MR. LOCKE KING'S MOTION.

     THERE probably never was a proposal so capable of being placed in opposite lights as this. It may be regarded, on the one hand, as a very Radical measure; but it may also, and with as good reason, be deemed, on the other, a thoroughly Conservative proposal. 

     In dealing with any projects of Parliamentary Reform, we should be careful not to neglect the lessons which we have recently received from the elections of France, and Belgium, and Sardinia. From the experience of those countries, we ascertain that not even universal suffrage, or, as it is now called, ‟manhood suffrage,” is perilous, if care be taken to balance the town population by an equal suffrage for the rural districts.

     Looking at the Continent from the high ground of realized liberty, and feeling that such nations as Belgium and Sardinia have an enormous lee-way to bring up, we are often apt to sympathize rather with the town-electors—the movement party—of Belgium and Sardinia, than with the Conservatives of those countries, the agriculturists. But, whichever party may be right in the present struggle, it is quite clear that the movement party in the towns is held in check, alike in France, and Belgium, and Sardinia, by the Conservative or priests’ party in the country districts.

     And yet, in dealing with Mr. LOCKE KING’S motion, the Conservatives often seem afraid of the result of an enlargement of the rural constituencies; whereas we believe the plain probability of the case to be that, if we could but gain more power for the rural districts, more votes and more representatives for the counties, we should end in securing, in the safest way,—a Conservative House of Commons.

     At present, the majority is gained for the Liberals by dint of the plainest injustice. It is assumed, that the voters for boroughs have a right to twice or thrice as much power as the voters for counties! Some of the Whigs have scoffed at the Attorney-General, for appearing to countenance the idea of more equal electoral districts. We believe that Sir FITZROY KELLY had well considered what he then said; and that he knew, with certainty, that more equal representative districts, and more equal rights, for town and country, would give us a much safer, a much more Conservative, House of Commons.

     Something may be gathered from the samples we already have, of representatives for the agricultural boroughs, where country-gentlemen are chosen, and where no Coppock from town disturbs the natural course of things by ‟introducing a gentleman from the Reform Club.” By ‟the agricultural boroughs,” we mean such towns as Andover, Buckingham, Chippenham, Christchurch, Cirencester, Dorchester, Guildford, Hertford, Horsham, Huntingdon, Leominster, Maidstone, Marlborough, Marlow, Midhurst, Petersfield, Shoreham, Thetford, and Wallingford. The representatives of these towns are almost invariably gentlemen of the neighbourhood. Taken as a class, they are equal to any section of the House. They are generally chosen without any improper expenditure. Their seats are gained by first securing the respect of the people. If we assume it to be probable—and we think that this may safely be assumed—that these gentlemen are a fair sample of what the ten-pound voters in counties would send into the House of Commons,—then we should say, ‟Let this class be augmented, if possible.” True, we find no Roebucks, Brights, Ayrtons, or Milner Gibsons, among their number. But, although it may be a weakness on our part, we own that we prefer the country-gentleman class to the metropolitan-demagogue class. And surely, to increase the first of these classes, in numerical strength, must be admitted to be a Conservative measure.

     But further—let us ask, whether one natural and necessary result of the success of Mr. LOCKE KING’s motion is not overlooked? It would enormously increase the county constituencies. Well, we wish them increased; because then we shall most justly demand, in the next place, a proportionate increase in the number of their representatives.

     Supposing the motion carried, and a Bill to effect this change passed, and made a law; its immediate result would be to place among the first claimants for an augmented representation nearly all the counties in England. At present, Leeds and Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham, are loud in their complaints that Buckingham, and Devizes, and Guildford, and Huntingdon should, each of them, send as many representatives to Parliament as the ‟hardware village,” with its 200,000, or ‟the cotton metropolis,” with its 400,000, inhabitants. But the moment the ten-pounders in the counties are admitted to the franchise, this cry dies away or becomes harmless. There are but some twelve or fourteen boroughs which could advance the claim to have more than two representatives. But, if such a claim were for a moment entertained, it would be instantly neutralized, for thirty or forty counties would immediately show an equal or a stronger case. Hence, if any concession were made to the mobs of the towns, on the one side, it would be much more than counterbalanced by the larger concession which must be granted to the agricultural districts on the other.

     On the whole, we sum up the case in two or three brief observations:— 

  1.    If the Liberals have, as they claim to have, a majority in the House of Commons at present, they owe that majority to the borough-representatives. 
  2.    But these borough-liberals possess an unfair advantage, inasmuch as it has been often shown, that 607,579 of electors, in the rural districts, have only 243 representatives; while 497,138 in the towns have as many as 411. 
  3.    Hence, to bring about a more just and equal representation, it is chiefly to be desired that this advantage given to the boroughs in the present system, shall, in some way or other, be discontinued. Let 100,000 men, or 10,000 electors, residing in the rural districts, have as large a share in the representation as if they dwelt in Leeds or Birmingham,—and soon we shall see the unjust preponderance of Liberals in the House of Commons cease and vanish away. 
  4.    And, as a first step to such a Conservative reform, we ought perhaps to view without any fear or regret the probable success of Mr. LOCKE KING’S motion. 

     We admit, indeed, that the Conservative feeling of dislike to a frequent meddling with the representation is worthy of respect. But we doubt whether it is possible any longer to remain silent or inactive in this matter. We believe that Lord STANLEY spoke advisedly and discreetly, when he said, at the Lynn election:—‟No one denies, in whatever part of the House he may sit, that the Reform Bill of 1832 requires some modification.” 

     And we think, also, that in attempting a reform of the Reform Bill on Conservative principles, an enlargement of the county-constituencies, to be immediately followed, or perhaps accompanied, by an enlargement of the county representation, is the very first step which ought to be taken.