The Press. — London, England, 1858-05-08 00:00:00

“ TH E CASE BEING ALTERED, THAT ALTERS THE CASE.” TIIERE is something mysterious about Mr. LOCKE Kiss and his periodical appearance upon the Parliamentary arena. Generally connected with a Ministerial crisis, he manages to create con fusion and dismay, alike among his friends and f e es, without advancing one whit the peculiar question which enjoys the privilege of his especial patronage. In 1851, he carried a motion on the county franchise, identical in all its details with that which received the sanction of the House of Commons on Thursday, the 22nd of April. He was then (in 1851) fruitlessly opposed by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, and though no real progress was made with the proposed measure, the Liberal Ministry was compelled to resign. Again, in 1857, he all but defeats the Government of Lord PALsts.swrox upon the same question, backed, in this instance, by his former antagonists ; and thus shakes the position and damages the prestige of a powerful Minister. After having dealt out such hard measure to his own political friends, it can hardly surprise us now to meet him again on the stage, assailing his Conservative opponents (just new to their official position), for refusing to concede the reform which their Whig prede cessors have systematically withheld. But, Cui bono ? The question remains just where it was, taken up as a weapon of offence, wielded for a brief season, and then suffered to drop. In each case the increase of the county franchise has been advocated by independent members of the Libe ral connection, and warmly resisted by the re sponsible advisers of the Crown, of all parties and every section. It is as painful as it is humi liating to trace through all their doublings and shiftings the career of the Liberal leaders. When the increase of the county franchise was first proposed by Mr. LOCKE KING, by conferring votes upon ten-pound householders, non resident within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs, it was resisted by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, upon what appeared, from his own point of view, irrefragable reasoning. " You " are going," he said, " to establish uniformity " of suffrage in counties and boroughs—that is a " principle to which I can never consent ; I too " would extend the suffrage at the proper time, " but not in the mode pointed out by this Bill." This objection went to the very heart of the measure : it had, however, but little weight with his Liberal adherents; and Lord Jolts was glad to fall back upon the support of his Con servative opponents. In 1857, a change takes place in the posture of affairs—Lord PALMERS- ToN, the then occupant of office, repeats and indorses the old argument of his rival, who, in the new character of an independent member, gives his support to Mr. LOCKE KING and his innovating associates. Not that he expresses at this time any approval of the principle of the Bill; on the contrary , himself from guarding any such supposition;he records his vote on the special gr oun d th at L or d P ALMERSTON is evasive and unsatisfactory upon the general question, and he supports the measure as one pledging the House to embark upon the subject of Reform. The assistance of the Conservatives was again invoked, and, amidst the cheers of his opponents and the ill-concealed aversion of his adherents, Lord PALMERSTON triumphs over his political friends. Again the scene shifts. Lord DERBY is Prime Minister, and Mr. LOCKE KLNG presses forward hitclaim. The motion is as before re sisted by the Gover nmen t, b u t u p on groun d s essentially different to those taken by their pre decessors. " The proposed alteration may be good," says Mr. DISRAELI, "but this is not the :time to make it. Next year we intend to bring „ forward a comprehensive scheme of Reform, „ and your Bill wo u ld i n t er f ere w ith th e sco p e of its general design." Surely, nothing could be more reasonable than this. The Independent Liber a l s, as before, follow in the wake of their THE PRESS, MAY - 8, 1858. former Leader, and will brook no delay. This was to be expected, and of it we do not complain. Lord JOIIN RUSSELL again supports Mr. Loom KING, but, for the, rst time, bases his argument upon the principle of the measure. Lord PALMERSTON conveniently absents himself from the House, while the bulk of the ex-Ministerials, headed by Mr. LABOUCHERE as their mouthpiece, swell the numbers of the more legitimate opposition. It is to the conduct of the late Colonial Secretary and his friends we would more particularly direct attention. Last year, aided by the Conserva tives, they defeated Mr. LocKE KING, appealing to their unwonted allies on the ground of principle alone; this year they discover that the question admits of' no delay; they will not even wait for the introduction of the promised Reform Bill ; but press on, heedless of all risk, forgetting their own recorded declarations, for the sole pur pose of embarrassing a hostile Administration. Mr. LABOUCILERE entered upon his own explana tions in the debate that ensued; and, with a candour which some might call effrontery, pleaded guilty to the charge of faction. " When we voted " against the Bill, ' he said, "a Liberal Ministry " was in power; now that a Government in " which we repose no confidence has succeeded " it, our votes must vary with the change of cir " cumstances" ! Such an unblushing avowal of opposition for opposition's sake was hardly ever made within the walls of the House of Com mons. How can Mr. LABOUCHERE and his asso ciates justify to themselves the course adopted by them in 1857 and that followed in 1858? Either they were right in the one instance or in the other; in both they cannot be ; and thus they stand convicted out of their own mouths of reckless partizanship and unparalleled faction. One word upon the in trinsic merits of the measure before us ; we have done with the motives of its supporters. Practi cally there is no good reason why the occupants of ten-pound houses in the country should not possess an equal share of political power with the residents within the limits of Parliamentary boroughs, for they are an important and substan tial class, with quite a sufficient stake in the country to be trusted with the privileges proposed to be intrusted to them. This was frankly ad mitted by Mr. DISRAELI ; but there is an objec tion, and a very sound one, to the passing at the present moment of an isolated measure which, however good, would by itself aggravate existing inequalities. A change, wise and good as an ele ment in a comprehensive measure, would become partial and indefensible were it to stand separate and alone. The Whig Leaders probably foresaw all this, and, apprehending all the party advantages re sulting from it, pressed on the measure with an eagerness which betrayed their secret object. Mr. DISRAELI was too acute not to penetrate the trans parent veil; but, favourably contrasting in this respect with his Liberal predecessors, he resisted the Bill on the legitimate plea of delay—and delay alone. There he may safely and honourably take his stand, and if, misled by faction, or blinded by party zeal, his opponents still urge forward this partial, and therefore ill-timed measure, public opinion will still do justice to his manly protest. MR. LOCKE KING'S MOTION. THERE probably never was a proposal so capable of being placed in opposite lights as this. It may be regarded, on the one hand, as a very Radical measure ; but it may also, and with as good reason, be deemed, on the other, a thoroughly Conservative proposal. In dealing with any projects of Parliamentary Reform, we should be careful not to neglect the lessons which we have recently received from the elections of France, and Belgium, and Sar dinia. From the experience of those countries, we ascertain that not even universal suffrage, or, as it is now called, " manhood suffrage," is perilous, if care be taken to balance the town population by an equal suffrage for the rural districts. Looking at the Continent from the high ground of realized liberty, and feeling that such nations as Belgium and Sardinia have an enormous lee- 435 way to bring up, we are often apt to sympathize rather with the town-electors—the movement party—of Belgium and Sardinia, than with the Conservatives of those countries, the agricultu rists. But, whichever party may be right in the present struggle, it is quite clear that the move ment party in the towns is held in check, alike in France, and Belgium, and Sardinia, by the Conservative or priests party in the country districts. And yet, in dealing with Mr. ImeKE KixG's motion, the Conservatives often seem afraid of the result of an enlargement of the rural con stituencies; whereas we believe the plain proba bility of the case to be that, if we could but gain more power for the rural districts, more votes and more representatives for the counties, we should end in securing, in the safest way,—a Conservative House of Commons. At present, the majority is gained for the Liberals by dint of the plainest injustice. It is assumed, that the voters for boroughs have a right to twice or thrice as much power as the voters for counties! Some of the Whigs have scoffed at the Attorney-General, for appearing to countenance the idea of more equal electoral districts. We believe that Sir FITZROY KELLY had well considered what he then said ; and that he knew, with certainty, that more equal repre sentative districts, and more equal rights, for town and country, would give us a much safer, a much more Conservative, House of Commons. Something may be gathered from the samples we already have, of representatives for the agri cultural boroughs, where country-gentlemen are chosen, and where no Coppock from town dis turbs the natural course of things by "intro ducing a gentleman from the Reform Club." By " the agricultural boroughs," we mean such towns as Andover, Buckingham, Chippenham, Christchurch, Cirencester, Dorchester, Guildford, Hertford, Horsham, Huntingdon, Leominster, Maidstone, Marlborough, Marlow, Midhurst, Petersfield, Shoreham, Thetford, and Walling ford. The representatives of these towns are almost invariably gentlemen of the neighbour -1 hood. Taken as a class, they are equal to any section of the House. They are generally chosen without any . improper expenditure. Their seats are gained by first securing the re spect of the people. If we assume it to be pro bable—and we think that this may safely be assumed—that these gentlemen are a fair sample of what the ten-pound voters in counties would send into the House of Commons,—then we should say, "Let this clam be augmented, if possible." True, we find no Roebucks, Brights, Ayrtons, or Milner Gibsons, among their num ber. But, although it may be a weakness on our part, we own that we prefer the country-gentle man class to the metropolitan-demagogue class. And surely, to increase the first of these classes, in numerical strength, must be admitted to be a Conservative measure. But further—let us ask, whether one natural and necessary result of the success of Mr. LOCKE KiNu's motion is not overlooked ? It would enormously increase the county constituencies. Well, we wish them increased ; because then we shall most justly demand, in the next place, a proportionate increase in the number of their representatives. Supposing the motion carried, and a Bill to effect this change passed, and made a law ; its immediate result would be to place among the first claimants for an augmented representation nearly all the counties in England. At present, Leeds and Manchester, Liverpool and Birming ham, are loud in their complaints that Bucking ham, and Devizes, and Guildford, and Huntingdon should, each of them, send as many representa tives to Parliament as the " hardware village," with its 200,000, or " the cotton metropolis," with its 400,000, inhabitants. But the moment the ten-pounders in the counties are admitted to the franchise, this cry dies away or becomes harmless. There are but some twelve or four teen boroughs which could advance the claim to have more than two representatives. But, if such a claim were for a moment entertained, it would be instantly neutralized, for thirty or forty counties would immediately show an equal or a stronger case. Hence, if any concession were made to the mobs of the towns, on the one side, it would be much more than counterbalanced by the larger concession which must be granted to the agricultural districts on the other. A