimates do
not show it ; but it is not a truly pacific policy, if it is neither
calculated to maintain the present dignity of this country, nor
the security of any in the future.
•24:
THE BALLOT.
A Speech delivered in the House of Commons on the 2dth of
June, 1871, in support of the Second Reading of the
Ballot Bill.
Mn. Speaker,^ — The lion. Baronet, Sir, who has just sat down
(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has blown both hot and cold with
regard to American examples. He began by admitting that
America had not a secret Ballot ; but he then went on to
quote the perversions of the American system as specimens of
the state of things which would here be created by the Ballot.
America has, like France, a form of voting which is secret
only if the voter wishes that it should be secret, and therefore
American example is worthless, for it has no bearing on our
case. The American Ballot is not necessarily secret, and if
it is worth adopting the Ballot here, it is worth going further
than this, for permissive secrecy gives no sufficient protection
against intimidation. I might, Sir, say the same of the
remarks of the right hon. gentleman the ]\1 ember for Oxford
University (Mr. G. Hardy) in reference to Rome. I speak
with all deference ; but I was always taught to believe that
ai Borne the voters came to the poll in batches, and when
actually in the booth consulted one with the other as to how
they should vote, and then cast their votes together. So much
for lioman and American examples. Then, Sir, the hon.
gentleman attacked the Government for introducing an in-
violably secret Ballot, and for going beyond the Eeport of
the Committee. The Committee did certainly recommend that
Kcrutinies should contiime to be possible, but they so tied up
and limited the scrutiny as to make it necessary either to adopt
the cheque-book i)lan of the noble Lord the Secretary for
Ireland, or the bakehouse plan of my hon. friend the Mem-
ber for Huddcrsfield (.Afr. Leatham), or some other intricate
contrivance, before a scrutiny could be held at all. But the
(iovernmcnt have had a year to reflect, and have naturally
The Ballot. 25
iisked themselves whetlier a scrutiny is necessary, and now
they offer us an inviolably secret Ballot.
As, Sir, ill conjunction with my hon. friend the Member
for Cambridge (Mr. R. Torrens) and my hon. and learned
, friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. James), I had the honour
last year to propose to move in this direction, I, for one, am
prepared to defend their step. If any hon. Member should
rise in his place and should say that which no one as yet has
said in this debate — namely, that he is for the Ballot, but
Against abolishing the scrutiny — then I would ask him, what
plan he would propose. The gist of the matter is not the
chance that the discovery of votes may take place under such
a provision, but the danger that the beneficial results expected
from the Ballot may not arise from it if the voters think —
however foolishly — that a discovery of votes may take place.
When, for instance, you iiiake a man vote with cheques out of
a chec[ue-book, numbered on their backs, and having counter-
foils numbered on their faces ; when the voter has to show
the number on the back ; when he is told that afterwards the
deputy returning officer will have to place the papers on their
faces and look only at their backs ; but that, on the other
hand, the returning officer, when the papers come to him, will
have to place them on their backs and look only at their
faces, — I doubt whether the voter will feel persuaded that
there is no danger of secrecy being invaded under such a plan.
Besides, even if the voter were inclined to believe in the
Ballot at fir.st, he would not be allowed b) believe in it long.
Those whose interest it might be that he should not believe
would soon begin to go about and say, with a wink and a
shrug of the shoulders — " Oh yes, of course it 's ' secret,' but
everybody knows how everybody else votes, all the same."
"When the poor voter asked how that could be, the answer — a
Quaker's answer — would of course be the question — " Why
did they number your ticket then?" I doubt whether an
intimidated voter would make much of a reply. "When we
inquire if a scrutiny is really needed, we find at once that the
fight is over personation.
Hon. [Members ojjposite get up one after another and say
that personation would be increased by the Ballot, and the
hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucester (Sir Michael
Hicks-Beach) says so, too. Let any one who thinks so go and
26 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
talk to an old election agent. They all will tell you the same-
tiling. They will say — " Personation is an imaginary danger."
They say — • " It is a House of Commons danger," not a
danger which exists in the constituencies, — a danger conjured
up for the purpose of debate. Now, the hon. gentleman
opposite — who has conjured it up for the purpose of this par-
ticular debate — has quoted American example. I have already
said that America has not a secret Ballot, Each State has
its own system, and the systems agree only in this — that no
one is absolutely secret. Still, he has referred to American
example, and has followed the hon. Member for Cambridge
University (Mr. B. Hope) in quoting Mr. Hankel. Now, I
do not wish to say anything hard of Mr. Hankel ; but those
who heard him will bear me out when I say this much — that
Mr. Hankel was called to damage the Ballot and succeeded
only in damaging himself. He ascribed to the Ballot all the
corruption of South Carolina before the war — which is to
throw a heavy weight upon its shoulders — and he traced to it
in particular the personation that prevailed. He admitted,
however, a little later, that the State had no registration
system. So much for ISh. Hankel. Now, where can person-
ation largely exist 1 In small wards or small boroughs the
voters are too well known for personation to be attempted ;
but in big boroughs — to have any effect that is worth plotting
for, and worth paying for, and worth running serious risks for
— it must be done on a very large scale. It never has been
so done. You cannot instance an election in England where
che cases of personation were proved to have been more than
a very few. Ju.st now I asked, where are you to personate ?
liut I will go on to ask, who you are to personate ? Look at
the danger of personating a man with several qualifications.
Such a man, being rich, is well known, and his class is a very
small one, which makes it useless to personate them. Per-
sonating a man who is going to vote on the same day in the
•same ward i.s very dangerous work indeed. Even if the man
is not known to the rate-collector— not known to persons-
•specially selected on account of their knowledge of the ward
as agents for the purpose of detecting personation— still there
IS the risk of the other man being present at the same time.
The two nsks jointly are enormous. The agents for the
detection of personation need not be named till the day
The Ballot. 27
of polling, so that for aught that the personator can tell he
may find his next-door neighbour there to watch him. It is
generally well known in the ward who is absent and who is
bed-ridden, and the dead men will be few if you pass our
much-needed Registration Bills. In all these cases, too, the
risk will be no greater under the Ballot than it is now. The
only difference is that you will not be quite so certain that on
petition you will be able correctly to amend the "tally" or
return. Of how little moment is this fact, I would ask ? For
years past there have only been two cases — that of Taunton,
and that of Bewdley — where the return was altered, and in
those cases the same result would have been brought about under
this Bill. Remember that you have one most valuable new
power given by this Bill — namely, that of striking off as many
votes from the "tally" of a candidate as personated votes are
found to have been procured for him. You might go even a
step further : — you might say that when personated votes —
procured or not procured — are proved to have been given —
numerous enough to turn the election if all given one way —
that in such cases there should be a fresh election. I have
one thing more to say upon this score. Those who are
opposed to the abolition of scrutinies, on the ground that you
would have an increase of personation, must take care lest we
be forced soon to go further than they would like, and pro-
hibit the most fruitful of all causes of personation — namely,
the voting of non resident electors. I dare say that my own
case is no unusual one ; but every one knows his own case
best. I vote in nine constituencies, returning twenty ^Members-
to this House. Many of the elections take place on the same
day. See what an opening for personation is thus afforded.
I can offer no defence for such a state of things ; but it is one
which, if we throw out this Bill, we shall very soon be called
on to defend. Now, Sir, those who attack the Government
for making scrutinies impossible are bound either to produce
a plan for combining scrutiny with Ballot, or else to declare
against the Ballot altogether. Well, Sir, they have made-
choice of this last alternative. They have — through the
voice of the hon. Member for West Norfolk (^Ir. G. Bentinck)
— attacked the BaUot upon moral grounds, and attacked it
also on the widely different ground that it will not have the
good effect that is looked for from its adoption.
2*^ Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
■With the leave of the House, Sir, I would wish for a very-
few moments to examine both these i^oints, and, in the first
place, that of the results of the Ballot. The hon. Member for
South-West Lancashire, Sir, has done me the honour to quote
my evidence as to the insufficiency of the Ballot to cope with
' bribery. Well, Sir, it is true that on this one point of bribery
I do hold an opinion at variance vnth that of many of my
friends. If hon. ^Members ask in what manner, under the
Ballot, bribery can take place, I will beg leave to tell a story.
lu the days of George II., a great Court lady — whom I will
not name, but who had much influence with the King — betted
a certain clergyman .5,000/. that he would be made a Bishop.
He lost, and paid his money — yet did not seem altogether
displeased at this transaction. Well, Sir, wiU not voters bet
with " Men in the Moon " about a particular candidate's
return, and will it not then be their interest to vote for the
return of that candidate — who will not be sorry to lose his
bet, if only he contrives to win his seat 1 Promises of pay-
ment conditional on a candidate's return amount to the same
thing. The commonplace answer that people are too shrewd
to pay money when they do not know how the bribed man
will vote, is worthless as applied to this form of bribery, be-
cause by a conditional promise you make it the interest of
every voter to whom such a promise is made to vote himself
for his briber, and even to procure by similar bribery other
voters to vote too. There is but one real answer that can be
made— namely, that the facility of detection will be consider-
able, because conditional bribery must be worked through a
man whom the voters can trust. Such a man, no doubt, is
hard to find ; but I fear that he can be found, and the voters
will trust anybody rather than trust nobody at all. I repeat
that there is reason to fear that the Ballot will not put down
bribery in those small boroughs which already are corrupt ;
but I .shall not have the cheers of hon. gentlemen opposite
when I say that the natural remedy is to do away with the
small boroughs themselves.
Now, h^ir, the question is, whether there are not ample
grounds for thinking the Ballot necessary even if it would not
put down bribery? There is something that it would sup-
preas— it would suppress intimidation. It has been said that,
compared with intimidation, bribery is a small and a decreas-
The Ballot. 20'
iiig evil. The evidence taken by the Committee shows that
this is true. I need not go into the cases. Blackburn alone
would be enough ; Cheshire is enough ; Wales is enough ;
Ireland is enough. The great danger of intimidation of the
Blackburn type is that it does not admit of absolute proof.
Work is slack ; it is impossible to prove that the men dis-
charged have been picked for political purposes. Besides,
there is intimidation that is no intimidation. You will find,
for instance, in the building trade, that in boroughs Avhere
there are sharp contests, nine foremen out of ten will vote the
same way as the master, though, probably, not a Avord has
passed between them. You may say that it is the duty of
voters to make sacrifices. But they do make sacrifices. If
they did not, a good many of my hun. friends in this part of
the House would not be here, and several lion, gentlemen on
that side would not be there, for I do not pretend to say that
the intimidation is all on one side. They do make sacrifices ;
but you have no right to call upon them to make those sacri-
fices unless stern necessity compels you so to do, and that
necessity is wanting here.
I think, Sir, that the Ballot will put an end to intimida-
tion, and many hon. gentlemen opposite, by quoting Mr.
Mill, and by taking the moral objection to the Ballot, seem to
think so too. Mr. Mill never denied that the Ballot Avould
have this effect ; and if hon. gentlemen tbink that the Ballot
would do no good, why should they resort to the moral argu-
ment at all? But, Sir, I cannot help thinking that, on the
one hand, the moral argument has not been sufficiently
answered in this debate ; and that, on the other, it is capable
of refutation. The moral objection. Sir, rests upon the notion
that the voter is directly responsible to certain other persons,
and that this responsibility is a dead letter unless those other
persons can test him by his recorded vote. What other
persons ? There is a good deal in this objection when used
by those who are in favour of a restricted franchise. They say,
fairly enough, that if there are persons capable of exercising a
sound political judgment and a wise political control, who are
excluded from the franchise, the voter should be made by
publicity responsible to that opinion and judgment and con-
trol. But why exclude these persons from the franchise ? On
the other hand, the objection is a weak one when made use of
30 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
iigainst those of us who are in favour of a widely extended
franchise. There are many who think that the franchise
should be extended to all who are personally capable of form-
ing a political opinion. Towards whom, then, from this point
of view, is the voter's responsibility to exist 1 There is, how-
■ever. Sir, a further argument of Mr. Mill against the Ballot
to which I must refer. At the time that Mr. Mill — from
having been a friend — became an opponent of the BaUot, he
was for a limited franchise ; and when he became an advocate
for an extended franchise, he ought perhaps, logically, to have
returned to his former view. But he was unfortunately
tempted to go beyond the argument that I just now stated,
and to lay down a general proposition, that even under uni-
versal suffrage publicity would still be desirable. He said
that, in his opinion, men would not cast their votes as honestly
in secret as in public. He put the case of a repudiating State.
Almost every voter might see his private interest in repudia-
tion ; and whereas in public his vote might be an honest one,
in private he might go wTong. There are many answers that
may be made. One is, that few scoundrels would be deterred
by i)ublicity in a country where the majority of voters were
as great scoundrels as themselves. Another is, that free insti-
tutions could not be maintained at all in a State in which
the majority of the voters at the polls were scoundrels such as
these. Another is, that against a few cases of dishonest secret
votes — which if given publicly would be honest — you have to
set off many dishonest votes given under publicity, which if
given secretly would be honest. This is clearly true when
intimidation prevails; but even putting intimidation out of
sight, there are dishonest public votes which might be honest
private ones. Take, for instance, that of the man who, be-
cause his father was a Tory, or who, because his grandfather
was a "Whig, voted with his family party, well knowing that
Ilia honest vote would be given the other way. There is,
however, a far more complete answer than any of these to the
nxiral argument against the Ballot. Mr. Jtlill, when he stated
it, admitted that at some times and places the Ballot might
be a lesser evil than coercion. I do not know, indeed, how
the contrary opinion could be maintained. On any other
sui)po.sition you might have an Elective Chamber which
would represent the opinion of a small minority of the people.
The Ballot. 31
You might have laws passed by that Chamber in defiance t)f
the wishes of the great majority. Rut if you make this
supposition — if you admit that at some times and places the
Ballot might be the lesser evil, then, I would ask, is not this
country one of those places, and one of those times the pre-
sent ? To what, after all, amounts the moral objection? The
Committee expressed it thus. They said that those who hold
it believe " that the act of voting is a public duty, and should
involve a pubUc responsibility." We accept that definition;
we admit that it is a public duty ; and we admit that it should
involve a public responsibility. But, it is because we admit
this responsibility, that we argue that you should above all
take care that the public receives the true opinion of each
voter, and not a repetition by that voter of the opinion of
some one else. There are many of us who, although we sit
upon these benches, hardly look upon the Ballot as a measure
to protect the poor and dependent voter in the exercise of a
right. We look rather at it as a measure to secure the proper
fulfilment by the voter of a duty towards the State. It is
admitted that at present intimidation often prevents the voter
from performing the duty that is thrown upon him by the
State. If so, you are bound to see that he is put in a posi-
tion which will enable him to perform that duty by giving
his suffrage for the man who, in his honest opinion, is the
most fit to compass the good of the whole land.
32
LAND.
A Speech delivered at the Inaugural Meeting of the Land
Tenure Reform Association, at Freemasons' Hall, m
May, 1871.
'(Sir Charles Dilke, who was introduced as the Chairman of
the Commons Preservation Society, said — Your President has
introduced me as Chairman of an association between which
and that which meets here this evening there might at first
sight appear to be some conflict of opinion. There might have
seemed to be that conflict, if it had not been for the explana-
tion given you in your President's introductory speech ; and I
know not how I could better occupy your attention than by
pointing out how little conflict there is really between those
who would preserve open spaces for the people, and those whO'
would act upon the principles of this association. All of us
here, however, even those who represent the Land and Labour
League, hold that commons in the neighbourhood of large
towns should be preserved for the use of the people. We go
further still, for we are all agreed that commons and open spaces
should rather be preserved than that they should go to swell
private estates already over large. Then all of us must see that
though there is talk of the "compensation " given to commoners
for the loss of common rights, the compensation is given to
individual commoners of the moment when the common rights
are taken, but the children of the people who have these here-
ditary rights thus taken, are reduced too often to be hereditary
poor. Surely, too, all associations dealing with land must unite
in desiring to prevent the stealing of land. That is the duty of
the Commons Preservation Society ; and I may say that, just
as there are few countries where the stealing of land is so
little punished as it is here, there is no country with which I
am acquainted in which land is so often stolen. When re-
formens talk of making land " as saleable as a watch," I wish
they would add, and " punishing the theft of land in the same
way aa the theft of a watch." I may be supposed to hold
Land. 33
that nil waste lands slicmld be kept open, and the Land and
Labour League to believe as an article of faitli that all waste
lands should be enclosed ; but on the one hand I am far from
saying that I would keep open all waste lands, if the alterna-
tive lay between keeping them open and making other really
good use of them ; and as to the Land and Labour League,
they are for keeping grounds near towns and beautiful natural
scenes for the recreation of the people ; and they too had
sooner that, for instance, the New Forest were kept as it is
than that it should go to swell half-a-dozen noblemen's parks.
Tliis resolution speaks of the principles which should guide
Parliament in its practice in dealing with land. Now, let us
go to the most recent example we have had of the principle
which has hitherto guided legislation. We have had a Bill,
as you know, for the enclosure of the New Forest. It might
seem that all of us would desire to see the enclosure of a place
like this, and the apparent object of the measure was the
public good. Yet we opposed the New Forest Bill, and it is
withdrawn. Why did we oppose it 1 — what would have been
its effect? Its authors expected that it would, out of the
63,000 acres, have given 10,000 acres to the commoners, and
50,000 acres to the Crown. The odd acres would have been
sold to pay expenses, and would have gone to augment the
already overgrown estates of the neighbouring landowners.
The forestal rights of the Crown would have been extinguished
over the commoner's allotment of 10,000 acres, and Ave could
not have hoped, permanently, to have kept that open. As
to the 50,000 acres, they Avould have become the absolute
property of the Crown — free from all common rights. Now,
thanks to the speeches of Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe, in the
cases of the Thames Embankment and of Epping Forest, most
dangerous heresies have lately grown up as to the private
character of the interest of the Crown in the Crown lands.
Mr. Gladstone has laid down doctrines in those cases worthy
of the time of Charles II., although the House of Commons has
now three times pronounced against liis view — twice as to
Epping, and once as to the Embankment. Well, at all events,
the Crown allotment in the New Forest would under the Bill
have become land which the Crown could sell, or which, at a
future time, a king could (if he had the power) resume, and
take once more into his own hands as his private in'operty.
D
34 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
That is, v.'c should not only have had no security that any of
the experiments ^vliich we desire to see tried would have
been tried on that public land, but, on the contrary, we know
thatuiuh r the Bill the Crown would have sold these lands out
and out as residential estates, to be held for shooting purposes
by rich people.
Mr. Lowe has said that it is harsh action on the part of
the Crown to use its forestal rights in order to prevent enclo-
sure, t ecau.se these rights were crigiually granted only to
enable kings to hunt their deer, and now the deer are gone.
But, en the other hand, they certainly were not gi-anted for
kings to make money of them ; and to sell forestal rights
for small sums of ready money is assuredly to divert them
far more from their original uses than is the holding them as
an instrument for the preservation of open spaces.
Now, as to the New Forest, the representatives of the Crown
blew both hot and cold. "When we said to them — " If you must
needs enclose, give up a little of the land to the trial of the
experiment of nationalization ; let it to persons on long terms
at fixed rents, with the condition of residence," then they
answered — "The land of the New Forest is too bad. The
soil or the sand would break their hearts." " Well," we an-
swered them again, " if so, then keep it open as a great
national recreation ground, and also in order that the next
generation may dispose of it on sounder principles, perhaps,
than arc known to us." Then they say — "Oh dear no! — it
is worth a million,"
However, the experience of the Continent is worth nothing
if it does not show that small cultivation by residents is the
mode in which poor land can be made to yield the largest
returns.
Here, then, in the Crown lands, we still possess a chance
of tiying the experiment of small proprietorship, or of small
tenancy on long terms. The latter plan has all the advantages
of the former, and this one of its own besides— that the State
will preserve the freehold at no cost. This experiment oi
small proprietors is an experiment that should be tried.
Their industry, their frugality, their prudence, are well known ;
and the true reason of it is that these men set no money pric-.-
upon tlie lab(jur of their own strong arms. Each one of us is
ever more disposed to count the cost of the labour that he
Land. 35
pays for, than to count tlie cost of tlic labour that lie gives.
For dairy-farming the peasant proprietor is peculiarly littcd,
for this lets him give to the land close to his house the labour
of his children. In Guernsey, for instance, a large proportion
•of the cnorniox:s profits of dairy-farming is secured by the
adoption of a system of tethering the cows ; it could not be
worked at a profit if the cost of the children's labour were to
be reallj'' counted. The only case that can be made against
small proprietorship from the }ion-political point of view is
this — that it discourages or prevents the employment of
machinery. This may be denied, for co-operation in the
l^urchase or hire of machines is practicable enough. In
England there is a prejudice against small farms that comes
from the Irish example, but the case of Ireland is not a case
in point. Against it, too, we have to set off the experience of
all the rest of Europe. I am willing to admit that, in
Guernsey, and also in French Switzerland, there are special
causes which go along with small farming to produce very
favourable results ; but in Flanders there are no such causes,
for the soil of Flanders is proverbially bad ; the people .speak
a, tongue which is unknown elsewhere, and which unfits them
for acquiring either good German or good French ; and, con-
sequently, they are unable to send their brothers and sisters
into service abroad, and have no resource besides their agricul-
ture. The island of Guernsey is a most extraordinary case of
what may be done by small fiirming. The soil and climate
are but fairly good. There are in Guernsey 10,000 acres.
Those 10,000 acres maintain, I believe, a population of nearly
30,000. Jersey is about one-third the size of the Isle of
Wight, which we look upon as a favoured portion of our
country, yet Jersey maintains the larger population of the
two. As to the ridiculous stories of excessive subdivision, I
may say that I am myself acquainted with a small proprietor
in Guernsey, who holds exactly the same land which his direct
ancestors have occupied for 800 years, and that he holds it by
the same deed. The Irish example as to subdivision is worth
nothing, for it is fatally affected by the insecurity of tenure.
The only weighty argument against small farming is the
political argument, that the small proprietor, occupied almost
exclusively upon his fiirm, and tempted in a high degree to
give his whole time to its cultivation, will be narrow and
36 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
bigoted in his views, and -will, witli his neighbours, go to form
an unintelligent and obstructive class. Well, no one of course
can deny the conservatism of the peasant owners, but, at the
same time, the argument is a somewhat hasty one. Un-
favourably as the small proprietor may compare vdih the best
type of great proprietor, I cannot admit that he compares
unfavourably with the person with whom alone he ought to
be compared — that is, the labourer who is not a proprietor at
alL I have often thought that the best outcome and result
of the Irish laud discussion of last year, was not the weak Bill
that we passed, but the research caused by its preparation into
the land tenure of other countries, and the consequent dis-
coveiy that our system stood alone, and that, in all the world,
there was none like it. It is of all known systems the only
one in which the small proprietor has no place, and the one,
too, in which the State has the least place. Our land tenure
is not only exceptional, but by far the most exceptional that
can be found. There is no country where there is such an
absolute divorce between the people and the soil. Tliis is the
only country where the land has, besides the labourer, to
support two classes more — the farmer and the owner. There
are many countries where much land is owned by persons wht
do not till that land themselves ; but, then, in those countries,
the farmer who takes it of them is himself the cultivator — as,
for instance, in northern Italy. There arc many countries
where only the one class exists ; that is, where one and the
same man is owner and cultivator too. But the existence of
three distinct cla^ises is unknown, as the rule, elsewhere. Ti>
express the same thing in another way — there is no country
where the land .system is so commercial as it is here. Now.
many land reformers would merely bring to an end the law of
primogeniture and those other restrictions which are known as
entails— a course which would only make our land tenure
more commercial still, in making land more easily marketable.
Cobdcn, for instance, was one of these, and his notion of re-
form in the land laws was that land should be sold as easily
as a watcL We, too, desire that land should be sold as easily
as a watch, but we desire, at the same time, to have securities
^in.st its too great accumulation, and to see also that the
State should once more claim that reasonable share in the
control of land which it never should have given up. How
Land. 37
new and nnhistorical is the present tenure of land ! Why, so
far as I know, no grants of hand were ever made by English
kings, except in reference to the performance of some public
duties. The defence of the country, the administration of
justice, the maintenance of the sick and of the poor, were
always thrown upon the persons to whom land was granted.
The service of themselves and of all persons who held under
them was ever a condition. But, when the Cro-\\ai fell before
the landlords, the duties which had been borne exclusively by
that class were shifted by them on to the shoulders of the
whole community, and this without any corresponding charge
upon their lands.
There is a further movement in progress now, for again
shifting burthens off the land and on to the general popula-
tion. Speaking in the House of Commons the other day. Sir
Massey Lopes said that the " owners of real property " were
subject to " iniquitous extortions." I think Sir Massey Lopes
would do well to let the subject of the taxation of real property
slumber. I should advise him, were he a friend of mine, to
let it rest. The movement is not a new one. As long ago as
1849, Cobden made a well-known speech upon it. He pointed
out that all the real property in England was often changing
hands, and changing hands when known to be subject to those
increasing rates, and that, therefore, the present owners of pro-
perty had no fair claim to exemption from those burthens,
having bought their property well knowing that it was subject
to them, and having paid for it the less in consequence. Be-
sides this answer, which, as he said, was a sufficient one, he
went on and gave another, and that is the one to which I
would call attention, as it is the key to our present movement.
He said — " Real property is the only property which, not only
does not diminish in value, but, in a country growing in
population and advancing in prosperity, always increases in
value, and that without any help from the owners," That is
the text upon which Mr. Mill has preached. The " unearned
increase " in the value of land is an increase, of course, which
takes place everywhere ; but we must not forget that, in this
country, it is peculiarly great. There is no country where
fortunes are made so fast as here. The country being very
limited in area, and there being peculiar political and social
privileges of a semi-feudal nature connected with the owner-
405911
38 Speeches of Sir Chakles Dilke.
ship of land, every man who makes a fortune must needs
invest it in a great estate. There is, of course, in consequence,
a rapid, and increasingly rapid, unearned rise in the value of
the land, and one result of this is to drive off the land the
few yeomen who still exist, and absolutely to prevent any
others from arising in their place. Nothing can harm the
land. Even unsuccessful war, in which we should be shut up
within our shores, and in which much personal property would
be entirely destroyed, would only raise the value of real estate.
I repeat, that the landowners had best leave matters where
they stand, or the people will discover that in old times the
land bore all the taxes.
Our land system is not only modern, it is strange — so
strange as to be looked on by other nations as an eccentricity.
Entails exist hardly anywhere but here. Primogeniture ob-
tains nowhere else at all. Others of our j)eculiarities are of
modern growth. Property in land is absolute, and it is in the
hands of a few thousand people. Three centuries ago it was
not absolute, and our landed proprietors Avere not few, but
many. It is, too, a system which, during the present century,
has remained untouched. No other country of Europe is
there that has not revised its land tenure within the last
eighty years.
The remedies pointed out to us by this association are
drastic ones, but less than these would not avail. Of what
good is it merely to promote the easy sale of land 1 Here, in
England, to sell land, however freely, means only to sell it to
the rich. Still, a remedy must, and must soon be found. The
condition of the country fills us with alarm. Those who have
seen our race abroad, under fair conditions, know how frank
and handsome the Englishman is elsewhere, and might be here.
But, when he looks around him at Sheffield, or in Eastern
London, he sees none but miserable and stunted forms. The
life of tlie English labourer is a steady march down a hill, with
a poor-house at the bottom. At the same time, the observer
find-s, when he asks for the remedy, that, in these matters,
there is not a pin to choose between the two parties in the
State, Let thcni beware lest we people of the towns do not
form one for ourselves.
30
FREE SCHOOLS.
A Speech delivered at Birmingham on ISih Octoher, 1871.
X Divisiox in favour of Fi-ee Schools, called for in the
House of Commons last year, was so small a one, that those
■who paid but little attention to it might have been almost
justified in supposing that it revealed a minority hardly worthy
of being taken into account. At the same time, if that
minority be scrutinised with care, it wall be found that in it
were members from almost all the largest towns, and that the
average number of voters whom the members for these cities
represented was over 14,000 each. No heed was paid to that
expression of the opinions of the great towns. The smallness
of the numbers of those voting prevented, in a Parliamentary
sense, the necessity of paying any heed to that opinion.
Nevertheless, we now begin to see how right Mr. Dixon was
in taking the sense of the House of Commons upon that
occasion, and how great arc the evils which would have been
avoided had an opposite ojDinion prevailed. It is a point upon
which the feeling of the great towns is at variance not merely
with that of the country districts, but also, what is more to be
regretted, perhaps, with the opinion of clear-headed men, not
without reforming instincts, who have made education their
special study. The Endowed Schools' Commissioners, for
instance, have laid down in the most stringent way the rule
of " no gratuitous education except as the reward of merit " ;
and, as I will presently explain, I should agree Avith them if
the conflict were one between paid-for education and the
principle of free admissions. Eut that is just what it is not ;
and I am prepared to contend that the question lies between
this latter alternative of remission of fees in some shape or
other, and the application to England of the free-school
system of the United States.
Mr. Melly, than whom no one is more competent to speak
upon the subject of education, in writing to The Times the
other day, made use of the following words : — " I am con-
vinced that wherever compulsion is really enforced, free
40 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
admissions ^vill have to be very largely given." He went on
to show two things — firstly, the impossibility of doing without
free admissions ; and, secondly, the unfortunate danger, which
lie could not but deplore, of the heart-burning and ultimate
improvidence likely to be caused by giving free admissions to
the children of the drunken, and refusing them to those who
stint tliemselves of the necessaries of life to pay the pence for
their children's schooling, because they can just manage to pay
those pence themselves. Yes ; and this heart-burning which
!Mr. Melly thought might possibly be avoided by giving a
large number of free admissions, will be in no way absolutely
avoided by that course, but only transferred a little further —
pushed off from one class to another a little higher up.
Instead of its being heart-burning between the improvident
labourer and the provident, it Anil be heart-burning in that
case between the clerk and the artisan.
Let us proceed step by step. This is too important a
matter for us to jump hastily to conclusions. The first point
to establish is, that compulsory instruction is impossible, and,
consequently, that universal education is impossible without,
at least, the remission of fees to a large proportion of the
children. If this be so, the question before us ceases to be,
"Is it good to found a free-school system?" and becomes,
" Is it be.st to found a general free-school system, or to remit
fees, or to establish certain separate and special free schools 1 "
Inasmuch as the last of these three courses is clearly possible
only in great towns, I propose to neglect it altogether in an
investigation, the residts of which ought to hold good for the
whole land. Now, speaking generally, is it the case that if
we have compulsion we must remit fees or have free schools ?
\\Tiat do we find from experience 1 Throughout the whole of
Germany and Austria, in Sweden and Norway, in Finland,
and in most of the Swiss Cantons, the fees of poor children
are either remitted or paid out of the Poor-Rate. In parts of
the French cantons of Switzerland, that is to say, in Geneva
and Vaud, and mo.st of Neuchatel, and in the United States
of America, tlic common schools are wholly free. In France
there is not compulsion ; but it is admitted in France, as I
learn from M. Duruy's report, that if compulsion is introduced,
instruction must be free, and compulsory-frce-secular education
IS an important branch of the programme of the Liberal
Fki:e Schools, 41
Party across the water. In England, Mr. Forster, in giving
permissive compulsion, found himself also forced, to give along
with it permissive free schools and permissive payment of fees.
If we look beyond the countries where compulsory education
exists, or is being introduced, we find that in all countries
where education, without being compulsory, is nevertheless
widely spread, remission of fees takes place. In Holland, 1
am informed that more than one-half of the children attending
the conamon schools receive their instruction free. We shall
soon be able to judge to what extent fees will be remitted in
this country, but we may temporarily, I think, assume that if
we reject a free-school system, we must agree to a large re-
mission of fees ; or, otherwise, if we insist upon universal
education, without that remission, we shall be subjected to a
great direct increase of the pauper class, accompanied by a
corresponding rise of rates, and consequent indirect increase
of that class. The question of the precise extent to which
remission of fees is likely to take place is one as to which avc
are at present without sufficient information to give a very
positive opinion. The examples of Holland on the one side,
or of Germany on the other, are, from the ditference of the
conditions, likely to be fallacious. The experiment of the
orders of the Birmingham Education Aid Society would seem
to show that so great is in this town the number of persons
living on less than the cost of a pauper's keep, that if we go
no higher than this point the number of free admissions must
be enormous ; and the estimate made for the Manchester School
Board of the amount required to pay the fees of the poor in
Manchester confirms this gloomy view. If, however, it be
true, that the real choice is not between universal payment of
school fees on the one hand, and free schools on the other, but
between this latter system and a wide remission of fees, then
it is clear that whatever arguments can be urged against re-
mission of fees, are so many arguments in favour of a free-
school system ; and those who attack a free-school system
should, at least, attempt to defend remission of fees — the
alternative plan.
Now, this consideration really disposes of most of the
arguments which have been used against a free-school system.
Mrs. Fawcett, who in her well-known letter to The Times,
made the strongest attack that has yet been seen upon free
42 Speeches of Sir Chakles Dilke.
schools, went too far ; and ■while proving that from her point
of view, remission of fees has a pauperising eflfect, was not
able to dcnj' that if we have compulsion, we must have a very-
wide remission of fees — a remission which, I am convinced,
must soon extend in the great towns to nearly one-half of the
cliildren who attend the public elementary schools. Well,.
Mrs. Fawcett thinks that the stigma of pauperism " ought "
to attach to the parents of such children ; but the question is
really one of utility — whether the attaching of such a stigma
is for the benefit of the people at large- — and it is the rechictio
ad ahsurdum of some of the coldest principles of science to
degrade the people in order successfully to maintain an
economic theory. Now, look at remission of fees. Not only
are the children whose fees are remitted placed in a miserable
position towards the others, and their parents lowered in the
moral scale by having to solicit the favour of exemption, but
those degrading effects will be permanent, and will cling for
ever to the system. On the other hand, if all schools receiving
aid from public funds were free, the system would be too wide
a one to admit of the possibility of invidious attacks being
directed against those who might avail themselves of its
advantages ; and even if any temporary stigma did by a
miracle attach to them, at least the next generation, born to
the sy.stem, would find it as little degrading here as it has
been found in America. I go further. I say that not only are
those who attack a free-school system bound to defend re-
mission of fees, or else to declare that they are prepared tO'
enforce compulsion without it, and to lock up in workhouses
the parents fnmi wliom the fee cannot be obtained ; but I say
that they were also bound, holdiiig these opinions that they
do, to protest, at the time, against our allowing remission of
fees to become a part of our ncAv English system. From the
fact that they raised no outcry, I presume that they prefer the
alternative of a wide remission. Yet, they speak of a free-
school system as a form of out-door relief, Avhereas it certainly
would seem that it is remission of fees and not a free-school
•system, which is out-door relief.
The main attack, however, that has been made in the
name of Kconomic Science upon free education by certain
Advocates of comi)ulsion rests upon the following grounds : —
That compulsion is only defensible if education be as neces-
Fkee Schools. 43-
sary as clothes and food. "If free education," said Mrs.
Fawcett, in her letter to The Times, "why not free clothes and
free food 1 " Now, those who use this language are not them-
selves prepared to put the two things on the same footing.
They let the public pay one-third of the cost of education
without a whisper of dissent. They let either the public pro-
vide out of rates, or benevolent persons out of subscriptions,
another third. They are not prepared to put education on
the same footing as clothes and food ; and to lock up in
workhouses those who cannot pay the whole cost of their
children's schooling. I say the tvhole cost advisedly, because
while the present fees are only one-third or one-fourth part of
the cost, the argument holds good for the whole cost. Yet,
these illogical opponents, who see in this case that the neces-
sities of society are the highest law, shrink from locking up,
and prefer remission of fees — that is, prefer the very outdoor
relief which their argument condemns. I douljt, for my part,
whether education can be compared to food and clothes at
all. Without food and clothes the child will die. Without
education the child will not merely not die, but may live as
contentedly, though not perhaps as usefully as with it. This
fact alone is enough to prove that it is a mere figure of speech,
altogether wanting in scientific accuracy, to say that education
is as necessary to the child as food and clothes. Education
is necessary for wholly different reasons and in a wholly
different degree. When the State interferes to save a child
from death by starvation, it interferes to protect the life of a
citizen who is incapable of protecting his own. Its interference
is justifiable from the point of view of the individual. On
the other hand, compulsory education is justifiable from the
point of view of the State, The State suffers by crime and
outrage, the result of ignorance. It interferes, therefore, to-
protect itself Xot, however, only for this reason, but also
to prevent the existing waste of intellectual power, and to
enhance the i^roductive capacity of the country. Food, on
the whole, is rather necessary from the point of view of the
individual ; education, on the whole, from the point of view
of society. The difference is rooted in the popular mind,
which is a point for statesmen to remember. It is possible to
convince a labourer that he is rightly to be prevented by the
workhouse system from bringing into the world children who
•44 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
must from tlieir birth be supported by the parish. It would
be wholly impossible to introduce such a \iew with regard to
education, without which the father would tell you that he
got on very well, and without which, as he would believe, his
son might got through the world with equal success. Com-
pulsion in education does not rest upon so narrow a ground
as to be only defensible if non-education be a positive injury
to the cliild : it is justifiable as a State necessity. Education
comes far nearer to drill than it does to clothes. Drill, or
-compulsory service of all citizens in times of emergency, may
become a State necessity. Suppose that compulsory service
in a time of national danger were to become a, State necessity,
and that the State should make us all turn out, would you
have us forced, not merely to go without our wages, but to
equip ourselves and provide our guns and our supplies 1
Would you not make the old and the halt pay by taxes their
fair share 1 Well, my contention is that education when
made compulsory is so made upon State grounds, and that it
could not be defended upon grounds applicable only to the
individual. Besides, you must not think that there is not a
sacrifice in any case. Even under a compulsory free system,
the parents are all called upon as parents to make what in
some cases is temporarily an enormous sacrifice, by giving up
the wages of the children.
I now come to Mrs. Fawcett's chief objection to the free-
school system, namely, that under it the man without
children would be forced unjustly to contribute to the educa-
tion rate, and that the man with few children, would have to
pay as largely as the man with many. Now, I may say in
passing, that whatever this hardship may be, it already exists,
and the objection which ought to have been raised a long
time ago was, so far as I know, heard for the first time when
it was proposed to establish an absolutely free system.
Putting that aside, I may say that in many towns the man
with no children, if a workman, is in general a lodger, who
does not pay rates ; and if you answer me that indirectly he
does pay them in his rent, I answer you again that he does
not feel that he pays them — which in the matter of responsi-
bility, which we shall soon be discussing, comes to the same
thing. Again, wliile the Imperial taxes contribute a large
share of the cost of the schools, this objection is, at all events.
Free Schools. 45
true only to a limited extent ; for tlie man -with children may
be shown to pay more taxes than the man with none, and the
man with many more than the man with few. Again, in the
case of the unmarried man who will one day marry, which is
the commonest case of all, the rate as contrasted with the fee
is an insurance — a payment spread over a lifetime, instead of
being concentrated in the most difficult financial period.
iMrs. Fawcett's contention is really that the substitution of
rates for fees would discourage providence ■with regard to
marriage, and tend to an undue increase of the population.
Now, if this be a fact, it proves too much, for it holds good
against all contributions from taxes towards the cost of
education and all contributions from subscriptions, as well as
against those from rates. Again, are there not increased rates
when increased house-room is required for an increased family ?
As a fact, too, is not the rate a more real check than the fee^?
The rate falls upon the unmarried lodger the moment that he
marries. The fee does not begin to touch him for six years,
when his first child is five years old. Then, the cost of
schooling — a penny a Aveek, if we arc to accept the present
contribution of the State — bears so small a proportion to the
other branches of the cost of children, that we may doubt
whether it can have any influence upon population. It must
have all the less influence, too, from the fact that it does not,
like the heavier cost of food and clothing, begin when the
child is born, biit so much later, that if there be several
children the eldest Avill be earning wages for the family before
the youngest has begun to go to school. Again, to use a
wider argument, may it not fairly be maintained that the
prudent unmarried man has, under the existing form of
society, a pecuniary interest in the education of the children
of the improvident, inasmuch as he will have to pay police
rates to keep them quiet and prison rates to lock them up,
besides being deprived as a citizen of the State of his share
in that general prosperity which, would be caused by their
instruction 1 Besides, on the whole argument of this supposed
check upon population by the school fee, and its removal by
a free-school system, I ask those who support this objection
whether they admit the necessity, if a free-school system is
not established, of remitting fees as they are being remitted
here at this moment ; and I ask, if fees are to be remitted.
46 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
what becomes of the argument of the restraint on popu-
lation 1
One word more. It is said that the free-school system is
breaking down in America. I do not believe that as a fact.
Fees were tried for a time, I believe, in New York State, and
the inhabitants had to go back to free schools. I do not
believe that the free-school sj'stera is breaking down in
America, and I maintain that it is idle to say that such and
such miserable consequences will arise from its adoption here
when you have before you the magnificent example of that
country, in which no such evils have arisen. Against the
hair-splitting arguments made use of in opposition to the
system, I believe that I have shown its necessity. But I
might go further than to speak of its necessity, and dwell at
:ny conceivable length upon its advantage. By the adoption
of a free-school system you gain that universality of education
which we believe would free you in the country from drunken
boors and in your towns from roughs ; although universality
might be obtained tlirough remission ; but you gain what is
more important still — increased concord and unity between all
classes of the population. I make this last statement advisedly,
because the case for free schools would not be tenable if they
were asked for under the belief that they would be confined
to the children of the poor. I contend that there is reason to
hope that those not poor would gradually avail themselves of
the blessings of the system, and I repeat that the case for
free schools would not be tenable if they Avere asked for as
a benefit to the wage-earning class alone. They are not thus
asked for, but as a benefit to society at large. So far is it
from being true that under a fi'ee-school system the artisans
would escape from the duty of paying for the schooling of
thoir children, that I believe that here, as in America, the
fliildrcn of the middle classes would gradually come to attend
those schools, while the weight of the rate would be likely to
fall chiefly on the class whose children would the most cer-
tainly attend them. You have now a population to whom
political powers have been given, or in whom political rights
have been admitted, very largely uneducated, and to a great
extent not even as yet desiring education, and you stand in
need of a strong and of a rapid remedy. A free-school
.system is offered to you, and you are told that it would be a
Free Schools. 47
system of out-door relief, as though under a general free-
school system any man could look on free schooling as a
charity. Would not each man know that he was paying the
sum fixed by the State as his fair share, and would not the
only persons not reached by the rate or the tax be those from
whom payment cannot in any case be screwed? The question
is not one of free education to be given by the rich to the
poor, but one of the respective convenience or inconvenience
of two different modes of payment. "Where a State necessity
and an individual necessity are combined, as they are in edu-
cation, the public mode of payment, as contrasted with the
individual or private mode of payment, is the rule. For
instance, you pa}' for your policemen by a police-rate, and not
by a fee each time you call him in ; and yet you do not look
upon the services of the policeman as alms from the State.
The question is merely one then as to the better mode of
payment. The public mode of payment has in this matter of
education additional advantages of its own. It would of
itself tend to produce common education in common schools,
which is, for innumerable reasons, a good thing. For instance,
education is far cheaper when conducted on a large scale, and,
consequently, when conducted in common schools than when
conducted in private ; and, after all, if there be any trifling
■abstract advantage in the payment of fees, the impossibility
of obtaining universal education without some mode of
remission, and, on the other hand, the enormous waste caused
by the want of primary education, cause any such advantages
from the payment of fees to shrink into insignificance by their
side.
These are the opinions which the divisions, taken by Mr.
Dixon and myself, when the Education Bill was in committee,
have shown to be the opinions held by the great towns ; but
they are not the opinions of persons in society, nor the
opinions of leading statesmen; and the voice of the great
towns, expressed as plainly as it was on that occasion, is at
present powerless by the side of other, and, as I think, less
legitimate expressions of a less wise opinion.
48
REDISTEIBUTIOK
A Speech delivered at Manchester on Srd November, 1871.
Sir Charles Dilke, after some preliminary observations,
said, — lam here to maintain not only that we have no security
that the opinion of the voters is accurately represented in the
House of Commons, but that, as a fact, it is on many occa-
sions grossly misrepresented, and this not by any failure on
the part of members to do their duty towards their con-
stituents, but by the conditions themselves imder which the
House is elected. I cannot put this better before you than
by taking a case which has very lately actually occurred.
On the 14th August last, a division took place, in which
the tellers for the minority were Mr. Fowler and ]\Ir. Jacob
Bright, on the question of the Contagious Diseases Acts ;
and in the division, forty-six members voted against the Govern-
ment, and were beaten by fifty-eight members who voted with
them. I might say, in passing, that twenty-five out of the
fifty- eight members were paid oflicials ; but that, although an
interesting fact of itself, has no practical bearing upon what
I am about to state, which is, that the forty-six members were
elected by 741,000 voters, and the fifty-eight by 324,000.
Of the latter, the twenty-five paid ofiicials represented
170,000, leaving only on the Government side thirty-three
independent members, representing 154,000 voters, of whom
only one represented a big borough, and not one a first-class
borough. Among the forty-six members who composed the
minority, there were fifteen members representing 20,000
voters apiece.
This is not the only occasion upon which Mr. Jacob Bright
has been connected with divisions in which he suffered an
apparently overwhelming defeat, but in which he was in
reality the spokesman of a majority, or something like a
majority, of voters. The amendment, which is well known
by liis name, and which he moved in committee on the
Education Bill last year, was supported by 132 members, and
Redistribution. 49
the Government obtained 253 votes; they beat Lim, that
is, by nearly two to one. But while their members were
elected by 1,7G7,000 voters, his represented 1,435,000 voters,
and the majority was one of 330,000 voters only, of Avhom
the paid members of the Government stood themselves for
220,000, leaving hardly any majority at all, or only one
which is easily made np from the votes of mere party hacks.
Mr. Jacob Bright's amendment was supported by twenty-two
members elected by more than 20,000 voters each, while the
Government received the support of only fifteen such members,
of whom four were paid servants of their own.
In this case, then, where a most important decision had to
be taken by the House of Commons, and where vast subse-
quent dissatisfaction has been caused by the position which
the Government then assumed, in spite of all the power at
the command of a Liberal Government when supported by
the Conservative party — in spite of a coalition, as we call it
in the House, between the two front benches — here w-as a
case in which an enormous apparent majority is shown to
have represented no majority at all of the voters whose
opinion was supposed to be consulted on the point ; and the
members, you have observed, who voted against the Govern-
ment on that occasion, had been elected, each of them, on
the average, as the representative of 10,000 voters, while
those who voted with the Government were the representatives
of about G,000 each. It may indeed be stated, in general
terms, but Avith great accuracy, that on all Badical divisions
against the Government, these proportions hold good, and
that the Radicals are elected, each of them, on the average, by
10,000 voters, and the Government supporters, each of them,
on the average, by 6,000. Sometimes Government itself
suffers by the existing state of things. Not often, for this
can only occur on the rare occasions on which Government
acts in a Radical ^nse, but it has taken place not long ago.
On 31st July, IGO members voted with Government in favour
of clause 18 of the Ballot Bill, and were beaten by 256
members, who supported i\rr. Henry Jamts, the representative
of tiny Taunton, and who voted for excluding poor men from
Parliament by throwing upon candidates the necessary costs
of the erection of hustings and booths.
Now, the IGO represented 1,670,000 voters, and the 256,
E
50 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
a few short of the same number ; or Government, beaten by
a hundred, had yet a majority of voters on its side. Not
only are divisions often changed as to their results, and
minorities represented as majorities, but some apparently
infinitesinially small minorities, when examined from this
point of view, become large. For instance, in 1870, twenty-
six members only, including tellers, voted for payment of
members ; but these twenty-six represented 300,000 voters,
or 12,000 voters apiece. So, again, the forty-six members
who voted against the match tax represented 660,000 voters
in the constituencies; and the 110 members who voted with
Mr. Pij'lands against paying the illegal over-regulation price
for commissions in the army, represented 1,260,000
voters.
I need not multiply instances of this kind. Almost every
day of the session supplies them in greater or less degree ;
and I maintain that, when examined with care, the division
lists give such startling results as to justify any one in declaring
that no kind of finality can be said to have been reached in
parliamentary reform as long as the existing anomalies in the
weight of votes continue. It is almost impossible to realize
the extent to which these anomalies go. Mrs. Fawcett once
stated about as strong a case in a few words as can well be
put, when she said that the "electors of Portarlington had
132 times as much representation as the electors of Glasgow";
and the same Avould be true if, for Glasgow, we substituted
Manchester or Marylebone. The metropolitan boroughs con-
tain three and a Cjuarter million inhabitants; they have
300,000 voters, and twenty-two members, or one member to
14,000 voters, and 145,000 inhabitants. The four towns of
Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Birmingham have
together half as many inhabitants, two-thirds as many voters,
and one more than half as many members. Adding them to
London, we get thirty-four members, representing five millions
of people, and 500,000 voters. On the*other hand, I can
find you thirty-one small boroughs, with a population of
150,000 people, and with less than 16,000 voters, having the
same number of members ; or I can find you seventy boroughs
returning eighty-five members to the House of Commons, and
having altogether a population about equal to that of Man-
chester, with about the same number of voters ; they returning
Redistribution. 51
eighty-five members while you return three. And I can find
you eighty-five members representing tlie forty-two large
boroughs, with 8,500,000 people, and 890,000 voters — that
is to say, each member representing 100,000 people, and far
more than 10,000 voters, to set off against a similar number
of members representing one-twentieth of that population.
The counties are in an almost equally unsatisfactory condition.
Yorkshire in all its ridings, Lancashire in all its divisions, and
Middlesex, unless a vast number of new boroughs are created
in them, ought to have their representation greatly increased ;
and there are many cases of counties which return two mem-
bers, having a population equal to that, and a number of
voters equal to that, of other counties which, added together,
return twelve or fourteen. There are sixty boroughs having
less than 1,000 voters each. They return sixty members by
40,000 voters, and a population of about 300,000. Hackney,
with the same number of voters and a Larger population,
returns two members instead of sixty ! Besides these sixty
boroughs — of which only two are Scotch — there are four
Scotch counties under 1,000 voters each — namely, Hadding-
tonshire, (Sutherlandshire (with only 358), Ross, and Teel^les ;
or altogether, four members to 3,000 voters. These four
Scotch counties might be thrown together with others. If to
the sixty boroughs we add the four Scotch counties, we obtain
sixty-four members returned by 43,000 voters ; and if we
compare with these constituencies, London and tlie eleven
next largest cities, and the greater divisions of the counties of
Middlesex, Lancashire, and Yorkshire, we shall find that
43,000 voters in the small and mostly-corrupt constituencies
have the same number of members, and therefore the same
weight in legislation, as 850,000 voters in the great and
pure constituencies. The comparison may be carried even
farther, and into larger figures still. The fifty-two largest
constituencies have together 110 members for 1,080,000 voters.
But, on the other hand, I can find you 110 other members of
the House of Commons who represent but 80,000 voters,
instead of 1,080,000 !
Take then, again, the case of the unrepresented towns,
the towns having no borough representation whatever ; most
of them, indeed, in Lancashire. Xot to speak of Tredegar
and Pontypool, Barnsley, Barrow, Buijtle, Glossop, Southport,
52 Speeches of Sir Chaeles Dilke.
Luton, and many others, there is Rotherham, with 60,000'
people, there is St. Helen's, Avith 45,000 people, there is
Croydon, with 85,000 people, and there is Battersea, with
100,000 people, altogether without borough representation.
There are 250 smaller places than Battersea which at present
return members. When we see these things, and remember
the elaborate checks against democracy by which the Con-
servative Reform Bill at first was guarded, and how little
there was in its provisions, we, I think, may be able to-
compare that Bill to one of those conjuroi-'s parcels from
which children tear oflf cover after cover, and find at last
that after all there Avas nothing but covers, and that there is
absolutely no inside. When we turn to the consideration of
the remedies for this state of things, we find that many courses
are offered to us.
These are the propositions of equal electoral districts,
the diAdsion of large constituencies into " single-member
wards," and the proposal of giving to members of the House-
of Commons, on a division, a varying power, according
to the number of voters or of votes they represent, and
a fourth plan is, the abolition of local and the substitution
of personal representation. As far as I am concerned I do
not attempt to pronounce in favour of any one of them.
I do not think that that is our duty. We cannot be
asked to decide the principles upon which this question
should be settled. It is for us to say that we should
have greater power or a greater approximation to power
in the large constituencies, and it will be for the Govern-
ment to take upon themselves the responsibility of deciding
in what way it should be decided. But, inasmuch as the
plan of personal representation has been a good deal mis-
understood, I shall devote some time to explaining the
grounds upon which the supporters of the scheme rest
their case. Put in its simplest shape, the substitution of
personal for local representation is the most straightfor-
ward and logical plan of reform that can be devised. Say
that you have two millions of electors, and that you want
to elect a House of 500 members, it is clear at once that each
member ought to represent 4,000 voters. This being so, the
plan of personal representation is satisfied, if you allow any
4,000 voters, wherever they live, to i-cturn one member to
Redistribution. 53
the House of Commons. There Avould be many incidental
advantages in such a plan. For instance, it is easy to cry
down the principle of hereditary legislation, and to show the
absurdity of the constitution of the House of Lords. It is
not difficult to show that even a better constituted Second
Chamber is hardly to be defended upon logical grounds, but
in such a demonstration you have to assume that your First
Chamber, your House of Commons, or House of Piepresen-
tatives, or whatever you choose to call it, is a good one, and
that in it are represented all opinions that are held by any
large body of persons in the country, and all interests that
arc the interests of a sufficient number. Now, that is just
Avhat you cannot assume under your present electoral system.
Indeed, not only can you not assume it, but I can
show in a minute that it is not the case. For an instance,
we may take the working people. In almost every English
borough there are a certain number of voters who believe
that no middle-class man is capable of representing their
views.
Now, this opinion, whether true or false, is held by a very
large number of voters ; but they have not hitherto succeeded
in proving themselves a majority in any one borough, and,
consequently, have not returned even a single member to
represent their views ; while, under a system of personal as
contrasted with local representation, these men, in whatever
part of the country they lived, would unite to return candi-
dates of their choice, and would send, even under the existing
franchise, twenty or thirty members to the House. I might
take another case, which is perhaps a still stronger one, because
it is not capable of being remedied in any other way, so far as
I can see. The working people might send their men under
the present system if they got a wider franchise ; indeed, they
will probably succeed in doing so as it is. But the case I am
about to name is that of a class who, in this country, would
remain unrepresented in any event under the present plan ; it
is that of the English Roman ( 'atholics. Any one who knows
the Roman Catholic body, is aware that there are considerable
differences of opinion between the Irish and the English
Catholics upon many most important points. Now, there are
plenty of Irish Catholics in the House, but not a single English
Catholic, to represent their views, and those views go Avholly
54 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
tmrepresented there. If Ireland should obtain Home Rule>
there -would not be a Catholic of any kind in the English
House of Commons, which is a state of things, I should
imagine, that even Mr. Newdegate himself would regret;
because, much as that gentleman dislikes the Eoman Catholics,
he is too fair a man to desire to attack their opinions in a
body to which they would not return a single member.
So much for the plan of personal representation and its
advantages. The diflBculty lies in carrying it out ; and most
of the attempts which have been hitherto made to do so have
more or less the character of failure. ^Manchester and Bir-
mingham, and some other towns that send three members to
the House of Commons, could return three Liberals with ease ;
but under the minority scheme, as it is called, which was
supposed to be a stej), however small, towards personal repre-
sentation, the Liberals of those places either lost one of the
members, as at Manchester, or, as at Birmingham, succeeded
in retaining their hold upon the town, but with great trouble
to themselves. Now, bad as is the present effect of that
limited vote, if it only caused the representation of the Con-
servatives at Manchester, or of the Liberals at Liverpool,
without diminishing the representation of the other party, I
suppose that no one would complain ; and it is strange that
no one has hitherto seen fit to attack the settlement of Mr.
Disraeli's Reform BiU upon the ground on which it could
logically be best attacked. What, it seems to me, the Liberals
at !NLinchester should have said was this : Give ]\ianchester its
fair number of members, and then let them be fairly divided
by whatever plan seems best between the various political
parties of that tovTi. !^Lanchester, if the House of Commons
is to retain its existing numbers, with its 57,000 voters, is
entitled to fourteen members. I think the Manchester Liberals
had just cause of complaint, being, say 40,000 strong, and
entitled to ten members, when they found themselves compelled
to put up with only two. But had they possessed their ten
out of fourteen, I don't suppose they would have complained
of their Conservative neighbours having four.
The .«ame is the case with the great London boroughs. I
have no doubt that there would be an outcry made if an
attempt wus to be worked out by Parliament, as has sometimes
been proposed, for applying to London any scheme of personal
Kedistribution. 55
representation, unless at the same time a large increase was
made in the number of London members. If we except the
City, the London boroughs have but eighteen members for ;i
population of three millions ; and London, we must remember,
has no municipality, and is governed, in all important matters,
by Parliament itself. Now, if the eighteen members were to
be elected under a system of personal instead of local repre-
sentation, no doubt the result would be that you would have
men of greater average fiime returned than is the case at
present. You would have great statesmen and great writers
anxious for the honour of representing the capital itself; and
your list of eighteen members elected in one body by the
whole metropolis, would no doubt be an honour to that town,
and through it to the whole land. I am by no means sure
that London would be content, when it found that the result
had been to secure the services of men who perhaps were
what we should call, to use a common phrase, "above their
work." But that objection would be entirely removed if
London had her fair share of members, according to her
population, and the list were large enough to admit of the
election of men who would look after the local government of
the town, as well as attend to matters of imperial concern.
I have spoken thus at length of the case of London,
because it is clear that if we are to attempt a system of
personal representation, Ave .shall have to try it experimentally
at first. Now, no place can be so fit as London for this ex-
periment, from its size, from the variety of opinions that
prevail, and from the machinery at command. It is for this
reason, then, that I have tried to show how in the first place
you must do lis justice in the matter of our representation,
before we can aid you in this great experiment. It appears,
then, to me, that for us to adopt the minority scheme, or the
cumulative vote, or any of these plans for giving to the various
parties in every place a share in the representation before we
have first laid down the principle of equality of political power
among the existing voters, is to put the cart before the horse.
I am far from attacking, as some of my friends at Birmingham
have done, the effects of the cumulative vote. But the
cumulative vote is an imperfect plan, and so much greater are
the advantages of the plan of purely personal representation
that, when the Ileform League was in existence, and had ex-
66 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
pressed, througli Mr. Beales, opinions somewhat at variance
with that reform, a committee of the League, which was
appointed to consider it, was converted in a body, and reported
in favour of personal representation. The principle establishes
absolute equality in the weight of every vote ; it makes every
voter equal in political power with every other voter in the
country ; and it has this further advantage, that it allows each
voter to exercise the freest choice as to the candidate for whom
he votes, and in this way gets rid of the dangerous political
apathy of those who in the great constituencies do not at
l)resent vote at all, either because they know that their votes
will not tell with any practical effect, or because they are
indifferent to the particular candidates suggested to them for
the ir choice. The disadvantage of the present plan is not
all upon our side. I am sorry to say that the small and
corrupt boroughs are not, by any means, all Conservative. I
tliink that a majority of them even please to call themselves
Liberal. But they are not Liberal in the sense in which the
great towns are Liberal, and although their members may cast
a Liberal party vote upon a question of confidence in a
Ministrj', they are conveniently absent when questions come
up for discussion which are looked upon as vital by the larger
towns. Still, as I say, the gain will not be all upon our side.
The counties are many of them short of their proper represen-
tation, and, if their Conservative members choose to join us in
working for this reform, there is no doubt that upon many
questions — for instance, upon taxation — they •will be gainers.
Those of them who are wise, however, must know that, should
they enter upon a prolonged resistance, the result must be,
that under the plan of equal single-member wards, the great
boroughs will soon monopolise the power which ought to be
shared between them and the larger counties.
Let nie now go in more detail into an examination of the
facts wliicli I have already roughly stated with regard to the
change which would be produced by giving equal weight to all
electors. The loss would not be a Conservative party loss ;
the gain not a Liberal party gain. On the contrary, at the
]a.st election the Lil)erals gained a larger majority than the
mere numbers, excluding accidents, would have entitled them
to receive. ^ Were representation upon the existing franchise
l)erfectly fair, the Conservatives, instead of being in a minority
Redistribution. 57
of more than 100, would be in a minority of only fifty. But
the gain we should hope to find would be a gain in the reduc-
tion of corruption in the widest sense — not only in the
reduction of local or electoral corruption, but in the reduction
of parliamentary corruption as well. On the other hand, the
gain would be no party gain, but a gain, we should hope, in
political intelligence upon both sides. It may be shown that,
with one or two rare exceptions, the boroughs with less than
1,500 voters are either hopelessly corrupt or else completely
under the thumb of some great landlord. There is one
difficulty, wliich is not likely to be raised by you, perhap.s, or
by any meeting of intelligent persons but one, and that one
the House of Commons itself, but which certainly will be
brought to the front there when this subject comes on for dis-
cussion. I speak of the representation of the Universities. It
is true that the Universities send distinguished members to the
House — especially in the person of Mr. Gathorne Hardy, an
orator and statesman not ranked high enough, perhaps, at
present by his own party, and terribly underrated by that to
which we belong ; but we should not be without Mr. Lowe,
and I\Ir. Hardy, and Dr. Playfair in the House, nor deprived
of the quaint humour of ]\Ir. Hope, if they had to sit
for boroughs and counties, instead of for Larned schools.
Mr. Lowe, however, would hardly, perhaps, be in that case
quite the same man who, sitting for the Senate of London
University, invented the match tax for less fortunate
individuals.
y The present state of our representative system is a per-
petual menace to the peace of the counti y. The absence of a
plan enables any party in power with a good majority to pass
at any time, by constitutional means, a so-called Reform Bill,
giving to themselves, by means of skilful redistribution of
seats, secure possession of power for years and years. We
need — to prevent that of which we have already once seen
something on a small scale, and which we may otherwise come
to see repeated on a large — a settlement of a permanent and
of an elastic character. It is, then, in this view tliat the sense
of the House of Commons will next session be taken upon a
motion to the effect that ctpial political rights ought to belong
to every voter in whatever place he may reside, or upon one
that at least goes a long way in that direction.
58
ELECTORAL REFORM.
A Speech ilelivered at Middleshorough, on 27th November ^
187L
In the earliest English Parliament -n^hich contained any
representatives of the Commons, the Burgesses and the
Knights of the Shire seem to have been summoned only to
express the consent of their constituents to taxation. The
Kings, who, in earlier times still, had raised taxes from their
nobles, Avho were at that time tenants of the Crown, as their
needs increased, and as, on the other hand, a large number of
the tenants t'n cajnte became poor, searching about to find the
best means of raising mone}'-, were struck by the idea that it
might be more easily provided for them if drawn from a wider
source, and the summoning of the rei^resentatives of the free-
holders of the counties, and of the chartered towns, was the
result. There was no idea of representing population. The
idea was that of obtaining persons who could speak in the
name of communities ; and communities worthy of being
asked for their consent to a tax, were asked in equal degree
with each other. No town sent more members to Parliament
than any other. Under Edward I., the same form of writ was
directed to every borough, directing it to return two burgesses ;.
and the City of London itself did not, until later times, return
four. As little by little the idea of representation grew up —
representation coupled with taxation — and as the members
gradually asserted their right to consider grievances and to-
obtain redress before consenting to taxation, the representation
wa.s still that of places and not of persons. Gradually, how-
ever, a.s we all know, a complete change has come across our
idea of representation.
Long before the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, a large
number of politicians, and of writers, had come to regard the
IIousu of Comn^ons as a body representing the opinions of the
voters rather than of the communities ; but that Act, at all
events, recognized the new theory as that upon which the
constitution of this country was for the future to be based ;
Electoral Reform. 50
and since 1832 no single iudiviJiuil, as far as I know, lias ever
attempted to contend tliat the old theory of representation has
any longer a place among lis. All now, at least theoretically,
admit that the majority of the voters are the persons in
whose hands power has been placed. But, in accepting the
new theory, we have not suited our practice to it ; and we
still find clinging to our modern view not isolated remnants
only of the old system, but a whole body of what are now
become abuses — the over-representation of decayed commu-
nities, and the under-representation of vast immbers of the
inhabitants of the most prosperous portions of the country.
Now it is commonly believed, I think, by those who have
not examined the subject with much care, that the evil cures
itself ; that, parties being more or less nearly equally divided
throughout the country, it does not much matter if the voters
in the big places are under-represented and the voters in small
places over-represented, because, after all, if we were to adopt
a logical system, based upon population, the two sides in the
House of Commons would not undergo any serious alteration.
But this may be true, and is true, without its following as a
matter of course that there are not great practical incon-
veniences about the present course and })ractical necessities
for a change. The optimist view, which I have just stated,
assumes that the voters belong to one party or the other party,
and nothing more ; that the one party has certain views, and
that the other party has opposite views ; and that all tliat is
important is, that the party that is in a majority among the
voters should be in a majority among the members. But this
is a most superficial view. There are the greatest possible
differences (upon both sides) between the inhabitants, for
instance, of different sized communities, and between the
inhabitants of the north and of the south of the country ;
differences between the members of the same party in the
counties and in the towns, and altogetlier what may be called
a political confusion upon the vast majority of subjects, and
definite party lines only upon a few.
Now, to bring home this general observation to ourselves,
let us look at the opinions of great towns. I may say, in
passing, that I might make as strong a case as to the opinions
of the large counties, for instance, on taxation questions ; but,
for the moment, let us consider the case of the big towns.
60 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
Now, in these towns the vast majority of the voters on the
Liberal side belong to the Kadical section of the party ; and
■even upon the Conservative side we find that the majority of
their voters are Conservative only upon a few points, and go
Avith the Radicals in most things. For instance, the Conser-
vative majority in those Lancashire towns which return
Conser\^ative members to the House of Commons, are Con
serA'ative upon Church matters, and upon little else. But, to
put them out of view for a moment, the majority of the
Liberal voters in the large towns differ, perhaps, at this time,
from the Liberal Government upon more questions than those
upon which they agree with them, and upon questions which
they consider of great importance ; and I think you wiU admit
that I have made out a strong practical case for a change in
the representative system we possess, if I can show that, on
many of these questions, the Government can obtain a majority
against your views, at this moment, although you, and not
they, possess a majority of voters in the country. As examples
of what I mean, I will take three subjects. The first shall be
Trades L'^nion Legislation. All of you remember that, when
the Trades Union Bill of last session was brought in, it was
looked upon by the unionists as the least that they could
possibly accept. It was even a difficult matter to secure the
consent of the chief representatives of the unionists to that
Bill. It was looked upon as a compromise, and as a compro-
mise of a doubtful character ; but, after a good deal of trouble,
the consent of the unionists was obtained. The Bill passed
the House without much alteration in committee ; but in the
Lords it was so changed, that, when it came down to the
House of Commons, the leading unionists were of opinion
that it would have been better to have rejected it altogether
than to allow it to pass in its then shape. After much private
discussion and negotiation, it Avas agreed that the Government
should attempt to mitigate the force of the penal provisions
that the Lords had put in, and a division was taken upon the
proposed mitigation. In that division — owing partly, I am
sorry to say, to the desertion of members who usually cast
Radical votes,— the Lords' amendments were affirmed by a
large majority ; but, in that division, although, as I say, the
majority was large, — although the members were in the pro-
portion of 3 to 2, the minority who voted against accepting
Electoral Reform. CI
the Lords' amendments represented a larger number of voters
than the majority. This is one case. Another that is still
more startling, and from the point of view of many persons
as important, is the case of the division that occurred at the
end of the session upon the Contagious Diseases Act, in which
46 members voted against the Acts, and 58 voted for them,
and in which the 46 represented 2^ times as many voters as
the 58.
The third subject upon which such divisions have taken
place during the late session — and I name only three subjects
out of very many — is that of Parliamentary elections ; and
upon this I propose to dwell at length.
We see it said in all Radical papers that the Bill, when
brought in again next year, must contain certain provisions
which it did not contain this year, and certciin other provisions
which it did contain, but which were struck out in committee.
The Bill of last session did not prohibit the employment of
paid canvassers, and it did not extend the hours of polling. It
is said everywhere that the Bill of next year must do both
these things. The Bill of last session, as introduced, did
contain what is known as the " Expenses Clause " ; but that
clause was struck out in committee. It is said that that
clause must be put in again next year. Now, let us take the
divisions that occurred upon this branch of the elections
subject. On the 4th August my colleague. Sir Henry Hoare,
divided the committee of the House as to payments for
canvassing. G9 members, including tellers, voted with him,
and, the Government opposing him, 90, with tellers, voted in
the majority the other way. But his G9, representing all the
largest towns, w^ere elected by 680,000 voters, and the 96
were elected by 565,000 voters : that is to say, my col-
league, apparently beaten by 27, in reality won by 115,000
votes. Here, then, is a case in Avhich the opinion of the
country, the opinion of the voters — in whom political power
in England is supposed to reside — was falsified in the House
of Commons, and a majority represented as a minority upon
an important question.
Now for the hours of polling. This, as you know, is a
question of little importance in small boroughs, Avhere the
voters, as a general rule, work Avithin such distances of the
polling places that they can, if so minded, vote during their
G2 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
dinner-time ; but it is a question of considerable importance
in the largest boroughs, and of overwhelming importance in
London, where the voters work miles from the place where
they would have to vote. 62 members, including tellers,
voted with me when I raised the question for altering the
hour for closing the poll from 4 o'clock to 8. I told you just
now, upon the other division, that the 69 who voted against
payment for canvassing represented 680,000 voters. Well,
the 62 who voted for extending the hours of polling repre-
sented even greater numbers. The 62 represented 880,000
voters, or considerably over 14,000 voters a piece, an average
which, I think, upon hardly any other occasion has been
reached. Now, both these points are of less importance than
the one to which I 'am about to come, for the reason that,
upon the two occasions to which I have referred, the Govern-
ment, not, I think, accurately gauging public feeling, voted
with the Conservatives against the Radical view ; and before
next year they will have had time to reflect and to reconsider
their opinion, and possibly they may change their minds.
But, upon the 18th clause of their Bill, they did, last session,
take the Radical view, and they and we, together, were all
beaten ; and when people talk of the necessity of having that
clause " in again " next year, and of sending the Bill with
that clause to the House of Lords, they talk of the necessity
of doing that Avhich, so far as I know, it is not in their power
to do. 160 members voted for the clause ; 256 voted against
it— a majority of 96. Now, suppose that considerable
l)ressure is put on; suppose that some of the so-caUed
Liberals who voted against that clause are brought to book,
and that strong representations are made to them of the
inju-stice and unwisdom of their course ; suppose that a few
votes are turned, and suppose that a few other men are made
to stop away, do you suppose, for one moment, that we shall
be able to break down that majority of 96 ? and is there the
faintest hope that, as things stand, we shall have any more
clance of carrying the 18th clause of the Ballot Bill next
year than we had tliis 1 I cannot see a shadow of foundation
for the opinion. It is true that the Government, as a whole,
wa.s lukewarm in the support of its own clause; but you
cannot prove that there Avas any public sign of that being the
case ; and, as far as private opinion goes, that will be the
ElECTOR\L PiKFORM. 63
•case next year. At all events, the member of the Goverinnent
who had charge of the Bill (Mr. Forster) was, I believe,
honestly desirous that the clause should pass. I repeat, then,
that those who delude themselves into the belief that, because
they say this clause must pass, therefore it will pass next year,
Are utterly mistaking their power under the present system
of representation, — I say under the present system of representa-
tion, and I say that, because, when you come to examine the
number of voters who were represented on that division upon
each side, you will again find, what Ave found before, that the
•opinion of the country was falsified, and that the minority
represented more voters than the majority.
Now, what did that division, in which the large commu-
nities took one side, and the small communities took the
other, what did that division really mean 1 I don't wish to
use ugly words, and I am not fond of making imputations
upon those with Avhom I happen to diff"er ; but that division
was a fight between purity and corruption. Those who voted
in the majority, with Mr. Harcourt and Mr. James, voted for
throwing the expenses of the ballot upon the candidates. It
is of course not enough to condemn such a provision to say
that it is one that exists in no other country in the world.
We do many things in England that are done in no other
■country in the world. But tliis, it seems to me, is bad both
in principle and in example, and would have the practical
effect, — and we always look to practice here, — not merely of
■continuing, but of increasing, the existing limitation of the
choice of constituencies, and confirming the present plutocratic
monopoly of political power. The opponents of the 18th
-clause affected to regard the matter as a trifle. They expressed
themselves as though it did not much matter, either to them
or to anybody else, whether the clause were passed, or
whether it were not. But it is my opinion, — and I say it
<.leliberately, having had months to think quietly over the
matter, and to lose all feeling of temporary aiuioyance at our
non-success, — it is my opinion that, if the Bill cannot be passed
with that clause in it, it had better not be passed at alL
There is one gigantic fallacy which lies at the bottom of the
argument of the opponents of that clause. They assume that
to drop it would only be to leave matters as they are. Now
so far is that from being true, that I believe I can show that
64 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke. -l
matters would be very greatly altered for tlie worse. We '
should not be continuing an existing evil so much as intro-
ducing a greater one. My contention is that, if the expenses
are to be thrown upon the candidate, they will be vastly
increased by the adoption of the Ballot.
Under the present system you have far greater cost in
building election booths in the streets than in using public
rooms, or even private rooms, for the purposes of election.
There are two Acts of Parliament which direct returning
(.tfficers to take rooms, where that is possible ; but there is no
penalty thrown upon them for neglect ; and, it being left thus
optional with them, they seldom exercise the discretion which
Parliament has vested in them, but almost always build the
booths in streets. If you pass the Ballot Bill, you will want
a much larger booth than you need at present. You will
want an outer portion of the booth, and then a barrier, and
then an inner portion, divided into compartments, the com-
partments in which the marking of the papers takes place ;
and we in the House of Commons shall have to prescribe by
law the erection of a building which would be, I think, two
or three times as costly as the present booth. But, if the
charge for its erection is thrown upon the candidate, there
will be no more security for the hiring of private rooms than
there is at present, or for the obtaining of the free use of
l)ublic rooms. On the other hand, if we were to pass the
1 8th clause, and suffer the locality to do its duty, you might
be perfectly certain that, in all cases, public rooms would be
found. We have had an example of the two systems at work
in the same places. I speak of the School Board elections as
compared with the Parliamentary ; and, as I know the case
of London best, I will refer to the election of the London
School Board by ballot, and Avith the candidates relieved of
the charges, and will compare it with a Parliamentary election
under the existing system in the metropolis. Now, at the
la.st general election there were in all London about 120
polling places; about 105 of them were erected in the streets,
and about 15 were placed in public rooms. At the School
Pioard election there were about 140 polling places, and, so
far as I know, all, without exception, were in rooms. These
figures may be slightly wrong; but I will now give you
figures which I know to be correct. They concern the
Electoral Eeform. G.")
"borough which I represent. At the Parliamentary election
•we had 1 3 polling places, of Avhich 1 1 were at booths erected
in the streets, and two in public rooms. At the School Board
election there were the same number of polling places, and
the whole 1.3 were in rooms. The School Board elections iu
all London, with more than 100 candidates going to the poll,
cost GjOOO/. It is almost impossible to say what a general
4 election in London costs under the present plan. I spt)kc
just now of twice or thrice as much ; but I am convinced that
in London you might multiply the sum by five at least. To
pass, then, the Ballot Bill without the Expenses clause is not,
I repeat, to continue an existing evil, but vastly to increase
it. See Avhat the practical effects of such a course must be.
You have already a terrible limitation of the choice of con-
stituencies : a limitation of candidatures to rich men. Lender
the Ballot, without the Expenses clause, you would increa.se
the limitation, as I have shown, with the effect, of course, of
excluding not only workmen, but writers, and men of the
highest distinction of all kinds, and confining the choice of
constituencies more than ever to one narrow class. In the
interest, then, not only of the constituencies and of the country,
but even in the interest of the House of Commons itself, it is
of the most vital importance that we should pass an Expenses
clause. i\Ir. Harcourt once wrote a letter to The Times, in
which he spoke of it as a "crochet," and a " small theory."
Why, you might as well say that it was a small theory to
object to members prociiring their return to the House of
Commons by paying so much a-head to all the voters in their
constituencies. One would really almost suppose that !Mr.
Harcourt was afraid of a workman, or of what he looks upon
as much worse, a philosophical radical, standing against him
at Oxford. Indeed, I believe, that the real opposition of the
House of Commons to the ISth clause was founded upon the
fear of what arc called " fictitious " candidates. Now, in
reference to these fictitious or bogus candidates, I want to
know Avhere were the fictitious candidates at the London
School Board election ] In passing the 18th clause, we were
asked to pass it with a limitation in it to check fictitious can-
didatures. I will express no opinion at this moment Avith
regard to that limitation. If we cannot pass the clause
•without it, perhaps it is better to have the clause with the
p
GG Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
limitation than not to have the clause at all. But, at all
events, the question we discussed was whether, even with the
limitation, there would not be fictitious candidatures. Well,
in the London School Board election, there was no limitation
of any kind. Anybody was a candidate who chose to say he
was one; there Avas no check whatever; no fee to be paid
down ; and yet, in that London School Board election, where
were the fictitious candidates? In the whole list of over 100
candidates there were not 10 who had in their candidature
anything that was not of the most solid and legitimate cha-
racter ; and there was not one single case of a man going on
up to the time of nomination from any desire to advertise
himself, or, to put a case which was put in the House of
Commons, to advertise his shop or his trading wares.
Now, there is one other point which weighed, as well as
the fear of fictitious candidates, with some members of the
majority in the House of Commons. It was an unworthy,
and, as I believe, an unfounded fear of their constituencies
on the part of members for small places. !Mr. Harcourt,'
indeed, was frank upon the point, frank both in the letter to
Tke Times and in the speech which he delivered on the clause
in the House of Commons. I forget the word which he used
in the House, but in the letter he spoke of " unwilling con-
stituencies." Well, for my own part, I do not believe in
constituencies being unwilling, as a general rule, at all events,
to do that which is in an indirect way their interest and in the
l»lainest way their duty. Who complained in the case of the
School Board elections, where the expenses proposition was
adopted] who complains in the case of the Guardians' elec-
tion, and in the case of the election of municipalities, where
a similar principle prevails? I may say, indeed, that there is
HO little difference between the cases, that if the Expenses
clanse should be again rejected, as the Bill applies to muni-
cipal as well as to larliamentary elections, I think that the
sense of the House of Conmions should be taken upon a clause
t<» put both ui)on a similar footing for the future, by throwing
the expenses of the municipal elections upon the candidates.
Tliat W(juld be a case of the old story of what is sauce for the
goose being sauce for the gander ; for Mr. Harcourt backed
his opinion that this measure was unpopular with the con-
stituencies, or unpopular at least with his, by presenting to
Electoral Reform. G7
the House of Commons a, petition, not from the town of
Oxford, but from the Town Council of that City, against the
18th clause of the Ballot Bill. Well, I think that nothing
more indecent was ever seen than that gentlemen, who do nut
pay the expenses of their own election, should petition the
House of Commons against the application to Parliamentary
elections of a similar plan. They positively did not shrink
from stating in their petition that their constituents at Oxford
were overburdened with rates, although I believe that, so great
is the property of the corporation, that there never yet has
been a borough-rate at all within that city. AVhere would
these gentlemen suggest that we should stop ? If the candi-
dates are to pay for the erection of the booths in Avliich the
Ballot is to be taken, why should they not pay the llevising
Barrister for attending at the registration court ? why should
they not pay the overseers for the printing of the list ? why
should they not pay the salary of the returning officer I
Would they like the members of the House of Commons to
have paid for the cost of the erection of the Palace at "Westminster
in which they meet for their deliberations 1 If men are to be
charged with the expenses which are publicly incurred in the
sending of them to perform public duties, I do not know where
the line is to be jdrawn that will stop short of this astounding
proposition. I have dwelt at length and with Avarmth ujjuu
this subject, because I think that the tone which prevailed
respecting it in the House of Commons was most unworthy
of the reputation of the House, and because I beUeve that
there is nothing which shocks any public-spirited man more
than the retention and the aggravation of this abuse. In the
minds of many members who sit for tiny places, which ought
not to have special representatives at all, there is something
positively horrible in the thought of the possibility of any-
thing being done to make access to these boroughs more ea.sy
for other candidates. They seem to suppose that they have
a sort of vested right to be returned as the representatives of
these boroughs, and that the end of the world will come, not
wlien they are defeated, but when anybody else ventures to
present himself to the electors of this or that borough, par-
ticularly if he be a poor man, to contest the representation
with them. I heard one member, who sits for a very small
borough, exclaim, when the bearing of the clause was carefully
A.
68 Speechi ^.s-TJiifKE.
explained to him by a frieWtlp^^kyf^-miglat have my tailor
standing against me !" and the right of his constituents in
seeking both the best representative for themselves, and the
fittest member to represent not them only, but in their belief the
entire body of their fellow-citizens in the country, to return
the tailor, if they thought fit, to the House of Commons, liad
evidently never entered into the man's mind. On the second
reading of the Ballot Bill, I remember that an appeal was-
made by Dr. Ball, an appeal against the Bill, of course, to
antique example, and to the case of Rome. Well, I may
appeal to Borne on this subject; for I think that, in all
Roman history, in the days of the corruption and the fall of
the Republic, when the popular candidates were those who
vied one with the other to supply from their own purses the
means of filling the bellies of the population and of pandering
to their vices, nothing more discreditable ever took place than
the attempt Avhich has been made, and which is still being
made, again to throw the necessary and legitimate expenses-
of election upon the candidates who present themselves to the
people's choice.
I have stated the case of the division upon the Expenses
clause as one of the strongest which can be put to show the
practical need of a change in our representative system, of
which I began by showing the theoretical importance. I
might give you any number of examples. Take, for instance,
the Education Bill of last year. In all directions, in every
big town, and in many small ones, large sections of people,
whi) represent, as I beUeve, the majority, are declaring that-
the Education Act does not suit them ; that it is productive
of every kind of inconvenience and of discontent ; and that it
will have to be amended in their sense. They say that it has-
.struck a blow at that rehgious independence which they
thought had been secured for ever ; and it is a question
whether most of the good that ought to have attended tlic
pa.s.siiig of that Act has not been sacrificed, owing to the
contention and religious feuds that it has already caused.
"W ell, hero we have again an instance of the practical necessity
for a change in the representative system ; for the mo.st im-
portant decision tliat was taken by the House of Commons
upon that liill, was on a division in which what was known
as Mr. Jacob Bright's amendment was rejected. That deci-
Electoral Reform. C9
sion, wluch rested upon a considerable majority of the House
of Commons, rested upon little if any majority of the voters
of the country.
The machinery by which the change, when decided on,
should be carried out is a secondary question, as compared with
the necessity for the change itself; and I can promise you
this, at all events, that an attempt shall be made next year
to obtain a declaration from the Government, that equal
weight ought to be given to the vote of every elector, in
whatever part of the country he may dwell.
70
HOUSE OF LOEDS.
A Speech delivered at Birmingham^ 7 th December, 1871.
Sir Charles Dilke said he did not oppose the House of
Lords because of any shortcomings of its members, or because
of its conduct as a body, for its political conduct had been
very much that which might be expected of any body of men
exposed to the greatest temptation to which men could be
exposed — namely, the possession of unlimited and irrespon-
sible power. He blamed the system under which the House
of Lords, as a hereditary body, continued to exist. The
people elected with infinite trouljle a number of representa-
tives to the House of Commons, public and private money
■was spent, and much time given up for this purpose, and then
their opinions, which were the people's opinions, on vital
questions, were neutralised by a body of irresponsible legis-
lators, not chosen on account of any merit they possessed, not
chosen indeed at all, but only legislators because certain
of their ancestors attracted the notice of some king. It was
not the members of the House of Lords who attended steadily
to their duties who generally did these things, but the pigeon-
shooting legislators from Hurlingham, who rushed down to
the House three or four times in the session, and by their
votes defeated measures on which the people had set their
hearts. It was not only on great occasions that harm was
done by the hereditary House. There were many small occa-
sions, of wjiich tlie constituencies heard little, when Bills of
secondary, but still of considerable importance, were ^\Tecked
and ruined in the House of Lords, although they had passed
the House (jf Commons.
There had not now for some time past been any very
serious collision between the Lords and Commons, but a
collision of a far more serious kind than any which had been
seen of late was inevitable very soon. The House of Lords
received a most fatal accession to the ranks of what mitrht be
House of Lords. 71
called its dangerous members ^Yllcll Lord Craiibonrnc became
Lord Salisbury ; for if any one could provoke a collision between
the two Houses, Lord Salisbury was tliat man. The House of
Commons was growing day by day in power ; the House
of Lords was not growing in Liberalism at all. The House of
Commons was gaining force by becoming more and more in
harmony with the constituencies. Now, the constituencies
were anxious about ecclesiastical matters ; they were chieHy
Nonconformists, or at all events opposed to the existence of a
State Church. The constituencies were chieHy Kadical on
the education question. But the House of Lords was a House
which, upon ecclesiastical questions, was practically a House
of Bishops. On questions connected with the tenure of land,
even the landowners in the House of Commons, from the fact
that they represented constituencies, were coming into harmony
with the popular view ; but on the land question and game
question, and all questions connected, however indirectly, with
the land, the House of Lords was a House of Landowners.
The hereditary character of the House of Lords was daily
likely to bear more and more evil fruit, and the question was,
what remedy should be proposed. The creation of a large
number of life peers would put into the hands of Ministers a
corrupting power over the deliberations of the Lower House,
with which he, for one, should not be inclined to trust them.
On the other hand, to create a small number of life peers
would be, practicall}-, to leave matters where they were. If,
as Lord Bussell proposed, a few names of great distinction
were to be pickecl out for life peerages, such as the name of
Mr. 31111, no doubt a case might be made out to show that the
creation of such peerages would improve the deliberations of
the Upper House. But these men would be hoj^elessly
swamped, and it was doubtful whether many of the best of
them would accept the position. Mr. Mill, sitting as Lord
Blackheath, or with some title derived from land — the thing
Avas too ridiculous. Of course, it might be replied, he
could sit there as ]\Ir. Mill. Although that might be pos-
sible in the case of two or three men of great intellectual
calibre, it would not be possible h>ng to keep up the
standard. They would have the second-rate clerks oi
second-rate offices thrust into the House by the act of the
Minister of the day, and they would have these men very
72 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
speedily looked down upon hy their hereditary colleagues as
a sort of inferior class, and designated very likely by the title
which convicts on short time gave to those men who were
there for the term of their natural existence, viz., the name of
"lifers." He for one was not disposed to look with pleasure
upon the remedy afforded by life peers. But there was another
remedy, if they were not strong enough to abolish the Second
Chamber, or didn't wish to do so. They might go in the
historical direction marked out to them by the action of the
Commons in earlier times, and instead of abolishing the
Upper House, they might draw a limitation to its powers.
Now, many had suggested a limitation of the power of
veto possessed by the Upper House ; but there were other
limitations of its j)Ower which might also be proposed. For
instance, in old times, the Commons asserted aggressively
against the Lords the exclusive right of the people to tax
themselves. They knew that the Lords had no power of
interfering with a Money Bill. Well, just in the same Avay
as the representatives of their ancestors won that principle
from the Lords, so, he thought, if they were not prepared to
abolish an Hereditary House, they might at all events con-
siderably limit the questions on which they could allow any
interference. Let them take, for instance, the two great
questions of the last session. One of those measures was the
Army Bill and the other the Ballot Bill. They might contend,
with some .show of argument upon their side, that both those
Bills were more or less outside the discretion of the House of
Lords. The Army Bill, being really a Bill for the abolition of
purchase, practically dealt with a great money question ; for
it involved the principle at the bottom of raising large sums
of money by fresh taxation ; and that came, he thought,
within the class of Bills which they ought to deny the
right of an Hereditary House to tamper with. If that was
the case with regard to the Bill for the Abolition of I'urchase
in the Army, it was more clearly the case with regard to the
Ballot liill, which concerned only the machinery of election by
the people of the representatives of the people to the people's
House of Parliament. He for one was prepared to deny even
the constitutional right of the Hereditary House to regulate
the m.uiiier and to manage the machinery by which they re-
turned their representatives to the House of Commons.
House of Lords. 73
There was another phan which might be devised for dealing
with the House of Lords, and in saying so he spoke only for
himself, because he went somewhat beyond the resolution he
was there that night to support. He went with his friend
Mr. Herbert in doubting whether it was necessary to have a
Second House at all. He knew that many had said that if
they were to abolish the Upper House they would have
the Conservative Peers returned in great numbers to the
Lower House, and that would be a dangerous power for theni
to have to deal with there. Well, for his part, he had suffi-
cient faith in representative institutions not to be afraid of
trusting the people to elect those whoni they would like to
go to the House of Commons. He did think it likely that
many Conservative Peers would be returned in that case to
the one Chamber which would exist, but he believed that
those'raen would probably by their talents improve rather than
lower the character of the House. He believed also that they
would no longer be the same individuals when returned as the
representatives of great constituencies as they were when they
sat for no constituency at all. They would be far more in
sympathy with the people, whether their views were Conser-
vative or Liberal ; at all events, they would not speak and
act with that reckless disregard of public opinion which now
too often characterized the proceedings of the Upper House,
But the chief argument which was relied upon by the
supporters of two Houses was, that it was necessary to have
some check to democracy and some safeguard by which to
prevent them rushing too rapidly to great decisions in this
country. Now, he thought the House of Lords was a check
only when they wanted no check, and that it was no check
when they did want one. On occasions when no one cared,
the Bill which passed the single House was likely to be a
measure which was needed by the country, because as there
was no great outcry in its favour, a small opposition to it in
any portion of the country would probably suffice to prevent it
passing ; but on great occasions, when there was a great wave
of public enthusiasm, and some fear lest they should be
liurried into acting too fast in the single House, the Upper
House, whether hereditary or a nominated senate, was totally
useless as a check, because it was swept away by the breath of
popular enthusiasm.
71 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
Now, some said that tliey needed an Upper House because
sometimes the Lower House was out of harmony with the public
mind. He had seen that position stated in two separate ways.
He had seen it stated, and he was sorry to say he had seen it
stated with truth, that sometimes the majority of the repre-
sentatives of the people in the Lower House represented only
the minority of the constituencies ; and it was said that on
this ground they justified the existence of a Second House to-
correct that wrong. But he said that it pointed rather to
representative reform, and that, instead of electing an Upper
Hoixse to undo what the Lower House had done, they should
elect a proper Lower House, and thus prevent the doing of it
at the first.
Again, he remembered that two years ago The Standard
newspaper recommended the Lords to throw out the Land
Bill, on the ground that the opinion of the country had
changed • since the general election. But this did not
prove the right of the Lords to throw out that measure.
If it were true that the opinion of the country was so
fickle, it would only be a strong argument in favour of
Animal I'arliaments. Well, he would say that if they
wished for it, as far as he was concerned, he was prepared
to go with Mr. Herbert for the abolition of the Upper House.
He would say, at all events, he would sooner have a limitation
of their poAver than any attempt to patch the House up by the
creation of life peers. He believed that any reform of a very
sweeping character, any reform such as that contemplated by
the resolution, great and good as it might be, would be as
difficult to carry as the abolition of the House itself, and any
smaller reform would not be worth the carrying. On the
other hand, he thought that gradual abolition was possible,
taking the form, as it would naturally do, of the admission of
peers as members of the Lower House. He wondered that no
young Radical peer — if there were such a person — of ambition,
and free from the prejudices of his order, had not presented
himself to some constituency for election to the Lower House.
He belii-ved that if such a man did so, raising distinctly the
question of the gradual abolition of the Upper House, a reso-
lution would be carried, after a struggle more or less long,
whi.-li would enable him to take his seat; and he believed that
more than one great stride towards abolition would have been
House of Loed.s. 75
made by the act of a single man. But, however that might
be, whether it was time to work for the abolition of the
Upper House, or whether it was not, at all events he was
heartily with the promoters of that meeting in desii'ing to see
the resolution carried against the hereditary principle as applied
to the Upper House. He was heartily with the first resolu-
tion, which they had already carried, and also heartily with tlie
second resolution, which declared, in other though perhaps
not better words, the old principle of government by the
people, for the people, in the people's House.
76
CIVIL LIST.
A Speech delivered in the Hotcse of Commons Idth Marchj
1872.
Mr. SrEAKEK, — I rise to ask of the House that consideration
which, to judge from my short experience of its moods, it
never fails to extend to those who, in the name of English
tax-payers, beg the House to aid them to obtain investigation
into an obscure branch of national expenditure.
The first point that has to be established is the right of
the House of Commons to inquire, whether by means of a
Committee or by presenting an address for papers, into the
expenditure and savings on the Civil List account. Now, in
April, 1780, Mr. Dunning, afterwards Chancellor of the
Exchequer, moved the following resolution, which was agreed
to by the House of Commons : " That in the opinion of this
Committee it is competent to this House to examine into and
to correct abuses in the expenditure of the Civil List revenues,
whenever it shall seem expedient to the wisdom of the House
so to do." It may of course be contended that inasmuch as
the .salaries of the judges and ambassadors were at that time
laid upon the Civil List, the House of Commons may fairly
have claimed then over the Civil List a control which does
not belong to it now. On the other hand, it must be remem-
bered that Mr. Dunning's first resolution had been, "That
the influence of the Crown ought to be diminished" ; and it
is plain that the point at issue was not what might be called
the public charges so much as that of the Crown charges
proper. This view is confirmed by the fact that among the
items upon which !Mr. Burke, who was acting along with
Mr. Dunning, divided the House, were those for the salaries
of the masters of the buckhounds and of the foxliounds, while
another was the charge for the yeoman of the guard.
Now, in the debate which occurred about the same time,
on Mr. Burke's measure of economical reform, the main
argument of those who spoke against him was one which has
Civil List. 77
been heard often since that time — viz., that unless you first
bring forward proof of some abuse, the House has no right —
that is, no constitutional power — to meddle with the Civil
List except at the begiiniing of a reign. But on the other
hand, whether I succeed or do not succeed in establishing
precedents showing a general right to inquire into the Civil
List expenditure during a reign, I at all events may assume,
judging from what was said on both sides by both parties,
during the debates on Mr. Burke's Bill, that we are justified in
inquiring, if we can show that actual abuses do exist.
Now I know that the term "abuses" may mean many
things, and it would not be hard to .show that in the argu-
ments which I have quoted, the word may fairly be used as
popularly it w'ould be v;sed for those long-continued absur-
dities of extravagance in connection with the Civil List which
have come down to us from all time, I shall, however, before
I sit down, bring forward I believe cases of abuse connected
with the Civil List accounts which should suffice, when taken
along with the discontent that prevails at the existence of
costly sinecures, to cause any patriotic government to concur
■willingly and almost joyfully in that inquiry wldch we pro-
pose. I might quote some of the mo-st illustrious men that
have ever sat in this House in defence of the general right to
inquire — for instance, Mr. Fox, who said that " the pretence
that the House was bound not to interfere in the expenditure
of the King's Civil List was a new and damnable doctrine,
and infamous to a degree." "Although," he added on another
occasion, " the money was given for the use of the Crown,
the House was competent to see if it was properly expended."
Also, Lord Chatham, who, on the 14th of March, 1770, said,
" The minute and particular expenses of the Civil List are a.s
open to parliamentary examination and inquiry as any other
grant of the people to any other purpose. The preamble of
the Civil List Acts proves this, and none but children,
novices, or ignorants, will ever act without proper regard
to it."
Besides, however, the right of the House to inquire if
abuse be proved, and besides the general right to inquire, as
to which many precedents are to be .shown, there is also the
view, which I for one ani prepared to maintain, that looking
to the steady progress which has been made by the principle
78 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
of parliamentary control over the various branches of the
national expenditure, there would be no harm in creating a
precedent upon this point. On the contrary, I believe that
we can no longer afford, in face of the hostility of a large
minority of the voters in all the boroughs in the country to
fresh grants for those purposes, to ask for those grants, with-
out at the same time stating the facts as to the disposition of
the sums already granted in the clearest way to the country
and the House.
To show, however, the need that exists for our not resting
content with Ministerial explanations of the precedents as
they appear to Ministerial eyes, I must point out that even
the inquiry which takes place at the beginning of each reign,
and which is now relied upon as giving security for economy
to the nation — that even this small measure of prudence was
not yielded without a fight. The Duke of Wellington was
beaten on tliis question, and resigned on it. It was a con-
cession extorted by the Whigs from the Tories, at the begin-
ning only of the last reign, but now both sides speak of it as
a sort of heaven-sent arrangement, sufficient for all time, and
in the highest degree satisfactory to every individual in the
land. For my part, I should be prepared to contend, that
even had this inquiry been graciously yielded at the first — had
it been conceded by the Crown on the advice of Ministers,
acting by their own wish, and without pressure, yet had it
not even in that case been so perfect a method of securing
economy in the public service, as other modes of inquiry that
easily might be devised. The beginning of a reign ! Why, of
all bad times for inquiry, it is the worst ! One good reason
for not holding inquiry at the beginning of a reign was that
once pointed out by Lord Ellenborough, who rightly said,
that there was no authority to compel the servants of a
deceased king to produce accounts. Another reason for in-
quiring at any time except the beginning of a reign is, that
the pensions cease at the beginning of a reign. Now the
pensions are of doubtful expediency, and form a most fit object
for incjuiry. liut, tf you wait till the beginning of a reign you
cannot toucli them, because men very properly cry out, that it
would be ci-uel to rob the existing holders. The need for
such inquiry is shown at once, by the fact, that in 1845 Sir
Robert Peel granted 1,000 a-year to Mademoiselle D'Este,
Civil List, 79
afterwards wife of .a Lord Cliaucellor, although the immcy
is given to be granted in small sums f(jr distinguished services
to the country, or personal service to the Crown. There is,
as to pensions, a general agreement that they are of question-
able expediency. The committee, at the beginning of the
reign, were almost equally divided as to their retention.
There is reason for us to decide beforehand, and we need
inquiry before deciding. I said that the beginning of a reign
is of all bad times for inquiry, the worst. When all the
country is agog with the interest which always manifests itself
iit such a time, and which is a form of the delight with which
people always count upon the goodness of great personages,
whose true dispositions are yet unknown ; this is the moment
which the Minister selects to come down to the House, and
with the inevitable praise of those inevitable virtues, which at
the moment he ascends the throne every monarch is reputed
to possess — to obtain a committee of party-men, with one or
two economical Hadicals of the most loyal type ; a committee,
which sits for a few days, abolishes a Lord of the Bedchamber,
in order to show its zeal for economy ; inquires the price of
oats, makes a note of the rise in hay, and ultimately fixes the
total sum, very much where it had stood before, and at very
much the sanie amount at which it would have stood had the
Court been left to fix it for itself, and had the committee
never sat at all. The coronation takes place, the cannons
fire, the hats fly up, but in a few months voices are heard,
once more asking why it is that the administration of the
household should be exempt from the working of those
modern principles of scientific administration, which have
remorselessly been applied to all other branches of the public
service. As for the inquiry at the beginning of a reign, I
cannot better show what it is worth, than by quoting the
words of a member of the committee of 1837 : — "He was
bound to say that in the Select Committee he was perfectly
lielpless. He had no means of ascertaining what were the
proper sums required for the maintenance of the dignity of
the Crown."
" Thus much for the desirability of a parliamentary inquiry
into this subject at times other than the beginning of a reign.
But apart from the desirability of such inquiry, I spoke just
now of precedents. There are precedents without number for
80 Spefxhes of Sir Charles Dilke.
parliamentary inquiry into the royal household. They date
from the earliest times; but, not to weary the House by
quoting early precedents, which are in this matter of no real
importance, I will come at once to modern times.
In 1780, during the debate on ]\Ir. Burke's Bill, Field-
Marshal Conway, a man of great authority in the country at
that time, said : — " Even the propriety of interfering, not
only in the selling of the private property of the Crown, but
in the appropriation of the money arising from the sales of that
property, is a principle admitted in this House, and approved
by Lord North." I believe that there is no doubt that this
statement expresses the constitutional view ; but see how
much it involves. It means, inquiry by the House of
Commons, and more than inquiry, extending into the general
savings, and the expenditure of the savings accumulated by
the royal family out of public grants, and it rests upon that
which is also, I think, a constitutional axiom, that in a limited
monarchy, for the reigning family to become possessed of a
large private fortune, is a constitutional danger of the first
magnitude. This view has been acted upon in late times by
the House of Commons ; and the Pavilion, at Brighton,
although bought with his private money by George IV., when
Picgent, was sold as roTjal or crown property, and was dealt
with by an Act of Parliament. The fact that even the savings
invested by the King in the funds are exempt from taxation,
would seem to show that they are subject to be dealt with
by Parliament, as being the property of the Crown, and not
the private property of the individual Avho happens to wear it.
If these savings in the funds are wholly beyond our ken, if
they are thoroughly and absolutely private in their nature, I
fail to see upon what constitutional grounds they are to be
exempted from taxation.
I know that as to one tax, the income tax, we are in-
formed that the Queen pays it ; and in speaking some time
ago at Chelsea, I expressed the deep regret T felt that I
should have used, during the recess, words which implied that
she did not. But at the same time, for the purposes of this
argument, the matter would not even be covered by the fact
of a payment being made, because the exemption exists — it is
in an Act of Parliament ; it is sweeping in its terms. Lord
Monteagle, when Comptroller, refused in the plaiiiest terms
Civil List. 81
to pay the tax for the Queen. Any king could avail himself
of it at any moment without coming to this House, and with-
out any public statement of the fact. I repeat, that if Par-
liament hold these funds to be private in their nature, and
beyond the reach of inquiry by us, there never would have
been introduced into the Income Tax Act this clause, — " Are
exempted the stock or dividends belonging to Her Majesty,
in whatever name the same may stand in the books of the
Bank of England."
I repeat that there are, at all events, good precedents for
inquiry. To quote only one out of the ancient ones, in the
fifth of Henry IV., the House of Commons requested the
concurrence of the Lords in articles which were carried, and
at once put in force by the officers of the household, by which
" all strangers who were Catholics, particularly those of
Dutchland, and all French persons, Bretons, Lombards,
Italians, and Bavarians whatsoever, be removed out of the
house of the King and Queen, and that no Welchman be
about the King's person." To come to modern times, on
14th April, 1815, Mr. Tierney obtained a committee to
inquire into the causes of excesses on the Civil List. But I
prefer to rely upon the precedent of the motion of Mr. Burke.
Now, in the debate upon that motion, the objection that those
matters ought not to be meddled with except at the beginning
of a reign, was repeatedly urged upon the House. It was
said that Mr. Burke proposed "a resumption on the Crown."'
Mr. Townsend, answering that objection, used these words.
He said, "resumptions on the Crown are strictlj^ conformable,
not only to the inherent right and authority of the House,
but also to the example of precedent and custom." Mr. Pitt
in the same debate also took up this point, and said, " It had
been attempted to show that it was improper to resume a
Parliamentary grant, and it had often been said that they had
not a right to do so. It would be needless to attempt an
answer to such a doctrine — it contained its refutation in its
weakness."
That was what Mr. Pitt said of " resumptions on the
Crown ;■' but what Ave propose in the present case is, not
resumption, but inquiry. Did we, however, propose a re-
sumption, it would not be a resumi)tion like that proposed in
1780— a resumption which would have, as that had, by the
G
82 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
admission of its authors, the effect of pinching the Crown in
its expenditure ; but a resumption, which, while it would
benefit the people, would hurt neither the king nor any
single suliject of the realm. We can show there are sinecures
connected with the Court — that there are unnecessary offices,
not being sinecures — that a committee has recommended
their abolition — that some of them have been abolished, but
that no information has been given as to which these are, and
that some are, in spite of the recommendation, notoriously
retained. From these sinecures, and from these burdensome
and useless offices, the tenant of the Crown derives no
advantage. Were the sinecures to be abolished, the Crown
would not sutler, but would rather gain, and even the holders
of the sinecures would not be harmed, for with the usual
generosity of rarliaraent we should protect existing interests.
On the other hand, in such a case there can be no reason
for waiting for the beginning of a reign ; and there is for
immediate action this good reason, and we need no other,
that in the interval between any given date and the beginning
of another reign fresh interests will year by year be created.
To abolish sinecure offices about the Court is to harm no man.
It is not proposed to touch offices which affect the comfort of
the king, and it is proposed, in abolishing those which are
even from a monarchical point of view unnecessary, to protect
the interests of the present holders. All that would be done
by inquiry would be to make it certain that no fresh interests
in sinecures should be created. The real test as to the value
to the country of an office is — would it be created if it did
not exist? Now, no one can maintain that in the present
age we sliould create a Governor and Constable of Windsor
Castle, 'i'he foreign nobleman who holds this appointment
receives, I am informed, a salary of 1,200/. a year, and holds
also another appointment, besides being a captain in the navJ^
The appointment was retained by a majority of one vote on
the Conunittee of 1<S38, 'Mr. Grote and Mr. Hume being in
the minority. If it has been abolished, which I believe is not
the c;use, its abolition will be shown by the return for which I
move. 1 say that these sinecures should be abolished, because
I hold with Mr. IJurke, "that all offices which bring more
charge than proportional advantage to the State ought to be
taken away." With a view then to future inquiry as to
Civil List. 83
•wlietlier sinecure offices about the Court do not exist which
might advisably be abolislied, one of the papers for which I
propose to move is a list of all offices of this kind which have
been abolished since the report of the Committee which sat at
the beginning of the reign. By comparing this list with the
report of the Committee and the evidence which they took, we
shoidd be able to discover what are the sinecures and what
the needless offices that are still continued. It is proposed
that in the present instance preliminary inquiries should take
the form of an address for those papers which are needed in
order to bring out the existence of those alleged abuses which
would justify further inquiry by a Committee of this House.
If the Ministry should raise objections to the form of inquiry
that I suggest, let them hold their own inquiry ; let them
follow the precedent of 1782, when a ^Ministry which had
come into office sternly pledged to economy in all branches of
the public service, and especially to a reform in the sinecure
offices, put the suggestion into the mouth of the king himself,
and made the king urge upon the House of Commons that
the expenditure upon his household should be reduced. Now,
Ministers sometimes take exception to the form of an inquiry
at its earliest and apparently at a harmless stage, for fear that
possibly it should be drawn into a precedent, and the House
must have observed last year that the Prime Minister seems
to have acted upon this principle in an answer which he gave
to my honourable friend who sits for Birmingham. My
honourable friend referred in his question to this recom-
mendation of the Select Committee of LS37-38 : "The Com-
mittee hope, that with the permission of Her ]\rajesty, such
inquiries may be instituted by the Treasury and the Household
as that sinecures should be abolished on the termination of
existing interests," and he asked, " whether the Government
Avould institute inquiries into the present appropriation of
the charges on the Civil List, with a view of ascertaining if it
be possible to efiect more economical arrangements by the aboli-
tion or consolidation of superfluous ceremonial offices." Now,
the Prime Minister, in answering that question, said that
offices had been abolished, but that the saving by their aboli-
tion did not come to the country during the reign ; and he
raised, in other words in a fashion very indirect, the old cry
that we w^ere proposing a " resumption on the Crown " ! He
84 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
urged, ill liis answer, that if we were to make a resumption
upon the Crown we should expose ourselves to resumptions
by the Crown, if I may be permitted a convenient though
inaccurate phrase. He said that " Parliament would expose
itself to a most dangerous counter claim on the part of the
Sovereign in case tlie Civil List should be found at any time
to be less than sufficient." Now, this statement of the
Premier forces me to go for a moment into the question of
resumptions by the Crown and on the Crown.
Now, on the 9th December, 1831, and on the 17th
January, 1832 — the Civil List having been voted in the
p^e^'ious session — it was resolved that 78,000/., arising from
the sale of part of the land revenues of the Crown should be-
applied to the repair of Buckingham Palace. Mr. Hume and
Mr. Hunt pointed out that this was a resumption, and Mr.
Goulburn, who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer, agreed
with them, and violently but unsuccessfully opposed the
resolution.
Again, on the 5th June, 1839, a sum of 79,000/., taken
from the accumulated funds derived from the sale of Crown
lands, but which stood waiting to be re-invested, was applied
to the building of stables at Windsor. This again was a most
important precedent of a resumption, inasmuch as the Crown
benefited temporarily at the expense of the public, while, if
the Crown view of the Crown lands tenure be correct, the
interest of the reversioner was wholly sacrificed. In any case,.
the so-called bargain was interfered with in the middle of a
reign. The same may be said of the more notorious case of
Claremont.
During the present reign there have been frequent cases
in which payments have been charged upon the ordinary
estimates, which in former reigns would have been met by the
Civil List itself, or by the hereditary revenues. Sometimes
the form of a resumption has been avoided by a dodge — for
instance, on 9th August, 18G7, a charge of 25,000/. for the
entertainment of the Sultan was laid upon the country, and it
was shown by the right honourable gentleman who is now
First Commissioner of Works, that this was a resumption on
an enormous scale in everything but the mere point of form.
Tlif funeral expenses of the last King were paid, I believe,
according to directions left by himself, out of his own property.
Civil List. 85
But on the otlier Land, very Large sums Lave been cLarged
■during tLe present reign for the funerals of members of the
family, wLo Lave left considerable private fortunes ; and tLese
cLarges again seem to be in tLe nature of resumptions by the
Crown. Considering the surrender that has taken place of
the Crown lands at the beginning of the reign — a surrender
which was "absolute and without reserve" — I hold that the
occupation by nominees of the Crown, without rent an
without rates, of lodges, and of rights of pasture in the parks,
is in the nature of a resumption. I confess, indeed. Sir, that
after the surrender, the unreserved surrender, of the Crown
lands made by the Civil List Act, I am at a loss to under-
.stand the nature of the tenure by which the lodges and
residences in the parks are occupied by great personages,
holding " by grace and favour of the King." A return, not
printed, but now on the table of the House, shows that the
Due de Nemours occupies Bushy, that Prince Arthur occupies
Greenwich, that Prince Teck occupies the White Lodge, and
that there are a dozen similar occupations of lodges for which
rent ought to be paid to the public — occupations for which
no rent is paid — by persons some of whom pay no rates, and
who are stated to occupy " by grace and favour." Now, I
am aware that on the 7th July, 1851, it was stated in this
House on behalf of tLe Crown tLat tLe rigLt to bestow these
lodges " as gifts for distinguished services was retained and
vested in the Crown." I am at loss to know where and when
this right was retained, and if retained as to distinguished
services, I ask whether Prince Teck, Prince Arthur, the
Due de Nemours, and the unknown ladies, who hold the
other lodges, can be said to have performed " distinguished
services" towards the Crown? Of smaller instances of re-
sumptions by the Crown there is no lack. Some of the costs
of installations of menibers of the Boyal Family, as Knights
of various orders, were borne by the Civil List in the last
reign. The whole of them now seem to be borne by the
public at large. The costs of the passages of members of the
family at sea were borne by the Civil List in the last reign^ ;
they are borne by the public now, although I am aware it is
contended that this comes of the recommendation of the
Committee, that the Privy Purse should be reserved for
•'■'■ merely personal expenses," Avhatever those may be, just as
86 Speeches of Sir Chaeles Dilke.
if these were not expenses merely personal. The royal yachts-
were formerly made more use of than they are at present, and
although I am aware that it is cheaper to pay the sums we pay
for passages than to use royal yachts or men-of-war, still, on
the other hand, I fail to see, if this be so, why four royal
yachts should be kept afloat, at vast expense, though
Sir James Graham could defend three many years ago when
there was no regular packet service, only on the ground that
William IV. was a Sailor King. I propose accordingly to-
move for a return of the services of the royal yachts during
the last ten years.
Royal presents, again, have, without the recommendation
of a committee, been more persistently charged upon the
estimates during the present reign than has hitherto been the
case. The cost of the repair of palaces was charged on*
estimates by the advice of a committee, and is no resumption,
but inasmuch as the committee advised that St. James's-
Palace should be given up, the arrangements made have not
been carried out, and I include the cost of the palaces in the
return for which I move.
On June 19th, 1857, the right honourable gentleman who
is now Chief Commissioner of Works, asked, " What ought
to become of the old palaces which the Sovereign had vacated ?
He contended that they ought to be surrendered to the country,
that they might be made available for national purposes ; the
proper mode of carrying out this principle would be by dis-
allowing all the money proposed to be voted for St. James's
Palace, and thus declaring that the House would not recognize
the keeping up of St. James's Palace for the Sovereign.
. .... lie therefore gave the Government tv;elve months'
notice to quit St. James's Palace." One reason for including
the palaces in the return is the magnitude of the sums spent
upon them. It was stated in this House in 1856 that
1 G5,()00/. had been expended on Hampton Court Palace since
the accession of Her ^lajesty. A large portion of this expen-
diture has been upon the stud-houses, although the produce
of the studs is sold, and the proceeds go to the department of
the Master of the Horse, or to the Privy Purse, and not to the
public This was admitted by Sir AVilliam Molcsworth in
the debate of 10th April, 1855. Lord Monteagle, indeed, on
December lo, 1837, had to confess that on the death of the
Civil List. 87
late King, the stud at Hampton Court was sold by bis
executors as being private property. I notice in a return now
upon tlie table of the House, that in reference to the taking
of the grass of Hampton Court Park by C(jlonel ]\laude, tlie
deputy of the Master of the Horse, " the Treasury are con-
sidering the •' terms of tliis occupation." Well, I can only
say that they have been considering it for a whole reign. As
for Buckingham Palace, it was stated in the House on the
PTth of January, 1832, that GOO,UOO/. had been spent upon
it up to 1831. On 1st June, 1849, an honourable member
said that up to that date Buckingham Palace had cost the
country 7G3,00U/.
Year after year we vote sums in supply for the marshal of
the ceremonies ; for attendances of the chamberlain upon
mysterious duties ; for preparations for royal marriages ; for
robes, collars, and badges ; for visits of foreign Sovereigns to
England ; for presents ; for missions to foreign Sovereigns ;
for clothing for the royal trumpeters, and so forth. I may
say, that the allowances to the trumpeters are triennial, and
are supposed to be " in lieu of clothing " ; but 1 find, on the
one hand, that while the allowances are charged, the clothing
is charged too ; and on the other, that the triennial periods
appear, for the purposes of these trumpeters, to consist of one
year only. The "trumpeters," and the "robes, collars,
and badges," I admit are not resumptions, because they
were charged in former reigns, but most, if not all, of these
other charges, are in the nature of resumptions by the Crown.
There is a singular meanness to be noticed in some of the
charges upon the estimates that are connected with the Court.
It is a meanness for which not members of the family, but
indiscreet officials are responsible — men who care not whether
they risk the popularity of the ruling family provided they can
make their accounts look well. For instance, in 1843, 5')f.
was charged in estimates for altering the arms of the Prince
of Wales, although savings from the Duchy of Cornwall, which
afterwards reached the amount of 743,000/., were being
hoarded at that time in the young prince's name. Now these
fees for alteration of arms and for installations arc not legal,
as it would appear from the case of Admiral Codrington, who
successfully resisted payment, and stated the fact in the
House on 18th April, 1834. If this be so, the nation is made
88 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
to pay charges whicli cannot be enforced against individuals
if they resist them.
Having thus begun by justifying our right to inquire, the
next point which presents itself for discussion is the con-
sideration of the subjects into which we propose that inquiry /
should be made. First in importance stand returns which
have reference to the general expenditure upon, and the
savings on account of, the Civil List. I propose to move for
a statement of the duties of the Auditor (or Deputy-Auditor)
of the Civil List, showing the office to wliich he makes his
report, and for copies of his report for each year since the
accession of Her Majesty. It is most important that we
should have this Auditor's report, for, as was stated by a
member of the Committee in 1837, at the beginning of a
reign matters are so hurried as to make a real inquiry im-
possible. This officer is clearly a public official, existing for
public purposes, and his report should be as public as his
office. I shall ask also for another return, of all directions or
warrants issued by the Treasury under section 9. of the Civil i
List Act, specifying the classes from wliich the savings arose, \
and the classes to which they were transferred ; and for another
return, in the nature of an account of the income and expen-
diture of the Civil List, from the accession of Her Majesty to
the present time ; and I will proceed to give my reasons for
asking that those returns should be laid before the House.
Briefly stated, those reasons are two : first, the great com-
plexity of the returns we have, and the apparent existence of
blnnders, and of breaches of Acts of Parliament in connexion
with the Civil List ; secondly, the desirability of our knowing,
v.-ith a view to considering such further applications as may
be made by the Crown to Parliament, whether a great amount
in the shape of savings has not gone to swell the privy purse
during the present reign.
Tlie Civil List Act directs that the issues shall be quarterly,
that they shall be on Treasury warrants sent within thirty days
of the ccimmencement of the quarter, for a sum not exceeding
one fourth of the estimated annual amount of each class,
together with the savings of the preceding quarter.
^^ ith respect to savings in any class left beyond a quarter,
after tlie 31st December in each year "it is lawful" for the
Treasury to direct the savings to be applied in aid of the
Civil List. S9
■charges or expenses of any other chiss except the fifth, or of
any other charge upon the Civil List.
In practice, it appears that the quarterly warrants which
ought to have been made, in conformity with section 8. of the
Civil List Act, have never included the savings of the pre-
ceding quarter, but have regularly authorized the appropriation
of 9G,250/., that is one-fourth of 385,000/. ; plus the amount
of charge for pensions under clause 5. "We find, however,
that up to March, 1851, warrants were issued in every year
against unappropriated moneys, or against the savings fund ;
and those appear to have been the directions mider section 9.
of the Civil List Act. I find, by a letter from Lord Monteagle,
the Comptroller-General, to Sir Alexander Spearman, of the
Treasury, that he took my view, and suggested a change in
the existing system, to bring it " more into accordance with
the 9th section of the Civil List Act." The Comptroller of
the Exchequer suggesting to the Treasury, not that it shall
observe the Act, but that it shall bring itself a little more into
accordance with it ! So far, then, as we can judge from the
imperfect accounts which are laid before us, it would seem
that the Treasury has steadily offended against section 8. of
the Act, by not stating the savings of each quarter, and that
the Treasury have also neglected their duty, under the 9th
section, inasmuch as, when the section says that " it shall be
lawful " for them, after the .31st December, to direct the
application of the savings, it means to a lawyer that it is their
duty to do so. Now this they seem not to have done.
" Direct," in the case of the Treasury, used to l.^e taken to
mean, direct by warrant, and Lord jMonteagle, when Comp-
troller-General, proposed to the Treasury the following definition
of a savings warrant : — " A savings warrant is that by which
the Treasury, at the close of the year, declares certain sums to
be savings, under the 9th section, and applicable in aid of
deficiencies of other classes, or applicable to any charge on
the Civil List." Now warrants for savings do appear in the
Exchequer return, but instead of those warrants appearing
annually, they often did not appear for several years.
I now come, with a view to show the irregularities that
have occurred in connection with the Civil List, to the system
■pursued in issuing money on this account. The total of four
'Treasury warrants represents the limit of what may be charged
90 Speeches of Sir Chakles Dilke.
in any one year. On this authority the Comptroller of the ,
Exchequer used to authorize the Bank to set apart an Ex-
chequer credit in favour of the Paymaster. When set apart
the credit was drawn upon so far as was requisite by the
Paymaster, who transferred it in lumpsums to his " Drawing
and Bill Account." From this account it passed by the
Paymaster's cheques to the Lord Chamberlain, the Lord
Steward, and others. Under this system it is difficult to see
how the amount of credits could exceed the amount of
warrants, but in the year ending the 31st of March, 1843, the
credits did exceed the warrants — an excess which would seem
to have been illegal. The Act, by directing that the quarterly
warrant should be for one quarter's allowance, plus the savings
of the preceding quarter, evidently meant that a quarterly
warrant lost its virtue at the end of the quarter for which it
was draAvn, otherwise it would have been unnecessary to
add over again a sum which could already have been drawn
upon an existing authority. Not only, however, was there an
excess in 1843, but also in the years between 1851 and 1856,
and until further returns and explanations are given to Parlia-
ment, I cannot but believe that 103,000/^. were, in the years
that I have named, illegally issued on the Civil List account.
Up to 1843 the accounts showed the amounts of unap-
propriated moneys. After that year those moneys were
merged in the savings fund, which, however, has long since
ceased to appear. It would seem that the imappropriated
moneys were moneys the issue of which had been authorized
by quarterly warrants, but which it had not been found
necessary to issue from the Exchequer within the quarter
covered by the warrant, and which, consequently, accumulated
as a debt to the Civil List. Strictly speaking, unappropriated
moneys only went into the savings fund by a direction under
section 9. of the Civil List Act, but in practice there used to
be a laxity in distinguishing between unappropriated moneys
and the savings fund.
We possess a return which shows the balance of Exchequer
credits at the beginning of the year. We cannot trust to this
as any indication of the savings in the year, for it is possible
tliat the amounts appearing in it are moneys due to tradesmen
and others in the last quarter, but not immediately applied
for, and left lying at the Bank. When, however, we find that
Civil List. 91
on the last clay of the quarter they amounted to a larger sum
than the whole allowance for the quarter in classes 2. and 3,
and when we know that a great deal of the expenditure in
those classes is of a daily, weekly, or monthly character, it
becomes clear that so enormous a reserve could only exist by
virtue of accumulations or savings.
Another remarkable irregularity occurs in the year 1838-9,,
when the warrants reached the sum of 482,000/., and
exceeded the net expenditure of the Civil List by the sum
of 9G,249/. 15.9. 10^/., which differs by only 4.s\ '2d. from the
sum of 9G,250/., that is, exactly a quarter's allowance ! This
would appear to have formed the precedent upon which the
Chancellor of the Exchequer must have acted when he obtained
from us five quarters of Income Tax in a single year.
I have already stated that up to 1850-1, warrants were
given for each payment out of the accumulated savings ; but
in that year Lord Brougham brought forward the subject in
the House of Lords, and from that moment the returns have
disappeared. In 1854, 1855, and 185G, we find every warrant
wrong, in spite of Lord Monteagle. The Lords of the
Treasury commenced then quietly to pay out the accumulated
savings instead of paying them openly by warrant. They
seem to have lost their heads over this operation, for in 1S55-G
they made a return of the Civil List 5,000/. short of the
proper amount. The Civil List in that year ought to
have been 401,457/. 10s., but it was returned as
39G,457/. 10.9., the error being in the return of 11,000/.
and odd pounds, instead of 1G,000/. and odd pounds on class
5. This error was carried through the accounts, and the
balance struck without it having been detected. The only
other irregularity that I have to name in connexion Avitli this
branch of the subject is that in 1841-2 the Civil List accounts,
for anything that can be found in the indexes, would appear
to be Avholly missing, and not to have been laid upon the
table of this House, although I have succeeded, after much
trouble, in finding them in another place.
With a view to an argument to which I shall presently
resort, I Avish for a few moments to examine into the light
thrown by the Exchequer returns upon the subject of the
Civil List savings. The credits given under savings warrants,
or warrants against unappropriated moneys, are .shown in a
02 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
return. A glance at their amounts shows that they arc not
documents declaring the sum added to the savings fund each
year, but are warrants used in the drawing out of a portion of
the fund.
Now, the moneys, or part of the moneys drawn out by
them may have been applied in aid of other classes of the
Civil List. But what other classes wanted aid? None.
Moreover, in spite of the drawings under those warrants, the
savings fund, year by year, as long as it was shown, continued
steadily to grow. If other classes had wanted aid in any year
we should have found in that year that the yearly warrant
had been first exhausted. But, excepting in 1843, it never
was exhausted ; and in the year in which the largest draught
was made upon the savings fund, viz., 1847, when 71,000^.
was drawn, we find that in the ordinary allowance there was
a saving of more than 20,000^. Under these circumstances I
cannot conceive that the 71,000^. would have been required
in aid of any class except the privy purse.
Now, between March, 1837, and March, 1851, 370,000^,
had remained as surpluses in the Exchequer, as sums which it
had not been found necessary to draw in the ordinary course.
Against this fund 274,000^. had been drawn out by special
Avarrants, called unappropriated or savings fund warrants, and
in one case without any warrant at all, so that in March, 1851,
there ought to have remained over 9G,000/. The growth of
the fund was noticeable. For the first few years of the reign
the savings were small. In 1 844 very considerable reductions
of salaries in the household were begun upon a regular plan,
by pensioning off servants at small pejisions, and appointing
others at lower salaries. In 1845 the savings were abnormally
large, but in 184G they stood at about 20,000^., and then
increa.sed steadily to 33,000/., 34,000/., 35,000/., and 42,000;.
Here, however, we come to a sudden stop. Lord Brougham
called attention to the saA-ings by a motion in the House of
Lord.s, and Ministers, desiring to avoid attracting further
attention, ceased to allow accumulations in the Exchequer.
Instead of issuing only enough money to meet the require-
ments, from that time they always issued enough to cover the
whole warrant, so that the accumulation of the savings fund,
if any, would be in the hands of the Paymaster, and would
not appear in the Exchequer return. Not only did the
Civil List. 9a
Treasury from tliat time cover the Avarrant in full, but it
issued extra credits, to enable the Crown to withdraw 91,000/.
out of the 96,000/. which was in the Exchequer whuu
Lord Brougham made his speech, and to avoid this with-
drawal being noticed, they issued no more savings warrants —
a proceeding which, to judge by the terms of section 9. of the
Civil List Act, would seem to have been one of doubtful
legality. Matters fast grew worse. The balances, which had
all but disappeared, innnediately upon the withdrawal from
publication of the amount of the savings fund, became
enormous, rising from I'll, and a few shillings, to 43,000/., in
a jump, and then to 7G,000/. Moreover, the proportion
between the Treasury warrants received by the bank, the
Exchequer credits at the bank, and the payments by the bank,
was at the same time lost, and all of them began to fluctuate,
by jumps of 50,000/. at a time. For instance, in 1854-5, the
amount of the Treasury Avarrants Avas 392,000/., while the
amount of the Exchequer credits was 450,000/. In 1855-0,
the amount of Treasury warrants was 411,000/., and the
amount of payiuents by the bank was 453,000/. In 1805-00,
the amount of Exchequer credits and of Treasury warrants
was the same, viz., 405,000/., while the amount of payments
by the Bank was 480,000/. Now I can find hardly any other
accounts which present the same phenomena. These irregu-
larities, and the absolute cessation of returns giving accurate
information on this point, must be, on the one hand, my
excuse for having pointed out irregularities in the early years,
rather than in the later years of the reign, and on the other,
my ground for asking for returns which will again place us in
the same advantageous position as regards knowledge, in
which Parliament stood before the singidar withdrawal of
information, which took place in consequence of Lord
Brougham's motion.
I wish for a more accurate return of the net savings
upon the Civil List account than any we possess at present.
I do not think that such a return can be refused to xi^y
because when, in 1803, Mr. Augustus Smith opposed a
vote for travelling expenses of the lloyal Family, and asked
■whether there had not been savings under two heads of the
Civil List during the year, which might be applied to defray-
ing those charges, the present Prime Minister, then Chancellor
94 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke,
of the Exchequer, said it was quite practicable, upon inquiry,
to state to the House the exact position of the different
departments of the Civil List. I need hardly add, however,
that, upon that occasion no such inquiry was held, and no
such statement made, lleturns of this kind have been moved
for and have often been obtained on former occasions. Lord
Brougham was not permitted to have his account in detail
for which he moved in 1850. But in 1780 a resolution was
adopted by the House of Commons, that there be laid before
that House, within seven days after the first day of every
session, exact accounts of every sum paid in the course of
the preceding year, out of the Civil List, to any member of
either House of Parliament, by way of pension, salary, (fee.
Now, if the House could justly require such a return as this,
it is pretty clear that a more general right of inquiry cannot
be denied to exist even during the continuance of the present
reign. I have shown, moreover, that section 9. of the Civil
List Act directs the issue of certain warrants, which, if issued,
are now concealed, but if an Act of Parliament directs a
certain course to be followed by officials in matters connected
with public finance, how is the House to know whether the
Act has been complied with if the Government refuse to pro-
duce the return ? For my part, I think that inquiry is also
justified by the extraordinarily obscure character of the Civil
List accounts to which I have already referred. Who can
state at the present moment the exact expenditure upon the
Civil List account itself '? Yet it is not only generally desir-
able that we should know what the expenditure is, but there
are special reasons existing in this case. The Civil List Act
itself provides that whenever a total charge upon the Civil List
on account of five out of six classes, excluding pensions, shall
amount to more than the sum of 400,000^., an account, stating
the particulars of the exceed! ngs and the cause thereof, shall be
submitted to Parliament within thirty days after the same'
shall have been ascertained. Now, what human being is
there who can tell as a certainty Avhether there have not, in
fact, been such excesses? In 1855-5G, the payments by the
Bank of England upon the Civil List accounts are shown to
have been 153,000/. In 18G5-GG they amounted to 481,000/.,
and if this item of payments by the Bank of England does
not mean charges, but means something else, — then, even in
Civil List. [)5
that case, it i.s of high importance that the exact meaning of
those figures should be explained to the country through this
House. It will be seen in what I have said that by the
words of my return, I propose to ask to what purposes the
savings that have been etfected upon the Civil List account —
savings which we know, fi-om the experience of those earlier
years in which they were stated to the House, to be consider-
able and to be increasing — have been applied ? ISTow, I have
been attacked of late for having said that there was reason
to believe that the savings upon the Civil List had been added
to the privy purse, and that such a use of them was an
improper diversion of public funds. I have been attacked
for having made this statement in the country instead of in
the House, and I have been attacked for making it at all.
Now, with reference to my having made it in the country, I
have this alone to say — that it is a statement which has been
made already in the House itself, not in great detail, not with
reasons, but still a statement that has been made. On the
other hand, it is a statement that was made with ample
reasons, with the greatest possible detail, with the utmost
care, by Lord Brougham in the House of Lords in 1850.
Lord Brougham obtained little or no support, and the reason
was, that the country was not then interested in the subject.
But there can be no subject in which the country is more
easily, more naturally, and more justifiably to be interested
than in tjbe disposition of that portion of the taxes which goes
towards ceremonial objects. Last year, when the honourable
member for Bradford brought forward his motion for the
disestablishment of the Church, the answer with which he
was met by the Prime Minister was, that the House of
Commons was against him, and that " before he sought to
convince a majority in the House, he would do well to con-
vince a majority of his countrymen." If that be true of such
A matter as the position of religious communities towards the
State, surely it is ten times more true, if that be possible,
with regard to points which arise in connexion with the
expenditure of the public taxes. This is not a charge against
the present Ministers, because we all of us know that these
matters are matters of custom and precedent, and that it
would be a most ungracious task, or next door to the impos-
'sible, for a Minister to propose to take the Civil List savings
90 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
to tbe nation, when previously they had gone to swell the
privy purse. The way in which the present unfortunate
custom has arisen, is one which makes it difficult for a Minister
to act in the matter unless he is well backed up by the
country and the House of Commons.
The savings even at the beginning of the present reign
were insignificant, and there w'as little danger and little
impropriety in allowing them to be taken in this way. It is
only now, when they have swollen to a large amount, that
political danger in the future may be discerned, as our
predecessors would have discerned it in the past. I say that
our predecessors would have discerned it, and I may venture
to remind the House that the reason why Pitt objected in
1759 to undertaking the conquest of Bengal in the name of
the Crown was that the King might thus obtain a source of
income independent of Parliament. Sir George Lewis, on
22nd May, 1857, said — "It has been deemed a matter of
policy in this country wholly to strip and denude the Sove-
reign of all hereditary property, and to render him during his
life wholly dependent upon the bounty of Parliament." Now,
as to the charge itself, it is simply this : I ask as to the
diversion of the Civil List savings to the privy purse — first,
whether it is legal, and secondly whether it is politic 1 I
hold that the fact that 8,000^. a year was granted to meet
" unforeseen demands," shows that savings were not contem-
plated by Lord Melbourne in framing the Act. Now, on
IGth December, 1837, Mr. Spring Rice, then Chancellor of the
Exchequer, admitted that " grants to the Crown must be con-
strued in favour of the grantor." I claim, too, the right to
use the Title and Preamble of the Civil List Act to explain
its ambiguities. It is an Act to provide "a certain and
competent revenue for defraying the expenses of your Majesty's
Household, and supporting the honour and dignity of the
Crown during your Majesty's life " : — rather a singular pre-
amble when we find that under the Act it is contended that
large savings may be effected and left to the king's relations
by a secret will. Upon the point of legality, I want to know
why, if the view of Lord Brougham that the practice is con-
trary to law, be pronounced a mistaken view — why if you
have, as the officials tell us, an absolute power, both in
law, in custom, and in equity, to appropriate to the privy
Civil List. 97
jnirtie all savings — why did the House of Ci)mnions tie up
that expenditure under classes by means of tlie most stringent
provisions >. Why did not the House vote the money in a
lump, as it does in the case of other members of tlie Royal
Family? When you have answered me this question, then,
and then only, will I go on and ask, if legal, is it politic ?
Or, in other words, why should Ave allow for the future, even
if legally we have allowed for the past, money voted for
expenditure but not expended, to go to swell a privy purse
already fixed, after full inquiry, at a due and fitting amount ?
The Civil List, as was shown by INIr. Goulburn in this
House, greatly exceeds that voted during the last reign,
although multitudes of charges were then borne by the Civil
List which now are charged upon the ordinary estimates,
while the privy purse is supplemented by the Duchy of Lan-
caster — a j)roperty rising daily in value, and swelling year by
year into the production of a most important revenue. If
legal, is it politic, thus to run the risk of a great accumulation
of wealth in the hands of the King ? For reasons Avhich I
wiU proceed to give, I believe this disposition of the savings
to be contrary to the spirit of the Act of Parliament. That
it is most impolitic and unwise I am convinced, and I main-
tain that when the Civil List Act was passed no large surplus
was expected to arise. Had any been expected, the Whigs
of that day Avould have taken good care that it should not
have gone to swell the privy purse. My contention, then, is,
that money granted by the House of Commons for one pur-
pose and with one view, has been applied to other purposes
— and I will give my reasons for so thinking. But if there
should prove to be, I do not say a clear case, but even such
a one as would leave room for doubt, then I argue that no
subject can more justly become a matter of debate in the House
of the elected representatives of the tax-payers of the nation.
That in fixing the expenditure at the beginning of the
reign, the House of Commons took nothing into consideration
except the probable expenditure, is clear from the wording of
the Civil List Act itself. As a general rule it is better to
give Avords of one's OAvn than to quote those of others ; but
upon this subject — on AA'hich I speak only on account of the
hesitation of those more learned in finance than I can pretend
to be, to bring this matter before the House — I cannot resist
H
98 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
the temptation that I feel to quote words, most accurate I
think in their character, which were used by the Prime
Minister hist year. Speaking in the House of Commons at
the time uf a debate upon grants which were then proposed,
the right honourable gentleman said — " Gentlemen who study
the structure of the Civil List Act, will perceive that Parlia-
ment studiously lays down the application of the moneys
granted to the Sovereign, and confines them to the special
services to which they are destined." Again, in the course
of last year he said, " I refer to the terms of the Civil List
Act. Looking at the mode in which the annual income is
bestowed upon the Sovereign ; it is not bestowed upon the
Sovereign in the gross, but it is bestowed after a careful
investigation of details, and an exact appreciation of Avhat, in
the judgment of Parliament, each of the branches to which
the attention of Parliament is directed will require, in order
to maintain the dignity of the Sovereign." I repeat, then, it
is certain, that if the Committee which sat at the beginning
of the reign had intended that the Treasury should allow
money to accumulate, and the balances to go to swell the
privy purse, they would have proposed that the money should
be voted in a lump sum. The language of the 8th clause of
the Act is very stringent in its delimitation of the classes, and
after tying the money up in this careful way, it insists that
even savings shall not be withdrawn at the end of each
quarter, but only once a year, and the language seems to con-
template no savings except savings of a most trifling kind.
At the end of the year there is power given to the Com-
mi.ssioners of the Treasury to direct the savings to be applied
in aid of the charges upon the Civil List revenues, but there
is not one word in regard to allowing income to accumulate,
I submit to the House, that it is contrary to the spirit of the
Civil List Act, even if it be not contrary to its letter, that
the savings should be allowed to accumulate or should be
handed over without inquiry, to those persons, through whom
tike place the disbursements of the privy purse. I should
feci grave doubt of the wisdom of my attempting to set my
humble opinion upon such a point against that of the skilled
authorities. I .should hesitate Ijefore I did so. But this is
the opinion of other skilled authorities. It was the opinion of
Lord iJruugliam. It seeius to have been the opinion of Lord
Civil List. 99
"Russell, for in the debate on the provision f(jr Prince Albert,
•which took place in 1840, Sir Robert Peel stated that Lord
John Russell had, on a former occasion, said, " that the
Crown could not apply the surplus on one head of the Civil
List to the privy purse " ; and Lord Russell, who uas present,
took no objection to the words thus attributed to him. As
to the opinion of Lord Brougham, it is, I think, of such
importance, that I -will venture to read a few passages of it
to the House. His protest against the negativing of his
motion for an inquiry into the subject is a document of the
greatest value, and the House will find that if I am wrong
upon the point of legality, I at least can claim to have erred
in Lord Brougham's company. I quote from the Lords'
journals of the 5th of August, 1850. Lord Brougham dissents
from the judgment of the majority of the House of Lords
upon ten separate grounds. I had not, when I spoke at
Newcastle, seen this protest ; indeed, I read it for the first
time about a month ago, but his argument is precisely the
argument which I had used, and I own that it seems to me
unanswerable. Lord Brougham dissents : —
" 1st. Because the Civil List arrangement is framed upon
statements laid before Parliament in the nature of estimates
upon which the grant of income is to be made."
" 2nd. Because those statements contain a minute detail
of the expenses for which provision is made, including the
salaries of officers, and even the wages of servants ; and the
grant is made on the supposition by all parties to the arrange-
ment, that such salaries are to be always paid."
" 4tli. Because no supposition ever entered the mind of
Parliament in making the grant, that large savings v/ere to be
effected out of the income granted ; and on the contrary, tliat
accumulation of wealth into the hands of the Sovereign is
wholly alien to the spirit of our Constitution, which requires
the monarch to be wholly dependent upon Parliament, for
the revenue by which his dignity shall be supported."
" Gth. Because, for those reasons, it is the undoubted right
of Parliament to obtain information, from time to time,
touching the amount of the savings, under the several heads
of the Civil List expenditure."
7th. And this is the most important of all for our
present circumstance, and to it I call the attention of all
100 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
those viho voted for reducing the grant to Prince Arthur, Last
year. " Because the amount of such savings must form an
important matter in considering the applications from time
to time made for parliamentary aid in the establishment of
the younger branches of the lloyal Family." So much, by
way of justification, upon this large and grave side of the
subject which I have brought before the consideration of the
House.
It now becomes my duty to go back to certain more
general considerations than those with which I have been
dealing within the last few minutes, and to inquire into the
soundness of certain arguments which are adduced against
the production to the House of information. We are often
told that the Civil List income is smaller in the present reign
than it ever has been in the past, which makes it an
ungracious act to inquire into its expenditure ; and again, that
the Crown lands are producing far more than they ever have
produced before, which makes it still more ungracious to
question the expediency of charges Avhich are borne by the
public as part of the arrangement under which these lands have
been surrendered by the Crown. Now, in the debate which
took place on the 27th January, 1840, in this House,
Mr. Gf)ulburn showed that the income of the Civil List during
the present reign was in reality 20,000^. a year more than it
was during the last. The Civil List under William IV. was
375,000/. a year. The Civil List now is 385,000/. a year,
excluding on the one hand the allowance to the Queen-Consort
in the late reign, and on the other the allowance to the Prince-
Consort in the present. But then 10,000/. a year, as was
shown by Lord Monteagle, when Chancellor of the Exchequer,
was saved at the commencement of the present reign by the
reducti(jn of the salaries of certain of the great officers of the
Household, making an excess of 20,000/. a year in what may
be called the available sums. Moreover, in consequence of
the report of the Civil List committee, and the advice given
by that committee that public charges should, as far as
po8.sible, be borne on the estimates, and only those royal
expenses which may be called personal, should be borne by
the Civil List, large sums have been saved. For instance,
the King's Plates cost 2,000/. a year and more from the Civil
List of ^V illiam IV., and now are charged on estimates. Stud
Civil List. 101
bills and hunt bills cost William IV. 5,000/. a year, and arc
now all but extinct, and the travelling expenses of the Court
have been greatly reduced since the introduction of railways.
I have already mentioned other large charges now Ijorne on
estimates, but formerly charged in part upon the Civil List.
As for the much talked of surrender of the hereditary
revenues, — the droits of Admiralty, were Avorth nothing in
time of peace, and, as was shown by Air. Harvey, in a debate
which occurred on 19th April, 183G, the 4^ per centum dues,
of which a great deal was said, although worth 25,000/. a year,
were saddled with pensions which, had they all been paid,
would have amounted to 30,000/. a year ! But I find also
that these duties were described by Lord Shelburne in this
House as unjustly raised, as merely laid on by virtue of the
prerogative, as " utterly illegal and unconsitutional ! " So
much for two important branches of these hereditary revenues !
But with regard to the whole of them, Lord Shelburne said :
— " The hereditary duties at no time belonged to the Crowii ;
they were at the disposition of Parliament; 4,000/. a week
out of them was taken by the Parliament of William IIL The
grants of forfeited estates were resumed under Anne, and
applied to the exigencies of State. It was preposterous and
fallacious to suppose that the agreement made by his present
Majesty was any act of concession in him." ^Moreover, if
Mr. Fox may be quoted as an authority, and for certain it is
not easy to refute his arguments, he said" on the 2Uth ^larch,
1802, — " From the time that Parliament exonerated the Crown
from the expenses of levying fleets and armies, from that
moment the hereditary revenues became the projicrty of the
public. William III. was not even heir to the Crown when
he succeeded." So much for the " hereditary revenues ' ! To
call attention to their character, 1 will ask the Chancellor of
the Exchequer to tell us how much the hereditary revenues,
except Crown lands, produce at the present time. On the
other hand, if it be true that there was a distinct arrange-
ment with regard to the Crown lands, which can oidy be
reconsidered at the close of the reign, then, no doubt, it would
be difficult to cause inquiry to be made into the whole subject,
unless we were able to do that which I believe I also have
•done, viz., prove abuse. But is it the case that there is any
fiuch arrangement as to the Crown lands at all? iMy view of
102 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
the position of the Crown lands is one which I can produce
great authorities to support. It is the fact that for many
reigns no king has enjoyed the Crown lands beneficially, and
even the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted last year that
" there was no chance that any Sovereign would ever again
manage for his own benefit the estate of the Crown." The
Crown claim to those lands is one which may be said, with
fairness, to be like many others in this country — tolerated
only so long as it is not enforced ; and if these lands were to
be surrendered, they would be liable to charges far greater
than their value in amount. At the accession of each king,
the amount of the Civil List for the future is determined, not
upon considerations of what the Crown lands may be expected
to produce, but wholly and solely upon consideration of what
is necessary for the dignity of the Crown. There is, I know,
a reference to the Crown lands in the preamble of the Civil
List Act, but I contend that this is a reference purely con-
venti<«ml in its nature, and made by way of form. In the
really valuable collections of authority, viz., the proceedings
of the Committee, and the debates in this House, the granting
of the Civil List was never rested on the surrender of the
C^o^^^l lands. My contention is, that these lands have long
since become, in fact, a purely national estate. Only last
session a committee which sat upon the question of the Thames
Embankmentj seems to have taken, by a large majority, this
view. Even were my opinion a modern one, I should be pre-
pared to contend that it would be none the less defensible for
being comparatively new. But so far back even as the reign
of Anne, I find in the preamble of a statute, 1st Anne, cap. 7,
these words : — " Whereas, the necessary expenses of sup-
porting the Crown were formerly defrayed by a land revenue,,
which hath from time to time been impaired by the grants of
former kings, so that Her Majesty's land revenues at present
can afford very little towards the support of her government,
nevertheless the land revenues of the Crown may hereafter be
increased, and consequently the burden upon the estates of
the sulyects of this realm may be lessened, in all future pro-
vi.sions to be made for the expenses of the civil government.
To the end, therefore, that the land revenues of the Crown
may be preserved and increased, be it enacted, that every
grant or lea.se which shall be made by Her Majesty, her heirs
J
Civil List. 103
or successors, kings or queens of this realm, shall be utterly
void and of none eflfect." And then follow the exceptions of
short leases where full rent is taken. I ask, then, who are the
heretics — Mr. Howard and Mr. Gore, or, on the other hand,
Mr. Hallam, Lord Brougham, and ^Ir. Allen, the author of
the great work on the royal prerogative, who take what may
be called the modern view ? I confess that, for my i)art, I
prefer the opinion of the latter, when I find it backed by the
practice of Parliament for years past. I deal only with this
subject at this moment, because I am forced to do so. There
is no necessity for moving for any returns upon the point,
because we have already in our possession ample information
in respect to the Crown lands, but in any future inquiry
Avhich may be held on the whole subject, it would be neces-
sary to ask whether waste and inconvenience are not caused
by the present plan for the management of them, and whether
it be not time that we should put an end to the inconvenient
fiction of their being now in any special sense the property of
the Crown. The disputes which have arisen in reference to
the New Forest and to the Thames Embankment, and the
enormous per-centage of the revenues which is spent in
management, are by themselves sufficient justification for
urging that inquiry should be directed to this point. Another
case for inquiry might well be founded on the fact that
Windsor Forest is under the Commissioners of Woods, and
that they appeal to us in their reports not to look at it as a
property which can be dealt with upon commercial principles
at all. If tJiis be so, why not treat it as a great park or
garden, and place it under the Commissioner of Works ? At
this moment the expenditure at Windsor Forest is 22,000^.
and odd pounds a year, and the receipts are 4,000/. only, and
yet this is part of the " hereditary land revenues" of the
Crown "surrendered" by the Crown to the public in con-
sideration of the granting of the Civil List ! Another com-
plication upon which we may found a demand for inquiry is that
on the 7th July, 1851, it was stated by Lord Seymour in this
House, that the expenses of keeping up the lodges in the parks
held by great personages, "bygrace and favour of Her Majesty,"
were defrayed out of the land revenues of the Crown.
Defrayed, that is, out of revenues supposed to be surrendered
wholly to the public in consideration of the granting of a
Ci\il List.
104 Speeches of Sik Charles Dilke.
We are often told that during the present reign we have
never been applied to for payments in respect of debts, and
that this fact again makes inquiry ungraceful. Now, what
were these debts? The payment of them began in 1713.
This case was one which, although it is the precedent, may be
described, and has been described in this House, as a precedent
of trickery and fraud. In the reign of George I, provision
was twice made for payment of the debts, but they were paid
by deductions from the salaries, and without any charge upon
the public. In George II. 's reign no payment of debts took
place. In 17G9 the debt on the Civil List was paid, but the
expenses of the king's marriage had been charged upon the
Civil List, and were put forward as the cause of debt. Now,
this 17G9 payment was made on a distinct pledge given that
no such demand should be made in future. In spite of this
promise; an application was made in 1777, and led to riots.
Ultimately, in consequence of this application, the whole Civil
List was remodelled in 1781. In 1784 a few debts were paid,
but only in consequence of the loss of certain hereditary
revenues though the American AVar. The precedents of
George IV. are not worth much to us, happily, now, and in
the reign of "William IV. there was a saving on the Civil List.
There are no precedents which would apply in the case of any
debts which might now be incurred. The House of Com-
mons paid Civil List debts — when they did pay them — not
because they recognized their obligation to meet the ex-
travagance of the Court, but because if the money had not
been voted, many public servants would have been deprived
of their incomes. As was said in Parliament in 1804, "the
judges of the land and the foreign ministers were in arrear."
At that time, as the House will remember, the Civil List was
charged with a great number of salaries and public expenses,
which is now no longer the case. The House of Commons
never paid debts by votes until it had exhausted every other
expedient. In 1782, when George III. applied for aid to
extricate the Civil List from debt, he desired, by message,
" the advice of the Commons as to the mode of discharging
the debt, without laying any new burden on his people," and
for this purpose he proposed a plan of reform and reduction in
his establishment. Even in 178G a promise was made as to
the future, and Fox vehemently opposed the payment. In
Civil List. 105
1795, the Prince of Wales being in debt, the Commons refused
to vote a sum to pay tlic debt. What they did was to increase
Iiis income, and to appropriate a portion of it to the payment of
his past debts, declaring future debts to be irrecoverable, and
in tills case there was this special reason for payment, that
the Prince had not been permitted to receive the accumulations
of the income of the Duchy of Cornwall. In 1802, a debt
was paid, after violent opposition from Fox, but even this was
A debt wholly incurred under the head of occasional payments,
which may be said not now to exist, and there had been a
large saving on the other classes of the Civil List. As to the
debt of 1814, it was explained by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer that it arose not in the household, on which there was
a saving, but on political expenses. In the case of 181G, on
the 3rd of May, Lord Castlereagh explained " that the accu-
mulation of debt was occasioned, not by the excesses of the
Household Department, but by the increased charges on those
branches of the Civil List which were connected with the
public expenditure." Without going into every case, I may
say, that Parliament has never admitted its liability to bear
debts on the Civil List, and has never paid such debts,
without special grounds for so doing, and that they were in
general no more than Civil Service Supplementary Estimates.
Now, it is true, that no application for the payment of
debts has been made during the present reign, but repeated
ap2>lications have been made for dowries to princesses, and for
annuities, under circumstances wholly diftcrent from those
under which such applications were made in former times.
When I find that these annuities have often been voted una-
nimously by the House, I cannot but regret the •'xtinction of
the old Whig traditions, which, while they were kept alive,
would have prevented the creation of such evil precedents for
the future. In all the older royal messages asking for
annuities, the King used to be made to say that his applica-
tion was based upon the consideration, " that he was restrained
by the laws now in being, from making provision for his
younger children, and hoped that Parliament will grant an
annuity to take effect after his demise." These were the
words made use of throughout the reign of George 11. — for
instance, on Gth July, 1727, on the 8th April, 1734, and on
the 3rd May, 1739. I find the very same Avords made use of
lOG Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
by George III. For instance, in liis message of 8th April^
177{>, he says: — "His Majesty being restrained by the laws
now in being, from making provision for his younger children
out of the hereditary revenues of the Crown." Now this
refers to the Restraining Act, 1st Anne, cap. 7, which is put
an end to by the 39th and 40th of George III., cap. 88, and
the 25th and 2Gth of Victoria, cap. 37, and Avhich prevented
the making of any permanent provision by the king. It is a
remarkable confirmation of this view, that the annuities under
the Bills passed in consequence of the messages which I have
quoted, wore to take effect only on the King's death. Even
the Princess Royal — daughter of George III.— obtained no
English annuity upon her marriage, and the case of the
marriage of the daughter of George II. to the Prince of
Orange, the settlement made by the king was a purely
political payment to a Protestant Prince, as was stated by
Ministers, and was never made use of as a precedent. The
annuity that was granted to the Princess Royal, daughter of
George III., by the Irish Parliament is not a case in point,
because the Restraining Act did not apply to Ireland. The
Princesses Mary and Louisa, daughters of George II., obtained
no annuities at all, and the younger daughters of George III.,
80 far from having annuities granted them in consideration
of their marriage, were bound by Act of Parliament to accept
a portion of 40,000^. in lieu of annuities, which, if they had
remained unmarried, they would have received on their father's
demise. Now, as late as the 12th June, 1843, this sound
doctrme had not been forgotten by the Ministers of the
Crown. Sir Robert Feel on that day spoke as follows :— " I
find that the rule adopted by the House of Commons in
respect to provisions made for princesses of the Royal
Family h:us been to assume that the parent of the princess,
whether the reigning Sovereign or any member of the family,
would undertake during the lifetime of that parent, out of the
provision made for him, either from the Civil List granted to
the Sovereign or from the Consolidated Fund granted to any
member of the Royal Family by Parliament, to make provision
for the daughters." He went on to say, that " the principle
was to assume that the parent, during his lifetime, would make
provision for his daughter, and that Parliament would make
an allowance, its payment being contingent upon the death of
Civil List. 107
such parent." The hate annuities have sinned agaiu.st this
principle, and entitle us to re-open the ^vllole subject of the
arrangement between Parliament and the Crown. Indeed, I
should be justified, I think, in saying that there is no pre-
cedent whatever for the provisions which have been made for
the daughters of the present Queen. The Crown now
possesses the power to hold private properties from which
pro\'isions for daughters can be made. The secrecy of the
Royal will, most unwisely granted by the 25 and 2G Vict. c. 37,
will, however, prevent our knowing whether the properties so
held are sufficient for the charges Avhich might thus be thrown
upon them.
Quoting ^Mr. Goulburn, a few minutes back, I showed
that the disposable income of the Civil List was larger in the
present than it had been in the last reign. But I did not
add, as I might have done, that the receipts from the Duchy
of Lancaster, which go straight to the privy purse, have
enormously increased. The net payment now, after great
deductions for management, is never less than 30,000/. a year,
and comes sometimes nearly to 35,000/. a year. At the be-
ginning of the reign it yielded only 8,000/. One of the
returns for which I propose to move Avill show the gro.ss
income of the Duchy of Lancaster for each year since her
^Majesty's accession, and also for each year the amount paid
over to the keeper of the privy purse. In the debates which
occurred on the subject of the Duchy of Lancaster in 1847
and 1850, and again on the 11th June, 1857, it was admitted
by the Ministers that Parliament has an absolute right to
inquire into this subject. I think that, considering that Sir
Ptobcrt Peel admitted in this case the right to inquire, I may
assume that the separate character of the Crown interest in
this Duchy is as absolute a fiction as is the theory of the
private interest of the Crown in the Crown lands. The late
Lord Derby took a similar view ; he said, in the debate of
the 2Gth February, 1847, that there was an annual account
presented to Parliament of the management of the Duchy,
and that the presentation of this account " did imply that
Parliament exercised some control over the matter — nay more,
that the administration of the affairs of the Duchy was
vested in one of the responsible advisers of the Crown, who
was generally a Cabinet Minister, and in that capacity respon-
108 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
sible to Parliament for tlie management of the duties confided
to him ; if there had been any extravagant expenditure in the
establishment — if there had been any waste — if there had
been improvidence — that Avas a subject into which Parliament
had a right to inquire, and ought to inquire." Now, with
regard to mismanagement and waste, the accounts themselves
presented this year to Parliament show 15,000^. a year to
have been spent upon the management of an estate the net
revenue of which is 31,000/. — figures which of themselves
seem to justify the general charge, and certainly to justify
inquiry. But last year the honourable member for Tamworth,
speaking in this House in opposition to the dowry of the
Princess Louise, used words so strong as to make me marvel
that the officers themselves who are responsible for the
management of the Duchy of Lancaster should not of their
own motion have proposed an inquiry. The right honourable
baronet said — "I do not suppose that there is in this country
such gross mismanagement as is to be found in the case of
the Duchy of Lancaster. Will the House believe that while
the revenues of the Duchy amount to 50,000/. a year, only
about 25,000/. is paid to Her Majesty, while the other 25,000/.
is expended in the grossest mismanagement f — adding a still
harder word, which word, but not the statement, he after-
wards withdrew. Now, Sir, I speak that which all honourable
members who are connected with Staffordshire well know,
when I say that by the imperfect management of the Duchy
estates vast fortunes are being made by individuals at the
cost of the Crown, and indirectly, as I contend, at the cost of
the country. In a debate which took place in 1849 it was
.shown that there were many sinecure officers connected with
the Duchy — for instance, one gentleman who received 1,G00/.
a year for duties Avholly performed by deputy, — and many of
these offices still remain. I may add, that at the time when
the Civil List Act for the last reign was introduced, it was
generally supposed in the House of Commons that the
revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster would be given up by
the Crown to the State, in the same way as the revenues of
the other Crown lands, but at the last moment a difi'erent
course seems to have been resolved upon. I frankly admit
that inquiry in this case ought, in my opinion, to be a pre-
liminary step towards the merging of this estate in the other
Civil List. 109-
property of the CroAvn, and the House will remember that
even in the last century a 15ill was brouglit in by !Mr. J'.urke
and jNIr. Fox for this purpose. j\Ir. Burke then said that
which is still true, viz. — that the accounts of the JJuchy of
Lancaster " exhibited the apparatus of a kingdom in the
management of a mere private estate." It has often been
said in this House, by great sticklers for the rights of the
Crown, that the interest of the Crown in the Duchy of
Lancaster is as private as the interest in their properties of
the Dukes of Portland or of Bedford, But there is this one
great difference, that the Duke of Portland, if he wastes hi.s
property, cannot come to this House to make good the defi-
ciency, but the Duke of Lancaster can, and Parliament is
therefore directly interested in seeing that his revenues are
economically administered. But a better answer is this : if
the Duchy of Lancaster be a private estate, why should the
Crown retain Crown privileges in dealing with it? The
Crown ought not to claim royal privileges wlicn it proceeds
against an individual, and then when Parliament asks for a
control over the estates, turn round and say that they are
private property. The 1st Anne, c. 7, section 1, enacts
that grants of lands from the Crown are void, even grants
under the seals of the Duchy and County Palatine of Lan-
caster; thus putting the Duchy in exactly the same posi-
tion as the rest of the Crown lands. ^Moreover, the very fact
that Acts had to be passed to enable the Crown to hold
private property shows that Lancaster is not the private
property of the Crown. ]My last point is, that by the Civil
List Act of Geo. III., the Duchy of Lancaster seems to have
been classed with the rest of the land revenues of the Crown.
The Duchy of Cornwall is more immediately and directly
under the control of this House than is the Duchy of Lan-
caster. I propose, with regard to it, to move for a similar
return to that which I move for in the case of the Duchy of
Lancaster, viz., a return of the gross amount of its income
for each year since the beginning of the reigu, and also of the
amount paid over in each year for the use of the Prince of
Wales. If it needed argument, I might point out that the
honourable member for Kilmarnock showed, in a debate which
took place on the 25th ISlarch, 1850, that the original title
to the Duchy was Parliamentary ; that returns of its manage-
110 Speeches of Sik Charles Dilke.
luent were aiinually laid before Parliament ; and that the
■office of the Duchy was a public office, for which at that time
no rent was paid. I may add, that the present office was
built at a cost of 17,000^., charged not upon the revenues of
the Duchy, but upon the taxes.
I said just now that Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke introduced
a Bill for the merger of the Duchies of Lancaster and Corn-
wall in the Crown ; but Mr. Fox returned to the subject
fifteen years later, and on the 27th April, 1795, in advocating
the immediate sale of the Crown interest in the Duchy of
Cornwall, he said, " it had ever been his opinion that a landed
estate was the least proper of any for the Crown." And I
repeat with regard to it, that Avhich I said of the Duchy of
Lancaster, viz., that if inquiry be held, it ought to be held,
I think, with a view at least to merger in the Crown or public
lands. I again repeat that the separation is but a mere
fiction, for the 1st and 2nd William IV., continued in this
respect by an Act of the present reign, restrains the King and
the Prince of Wales from granting leases, other than such as
are grantable in the case of the Crown lands. Still more
startling, and still more important, is the fact that the Duchy
was surrendered along with the Crown lands, by William III.
The first claim of the Crown to its peculiar rights in Corn-
wall seems to have arisen thus : Cornwall is full of tin, —
silver and gold are royal metals, tin-mines contain silver, and
therefore are royal too. But the extreme antiquity of the
rights of the Crown in Cornwall of itself makes them singu-
larly burdensome in their character, and an enormous waste
of money may be said to occur in mere contention. The
Crown is continually bringing lawsuits against itself, owing
to the twofold, or I might say tenfold, nature of the shapes
in which it appears. The Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall,
for instance, have had frequent disputes, and inasmuch as
when there is no Prince of Wales the King himself is Duke
of Cornwall, he then has his disputes with himself. There
have been lawsuits brought by the King as King, against the
King as Duke of Cornwall, and vice versd, and large sums of
money have been expended in these disputes : even now it
has never Ijeen finally settled whether the gold found in
Cornwall belongs to the King or to the Duke ; and whenever
gold-mines are opened there, as they have been in Wales, we
Civil List. Ill
may expect fresh litigation between these royal personages.
The most amusing reminder of the double character of the
Crown interests with which I have met, is in a Parliamentary
return of 18GG, in which it says of some treasure-trove, that
"the treasure being the property of Her Majesty in right of
Her Duchy of Lancaster, has been h;/ Her Jfajesfi/'s comraand
Joriuarded to the Queen, hy whom it has been retained " !
There is not likely to be made to-day any attemjit to
contend that the Duchy of Cornwall is the private property
of the Prince of Wales ; but as it may possibly be even now
contended that the Duchy of Lancaster is in some sense the
private property of the Crown, I will venture to quote
Lord Brougham's words upon the subject, used by him in
1837 — words in which even Lord Althorp expressed his
concurrence. He said, " I should like to see the man, whether
on the ministerial or opposition lienches, gifted with the
confidence which must be exhibited by him who would affirm
that Cornwall and Lancaster are private and personal property,
and not public funds, vested in the Sovereign only as such ;
enjoyed by him as Sovereign, and in right of the Crown alone ;
held as public property for the benefit of the State, and as a
parcel of the national possessions."
Having said this much of the Crown lands and of the
Duchies, I may go on to state, that I forbear, from feelings
of delicacy, to touch the subject of tlie private estates of the
Crown. I do so, because I am unwilling, following, as I am,
precedent on this occasion, to go beyond my precedents, and
to move for the first time for returns of a character which have
never been moved for in earlier years. I shall not, therefore,
touch this branch of the subject further than to say, that I
contend that we have a right to inquire, both into the manage-
ment and tenure of the private landed estates of the Crown,
and also into the investments of the Crown in the funds;
and for two reasons : the one is, that their amount ought to
be taken into account by Parliament, on each occasion when
it is called upon to vote money for the support of the dignity
of the Crown, in order that we may avoid those constitutional
dangers which would be caused were a large private fortune
to be accumulated by the tenants of the Crown. This is a
reason of expediency, but the other is a reason of law. I
contend that with regard to the property in the funds, whether
112 Speeches of Sir Chaeles Dilke.
the clause in the Income Tax Act exempting it from taxation
be acted niion, or whether it be not, the insertion of that
clause in the Act concedes with regard to these properties the
principle that they are quasi public. I may add, that according
to Mr. Allen, in his valuable book upon the Royal Prerogative,
" it has become a maxim of English law, that all lands and
tenements possessed by the King belong to him in right of
the Crown, and descend with it to his successors, though he
had been seized of them in his private capacity, before he was
King, or had inherited them from ancestors, who were never
invested with the attributes of royalty." Those principles
thus laid down by Mr. Allen, and also, I may add, in " Coke
upon Lyttleton," were acted upon by Parliament, in the case
of the Pavilion at Brighton. Again, the public interest in
the so-called private property of the Crown Avas admitted by
39 and 40 George III., cap. 88, section 10, Avhich made the
King's personal property, so far as it came from the privy
purse or unappropriated moneys, liable for Civil List debts.
The same view was acted upon when George II. compelled
Sir Ptobert Walpole to refund 20,000/., which had been
entrusted to him by George I. for the benefit of the Covintess
of Kendal.
Before I sit down, I Avish to go for a few minutes into the
reasons which exist, in addition to those which I have already
given, for raising those subjects both in the country and the
House. No honourable gentleman who reads the papers most
read by the least wealthy members of our community — no
gentleman who ever attends a public meeting — can fail to
know that there is a wide-spread belief that under cover of the
Crown much waste of public moneys still goes on. If
honourable gentlemen go further and inquire for themselves
into the truth of these beliefs, they cannot but discover that
there is ground for the popular opinion. They will find that
during those long years in which Her Majesty, from feeUngs
which all respect, did not visit London, an enormous staff was
maintained in absolute idleness in connexion with Buckingham
Palace. Tliey will find the Civil List Pensions generally, and
the Civil List Bounties almost ahvays, jobbed away. They
will find that great political officials obtain the benefit of the
sums appropriated for the maintenance of the Crown. They
will learn, fur instance — and I quote but one case out of many
Civil List. 1 1 .'J
— that one official, whose duties are performed by deput}', has
four royal carriages, fourteen royal horses, four royal footmen,
five grooms, and some messengers, maintained for his exclusive
use, from the Civil List, which the public has sui)plied. Now,
this money, thus absorbed by certain great personages, the
country has hitherto paid willingly, supposing it to go to the
Queen ; but when the public discovers, as it has now begun to
discover, that the money voted is thus misspent, I doubt
whether we shall not have to cope with an almost unanswer-
able demand for a revision of the expenditure of the Civil
List.
I have shown, then, that an inquiry of the kind whicli I
propose is consistent with precedent and with the former
practice of this House. I have shown that in asking for it
we have the justification of a quiet and orderly popular wish,
and of increasing estimates, though we are in a time of peace.
I am aware that the sums in question may be looked upon as
insignificant beside the amounts which our army and navy
claim. For my part, I object to sinecures less on account of
their cost than on account of their tone. 8till, if you answer
that the amounts are small, I must remind you of the words
of Pitt upon this point, during the debate of 1781, upon the
Bill of j\lr. Burke. Pitt said—" We have been told that the
saving is immaterial ; that it is a matter of trifling considera-
tion Avhen measured by the necessities or the expenses of the
time. It proposes to bring no more than 200,000/. a year
into the public cofi"ers, and that sum is insignificant in the
public account when compared with the millions we spend.
This is surely the most singular and unaccountable species of
reasoning that was ever attempted in any assembly. . . .
We have spent so many millions that thousands are beneath
our consideration ! We are obliged to spend so much that it
is foolish to think of saving any ! Yet it is by arguments
such as these that the principle of the Bill has been disputed."
It now becomes my duty to apologize to the House for the
length to which my observations have almost unavoidably ex-
tended. The heads of my case are these. That the House of
Commons possesses a right to inquire into the Civil List, even
during the continuance of the reign. That inquiry at the
beginning of a reign cannot but be imsatisfactory. That
public advantage would arise from inquiry now. That abuses
I
114 Speeches of Sir Charles Dilke.
exist in connexion with the Civil List accounts. That
the savings published until 1850, and concealed after
Lord Brougham's motion, should be made known now with
greater reason, inasmuch as the secrecy of Eoyal testaments
has unwisely been conferred by an Act passed since that date.
That it is impolitic to allow large savings to go to swell the
privy purse. That while there is reason to believe that a
private fortune is being built up about the Crown, on the
other hand unprecedented applications to parliamentary
bounty have been made during the present reign, through
Ministers who seem to have misapprehended the altered state
of the law. That for these reasons inquiry is specially
desirable. That returns for which I am about to move are a
necessary first step in this inquiry.
I have but one thing left to say, and that is this^^ — that I
regret deeply that the subject has not been brought before the
House both by a member more competent to deal with it
completely, and also by a member favourable to the monarchical
form of government. I know that the motion cannot but
suffer prejudice on account of my opinions, and I should not
have ventured to have submitted it to the House had the
engagements of my hon. friend, the member for Birmingham,
who gave notice of it last session, allowed him to persevere
in the course he then intended to have taken. I can only beg
the House not to allow the motion to sufi"er by any unworthi-
ness in the individual who proposes it for their consideration.
Sir Charles Dilke concluded his speech by moving for the
following returns : —
1. — A return showing the duties of the Auditor (or Deputy-
Auditor) of the Civil List; to whom he makes his
reports ; and for a copy of such reports for each year
since the accession of Her Majesty.
2. — A return of the directions or warrants issued by the
Treasury under section 9. of the Civil List Act, specifj'-
ing the classes from which the savings arose, and the
classes to which they were transferred, for each year
since the accession of Her Majesty.
3. — A return showing the income and expenditure of the
Civil List from the accession of Her Majesty to the pre-
sent time.
Civil List. 115
4. — A return of all offices held in connexion with the Court
which have been abolished since the date of the report
of the Committee of 1837-8.
5. — A list of all charges formerly borne by the Civil List or
hereditary revenues which have been transferred to the
Consolidated Fund or yearly estimates since the accession
of Her Majesty.
G. — A return showing the amounts charged on estimates since
the commencement of the present reign for fees upon
installation ; robes, collars, and badges ; royal presents ;
passages or conveyance of " distinguished personages " ;
funerals of the members of the royal family ; marriages
of members of the royal family ; the coronation ; journeys
^of Her Majesty ; building, draining, repairing, furnishing
and fitting-up of palaces ; ceremonials connected with the
Court ; allowances and clothing for trumpeters ; fees to
royal watermen ; payments to the Marshal of the Cere-
monies and to the Lord Chamberlain.
7. — A return showing for each year since the accession of Her
Majesty the gross amount of the income arising from the
Duchy of Lancaster, and also the amount in each year
paid over to the Keeper of Her Majesty's Privy Purse.
8. — A return showing for each year since the accession of Her
Majesty the gross amount of the income arising from the
Duchy of Cornwall, and also the amount in each year
paid over for the use of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales.
9. — A return of the services of the royal yachts during the
last ten years.
PRINTED BY F. C. MATHIKSON, BARTHOLOMEW HOUSE, E.C.
SPEECHES
I
BY
SIR CHARLES WENTWORTH_mKE,
BART., M.r.
AUTHOR OF 'GREATER BRITAIN.'
1872-1873.
I
I LONDON :
ROBERT J. BUSH, 32, CHARING CROSS, S.W.
1873.
ifiiifi
CONTENTS.
I'AiiE
Class Legislation . . . , 1
28
33
Free Schools .....
Free Land .....
Free Trade • .... 45
Electoral Reform . . . . . G3
SPEECHES BY SIR CHARLES DILKE,
BART., M.P.
CLASS LEGISLATION.
Glasgoio, 30th of Se2)temher, 181
To teach by example, we are often told, is to adopt the best
of all methods to enforce our views. If, on your invitation,
I am to venture upon the singular task of teaching anything
to those from whom, in the larger part of politics, I should the
rather learn, I will first bring before you some examples of
Class Legislation drawn from our doings in Parliament this
year.
Speaking as I am to the inhabitants of a mighty city, I
shall have your sympathies when I say that no example could
be more forcible, as one of what I call Class Legislation, than
that of the Birmingham Sewage Bill of 1872. That Bill was
rejected in the interest of individuals, and against the interest
of the State. I do not mean to say that private interests
directly weighed with the majority on that occasion, but
while a few may have voted out of party feeling, and not a
few by following friends, undoubtedly the larger portion of
those who formed the majority voted out of a landowner's
feeling of sympathy with landowners whose land it was
proposed to take for public purposes. Now, if ever compul-
sory purchase of land is to be permitted, this would seem to
have been an occasion which would justify that purchase.
Here was a city which had more than doubled its population
within thirty years, and which is increasing at the present
moment at a still more rapid rate. It is a very poor city,
and a city which hitherto has from natural circumstances
been prevented from disposing of its sewage in a scientific
way. It was proposed, under an Act of Parliament, to
B
2 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
purchase land. The Bill cost altogether some 20,000Z. It
had been carefully examined by a committee, and the com-
mittee was unanimously favourable to it. On the division,
the minority represented vastly more voters than the majority;
and among the minority were two of the members for
Glasgow, elected by a constituency of 50,000 voters, whose
votes, in the division, were tied by those given by Cap-
tain Stacpoole, who represents 235 electors, and The
O'Donoghue, who represents .301 ; or by Colonel Knox, who
represents 257, and Mr. Keowm, w-ho represents 263. These
happen to be Irish members that I name. Irish members
voting upon the disposal of the sewage of an English town.
I am often tempted to think that parliamentary government
here is conducted on the principles of Austrian military rule,
in which Magyars are played off against Croats, and Germans
against Magyars : — so here — Irish members against Scotch,
and English against both. What confidence, after this Bir-
mingham decision, can we feel in the working in the interest
of the people, as contrasted wdth that of the landowners, of
the Sanitary Act of this session, or of the County Government
Act of next ?
Another startling instance of the abuses of our Parlia-
mentary system is to be found in the vote of 4,000/. for the
law costs of Governor Eyre. It may of course be said that
in voting for the grant, no member voted approval of the
conduct of Governor Eyre, and it may even be shown that
several members distinctly stated that that conduct was dis-
approved by them, and yet voted for the grant. At the same
time, one has to look, not only to the strict legal bearing of a
proposition, but to the way in which it will be taken in the
country, and to the consequent effect produced on public
morals. Now, perhaps a hundred people in Parliament, but
certainly not ten, I should think, outside of Parliament, looked
at the vote as implying anything but approval of the conduct
of Governor Eyre. The defence fund which had been raised
had more than covered the expenses to which Governor Eyre
had been put ; and there is no absolute understanding that
the expenses incurred by a colonial governor in defending
himself against a suit should be borne by others than himself
and his own friends. The only defence that could be really
made was, that the present Government, a Liberal Ministry,
Class Legislation. 3
•chiefly composed of members wbo, as individuals, disapprove
the coiidnct of Governor Eyre, considered themselves bound
by the promises given by their Conservative predecessors.
Now, it is a most astounding proposition, that a ministry of
one party, and of one set of principles, who ousted their pre-
decessors on the understanding that they considered the
policy of those predecessors wholly wrong, should, as soon as
they come into office, feel themselves under a compulsiim to
adopt and make their own the promises of those predecessors.
If such a principle is to prevail, it seems clear to me that it
is far less by party than by class that we are governed. A
majority of men on both sides, perhaps — certainly a majority
of the other side and a large minority upon ours — are men
who, while they admit that Governor Eyre acted injudiciousl}-,
and that his proceedings are to be regretted, nevertheless
refuse to see a man of their own set himiiliated at the bidding
•of a body of Baptist missionaries.
Illustrations come thickly to us from last session. If
there be any one subject upon which men of all shades of
politics, outside of the House of Commons, are agreed, it is
the need of law reform. But one of my friends was defeated,
not without ridicule, when he showed that the legal adviser.s
of the Government are well enough paid for us to expect that
they should cease to give most of their time to private prac-
tice ; and Sir George Jessel, Solicitor-General to a Liberal
administration, was applauded, when, in answer to another,
he told us that law reform was impossible, because the people
■did not want it, and that the Court of Chancery was perfect.
As we have been long since told,
" Nothing's consistent in the human race,
Except the Whigs in getting into place."
Sir George Jessel is, I believe, a Chancery lawyer, while the
discussion bore rather upon the common law. In his defence
of the Court of Chancery, he went somewhat out of his way
to be one-sided, and reminded me of a constable upon his
beat in a narrow road, of whom I once askod where in that
road was the nearest post-office. His answer was — there is
•one on this side of the road five hundred paces to the west
of this, but I can't say anything whatever about the other
side. Mr. Harcourt's motion asserted that the administratiou
4 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
of the law is costly, dilatory, and inefficient — an opinion in«
which those of us who have had anything to do with it would
agree. "When Sir George Jessel denied that the Government
shared this view, Mr. Henley said in his homely style that it-
was "rather a poor look out," and on this occasion, as on-
many others, the Eadical members of the House felt inclined
to think that Mr. Henley was not far wrong.
It is not only in connexion with law that Parliament — a
Parliament in which the poor are never heard — shows itself'
indifferent to extravagance and waste. With an income-tax
pressing heavily upon the industry of the middle class, and
with the mass of the people unable to provide themselves-
with the necessaries of healthy existence, and who pay by
taxes on their food for the maintenance of the administration,
one might have thought that those do good service to the-
country who call public attention to the necessity of a more
stringent examination of the Avay in which public money is-
expended. Well, I can name to you offices which are pure-
sinecures, and to which fresh appointments have been made
within a year, with a public statement to Parliament that
there are duties to perform, and a private admission that
such is not the case. None but a Government too fine for its
work would retain a pension system under which former
public servants, still well able to perforiii their duties, retire-
at an early age, and for a quarter of a century or for half a-
century continue to draw large annual payments, for which no
work is done or due. A more popular Government would
well pay its servants, but require them to make provision for
themselves as others do. Pensions at least, however, are
better than sinecures — sinecures, which, if defended much
longer by Constitutionalists, may come to jjlay to the consti-
tution much the part which the parasitic plant called Spanish^
moss plays in California to the giant trees on which it grows-
— namely, first kill the tree and then likewise perish.
Let me come, now, nearer home with my examples of Class
Legislation. We passed this year an Education Bill for
iScotland. In the discussions in Committee on that Bill, a
division might have been taken in favour of the principle of
free schools. That division was not taken. Why 1 Simply
because we found upon inquiry that not more than twenty
members at the outside would have voted in favour of such a
Class Legislation. 5
proposition, altliougli almost on the very clay on wliich that
amendment, had it been made, would have been discussed, the
London papers were full of reports of the proceedings of the
London School Board, to which I will refer, and which show
the, as I think, insuperable difficulties in dealing in any other
way with the education of the pour. The London School
OBoard, numbering among its members some of the most dis-
tinguished persons of our time, was occupied for a whole
afternoon with the consideration of the following questions :
Whether a widow earning her livelihood as a charwoman, and
having two children, of whom one was an infant, and the
•other a daughter nine years old, and whose income was Gs. a
week, should be made to pay out of it for the schooling of
her eldest daughter 1 A second case upon which they h.ad to
■decide was, Whether a charwoman earning 95. a week, and
having three children, of whom two were to be sent to school,
should be made to pay for the schooling of each of those two {
The third was the case of a shirt-maker, earning Gs. a week,
with one child. The fourth was the case of a woman deserted
by her husband, but earning 8s. a week, having three children,
•of whom one was at school. The fifth was the case C)f a man
who had been master of a coasting vessel, but who had been
out of work for six months, and was looking for work in vain,
^nd who had four children within the school age. Now, the
difficulties of the question as to whether these five persons
were to pay school fees for their children, or to have them
paid, are difficulties which may be fairly said to be all Ijut
insuperable. You may pauperize these people by driving
them directly on to the rates. If you do so, you increase
these rates, and therefore bring other people again within the
Tiet ; and you will find, unfortunately, that by the very
smallest apparent extension of sucli a principle, such is the
poverty of the mass of the people, that you will have increa.scd
your number of paupers by a vast proportion. If you are
tender to these persons, you are hard upon others, who have
to pay for them. If you are hard upon them, you cana
misery in a vast number of individual cases, without any
-apparent benefit to the country as a whole. I doubt whether
it is possible to maintain against public sentiment the enforced
payment of school fees by a deserted womaji, earning G*. a
week; but, on the other hand, if you once allow such an
6 Speeches by Sir Chakles Dilke.
exemption in a single case, you will have hundreds of thou-
sands of families claiming the benefit of a similar remission.
The only cure lies in an education of all classes purely gra-
tuitous in its character — that is, paid for by a rate instead of
a school fee. But, although many who have given much time
and thought to this subject are in favour of such a scheme,
such is the wealth of the individuals comprising public bodies
of all kinds in this country, that it is difficult to obtain, I do
not say a majority in favour of these views, but even their
bare consideration. Owing to the non-adoption of a free
school system, compulsion is all but a dead letter, and there
being no registration of the children, and no accurate weekly
returns from the schools, compulsion will soon, as at present"
worked, be seen to be arbitrary to a degree, and the sym-
pathy of the people will be lost. A free school system need'
not be wholly paid for out of rates. I am not without hope
that if ever I\Ir. Miall succeeds in disestablishing the church,
an extension of the cy-pres doctrine may give us its enormous
surplus funds for the establishment of universal free schools,
both primary and secondary, and connected with free university-
education and free technical universities, as the reward of merit
I have not done with the examples of class legislation
which I can draw from the proceedings of the last ses-
sion. The discussion on the Parks Bill afforded another
example of the same kind. The majority of the members of
both Houses frequent the London parks, and are tempted to
deal with them not purely in the public interest, but in the
interest of that section of the public to which they themselves
belong — a temptation against which no class of men are ever
proof — a fact which only enforces the necessity of never
putting absolute power into the hands of any one class by
itself. The Bill was a Bill which introduced regulations for
the parks extremely pleasant and convenient to persons with
carriages and horses, but extremely inconvenient and irksome
to those having none. I will not go through the almost idle
restrictions which the Bill contained upon the enjoyment of
the parks by the true public, which a Conservative journal
burlesqued not much when it said that one was " no one
shall drive a tandem of tigers in a park," nor will I dwell
upon the refusal of Parliament to admit within the parks
public vehicles of any kind ; but I would refer for a moment
Class Legislation. 7
to the rules with regard to public meetings which were con-
tained in the Bill, and to the reasons which seem to me to have
led to the adoption of those rules. Hyde Park is a very largo
tract of ground. It is, with Kensington Gardens, a single
park nearly three miles long and more than one mile broad.
Public meetings have been held there from time to time as
long as anyone can remember. They are held in the middle
of the park, and in a place where they are inconvenient to no
one. No one visiting the park in any ordinary way would
ever come near the spot where they are held, which is far
removed from any path or road, unless he went there for
purposes of curiosity. Well, merely because the meetings
there held are generally of a democratic character, and con-
sequently obnoxious to people in society, it was proposed to
take powers in this Bill to forbid them altogether. That
provision, with much regret, its authors dropped ; but the
compromise arrived at was that instead of the words standing
thus in the Bill, " No address shall be delivered," they should
stand thus, " No address shall be delivered except in accord-
ance with the rules of the park"; and we had a further
promise that meetings should be only regulated, and not
forbidden, by these rules. With that promise we were fain
to be content, although our contentment was not perhaps of a
very patient kind, and although we certainly did not accept
the compromise until Ave had exhausted every means of pre-
venting its becoming law. But what occurred 1 Within a
week of the time when Parliament was to be prorogued, the
rules under the Bill came forth, and to our Avonder we found
that one of the rules, all of which Avere vexatious, was the
following : — " That the names and addresses of all speakers at
any meeting to be held should be sent to some authority," —
AA'ho, as far as Ave can make out, Avould be a tribunal con-
stituted of Mr. Ayrton and the Duke of Cambridge, that is to
say, of the Pianger and the Commissioner of \Vorks. Now, is
it possible to imagine that in a case like this, Avhere no
necessity for any dealing with the question had been shoAvn,
it should be seriously proposed that a rule should be adopted
which, if it were to be obeyed, Avould absolutely prevent the
moving of any amendment at any meeting that might be held,
would prevent anything but a mere cut and dried discussion,
and would turn the right of public meeting in the parks into
8 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
a furcel It is clear that the object aimed at was indirectly
to prohibit public meetings altogether; and on the mere
chance of attaining such an object persons could be found who
were prepared to sanction rules so wanton, so ridiculous, and,
I may say, so criminal as these. I say " criminal," because,
looking to the almost impossibility of enforcing them, and to
the certainty that, unless stringently enforced, they will per-
sistently be broken, there is every chance that such rules,
made without the smallest proved necessity, would lead to riot.
No one can wonder at the continual pressure exercised by
the agricultural interest in both Houses to increase and to
retain the restrictions on the importation of foreign cattle,
with the protective etfect of keeping up the jirice of meat, and
benefiting the agricultural interest of England at the expense
of the consumer. There is nothing more strange in modern
political history than the fact that the Government, which is
more distinctly composed of free traders than any Govern-
ment which has ever before existed, should carefully have
abstained from making any attempt to complete a free trade
policy, and should also, after having in the last Parliament
resisted violently, and with an undue use even of the forms
of the House of Commons, a measure for the erection of
markets at the ports of entry, which would, they said, have
had the effect of artificially protecting English cattle and raising
the price of food, have been themselves the strongest up-
holders of similar restrictions. At the same time, it is not
only the restrictions on importation that cause the high price
of meat. English game preservation and Highland deer
forests are responsible for some portion of the evil.
It is often said there would be far less class legislation
than there is at the present time if only all classes were repre-
sented in the House of Commons — that is, represented at all,
■without regard to the number of representatives or the propor-
tion of representatives which they might have. Now, I doubt
whether the mere presence of one or of ten miners, for instance,
in the House would have prevented the mangling of the
Mines Bill on Mr. Staveley Hill's amendment, or whether the
presence of one or of ten town workmen would have prevented
the acceptance of the Lords' amendments to the Trades Union
Bill. What is needed is, not merely that all men should be
heard, but that they should be heard in proportion to their
Class Legislation. 9
numbers, and to tlie amount of happiness or misery which
will be caused by any decision that may be taken in reference
to their affairs. Now look, for instance, as a justification of
-ivhat I say, and as an example of what I mean, to that
which has occurred in reference to the hours of polling. In
Committee on the Elections Bill, the views of the inhabitants
of the large towns, and especially of those of them who work
iiU day long at places far distant from those where they have
to vote, were fairly and fully stated in both Houses ; still,
this fact did not prevent those views being wholly disregarded
from mere carelessness, in spite of the absence of any strong
interest in the opposite direction on anybody's part, and merely
because they were not views supported by a sufficient body.
Nothing can have been more grotesque than the treatment
•which the subject received from both Houses of the Legis-
lature and from the Government itself In 1870, although
no division occurred, the Government were known to be
opposed to any change. In 1871, they voted against the
extension of the polling hour to eight o'clock. In the present
year they did the same thing, but they promised to propose
a compromise at a later stage of the Bill. They did propose
that compromise ; but finding some opposition to it in the
House, they not only withdrew it, but when we objected to
the withdrawal, they voted against their own proposal. The
Bill then went up to the Lords, leaving the hours as they
stood, and in the Lords, Lord Shaftesbury, after s[)eaking with
great courage, carried a proposal for extension. The Govern-
ment then, at a later stage of the Bill in the Lords, proposed,
instead of Lord Shaftesbury's accepted proposition, their own
compromise, against which they had previously voted in the
other House. They carried that compromise in the Lords, and
then proposed in the House of Commons that we should agree
to it; but finding again some opposition to it in that House,
they refused to challenge the decision of the House upon that
proposition, and when we challenged the decision for them,
they showed such irresolution that we were beaten ; so that
matters remain as they were. I venture to say that such
treatment of a subject which excites the greatest attention in
the largest towns could never be continued, and would nevi-r
Lave been dreamt of at all, had the great towns that share of
the representation to which they are entitled.
10 Speeches ey Sir Charles Dilke.
Hitherto we have been considering the proceedings of the-
Commons. Let us now turn to those of the Lords. The
(Jovernment are often invited to introduce their measures in
the first place into the House of Lords, in order to utilize the
services of that body, and to prevent alike the waste of its
time at the beginning of a session, and the pressure on it at
the close. A Bill was introduced there this year to regulate
enclosures for the future, and to prevent that absolute ex-
clusion of the poor from any advantage by enclosures which
has hitherto occurred. It was a Bill far from complete, but
one which made, although with the greatest tenderness to-
wards the lords of manors, a certain improvement in the
existing law. To show you the need for some such Bill, I
may state the fact, well known to those who take any interest
in the commons question, that out of 600,000 acres that have
been enclosed since the Commission was appointed, only
2,000 acres have been allotted under the provisions of the
original Act to the labouring poor. When this Bill came
before the House of Lords, the Duke of Richmond, the
leader of the Conservative party in that House, stated that
the public had no right whatever in the commons, and that
he objected to the making of any allotment to them ; and he
ultimately succeeded in throwing out the Bill. When he says,
however, that the public have no right in the commons, and
that the whole right is in the lords of manors, I should
be prepared to take the opposite view. In every case that
lias been tried before the courts in modern times, the rights of
the public as against those of the lords have been supported
in the decisions. The lords have to enclose, either by a
process which, when we have succeeded in raising sufficient
funds we have never failed to prevent, or under the Enclosure
Commissioners— that is, by the aid of Parliament, which of itself
is enough to show what is the value of their so-called right.
Another remarkable piece of absence of public spirit seems
to me to have been exhibited by the House of Lords in their
rejection of the measure for applying the ballot to the School
Board elections, which was a natural and proper supplement
to the Ballot Bill, and one which, for the sake of consistency,
as well as for any good which it might have in itself, ought
clearly to have been passed in the same session. Far worse
was Lord Abinger's resolution of the 18th of June, by which
Class Legislation, IT
a House containing in its ranks between fifty and sixty officers,
or former officers of guards, pronounced a vote of sympathy
■with guardsmen and jeak)usy of the scientific corps.
You will understand that I am not attacking the Lords, as
a body, any more than the Commons, as a body. At tlie
same time, I cannot but take notice, in passing, of the fact
that Lord Salisbury's words on the second reading of the
Ballot Bill this year go to the very root of the constitution.
He tells us that the House of Commons cannot be taken to
represent the nation except on the special subject on wliich it
•was chosen. There are some of us who will not gainsay it.
But if it be true, to what does the assertion point ? — to animal
I'arliaments, of course ; and some day Lord Salisbury will
learn that, to show that the House of Commons docs not
represent the country, is not, therefore, at once to demon-
strate that it is any better represented in the Lords.
Both Houses habitually show a small regard for public-
convenience in the short duration of their session. There
"was something careless and idle in the rejection last year by
the Lords of the Ballot Bill, without consideration, upon the
score of time ; but there was more than carelessness in the-
dropping by us of the Mines Bill for a similar reason. I do
not mean to say that the Lords are any worse than the-
Commons on this score. It is a matter of course with us
that the session should end when the shooting begins. But
I do mean to say that in both Houses it is a public scandal
that any such reasons for the ending of the session should
have w^eight, when year by year l^arliament is collecting into-
its hands more and more completely the whole government
of the country, in matters both great and small. In no
country is so much power committed to one assembly. Other
countries have the State Legislature, the Cantonal Council,
the Departmental General Council, or the Provincial Zemstvoe,
to deal with local matters. Here there is nothing of the kind.
Parliament does all that is done, if not all there is to do. We
pass Bills by the hundred about piers and roads, and turnpikes
and tolls and bridges, and go through a mass of business of
this kind, which we do badly, but which at least we prevent
other people doing ; and it is infamous, if this work is to be
1 done by us at all, that the doing of it should be crowded into
, a corner of the year. Then, again, day by day Parliament is
12 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
assuming more and more interference power in foreign
affairs and in criminal jurisdiction. I do not mean to say
that, in home matters, it is advisable that this power should
be exercised, but if it is to be exercised at all it is of the
greatest importance that it should be exercised steadily, and
throughout the entire year. In this matter of time, we of
the House of Commons do not come before you with clean
hands, and we have no right to complain of the House of
Lords, but you have a right to complain of both. Not only
■of the too long vacation, but of such a sacrifice of public
business to private pleasure — not of the purest kind — as is
meant by an adjournment for the Derby, with all the effect
of giving national sanction to the sport of horse-racing that
such an adjournment involves.
It is hardly possible to take up a paper any morning
■without finding case after case of disregard of the opinions
-and feelings either of the minority or of the unknown and
unheard dumb majority, constituting what I should call
class government. For instance, on the last day but one of
the session, the newspapers contained several cases of this
kind, which were treated very much as a matter of course.
One Minister defended, as a perfectly harmless joke, the
speech of the Bishop of Gloucester, Dr. Ellicott, made at an
agricultural dinner, in answer to the toast, " The Bishop and
Clergy of the diocese." One would have thought that a pre-
late, speaking with the authority of his position, in answer
to a toast expressing the feeling entertained by the laity of
his own part of the country towards those who in that part
of the country were the official expounders of Christianity,
•would have avoided a bitter and uncharitable attack upon a
man like Canon Girdlestone, than \vhom no man deserves
better of those who have truly Christian feelings at heart, and
that he would have avoided, too, an invitation to his neigh-
bours to duck in a horse-pond any one who told labourers
getting 10s. a week that they were underpaid. I have
heard it said that primitive Christianity was more or less
communistic in its character, but that is clearly not the
case with Christianity in its modern development, because,
if I mistake not, the Bishop who stated that a labourer with
lO.y. a week was by no means underpaid, receives from the
coujitry 100/. a week himself, and has the patronage of
Class Legislation. 13
eighty-six benefices, worth over 20,000^. a year. The Bishop
of Gloucester said that he " could not condemn in too strong
terms, or denounce too severely, those who came from afar,
men who never owned an acre, men who never did a day's
work, into their peaceful villages, making iniquitous combina-
tions." Now, I dare say it is true that the gentleman to
whom he was alluding (Mr. Mitchell) never owned an acre,
but the statement that he never did a day's work is a gratui-
tous invention. Mr. Mitchell, by his own labour, raised
himself from the condition of a ploughman to that of a
prosperous master stone-mason in London, and he voluntarily
devoted a year of his time and many hundreds of his property
to the movement which in these extraordinary terms the
Bishop condemned. But I confess that it does seem strange
that a man who, in his devotion to the happiness of his fellow
men, is a model even to a ]]ishop, should be reconnnended by
the Bishop to the people of his diocese as a fitting subject for
immersion in a horse-pond, and that for forming unions among
the labourers with a view, by peaceable and legal means, to
raise their condition, he should be accused of devising an
iniquitous combination. And this is a Bishop and a scholar !
Verily we shall have to impose upon scholars as towards
peasants the prohibition Browning addressed to peasants on
behalf of scholars : —
"Hans must not burn Kant's house above l)is head
Because he cannot understand Kant's book."
"Increased Avages mean only increased drunkenness," said
this follower of one who was the comforter of the poor ; and
he wound up his harangue with some dogmatical enuncia-
tions of half truths which he seemed to dare his auditors to-
dispute or to improve. "This is my doctrine," as said
Mahomet, " and all other doctrine is either the same, in which
case it is superfluous, or the opposite, in which case it is
heretical." Now, this prelate is not only a prelate, l.)ut a
legislator too, and Avith power by his vote and voice in
the House of Lords to give effect to his opinions. The
answer of a Minister who made light of this case was one
subject treated of in the paper of the morning of which 1
speak. In another part of the same paper we fnid anotlior
Minister telling Mr. Anderson, when he asks him if he
14 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
approves of a volunteer being dismissed from his corps by
his commanding officer and the Duke of Cambridge for
attending a political meeting as a mere citizen, and not as a
volunteer or in uniform, not that he approves and not that
he disapproves, but that it is a matter Avithin the discretion
of the commanding officer. The same Minister, again on the
same day, when Sir Wilfrid Lawson asked him whether a
corporal at Gosport had been sentenced by court martial to
three months' imprisonment with hard labour, and to be
degraded to the rank of a private, for taking part in a reli-
gious service against his Colonel's wishes, said that the man
was sentenced for disobedience to orders, and when he was
asked what orders, he said that he didn't know ; and there
he wished, -without any further expression of opinion, to
leave the subject. Well, day after day, matters of importance
not only to the individual, but to the public at large, to the
unknown portion of the public, are thus shelved in Parlia-
ment. Again, in the same paper, another Bishop approves
of the punishment of a poor parson by a clergyman of more
power for obedience to the law. AVe need not wonder at this
bigotry in high places. In all, people not bigots are as rare
as black swans.
With such evidence of class power in Parliament and out,
how can we wonder that taxation questions, local and im-
perial, are solved in a class sense? How little has been
done in the direction of the free breakfast-table, considering
the unexampled prosperity of the country, since it was pro-
mised by Mr. Bright, and voted for, be it remembered, by
the electors in sending the present Government to power !
How surely — if we turn from imperial to local taxation — do
the Conservative magnates count on victory next session —
victory for the land ! How, indeed, with such views pre-
vailing, can local taxation and county government be fairly
•dealt with next year ? What hope can we have that such
will be the case, when we remember that, although a Radical
Government has been in office for four years, it has not
touched the rooted feudalism of English county government,
cumbrous and inefficient as it is ? Still we suffer nominated
lords - lieutenant, nominated magistrates, and nominated
sheriffs, to rule the unheard peasants, and to tax them too.
I have the fullest confidence in Mr, Gladstone's desire to
Class Legislation. ITt
settle county government on the most modern and tlie most
popular, which are also the most scientiiic, principles ; but I
■doubt his power to beat the squirearchy, Lilx'ral as well as Tory ;
.and unless the squirearchy be beaten, the reform will be marred.
In face, then, of the refusal of Parliament to extend the
hours of polling, of the refusal of both Houses to relieve can-
didates of the necessary expenses of elections, in face of the
refus.al of the House of Commons to abolish sinecures, I ask
how can you expect to obtain any of the points which are
included in every democratic programme 1 Mr. Morley lately
called a conference of the leaders of the London democracy,
and after much deliberation a programme was proposed of a
most Radical kind, and was adopted by tlie bodies represented
at the Cannon Street Hotel There was to bea wider suffrage,
:shorter rarliaments, redistribution of political power, payment
of members, abolition of all remaining property qualifications,
abolition of the game laws, abolition of indirect taxation,
reduction of expenditure, free and compulsory education,
repeal of the Criminal Laws Amendment Act, and so forth ;
and the great majority of those present benig of llepublican
opinions, a clause was inserted setting forth that, while con-
tent to work for these objects, the committee reserved their
larger views. But how is the committee going to obtain for
us all these good things'? Where are the means? Mr. Morley
is not dictator ; how, then, are those who have met together
under Mr. ^Morley's presidency going to get their way ?
Without going into details, I would sum up the generally
accepted portions of the democratic programme luider the
following heads : — free schools, free church, free land, free
trade, cheap law ; and I want to know how and from whom
you are going to obtain these things? Are you going to get
free schools from rich men — free church from two houses of
.state churchmen — free land from landowners — cheap law from
lawyers — free trade, which means less taxes, from officers and
place-men ? Why such is the strength of caste, — of caste
theological — of caste ofBcial — of caste social, — that even with
the Liberals in power, you have had fresh increase of esti-
mates — fresh imposition of religious disabilities.
I am not one of those who Hatter the populace by talking
of the demoralization of the rich or great. I think that there
is profound political demoralization — that is, terrible lack of
16 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
public spirit— in all classes, and in all countries, I would add.
All I say is, that in an elective or parliamentary system, if
improvement is to come, it must needs come by pressure from
below, and that for the present, until improvement comes, all
of us must be content to take our share of blame. What
have we, of the present Parliament, done since the last elec-
tions ? We have had four long years. How have we used
them ] We gave one year to the passing of an Irish Church.
Bill, that came thirty years too late, and that laid down prin-
ciples of compensation that will be disastrous when they
come to be applied to the Church of England. One year we
gave to an Irish Land Bill, which violated economic principle
without contenting the Irish peasantry ; and to an English
Education Act, which — valuable only for its compulsory
powers — has not caused the real application of compulsion
anywhere at jjresent. One year we gave to abolishing an
illegal system with compensation to those who had broken
the law; and this year, with much triumph, we have suc-
ceeded in passing three imperfect measures : — an imperfect
Ballot Bill — how imperfect we have seen at Preston, an
imperfect Mines Bill, and an imperfect measure of Scotch
Education.
Sometimes, indeed, a reform on which the country has set
its mind has been carried by us, but carried in a different
sense to that intended. The abolition of i^urchase was car-
ried, but the country meant " la carriere ouverte aux talents,"
and it has got instead, advancement open to merit, provided
only that merit be rich enough to afford band subscriptions,
and mess subscriptions, and to live on nothing at all except
the private wealth of its possessor.
What I mean, then, by class legislation, is the legislation
of a ruling class which is partly a land-owning class, and
partly a mill-owning class, and very generally a dilettanti
class, or a class " too fine for its work" ; and I say that I am
persuaded that had our Government been loss exclusive, and
more popular, we should neither have had the Alabama three-
and a-quartcr millions to pay, nor Ireland made impossible to
hold without armed force.
What, then, is the cure 1 To find it we must first discover
where lies the root of the most pressing evils. Some say it is
with the peerage, some find it in the monarchy. Let us look
Class LEcasLATiox. 17
twice before we leap. In Great Britain we are at this monjent,
politically speaking, in a transition state. We have a Hdusu
of Commons possessed of all the realities of power, but inile-
finitely obstructed as to time by a land-holding Upper House,
and itself connected with land as to the majority of its
members, although in part democratically elected. The ( Jovern-
ment is a cumbersome republic, administered by landowners,
through inconvenient and obsolete fictions : a republic of
which the Premier is the head, not for any fixed period, but
so long only as he in turn is content to be the humble slave
of a fluctuating majority of millowners or landowners in the
House of Commons. The Monarchy, although cumbersome,
and likely to become, as all fictions at some time in their
existence will become, dangerous, is for political purposes
administered by a commission, which we call the Cabinet, and
represents only the majority of the House of Commons. The
House of Commons is elected under democratic forms, and
by a tolerably wide suff'rage. How, then, is it that we suffer
all the evils of class government? The Peers being neither
democratically elected like the Commons, nor powerless like
the Monarchy, some people at once assume that it must be
the Peers who are the authors of all evil. Abolish the House
of Lords, they say, and the cry has often been raised within
this city. The cry has been raised, indeed, at times by those
who, with the conservative solemnity of age, now reprove
others for raising the standard of Padical Pieform. Mr. Roe-
buck has lately begged at Sheffield that his former constituents
would forget the errors of his youth ; yet I know not why
they should refuse to remember when he stands up for the
Lords, that once upon a time he wrote — "The Lords have a
direct interest in fleecing the people ; all persons who have
a similar interest rally round the Lords, and, for this reason,
the House of Peers is the most powerful of tlic sinister
interests now existing in this country." Reform the Peers
or put them away, is the cry that now each year sees raised.
To begin with, the thing is much more easily said than done.
I have never seen a reform of the Lords suggested which
would not either strengthen them or corrupt the Commons,
or do both these things. Besides, we need an immediate
remedy applicable to the existing state of things. Suppose
that you expel the Bishops from the Lords ; suppose that you
18 Speeches by Sir Chakles Dilke.
elect life peers ; the House of Lords will still continue to be a
house of great landowners and of State churchmen so far as
the majority of its members are concerned. You never can
work election, which means selection for merit, by the side
of hereditary right ; you never can work nomination, which
means jobbery, by the side of either. It seems, then, to me,
that reserving our future action, and declaring boldly our
personal views as to the ultimate form which the federal
government of Great Britain and Ireland, in our opinion,
should assume, those of us who are dissatisfied with the exist-
ing constitution of Parliament should, for immediate reforms,
turn our attention rather to the Lower House than to the
L^'pper House or to the Crown. I have made no secret of my
opinions, and I know that they are those of many here. I
believe, with Lord Brougham, that, " When a people become
wise enough to avoid splitting into parties and fighting for
who shall be king, they are wise enough to govern them-
selves, and the great use of monarchy is at an end." But I
have, on the other hand, never ceased to say that the majority
of the people of Great Britain believe that the reforms which
they desire are compatible with the monarchic form of govern-
ment. Whether they are right, or whether the pure Bepub-
licans are right, time and the peaceful development of our
united countries alone can show ; but while political education
is progressing as rapidly as at present, I think that the
staunchest of Republicans need not fume or fret " because,"
to use the words of Bobert Buchanan, a Glasgow poet, —
" . . the tinsel order stands
A little longer yet."
** Parliamentary reform," I seem to hear some say — why
we have had it five years ago. Give the country rest. Why
can't you^let us alone a little ? We know things can't always
go on as they are, but give us a few years. Whose fault is it
that we cannot. We answer,— Yours ! You who so tied the
reforming hands, who so cramped them in their work, that
they produced a miserable piece of political patchwork instead
of a lasting reform.
Compare the electoral laws of any other country with oura.
It matters not whether you take that of France, of the United
States, of Italy, of Prussia, of Spain. Take our nearest
Class Legislation. 19
■neighbour — France. A new Bill is now pending, proposed by
Government, and likely to be adopted during the next session
of the Assembly. I take its provisions, Ijut those of the old
law are as simple. " Every Frenchman, aged 21, is an elector,
and to vote at any particular spot must have lived at it for
one year, which fact he may prove at any time before the day
of the election, and have his name placed on the register
by the local authority." Nothing more! that is all! On
the other hand, our electoral law is contained in a book full
of Acts of Parliament, all alike unintelligible except to lawyers,
and in heaven knows how many reported cases tried
before the Judges, and which no one but a lawyer will even
pretend to understand. We have for School Boards one
franchise, with ballot voting in London and opeii voting
in the country. For Town Councils another franchise. For
London Vestries a third franchise For Boards of Guardians a
fourth franchise. For county parliamentary elections five more
franchises, and for borough elections five more difterent fran-
chises ; for coroners another franchise ; which makes about
fifteen, with about as many various necessary periods of resi-
dence and different modes of registration ; the whole with the
effect of throwing our elections into the hands of wire pullers,
and of virtually disfranchising the democracy. Try and
explain the English electoral system to a foreigner, and sec at
the end of the explanation what you think of it yourself.
Look at the anomalous condition of things in London, whore
you have a mass of boroughs that have no more to do with
one another in electoral law than if they were in different
countries, so that a man is disfranchised for years by moving
across his street. Look at your registration law, by which a voter
is disfranchised for moving from one room to a better room
in the same house and on the same floor. Look at the neces-
sary costs of conducting an election thrown on candidates.
Look at your law of election petitions, made by the rich for
the rich, in which, however plain the proof of wholesale
bribery, the election cannot be upset unless at least 2,000/.
can be procured ; that is, unless the beaten candidate be also
a wealthy man. Look even at your new Ballot Bill, which,
as worked at Preston, has proved but a new engine for putting
political power into the hands of the rich.
Parliamentary representation commenced, or was revived
20 Speeches bv Sir Charles Dilke.
in England in the thirteenth century, but it was not until th&
fifteenth that any qualification for the voter Avas required. At'
that time the election Avas made by show of hands at a single
spot, and the restriction in the franchise was only intended ta
prevent the bringing together of too great a crowd upon those
occasions. As regarded towns, for a great number of years
new towns were represented, on their reaching a sufficient
population, by the mere act of the Crown, so that there
existed, in the earliest days in which anything resembling the-
present constitution was in force, on the one hand universal'
suffrage, on the other a periodical re-adjustment of the distri-
bution of political power. Moreover, in those days Parliaments-
were elected every year ; and it may be said with truth, that
the history of modern Parliamentary Reform is only the history
of a series of attempts, more or less successful, to return to
the most ancient practices of the constitution. The first of
these measures of reform, the Act of 1832, contained no firm
ground of principle, either in the matter of the franchise, or
in that of distribution of political power ; and the result was-
that it made no essential change in the character of Parliament.
The second reform, that of 1867 and 1868, went upon
prhiciple as far as the suffrage was concerned in boroughs,,
and by so doing conceded the advisability of similarly basing:
ourselves upon principle in the future as regards county
franchise and distribution of seats. As to county franchise,
there is a general agreement that it should be lowered to the-
same point as that in boroughs, and a general belief that such
a change would not be opposed by either party, or by any
leading statesman. It is a matter of time and of convenience,
and nothing more. But there is a widely different outlook
:is regards the distribution of political power. Here we have-
never touched principle at all, and hitherto we have hardly
seen it upon the political horizon. No one likes to be a
party to a measure of disfranchisement. No one who knowa-
the inconveniences of the present size of the House of Com-
mons would be a party to increasing the number of members-
of that House ; and most men are afraid of those schemes by
which it has been proposed to adjust representation to-
population witliout disfranchisement.
I stated that in 1867 and 1868, when redistribution
measures passed, they were founded upon no principle. For
Class Leoislatiox. 21
Ireland, where sucli a measure was most needed, there was
•none at all. There was a slight enfrancliisemciit of new
boroughs, but such towns as Battersea and Croydon remained
unheard, although some 200 smaller places return eacli a
member to the House of Commons, and some fifty smaller
places return two a-piece. In Ireland, before the last Kcfonii
Bill, borough electors were only .'KljOOO men : they are not
50,000 now — a number ridiculously small, and a number,
too, which shows that in ascertaining the wishes of the Irish
people we must rely rather upon county than upon borough
representation. There are nine Irish boroughs returning nine
.members to the House with only 2,000 electors among the
nine — Portarlington, which has 13G, Kinsale, which has 173,
Mallow, Ennis, New Ross, Dungannon, Downpatrick. Youghal,
•and Tralee. Now, we are very fond in this country of talking
■of the sovereignty of the people, but I confess that I cannot
•see why an elector in Portarlington should be 120 times as
much sovereign as an elector of Glasgow. !Many of the small
"boroughs have been proved corrupt ; moreover, those who are
acquainted with them know that there should be counted as
•corrupt not only those of which positive corruption has been
proved, but many also as to which — while there is no proof
— there is for any fair man a certainty that the mass of the
voters take bribes. The result must be the gradual exclusion
from our political life of all except men of an unscrupulous
ambition and men who have private interests to serve.
Above all, it is grossly unfair to the inhabitants of the
large towns when their interests come into conflict
with the interests of those who live in the small
boroughs. In these cases the small boroughs obtain their
•ends, on account of the disproportionate power that is given
to them in Parliament. The Conservatives, who maintain
these boroughs, say that political power should be given, not
to numbers, but to property and to intelligence ; but liy up-
holding pocket boroughs and corrujit boroughs they, in j)rac-
tice, place the representation in the hands of the majority of
■the corrupt and uneducated and unenlightened iidiabitant.s
-of those decaying towns. The result is, that ^yhile the House
•of Commons is ever assumed to be representative of the whole
people, it is, in fact, representative only of a portion of the
ipeople— representative of that portion in irregular degree;
23 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
and its majority is as often a mere class majority as is the
majority of the non-elected House of Lords. The Conser-
vatives often cry out that the counties should have more
members, and that, perhaps, is true, taking the counties as a,
whole ; but, on the other hand, you have special representa-
tion given to counties such as Sutherland, where the whole-
county, except one small estate, belongs to a single duke, and
where the number of electors is but something above three
hundred. Half the members of the House of Commons are
elected by much over two millions of electors, Avhile the other
half are elected by much under half a million. Not only — as
[Mr. Mill, I think, once put it — has a fraction of the com-
munity alone the right to vote, but a majority of the House is-
returned by a small fraction of that fraction ; and the result
is this, that the ojDinion of the country is often falsified upon
great divisions, and that made into law which, if the unbiassed
opinion of voters had its way, woiild never have become law
at all. For instance, take only two divisions, to which I have
already to-night alluded as having occurred this year — that
upon the Birmingham Sewage Bill, and that upon Mr. Stave-
ley Hill's amendment to limit the penalties of masters in the
case of the employment of children in mines. In the latter
of these, the 185 who voted with Mr. Staveley Hill in favour
of the mine-owners, represented far fewer voters than did the
170 who voted upon the other side; and in the former, those
who voted with Sir C. Adderley and Sir E. Peel in favour of
the extremest assertion of the rights of property, and against
the principle of taking property, with compensation, for publie
purposes, represented almost half a million fewer voters than
did those who voted in favour of public considerations. Last
year, on two occasions of much importance, a majority alsa
was converted into a minority in the House of Commons. In
the division against the most insidious form of electoral cor-
ruption, viz., the large employment of paid canvassers, this was
the case ; and so again in the division upon the Contagious
Diseases Act. It is clear, I think, that we have no security
that the opinion of the country will not, on any given occasion,
be falsified in the House. No one who looks into the figures
contained in our electoral statistics can come to any conclusion
but that they form an outrage upon common sense. So small is
the inliuence of the single voter in the largest of large boroughs..
Class Leuislatiux. 23
as compared -with that of the voter in the smallest of the small,
that it is hard to see why the former should trouble himself
to vote at all, except he find some local or temporary pleasure
in the act of voting, apart altogether from its bearing upon
the political position. Not only inconvenience but danger lie
under such a system. Inconvenience -withiii the last year or
two in the loss of measures of much importance, I have .shown;
and I might show it spread over a whole course of years, and
lying in the way of the adoption of a whole line of policy;
for instance, in the delaying for many years the adoption of
Free Trade, to which a majority of the people were favourable
long before a majority of representatives were secured. It
is clear that danger would be found to underlie the system,
whenever — and for aught we know it may soon hapjien — a
i:)arty unpopular in the large cities but having, nevertheless, a
majority in the small towns and smaller counties, may attempt
to^ carry on the government, and even to undo some of the
progress of the last few years. The floods which at Niagara
take the tremendous plunge, descend to unknown depths
beneath the other waters into which they fall, but though
they flow unseen for miles, at length for sure they re- appear
once more upon the surface, — so, for certain, you may count
upon the re-appearance of the Conservatives in power after
their long plunge of 1SG7 and 18G8. "When I see Mr.
Disraeli sitting in a mysterious and majestic solemnity watch-
ing Mr. Cardw-ell's diflicult army reorganization, or 'Mr. Stans-
feld's masterly attempts to improve our local administration,
and think that soon he in power will know how to profit by
reforms which he has neither aided nor opposed, I am tempted
to think of the carp of Fontainebleau, who are fed by the
throwing in of hard meat balls, which tliey have to break by
driving them against the stone. The great king fish holds
himself aloof, and allows the smaller fry to do the breaking
work, then in he sails, and driving them away with a blow of
his tail, proceeds to devour that for which he has not toiled.
What, however, when in oftice, is he going to "conserve,"
unless it be the reforms of his predecessors I " If a man is
right," says Josh Billings, "he can't be too Radical, but if he
is wrong, he can't be too Conservative," — so Conser^-atism is
safe, and so is silence. Of ^Mr. Disraeli's silence, however,
we should remember that the albatross, which of all birda is
24 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
the one that has the most powerful wings, is also of all the
one which flaps and beats them the least, and Mr. Disraeli's
policy may stUl astonish us once more. To be serious : we
show great political and social danger : we show the rejection
of important Bills and the mangling of others desired by the
people : we show a vastly too great influence of landowners
and millowners, of whom the former already rule absolute in
another co-ordinate House of the Legislature : we show that
there is no other country in the world where representatives
are not assigned in equal proportion to population in each
district : we show that in England the over-represented por-
tions of the country, if you take population as your test, are
also the poorest and the least intelligent.
Many seem to think that they have said enough against
any proposition for a wide redistribution of political power,
if they merely state that they object, in the matter of such
distribution, to the considering of nothing except mere
numbers. Now what, when Ave think it over, can such a
statement really mean ? One Avould imagine, from the way
in which they put the case, that it is intelligence or property
which they Avould wish to represent, instead of numbers ; but
without going into the question of the desirability of such a
basis for representation, it is clear at once that, if they are
supporters of the existing state of things, which by resisting
change they seem to be, they certainly are not maintaining
that which provides for a clearer representation of intelligence
or pro2»erty than an equal system based on numbers. "With-
out going into details in a hostile sense, it may be taken as
admitted, that there is not more intelligence or more projierty,
voter for voter, in Portarlington or Kinsale than in the city of
Glasgow. But putting such considerations out of sight, I
want to know what right you have to consider anything ex-
cept mere numbers 1 By the whole theory of the constitution,
it is the people, and not any particular portion of them, who
are supposed to be represented in the Commons House :
privilege is sufliciently represented in the other House. The
jicople, who have each one his life and his limb, and each
(me his occupation and his family, and his trade interests,
within the control of the law, and each of whom is taxed for
the support of Government — they are those w^hom you are
supposed to consult, and whom I think you are bound to
Class Legislation. 25
consult, botli in fairness and with a view to the protection of
the best interests of the State. A great deal was heard, a few-
years ago, of virtual representation ; but that doctrine is now
dead, except as applied to women. The franchise in tlic
towns is wide enough to admit the great majority of grown
men, and that is likely soon to be the law in the counties ; but
of what avail to equalize the franchise as long as such
differences in the weight of votes continue 1
I do not undervalue the admission of the peasants to a
share in the government of the State. The marked separa-
tion caused by the difference of franchise between borongh
and county representatives, may one of these days prove
hurtful. There is great social danger in excluding from the
franchise in the counties a class of persons whom you include
in the boroughs. I maintain that it is neither just nor exjie-
dient to exclude them. Unjust, for it is injustice to withhold
from a man the privilege of having his vote counted in tlie
government of his State, and it is an injustice which you
have no right to commit except to prevent some greater evil.
You prolong the degradation of a portion of the community
when you exclude them from the franchise as unworthy to
possess it ; — when you refuse to confer upon them full rights
of citizenship, because you maintain that it would be dan-
gerous to bestow them. There was something tangible in
the position of those who used to say that in counties and
boroughs alike you must have a money test. That is a view
which I do not share, but it is a view which I can compre-
hend. But I fail to grasp the standpoint of those who, while
they exclude a numerous class of their fellow-countrymen
from the franchise, admit, however, the corresp'Miding cla.ss
in other and indistinguishable portions of the land. I say
"indistinguishable portions," because the distribution of
your franchise is capricious — although one would naturally
expect; that if it be necessary to have a qualification, the
qualification should be the same in one place as in another.
There was in 1867 a general agreement upon lioth sides as
to the desirability of admitting to the House the represen-
tatives of the Avorking classes in the towns. "Why not in the
counties too? What argument that was used then as t<.
towns, is not as applicable to counties now? There are other
and fresh ones that might be used. How are you going to
26 Speecues by Sir Charles Dilke.
■work educational compulsion in the counties unless you give^
the labourers votes ? How are you going to work your new
schemes of local government and of sanitary legislation?
How are you going even to discuss those Bills when you have
not in the House a single member Avho understands the
position of the agricultural labourer, and whose interests ara
not opposed to his ? So long as you retain a money franchise
in the counties, you are exposed to the unpreventible danger of
the manufacture of sham votes. Again, with one franchise in
your towns and another in your counties, you find people
building mills and manufactories outside the limits of the
towns, in order to escape municipal rates ; you find theii-
worlauen living outside the boundaries: and you find that
men who diff"er in no way from their comrades within the
towns are thus accidentally excluded.
Now I venture to say that the most miserable country
house and the most wretched country occupier, are palaces
and aristocrats as compared with the worst town dwellings
and most wretched town occupiers whom you have enfran-
chised by your law. If your town workman, living in a 20L
house, goes outside of the borough in order to live in a 10^.
house — w-hicli is more airy, better built, and better drained —
you disfranchise him for that act of providence and foresight,,
and you do so upon no principle. You disfranchise him upon
a money test. Now, these money tests are not of a character-
which makes it possible that in modern times they should be
permanently maintained. There is no monopoly of intelli-
gence reducible to a money test. Why, then, a monopoly of
electoral rights 1 You are afraid, doubtless, that however
indefensible your tests, if you give them up you will destroy
what you consider the legitimate influence of property. I
doubt it. Look at Lancashire ! Property has not only a
corrupt and artificial influence, but it has, too, a wider influ-
ence, that will not be destroyed or shaken, but which nyiy be
even strengthened, by the admission to the franchise of a more
dependent class. But their dependence is no reason for their
exclusion. To exclude them on account of their dependence,
is to place yourselves within the vicious circle, for you may
be certain that the dependence will continue as long as you
continue the exclusion. Wliile the franchise in borough or
county remains the possession, not of the whole peoj^le, but.
Class Legislation. i»7
of a class, so long Ave fail to call out that which it is our
duty to exalt, but upon which at least it ought to be our
strength and our satisfaction to rely — the whole power of the
State springing from the entire people. The greater the
number of those you admit to the franchise, the wiser, as I
contend, will be our deliberations, but for certain the more
powerful and respected our voice, the more powerful, not
only at home, but, for good, as I hope and believe, abroad.
Now, when you counsel, now, Avhen you mediate, it is not
the advice nor the inteqjosition of your people, but of a portion
of your people only. For my part, I lun persuaded that the
day Avill come when it will seem to our successors to have
been inexplicable how any Legislature wt)uld deny to grown-up
inhabitants, and still more to householders and tax-payers, the
right to vote.
These milder reforms, which we are united to propose,
are consistent with the Constitution : would tend only to
make our Parliament a more accurate reflection of the nation's
will. If they are long opposed by those who prate of their
belief that the mass of the people are ready to range them-
selves on the side of leaving matters as they are, we, on our
part, shall have reason to suspect that, after all, the people
must have already come to see the desirability of sweeping
changes, inasmuch as those who are interested in Class Legis-
lation strive to make the constitution of Parliament as little
representative as they can.
28
FEEE SCHOOLS.
Birmingham, 5th of November, 1872.
Mr. Dixox, Ladies, and Gentlemen, — I need hardly tell
jou that I endorse all that the earUer speakers have said as
to the folly of leaving our education policy to be decided at
•corrupt elections, — fought in the name of religion to the cry of
" The Beer in our Bellies and the Bible in our Schools." It
is, however, of another side of the controversy that I am
called to speak. Action must be taken in Parliament next
jear, not only on those branches of the subject to which allu-
sion has this night been made, but on others too. When, for
instance, Mr. Smith brings in his Bill to give to the guardians
the power of remitting or of paying fees, why should not we
then move a resolution in favour of free schools ?
How pressing this question is ! In July last the London
School Board was occupied for a whole long summer's after-
noon in the consideration of five cases of supposed inability
to pay school fees. One of them, which may be taken as
typical of the whole, was that of a widow earning 6s. a week
and having two children of school age. The London School
Board found itself wholly unable to decide on principle the
■question which this case involved, and the subject was post-
l»oned till October, when it again came up. Mr. Charles
Beed, on that occasion, said, it was admitted that direct and
universal compulsion was essential ; that hitherto the visitors
had worked on parents who were able to pay school fees ;
that there was behind a vast mass of sheer inability to pay
the fees; tliat it was undesirable that education should be
I>ro\aded through the channels of the Poor Law. True
enough all this ! What was the answer made ? Dr. Bigg
gravely assured the Board that the American free-school
.system had "had the worst results." Well, that is a startling
statement, and one which, if believed, would "have the
Free Schools. 29-
•worst results." Four years ago there -were three States of the
Amerieaii Union which had a system of partial i)ayment of
school fees. There is now not one. Connecticut abolished
jjayment in 18G8, Michigan in 18G9, and New Jersey in
1872. The universal oi)inion of Americans who love their
country is, that the very foundation of its greatness is in the
free common school. I said just now that the question was a
pressing one : more pressing now than ever at any time before.
!My friend here, ]\Ir. Chamberlain, in moving a resolution on
your -School Board, pointed out that which must never be for-
gotten, namely, that the birth of School Boards was the death
of those old free schools which formerly existed throughout
the land.
Is it not, after all, the fact that the opposition on prin-
ciple to free schools falls to the ground when once you concede
the necessity of jjublic aid to education 1 That necessity has
been admitted in this country for forty years. The school fee
is but a small fraction of the whole cost of the child's schooling.
When the public pays three-fourths or four-fifths of the cost,,
what principle is involved in the direct payment of one-fourth
or of one-fifth by the parent, that payment not being in any
way regulated by his income ? What is this but to substitute
an exploded poll-tax for naore scientific and modern methods
of raising funds ?
It has been pointed out, with perfect wisdom as it seems to
me, that the parents Avell know that the penny a week does-
not suffice, and that the public bears by far the greater portion
of the cost. Now, there are only two ways of looking at this
fact ; either that the payment by the public is a concession
to the poverty of the parent, or that it is an admission that
education is rather a public than a private concern. If the
State payment is a concession to the parent's poverty, why
should a widow with C-s-, a week pay the same school fee for
her child as a prosperous master blacksmith or thriving beer-
shop-kecpcr making 3/. a Aveck clear profits? If, on the
other hand, the payment by the public is to be taken as an
admission of the principle that schooling is a public duty,
then what becomes of the other so-called " principle " involved
in the direct payment by tlie parent of any sum at all ? When
Dr. Rigg's friends say that the parent who cannot pay the 1'/.
a week school fee is already a pauper, and had better be made
^0 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
one formally, why should not they the rather say that the
parent who cannot pay the 6d. total cost of his child's school-
ing, or the 3s. a week total cost of the schooling of his
six children within the school age, is a pauper, and should be
driven into the house at once? From this Dr. Rigg and his
jmrty shrink. '\Miat nonsense, then, this pauperism argument
becomes ! The School Board schools give, in many cases,
education to the children of professional men, and their parents
jeceive a direct benefit from the rates, but no one calls them
paupers, and I cannot see why the case of parents whose
children are wholly educated out of rates should be any
different from theirs. I reject, too, the argument of cost,
for, if the compulsory powers are to be really applied, and
payment insisted on in all cases, parents will be driven to the
workhouse or to prison, from which ratepayers are not likely
to find relief, while the children are certainly less likely to
become self-supporting members of the community.
The question before us must not be discussed as though
it were one between paid-for education and free schools. The
thousands of children in every town with whom the School
Boards find themselves incompetent to deal, prove that the
question lies, not between the parents paying and the complete
freedom of the schools, but between the remission of fees in
some shape or other and universal freedom. I say that the
alternative lies between free schools and the remission of fees.
Some may reply that there is a third course open, namely, to
establish free schools for the very poor. But this establish-
ment of special free schools is jjossible only in large towns.
Looking, then, at the country as a whole, I repeat that Ave
have to choose between a remission of fees and universal free
schools ; and I base that statement not only on what has fallen
from the leading members of the chief School Boards, but also
on the experience of foreign lands. In America, in one-
third of Switzerland, in the great French town of Lyons, in
the great German town of Berlin, the schools are free. In
the rest of Switzerland, in the rest of Germany, in the three
Scandinavian kingdoms, and in Finland, school fees are
remitted in a great number of cases. In the remainder of the
civilized world attendance at school is not enforced, and the
<luestion docs not arise. In France, as shown by the late
votes, the majority of the people are in favour of compulsory,
I
Free Schools. 31
■but free, education."'' "We are justified, then, by tlie experience
of foreign countries, and by the statements of the most ex-
perienced members of our School l^.oards, in saying tliat ify<iu
do not have free scliools, you must carry very far indeed the
])rinciple of the remission of fees. Now, gentlemen who,
like Mr, Llewellyn Davies, push the doctrines of Economic
Science to the point at which they become mere fanaticism,
fail to show that it is possible to avoid remission of foes, and
fail, on the other hand, to defend remission by a single word.
What is meant by " remission of fees " ? The children arc
set apart to be stared at by the others, and are degraded by
the sjjeciality of their exemption. The parents are equally
lowered in the moral scale by having to solicit the favour of
exemption. You admit, too, the children of drunken and
improvident men, and refuse free admissions to those self-
<lenying persons who stint themselves of the very necessaries
of life in order to pay for the schooling of their children.
You thus cause both justifiable discontent and avoidable
•degradation. On the other hand, if all schools receiving
public aid were free, the system would be too widely spread
to admit of the possibility of any degradation attaching either
to parent or to cliild.
Why not take higher ground] Why not assert that
schooling is in the broadest sense a public duty? The com-
munity suffers by ignorance in the individual. It interferes,
therefore, partly to protect itself, and partly in a desire to
.secure the future welfare of the country. You conceded the
public principle on the first day when you gave State help to
•education. You repeated your concession when you intro-
duced compulsion. You will needs go further and complete
your work. The country has decided for universal education.
Universality cannot be secured except by means either fif free
schools or of the remission of fees. If it be secured by remission
of fees, you will do more to demoralize your people by the
remission than even universal education will do to raise them.
On the other hand, if it be obtained by means of universal
* The principle of free schools is making rapid strides. In his new
work on Education, M. t:mile de Laveleye says that it has been adojtted
by Spain (in 1S6S). Portugal, Italy, Chili, Norway, Denmark, Zurich,
Queen.sland (in 1 S70), Prussia, by Article 24 of her new constitution,
and the Sandwich Islands.
32 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke,
free schools, you will not only reap the direct gain of univer-
sality without deduction, but you will glean an after harvest
of a moral fusion of classes and extinction of class hostility,
AVhen some of our friends talk of nationalizing the land of
England, let us ask them first to nationalize the people that
are to dwell in it. No such easy task, but one that must be
undertaken if the ancient glories of England are to be models
and not dreams.
We have nothing to hope for in this matter from the
existing School Boards — nothing from the present Parliament ;^
but I cannot but believe that the next time that the people
are asked their voice it wiU be given for free common
schools.*
* The following words by Martin Luther are worth appending to a-
speech upon Free Schools : — " Magistrates of the German towns, God
bade us teach the children. Parents, whether by indifference, by
ignorance, by overwork, neglect this Holy Command. It is your business-
to see to it. Does want of money stop you ? You spend each year
much on cross-bows and musquetoons, why not spend as much on giving
schoolmasters to our youth ?"
33
FREE LAND.
Derby, 7th of January, 1873.
Ox the 9th of ^Vpril of last year, [Mr. William Fowler
moved in the House of Commons the following resolution : —
*' That in the opinion of this House the present state of the
law as to entail and strict settlement of land discourages
the investment of capital in the development of a-^^iculture,
to the great injury of all classes of the people." Eighty-one
members voted in favour of the resolution, 103 members
voted the other "way. The motion was consecjuently lost by
a majority of 22. But those who voted in favour of it re-
presented more voters in the constituencies than were repre-
sented by the majority.
It is hard to see what there is that can be said in favour
of the present land law. No one denies that there is much
difficulty in transferring land, and that the cost of transfer
gives great advantage to the rich in the purchase of land a-s
against the poor. A Hoyal Commission has admitted that our
law of entail throws terrible impediments in the way of
transfer, not to mention the objections to it on its own
account, which I will presently explain. The burden of proof
lies on those Avho defend our system, for nothing like it exists
elsewhere. If that is one reason why the burden of proof
should be thrown on them, there is another and a still
stronger reason why that should be the ca.se, namely, that
it is an interference Avith the free and natural course of
things, and requires to be defended upon the ground of its
necessity.
Capital is not applied to land to that extent to which it is
desirable that it should be applied, because the land is tied
up by settlement in such a way that it is often in the hands
of poor men — men Avho would do far better to sell their land
to those who would have capital to apply to it. A large
D
34 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
portion of the area of the country is held by persons who
have only a life interest, and they have not a sufficient
motive to spend their money upon the land ; and even if
they had a motive they have not the money.
It will indeed, perhaps, be time to enter on a serious
attack in detail upon the law of settlement, when somebody
has attempted its defence. Mr. Beresford Hope is almost
the only person of any note who defends entails. His view
is this — that in the interest of the poor it is better that the
old families should continue to possess the land, than that
men who have made money by manufacture should buy it
from them. If these were the only two alternatives, I aia
not sure he would be wxong. On the other hand, there can
be no doubt that it is a bad thing for the country that great
tracts of land should be occupied by men who cannot properly
cultivate them, and who are unable by law to sell. One-half at
least of the land of England is tied up in this way, and no one
can doubt but that such a state of things is an artificial restric-
tion upon the very life of the country. The real struggle is not
over the evils of the existing state of things — it is over the
remedy ; and if we were agreed as to what that remedy should
be, it would not be long before we should obtain it. But the
differences between land reformers of the more moderate and
of the more revolutionary school, have got to such a point,
that each of those sections, if we are to believe their spokes-
men, would sooner leave matters alone than adopt the
remedies of the other.
It is not possible to occupy time more be'ieficially than
by considering the opinions held by various sections of land
reformers, and attempting to devise some safe and experi-
mental middle course.
We have a powerful party, to which all middle class
Liberals and many Conservatives belong — a party which
would do away with the law of primogeniture, which would
abolish long entails, and which would cheapen and simplify
the transfer of land. At the other end of the scale we have
the Land and Labour League, who advocate the nationalization
of the land. These men have been unjustly attacked as
having proposed dishonesty. I have rcvor read any speech
In which they have not coupled their idea of the national-
ization of the land with declarations of their desire fully to
Fkee Land. 35
indemnify the proprietors who may be dispossessed ; and it
is a pity that writers who combat their views shouUl increase
the bitterness with which they view the existing institutions
of society, by accusing those men of a wish for spoliation.
The view that they hold is, that all land should be owned by
the State, and let out by the State to tenants for long terms,
the State receiving the rents. They differ among themselves
as to the means by which the lands of the country shoiild
first be acquired by the State. Some of them would have the
State as rapidly as possible expropriate and compensate the
proprietors, and take all land to itself. Others wouhl com-
mence by limiting the power of bequest; but all alike would
recognize existing interests, however acquired, in the same
way in Avhich those interests are recognized where land is
already taken by Act of Parliament.
We saw just now that there is such antagonism between
the two classes of reformers, that each of them would sooner
leave matters as they are than adopt the remedies of their
opponents. The ground taken by the Land and Labour
League when they oppose the middle class reformers is, that
if you cut up land into small patches owned by peasant jn'o-
prietors, you will be creating a new class of persons, possessing
(new rights, who will require greater compensation than would
be needed for the existing proprietors of the soil, and that
you will indefinitely postpone that nationalization of the land
which they have in view. The Association, under the presi-
dency of Mr. ]Mill, to which Mr. Cox and myself both of us
belong, advocates views which lie between the two extremes,
.and its programme seems to me to contain that whicli is most
valuable in both plans. What is the view of the Land and
Labour League in their desire to abolish private property in
land ? The chief of their objects is to take for the State the
■benefit of what may be called the accidental increase in the
value of land, and to plant a considerable number of their
fellow-countrymen as tenants of the State upon the soil. The
Land Tenure Reform Association proposes, with its nioru
moderate programme, to do both those things. It clearly in
not necessary, in order to obtain for the State the natural
increase in the value of land, that the State itself should be
the actual owner of the land. A large part of the princii)lc at
stake would be conceded, and a large measure of the gain
36 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
reaped, if the State, by means of taxation, should take to
itself the whole or part of the unearned increase of the value
of the soil, leaving the soil itself in the hands of the pro-
prietors, unless where they preferred to sell it at its market
value to the State. It may be said that the proprietors
would retain their land, and that the experiment of planting^
the people upon land as tenants of the State could not be-
tried. But another clause in the programme proposes to try
this experiment upon lands which are already public. There-
are in this country enormous tracts of land in the hands of
Colleges and Corporations, and if this experiment is to be
tried at all, it should be tried at first on such lands as
these.
In the bitter attack which Mr. Newmarch made at Leeds
upon the principles of the Land Tenure Association, he said
nothing about that one of them which had hitherto been the
most opposed — namely, the interception for the benefit of the
State of the future unearned increase of the rent of land,
arising from the mere progress of the country in wealth and
population, and springing into existence independently of any
expenditure and of any act on the part of the proprietor of the
soil. Now, as Mr. Newmarch, one of the greatest masters of
the old political economy, has not specially attacked this por-
tion of the scheme, it cannot require much defence. Those
■who have cried out " confiscation " are very much the same
persons who opposed railways when Parliament first began to
" confiscate" land for public purposes — that is to say, to take
land without the consent of the proprietors, but compensating
them for their loss. No political economist can venture to
say that there is not an essential difi'erence between land and
any other kind of property — a diff"erence the character of
wliich at once is seen when we remember that land is the
only kind of property which steadily and at all times con-
tinues to rise in value without any act done on the part of the
proprietor.
Upon the other point — that of a public management of
lands already public — I have nothing to add to that which I
liavc said before. We are told always that State management
would be corrupt ; but the very same party tell us that Cor-
poration management is corrupt ; and as it is only Corporation
land upon which, according to our scheme, the experiment is
Free Land, 37
to be tried at first, we could not be making matters any
worse than they now are.
On the lands which are already public might be tried the
experiment of small forms, not sold in absolute owncrshi}) of
•course, but let by the State iipon long terms. It is strange
that small farnaing, which is the rule in many countries under
much less favourable conditions than those which here exist,
is still but an experiment here, and one that is looked upon
by many bigots as certain to fail when tried. Nearly all the
old stock arguments against small farms have been given up.
Those who attack them now assume that before the invention
of agricultural steam machinery they would have been su[)-
porters of small farming, but that they have abandoned the
cause only on account of the necessity of costly implenu-uts.
But those who are for small farming believe that co-operation
among the peasant-farmers would allow of the purchase and
use of those machines, and that, too, is one of the experinienta
that must be tried.
The need for public management of public interests in land,
as well as of public lands themselves, is shown by the impunity
with which the interests of the public in common lands and in
paths and ways may be stolen at the present time. Two hun-
dred years ago one-half of England was common or commonable
land. A vast proportion of this land was enclosed, Avithout com-
pensation, during the last century. !Much of it has been enclosed,
with partial compensation, during the present century, and a
.great quantity has been stolen. Many landowners, to usf the
words of an American, would seem to have been employed
" .... in preying till they busts
On what the Government chooses,
And in converting public lands
To vcrij ' private uses.' "
Public opinion has, however, been aroused, and we have
succeeded for three years in stopping the passing of what is
-styled the Annual Enclosure Act.
I am one of those who hope that enclosures may be almost
,put an end to. We have had Parliamentary inquiry, and we
have shown that the compensation obtained on the extinctum
of common rights is compensation which the man who takes it
<may drink away, and that it is no compensation to his children ;
38 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
and those of us who have investigated the question, have come-
to the conclusion that there is no more pregnant cause of the
degradation of the labourer than the loss of his common rights.
There are some wild parts of England where enclosures cannot
be resisted in the interest of the great towns ; but as to those
another set of considerations comes into play — namely, that in
such places there is seldom any real increase in the production
of the country to be gained by the enclosure. Such lands-
are already depastured by the cattle of the commoners, and
being mostly poor lands would not be much improved by the
enclosure. In such cases it will commonly be found that the
enclosure is made with the view to the preservation of game.
At least we should provide that no enclosure should be made
otherwise than by Act of Parliament. We should then know
exactly how we stand from year to year. Why not go further,
and propose that the State should resume the commons,
compensating, where need is, the lords of the manor for their
rights? At all events, we should resist enclosures on the
present plan. The land so enclosed will only go to swell the
great estates, and it would be far better to hold these tracts
over as a vast heritage for those who may come after us, who
may be competent to deal with them on juster principles than
are known to us.
The lords of the manor who have appropriated an enormous
portion of English land were not the owners of that land, but
only the possessors of certain rights over it. Had those men
been compensated for the rights which they possessed, the
land might have been kept in the hands of the public, with
advantages which we can hardly estimate. Although we are
not now able so easily to acquire public lands, nevertheless
we should pause before we allow the process to be continued
which converts the few public lands which still exist into the
demesnes of individuals ; and I entirely concur with the recent
letter of Professor Fawcett to the Times, against the unreserved
sale of Corporation lands ; although he was not consistent with
his jirinciples when he failed to support some scheme for their
public management.
It has been proved over and over again that there is much
inefficient management on the part of Corporations, and one
would have thought that those bodies would have been inclined
to thank those who would give them public management, and
Free Land. 39
not only diminish the charges of many of the institution.s, but
leave the time and energies of tlieir managers to be cmiiluyed
upon their proper work. They labour also under many di.s-
abilities. Though so-called " public bodies," it is shown by
a recent correspondence between the Commons' Preservation
Society and the Governors of Duhvich College, that they are
wholly without power to grant any part of the " public" lands
within their charge for public purposes.
I trust that I have succeeded in defending those articles of
the programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association which
require that lands needing an Act of Parliament to authorize
their enclosure shall be retained for national uses, and that
lands belonging to public bodies shall be made available for
promoting small cultivation and co-operative agriculture, on
the understanding that no such lands be suffered to
come under private control. When we have succeeded
in carrying such a reform as this, it will be time to begin to
work for the larger portion of our programme, which claims
for the State the benefit of the future unearned increase in the
value of land.
To return to the point from which I started, I repeat that
all must at least agree that our present land system stands in
need of great reform. What is the real position of those who
occupy and Avho are supposed to own a great portion of the
land ] The life tenant, in most of those cases, is actually
unable by law to make those dispositions of that which we
call his property which would be most advantageous to the pro-
perty, and therefore to the country at large. Where he is not
unable by law, he is probably unable in fact to make them. He
has the expense of keeping up the family name and the family
house, perhaps also a house in London. He has several
charges upon the property made before his time, and if he
himself is to leave anything to his younger children, he mu.st
save it out of the income, which in the opinion of all his
neighbours he is bound to spend in keeping up the family
place. When we attack him for neglecting his labourers'
cottages, we must remember that the benefit of any improve-
ments that he makes will perhaps go to an eldest son (perhaps
to a distant cousin), who will also have the property itself;
but the expenditure Avill come out of the i)ockcts i.f his
younger children, and rather than attack him, I think wo
40 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
should do better to attack the law. Under this system, the
land does not produce one-half of what it should. But even in
the face of so terrible a fact, I do not hesitate to say that the
more serious side is the social one, to which we all of us are
witnesses. We are witnesses, whether we have lived in the
country ourselves, or whether we have but in passing caught
a sight of the wretchedness of the labourers' homes. When I
see such a state of things, I am tempted to remember the
words of Helvetius, contained in a letter from him to Mon-
tesquieu — that he heard much talk of various forms of
society, but that he knew only two, viz., the good and the
bad — the bad existing on every side, and the good yet to
be founded. But I think it clear that the law at least of
entail must stand condemned ; and until some answer has
been made to our demonstrations that a large portion of the
soil is occupied by men who are unable to dispossess them-
selves of it, and who are, on the other hand, unable to
improve it, it is idle to accuse us of empty declamation.
We are at present in a vicious circle, out of which there
seems no way. Suppose that you succeed in placing to some
small extent the labourers upon the land — from the existing
land laws flow naturally the existing game laws, but these
react again, and your small peasant farmer, when he had got
his plot of land, would have got it only to find himself eaten
out of it by hares and rabbits.
The whole tone of thought with regard to land, as prompted
by the law, is radically vicious in its exalting of the private
as contrasted with the public interest. Look at the words of
Sir Charles Adderley, in his letter to the Daily News about
the Birmingham Sewage Bill, in which he speaks of it as
" the Bill which Sir Robert Peel and I got thrown out as a
nuisance to ourselves." Now this was a Bill concerning
public interests — the interests of the whole town of Birming-
ham — and one approved by the representatives of the majority
of the electors of England. Yet these two country gentlemen
are able to speak of its rejection as that of an individual
grievance to themselves. I look with more hope to elective
county government than to any other single source of remedy.
I believe that it is likely to be opposed as fiercely by the
magnates here as was the like by the like in Prussia — with the
Bame result. There is no measure which is likely to have more
Free Land. 41
wide effect. We should do better to resist the clmnge at
present, so certain are we to get it soon, unless the County
Boards be really elective in the broadest sense. We don't
■want a fresh creation of new boards of nominees. All other
free countries have the county or the township as the unit,
<ind I have seen the district Parliaments, described by writers
on Russia and on Denmark, on Sweden and on Norway, as
republics under a monarchy, so closely do they represent the
institutions of the United States. But monarchists would do
well to admit with Bishop Berkeley, " that it might be no ill
policy in a kingdom to form itself upon the manners f)f a
republic."
For elective county government to be worth anything in
this country, the labourers must have in it their share. A few
years ago, when they were docile and easily led, they might
have had it for the asking, but it will be more difficult now
to give it to them. At that time they were the best of follows,
in the opinion of the country gentlemen and of the county
members. In order to live at peace with all the world, it is
not only necessary to abstain from meddling in the affairs of
anybody else, but to let everybody meddle in your own. But
now we are told they are dangerous men. How sudden is
the change of base ! It reminds me of a story of the fisher-
men of CJrays, in Essex, a fishing village upon the Thames.
A whale got stranded there, whereupon the fishermen straight-
way made a show of it at Gd. a head. The Corporation of
London, under some old charter, claimed the whale ; but the
fishermen stuck to their capture till it stank, and then, sud-
denly turning round upon the Corporation, threatened them
with an action for nuisance if the whale were not at once
removed !
The labourers are told they are dangerous men ! Told so
by whom 1 By dukes and bishops. The Bishop of Gloucester,
indeed, who had better have let the matter drop, tries
continually, by all means in his power, to escape from the
effect of his own words. Vainly, for no bird in a net was
ever more enmeshed than he. After all, he had better have
quietly admitted that he made a mistake, or, if you will, a
blunder. There is, as I once heard it explained, the greatest
difference between a blunder and a mistake, and this is the
explanation. If I leave my umbrella and take a better, it is
42 Speeches by Sik Charles Dilke.
a mistake ; but if I take a ivorse, it is a blunder. When,
however, the Bishop of Gloucester first denies it, and then
pleads his previous good conduct in the shape of interest ia
the labourers' state, I am reminded of the law stationer, who,
■ -when sentenced to penal servitude for forging a name, urged
that it was harji to transport him for writing two words,
when he had written during his working life millions that
were free from all objection. Bishops, I suppose, are not
meant by nature for statesmen. Lord Bolingbroke wrote : —
" A bishop is a man with a mitre on his head, a crozier in his-
hand, and lawn sleeves, and sits in a purple elbow-chair to-
denote that he is a bishop, and to excite the devotion of the
multitude." That opinion is, perhaps, as true now as it was.
when it was written. An American negro, when his master
asked him what he thought of the leaders of the opposite
political party to that to which he belonged, said : — " Wal,
massa, if a war a chicken an dose men war around, a guess a
shoul roost high ;" and I fear that agricultural labourers may
take the same view of some of their new friends.
For the evils which are caused by the gross defects of our
land system, and for which we suggest remedies which are
economically defensible, there are others who propose reme-
dies which would be mischievous. Two years ago, there was
a great talk of emigration, and when some of us expressed
grave doubts as to the wisdom of taxing those who stay at
home for the aid of those who go, we were accused of leading-
an interested opposition of capitalists, who were supposed to
want cheap labour. I dare say that capitalists want cheap
labour, but I certainly am not "a capitalist," nor did I speak
in the capitalists' name ; but the idea that at once occurred
to us, by way of answer, was, that it was, at least, as fair for
us to say that the agitation for taxes in aid of emigration was
got up by landowners, who were afraid that if they did not
sliip the people out of England, their political and social pri-
vileges might suffer hurt. The Duke of Manchester, Lord
George Hamilton, and others of that class, took a leading-
part in the agitation, and the latter claimed to speak as the
workman's friend. But dukes' sons, who are officers in the
Guards, and who are returned to the House of Commons as-
Conservative county members to maintain the establishment
of the Irish Church, are not to be universally accepted as the
Free Land. 4$
chosen representatives of the working class ; and I think that
the Neiv York !rn'&?<?«f was not far wrung wlien, writing on this
subject, it said — "For every ship-load that quits England,
there are so many the less claimants to English land,"
In discussing this subject, I am prepared to do so without
asperity. I believe that in spite of great temptations, the
landlord class have been not a bit worse than any other class,
and that it is only right that we should show the justice of our
demands and their expediency in the abstract, apart from any-
special necessity caused by the abuse of existing laws. But,
although that may be the case with us, it is not the case with
all who discuss this subject ; and the demand for change has
been based by some upon cases of injustice and tyranny on
the part of landowners. Wliat harm is done to the landowners
as a class by those of their number who stretch their privileges
and abuse their power ! There are, even now, landowners who
put clauses into their leases forbidding premises on their
estates to be used for Nonconformist worship. There are
many who forbid the erection of Nonconformist chapels and
Nonconformist schools. We had thought, till lately, that
causeless and fanciful evictions were almost confined to Ireland
and the Scotch Highlands, but, if we have been rightly in-
formed, some landlords have lately been repeating in England
the worst precedents of the worst part of Ireland. Again, the
evils of the excessive preservation of game are in the minds of
all of us. I repeat, then, that not only is the scheme of Mr.
Mill economically defensible, but that when the spokesmen of
the workmen of the towns are content to jmt forth their views
in so calm and dispassionate a manner as that in which they
were advanced by ^Ir. Odger in his article in the t'o7iiemporary
Review, it is both idle and dangerous for landowners to refuse
to meet their arguments, and to raise the cry of " confisca-
tion."
At the present moment, a small and decreasing number
of persons have an interest in the soil. Half of those are
prevented by the law froni making the use which otherwise
they could of the soil they occupy. It is proposed in the
Times, and by many influential persons, to sell the few public
lands that now exist, and to let even those go to swell the
estates of the great proprietors. The rights of the public
over common lands are day by day being stolen from them.
44 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
and no accurate information lias, as yet, been collected as to
the lands over which such rights exist. The careful labourer,
who, by some extraordinary chance, may succeed in saving
money, is prevented by the cost of transfer from acquiring
any interest in the soil except at an expense disproportionate
to that at which land can be obtained by men of wealth. Not
only is it proposed to sell the existing public lands, but there
is a law still in existence by which men are forbidden to
leave, at their deaths, property in land to any public bodies.
These are the deplorable incidents of the present law which
it is our object to remedy or to correct.
45
FREE TRADE.
Being a Speech delivered at Chelsea, on \Zth of January, 1873,
Last year, at our annual meeting, it was my duty to clear
my character and my motives from unjust imputation, and in
this task I had the aid of the unanimous vote of a densely-
thronged assembly of my constituents. This year, no such
need arises, and I have only to ask you to consider, in our
usual manner, our programme for the immediate future. The-
most pressing political needs of the comnuinity, in my opinion,
are — free land, free church, free schools, free trade, free law :
— and, as the only means of obtaining them, parliamentary
reform. On free schools and free land I have often spoken :
— on free church and free law I can point to the far wiser
utterances of others. To-night I crave your leave to speak
upon Free Trade.
We have lately seen the institution of elaborate com-
parisons between the Income-Tax and our remaining Custom*
duties. Some turn their energies against the former, some
against the latter ; many who, like myself, are di.ssatisfied
with both, are checked only in their demmciations by the
difficulties which stand in the way of arruueur linanciers, when
they suggest new taxes in the place of old.
As for the Income-Tax, speaking of it as an advocate of
direct taxation, I protest against being thought to support
an impost which involves the injustice of taxing temporary
incomes on the same footing with those that are permanent,
and the worse injustice of registering suspicion of the honesty
of every man who will not allow his books to be inspected by
his neighbours who are his rivals in trade. I agree with'
]\Ir. Mill, that " direct taxation on income should be reserved
as an extraordinary resource for great national emergencies,
in which the necessity of a large additional revenue overrules
46 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
all objections." The injustice of the tax has been artificially
augmented by the harshness of the manner in which it has
been collected ; and indeed with regard to all taxes at this
time, by second applications for taxes already paid, and by a
straining of the law upon every point, of which I have in my
possession proofs, we have been led to look upon Government
as a sort of firm of petty-fogging attorneys.
On the other hand, if we turn to Customs duties, we find
mucli reason to think that they are even more objectionable.
The policy of Free Trade has, after making a certain way,
been checked in its development ; and to those who have
•examined with care the hindrance to trade produced by even
our existing Customs duties, it would seem that we are living
in a fool's paradise of content.
Many think that the time has come for united action by
all nations in the direction of the international regulation of
taxation afi'ecting trade ; but if those who object with cause to
the Income-Tax are abandoned by free-traders, and left to
fight alone, we shall find the efforts of free-traders checked by
the action of Income-Tax Reformers, with the efiect of leaving
matters as they are. Protective duties in this country are
now dead, but the question that we have to consider is,
whether it is not in the highest degree desirable that even
fiscal import duties should be removed, or that where retained,
so long as they are retained, they should be made the subject
■of international regulation. All the arguments that were
iLsed at the time of the great struggle against Protection, are
as good if used in favour of carrying Free Trade principles to
their utmost logical development, with this further argument,
that the articles upon which duties are now mainly levied, are
consumed by those who, owing to their poverty, buy them in
small quantities, when a much larger sum is extracted from
their pockets on account of the duty than would otherwise
be the case.
It has been said, and said with the most perfect truth, that
Teal freedom of trade " consists not merely in the repeal of
protective duties, but in the right to buy, to grow, to manu-
facture, to import, to export, to use, to exchange, to sell,
unrestrained by any fiscal or arbitra-y law."
In the eloquent words of "a disciple of Richard Cobden,"
the writer of the celebrated articles which appeared two years
Free Trade. 47
ago in the Manchester Examiner, "a slave has chains on both
his hands and both ]iis feet, — you remove tliem from one
hand and one foot, and he has a freer use of his limbs than
he liad before, but he is as ninch a slave as formerly — liis
freedom has as yet no existence." The main principles laid
down by Adam Smith, that taxation should be levied from
tivcy j.aca\ in ])roportion to his means, and so contrived as to
take out of the pockets of the people as little as possible
beyond what finds its way into the Treasury, are both of them,
as it has been said, "grossly violated by a system which
raises nearly two-thirds of the revenue by taxes greatly
aggravated in the price of commodities, to say nothing of the
losses occasioned by it in restricting trade, and so narrowing
the field for the profitable employment of capital and labour."
Moreover, it may be contended, that the income which is at
the most sufficient to provide the mere necessaries of life,
should, as far as possible, escape taxation, and if this be so,
by our present taxes this condition also is greatly violated.
The argument that indirect taxation is ojjtional, and can be
escaped, is one which tells both ways. In the first place, the
statement of fact which it contains is hardly accurate, because
the duties upon tea and cofi'ee, and sugar and tobacco, are
virtually taxes upon necessaries ; at all events, some of them
are necessaries in every case. But, not to dwell upon this
point, if taxation is a duty towards the State, and one
which should accompany the privileges of citizenship, it is not
desirable that it should be optional, but rather that it should
be borne without exception by every citizen. To ixjint out
the manner in which those duties press upon the smallest
incomes, I would refer to the duty upon tobacco, which varies
from 8 per cent, upon the choicest and the dearest kind.s, to
between 400 and SOO per cent., and in some cases IjtiUU per
cent, upon the cheapest.
But these considerations are not new. So far from that,
the present Government may be said to have gained a large
portion of its majority by the acceptance of these princii)lcs
in the country — that is, by their popularity amongst the
people. I do not accuse the Government of having brokt-n
faith as yet in the nature of their remissions of taxation,
although I think them blameable upon the score of economy,
at least. But it is well to be beforehand, and in dealing with
48 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
this question now, we should be looking less to the past than
to the future.
Mr. Bright, a short time before he accepted office, spoke
repeatedly in favour of the free breakfast-table, and it is hard
to see what answer can be given to the arguments that he
then used. But although the Government was helped into
office by those speeches, little has been done. Tea has not-
been touched, and tea is by far the most heavily taxed of the
articles which are indicated by the words of Mr. Bright. Tea.
has become a necessary of life, enormously consumed by all
classes, but as much by the poor as by the rich. Looking to
the variety of uses to which sugar is applied, it, too, may be
called a necessary of life, second in value only to wheat. The
tax not only increases its price, but causes imperfect manu-
facture. These taxes are costly to collect, they hinder all
trade— not the trade taxed alone — and raise all prices of
foreign goods ; they grow before they are ultimately paid by
the consumer, and at least as much is lost in passing through
many hands as comes to the State. The tax-payer does not
know what he pays, which is provocative of waste. The food
taxes press far more heavily upon the poor than on the rich ;:
and the compensation given by the exemption of the poor
from Income-Tax is rough and unequal, and raises up a host
of mistaken beliefs. They cause fraud and adulteration, and
the tobacco duties still produce an enormous amount of
smuggling ; the whole of these duties, therefore, injure public
morals and public health : and, lastly, the abolition of them
is the only way to bring about absolute freedom of inter-
change, and, therefore, the most available of all methods for
spreading civilization and checking war. The peace of the
world depends on free trade, because the guarantees for peace
are strengthened as that freedom becomes more and more
complete, and will be at their strongest when it is absolute.
We have not free trade as yet. You cannot have free
trade in anything so long as you have not free trade in alL
Trade is hindered in every direction by Customs regulations.
Absolute freedom of trade would lead to many advancements-
in civilization tending to form Europe into a single state ;.
for instance, to an international penny post with a common
postage stamp, to an international money. But, at least let
us hope that we shall live to see this country one great freer
Free Tuade. 49
port. There is, however, special reason for nioving at tlie
present time. Looking to the position of the free trade
movement in France and in America, a marked declaration
on the part of England would have at this moment immense
international value.
Our opponents resort to figures by the score to prove that
consumption and trade are not much hindered by Customs
duties. Figures are not always worth very much. I re-
member once a vast increase in the imports into England
from the colonies. I found it all, on going into detail, to be
under two heads — the Bermudas, risen from 100,0(10/. a year
to three millions, and Turk's Island from nothing to a million
and a half. Future statisticians may fail to discover that
American blockade-running was the cause.
What is the argument used against the abolition of the
duties on food and trade ? That it is necessary to retain a
suflScient number of sources of revenue in time of ptace to
admit of sudden expansion in time of war ; that it is
politically dangerous to relieve poor electors from taxation, and
leave it to be chiefly borne by a rich minority. As for the first
of these objections, I do not believe in this custom of keeping
up in time of peace a taxation ready for war. Gather your
taxes on the principles that will tend the least to limit trade,
grow rich, husband your resources, and then if war comes,
you will be better able to bear it. Eather than help the next
generation, too, to fight, I would prefer to so leave taxation
as to make it hard for them to do so. As for the second
objection, the fear is that we shall become spendthrift, because
the poor, it is said, not paying taxes, if the sugar and tea
duties were removed, would wish for public money to be
spent in all directions that they might get the lienefit. Xow, in
the case of the removal of these duties only, the vast majority
of the voters would still pay taxes, in the tax on tobacco and on
beer and spirits. A great many teetotallers smoke, and the
vast majority, I repeat, of the voters would still pay. Besides,
I take it that the workmen are shrewd enough to know that
you limit the employment of labour if you tax heavily the
business income of the employer, and that in this way, lavi.sh ex-
penditure still harms even the teetotaller who does not smoke.
We may safely defy the ingenious Mr. Lowe himself to devise
a system of taxation in which the tax will not ultimately fall
£
50 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
upon all the inhabitants of the country. The best system is
only the one in which this end is accomplished with the least
possible waste. It seems to me that this political danger argu-
ment has been pushed too far. We must take a broader view —
liberate trade, simplify burdens as well as lighten them, and
study less the duties of this or that class than the happiness of
the country as a whole. Moreover, at present the inequality is
the other way. According to the Financial Reform Associa-
tion, the workmen pay nearly twice as much per cent, on
their incomes as do the rich ; according to Mr. Dudley Baxter,
they pay a little less, namely, as 7 per cent, is to 9^ per cent.
But then they pay almost entirely upon necessaries, and
7 per cent, on the necessaries of life is a very different thing
from 9-^ per cent, on superfluities. I hope that now that the
over-taxed people of small incomes have more power in the
State than has heretofore been the case, they mil not remain
dumb upon this question. It is Bentham, I think, who shows
that "equality of taxation" ought to mean equality of
sacrifice. A certain minimum of income sufficient to provide
the necessaries of life to a moderately numerous family, should
not be heavily taxed, but only the surplus beyond this.
Suppose this minimum to be 5QI. a year for each family,
supposing the workmen to be five million families (which is
not much above the mark), this would give 250 millions for
necessaries. But their whole income is computed at 325
millions by Mr. Dudley Baxter, leaving only 75 millions
of superfluities, which, on this principle, would be taxed ; on
this, 30 millions of taxes are raised. The rich are two
millions of families, which gives 100 millions for necessaries,
but they have 500 millions, leaving 400 millions to be taxed,
which bears little more than 50 millions of taxes. I repeat,
that the small incomes are over-taxed ; almost as much over-
taxed as when Hone wrote —
" These are the people all tattered and torn,
Who curse the day wherein they were born,
On account of taxation too great to be borne ;
Who in vain petition in every form.
And pray for relief from night to morn."
Almost as much over-taxed, but far more powerful now to
right themselves.
Free Trade. 51
There is one reason, not hard to find, -why we move no
faster. The great revenue departments are opposed to move-
ment. Indirect taxes take a great deal of collection. That
is our objection to them. The departments don't mind our
nibbling at the bread, or pecking at the plums and currants,
but touch tea, and they foresee a reduction of staff. Still,
■ even this obstraction must come to an end, and it is your
fault if it does not end soon.
Having thus begun by condemning large branches of the
■ existing revenue as raised by oppressive means, we have to
•consider how it would be possible to do without them. Two
sets of questions at once are involved — the first, that of how
much could be saved from our expenditure ; the second,
that of what other and less hurtful taxes could be imposed.
I will treat the latter question first. I say that both with
'regard to the Income-Ta.x as at present raised, and some at
least of the Customs duties, upon what are virtually neces-
saries of life, I agree with Bentham's answer to those who
.said to him that he Avho reprobates a tax ought to have a
better in his hand. His answer was, " A juster condition
never was imposed ; I fulfil it at the first word ; my better
tax is — any other that can be named." We have lately seen
a proposition for increased taxation upon land. Now, in
principle, there is nothing that can be offered in opposition to
that proposal. There are few of us who would regret to
see the State discourage the accumulation of land in a few
hands. I say that there is nothing more scandalous than the
partial exemption of landed property from the equal incidence
of taxes levied on successions from the dead. The so-called
" land-tax " is no tax at all, but a far too mild form of the
ancient rent or service paid to the Crown, and now made
ridiculous by its being paid upon an assessment, not increasing
with the value, but fixed at a stationary amount. I will not,
however, go into the history of the juggling job by which
the land was freed from taxes, but will only point out that
the vast increase in the value of land arising from the
-opening of mines, the growth of towns, and the prosperity of
the country, has altogether escaped taxation. Had the land
been properly taxed, we should never have had that frightfid
accumulation of war-debt which makes the food and trade
taxes partly necessary, and the fixing of the land-tax on the
62 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
value as it stood at tlie time of William III. was as tliougb
the Income-Tax to be paid by any self-made man should'
stand, when he has made his 10,000?. a year, as it did when
he was a clerk at 100/.
]\Ir. Cobden it was who first pointed out the fact, that
while land constantly increases in value, we have "no cor-
responding contributions from that increase in aiding to^
defray our public expenditure." Again, he said, " The land-
owner need not expend a shilling on improvements. He
may neglect his property, he may be an absentee, still its
value goes on increasing Avith the increase of population."
On another occasion Cobden said, " Real property is the only
property which not only does not diminish in value, but, in-
a country growing in population and advancing in prosperity,
always increases in value, and that without any help from
the owner." All this is true, and it points to the wisdom of
a gradual increase of the taxation npon land. But I do not
think that it would be fair suddenly to throw any large
increase of taxation upon land. To what other source, then,
of national income can we turn ? I venture to suggest that
the truth of Bentham's statement has never been shaken,
that the best of all financial resources is that " which gives to-
the ])ublic a share in jjroperty become vacant by death, and
failure of near relations. The formation of counter-expecta-
tions being prevented by pre-established law, receipts from
this source need not be attended Avith that vexatious sense of
privation which is the inseparable accompaniment of every
other tax."
We are already led to look at this resource by the tempta-
tion of a special exemption now existing in favour of certain
kinds of property. While personalty is subject to legacy
and probate duty, and has to pay the full amount at once,
real property is exempt from those, and only pays succession'
duty on its value estimated as a life annuity, and this, too^
by easy instalments.
Now, I admit that under the present strict law of entail
and settlement, it Avould be unjust to call upon the nominal
owner of the land, who is but, in fact, a lodger on the property
that he calls his own, for a greater sacrifice than he has ta
make at present. But such a demand could well be made^
and made with fairness, in connexion with the proposed aboli-
Free Trade. 3.*?
tion of the law, and substitution of a more rational state of
things, and in connexion, too, with that cheai»oncd transfer
which will be a great boon to the landowner.
It is clear, however, that an increase of legacy and suc-
cession duty in the case of successions by strangers, or by
distant relatives, is the least onerous, and is likely to bu the
most productive of all new taxes. It would in such cases, as
a general rule, defeat no legitimate expectation, and wlien
once the law was made, no man would feel himself robbed
by its operation. It is already law up to a certain point,
and no one ever complains of it as a grievance. If it is
possible to conceive such a thing as a popular tax, an
increased tax on distant successions would be popular. It
would not be unpopular after a time even with those to wlumi
the legacies were left. There would be no expectation, and,
therefore, no disappointment. They would know that the
testator, being cognizant of the law, they would have received
from him the amount which he really intended for them.
Much would depend upon the manner of the collection, and
it is clear that it should be immediate ; that the property
should not be allowed to pass into the hands of legatees, who
would afterwards be made to surrender a large portion. This
for instant wants; but I believe firmly in the wisdom of
gradually raising the taxation upon land until ultimately it
bears here that large proportion of the burdens of the country
which in former times it did bear here, and which it still
bears in many foreign countries. Having said this, I turn to
the other side of the question, and to the consideration of
measures of economy.
We spend each year some seventy millions sterling ! 1 )id
we spend but sixty, Ave should be rid of the tea, coffee, and
sugar duties, or from the same saving the Income-Tax could
be spared. Seventy millions ! What do we do with it ? Into
what gulf do we drop these terrible sums 1 Much we spend
on those
"... who lord it o'er their fellow-men
With most prevailing tinsel : who unpen
Their baaing vanities, to browse away
The comfortable green and juicy hay
From human pastures !"
Much on the sinecurists I But cannot we save upon the
54 Speeches by Sie Charles Dilke.
effective branches of the public service — upon the army, the-
navy, the colonies, and the cost of collection of the revenue
itself? We are following neither the one course nor the
other. We maintain an army which is unnecessarily costly
for defence, and which is useless for the purpose of continental
■war. If we are not prepared to be a military power, why not
provide for India by a separate army, and for home defence
by national enrolment and home drill, backed by permanent
.scientific and mounted corps, and rely for foreign war, if ever •
such need should unfortunately again arise, on volunteers
from the home foot ?
As for the navy — some saving has been effected by the
reduction of foreign squadrons, but we still waste prodigious
sums upon our Mediterranean fleet. Its last performance
merits notice when we are discussing the need for its reten-
tion. The British fleet of ironclads has been escorting the
Italian King of Spain upon an electioneering tour. Admiral
Yelverton assured the King that the British fleet was at his
service, and the King took the Admiral at his word. What
were these elections, and who is this King, to help whom
the whole weight of British prestige was thrown ? They were
elections in which the party in power, two months before,
with a majority of two to one, carried in all but thirteen seats,
while the republican party carried twelve of the largest towns
without a contest, and against the whole weight of illegal
influence returned eighty of their men. I say "illegal in-
fluence." Illegal influence upon elections, by the party in
power, not wholly unknown in England, and so common in
Spain that it is said there that a cabinet council is generally
held beforehand, at which the ministry decide how many of
the opposition it will be advisable to return. The King to
■whom our fleet w\as offered is a stranger King — amiable and
clever, but disliked in^ the south as a king by the Eepub-
licans, and detested in the north as a stranger by the Monar-
chists, and likely before long to return to a happier life in his
own land. This is a specimen of the manner in which is
exercised the political influence of our fleet in the Mediter-
ranean Sea. Why, then, the present expenditure on our
navy ? The next strongest in fine ships is the navy of our
ally — the Turkish. The Americans and French are going
backwards with their fleets. The Prussian is still small ; th&
Free Trade. 65
Eussian, owing to the configuration of the coasts, formidaljlo
only upon paper. Why, then, sucli expenditure u2)on the
navy ; why, at all events, a Mediterranean fleet, now that
political power has passed from Mediterranean shores ?
The colonies again — our prides, indeed, but C(.)stly prides,
Avliich involve the tea duties and many more ! Why should
a country like the Canadian Dominion, Avith plenty of virgin
soil, — with four millions of j'eople, — with four millions and a
half of revenue, — with a trifling debt, ofi'ering us no advantages
in trade, and levying heavy duties upon our goods, — why
should such a country take from us a large sum in direct
taxation, and pay besides none of the general costs of the
government of the empire 1 Why should Australia do the
like, and only India, a ftir poorer country, bear her own costs
of every kind, merely because she has no Parliament, and is
dumb and weak 1
The official returns show that our colonists consume from
twice to three times as much sugar and meat as our people,
man for man, woman for woman, child for child, yet we (and
India) still pay the whole cost of the general management of
the empire, of its commercial and political diplomacy, and all
but the whole of its expenditure for war.
A month or two ago, Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen delivered
a lecture to his constituents at Deal, in Avhich he proclaimed
those principles in respect to our colonial affairs Avhich used
to be considered heretical by the Liberal party, but which
now are popular. I may say, however, that when the present
Government had to deal with the colonies, it dealt with them
through Lord CJranville and Mr. Cardwell, who held the older
and less fashionable view. But now that it has to talk to
them, it speaks through the lips of Mr. Hugessen, who holds
the less rigid view, so that the Government gets the credit of
both policies. !Mr. Hugessen spoke very largely of the ad-
vantage to this country of the colonial connexion, and lie
set up an antagonist who does not exist in order to knock
down his imaginary foe, when he demolished in a trium])hant
passage the statesmen who wished to drive the colonies into
independence. I say an imaginary foe, because those of us
who have taken the older and less fashionable view have
never proposed anything of the kind, but only that the
colonists, if they desire to maintain the connexion, sliould
56 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
bear some portion of its burdens. Mr. Hugessen forgot tliat
it was the ceaseless storm of argument directed against the
very position -which he now occupies, by those whom he
attempts to ridicule, which has caused within the last four
years alone a saving, accompanied by a positive increase, not a
decrease, of strength to the empire, of a million and a quarter
or of a million and a half a year. I said just now that the
colonists do not bear their fair share of the burdens of the
empire. They bear no such share as is borne by India.
Why not 1 They come to us for aid of a kind w^iicli is most
objectionable — the aid of guarantees. Canada is to have one
this year. The military expenditure has decreased, but it is
still enormous, and I may say unknown. The charges which
are returned to us exclude charges for barracks, hospitals, and
stores, for arms and accoutrements, and for all those tre-
mendous sources of expenditure, recruiting, administration,
head-quarter expenses, staff and other non-effective charges.
Now a share of those is paid by India, but no share whatever
is paid by the other colonies and dependencies of England.
In the colonies and dependencies proper, taking no
account of Gibraltar, ]\falta, St. Helena, and China, and even
omitting Bermuda, which is retained for imperial purposes,
we keep up still between eleven and twelve thousand men.
We spend in direct military charges, outside of Great Britain
and India, one and a half million more than they repay, — two
hundred thousand a year on the West India Islands and Hon-
duras, — two hundred thousand a j^ear on the African stations
and the ^lauritius. ^luch of the money might far better be
thrown into the sea at once. For instance, the cost of 200
men at St. Helena, for whom we pay 25,0001. a year in direct
expenditure ahnie. The total direct cost of our colonies and
dependencies, excluding India, is still three and a half millions
a year,* almost the whole of which, with the exception of the
• The astounding ignorance displayed by a leader-writer of the ^iawdarrf
newHpaper in an article on this passage of Sir Charles Dilke'a speech,
which appeared on January 14th, merits exposure. The Standard v&s
insulo to say ;_" Three millions and a half. Does Sir Charles Dilke
believe that this or anything like this sum is paid by the British tax-
Jiityer for the luxury of possessing colonies? If he does, he must here-
after be reckoned as a most worthless authority on all colonial subjects."
'I'he fact is, that three and a half millione, as the expenditure on the
colonieo, U a figure taken directly from the official return, and that the
Free Tuade. Sf
cost of ]\ralta, might easily be saved. Tlie Falkland Islands
have been in the possession at one time or another of
almost all the powers under the sun, and have been abandoned
by each in turn. We spend there about G,000/. more than we
raise, and it is absolutely impossible to give any adecjuatc
reason for that expenditure, the place being wholly useless.
When I mentioned the cost of the troops in St. Helena, I for-
got the civil charges, which amount to about 1 1,000/. a year
more. If it is necessary to incur this expenditure upon rocky
barren islands in the Atlantic, it must needs be just as neces-
sary to occupy all the rocky stations on the coast of the 1 led
Sea, for a stronger case might be made for the retention of
any one of them than for that of St. Helena or the Falkland
Islands. In saying all these things, I only state that wliich
has been the opinion of men Avho made colonial i)olicy more
their study than any w-ho now take part in Colonial Govern-
ment. Even the Quarterly Review not many years ago said,
that " there must be some reciprocity in our colonial relations,
and the colonists, if they wish to retain the privileges, nuist bear
their share of the burdens of British citizenship." Lord CIrey,
who had more experience of the subject than any other man,
said, that " the expenditure on the colonies ought to be very
largely reduced. They are relieved from all that is onerous to
them in connexion with the mother country, and they should
be required to contribute much more than they have hitherto
done to their own protection." But I go further, and .say, in
the words of Adam Smith, '* If any of the provinces of the
British empire cannot be made to contribute towards the sup-
port of the whole empire, it is surely time that Britain should
-free herself from the expense of defending those provinces in
time of war, and of supporting any part of their civil and
military establishments in time of peace." I contend that the
■colonies should not only provide for their own defence, but
that if they set store upon the privilege of citizenship of the
empire, that they should bear, as India bears, a portion of our
expenditure upon the navy, which protects their trade, and
upon the diplomatic and consular service which throughout
the world is supposed to aid its interests.
writer ia the Standard has fallen head over heels into the pitfall of »
belief that "colonial military expenditure" and "colonial expenditure "*
are one and the same thing.
58 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
I mention the naval force because I believe that from
one-third to one-half of our active navy is maintained for the
benefit of the colonies, and you must remember that all the
charwes appear in the general naval estimates, and are not
set down in that account -which I named of three and a
half millions against the colonies. I have said before, and
I think that it could be proved, that the tea and sugar
duties do not produce us more than our colonies and de-
pendencies cost.
Hitherto I have .spoken chiefly of the duty of the greater
colonies to bear a .share of the expenses of the empire at large,
but I had to except some stations, of which Gibraltar is a type,
and from which it is hopeless to expect a contribution. It is-
treading, I know, upon dangerous ground, but is it as neces-
sary as Ave believe that these great military stations should,
at all hazards, be maintained as such 1 The Duke of Cam-
bridge, in his evidence before the Committee on the army in
India and in the colonies, made a very singular admission.
He said, " If I were certain that I could mass troops at home
and retain them, there might be some advantage, no doubt, in
having them massed ; but I feel such a doubt upon the subject,
I confess I think it is much better as it is, and that I have-
more security of keeping the army up to an efiicient state by
having them scattered. Therefore, I contend that it is better
tliat they should be scattered as they are now than that we
should have too large bodies in central positions, because the
ar'-angement could not be long maintained." Suppose that
the Duke were right, and that the troops brought home from
(libraltar — if that .spot, for instance, were neutralized by inter-
national agreemejit — were disbanded instead of being kept up
there, I believe that the saving to this country might be esti-
mated pretty fairly at one million a year. Now, the question is,
whether, considering its position, it is worth the million that
we arc paying for it every year. There is no trade at Gibraltar,
except the smuggling trade, which so justly incenses every
Spaniard. The rock does not command the entrance to the
Mediterranean. We command it only if we command the seas,
and if we command the seas, we command the entrance to the
Mediterranean independently of Gibraltar. The only argument
JUS to its value, which is often used, is that it is wanted as a
coaling station. As a coaling station in time of peace it would
Free Trade. 59'
contiimo to flourish, whether wc spent a million on it each
year, or whether we did not ; and as to a coaling station in
time of war, it would be, as I said just now, useless if we had
not the command of the seas, and useless also if we had it.
In a jSIediterrancan war, Spain would not be likely to be
neutral. If Spain were friendly, Gibraltar would not be needed ;
and if Spain were hostile, the long range guns which she pos-
sesses would, as I saw for myself in 18G9, render Gibraltar
useless to us as a coaling station in time of war.
It must be remembered, too, that Spain is more likely to
be friendly if there are no English troops at Gibraltar than if
our flag continues to fly over the possession. The Spanish,
although a distracted nation, has never ceased to be a warlike
one ; and if there be any question which could unite Garlists,
Alphonsists, Constitutional Monarchists, and IJepublicans, it
Avould be the hope of regaining Gibraltar by the help of other
powers.
I have not said one word, it will be seen, of the more
serious moral aspect of the question, because it did not come
within the scope of my present subject so to do. The holding
of Gibraltar by the English is, however, to the Spaniards, as
great an insult as would be to England the holding of the Isle
of Wight by Spain. The original capture* of Gibraltar was a
theft, and its restoration was often promised. Wc have never
had undisputed possession of the place. The Spaniards have
begged for it often, and fought for it whenever they have had
the power. Our i:)ossession of it is an insult, and something
more, for the rock is a nest of plotters, and a smuggling post
of the first magnitude.
It is often said that Spain would be too weak to hold the
rock, and that it would go to France, or to some other power,
just as it is said that we must not cease to spend tmr half
million a year, or whatever it i.s, on Bermuda, for fear the
Americans should seize it. That need be no obstacle to its
surrender, even if it be true. The rock could ea.sily bo
neutralized by a general agreement, and its neutralization
would point to a similar means of gradually reducing our
naval expenditure, by obtaining the co-operation of other
countries in the exercise of that maritime police for which
over half the waters of the globe we at present make ourselves
alone responsible.
CO Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke,
For my part, I should be willing to give the rock to Spain,
and to trust to Spanish pride and Spanish bravery for its
retention ; to trust, too, to the feeling of international re-
sponsibility, which is strong enough now, I think, to prevent
nations from stealing other people's property, though not
strong enough, it would appear, to make them restore property
already stolen.
Gibraltar is, I maintain, useless to us, and a drain upon
the resources of the country. But speaking for myself only,
and not for others, I would sooner see England give it up, if
it were ten times as valuable, as the strongest advocate for its
retention would contend, on account of the moral grandeur of
the example which we should set.
It is not as an advocate of "peace at any price" that I
say this. The foolish annexation of French territory, inhabited
"by a hostile population, forces Germany to maintain her
armaments, and so long as Germany is armed to the teeth, a
truly pacific foreign policy — that is, one which involves dis-
armament — cannot with honour to the country be pursued.
In annexing Alsace and half Lorraine, on the ground of natural
frontier and common race, Germany forgot that ideas, unlike
language, have no frontier, and are of no race. How great a
share has this violation by Germany of sound principle in the
present political miseries of France. After the fall of the
Empire, we hoped that, freed from its corruption, France
would be freed, too, of her factions. But just as in the
Canadian forests, after a great fire, when the ground is cleared
and all seems open for a fresh start of wholesome vegetation,
no sooner does the light of heaven pierce the smoke and reach
the soil, than new weeds, hitherto unknown, spring up and
cumber the earth on every side, so it is in France. France,
.however, will not be always disunited — not always fallen;
and no European system founded in the belief that France
has been degraded to the rank of a second-rate power can be
pennanent.
The examples of possible economies that I have given are
examples only, and not the chief Every branch of the public
expenditure forms a similar field. On all sides there is
routine and waste. Take, for instance, an amusing case of the
administration of a miUtary department in this parish, which
came before me last year. The services of several distinguished
Free Tkade. 61
and highly-paid oflBcials— inchuling, I believe, a Lord of the
Treasury and the Comptroller-General — wore required at a
meeting held at Chelsea Hospital to decide whether one of
the pensioners who was to be chapel clerk — there being no
difference of opinion as to who he should be — was to be
appointed by the Governor or the Chaplain, or the Governor
on the recommendation of the Chaplain, or the Secretary
after consulting with the Chaplain.
We are told by many that although we shall soon have a
great reduction upon certain estimates where waste takes
place, we shall have, nevertheless, to look for a corresponding
increase upon others, and notably upon education. I wish
to see a large expenditure upon education ; but there are vast
endowments and enormous properties under the direction of
the Church, which were left by pious persons in the Middle
Ages for no other jiurpose than that of education, given to
the Church, not as the Church in its present light, but as
being then the representative of the nation for purposes of
charity and of the education of the people. Is it not possible
that some cure for increasing estimates may be found in that
direction 1 Archbisho2) Manning cainiot, I suppose, be looked
upon as a revolutionist, but I noticed the other day, in a
lecture which he gave at Tower Hill, that he used these
words, " The patrimony of the Church is the patrimony of the
poor, and not intended for the enrichment of bishops and
priests."
There is happily a growing impatience of taxation — I say
happily, because I think that there can be nothing more
deplorable than the tacit agreement of the people in a system
which upon all hands cramps the devek)i)ment of the country.
It was thouglit last year enough to tell me, when I named
sinecures still existing, that no fresh ones had been created
durins the present reign, although it was not denied that
fresh "appointments had been made to old ones. I doubt
whether such answers as this will long be deemed sufficient.
It will be necessary soon for Government to go to the root of
the evil and try a real economy, instead of attempting flint-
skinning in the shape of under-payment of their writers,
under-payment of their postmen, and underpayment of their
police.
I repeat, then, that our programme should be definite, and
■<J2 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
I repeat tlie words in wliich I suggested tliat that programme
should be couched. ^Mien a writer iu a local paper says that
I want that the workmen should monopolize power, I answer
you have classes; you have more — you have political as
well as social castes. By free land and free trade, by free
law, and free church, and free schools, we might hope that
we should break them down, and have a united people in the
future.
63
REFORM CONFERENCE.
St. Jameses Hall, l'2th of November, 1872.
Havino been asked to state the reasons for the assembling
of this Conference on Parliamentary Reform, I find it im-
possible to answer without going into a brief history of the
attempts which have been hitherto made to reach firm ground.
AVe have met chiefiy with a view to advocate the introduction
for the first time of principle into the settlement both of the
franchise and of the distribution of political power. There is
a certain measure of principle introduced already into the
borough franchise. Our desire, then, is to extend principle
to the county franchise, and to decide that for the future,
■whatever the franchise may be, it should, at least, be the
same in the counties and the towns. We wish also to propose
the first introduction of principle into the distribution of
seats for Parliament. We undertake this movement not
without a special reason, but because while the Radical party
in England are always, and very properly, asked what they
want, they cannot but see that there is no chance of their
obtaining any of their demands, not even those to which
they think that a majority of the people are favourable,
without a new parliamentary reform. It was, therefore,
■decided to place before the Conference, as the first basis of
its meeting, two resolutions ; the one declaring that there
should be an equality of franchise throughout the country,
and the other declaring that there should be an approximate
equality of political power. These were the principles which
the Committee believe are ripe for immediate action, and they
iire approved by the delegates present at the Conference held
this day. The other decisions of the Conference represent
the opinions of those attending it, — opinions which may be
Gi Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
modified by circumstances, and which are not equally binding-
on the bodies represented.
"We have often been reproached that we do not sufiSciently
.concentrate our energies upon any one subject at a time, and
that we weaken ourselves by over-diffusion of our energy.
Now, a reform which upon careful inquiry aj)pears to be, as-
this does, a necessary basis to all others, is undoubtedly that
one which, while upon the one side it is the more urgent, on
the other is the most useful, on which we can concentrate our
power. Our request is surely moderate enough, for it con-
sists only in a demand that the nation should be truly and
fairly represented, and that those future errors wliich may be
made by Parliament, — for Parliament will be ever fallible, —
should be errors for which at least the whole people are
responsible. It was with the greatest wisdom that in 1859,
Mr. Bright, speaking at Bradford, said : — " Watch this point
with the keenest eye possible — repudiate without mercy any
BiU of any Government, whatever its franchise, whatever its
seeming concessions may be, if it does not distribute seats,
obtained from the extinction of small boroughs, among
the great city populations of the kingdom." Speaking at
Eochdale in 1860, again he said: — "To give a man a vote
may be to please his sentiment of independence and equality,
and he may like to go up and poll with his richer neigh-
bour ; yet as regards the legislation and composition of
Parliament and action upon Government, the giving a man
a vote, or a million of men votes, may be made of no
effect — of no value whatsoever, unless that which I call the
soul of your representative system be equitably adjusted."
Since that time, Mr. Bright has been a member of the
Government, and yet the matter remains very much as it
stood before. There are others here who will speak with
authority as to the state of things which exists in the North
of England. I will speak chiefly of that which exists in the
neighbourhood of this spot. Take Llarylebone for an instance.
AVhat reason can there be why an elector of Marylebone should
have only the one two-hundred-and-twentieth part as much
electoral power as an elector of Portarlington ? Now that is
one of the strongest cases that we can put. But taking them
hap-hazard, just as they come, the following places stand con-
Kecutively on the list of English and Scotch borousrhs— leaving
Reform. G.")
out the Irish, which arc worse still, but which may be viu\\ ed
as standing by themselves — Eye, Falkirk, Finsbury, Flint, and
Frome. Xow Eye, Falkirk, Flint, and Frome have, together,
about G,000 voters, but they return twice as many members
as Finsbury with its 30,000 electors. A little further on in
the list we have the following towns coming together : — Liver-
pool, London, Ludlow, and Lymington. Ludlow and Lyming-
ton have, together, 1,400 voters ; Liverpool has 50,000, and
London 20,000 — that is, 70,000 between those two lattur, or an
average of 10,000 voters to one member ; while in Ludlow and
Lymington there are 700 voters to a member. Taking London
all through the city and metropolitan districts together, there
are about 300,000 voters, that is without counting the people
who live in Croydon, and Battersea, and the extreme north-east
of London, who go unheard. While those 300,000 voters,
representing between three and four millions of people, have
but twenty-two members amongst them, the whole of the
Irish boroughs have but .'50,000 voters, but they have thirty-
seven members, altliough they have only one-sixth as many
voters as there are in London, which returns only twenty-two.
Birmingham, ^Manchester, Liverpool, and Glasgow have each
of them more voters than there are in the whole of the Irish
boroughs put together, and each of them has but three
members instead of thirty-seven. Tliere are 100 members of
the House who sit for about 1,080,000 votens. There are
another 100 members who sit for about the odd 80,000
voters ! Now, not only are those disproportions ridiculous,
but they are also unfair. Tliey are unfair to the inhabitants
of the large towns when their interests come into conflict
with those of the inha])itants of the small towns. Any
number of cases of this kind may be .<^hown. I have shown
them over and over again myself ; but I may briefly state
that in the present year there has been a notable instance of
what I say, viz., the defeat of a measure concerning a large
town — the Birmingham Sewage Bill, which was lost on a
division by a majority composed of representatives of tlie
small boroughs — by members representing vastly fewer voters
than those that composed the minority. Indeed, the difl'erencc
between the supporters of the motion of Sir Charles Adderley
on that occasion, and the supporters of the just rights of the
people of Birmingham, was no less than half a million of
F
66 Speeches by Sik Charles Dilke.
voters against Sir Cliarles Adderley, although he was vic-
torious on the division.
The result of the continuance of the existing state of
things is to give us a practical unfairness in dealing with
many questions not inferior to that which existed before the
passing of the great Eeform Bill. There are no boroughs now
with a dozen or even with a single hundred of electors ; but
looking to the enormous gro'O'th of wealth and population in
the northern portion of the country, the practical disparities
and differences in the weight of votes may safely be said to
be as great at the present time as they were before 1832. If
there has been something gained in figures, there has, perhaps,
on the other hand, been something lost in fact ; for many of
the nominees sitting for pure nomination boroughs took, from
the very nature of the tenure of their seats, a more inde-
pendent view of political affairs than is taken by some among
the more fairly elected members of the present House. In-
fluence, too, is hardly less rife at the present time than it was
before the great Reform Act. "Whole pages of any j^arlia-
mentary guide are filled with lists of boroughs, and even of
counties, too, in which the politics of the people are shown
to be of no account beside the opinions of the chief proprietor.
There are boroughs which, as a matter of course, have
returned members of the same family from the days of
Charles II. to the present time. There are still more boroughs
and counties, the representation of which is divided between
the two or three chief families of their neighbourhood ; and,
in defiance of the principle that it is the highest possible
breach of the privileges of the Commons for Peers to interfere
in the election of its members, it is notorious that at least a
hundred members of the House of Commons are the nominees
of ]'eers of Parliament. "Why do not our statesmen help us ?
What says Bacon, in his " Essay on Innovations " 1 — " If time
alters things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not
alter them to the better, what shall be the end ?"
The Conservatives often by their leaders say, " It is true
that the large boroughs are under-represented as contrasted
with the small boroughs, but then the counties are ill treated
as compared with both." Now, how far is this the fact ?
Taking population as the basis of our estimate, there is un-
doubtedly almost double the population to a member in the
Kefoem. G7
counties that there is population to a member in the boroughs.
But what boroughs'? Why the vast majority of them are
those village boroughs, the separate existence of whicli we
continually deplore. The county people choose to call them
towns. I think we should be as justified when speaking of
them if we consider them as purely agricultural places, and
I hope that ultimately the discussions may lead to this
result, that towns-people and county-people alike may
concur in their disfranchisement. But I will go further, and
ask upon what ground population is to be taken as the test.
Population might be a convenient or an inconvenient test
when the franchise comes to be equal in the counties and in
the towns ; but so long as it is different, I would ask what
right have you to take population as your test, and to count on
behalf of Mr. ISTewdegate in Warwickshire the unrepresented
followers of Mr. Joseph Arch? The only test which, Avith a
different franchise, we can allow, is that of the number of
electors. The text upon which we should never cease to
preach is that of the equality of every elector with every other.
Middlesex, Lancashire, Yorkshire, and East Kent are under-
represented even on this test, and the representatives of these
counties attend our Conference and unite Avith us in action.
The North Riding and the East Riding have between them
eight members to 80,000 electors, that is, one member to
every 10,000 voters, while the county of Sutherland has one
member for 343 electors.
Hitherto I have spoken only of the most flagrant and
striking of our electoral anomalies, viz., the difference in the
weight of votes between one part of the country and another ;
but the system is full of anomalies from end to end. I
referred to the position of the franchise as being compara-
tively speaking satisfactory ; but even here, when after some
years we shall have got a single franchise for all portions of
the country, from which we still are a long way off, even
then how anomalous will be the position of affairs! You
will have a 10^. franchise and an occupation franchise co-ex-
isting side by side, and a lodger franchise which is intended
to confer great benefits upon a class very numerous in London,
but which has found the difficulties in the way so great as to
be insuperable — difficulties Avhicli we in the House of Com-
kinons find it impossible to prevail upon the House to remove.
68 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
You still will disfranchise a man for moving from one side of
a street to the other, and you still will disfranchise him for
moving from one qualifying set of rooms to another better
sot in the same house, upon the same floor. Even were you
to correct these anomalies, it is questionable whether your
ratepaying franchise is advisable in itself. It rests upon the
principle contained in the old maxim that taxation without
representation is tyranny. Now, in this country, every one
contributes to the revenue through indirect taxation. To
connect the franchise with the holding of property, as long as
property is so unequally distributed as it is, is to give to the
few increased power to rule the many. If taxation were the
sole business of Parliament, and if only propetry were taxed,
the principle would be a logical one. But inasmuch as aU.
contribute to the taxes, all would seem to be entitled to some
share in the representation, whereas many are left unheard,
while the over-represented property-holders have strong ten-
dencies to tax anything rather than their own accumulated
wealth. But Parliament does more than levy taxes. It legis-
lates for all classes, often passing measures specially affecting, and
even solely affecting, the poorest, that is, the unrepresented class.
For these reasons we have felt it necessary to unite the
question of the county franchise with that of the redistribu-
tion of seats in our programme. Not for these reasons only !
The settlement of the redistribution question is impossible in
itself, unless it be undertaken at the same time with the
reduction of the county franchise. But, also, the labourers'
agitation, as Mr. Arch will tell us, has convinced those of
the labourers who have hitherto taken no interest in politics
at all, that they will never be fairly treated as other men are
treated by those with whom they have to deal, until the
franchise is extended to their class. There is no danger that
they will not get such of their rights as law can give them
when once they are entitled to vote for county members. If
there be a danger in their enfranchisement, it lies upon the
other side — in the possibility of competitors for their favour
flattering them too much.
We go further, however, than this in the principle of our
demands. Mr. Lowe once said in the House of Commons,
during the progress of his fierce opposition to that Reform
]jill to which he owes his present place, that "the fran-
Reform. 69
•chise, like every other political expedient, is a means to
au end — the end being the preservation of order in the
■country, and the preventing of any tyranny of one class
over another." We partly agree and partly disagree with
those words. They are words that show that his ability to
secure election for a University gives a man that inde-
pendence which the advocates of fancy franchises desire —
an independence which I should not value, because it is
.an independence of the opinion of one's countrymen. We
believe, on the contrary, that the Commons House of Parlia-
ment — between the majority in which and the majority of the
people there should be perfect harmony — should be elected on
the widest franchise. Since Sir Fi-ancis Burdctt moved
Jeremy Bentham's resolution on Reform in 1818, the opinion
has been growing that Bentham and his followers were right
in their belief, that it is difficult for a country to go far wrong
when the opinion of every citizen has equal weight, and the
•oi^inion of the greatest number in every case prevails. We
believe in so swelling the number of electors, that the riches
of individuals cannot bribe them, nor the knaveries of indi-
viduals manage them. We are met by the statement that in
the existing House of Commons we have got an efficient
legislative machine. We answer that we do not believe,
even voting upon this narrow ground, chosen by our enemies,
that the existing House of Commons is so good that there is
nothing to be done but to leave it alone.
Not only is the distribution of political power capricious
in the extreme — not only is there a different franchise in dif-
ferent parts of the country without any principle as a base,
but there are other and even more vexatious restrictions, by
which, also upon no principle, political power is limited to a
•class. A volume might any year be written on the monstrous
decisions of revising courts — monstrous, that is, in the sense
of being based upon no principle, and having the effect of
defeating the intended operation of the laws, but often
inevitable as far as the revising barristers are concerned, and the
inevitable result of the complications of our property franchise.
I have put together a few of those which have struck me
in the present year — all of them having occurred in London.
If you take the country round, I have no doubt that an equal
proportion, and a far greater number, therefore, could be found.
70 Speeches by Sir Charles Dilke,
]Iere is one from Kensington. Mr. Young claimed as a
bouseholder, whose name had been omitted from the register.
His landlord pays the rates by agreement. Before the proper
day for entering his claim, he asked his landlord if the rates
were paid. His landlord said they were. Mr. Young knew
that by law, if the rates were not paid by the landlord, the
overseers were bound, before a certain date, to send notice to
the occupier. He got no such notice, and he naturally believed
that his landlord had been right. But the rates had never
been paid. The overseers admitted in court that they had
failed to notify this fact, and !Mr. Young was, consequently,
disfranchised.
The next case I take from Westminster. Mr. Cunningham
claimed to vote as a lodger, on account of having occupied some
rooms, for which he paid 14^. a week, since 1870. His vote
was allowed, but he returned into court and said that when he
had been asked whether he had occupied the same lodgings
during the whole time, he had forgotten to mention that
during the greater portion of the time he had paid 12*. a week
for the same lodgings without a kitchen, but that during the
last ten weeks he had had the kitchen, and paid lis. a
week. He was, consequently, struck off the register, although
the amount under the Act is less than 5s. a week. He
was, therefore, in fact, struck off the register only because he
had added a kitchen to his rooms.
The next case I take from Middlesex, Mr. Ashton, who
was on the list of voters for a piece of land as a freeholder,
was objected to by the Conservatives, on the ground that he
occupied the land as part of his house. He, however, proved
that there were two deeds, and consequently a severance of
title ; but it ultimately came out that there was a dust-bin
upon the land in question, whereupon this dust-bin deprived
him of his vote.
Other anomalies, which can hardly be long maintained,
are — the length of the Parliaments, the throwing upon can-
didates the necessary costs of holding an election, and, I am
even prepared to say, the non-payment of members for their
service. With regard to the length of Parliaments, they, in
the earliest times, were annual, afterwards biennial, irregular
under the Stuarts, and triennial under the Revolution. But
in days when the popular control exercised by the people over
Reform. 71
Parliament Avas less even than it is at present, a Parliament
that had been chosen for three years gave itself four more
years' lease of life, and brought septennial Parliaments upon
the nation, with the effect of greatly weakening, as I believe,
the accuracy with which the national opinion is stated and
acted upon in reference to any particular point. In short,
our electoral anomalies are endless, and would never havo
lasted so long as they have, but for the existence in our free
press of a safety-valve of no ordinary dimensions.
Have we not reason, then, in our movement, which we
this day inaugurate 1 A previous organization, of which I
would speak with all respect, gave up its work when it had,
in reality, gained nothing — Mr. !Morley's friends, who pro-
mised much : they make no sign. Mr. Morley, instead of
leading, as he seemed to intend, a new movement in favour
of Pveform, seems terrified at the scolding of a portion of the
press, and confines himself to defending the education com-
promise at a meeting of school children near liis house.
Shakespeare, in " V^nus and Adonis," tells us of —
" . . . . the snail, whose tender horns being hit,
Shrinks back into his shelly cave with pain,
And there, all smothered up, in shade doth sit
Long after, fearing to put forth again."
Let us, then, take up the task before which the Reform League
and ]\Ir. Morley's committee have both quailed, but let us do
so with the knowledge that we undertake a 1 lorculcan work.
Unless great pressure be exerted from outside, the progress
towards uniformity in the weight of votes will probably be slow.
From the very fact that the great boroughs are terribly under-
represented, their power in the House of Commons, as compared
with the small boroughs, is trifling indeed. There are only
about ninety members, many of them Conservatives, who sit
for the great under-represented towns ; and they have to face,
even if they are united, a great majority, largely composed
of those who sit for the towns, from which it would be neces-
sary to take their special representation. There is little
inclination in Parliament voluntarily to reform itself without
pressure from outside. Pressure from outside has not yet
been brought to bear, and progress towards uniformity is
likely, in any event, to be but slow. .Still, as old AVilliam
Cobbett said of his " Cottage Economy," " It must be a
72 Spkeches by Sir Charles Dilke.
real devil in human shape who does not applaud the man
who could sit down to write this book," so say we of those-
who do not applaud our work. I know not whether we are
going to embarrass the Liberal party, and I only share th&
views expressed this morning if I say that I don't much
care. If our leaders are embarrassed, it is their fault, not
ours. Let them read Bishop Berkeley's words, who says, " It
is very possible for either i^arty to get the better of the
other if they could first get the better of themselves, and,
instead of indulging the Avomanish passion of obstinacy,
steadily promote the interest of their country."
If there be any cause that can justify agitation, surely it is that
on which we are met to-night to take counsel together. I hope
we run no risk of a five pound fine a-piece for saying so,
but is it not monstrous that the people of London should be
denied the opportunity of saying so unless they spend their
money upon halls like this 1 I often don't agree in what is
said by the orators in Hyde Park, but I agree in its being said,
and freely said. If nonsense is sometimes talked there along
with sense, it is nonsense which is far better spoken out than
kept in to turn to bitterness. But if the occasional talking of
nonsense is a sufficient cause for the suppressing of an habitual
gathering, other and more august assemblies might suff'er.
In entering upon this movement, I conceive that we are
only doing our duty to the State. It is the bounden duty of
every representative of a constituency whose voice is not fully
heard, and of every man possessing any political power at all,
not to rest satisfied, and not to allow the question of Reform
to be dropped, so long as our electoral system continues to be
the mockery that it is at the present time. How can men
venture to talk of a settlement of the c^uestion, when you
have one-half of the House of Commons representing more
than four times as many voters as the other half, who may
tie them on a division ? and when, as a fact, you often have
laws passed or laws rejected upon votes in which the ma-
jority of the electors are represented by the members who form
the minority in the division ? So long as this continues to be
the case, it is idle to talk of having reached even a temporary
settlement of Pariiamcntary Reform.
PniNTlD BY W. CATE, CUKSITOB STEEET, CHA^CE^T LANE, E.C
i
/ • ^
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY
Los Angeles
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below.
*^i^t'"^"
MAR8 ngsg
ffrg')
n-
Form L9-25m-9,'47(A5618)444
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
AT
LOS ANGELfiS
UBRARY
AA 000 390 569 2
\uiui|\|y
WsS 00905