would, and to gather their living under the hoofs of the horses of a
civilisation which had become an aggregate of self-seeking units. To
this they had been brought by a Parliamentary government, which, as far
as they were concerned, was no government at all; and they were
incredulous of any benefit that was to arrive to them from improvements
in a machine so barren. Thus they were looking rather with amused
indifference than active concern while the parties in the House of
Commons were fencing for the honour of being their champion.
And yet Reform was in the air. The educated mind of England had been
filled to saturation with the new Liberal philosophy. In the old days a
'freeman' was a master of his craft, and not till he had learnt to do,
and do well, some work which was useful to society did he enter upon
his privileges as a citizen. The situation was now reversed. To be
'free' was to have a voice in making the laws of the country. Those who
had no votes were still in bondage, and bondage was a moral degradation.
Freedom was no longer a consequence and a reward, but the fountain of
all virtue; a baptismal sacrament in which alone human nature could be
regenerated. In Great Britain and Ireland there were some thirty
millions of inhabitants. Of these, under the Reform Bill of 1832, three
hundred thousand only were in possession of their birthright. What
claim, it was asked, had a mere fraction to monopolise a privilege which
was not only a power in the State but the indispensable condition of
spiritual growth and progress? We heard much about generous confidence
in the people, about the political stability to be expected from
broadening the base of the pyramid, about the elevating consciousness
of responsibility which would rise out of the possession of a
vote--beautiful visions of the return of Astræa, the millennium made
into a fact by the establishment of universal liberty. Of all this
Disraeli believed nothing. No one hated empty verbiage more than he. His
dislike of cant was the most genuine part of him. But he too had once
imagined that the working-men were safer depositaries of power than the
ten-pound householders; and even old Tories, though they thought an
extension of the franchise foolish and needless, did not suppose it
would be necessarily dangerous unless accompanied with a vast
redistribution of seats. Thus, although the mass of the existing voters
were content with their privileges, and were not eager to share them,
the House of Commons had already committed itself by second readings to
the principle of Reform. The question would return upon them again and
again till it was settled, and as things stood either party had a
Parliamentary right to deal with it.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account