DOI issue:
August 17, 1867
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.16880#0077
August 17, 1867.]
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
65
PUNCH’S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.
Xiphilinus was the epitomiser of Dion Ca«sius. Punch is the
epitomiser of Parliament. That alphabetical difficulty being taken at
a leap, Mr. Punch proceeds to record that on Monday, August 5, the
Peers sat, penultimately, on the Reform Bill, and Lord Derby sat, in
another sense, on Lord Malmesbury. In the preceding week, Lord
Cairns, with the latter nobleman’s ready assent, got the Lodger Fran-
chise raised from £10 to £15. To-night, Earl Russell pointed out
that this was a breach of faith with the House of Commons, and more-
over would exclude the best workmen. Lord Derby either saw this,
or thought that the Bill might as well be altered back in the Lords
as in the Commons, so he agreed to Earl Russell’s proposal. Lord
Cairns, who is thought to be about as well-informed as most poli-
ticians, said that he really had not been aware of the arrangement
with the Commons, and he had only wished to keep the franchise from
men who would not exercise it with independence. Lord Malmes-
bury, of course, said nothing, and the £10 qualification was replaced.
Earl Granville, Chancellor of the University of London, moved
an amendment to prevent any graduate of the Universities of Oxford
and Cambridge from voting for that city and that town, in respect ot
college rooms. It was rejected.
Lord Stratheden moved—it really does not matter what. It was
rejected.
Lord Harrowby moved that Chelsea and Kensington should he
thrown into Westminster and Marylebone, and that each of these two
districts should return three Members, but Lord Derby would nor
allow any more alterations.
Lord Salisbury gave himself the highly unnecessary trouble of
bringing in and explaining his system of Voting Papers, the rest of
the Bill was gone through, and the Report was adopted.
Tuesday, August the 6th, will be a date of importance in the History
of England. Certainly not because Lord Ravens worth gave “ a
long croak,” as the Star says, against the Reform Bill (the joke is
somewhere between raven and croak, you will observe, with thankful-
ness), nor because Lord Redesdale was all for finality, and enunciated
the undeniable proposition that if the Liberals did not agitate there
would be no agitation, nor because Lord Fortescue complained that
the dwellers in rural districts were not so represented as their morality
and sobriety deserved, nor because Lord Lyveden informed Lord
Redesdale that his advice to the Liberals was not wanted, but
| because, after
Lord Russell had addressed to the Peers a very becoming speech,
in which the veteran Reformer said he hoped that for the time, at
least, Reform was settled, that he trusted the Act would work well,
that he believed we had given the vote to very ignorant classes and
that bribery and corruption would increase, but that he had no fears
for the future, relying on the temper and disposition, not of electors or
elected, but of the People, who loved the Constitution—finishing off
with a good dig at Earl Derby for his frank avowal of a policy of
party,
(Certainly not because that eternal Lord Stratheden wanted to
stick in a clause reserving 7 seats at a general election, for the House
itself to fill up with 7 great men, Macaulays and the like, who had
been rejected—and Lord Derby likened the scheme to that of the
Jewish cities of refuge, and laughed it out of the House: and not
because Lord Harrowby wished to call Chelsea by the name of
Kensington, but gave up the point)
But because
After a few graceful words in which Lord Derby thanked the Peers
for the temperate, fair, and candid manner in which they had dealt with
the Bill, which he described (by the kind permission of Cartoon
Punch, Esq.) as a Leap in the Dark,
The Peers Passed the Reform Bill
We shall continue the story, because—because it is our serene
pleasure to treat any and every subject our own way.
Just before the Commons finished their early sitting, Sir John
Lefevre, Clerk of the Parliaments, handed to Sir Denis Le Mar-
chant, Clerk of the House of Commons, the Reform Bill, as amended
by the Peers. Mr. Disraeli, amid cheers, moved that the Bill be
printed, and considered on
Thursday, when it was duly considered accordingly.
We began by hearing what Mr. Disraeli had to say. He compli-
mented the Peers, and said that they had challenged no principle of
the Bill. He submitted to the clause for the representation of
Minorities. He recommended the acceptance of the Voting Papers.
Mr. Gladstone begged to be allowed to be silent upon the
character of the Lords’ amendments, and expressed sympathy with
Mr. Disraeli, who had to give up his own apparently earnest views
on the Minorities. He complimented Lord Derby’s courage and
decision at a critical moment. We had better, he thought, get to
business. We did.
1. We rejected an amendment about the poor-rate—its supposed
object was to throw a little more difficulty in the way of a few voters.
2. We rejected an amendment, the object of which was to let
University Men vote in the University boroughs.
3. We rejected, by 235 to 188, the amendment raising the copy-
holder’s qualification.
4. We accepted, by 253 to 204, the amendment for the Representa-
tion of Minorities in 11 triangular constituencies. And let those who
have hitherto been swamped remember, if they feel any particular
gratitude for being bothered with a vote which they will be expected
to use, that to Mr. John Stuart Mill’s earlier advocacy of this plan,
and to the effect which his arguments have had on the public mind,
this success is due. It will be the more gracious to remember it,
because the minority in a populous district usually comprises the class
whose politics are not those of Mr. Mill, who has thus vindicated his
title to be called Mill the Just.
Mr. Bright opposed the amendment with great force, as was
natural; first, because it tended to enfranchise Conservatives, and
secondly, because it will probably give a Conservative Member to
Birmingham, which is to have three representatives. Mr. Bright
will not—stupider men cannot—see that the more Persons who vote
successfully in an election, the more the place, meaning the people of
the place, are Represented. Mr. Mill sees this, and Mr. Bright is
angry with him for thinking clearly.
Mr. Gladstone also opposed the amendment. The principle was
certainly in the Government Bill of 1854, when he was in office, but he
had not been much engaged in preparing that Bill. W e must inter-
polate, in describing this very important debate, a piece of report.
Mr Gladstone observed—
“ My friend, Mb. K natch bull-II uquessen, said, ‘ We are now going to have in
England the representation of men, and not of communities.’
“ Mr. Mill. Hear, hear.
“ Mr. Gladstone. I hear a cheer from my honourable friend the Member for
Westminster, a man who never speaks or cheers in this House without a clear and
j distinct meaning—(cheers and counter-cheers)—and his clear and distinct meaning I
know to be this, that he accepts this little proposition to effect that total change
which he desires in the whole character of our electoral system—to get rid of the
system of local representation, and substituting for it the representation of persons.”
After urging that this would lead us to changes which at present the
boldest did not think of, Mr. Gladstone argued, with great energy,
that the proposed plan was an innovation, a novelty, and an unfair
thing with a fair outside.
Mr. Lowe said that Mr. Gladstone had answered himself. That
the majority alone should be represented was a political superstition.
We had in this clause made an advance in the science of Government.
5. We accepted, as a pendant, by 252 to 188, the amendment that
in the City of London Elections no man shall vote for more than three
candidates.
6. We rejected, by 258 to 206, the Voting Papers, though Mr.
Disraeli offered to restrict the plan to counties. Mr. Punch having
condemned the scheme last week, this issue became a necessity.
7. We rejected, by 188 to 164, a second amendment for helping
college residents to borough votes.
8. We agreed to the Saving Clause. Do you know what this is ?
It saves the Constitution (for those who think it in any danger) for
one year, four months, and fourteen days from the date of this number
of Punch. Should a general election occur between this date and the
1st of January, 1869, all is to go on as if the Reform Bill had not
passed.
9. We then appointed a Committee to inform the Lords why we
could not have the pleasure of agreeing to a lot of their amendments.
The names will be historical. Here they be:—Mr. Gladstone, Mr.
Cardwell, Mr. V illiers. Sir Roundell Palmer, Mr. M'Cullagh
Torrens, Lord Elcho, and Sir C. O’Loghlen.
My Lords the Commons have overhauled Greenwich Hospital,
thanks to Mr. Seely’s persistence. It is to be cleared of all the salts
except those of Epsom—in other words, the infirmary alone is to be
retained. As the doctors do not think the place suitable for a real
hospital, had it not better be fitted up as a Palace of Reception for our
distmguished visitors ? Further, the Commons have talked about and
renewed the Extradition Treaties, have heard all the Indian scandal in
the Mansfield and Jervis affair, have passed the Libel Bill (news-
paper reports not to be libels), and the Private Bishops Bill, and have
been amused, on the Estimates, by a set of more remarkable anti-
Catholic antics by the Great Whalley than that entertainer has ever
before exhibited. His fellow-Protestant and fellow-Statesman, Lord
Westmeath, has diverted the Lords in a somewhat similar manner,
and has been shown by Lord Derby with inimitable gravity. Mr.
Gladstone, as the Lords have thrown out the Church-Rate Abolition
Bill, undertakes next year to abolish compulsory payment. Everybody
wants to shut up, and get away from London.
Another Stone for Cairns.
In the new Borough of Chelsea (or Cairnsington as it ought to be
called) there will be one more instance of a three-cornered Constituency,
when the Pensioners come to the poll in their cocked-hats.
Vol. 53.
3
PUNCH, OR THE LONDON CHARIVARI.
65
PUNCH’S ESSENCE OF PARLIAMENT.
Xiphilinus was the epitomiser of Dion Ca«sius. Punch is the
epitomiser of Parliament. That alphabetical difficulty being taken at
a leap, Mr. Punch proceeds to record that on Monday, August 5, the
Peers sat, penultimately, on the Reform Bill, and Lord Derby sat, in
another sense, on Lord Malmesbury. In the preceding week, Lord
Cairns, with the latter nobleman’s ready assent, got the Lodger Fran-
chise raised from £10 to £15. To-night, Earl Russell pointed out
that this was a breach of faith with the House of Commons, and more-
over would exclude the best workmen. Lord Derby either saw this,
or thought that the Bill might as well be altered back in the Lords
as in the Commons, so he agreed to Earl Russell’s proposal. Lord
Cairns, who is thought to be about as well-informed as most poli-
ticians, said that he really had not been aware of the arrangement
with the Commons, and he had only wished to keep the franchise from
men who would not exercise it with independence. Lord Malmes-
bury, of course, said nothing, and the £10 qualification was replaced.
Earl Granville, Chancellor of the University of London, moved
an amendment to prevent any graduate of the Universities of Oxford
and Cambridge from voting for that city and that town, in respect ot
college rooms. It was rejected.
Lord Stratheden moved—it really does not matter what. It was
rejected.
Lord Harrowby moved that Chelsea and Kensington should he
thrown into Westminster and Marylebone, and that each of these two
districts should return three Members, but Lord Derby would nor
allow any more alterations.
Lord Salisbury gave himself the highly unnecessary trouble of
bringing in and explaining his system of Voting Papers, the rest of
the Bill was gone through, and the Report was adopted.
Tuesday, August the 6th, will be a date of importance in the History
of England. Certainly not because Lord Ravens worth gave “ a
long croak,” as the Star says, against the Reform Bill (the joke is
somewhere between raven and croak, you will observe, with thankful-
ness), nor because Lord Redesdale was all for finality, and enunciated
the undeniable proposition that if the Liberals did not agitate there
would be no agitation, nor because Lord Fortescue complained that
the dwellers in rural districts were not so represented as their morality
and sobriety deserved, nor because Lord Lyveden informed Lord
Redesdale that his advice to the Liberals was not wanted, but
| because, after
Lord Russell had addressed to the Peers a very becoming speech,
in which the veteran Reformer said he hoped that for the time, at
least, Reform was settled, that he trusted the Act would work well,
that he believed we had given the vote to very ignorant classes and
that bribery and corruption would increase, but that he had no fears
for the future, relying on the temper and disposition, not of electors or
elected, but of the People, who loved the Constitution—finishing off
with a good dig at Earl Derby for his frank avowal of a policy of
party,
(Certainly not because that eternal Lord Stratheden wanted to
stick in a clause reserving 7 seats at a general election, for the House
itself to fill up with 7 great men, Macaulays and the like, who had
been rejected—and Lord Derby likened the scheme to that of the
Jewish cities of refuge, and laughed it out of the House: and not
because Lord Harrowby wished to call Chelsea by the name of
Kensington, but gave up the point)
But because
After a few graceful words in which Lord Derby thanked the Peers
for the temperate, fair, and candid manner in which they had dealt with
the Bill, which he described (by the kind permission of Cartoon
Punch, Esq.) as a Leap in the Dark,
The Peers Passed the Reform Bill
We shall continue the story, because—because it is our serene
pleasure to treat any and every subject our own way.
Just before the Commons finished their early sitting, Sir John
Lefevre, Clerk of the Parliaments, handed to Sir Denis Le Mar-
chant, Clerk of the House of Commons, the Reform Bill, as amended
by the Peers. Mr. Disraeli, amid cheers, moved that the Bill be
printed, and considered on
Thursday, when it was duly considered accordingly.
We began by hearing what Mr. Disraeli had to say. He compli-
mented the Peers, and said that they had challenged no principle of
the Bill. He submitted to the clause for the representation of
Minorities. He recommended the acceptance of the Voting Papers.
Mr. Gladstone begged to be allowed to be silent upon the
character of the Lords’ amendments, and expressed sympathy with
Mr. Disraeli, who had to give up his own apparently earnest views
on the Minorities. He complimented Lord Derby’s courage and
decision at a critical moment. We had better, he thought, get to
business. We did.
1. We rejected an amendment about the poor-rate—its supposed
object was to throw a little more difficulty in the way of a few voters.
2. We rejected an amendment, the object of which was to let
University Men vote in the University boroughs.
3. We rejected, by 235 to 188, the amendment raising the copy-
holder’s qualification.
4. We accepted, by 253 to 204, the amendment for the Representa-
tion of Minorities in 11 triangular constituencies. And let those who
have hitherto been swamped remember, if they feel any particular
gratitude for being bothered with a vote which they will be expected
to use, that to Mr. John Stuart Mill’s earlier advocacy of this plan,
and to the effect which his arguments have had on the public mind,
this success is due. It will be the more gracious to remember it,
because the minority in a populous district usually comprises the class
whose politics are not those of Mr. Mill, who has thus vindicated his
title to be called Mill the Just.
Mr. Bright opposed the amendment with great force, as was
natural; first, because it tended to enfranchise Conservatives, and
secondly, because it will probably give a Conservative Member to
Birmingham, which is to have three representatives. Mr. Bright
will not—stupider men cannot—see that the more Persons who vote
successfully in an election, the more the place, meaning the people of
the place, are Represented. Mr. Mill sees this, and Mr. Bright is
angry with him for thinking clearly.
Mr. Gladstone also opposed the amendment. The principle was
certainly in the Government Bill of 1854, when he was in office, but he
had not been much engaged in preparing that Bill. W e must inter-
polate, in describing this very important debate, a piece of report.
Mr Gladstone observed—
“ My friend, Mb. K natch bull-II uquessen, said, ‘ We are now going to have in
England the representation of men, and not of communities.’
“ Mr. Mill. Hear, hear.
“ Mr. Gladstone. I hear a cheer from my honourable friend the Member for
Westminster, a man who never speaks or cheers in this House without a clear and
j distinct meaning—(cheers and counter-cheers)—and his clear and distinct meaning I
know to be this, that he accepts this little proposition to effect that total change
which he desires in the whole character of our electoral system—to get rid of the
system of local representation, and substituting for it the representation of persons.”
After urging that this would lead us to changes which at present the
boldest did not think of, Mr. Gladstone argued, with great energy,
that the proposed plan was an innovation, a novelty, and an unfair
thing with a fair outside.
Mr. Lowe said that Mr. Gladstone had answered himself. That
the majority alone should be represented was a political superstition.
We had in this clause made an advance in the science of Government.
5. We accepted, as a pendant, by 252 to 188, the amendment that
in the City of London Elections no man shall vote for more than three
candidates.
6. We rejected, by 258 to 206, the Voting Papers, though Mr.
Disraeli offered to restrict the plan to counties. Mr. Punch having
condemned the scheme last week, this issue became a necessity.
7. We rejected, by 188 to 164, a second amendment for helping
college residents to borough votes.
8. We agreed to the Saving Clause. Do you know what this is ?
It saves the Constitution (for those who think it in any danger) for
one year, four months, and fourteen days from the date of this number
of Punch. Should a general election occur between this date and the
1st of January, 1869, all is to go on as if the Reform Bill had not
passed.
9. We then appointed a Committee to inform the Lords why we
could not have the pleasure of agreeing to a lot of their amendments.
The names will be historical. Here they be:—Mr. Gladstone, Mr.
Cardwell, Mr. V illiers. Sir Roundell Palmer, Mr. M'Cullagh
Torrens, Lord Elcho, and Sir C. O’Loghlen.
My Lords the Commons have overhauled Greenwich Hospital,
thanks to Mr. Seely’s persistence. It is to be cleared of all the salts
except those of Epsom—in other words, the infirmary alone is to be
retained. As the doctors do not think the place suitable for a real
hospital, had it not better be fitted up as a Palace of Reception for our
distmguished visitors ? Further, the Commons have talked about and
renewed the Extradition Treaties, have heard all the Indian scandal in
the Mansfield and Jervis affair, have passed the Libel Bill (news-
paper reports not to be libels), and the Private Bishops Bill, and have
been amused, on the Estimates, by a set of more remarkable anti-
Catholic antics by the Great Whalley than that entertainer has ever
before exhibited. His fellow-Protestant and fellow-Statesman, Lord
Westmeath, has diverted the Lords in a somewhat similar manner,
and has been shown by Lord Derby with inimitable gravity. Mr.
Gladstone, as the Lords have thrown out the Church-Rate Abolition
Bill, undertakes next year to abolish compulsory payment. Everybody
wants to shut up, and get away from London.
Another Stone for Cairns.
In the new Borough of Chelsea (or Cairnsington as it ought to be
called) there will be one more instance of a three-cornered Constituency,
when the Pensioners come to the poll in their cocked-hats.
Vol. 53.
3