The Press. — London, England, 1858-01-02 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JANUARY 2, 1858. we believe it to be literally, absolutely true— capable of complete and unquestionable cor roboration. But if it be true, may we not rea sonably ask how much longer such a system of abominabl' injustice and tyranny is to be endured? If Parliament does nut take this matter up, it will abdicate its function as guardian of the public liberties of England. FAIR PLAY FOR THE LANDED INTEREST. THERE is only one point in connection with the promised Reform Bill on which persons of opposite politics hold the same opinion. It is believed generally that, whatever may bo its main features, any new measure of Reform must inevitably be one depending very much upon detail. Arrangements, ad justments, and compromises of all sorts, allowances in one direction and retrench ments in another, may be looked for in any scheme which may be brought forward. A purely one-sided measure exalting the Liberal and depressing the Conservative interest would not be adopted by the House of Com mons ; and even if such a measure passed the Lower House, it would be certainly rejected by the Lords. A medley Ministry, like that of Lord PALMERSTON'S, is not likely to bring about a collision between the two Houses ; it will endeavour to steer a more cautious course. But even with specious words, and solemn assurances of fair play to all sides, Lord PAL.. MERSTON may commit himself to some scheme, which, though not directly aimed at the Con servative interest with the view of crushing it, may yet work considerable injustice. It must, therefore, never be forgotten by the Conservatives that the Reform Bill, in a party sense, has worked more unfairly than had been anticipated. The late Earl GREY, at the end of 1832, boasted in the House of Peers that " a more aristocratic measure had never " been passed by the Legislature," and Lord BROUGHAM, in one of his pamphlets against the Melbourne Ministry, reminded Earl SPENCER (the Lord Al►horp of 1831 2) that "it had " never been intended by the Reform Bill to " crush the Tory party, which had its own " natural position in the country." We quote these theta for what they aro worth; but we remember that, in a way never anticipated, the Reform Bill has worked with an augmented ratio of Radical aggression. The framers of the Bill of 1832 never supposed that the management of the Irish Liberal interest would pass out of the hands of the Irish Whigs into the priests and local demagogues. Nor was the effect of the Scotch changes calculated upon. Society in the towns and burghs of Scotland is constituted in an essentially dif ferent basis from that existing in England. Scotland has not those great professional interests which exist amongst us, nor has she an Established Church ; and hence the representatives returned for her boroughs are, for the most part, all ultraists in their Liberalism. In the wo•:king of party against party, under the Reform Bill, much injustice has been done to the English Conservative interest in consequence of the one-sided cha racter of the representation produced by the Reform Bill in Scotland and Ireland. It will, consequently, be more necessary for English Conservatives to see that the claims of property and the agricultural interest at large receive fair consideration. The main bulk of Cue House of Commons is returned by England ; and the representation of Ireland and Scotland (however important) is com paratively secondary to the grave and weighty claims arising from the land and agriculture of England. One hundred and tourty-four county members and three hundred and twenty-two borough members are allotted to the whole of England. That is to say, con siderably more than double the number of members is got by boroughs and towns against counties The numerical disproportion seems great even at the first glance; but it is still greater in a strictly political point of view, because the active social life of the towns, the facility of getting up meetings and working by the platform, and the circulation of journalism, all contribute to intensify the politics of town life, and raise its pressure to a far higher motive force than can be supplied by the counties. " Nothing," says BURKE, "is " a due and. adequate representation of a " State that does not represent its ability as " well as its property. But as ability is a " vigorous and active principle, and as property " is sluggish, inert, and timid, it never can be " safe from the invasions of ability, unless it " be out of all proportions predominent in its " representation. It must be represented, ' " too, in great masses of accumulation, or it i 3 " not rightly protected." (Reflections on the Revolution.) Now, with the help of the returns ob tained by Mr. DrsaAELI, let us see how far the landed property in counties and the investments iu agriculture are repre sented as compared with the commercial property of towns and boroughs. We will not trouble our readers with too many statistical illustrations, and our instances shall be selected with perfect fairness. In Lancashire, taken by county division, the return (p. 2) gives 4,025,492/. as the annual value of property rated under the income tax to a population of 817,515. There are fourteen boroughs in Lan cashire, including Liverpool and Manchester, and the value of their property rated under the income tax stands at 5,110,8841., with au aggregate population of 1,200,08:2. Twenty two members are assigned to these amounts of town property and population, while only four members are g iven to the great property and population of Lancashire in its county divisions. We select Lancaster first ou this occasion because its town population and property returns exceed (though not greatly) those of its county division. Here are the exact figures, and we prefix of ourselves the number of members of each borough LANCASHIRE : • Annual Value. Population: Northern Division.... £1,253,214 316,504 Southern Division.... 2,772g38 .... 500,711 £4,M5,482 817,515 And here is the return for the boroughs :- LANCASTER : limbrs Annual Value. Population. 1 Ashton•under.Lyne £107,034 .... 29,791 2 Blackburn 157,293 .... 46,536 2 Bolton 1 Bury 1 Clitherne 2 Lancaster 2 'Liverpool ...... 1,765,031 .... 373,935 2 Manchester (City) .. 1,531,9.63 .... 310,213 2 Oldham 2 Preston 1 Rochdale 1 SAllord 1 NVanington .. 2 Wigan 5,110,881 1,200,082 A mere glance at these contrasted figures shows the injustice done to the landed interest. Let us turn to a part of the country with opposite social features. Let us look to Kent. The return for the Eastern and Western Divi sions stands thus : KENT : Annual Value. Population. Eastern Division .... £1,051,079 .... 1.51,1166 Western Division .... 1,3.510 4 5 .... 231,711 Z 2,407,1264 .... 383,377 There are eight boroughs in Kent returning four teen members. Their annual value of property under the income tax stands at 930,0891., and their population is 236,463. To these figures fourteen members are given, while the enor mously larger property and population of Kent in counties (East and West) obtain only four members. We subjoin the exact return : KLsT : Mmbra. Annual Value. repulat'ol 2 Canterbury ( City) £31,528 .... 18,398 1 Chatham 80,102 .... 28,424 2 ]lover 2 Greenwich 1 Hythe 2 Maidstone 2 Rochester (City) 2 SAudwich £920,089 236,463 Let us look to the case of Devon. In its ..A purely military—why, we don't know. Such a system iu the midst of popular and free in stitutiona is a strange anomaly, and such an anomaly as requires either to be justified or given up. There are three autocratic directors of convict prisons -- three criminal triumvirs —Colonel Jona, Captain GAMBLER, and Captain O'BRIEN. The governors of convict prisons are, of course, military men. What on earth there is in the education, habits, or experience of a smart martinet in the army or navy to fit him for the office of governing convicts—an office requiring for its proper discharge a sin gular combination of high qualities—we have not the remotest means of conjecturing ; but such is Jebbism. To come, however, to one or two cases in point of the irresponsibility of the present system. The Governor of Lewes Convict Prison is a Captain WARREN, a young man who has smelt powder in India, both in the cavalry and infantry. He has, therefore, a double claim on Colonel JEBB'S admiration. The Deputy-Governor of that favoured prison is a Mr. FINNIE. The Deputy-Governor dwells in the prison, whereas the Governor comes in only at certain times. The Deputy is the person on whom the management of the con victs depends quite as much as. perhaps even more than, on the Governor. Mr. FINNIE was lately a Woolwich bombardier ! These are the two principal officers of the convict prison at Lewes, where an " Inquiry" has just taken place. This was instituted by tue senior schoolmaster of the gaol, named TuwArrEs. That gentleman thought he had reasonable ground of complaint against the Governor, Captain WARREN, and complained accordingly An " Inquiry" took place. Of course, Colonel JEBB, Captain GAMB I ER, and Captain O'BRIEN, together with an independent multitude of subordinates in the prison, all under the con trol and fear of Captain WARREN, came to the rescue of that imperilled warrior. Mr. T lIIVAIT ES was voted calumnious, and Sir G. GREY has just dismissed him—a severe and cruel step, only to be justified by excessive ill-conduct. But such is the military system ! Mr. TxwAITES is the second civil officer who has been dismissed by Colonel JEBB within the last twelve months. In December, 1856, Colonel JEBB dismissed the Rev. J. K. WAL POLE from the chaplaincy of the Defence con vict-ship, on the ground that " he had given "just and repeated offence to the superior " officers of the ship." Captain WARREN was the governor of the Defence, and Mr. FINNIE the deputy. The Defence was set fire to in June last, and the prisoners, being smoked out, were sent partly to Millbank-prison and partly to the Unite convict-ship at Woolwich, from which ship Captain WARREN and his cargo of convicts were removed to Lewes in Sep tember last. Mr. WALPOLE has acted as chap lain to criminals ifor twenty years. He is a man of excellent character ; yet he was dis missed by Colonel JEBB—deprived of his bread by that humane gentleman—for "having " given ()Irene° to the superior officers of the " ship." His offence was as follows :—He had felt it his duty to " repel t" Captain WARREN for taking the convicts out boating on Sunday, when they ought to have been attending the service of the church. He also " reported " Mr. FINNIE, for that he, the said Mr. FINNIE, being firelrik mand of the Defence, did on a certain Saturday night in September, 1856, get exceedingly drunk, in company with the steward of the same ship. The uproar created by these two Bacchanalians was such, according to Mr. WALPOLE'S statement, that it woke him. From potations, according to Mr. WALPOLE, they proceeded to cantations, and it was some way on in the small hours of Sunday morning before the revelry of the commander and steward of the ship was quiet. The chap lain very properly " reported " this ex• traordinary specimen of convict govern ment. The result of this second report, added to the enormity of his first, was that he was dtsmissed !—turtwd adrift with his wife and eight children to fare as ho might—by Colonel J Ell B. Now, we make no doubt our readers will not believe this story. We admit it to be so improbable as to be almost incredible. Yet L