The Press. — London, England, 1857-10-31 00:00:00

1050 body is desirous of forcing it on at any cost ; but the Ministerial Whigs have not yet made up their mind upon giving battle upon it, and yet they do not well know how to retreat. We must, however, r3mind the Conserva tives that for several years past the " Libe rals " have used the subject of Reform as a sort of threat. They have always pretended to be in earnest, in spite of the fact that the Whigs of Brookes's sill not readily part with their boroughs. Would not " large consti tuencies" knock up the "families" of the Whigs ? Could the " Liberal" connection possibly hope for better terms than it received 1532 ? How could the " outsiders " be managed under a new Reform Bill ? These are questions which worry the managers of the Liberal party. . . . . To many persons it is abundantly evident that " Reform " now-a-days is falling into the same condition as it was a century since. It was a great subject to make a noise about for thirty years before the French Revolution broke out, but nothing was ever done about it until 183 l ; and the late Earl GREY boasted that the bill which his Cabinet passed was the most aristocratic measure that ever Parlia ment enacted. Lord JOHN RUSSELL then hoped that the country would accept the bill as a final one, but no sooner was a new Par liament summoned, in 1833, than further de mands were made. The Ballot was at once taken up for the sake of a cry, and secret suffrage would now be the law of the land but for the resistance of the Conservatives. Other cries also have been raised, and the Liberals da not know how to shape a measure which they would dare to present to Parliament. The fact is, that the return moved for by Mr. DISRAELI (25th August) has frightened the managers of the Liberal party. In the face of that most important document they could not venture to assert that the Conserva tive wealth and connection in the community have their adequate proportion of representa tives. The great standing interests of the Church and the Land are much overborne by the members of mushroom towns and streets of dismal factories, politely called " cities." In every commercial crisis we see how little the wealth of these petty new towns in the north can be relied on. They look statistically formidable, and to a railway tourist they seem solid and substantial. But when closely examined they are frequently found to be de pendent on four or five " capitalists," and a commercial "crash" shatters them with fear ful rapidity. They are not to be compared with the solid old towns, whose prosperity is a thing of time. A breath can make them, as &breath has made. Their leading persons often turn out to be men of straw, and the hollowness of their social structure is often made visible in long lines of workmen without masters or wit4es, and in vast fabrics, where the blaze of the furnace is not seen, nor the stroke of the hammer ever heard. For the great hives of genuine manufac turing industry we entertain high respect. But it is too much the custom to suppose that a couple of great factories built on the banks of a narrow stream, with long rows of cottages, a lathe-and-plaster imitation of a. Gothic church, half a dozen "publics," and a showy dispensary, can be called a " town." Smart writers and speakers give a glance at it hastily, and talk of the " masses " collected in it. They do not look further than appear ances. They talk and think of the " middle classes" in connection with these agglomera tions of individuals which " flourish and fade " with ephemeral rapidity. In point of fact, there is often no genuine "middle class" in these petty " towns," and the capitalists who have run them up are in debt to the local banks, which too often stop payment. The sound and the unsound, the real and the false, the sickly and the strong, are nowhere so jumbled together as in some of the third class . new towns of the north of England. In a political point of view, the representa tion of those third .class new towns becomes an important subject for reflection. Do they introduce a new and thoughtful body of sena tors into Parliament? Are not the memoers for those places mere factory-lords and little THE PRESS, OCTOBER 31, 1857. more ? Would not their head clerks make just as good legislators? These are questions we are entitled to ask in the face of the indis• putable truth that the Reform Bill has added so few names of lustre to the annals of the House of Commons. In England people wish, after all, that names and properties should be represented. An old name has a utilitarian value apart from its sentiments worth. It is identified with a locality, an Englishmen like asspeiations, and would no endure being ruled by what Lord DERBY once happily called " a nOited democracy," void of the ennoblipg moral influences which come from long-tried friendship and the memory of generations of honour. A large portion of the Whigs admit the existence of those feelings, and feel that such prejudices are both whole some and national. Hence one of their prime difficulties in a new Reform Bill. They think that the country has had quite enough of new constituencies, and they do not want to have more of them. Other difficulties also stagger the Whigs. The present state of the Scotch representa tion is most unjust to the Conservative classes in that country. The Conservatives of the towns in Scotland are virtually unrepresented. Yet it is notorious that a considerable portion of the professional classes in Scotland are Con servative, and in the great reaction which took place against the Reform Bill petitions Scotland eminently signalised itself. The in fluence of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland, and the way in which Protestant pro perty and influence have been crushed by mere numbers, must, also, he remedied. The time has come when the country has a right to know, from authority, what Ministers intend to do about keeping their promise. They got a certain amount of poli tical capital by taking credit for a new mea sure, and we again ask, " Are we to have a " new Reform Bill in 1858 ?" ROMAN CITIZENS. WITH all our boasts of liberty, enlightenment, and progress, the time has not yet arrived when we can afford to neglect the insults of despotism. The world's horizon is as yet cloudy and ominous. We may have faith in the appearance of a brighter sky, but we can not tell how long it will delay. The long, low line of light has not yet showel itself. We firmly believe that despotism is as strong now as it was a hundred years ago. Possibly even stronger, for it is winning over the educated and literary classes, who heretofore were its firmest enemies. Furthermore, it is becom ing clearer and clearer to the old absolutist Powers that they are, to use a popular vul garism, "all in the same boat." Hence has arisen a more intimate union between them than modern history has ever before known, and a proportionately greater danger to the freedom of the rest of mankind. " They may " give one another at odd times a stab with a " dirk, or a slash with a claymore," as Bailie Jarvie said of the Highlanders, but they will join together in the long run against all con stitutional Powers. Nor, if we look " further a field," is the prospect more encouraging. In the West slavery is rampant, and is even now gaining new triumphs. In the East a rebellion more horrible than our colder imagination could have pictured has proved how fallaciously we had relied on the result of missionary labours and the influence of the Christian religion. Englishmen, however, notwithstanding numerous and grave shortcomings, may still, we hope, justifiably repeat the eloquent lines of Lord WELLESLEY : Una etenim in mediis gens intemerata minis Libertate probil et justo libramine rerum Servat adhuc hominumque &leak curamque Deomm. At least, let us hope we still make an effort to do so. But let us never forget what fearful odds there are against us. Lord PALMERSTON is a classical scholar; the civitas Romana is his special favourite, and, should he honour our colu tnns with a glance, will appreciate the above quotation—especially the last line. Has it, however, never occurred to him that the circumstances which regulate his own conduct at home may never be taken into account by those who are watching us abroad? He may ave wellent reasons at i one time for bullyin , and at anothe r ti me f or treating with defe bee, States weaker th an ourselves. It may e at one moment more important to him te angle for popularity in England, at another to cAnciliate conti nen t a l Sovereigns. Bat the arßid will reek little of these distinctions.- tliwty act of obsequious ness towards a foreign despot will be accepted as evidence that England, too, is yielding to the torrent. Opinions beget events. What this country is thought to be she may gra dually become; and there can be no doubt that constant vigilance is necessary on the part of the public to take care Ministers do not shirk their responsibilities ; that they are ,ever ready to protest against the smallest encroachments, arid redress the grievances of the humblest ; and that they shall never be allowed to weigh the stability of their Cabinet against the reputation of England. What has given rise to the above observa tions is a circumstance simple enough in it self, and to be described in a very few words. Two Englishmen engaged as engineers on board a Neapolitan steamer, were taken pri soners with a cargo of rebels during the late insurrection. Though, as may naturally be supposed, these poor fellows had about as much to do with the insurrection as a York shire ploughboy, they were both thrown into prison, where they have remained for two months undergoing the treatment of felons. The King positively refuses to release them, and up to the present moment we have bowed to that potentate's pleasure. Wo wonder how the Americans would have behaved to the Neapolitan authorities in such an emergency. We cannot help suspecting that some of the " critturs," had they hesitated to respect the majesty of the Stars and Stripes, would have made acquaintance with that celebrated Western magistrate, whose decrees are more famed for the rapidity with which they are executed than the deliberation with which they are framed. But however that may be, we would ask Lord PALMERSTON one or two simple questions. Does he know the Englishmen are prisoners ? Does he care? If so, why does he not have them released, for he must know he could if he chose ? Is he afraid of the consequences? If so, from whom ? Not from Naples, it is obvious. Then it must be from the friends of Naples. And in either case, what becomes of our boasted citi zenship ? Is it only safe from the outrages of the feeble ? Greece " had no friends," and Lord PALMERSTON could hit her with im punity. But it is quite another affair, it would appear, with the King of NAPLES. Conservative opinions must always be to some extent in favour of legitimate Governments. It is the personal character of the King of NAPLES that demands our constant interference. His Government is a regular monarchy administered by his ancestors for centuries, and must necessarily be to some ex tent adapted to the wants of the people, and at all events as good as anything likely to be got by a violent change. It is just because we do not wish to see a revolution, that we do wish to see interference, in Neapolitan affairs. Here, too, is a case in which the honour of England is con cerned, and with it that of constitutional go vernment everywhere. We commend it to the attention of Ministers. A CANDID CABINET MINISTER. THERE are few men in public life who occupy so peculiar a position as the Noble Lord holding the Privy Seal. It would be impossible, we believe, even for his most intimate friends, to say whether Lord HARROWBY is a Whig or a Tory. He has for a quarter of a century changed about between both with such sys• tematic facility that nobody can anticipate on which side ho will show his front. Nature never intended the Noble Earl for an opera dancer, and yet his pirouettes in public life arc not unworthy of a political Coulon, or a Par• liamentary Vestris. His style of statesman•