1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/c432adbe2d3f700aefabdf1bdfad61ed.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gaDaRpNyRoQ-afMbRHx-Dthilo7ocg1xw3dA7FytP5UyLk1Wn6uq35u1e7-lxczm1QkZYiGQOJipJVzelR%7EFCm8zkfW1SZReFBZYp8JaevASqnlnBIV4yfozJ-kk7zlFccBiB9BErdXkEMR7SWe1%7E3n6uk4F3flLuYuF1okRFuMG0-324t1r7VnSn0YWBjb8OqRrbzBW7h2ZwM1YpWWrh%7ETY7PHIz7vdoz402GUPd6kzDchz60fnGd4mBqjqH-frUuBWrqRANyv-dQ5zJrFEBZpV2NEf3o7oERN0gOgeBNMPDtcy7nqD8AKm7Gxw48EMmweBu6M%7EJRloJcZXiWj-Lg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
caaacea1e50e0d51952dc29edd4ea822
PDF Text
Text
����������������������������������������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Tracts for inquirers
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Dickson, William Edward
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 62 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: Contents: 1. Reform. II. Reform Illusions. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Williams & Strahan, London. Date of publication from KVK. Appendix giving various statistics and figures.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[s.n.]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1867]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5206
Subject
The topic of the resource
Politics
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Tracts for inquirers), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
Political reform
politics
Social Reform-Great Britain-19th Century
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/6333f11bc99c282025542ca3f86a95c8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sPL8p2m7JUIqiFAKgRbV8WqxKkmgN33CefKxPHvg9DrAuMGx6o6GDdbcM4iF6eTjSLZp6lvz62JVHWzjN7-zQk68ECvxmqb5YsTjfZpMPThxlhkb%7EVPTsgcFOU7PHS14sBymCjc396DQ33LE7JUNHh75fSePuZWQGValXvPIICxLkvZNAL5CrKipbYOxEqSb-7-bHjErNuQi7F1EI0BW8S-dl4IAgO-S5WWdfYPPmjsOFjUktzYVt8yMh%7E4U9op6%7ESOGeIlHAJYSVnJmOQndReJPvzBMgAEHSnz6HYaSUh0MK5aNe6a3nvf08OHvcScSY9WBX8lhDTnSp2sGLE-Z%7EA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1f89e52cab993d5a0a981c8f5b140abc
PDF Text
Text
V
-
*****
ENGLISH
r
INSTITUTIONS
AND THEIR MOST
NECESSARY REFORMS.
A CONTRIBUTION OF THOUGHT
BV
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN,
LATE PROFESSOR IN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, LONDON.
LONDON:
TRUBNER & CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1865.
*
�Where materials are vast, conciseness may be accepted by the
Reader as a compliment to his intellect, not as a dogmatism.
Whatever the colour of his political creed, let him consent for
h^fr an hour to suspect fallacy in his customary axioms.
judges freely who does not think freshly.
No one
�ENGLISH
INSTITUTIONS
AND THEIR MOST
NECESSARY REFORMS. '
HERE are times in national history, at which
the urgent business of the classes in power is,
to increase the number of citizens loyal to the con
stitution : then, what seems to be a great democratic
move, may be made simply to avoid civil war. Such
was the crisis of 1832: such might have been that
of 1848. But, in spite of insurrection successful in
Sicily, Paris, Vienna, and Berlin, the English aristo
cracy in the latter year judged stiff and total resist
ance safer than any concession; relied on our hatred
of anarchy ; and by rallying the middle classes round
the standard of legality, quickly dissipated all fear
of Insurgent Reform. That lesson has not been
lost on Conservatives. Our wealth is more massive,
our thriving class reaches lower, in 1865 than in
1848. Education has spoiled political aspirants for
revolutionists. Let Reformers therefore take to
heart, that they have no chance now of succour from
the influences which carried the Reform Act of 1832.
If they are to have any organic changes, great or
small, they must persuade the actual holders of
constitutional power, and not forget the House of
Lords: otherwise, they do but waste their effort. ‘
For the reforms urged in these pages I would
plead with equal simplicity before the House of
Lords or before an assembly of Chartists. The
T
�4
arguments would differ in their relative importance,
but would never need to be dissembled.
The
nuisances which have to be abated, bring evil to
every political order and class of the nation, though
the weakest part of the nation of course suffers most
from them.
Where the object of a great national reform is, to
strengthen one Order by lowering another; to humil
iate the pride of a dynasty or of a peerage; or to en
force some large sacrifice of pecuniary means :—the
nature of the proposed change cannot be disguised.
Undoubtedly much strong language is heard among
us against aristocracy and in favour of democracy,
which, taken to the letter, might seem to imply that
aristocracy, in its legitimate sense, is to be depressed
and stript of honour.
But in fact bureaucracy
and centralization are the real foes, both of them
hostile to the genius of the constitution in former
days, and in no way closely allied to aristocracy as
such. Centralization has come in from Continental
Despotism, from the first French Revolutionists, and
largely from the writings of Bentham, as I under
stand. Bureaucracy has been ever on the increase
through the enormous extent of the empire, and the
immensity of power devolving on the ministry of
the day; while Parliament is too slow in learning
facts to be any adequate check. The House of
Peers, as an Order, has no interest in bureaucracy,
and none in centralization. Hence without a shadow
of paradox, and with perfect straightforwardness, I
maintain, that from a true Conservative point of
view our nation has to retrace many wrong steps
and make many right ones, quickly and boldly.
Not that it is paradoxical to hold, that in certain
cases it is for the true interest and true honour of a
ruling class—just as to a despotic king—to have
new checks put on its power. No man is to be
congratulated that his baser passions can bear
sway over him without restraint; and no party, no
�ministry, no Order of the State, is stronger or more
honourable, when its less wise or less virtuous
members can assume the guidance of it. Whatever
from without bridles them, is a real strength to the
party or Order, and will tend to its permanent
honour.
In a pamphlet already widely disseminated, I
have avowed my conviction, that to extinguish all
future creation of hereditary peers is the first need
ful step of reform. But it is equally my conviction
that this may be so done, and ought to be so done,
as to make us all proud of the House of Lords,
strengthen its efficiency, and in no way impair
practically its hereditary character, which (under
rightful modifications) I know how to value.
The course which Whig-Radical Reform has
hitherto taken has greatly frightened many reason
able Conservatives : I maintain that it ought also to
displease, if not alarm, all sincere and reasonable
Radicals,—because it tends to bring us to the French
goal not to the American goal. With a Central
authority preponderating so enormously over our
Local; a Parliament by the side of which every
Municipality is a pigmy; a Ministry, wielding an
executive so vast, while our Mayors and Lord
Mayors have sunk into pageants;—every step of
change which merely extends the Parliamentary
franchise, is a step towards a system in which it is
decided by universal suffrage once in 7 years, what
oligarchy shall be our despotic rulers. A Reform
in the direction of restoring the essential principles
of the old English Constitution ought not to frighten
Conservatives: a reform to re-establish what through
total change of' circumstances is now unsuitable,
ought not to be desired by Radicals. I cannot but
feel that it is a popular fallacy to say, that because
the original Parliament was elected by universal
suffrage, therefore the same thing is now proper.
Admit for the moment that the fact was as is
�6
asserted: yet the different functions needed from
the modern Parliament demand far wider political
information and intelligence in its electors. The
existing system is confessedly inadequate to the
nation : Tories and Whigs have avowed it, nor am
I defending things as they are. But before we
enter on a course which must become a mere ques
tion of strength, and may convulse us—not by civil
war, but by bitter discontents and impaired patriot
ism—more deeply than any one yet knows; let
thoughtful men of all sides be willing to reconsider
the entire position of things.
§ i. Before judging what reforms we need, we must
consider what grievances exist. I enumerate under
six heads the greatest of our organic evils and
sorest of our dangers.
i. Our wars made immorally. —War is crime on
*
the greatest scale, except when it is a necessary
measure of police for a commensurate object of
justice. No man can be hanged or deprived of his
property without the solemn verdict of men sworn
to uphold the right : yet we bombard cities, depose
princes, take possession of territory, drive families
into beggary, without any previous public hearing
or public deliberation; without any verdict of jus
tice ; at most by the vote of a secret cabinet, not
sworn to prefer the just to the convenient; nay, the
thing may be done at the will of one or two men in
Asia, without orders from England, or by the hot
headedness of a commodore; yet be ratified and
followed up, barely because it would hurt our pride
to disown it. These wars disgrace our ruling classes
*List of Queen Victoria’s wars.—War of Canada,—of Syria,—of Afghan
istan,—of Scinde and Moultan,—two Punjaub wars,—two Caffir wars,—war of
Assam,—war of Burma,—three Chinese wars,—Persian war,—Russian war,—■
war of Japan,—New Zealand wars,—war of Bhootan,—besides wars internal
to India or Ceylon, little wars in West Africa, and in South America. Of all
these wars only one (that of Russia) received previous mature consideration and
had national approval; and only one (the first Punjaub war) was a war of
defence against a foreign invader. Even that invasion was caused by our
aggression and conquest of Scinde.
�7
to the foreigner and bring upon them diplomatic
humiliations. To the poor of this country they are
’ the direst and most incurable of evils, entailing and
riveting upon them all their depression. If there
be a government of God on earth, no nation can
afford to make wars of cupidity or of pride.
This first grievance implies that Parliament is no
adequate check on the Ministry, and that the Min
istry has iro adequate control on its distant subor
dinates, in the matter of extra European war.
2. Our administrative inefficiency.—At the time
of the Crimean mismanagements, there was great
. outcry for administrative reform : it is not needful
here to do more than allude to the monstrous and
frightful facts which so harrowed the mind of Earl
Russell, then in the cabinet as Lord John Russell.
But in that great war, our Admiralty postponed to
build the gunboats wanted for the Baltic in 1854
and 1855 : built in preference great ships which
were not needed, and finally completed the gunboats
by 1856 after peace was made.—In the last four
years, the United States Admiralty, beginning from
nothing in their docks and almost nothing on the
seas, have built fleets adequate to their vast war ;
with 2000 miles of coast to blockade and great
flotillas on the rivers. It has been done for less
cost in gold, than that which our Admiralty has
expended in the same four years of peace: yet at
this moment we hear the outcry, that our ships and
guns are inferior to the American. On such details
I cannot pretend to knowledge; but it is needless
to prove that the incompetence of the Admiralty is a
chronic fact in England. Even the French Admiralty
has commented on it.—Now if the Admiralty is
inefficient, is the War Office or Civil Service likely
to be better, when the Admiralty is precisely the
organ on which it is hereditary with all English
statesmanship to pride itself?
The second grievance implies that Parliament
�8
has no adequate control over Ministerial incapacity
or favouritism.
3. The state of Ireland.—Lord Macaulay declared
Ireland to be the point at which the empire is always
exposed to a vital stab. No one will pretend that
Ireland is flourishing, or is loyal, or that the members
of the London Parliament have confidence in their
own understanding of Irish questions. A population
larger than that of some European kingdoms, inhab
iting a separate island—yet close to us—predomi
nantly of a foreign race, very many of them still
speaking a foreign tongue, differing also in religion;
is not easy to govern wisely, and cannot be perma
nently disaffected without grave mischief to us all.
Thirty thousand soldiers to overawe the Irish, are
a display to the world, that we still hold the island
as a conquest, and cannot trust them as fellow
citizens. The prohibition of volunteer soldiers tells
the same tale. Meanwhile the prime of the labour
ing classes emigrate, and propagate hatred against
us in America.
This grievance has lasted long enough to make
it clear, that the imperial Parliament is an inefficient
organ for Ireland, and that the Irish members are
inefficient or damaging for English legislation. The
Irish Parliament ought to have been reformed, not
destroyed.
4. The state of Established Churches.—Fivesixths of the population of Ireland are Dissenters :
so is a very large fraction of Wales. Half of
England is in Dissent, and no effort has ever been
made to bring back the most numerous body (the
Wesleyans) who on principle approve of a State
Church. Scotland is in a wonderful position through
the destruction of her Parliament. The articles of
Union are expounded to mean, that the Imperial
Parliament is bound forever to support the West
minster Confession of Faith, (which never was the
faith of England) whether Scotland believe it or not.
�9
Two successive vast schisms have rent away
masses of population from the Established Church ;
the latter in our own day, under Dr. Chalmers, who
was a vehement advocate for State Churches.
It is not my part to lay down that State Churches
are right or wrong : but I understand two character
istic boasts of “ Conservatives ” to be,—the House
Of Lords and the State religion. Each of these is in
secular decline under the existing routine, and must
continue to decline, if it be felt to obstruct, not to in
vigorate, national life. In the abstract, I do not
dissemble my own preference for territorial Churches
over Sects ; but the example of the United States
proves that Sectarianism is less hurtful in the ab
sence than in the presence of a Sectarian Church
Establishment. Thus we manage to get at once the
worst evils of both systems.
This topic suggests that the attempt at uniformity
is the wreck of state religion. Indeed, in the case
of Scotland uniformity is sacrificed, but in just the
most mischievous way,—that of enacting an ever
unchangeable creed.
Populations in a different
mental condition demand diversity in teachers and
in religious worship. These need local adjustment
by local assemblies, on which, at most, a veto alone
should be reserved to the central legislature.
5. The state of our Peasantry.—Almost from the
beginning, the peasantry have found the Parliament
to be an unfriendly organ. Under Edward III.
their wages were fixed by law, and they were
punished if they refused to work. For four centuries
and a half they were forbidden to make their own
bargains. Who can imagine that a Parliament of
landlords which thus treated them would not make the
laws of land unfairly favourable to landlords ? Yet
such laws are treated as sacred and unchangeable.
At present,in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and England,
we find the actual cultivators of the soil to be worse off
than in France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Hungary, or
�(atlength) than in Russia; nay, in afar less thriving
and happy condition than in the little island of
Guernsey. In Guernsey and in Belgium land is
scarcer than in England, in America it is far more
abundant; yet in each extreme the peasantry are
better off than with us. We have evidently to
adjust the arrears of six centuries’ oppression. Who
can hope that evils of that antiquity will be cleared
off by the old machinery ?
6. The incompetency of Parliament to do its
duties to India.—The English empire is a vast
machine of three parts. First, the United Kingdom,
with outlying military posts. Secondly, the true
English Colonies, which contribute to us neither
men nor money, yet have to be defended against
dangers real and imaginary. Thirdly, the perilous
splendour of India, where 150 millions are subjected
to the Queen’s direct rule, and thereby to her
Parliament. To these add 30 millions at home, and
you find 180 millions which have to be watched
over by a single supreme legislature. N or only so:
but 50 millions more of Indians, through their
princes, are in subordinate alliance to the Queen.
These princes are liable to be dethroned by the pen
of the Queen’s Secretary. To all such, the appeal
for justice lies to the British Parliament.
It is but the other day, that an Indian prince
appealed against an executive decree which had
deprived him of his royalty and thereby ejected all
his countrymen and kinsmen from high office. His
cause came before Parliament and was voted down
by ministers and placemen. Without assuming that
the vote was unjust, it may be judged monstrous to
eject all natives from high office because their prince
has misbehaved. In any case, Indians will never
become loyal to British rule, if their appeals against
the local executive are heard, not in a court of Law,
by judges sworn to do justice, but by men banded
as partizans, and virtually judges in their own
�11
cause. An eminent Indian officer recently states,
that, though not a shot be fired, 10,000 soldiers
are required yearly, merely to keep up in India the ex
isting force of 75,000 British troops. Grant that sani
tary arrangements may lower this frightful number :
yet how many will be wanted if we make new annexa
tions ? if we absorb more and more native principal
ities ? if we develop Indian wealth and mechanism
while wounding the native sentiment ? All these
agencies are going on at this moment. A general
insurrection may be surely counted on within thirty
years, unless, before that time, we win the loyalty
of Indian patriots. Even the movement of 1857
would have been irresistible, if the insurgents had
actively extended its area at once, or if certain
princes had gone against us. Unless the drain of
men for the Indian army be stopped, the sooner we
avow ourselves to be, like Switzerland and Belgium,
neutral in all European questions, the better for
our good fame. We are ourselves cementing India
into one country. Another insurrection, an insur
rection of collective India,—if successful, would
inflict on England an amount of loss, ruin, and
disgrace, which could not be recovered in a whole
generation;—if unsuccessful, would still multiply our
difficulties tenfold, and make it doubtful whether
expulsion would not have been better for us.
§ 11.
For these six grievances and dangers Reforms
are needed. Of what Reforms do we now hear talk ?
Prominently and solely of Extended Suffrage and
*
the Ballot. Let me grant to a Radical, that each
of these may have its value;—the Ballot for its
mechanical convenience, and as a temporary engine
to save a limited class from intimidation. Yet
unless these are mere steps towards after-reforms,
they will leave Parliament overworked and helpless,
* Since this was in type, Triennial Parliaments have been claimed.
�12
the Bureaucracy as despotic as ever, India disloyal,
the House of Lords as obstructive as ever to all
religious freedom. If after-reforms are intended,
they must be avowed at once, or we shall be once
more told that the settlement is “ final,” and is to
last for a full generation. That Mr. Bright and the
late lamented Mr. Cobden expected changes in the
possession of land, with benefit to our peasants,
from these two measures of reform, I infer from a
celebrated altercation; but the mode in which they
are to operate and the length of time before they
will bring relief, remain extremely obscure. The
artizan class from 1840 to 1846 gave their effort to
sustain the Corn Laws; the peasants also, if they
had the vote, would probably use it against them
selves. To give voting power to ignorant masses,
accustomed to abject obedience, is surely no political
panacea.
The primary weakness of our organization lies in
the enormous over-occupation of the House of
Commons. With great talent, knowledge and ex
perience, in more than 600 men,—by tact to divide
labour and put each man to his special work ;—by
standing Committees and Permanent Chairmen, in
whom the House could confide, and to whom they
could refer for information and counsel; no doubt a
vast deal of work might be done, and without very
long speeches. But no ministry has ever shown a
wish to aid the Legislative body to conduct its work
energetically.
On matters of administration the
ministers must of course take the initiative; but they
will never invent an organization which is to control
them ; which in fact must be devised and maintained
strictly as against them. New principles are wanted.
At present the holders of power and the expectants
of power combine to subject the independence of the
Legislative to the Bureaucracy; and this usurpation
is veiled under the phrase,—prerogative of the
Crown.
Merely to extend the franchise will not
�i3
add to the chance of getting abler members of
Parliament, nor a larger number of men resolved to
fight against any of the grievances enumerated.
The task laid on the Commons House is at present
too overwhelming. Without new machinery which
shall relieve it of the present intolerable load, no
imaginable change in the mode of electing is likely
to cure the evil. One supreme legislature for 230
millions! Englishmen who come out of practical
life and have been deeply immersed in special and
very limited occupations, are to judge on Private
Bills innumerable, and on the affairs of people very
unlike to us and quite unknown to us! In the
United States, for 31 millions of people there are 35
independent local legislatures, each having on an
average less than a million; while the Supreme
Congress is wholly disembarrassed of all local law,
and regulates only a defined number of topics which
concern the entire homogeneous Union. Our colon
ial legislatures legislate only for the home interests
of perhaps half a million, two million, or at most
three million people. It does not require super
human wisdom in legislators to do tolerably well
work thus limited. But it is a truly barbarous
simplicity to put one organ to the frightfully various
work of our Commons House. Entirely new organs
appear to me an obvious and undeniable necessity,
however disagreeable to men of routine.
Nor should it be left out of sight, that in the last
century and a half, while our population has been
growing in numbers and our affairs in complexity;
so far have we been from increasing and developing
our organization, that we have destroyed or spoiled
the organs which existed.
The Parliaments of
Ireland and Scotland have been annihilated (one by
flagrant, the other by suspected, bribery,) and the
power and status of our Municipalities and our
County organization have been gravely lowered.
The old Municipalities and Counties were the
�14
sources from which Parliament derived its own
rights and power : to the new institutions limited
rights have been jealously measured out by Parlia
ment. Every Empire needs to be made up of
Kingdoms or Governments; every such Govern
*
ment, of Provinces or Counties ; and each smaller
unit should have complete political life, with as much
power over itself as can be exercised without
damage to the nation. From these elementary
principles we have gone widely astray, working to
wards a central confusion which always threatens
alternate despotism and anarchy.
To invent new organization is not really difficult.
California thirteen years ago was infamous as a nest
of gamblers and robbers, mixed with gold-diggers ;
but the instant that a sufficient mass of honest men
was poured in, they constructed admirable institu
tions, and have now among other good things
popular colleges which we may envy. The diffi
culty is, to persuade English aristocrats to adopt
anything new, until the old has become quite in
tolerable. Let wretched Ireland be a witness to
that! It means that millions of the nation must
go through martyrdom,—that public calamity and
disgrace must be incurred,—that disaffection must
become dangerous ; before the classes which are at
ease will consent to the creation of any machinery
which they suspect might ultimately undermine
their power. This is no true Conservatism. This
is the way to ruin an aristocratic order. It is not the
able men, the experienced men, who so feel or so rea
son ; it is the meaner members of their party, whom
the leaders will not risk offending, until public calam
ityforces them, or until the nation, gaining a clear idea
of what it wants, speaks so pointedly, that the real
party-leaders come over to it. This I hold to be the
right course for the Radicals, who (it seems) must
be the movers. Let them make it their business to
convince such men as Mr. Gladstone and Lord
�i5
Stanley in the two great parties of the State, that
the things which they claim are reasonable and
right,—and with a view to this, let them impress
the same thing on as many members of Parliament
as they can,—and the necessary reforms will be car
ried, however novel in principle. Those who call
themselves “ practical men”—are apt to snuff out
every proposal that goes beyond routine, by the
reply,—“ There is no use in talking of it; for it is
quite impossible: ” and until a public opinion has
been formed in favour of it, every new thing is of
course impossible. But what our colonies and the
United States do, is not impossible to Englishmen
at home when they resolve upon it.
The inertia of our aristocratic ranks, miscalled
Conservatism, has undoubtedly a marvellous resist
ing force ; and this is the great danger of the country.
When all the world beside is in rapid movement,
and that world is in intimate relations—industrial,
political, social, literary, — with England ; when
moreover our own population is in steady change ;
organic reforms ought to accommodate themselves
easily and quickly,—if possible, spontaneously,—
to the changes of society. This would be true
Conservatism ; for this is vitality. Reform which
comes too late, fails to avert political disease.
The noblest function of high legislation is to guide
and conduct Reform.
Let those who think Inertia to be Conservative,
look with a fresh eye on the outer world. Russia
has cast off her slave system, and is organizing her
Governments into centres of independent political
life. She increases her population three times as
fast as England every year, and loses none
by emigration. In a quarter of a century more she
is likely to have ioo millions, not of disfranchised
men, or discontented subjects, but of real citizens,
under 40 or 50 local Parliaments, combining their
strength in one Empire.—Germany may ere long
�i6
be involved by her Prussian dynasty in a great
civil war, which (even if it do not become a Re
publican contest) can scarcely fail of ending in a
great union of their many local governments : a
Union which may chance even to absorb Holland
and Switzerland by the good will of these little
states. The Germany of the future is resolved to
be a power on the high seas, with at least forty
millions of people, who will cease to emigrate largely
when they are politically better satisfied.—France
will be to us ever a better neighbour, the richer and
the more commercial she becomes: yet so much the
more certainly is she our rival on the seas.—The
Italian fleets, with those of Southern Germany,
will supersede our functions as police of the Medi
terranean, and therefore might seem our valuable
allies: whether our Conservatives will so regard
them, is another question.—But the broad fact is,
that with the increase of good government on the
continent, and still more with the progress of free
institutions, the relative power of England must
sink and does sink: and we can less than ever afford
to have a discontented Ireland, and a peasantry who
are nearly at the bottom of the European scale.
Something yet stronger remains to be urged.
English and Irish peasants must be compared, not
merely to the peasants of Guernsey or of Europe,
but to those of America. There, a nation, among
whom in every moral and social sense our people
find themselves at home,—a nation which, since
the death of George III., has absorbed three
million British emigrants, — has decided on the
overthrow of slavery, and is resolved to people its
vast fertile lands by bestowing them freely on culti
vators. The Slave States will soon attract emigrants
even more than does the far West. America (to
say nothing of Canada) might receive ten million
new citizens in the next ten years with no result to
herself but increased prosperity. An emigrant who
�i7
has manly strength, industry, and temperance,
landing at New York with a few dollars, can in
3 or 4 years lay by enough to stock a farm, receive
public land, and become a freehold cultivator.
Should emigration from our counties once commence
in earnest, the Irish Exodus teaches that it is like a
syphon which sucks the cask dry,—the stream in
front attracting that behind. If English landlords
desire our problem to work itself out on the Irish
pattern ; if they can look complacently on the possi
bility of a constant dwindling of the English popu
lation, with results which need not here be pointed
at, they have only to persevere in their past
routine.
In this connexion there is yet one more topic
which English Whigs and Tories ought not to over
look : (I am unwilling to lay stress on it, yet it is
too important wholly to omit ;)—the danger—as
they will view it—of Republicanism becoming mili
tant in Europe. Their folly has prepared the way.
They abandoned Hungary, with its territorial no
bility, its old precedents, its rights founded on treaty,
when it had no thought of throwing off royalty.
By refusing to acknowledge the belligerency of
Hungary, and to reassume that place of Mediator,
between her and Austria, which (with Holland) we
had held in making the peace of 1710,—we con
nived at Russian invasion, and made Gorgey’s
treason a possibility.
Our first punishment was
our own Russian war, which came in the train. The
next is, that the English aristocracy now is isolated,
and Hungary (irreconcileable to Austria) will become
a Republic on the first opportunity. Hitherto the
French dynasty has failed to attain a constitutional
position, without which it has no mark of perma
nence ; nor is Victor Emmanuel’s throne the stronger
for all the humiliations which the French Emperor
has put upon it. Whether in France or in Ger
many events give the initiative, matters but little. A
c
�i8
civil war may rise in Germany, either from the un5
endurable encroachments of a prince, or by the con
tagion of revolutionary spirit. Whatever the cause
of German commotion, Republicanism would quickly
become an established fact in Hungary ; and once
successful there, would reanimate the struggle else
where. It will not wait to be a second time crushed
by the combination of kings. No one can predict
what is to come ; but no reasonable man will now
deny that events of an ordinary kind may lead to
the establishment of Republics in Hungary, Ger
many, and France. Would not English Conserva
tives and the Crown itself then regret, if by
obstructing all reforms, and initiating nothing likely
to remove the causes of discontent, they had per
petuated a sullen indignation against British Institu
tions ? Even in 1848 Tories rejoiced, that Lord
Grey’s Reform Bill of 1832 had become law.
S.ni.
What steps of Organic Reform do I then desire
to recommend to the attention of the reader ? I must
distinguish between immediate and ultimate measures.
Five measures appear to me of immediate urgent
importance.
1. The establishment of an Imperial Court in
India, to judge all causes between the Queen’s Go
vernment and the Princes ; with power similar to
that which the Queen’s Bench would put forth, if here
the Government were to eject a nobleman from his
estates. The mere inauguration of such a Court
would send a gush of loyalty through Indian hearts,
and would encourage the princes to lessen their
native armies. The establishment of one disputed
title by it (say, the confirmation of the Rajah of My
sore against Lord Canning’s unexpected and harsh
decision, which extinguishes his dynasty with his life,)
would allow us to reduce the Indian army by one
half. Its restitution of a single prince unjustly
�19
rdeposed, with restoration of his jewels and wardrobe,
might bring down the English force to the standard
of 1833. The mark of a “ tyrant ” (according to the
old Greeks) was his defence by a foreign body-guard:
we bear that mark of illegitimate sway at present.
To make India loyal, to save the yearly sacrifice of
health or life to 10,000 young men, now the miserable
victims of our army system, is so urgent an interest,
that I put this topic foremost. Too much import
ance can hardly be given to it. Each soldier is said
to cost us /ioo; hence the pecuniary expense also
is vast. But until we restrain ourselves from ag
gression, all attempts permanently to improve the
state of our millions at home must be fruitless.
Nor only so : but considering that 200 millions of
Indians would be represented in that Supreme
Court, a splendid commencement would be given to
“ Arbitration instead of War,” for which Cobden
contended in Europe.
English judges would be
faithful to their duty ; but, by adding natives of
India to the Court, we should set a potent example
to the whole world, fraught with good will to men,
and likely to bring us blessings from God.
The responsibilities of the English Parliament
would be greatly lightened by this measure ; which
would at least relieve them of their arduous judicial
duties towards the Indian princes.
2. The boon which was solemnly guaranteed to
India by Lord Grey’s Ministry in Parliament, and
by the Parliamentary Charter of 1833, should be at
once bestowed, bona fide. It was promised that to
every office, high or low, except that of Gov. Gen.
and Commander-in-Chief, native Indians should be
admissible on equal terms with British-born sub
jects. “ An exception corroborates the rule concerning
things not excepted. For twenty years this solemn
act was made a dead letter; then in 1853, under
pretence of new liberality, the delusive system of
competitive examinations was established, subjecting
�20
natives to unjust disadvantage, and forcing them to
come to England to be examined. If this system
of trickery be kept up by the old influences which
Lord Grey threatened with extinction if they dared
to resist that important clause in 1833,—all our
other good deeds and good intentions may prove
inadequate to win Indian loyalty. Our task there
is, to rear India into political manhood, train it to
English institutions, and rejoice when it can govern
itself without our aid. If a part of our aristocracy
and middle classes is too narrow-minded to under
stand how noble is such a function, the rest of Great
Britain ought not to remain silent,—to the great and
certain mischief of the empire.
3. The Mutiny Act, which is never passed for
more than one year, should not be re-enacted in its
present barbarous state, but with several important
modifications. Of these, I shall here specify but
one. No soldier or sailor who kills, wounds, or de
stroys, should be exempted from the ordinary
responsibilities of a civilian, except after the Queen
(or her accredited Viceroy) has publicly proclaimed
war. Then, and then only, if a soldier attack the
country against which war has been proclaimed,—
and none another,—should he be able to plead
“ military command ” in his justification. Against
violent and sudden attack civilians and soldiers alike
may make defence with deadly weapons. Admirals
and Consuls will cease to involve us in war of their
own initiation, only when they become unable to
shield the tools of their will from personal responsi
bility.—[I suppose that it is the Mutiny Act which
here needs modification. If there be some other
Act which exempts the soldier from guilt, then it is
that which needs repeal.]
4. Irish Ecclesiasticism has to be reformed with the
least possible delay. The topics are too well known
to dwell on. The Lord Morpeth Bill of 1837 and
Lord Leveson Gower’s of 1825,—both murdered
�21
by the House of Lords,—tell what needs to be done
for Ireland.
5. What I mention fifth, might be executed
first. — The principle of creating Life Peers, re
called by Lord Palmerston in the case of Lord
Wensleydale, should be avowed by the nation,
and enforced by the executive, but with one essential
modification of pre-eminent importance. Let the
" Commons vote a humble address to her Majesty,
representing that the House of Peers needs to be
elevated in honour and called to higher and more
active functions ; and with a view to this implore
her that in future she will create none but Life
Peers, and such Peers as can be trusted by her
faithful Commons to co-operate diligently in the
public service; that therefore also she will instruct
her ministers to seek a vote from the Commons,
commending for public merit any individual for
whom they are disposed to solicit from her Majesty
the honour of a Life Peerage.—The majority of the
Peers will be too sensible to resist the nation and
the Commons in such a cause, and a vast step on
ward will have been made.
So much for immediate Reforms : but what are
the more distant, yet necessary objects ?
We cannot undo in a day the malversations of
centuries. Every idea of immediate final Reform
is a sad delusion. For a century and a half, as
above remarked, instead of developing our ancient
organs, we have lamed or destroyed them. To re
make or invent requires both special knowledge and
wisdom. A popular movement cannot possibly dic
tate details. But I will not shrink from saying my
thought in outline, where I have thought a great
deal.
1. To stop unjust wars, entangling treaties, and
unwise diplomacy, the House of Lords should have
supreme controul over Foreign Affairs. The right
of advising her Majesty to declare war should be
�22
taken from the Privy Council, (which is in this mat
ter now a wooden machine,) and should be given to
the Lords ; every one of whom should have a right,
like that of the American Senate, to enter the Fo
*
reign Office and read every despatch. No Treaty
should be valid unless confirmed by the Lords, and
by the Commons also, if it involve pecuniary con
tingencies, and the House should have a right to
order the unmutilated publication of whatever di
plomatic document it pleases.
2. Every appointment to office should be made
out in the words, that her Majesty appoints the
person, “ by the consent of the House of Peers.”
Then the House would have a veto on every ap
pointment.
The Ministry would not dare to
appoint through mere favouritism, and would gain
power to resist importunate claimants of their own
party, whom they now reluctantly gratify.
Of course these new and high functions could
not be given to the Lords, until the nation trusts
them : and perhaps no Conservative, no peer, would
wish the Upper House to have this prominence in
the empire without some change in the present con
stitution. Sismondi,—a writer who energetically
combines an aristocratical creed with zeal for a freeholding peasantry,—declares as a historical induc
tion, that the essence and energy of aristocracy is
corrupted from the day that it becomes formally he
reditary. In England it has been saved by the dying
out of so many old peerages, and by the incessant
creation of new ones. The sole innovation of prin
ciple which I propose, is, that the creation shall be
made, not to reward partizanship, or to stock the
house with wealthy men ; but that^shall be voted
°l /optzmj cuique, (as the Romans have it) by the
representatives of the nation, and thus made a true
Aristocracy, a rule of the Best.
3. We want safety for our food which is on the high
seas.—The mischief of Bureaucracy is strikingly
�23
Illustrated in the recent history of this topic. In
i860 the United States Government sent a circular
to all its ministers in Europe, requesting them to
propose neutral privileges for all merchant ships in
time of war: and Earl Russell gave a decided re
fusal, without letting Parliament know that the offer
had been made. Three years later, Mr. Cobden re
vealed the fact, having got information of it from
America; and asserted of his own personal know
ledge that every Court of Europe would have
gladly acceded to the measure, if Earl Russell had
accepted it. The American Government did not
expect refusal from this quarter; for Lord Palmer
ston in a public speech at Liverpool had declared
his desire of such an arrangement. More recently
indeed, he has tried to back out of what he then
said ; but, as is believed, solely because he had found
Earl Russell unconvinceable. Such is the power of
one man, secretly to obstruct a matter of vital inte
rest to the nation. The doings of that one ship,
the Alabama, in spite of all the efforts of the Fede
ral navy, are a sufficient warning of what England
would suffer in a war with a power quite third-rate
on the seas. In fact, it is probable that either Aus
tria or Prussia could annihilate our merchant navy.
To compute the misery which would be endured by
the middle and lower classes of England from the
stagnation of foreign trade and the cutting off of
foreign food,—is impossible. It is not yet too late
to repair Earl Russell’s grave error; but if war
once come upon us, we then shall repent too late.
4. I believe that Ireland ought to be divided into
four Provinces, England into (perhaps) six, Scotland
into two; Wales would remain “the Principality:”
hence might be thirteen Provincial Councils with
free power of local taxation and local legislation,
subject only to a veto from Parliament, which in
most cases would gradually become a formality.
Time and trial, or lawyer’s skill, would discover in
�24
what cases the veto might be definitely renounced.
The Councils should be elected by a very extended suf4
frage, which in two generations might reach to every
adult who is ostensibly independent. The more
the Councils should relieve the Parliament of all
business except that in which the empire is neces
sarily a unit, the better. To controul the Executive
—to arrange all that is general to the United King
dom,—to look after India and the Colonies ; will
remain a more than sufficient task, if not only all
Private Bills are stript away, but also all business
concerning Education, Churches, the Poor, the Law
Courts, and Militia or Volunteers. If we had thus
many centres of national life, of high cultivation and
refinement, the unhealthy and threatening growth of
London would be arrested. We should soon have
many Universities, Free Education for all ranks, and
many small Army-systems, in wholesome emulation.
The Counties and the large Towns would no longer
be isolated, as strongholds of aristocracy and demo
cracy ; but the country gentlemen and nobility
would seek and find their places in the local Execu
tive and in the Provincial Councils, without being able
to block out meritorious men of every rank. The
poor would have a chance of rising to the top of the
scale. Instead of society being mischievously divi
ded, as now, into horizontal strata, its relations
would be local and territorial; for every Council
in England and its Executive would have a power
and dignity equivalent to that of a kingdom such as
Belgium or Holland.
Each would regulate its
local Religious Establishments : one would vie with
another in diffusing education : experimental legis
lation might become fruitful; and whatever mani
fest benefit one part had devised, would be initiated
without the ordeal of long Parliamentary cam
paigns.
The decay of English institutions from the acces
sion of William III to the death of George III was
�mainly due to the fact, that during European war
an English Parliament can ill attend to anything
else. J ust so, Parliamentary Reform was abandoned,
because Russian war came upon us.
This is an
evidently defective and barbarous condition; and
puts us into melancholy contrast to the United
States, in which no intensity of war lessens the do
mestic energy of the State Governments.
5. The question of Parliamentary suffrage cannot
be properly argued here. It is now complicated by
Mr. Hare’s ingenious proposals, of which I would
gladly see experiment in a single district, as in that
of the metropolis. To discuss his scheme fully
would require much space; to give an opinion
shortly would be arrogant. But to many reasoners
on the subject of the suffrage, a few general remarks
may be not superfluous.
Representative Legislators are an artificial sys
tem. Many men say to me : “I am not bound, to
obey laws, unless I have consented to them
iwy
'representative?' What if another say : “ I am not
bound to obey laws, unless I have consented to them
myself? " I think, that of the two, the latter state
ment has more reason. The former is every way
absurd. My representative may have voted against
the law ; then, I am not bound ! Women also are
free from all statute laws, by this argument. More
over, I never consented to be bound by my repre
sentative. Representation is a mere means to an
end. Justice to all orders and persons is the end.
Inasmuch as injustice in legislation generally pro
ceeds from one-sidedness of mind, a legislature
which does not contain men from all ranks is almost
certain to be unjust to the ranks excluded. But
merely to admit a right of voting, does not ensure
the object aimed at. The English farmers have
always had votes, but never in our days have
had representatives of their interest in Parliament.
Nor is the vote a natural right of individuals.
D
�26
If convenience suggested to cast lots in each rank,
and pick out a sort of jury from it as an electoral
college, no class would be injured, and no individual
could complain, as long as the results proved good.
Nor is it true that the men called “ potwall^ers ”
in old days were in any moral sense “ elevated ” by
the Parliamentary vote. That small shopkeepers,
artizans, farmers, peasants, and the entire female sex,
are wholly unrepresented in Parliament, seems to me
a great defect, apt to involve injustice to each
class, whenever it happens to have some special
interest and rights. But to remedy the evil is a
matter of extreme difficulty.
Neither extended
suffrage, nor universal suffrage seems to me likely
to bring an alleviation, until a distant date, after
living men are in their graves.
That persons may be “ elevated ” by possessing
the suffrage, they must be able to meet, and discuss,
and form definite opinions ; and not merely vote
once in seven years, but wait upon their representa
tive and press their judgments upon him, and be
able to call him to account, or be enlightened by
his explanation. A man who needs the Ballot to
shield him, and dares not allow the colour of his
political opinions to be known,—can do none of
these things; cannot fulfil the cardinal duties of a
constituent, and is degraded, not elevated, by pos
sessing the vote. Men who are too numerous or
too distant to meet and confer, are generally a mis
chievous constituency. Cliques and “ caucuses,” or
other Clubs, unknown to the Constitution, generally
snatch power out of their hands. I cannot convince
myself that the workmen who have “ Unions” are
not often in miserable subjection to the power of a
clique. The “caucuses” of the United Stateshave
constantly enabled those who are called “ trading
politicians ” to dictate the course of public events,
owing to the President being elected by suffrage on
too vast a scale. A nation which enjoys very
�27
vigorous local institutions,—where the Parish, as well
as the State, is in high energy, and education is not
only free to all, but accepted by all,—may bear
the occasional exercise of such a vote,—and will
use it well in a time of great national tension. But
to introduce those who have no daily political duties,
no local activity, no wide political thought, into the
responsibility of voting in huge masses once in seven
years, for a Parliament which is to be “ omnipotent; "
and to expect that this will promote liberty ;—seems
to me a lamentable and wild mistake. Electors
ought to have clear opinions as to the competence
of the elected for the highest and most difficult of
the tasks which will befal him. The welfare of our
millions is sacrificed by mismanagement of remote
affairs , as to which they have little knowledge and
no care. They should be able, not only to confer
and advise one another publicly, but to keep up
active personal relations with their representative.
Any enlargement of the franchise which impedes
these processes, or makes elections more expensive,
and leaves the expense on the candidate, must (I
fear) be a change greatly for the worse. At pre
sent, the power of a minister to threaten a dissolu
tion,—which means, to threaten a fine of some
hundreds or even thousands of pounds on single
members, if the voting be not to the minister’s taste,
is a disgrace and a grave mischief.
The French Reformers in the last century, who
first inEurope conceived generous and noble ideas
of popular power, were aware that nothing but con
fusion could come of Universal Suffrage acting
directly on a central system in a populous nation.
They devised the system of Double Election ; and
in my belief were fundamentally right. But on a
sound foundation they built unsoundly. The bodies
which thus elect, ought not to exist merely for the
sake of electing. They should elect because they are
a substantive power, trusted for other high duties,
�28
and therefore trustworthy for this function also. I
will not conceal my opinion, that if the United
Kingdom were divided into Provinces, every mem
ber of the Imperial Parliament ought ultimately to
be an ambassador delegated by the direct vote of his
Provincial Council; delegated with instructions, and
each liable to be separately recalled, and replaced at
the will of the Council. Such a system, I think,
would be a virtual return to the original idea, in
which the Knights and Burgesses certainly never
represented individuals, but represented corporate
bodies. There is the very same reason for electing
the central Parliament by representative Councils,
as there is for legislating by representatives, and
not by a folkmote, when a nation is counted by mil
lions. From every Council, on an average, seven
might every year be appointed, to sit for seven years,
unless recalled. Some of the seven every year
would be selected to gratify the petition of every
order of men : thus every class would have virtual
representatives in Parliament.
Every delegate
should have an honourable stipend from his own
Council, and never be permitted to incur any -election
expenses. In this way, from a humble origin, merit
might rise, first into the local legislature or local
executive, next into central posts of honour. And
there is no such security for the welfare of the lowest
ranks, as when a sensible fraction of the Executive
Government is ordinarily filled by men who have
risen .from below. At present no such men rise, nor
can rise, even into the Legislature, extend the suf
frage as you may.
After sons of peasants and of artizans shall be
found in high places,—after the House of Peers is
popularized,—no one would despair of changes in
the tenure of landed property, such as may elevate
the entire order of the peasantry ; but if it is to be
delayed so long, the problem will be solved by
Emigration in a mode far less satisfactory to the
�29
landlord class. If landlords are wise, they will
understand their danger ; and will prefer to have a
House of Peers which shall deal with it. Surely it
is happy for the Russian nobility that the Emperor
has taken in hand the removal of serfdom, instead
of awaiting the chances of revolution.
6. That pernicious system of Centralization which
makes French legal liberty impossible, and has
gravely damaged England, in India has run riot
without controul. When the East Indian Company
overthrew local treasuries in India, and put into
their central exchequer at Calcutta the tolls of roads
and ferries of the most remote South, they per
petrated a deed which doomed their rule to be a
blight upon the land, even if the virtue of their
lowest servants had been on a par with the best.
We know by positive official statement that in con
sequence of this diversion of moneys from their
local purpose, the roads of whole kingdoms became
overgrown, and so lost, that their old course was
matter for official inquiry. This hideous blunder
remains unreversed. India has no local treasuries.
Every coin in every province is liable to be spent
in some war against Nepaul, Afghanistan, or Thibet.
War is made with the very life-blood of material
prosperity: roads and bridges, canals and tanks,
cannot be repaired during war, while their funds are
mixed with the war funds. Many have of late been
finding out, that colonists will involve us in wars
with barbarian neighbours as long as they can sup
port their wars out of the resources of the Home
Government. Not less true is it, that India will
never be without a war, as long as there is a centra
lized treasure to support it and no Parliament to
refuse supplies. Mr. Bright many years since made
an elaborate speech in Parliament, which was heard
by all sides with very respectful attention:—if he
had followed it up, and claimed inviolable local
treasuries, he would have said all that I am here
�30
pressing. He urged that every Indian Presidency
should be independent of the rest, and that each
should be in direct relation to the Home Govern
ment. India, it is often said, is a continent, not a
country,
The diversities of its inhabitants are
enormous. No one proposes for it uniform legisla
tion.
If an English ministry could be at once
convinced that India ought to be divided into many
coordinate governments, it might be a reform not of
the distant, but of the near future. Parliament
would acquiesce in any thing proposed by the
ministry. There is evidently no reason in doubting
that a Government of io million people could defend
its own frontiers against any rude neighbours or
half barbarous potentates; and a Government thus
limited, would have far less tendency to aggression
than the powerful and proud Executive of 150
millions. A Viceroy is wanted in India, not to
govern but to reign. Take away the Governor
General, and send a prince of the blood royal, to
represent the Empress Queen to the Indian princes ;
—to receive their occasional homage and their
formal applications -to be the medium of transmit
ting their diplomacy to England, or their suits to
that Imperial Court which I imagine. The Central
Executive should be a mere “ Board of Works” for
Railways, Canals, Rivers, Harbours, Post, and Mint,
without a Foreign Office, an Army, or a Navy.
India will not cease to be drained’by war expenses,
and thereby to be misgoverned, until ambitious
central despotism is destroyed.
Every point above proposed by me, (except the
neutralization of merchant vessels in time of war,
to which Lord Palmerston once gave voluntary
assent) is developed out of the single principle, that
Centralization, and the Bureaucracy which it nou
rishes, must be severely abated. If Bureaucracy is
to be depressed, something else must be elevated.
What must that be ? I say, the House of Peers
�31
and an Imperial Court of Law. This ought not to
frighten a Conservative. But the House cannot
get or keep public support,—it cannot really lead
the nation,—without a Reform. What milder reform
is possible, than is above suggested ? What more
honourable to Peerage ? The strongest Democrats
rejoice to be presided over by a popular nobleman.
To a Reformed House of Peers the warmest lovers
of liberty among us would shortly rally. . A popular
movement can only dictate principles; such as are
these: let us have true Aristocracy, not Bureaucracy:
let us have political vitality every where, restricting
Centralization to its true functions : let every class
be represented in the Legislature, and be admissible
into the Executive.
Such principles are broad enough to be popular.
Details must be directed by cultivated intelligence,
independent of the ministry of the day. Every
ministry, like a Turkish Pasha, has an intense inte
rest in the present, and a very feeble interest in the
future. To allow a ministry to dictate permanent
policy is a truly grave mistake, tending to Turkish
ruin. The ministry has a task to execute ; but a
power which has a more permanent stake in the
country should prescribe what task. When the
House of Commons looks to the ministry to lead it,
and the Lords have no popular support, what else
can be expected but short-sighted policy ?
I have said enough, yet I wish to add, that I re
gard our system of voluntary political societies, made
for special objects, as a wretched crutch, and an
enormous waste of time and money. The argumen
tations which they carry on ought to be heard on
the floor of a local constitutional assembly,—of a
parish or municipality first,—thence by transference
to a Provincial Council, through which any petitions
should ordinarily go to Parliament. Then both
sides would hear one another from the beginning;
whereas now, an elaborate process is needed, before
�32
even the best cause can get a hearing from adversa
ries, while foolish schemes linger without effective
refutation.—The case of our peasants is sad and
disgraceful; but it needs wisdom still more than
sympathy. To abolish the Law of Primogeniture
might bring no immediate visible result; but it
would excellently inaugurate a new principle, and
give some hope for the future.
WILLIAM IRWIN, PRINTER, 5, PRINCESS STREET, MANCHESTER.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
English institutions and their most necessary reforms. A contribution of thought
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by William Irving, Princess Street, Manchester.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Trubner & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1865
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5219
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (English institutions and their most necessary reforms. A contribution of thought), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Politics
Social Reform
Conway Tracts
Great Britain-Politics and Government-19th Century
Political reform
Reform
Social Reform-Great Britain-19th Century