The Press. — London, England, 1854-02-25 00:00:00

170 Honourable Member always was, " Only admit " the theory to be just, and I will very soon " prove that its application will be practi " cally beneficial." The theory on which Mr. COBDEN and his allies have founded their demand for reform is, that representation should be in proportion to numbers. Starting from this point, many discrepancies have been dwelt upon, and many harangues have. followed on the superior claims of large con stituencies as compared with small. But an examination into the statistics of the con stituencies in the aggregate demonstrates that, arguin g from their own premises, the results at which Messrs. COBDEN and Baicarr should arrive are exactly the reverse of what they would wish. At present the constituencies may be fairly stated to be divided into three distinct classes—counties, small boroughs, and cities or large towns, each of these hav ing a separate and distinct character of its own. Now, if we assume that boroughs con taining less than 10,000 inhabitants may be considered small boroughs, an analysis of 465 constituencies will give the following results 69 counties, or divisions of counties, with a population of 9,770,000, returning 144 members. 114 cities and large towns, with a popula tion of 6,660,000, returning 206 members. 72 small towns, with a population of 480,000, returning 115 members. It is probable that the advocates of the Reform Bill would contend that the small boroughs are more akin in their character to the counties than the towns, and therefore could not be considered as adding to the strength of the urban element in our repre sentative system ; but, even if we admit this, if to the 69 counties we add the 72 small towns, the results would not support the claim of the towns to increased r ep r esentation. The counties and small boroughs, with a popula tion of 10,250.000, return 259 members ; the large towns and cities, with a population of 6,660,000, return 206 members ; whilst the proper arithmetical proportion would be 169 instead of 206 members for the large towns and cities. These statistics and calculations are not taken from a Conserva tive but from a Liberal organ, and they clearly show that, if representation should be in pro portion to numbers, the county constituencies are entitled to 115 members more than they at present possess. Indeed, Mr. DISRAELI has elucidated and demonstrated the claims of the counties in a manner so convincing that one of our Liberal contemporaries candidly ad mitted on a recent occasion that the argu ment of the Right Honourable Gentleman had never been grappled with, because it could not be answered. Such being the case—the theory of the demo crats when applied to statistics leading to a con clusion exactly the reverse of that which they intended to advance—it was obviously necessary to evade the difficulty they could not overcome. For this end the Reform Bill is ingeniously framed. Of the 63 seats which are to be disposed of in England, 46 are ostensibly to be allotted to the counties. But, whilst in creasing the number of county representatives, the county constituencies are also increased by the creation of franchises which will en tirely revolutionise the character of the rural constituencies. Thus, a salary of 1001. a year, an annual income of 101. from stock, or the payment of 2/. in direct taxes, or the posses sion of 501. in a savings bank, or being a graduate of any University in the United Kingdom, the occupation with or without land of any building of the clear yearly value of 101. —any of these constitute a qualification, and confer a vote for a county. What interests have these electors in common with the coun ties ? The proposal to create them is an ob vious attempt to evade surreptitiously the lo gical consequences of the numerical theory. For, instead of increasing the number of eounty members, while leaving them to be elected by a county constituency, the author of the Reform Bill first floods the counties With an urban and democractic .constituency, and then adds these seats to represent the newly-enfranchised. It is obviously for that provision for enablin) SATURDAY, recognised profession. Even if no actual increase takes place, we may feel sure that future Ministries will not be very solicitous to do the public work with the least number of hands. The very nature of the plan renders a diminution in the number of officers impos sible ; for such diminution would be taking the bread out of the mouths of men who, relying on the Government promise, have passed the appointed examination. But, again, what is the nature of the work for which an intellectual or literary test of ability is thought desirable ? To talk of the civil service as a united homogeneous body is simply absurd. Where is the community of feeling, or sense of professional union, between the educated head clerk of a great department in Downing-street, and the postman, the letter carrier, the messenger, or the exciseman ? But, if the latter and larger class is to be excluded from the working of this bill, what becomes of the Ministerial vaunt, that a profession em ploying 18,000 persons is now for the first time thrown open? If a literary examination must be passed by every candidate for me chanical or routine employment, the plan is a mere piece of pedantry pushed to the verge of ridicule : if its operation be confined to the offices, comparatively few in number, where a higher and really intellectual qualification is desirable, then its extent has been absurdly exaggerated, and the vast administrative reform collapses into an arrangement by which the Secretary of State will be saved the trouble of choosing his clerks. We look in vain through the report of Sir CHARLES TREVELTAN and his colleague for any definite details on this subject. All is vague, plau sible, undefined. To criticise so cloudy a scheme is at first sight difficult; nor have we the slightest assurance that Ministers under stand the details of their own measure, and still less that they estimate its consequences. MANCHESTER AND SALFORD EDUCATION BILL. Mn. ADDERLEY and Sir JOHN PAKINOTON on Tuesday last acquired an additional claim to the gratitude of the country for the practical measures they have proposed for its benefit. Education, perhaps the most important, and certainly the most difficult, question of the day, was discussed, especially by the Right Honourable Baronet, with a force and power which commanded the admiration of the House, and will arrest the attention of the community. The immediate occasion of the debate was the Manchester and Salford Edu cation Bill, the second reading of which was moved by Mr. ADDERLEY. The history of the measure is singular. Although its operation is intended to be confined to a particular locality, its subject matter is so large that it was originally introduced as a public bill, but being technically, according to the rules of Parliament, a private bill, its introduction was successfully opposed on that question of form ; and now, on Tuesday last, the objection was reversed, and with the like result. Introduced by Mr. ADDERLEY as a private bill, yet admitted by all to be in its nature a public measure, Mr. MILNER GIBSoN had the somewhat doubtful honour of moving the following amendment : " That education, to be supported by public " rates, is a question which ought not to be " dealt with by any private bill." The amend ment was carried and the bill was lost. There are several educational plans now before the country, but in principle they may be resolved into three—the voluntary system, which, as we have had no code of penal laws prohibiting education in England, has always existed, and means, in effect, to leave the masses in their ignorance ; the secular system, which is to levy a general rate for the support of schools, from which religious instruction shall be rigorously excluded ; and the third is the denominational system, by which a general rate is proposed to be raised and dis tributed amongst existing schools, so that there would be no interference with the reli gious instruction at present received by the people. The last is the principle of the Man chester and Salford Education Bill, and the THE PRESS. to elect a representative is introduced ; and on another occasion we will demonstrate that, wherever a third member is added to a county, the result will be favourable to the originators. of this measure. The democratic party profess that they " are resigned " to the measure. Well my they be so ; for, should it ever become law, the landed interest, which has hitherto brought sobriety to our deliberations and stability to our institutions, will be politically neutralise by a sweeping revolution, which will be effected without even the tyrant's plea of necessity in its favour. CIVIL-SERVICE CHANGES. THE promised reorganisation of the civil service has, up to this time, rather perplexed the public than created any definite feeliiig either of satisfaction or dislike. The scheme looks large—it sounds plausible—perhaps a little pedantic—many people think it is only thrown out to be talked about and withdrawn, like last year's Education Bill, or Mr. OLIVEIRA'S motion—some critics go further, and pro nounce it a mere crotchet, utterly unpractical, and which must break down if fairly tried. It is not in its favour that the whole idea is new and foreign—new in kind, not in degree—no extension or development of any institution actually existing, unless China be taken as a precedent—but French or German, not Eng lish or American, in conception. Many people have a vague horror at the notion of bureau cracy as something connected with passports, a spy system, a bullying gendarmerie, Austrian institutions, and military despotism. They recal their experiences of foreign travel, when, among a submissive flock of Belgian or Prus sian tourists, they were ordered about hither and thither, their luggage carried off by force, their passports scrutinised, themselves searched and cross-questioned, and generally made to feel their own insignificance, and the autocratic power of the armed representative of law. Some instructive impression of this kind is left on our minds by the very name of a " bureaucrat." It is a prejudice, perhaps— for we see the exemplary tameness with which they submit to these things abroad—but it is a prejudice in which we all share more or less. And, as a matter of reason and principle, the English public object to invest with high or permanent authority the agents of national administration. They fear, and rightly fear, lest the people's servants should become the people's masters, knowing how plausible a case may be made out for every usurpation of authority, and how amnia mak bonis initiis orta swat. All this is rational and right ; nor can we blame the jealousy exhibited on this sub ject by our " Liberal " contemporaries, although some of their objections strike us as being more far-fetched and extravagant than any thing in the plan which they profess to criti cise. They would find it difficult, for instance, to explain how an " hereditary bureaucracy" is to cone out of a system which, by making literary proficiency the sole test of fitness, excludes the notion of patronage or hereditary tenure. And when we are told that there is danger lest an intellectual bureaucracy should assume too great a control over a :•eformed Parliament, which, from its constitution, must represent the ignorance as well as the intelligence of the country, we see in the threatened peril rather an argument against such reform than a fault in the proposed administrative change. The real danger lies in anot%er direction. While places were given away is matter of private patronage, public vigilante was always on the watch against their unnecessary multiplication. Such multiplication was dreaded, not merely on account of the increased expenditure which it involved, but as a possible means of corrup tion. Corruption (at least, in any open or avowed form) being out of the question, less solicitude will be felt about the number of small offices created. In fact, their creation will always be popular with a certain class, as affording an opening to the educated poor— to those who look on lodily labour as de gradini make their way in newly-entranenisea. IL Is oninousty 'or to tnose wno LOOK on IP Oully itt your itts - rcupaw.... aaa.,•., ,7 this that the provision for enabling a minority I grading, yet cannot mai° their way in any I cheater and Salford Education Bill, and the 1