The Press. — London, England, 1857-06-06 00:00:00

JUNE 6, 1857. f ittraturt. The True Theory of Representation in a State. By George Harris, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. London : Long mans. Tuts philosophical tract is ono of the earliest essays upon the rising question of Par i mentary Reform. Before next Christmas we i shall probably be called upon in our critical duties to take cognisance of many crude schemes, and we may anticipate an extraor dinary variety of views upon the fertile subject of Parliamentary Reform, and Abbe Sieyes and his pigeon-hales will often be recalled. It is now a long time since any works of sterling value have been added to the English politi cian's library. Newspapers and quarterly organs have almost extinguished the race of independent and unconnected political writers, and whilst the "we " has gained by force of organisation, the " I " of the pamphleteer and of the political essayist has lost in strength, and has become insulated and disregarded. Political authors, strictly so called, have been lately out of fashion. Journalism seems to have crushed them out ; the reading public does not care for able dissertations, and it prefers taking its parliamentary literature from the newspapers. Politics in England, it would appear, have passed out of the region of specu lation. The science of Government must, amidst our practical people, be ministered to by men of action ; these latter in their turn, no doubt, must be largely influenced by the opinions, and oven the prejudices, of the power ful classes of whose interests they take care. In such a state of things, a mere closet philo sopher has but little chance of making the still, small voice of deep reflection prevail amidst the din of clubs, of platforms, of public meetings, and of newspapers. We do not complain that such should be the case, but we confess to a desire that the public mind, from time to time, was addressed by in tellects which could apply to political questions more profound thought and less partisanship than can be expected from professional public writers. The political literature of the last twenty years has few volumes worth retaining in the statesman's study, and the leading speakers in Parliament are generally too occu pied with their sessional labours to apply their mental powers to subjects upon which they might possibly waste their time and trouble. The case, therefore, as to the dearth of origin ality in our 'political literature stands thus : those most capable of thoroughly discussing a deep subject are too occupied with the active duties of their station ; while (with few excep tions) the philosophical intellects which may be sought at Oxford, Cambridge, and else where, are not practically conversant with the social aspirations of the age, and with the exact degree of urgency with which certain ideas should be pressed. " Les acteurs sont " trop interesses ; lee spectatturs sont trop " peu instruits." These remarks apply to the thoughtful but incomplete tract before us. Its author's lead ing idea is that " the true theory of represen " tation in a State should be on the basis of "the leading interests of a nation, and not " upon the mere predominance of numbers." In that fundamental view we entirely concur with the author, but when he comes to apply his "principles" he betrays unacquaintance with the practical aspects of the case that must be dealt with in the next session of Parliament. We are glad, however, to see the position laid down that " the leading interests" should be represented, because undoubtedly the Conservative interests have suffered from the downward course of that school of states. manship which had no fixed views, but which took its "opinions " (so called) from the last state of the poll. Mr. Harris thus propounds his views on "the leading interests of a State" : The definition and adjustment of these different, co. existent, and often contending interests, may appear to be a task of considerable difficulty, and may admit of very wide discussion. On the whole, however, I believe that thoy may all be comprised under the following six, being Om of: I. 'Virtue, 11. Intelligence, 111. Order, THE PRESS. IV. Property. V. The Professional Interest. VI. The Popular Interest. This analysis of interests is too arbitrary, and is inconsistent. " Virtue" is purely ethical, whereas the other interests are positive and social. But we must allow some latitude to every propounder of a theory. Mr. Harris afterwards explains what he means by the " interest of virtue ": The first and leading interest in a State is that which is most aptly denominated by the general term of Virtue, including here both religion and morality, and comprising completely and comprehensively that principle of recti tude which insures in the possessor of it an absolute and unerring resolution to discharge his duty to the full ex tent, both to his Creator and his fellow-creatures; and which induces each person ever to adopt that which is essentially right in itself as his first and highest aim. The predominance of such a principle is essential to the right conduct both of an individual and of a State. If it be contended that such an interest as this ought not to form an independent one in the representative body, inasmuch as every single representative should be indi vidually and mainly influenced by this principle; I would reply that, while I admit the latter proposition to the full, yet it is because this interest is so essential that—at any rate until it can be proved to be really and practically pre dominant in a representative assetnbb—it is all important that the interest of virtue have a distinct and independent representation of ita own. Many of the individuals who constitute a representative assembly may be men of property and of commercial eminence. But this is surely no reason why property and commerce should not obtain a due and independent representation in such a body. And he then explains how, according , to his conception, that " interest .of virtue ' is at present represented:— The lull:anent interest here alluded to is indirectly re presented in the House of Commons, and also in the House of Lords—which, though not considered as the representative assembly of the nation, is, and acts as such, in many respects—by the religious belief and moral cha racter of the members of these bodies. The influence of this interest, as regards the religious belief and opinions of the representatives, is also secured by the oath imposed upon members of Parliament. This interest is directly represented by the presence of the bishops in the House of Lords, the object of which was admirably stated by Lord Eldon to be " not to make the Church political, but the State religious." But as there is already what Burke called " an oblation of the State," by means of the Established Church, it may be questioned whether the " interest of virtue" is not of too fanciful a character to erect any solid con clusions upon. Elsewhere, however, the author succeeds much better. We believe that the professional interest is swamped by the influence of mero numbers, and what Mr. Harris says on this subject is well worth notice : The Professional Interest—comprising that of the different professions and trades, and the interests of industry generally, of every variety, including therein labour and production of each kind, manufacture and ex change, import and export, traffic and commerce, and their due protection and regulation—may be considered as forming a distinct and independent one of itself, and ap pears next to demand representation in the national assembly. In every State where professions and trades are carried on, the interest of these bodies, and the main tenance of their rights and privileges, must constitute a very important one in the community. Consequently, such an interest ought to obtain its due share of influence in the representative body of the nation. It may be observed that the professional interest is dis tinct from that of property, inasmuch as while the profes sional interest is that which mainly relates to the regula tion of the producticn of property, the interest of property, on the other hand, relates mainly to its preservation when so produced, or otherwise obtained. These several professions and trades, so varying in their nature, differ much as to their present proportionate share in the representation. Thus the legal profession is indirectly represented by the numerous members of it who are to be found in both houses. The medical profession, though a most important one, has, in comparison with the former, a very small share of representation in either house. Assuming that his system of "interests" is laid down on a correct basis, there is vigorous logic in the following application of his principles : As regards the representation of the higher interests of the State already defined and classified, how many men of learning, information, and intelligence, who were returned to Parliament for " rotten boroughs," have been entirely excluded by the Reform Act ? Mr. Burke, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Canning, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Sadler, Sir Charles Wetherell, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Croker, and Mr. Macaulay, were all introduced to Parliament through, and sat during the greater portion of their career for rotten boroughs. Have Finsbury and the Tower Hamlets, or Manchester and Birmingham, sent men who represent the interests of the State comprehended in Classes 1., 11., T 11., IV., and V., as the rotten boroughs did ? How are our great colonial interests, which are comprehended in Classes IV. and V.—and the well-being of which is in separably connected with the welfare of every other inte rest in the State-r-now represented and protected ? 559 The Whig Reform Bill of 1832 failed doubly. It did not introduce men of genius into the Legislature, and it localised the representa tion. It failed in other respects also. Could a Henry Brougham represent a large coned. tuency and take so active a part in the Legis lature as was performed by the orator who represented Tavistoek and Knaresborough, but who never had a large constituency until 1830 ? This question applies to many other eminent barristers, and to gentlemen without large pecuniary resources. Mr. Harris then boldly proceeds to the com plete development of his plan. He is in favour of a disfranchisement of the smaller boroughs, and a transference of their repre sentatives to the various leading chartered and incorporated institutions and public bodies, whether learned, professional, or com mercial, the members belonging to each being privileged to vote for one representative He would carry out his system in the following manner : University of Oxford .. University of Cambridge Metropolitan University Number of Members for each Society. University of Durham .. 2 University of Edinburgh 2 University of Glasgow .. 2 University of Aberdeen University of Dublin .. 4 The four Inns of Court, in London, two each 8 Professional body of Attorneys and Solicitors in England .. Society of Advocates in Scotland .. 6 Professional body of Writers to the Signet in Scotland .. The four Courts, including the Society of Barristers, in Dublin Professional body of Attorneys and Solicitors in Ireland .. .. 3 The College of Physicians in London .. 4 The College of Surgeons .. 2 Edinburgh College of Physicians .. 3 Edinburgh College of Surgeons 1 Dublin College of Physicians .. .. 3 Dublin College of Surgeons 1 Royal Military Colleges Royal Naval Colleges .. 3 Royal Society .. .. 4 Society of Arts .. .. 3 Edinburgh Royal Society .. .. 2 Dublin Royal Society .. . • 2 The English Royal Academy .. .. 2 The East India Company .. 4 The various Colonial Companies .. 4 The Bank of England .. 3 This is what many will consider a most wild pro position. There is no precedent in it, and it is impossible to say where the line of incor poration could be drawn. He goes on to tabulate several new incorporated bodies, which would give fifty-six additional members ; and he actually proposes to include insurance, canal, and railway companies, and he even. proposes to give three members to the " London Stock Exchange "! It is obvious that such a system is too crude, although a certaia portion of truth may be assigned to it. It is without prece dent ; it is bureaucratic, and would not be essentially representative of " opinion." It creates another sort of "class interests," and it is exposed to the charge of introducing politics, with the necessary partisanship, into learned. and academical bodies. Once, also, that such a scheme was accepted, we may calculate upon hosts of incorporated candidates claiming a share in the representation. If four members (as this learned author suggests) were as signed to " English Insurance Companies," and a member given to the " London Chamber of Commerce,' we are entitled to ask, where is a test to be applied? Why, on that basis, should not the Athenaeum Club, or the United Service, have a brace of members ? The " bay-window interest" of White's would. claim a couple of members ; and even the great gossip interest of the chatty and amus ing Garrick might ask for at least one repre sentative for its small talk in " the library," or " the lobby," or the " smoking-room." It would be easy to play with this part of the subject, but, fully recognising the gravity of this momentous question of Parliamentary Reform, we are not inclined to the use of per siflage on so serious a theme. In considering the feasibility of such a scheme as Mr. Harris proposes, let us recol lect the invaluable suggestions made by Mr. Disraeli in his masterly speech at Newport Pagw4l. After pviutOly diseiaiMillic 4611 7 aP'