The Press. — London, England, 1854-02-04 00:00:00

r• - ••T r,- - .." e 7.4 -+~. ;"i! ~_i + Ct(t rm. LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, Mt THE time has arrived when the true friends of Conservative principles can no longer hesitate as to the course which they should pursue. The "large measure of Parliamentary Reform," so long and so much talked of, is immediately to be brought forward, and is to apply not only to England, but to Scotland and Ireland. There have been many gentle-hearted persons who, to the last moment, have indulged in the pleasing self-delusion that Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Sir JAMES GRAHAM would relax from their long-matured intentions. We have never shared in that unsubstantial hope, which. it appeared to us, could not be realised without such a forfeiture of political position on the part of these two eminent and orr ... ;coma men as was not easy to contemplate. Let us remind our Madill of the progress of these purposes which now Lord JOHN and his friend are about to attempt to accomplish. It was in the year 1650 that Lord JOHN RUSSELL, as Prime Minister, resolved to make a new measure of Parliamentary Reform his party basis. He communicated his intention to his Cabinet, and employed himself, during the autumn of that year, in " sketching a measure," when he was diverted from his labours by the apparition of Cardinal WISE MAN. The Durham letter so weakened his ranks that Lord JOHN resigned in the ensuing month of February, 1851 ; and then occurred the celebrated Ministerial crisis, when, Lord DERBY (Stanley) declining to take the reins, the Court, with great wisdom, endeavoured to form an Administration by uniting the Whigs with the followers of Sir ROBERT PEEL. Such reconstructions of political parties, when founded on identity of principle and senti ment, are legitimate and beneficial. Such was the reconstruction of the Whig party by Lord GREY in 1830. When these unions take place between political connections without identity of principle and sentiment, they are not recon structions—they are coalitions, and invariably end in disaster and disgrace. In February, 1861, the anti-Protestant spirit of Lord ABERDEEN and his followers was alone sufficient to prevent the reconstruction medi tated ; but the conferences that then took place between Lord lone RUSSELL and Sir JAMES GRAHAM resulted in R. revival of the political sympathy that had formerly sub- sisted between them when members of Lord GREY'S Governme4. This renewal of inti mate relations was even ostentatiously an nounced to the country. Sir JAMES GRAHAM with some pathos asked permission in the House of Commons owe again to call Lord JOHN his " Loblo friend." The permission l 4b t 111 . ' irt Is. N • was cordially accorded, and the basis of union was announced as identity of opinion on the critical subject of an extension of the fran chise. Faithful to his purpose, Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposed in February, 1852,a" large measure" of Parliamentary Reform, including, among other extensions of the franchise, a five-pound suf frage in towns. It was rumoured at the time that, while Sir JAMES GRAHAM approved of the five-pound franchise, he was loss satisfied with other parts of the scheme. It is under stoad that he explicitly declared to the leaders of the Manchester school that no measure would satisfy him that did not con tain extensive disfranchisement of the small boroughs, and transference of their rights to the large towns. From that moment Sir JAMES GRAHAM was " looked to" by these gentlemen. On the breaking up of the Whig Cabinet, from internal dissensions which immediately followed, Sir JAMES GRAHAM seemed to sever himself from his former friends, and seated himself on the Opposition bench, next to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, as the leaders of the party of Parliamentary Reform which was to be the avowed basis of the future Adminis- opinions and subsequent vanced and so uncompromising were their opinions that it is understood Mr. Guam)43, as representing the followers of Sir ROAM PREL, felt it his duty to address a letter of remonstrance to Sir JAMES GRAHAM, and to terminate their political connection. At the period when Lord DERBY'S Admi nistration ceased; immediate war with France was expected by the whole country. This contingency did nbt affect the opinions of Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Sir JAMES GRAHAM On the subject of Parliamentary Reform. On the contrary, they made " a large measure of Parlia " mentaq Reform" the condition of their join ing the Ministry of Lord ABERDEEN, who himself placed a Radical Reformer in his Cabinet to seal the bond. --- It is clear, therefore, from these premises, that Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Sir JAMES GRA HAM have acted throughout with due delibe ration, and a deep intention. It is their grave opinion that a further measure, and a " large measure," of Parliamentary Reform is expe dient for the interests of their country. It is their grave opinion that the constitution of this country should be more democratic. That is a clear and intelligible policy. We think it a dangerous, not to say a fatal, one. But to suppose that statesmen of high reputation and vast experience should now, because it may be inconvenient to some of their hangers on, renounce a policy which they have either counselled in the most responsible posit' or recommended at the most int periods of their career, is the height of , dity and unreasonable expectation. Far Tr, this, Lord JOHN took the opportunity afforded by the first night of the session to declare opinion that delay in this matter was deprecated, and that foreign war would facilitate than impede this dowestic ration. It would be idle, therefore, for the Conser vative party to believe that they have any chance of safety except in their own energies. Let those, however, who wish to uphold the free and aristocratic settlement of this coun try, our only security for freedom and order, not despair. There are exigencies when poli tical questions are taken out of the narrower limits of party, and principles prevail more than the mere habit of association, It was not merely the warning voice of Lord DERBY that was raised in the House of Lords on Tuesday night against the dangerous innovations that are menaced. Another statesman, powerful in an illustrious name, distinguished for his capacity in affairs, and honoured for his political integrity, spoke in accent. that will be responded to by the intelligence and the public spirit of the country. Freedom owes much to the name of Grey, and, in Win ing his hereditary duty of upholding his order, the present bearer of that title conscious that he is maintaining the cause real Liberty. is ) of LORD ABERDEEN. WE have had occasion before this to notice the deportment of Lord ABERDEEN in the Houma et Lewde.i . AR is not becoming his station,, or.lhat august assembly. Though not a rhetori4n, we expect from a leader of a Ronseer"Parliament a tibtsseology which at least should not be rude, and an old diploma tist ought at any rate to be able to veil his ex citement. On Tuesday night Lord ABERDEEN absolutely called the Earl of DERBY "ft fellow " ! He even condescended specifically to attack this journal, and speak of " his " honourable, and perhaps right honourable, " calumniators in • THE PRIM' " Now, it is not very likely that Lord ABER DEEN should know anything of the writers in this journal. He knows as much about them, probably, as he did of the intentions of Prince MENSCRIXOFY, and of the resources of Turkey. It matters little what may be the status of the writers in this paper. Its influence must de pend upon what is found in its columns, and on that alone ; and its success has been occa sioned by that alone. It is written to uphold the Conservative cause, to vindicate the true principles of English party, and, by imparting to the public authentic information, to assist them in forming accurate judgments of matters of State, on which their prosperity may depend. It is written to calumniate no one ; nor would there be any necessity to have recourse to malicious misrepresentation if we wished to impress upon the country, as we do wish, that Lord ABERDEEN is an unsafe, inca pable, and dangerous Minister. A simple narrative of his long, though, comparatively speaking, obscure, career would suffice for that end. tration. A eeordingly, lap thaudiasolutiongf Parliament in the tellueieir esseeth of July. both Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Sir JAMES GRAHAM deli- vered manifestoes o* ligs of London and Carlisle, which le 0 tin the minds of Parliamentary Reformers of their present opinions and subsequent measures. So_ ad- Itl VAILlia, ositions, that end. iluential But the " calumny " appears to be a OMB' f absur- ment in " THE PRESS" that Lord ABEZDZER IS ".'ar from the author of the treaty of Adrianople. Cer- afforded tainly, we do look upon the treaty of Adriano- dare hi s ple as the sure consequence of the policy pur- ls to be sued by Lord ABERDEEN •when he was Seeratery ld rather of State in 1E429, and we are not bu t is that regeiie- opinion. It is not merely generaluniver 441: But thei his Lordship says that be was, _ No. 40.—VoL. IL LONDON, SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1854. PRICE SIXPENCE• Ii I r • , . I