Punch: Punch (76.1879)

112

PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.

[March 15, 1879.

TAKING HIM AT HIS WORD.

Affable Old Gent (to icell-knovn Civil Servant). " Quite Christmas Weather
again, Mr, Paddles ! "

Irish Postman. " Quite so, Soer ! quite so !"—(Improving the occasion.)—
" R'mimber the Postman, Sorr ! "

\_He hi brought it on himself, so he "stumped up " like a " Gintleman.1'

deteriorated, was deteriorating1, and ought to be improved. The peroration
was the gem of Lord Claud's carcanet of brilliants :—

" The day might come when Parliament in its wisdom would,"think fit to make some
extension of the county franchise; but he trusted that day was'far distant. They had
to-day a distinct duty to perform—a duty from which he hoped no Hon. Member would
shrink from a misapprehension of the true nature of this proposition."

Certainly Lord Claud has not shrunk from such misapprehension.

"It was a proposal designed to subvert the whole fabric of our Constitution, and to
trample under foot the glorious traditions of the British House of Commons. (Cheers.)
He begged to move, ' That this House is of opinion that it is inexpedient to re-open the
question of Parliamentary Keform at the present time.' "•-

En attendant—Punch presumes—the time when Parliament "in its wisdom"
may see lit to set about the work of subversion and trampling under foot.

Sir C. Legard seconded Lord Clatjd, but "with bated breath and whispering
humbleness " in comparison with this fiery scion of the House of Abercorn.

Mr. Osborne Morgan laid down the revolutionary doctrine that "nothing
could be politic which was not just,"—and that it was not safe or comfortable to
sit down on an inclined plane. (All depends on the inclination, Mr. Morgan.
Some people like it—see the Montagne-Russe-sliders, and the patrons of "tar-
boggin" in Canada, and small boys in a timber-yard.)

Mr. Wheelhouse decanted his budget of cons., in the first of a series of
see-saw speeches, by Mr. Colman (pro) and Mr. Elliot (con.), and Messrs.
Bristowe and Waddy (pro) and Mr. Leighton (con.). The latter has dis-
covered that Mr. Trevelyan's " Reform" Bill would disfranchise all the rustic
votes—first the forty-shilling freeholders and yeomen (once "their country's
pride "), then the farmers, and lastly the agricultural labourers themselves. The
one triumphant figure left " to ride the whirlwind and direct the storm " would
be the wire-puller!

Mr. Leat ham did not see the deterioration in the House which had so struck
Lord Claud ("Without and within,' nterposed Lord Claud — reflecting
apparently on Honourable Members' tailors ps well as their talk). He congratu-
lated Mr. G-oschen that there would be just i com for him to stand alongside of
Mr. Lowe m that Right Honourable Gentleman's grotto. Instead of the last

stage of England's downfall, as prophesied by Lord
Claud, this extension of the suffrage would usher m a new
departure for England on the way of good government.

It is a comfort to have the two sides of the shield
painted for one in this fine bold fashion.

Sir W. Barttelqt put forward the bluff county John
Bull view very roundly. A man might be anything
but a blackguard, yet be as unfit to have the franchise
as the biggest blackguard. (Quite true, Sir Walter.)
No man should have a vote who did not pay direct
taxes. (Yery much inclined to agree with you, Sir
Walter.) What right had men to a vote who would
not pay even for the education of their children? (If
they can, Sir Walter, but it's not so easy out of 10s. a
week.) Making faggot votes!—pooh!—that was an old
business, and had always been carried on, by Whigs and
Tories. (Not a doubt of it, Sir Walter.)

Mr. Parnell retorted by a fiery protest against Lord
Claud's calumniation of the Irish people as bigots.
Didn't he stand there in disproof—an Irish Protestant
sitting for an Irish Roman-Catholic constituency ?

(Mr. Parnell forgets that this maybe "not because
they love Catholics less, but because they love Obstruc-
tives more.")

Mr. Lowe turned out the less brilliant side of the
shield, and with a vehemence of protest, delivered in a
tone of intense conviction, which kept his own side silent,
but roused a storm of cheers from the opposite Benches,
set forth the lamentable deterioration of constituencies
under an unbridled democracy. (The Right-Hon.
PlObert should know, having tried to sit one, and
become familiar with its paces in Australia.) Once
begin lowering, and we must go on lowering, till we
have got to the bottom; and who knows, if "in the
depth of our deep," there may not be "a lower depth
still." Why Government should not have moved the
previous question, he could not understand, or on what
principle they had saddled their Amendment with '' at the
present time." Deterioration was deterioration ; and no
time could be the right time for that. (But suppose the
County Clod enfranchised by the same great mob-tamer
who enfranchised the Town-Cad.)

■£§Mr. Blennerhasset felt the distinction of county and
borough franchise could not be maintained ; but the assi-
milation should be accompanied with a provision to pre-
vent the swamping of minorities. That was the key of
the position.

(Bravo, Blennerhasset ! Spoken like a sensible man,
not like an Irishman.)

Mr. Courtney, as usual, talked reason in the teeth of
his party—a tongue not understanded of party people—
and will have to put up, as usual, with the reproach of
" crotchetiness." But he hit straight. and hit hard.
They loould have to make this concession. Let them
make it so as to get all the good, and strain out the
bad.

The House, he thought, had deteriorated—mainly from
popularity-hunting and dependence on the masses. It
was tending to mediocrity, " gerontocracy, and plouto-
cracy "—that is, as Mr. P. is glad to explain for the
benefit of the ladies, " old bufferism and rich bufferism"
—and would sink deeper and deeper into the slough, if
not pulled out by the " cumulative vote," which would
secure representation to all, and then, " every class of
thinkers being fairly represented in the House, without
extinguishing independence, you might reconcile the
progress of democracy with the maintenance of indivi-
dual liberty."

(Very well put, indeed, Mr. Courtney. There is more
common sense in such "crotchets" than is covered by
other gentlemen's coats of arms—party-per-pale.)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Marquis
of Hartington summed up the pros and the cons of the
debate very much as men might be expected to do, the
one of whom was opposing the Motion as if he might
one day have to move it, and the other supporting the
Motion as if he only wished he was free to oppose it.
Neither leader's heart, in fact, was in his work.

The Division was 291 to 226, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, having accepted Mr. Lowe's Amendment,
and left out " at the present time." So the sentence
stands without limit, to look the more foolish when the
time comes, as come it must, for admitting Hodge within
the voting pale, and so introducing the Arch into the
architecture of the British Constitution. Is it not
recognised as the most stable of all structural forms ?