The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-11-19

Of justice, the Liberals have re-
solved to put an end to IL.
Some of the objections made by the
Unionist opposition deserve the laughter
which they excited, such, for example,
as the complaint that the abolition of
plural voting would deprive many men
Of rights which they had possessed
from time immemorial and the assertion
that the proposed innovation would vio-
late the principle Of franchise reform,
which hitherto had extended but never
restricted the suffrage. The prOponent
of the latter objection must have for
gotten the effect produced on the
b~enefciaries of unjust privileges by the
suppression Of rotten boroughs. The
ingenuity Of Mr.. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,
lately Chancellor Of the Exchequer,
brought forward a more plausible reason
for opposing the Ministerial project.
! Suppose, he said, that a nan held two
qualifications for voting, one in the
county of Worcester, where his home
| was and where be owned much property,
| and one in the county Of London, where
his profession or business compelled
him to spend much OF his time. Sup
pose that. as a matter Of convenience,
he chose to vote in the county Of London,
but that subsequently, a bill came up in
Parliament seriously affecting the in
terests of the county Of Worcester, in
which his property lay. As he had not
voted in Worcester the member from
that county might disregard his protest.
Ex-Prcmier BALPoUR declared that
there was a solid basis for Mr.. CHAMBER
LAIN's argument in the practice OF the
House, every member being expected
not only to look after the imperial in
terests of the country, but also to look
after the interests OF the particular
locality which he represented. Now, the
bill suppressing plural voting virtually
said to a man possessing large interests
and paying large taxes in q given locality:
You shall have no voice in selecting
the member to represent that place.
The conclusive rejoinder was that il a
man preferred to vote in the country
rather than in the city he was at liberty
to do so, and that il he chose to invest
money outside OF the district in which
he resided, that was something for which
he was solely responsible.
What chiefly protracted the debate
was the assertion that the ultimate effect
of the bill would be to d~isfranchise the
universities. As things now stand an
NJ. A. of Oxford who lives, let us say.
in Devonshire may vote in that county
and may also vote for a member repre-
senting his university. He will have to
choose between them if Mr.. HARCoURT's
measure is enacted. He will probably
choose TO vote at home, and thus the
number of votes cast in the University
of Oxford will tend to shrink until it cor
responds to the number of men perma-
nently in residence. When the minimum
is reached there will be presented a
strong case for abolishing the system by
which members OF Parliament are allotted
to universities. Now, in Mr.. BALFoUR's
opinion, the suppression of university
representation would be a grievous
mistake. That representation is the sole
vestiRe in the British Constitution of
an educational qualification for q vote.
Mr.. HERBERT PAUL, who replied to him,
denounced university representation as
a sham, pointing out that at Oxford,
for example, the educational test for a
b. A. degree is by no means severe, and
that TO pass the test does not suffice, be-
cause one must also pay e25 for an NJ. A.
degree in order to vote. He went on to
maintain that, tried by results, univer-
sity representation a a failure, for
Oxford discarded Mr.. GLADSTONE, than
whom few men have been better quail
fled to represent a seat of learning, and
it threw out Sir ROBERT PEEL because,
although a Protestant, he desired TO do
justice to his Catholic fellow subjects,
and substituted for him one Sir ROBERT
INGLIs. Mr.. PAUL recalled that it was
on that occasion that MAcAULAY wrote
the lines;
" Then called out all the Doctors in the Divinity
School:
Not this man. but Sir RosEEr,' Now. Sir ROB
ERT was a fool"
1t is, indeed, probable enough that uni
versity representation would not long
survive the abolition of plural voting.
But will the House of Lords permit Mr..
HARCoURT's bill TO become a law? A
prediction to the contrary was made by
a Unionist member OF the House OF Com
mons. But we can scarcely believe that
hereditary legislators would now ven-
ture to prescribe the qualifications for
Parliamentary franchise, though they
nave done it before, and had to be bullied
into assent to the Reform act of 1892 by
the threat of a Wholesale creation of new