Econlib

The Library

Other Sites

 Front Page arrow Titles (by Subject) arrow 124.: FRENCH NEWS [31] EXAMINER, 16 OCT., 1831, PP. 665-6 - The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II

Return to Title Page for The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II

Search this Title:

Also in the Library:

Subject Area: Political Theory
Collection: The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill

124.: FRENCH NEWS [31] EXAMINER, 16 OCT., 1831, PP. 665-6 - John Stuart Mill, The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II [1831]

Edition used:

The Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume XXIII - Newspaper Writings August 1831 - October 1834 Part II, ed. Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson, Introduction by Ann P. Robson and John M. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986).

Part of: Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, in 33 vols.

About Liberty Fund:

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals.


124.

FRENCH NEWS [31]

EXAMINER, 16 OCT., 1831, PP. 665-6

For the entry in Mill’s bibliography, see No. 116. The article, headed “London, October 16,” is listed as “Article on France” and enclosed in square brackets in the Somerville College set.

the abolition of the Hereditary Peerage has passed the French Chamber of Deputies by a majority of 324 against 86.1 That it would pass, we never had the shadow of a doubt; but the greatness of the majority is wholly ascribed to the impression produced by the rejection of our Reform Bill,2 —especially as the advocates of the hereditary principle had been sufficiently ignorant of the social condition of England to imagine that our Peerage was a very strong example in their favour, and a conclusive proof of the compatibility of such an institution with the highest degree of prosperity and good government. It is seldom that a false theory in politics meets with so decisive a refutation, from the course of events, in the very nick of time; on the very day when the representatives of a great nation are called upon to pronounce, by their votes, upon the truth or falsehood of the doctrine.

As the voting was by ballot, there cannot be the slightest colour for imputing the result to personal fear of falling under public disapprobation.

The Chamber has still to decide what system of election or nomination it is disposed to substitute for the hereditary succession. Among the multitude of systems proposed, there is likely to be much difficulty in obtaining for any one the concurrence of a majority of suffrages.

The Ministerial plan leaves the nomination entirely to the King. This plan does not seem likely to obtain the assent of the majority, who have not sufficient confidence in the King to expect from him a good choice. Almost every deputy of note has, therefore, his pet scheme for restricting the royal choice by some partial introduction of the principle of popular election.

All these schemes appear to us to be bad. If a certain proportion were named by the King, and a certain proportion by the people, the two halves might be expected to act as the mere attornies of the power to which they owed their seats. They would fancy themselves placed there, not to legislate for the general good, but to defend kingly power, or popular rights. If, again, the people elect candidates, and the King makes his choice among them, it would be far better to give the choice to the people at once,—for to them it would, in reality, belong. If the King had the sole choice, but were compelled to choose from certain classes, or categories (to use the French expression), the objection would be that the widest categories cannot include all the fit persons, while the narrowest would leave ample scope for appointing unfit ones.

The best checks or restrictions which occur to us for preventing the abuse of the royal power of creating Peers, would be these:—That the ordonnance by which a Peer is created, should be countersigned by all the Ministers, and preceded by a particular statement of the merits or services which had entitled him to the Peerage; or that the Chamber of Deputies should have, not the right of electing Peers, or even candidates for the Peerage, but a negative on their appointment. Peers would then be created on the nomination of the King, with the concurrence and sanction of the Chamber of Deputies.

[1 ]Mill is reporting the vote of 10 Oct. on an amendment that in effect abolished an hereditary peerage; the law in full (see No. 115, n1) was not enacted until 29 Dec.

[2 ]Early in the morning of 8 Oct., after five days’ debate, the House of Lords rejected the second version of the Reform Bill by a majority of forty-one (PD, 3rd ser., Vol. 8, col. 340). Parliament was prorogued on 20 Oct., and reconvened on 6 Dec. to consider the third version, “A Bill to Amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales,” 2 William IV (12 Dec., 1831), PP, 1831-32, III, 1-54, which passed and was enacted as 2 & 3 William IV, c. 45 (7 June, 1832), the first Reform Act.