The Press. — London, England, 1858-10-23 00:00:00

,fr 0 , ;' 7.m ‘ g ; 2. 77 0.0 rt.o6s ■ a s No. 280.—VoL. VI. Vass. LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1858. REFORM OF PARLIAMENT. MR. BRIGHT 18 going to have a grand day at Birmingham with his constituents, when there will, of course, he the usual speeches. The subject on which doubtless he will lay the chief stress is that of Reform. Now, Mr. BRIGHT is a man of great ability, and in some of his political views we agree with him. For instance, we cor dially agree with him in his anxiety that this country should, in its dealings with foreign nations, be the asserter and maintainer of the principles of international law, and not their violator. It is for these reasons that we look forward with interest to the language that he will hold at Birmingham on the question of Reform. We shall be glad if he prove himself on this sub ject, not a mere vulgar demagogue, reckless of everything but what will please his audience, but that he will show by his observations that he is desirous to act the part of a philosophic statesman. We hope, therefore, that we shall receive from him a distinct reply to the question which we put to him in our paper of the 25th of last month—viz., is the object which he has in view to improve the character of the Legislature ? or is it his object to confer the franchise upon the multitude, regardless of the effect which it may have on the future composition of the Legislature, in adapting it to carry on our national affairs with wisdom and safety ? In short, we ask him to tell us, does he prefer a Humphrey Brown and a Townsend, if returned by a large popular con stituency, to a Pitt or a Fox, if returned by a small one ? We hope Mr. BRIGHT will not evade this one question. We trust that he will man fully meet it, and that, whatever may be his view, he will not shrink from avowing it. This question contains the pith of the whole controversy. If we are to be told that the object of the Radical Reformers is to give all power into the hands of the people, and that they prefer that that power should be placed in their hands, even with the certainty of their abusing it, to the national detriment—rather than it should be vested M a restricted number, with the certainty of its being used for the national benefit —then with men who hold such views the only mode of dealing must be, the most uncom promising opposition. Now, it is no answer to this creation for them to say that th ey are f or conferring larger political powers on the people, as they believe that power will be used by them for the national benefit, unless they go further and admit that, if they believed the contrary, then they would not labour to confer that power on those whom they thought would misuse it. It is idle to argue with men who will not make this admission. For, if at all risks, the franchise is to be indefinitely extended, a mere off-hand opi n i on th a t no public mischief will ensue from the extension in no way puts -11 em in a position for reasonable men to argue LONDON , SATURDAY, OCTOBER 23, 1858. STAMPED .. SIXPENC E. UNSTAMPED ... . FIVEP ENCE. with them ; for should we succeed in proving their opinion as to the result of an indefinite extension of the franchise to be erroneous, we should only be met, when we had established our case, with the remark, " However right you may be does not signify; it is our intention to persevere." Once again, then, we call upon Mr. BRIGHT, if he be an honest man, to give us a direct and unequivocal answer to this one question,—ls the object of your Reform to improve the character of the Legislature, or is it your object simply to give increased power to the people, not as a means to an end, but as the end itself? And now that we are putting this question to the Hon. Member, we may as well put to him another. The chance of a speedy answer at the approaching display at Birmingham tempts us to interrogation. We therefore ask him this, — Do you or do you not mean to hand over to the populace the representation in Parliament, so as to exclude all other classes in the community from being represelited ? because, if you do not, will you explain how you mean to avoid so doing, when you propose that in each and every con stituency the populace shall form a prepon derating majority ? If you base the formation of all your constituencies on the principle of numbers, it is idle to talk of property or education having left to them any share in the representation. For it is evident that the owners of property, and the highly-educated classes, will be swamped and lost in constituencies composed of all the members of the community, on the principle of manhood suffrage. We therefore repeat this question to Mr. Bivairr,—Do you or do you not mean to give a share—we will not say a " fair share," but any share—to the different interests and classes who compose this empire, or do you mean that numbers should be alone considered ? We confess, we hardly expect to receive from Mr. BRIGHT any distinct, straightforward replies to these two questions. If we do, we shall be agreeably surprised ; and the country will then know the real nature of the question with which it has to deal. If we do not, we shall neverthe less have gained a great deal ; because it will then be evident that we have asked all-important but inconvenient questions, which men, who ad vocate-Mr. BRIGHT'S views, had rather not com mit themselves by answering. However, thanks to the " chapter of acci dents," so it has fallen out. The Lord Chan cellor of Ireland, as President of the Section of " Jurisprudence and Amendment of the Law," was to have opened the deliberations of that sub division of the Congress, and for this purpose had prepared an oration which, naturally enough, turned on the same subjects to which Lord Joktm RUSSELL adverted in his more general charge to the assembled savants. But when the time for the delivery of this oration arrived, it was found that his absence from the sister isle was incom patible with the official responsibilities of the Head of the Irish Law, so that the oration had to be sent over for the edification of the Congress in the absence of its author; and, conformably to what, we suppose, is the etiquette in scientific associations between General Presidents and Sec tional Presidents, it devolved upon Lord JOHN RUSSELL to read to the Section of Jurisprudence the address of Lord Chancellor NAI'IER. Of this address, with its comprehensive and far-sighted views, and its many seasonable cau tions and valuable suggestions, our limits will not permit us to say more than that we like it none the worse for the spirit of Irish warm heartedness which it breathes, and the touches of Napier-like fancy by . which it is enriched. Our immediate business is with those portions of it which bear upon the question in hand, the law of real property. In handling this subject, it should be borne in mind that the Lord Chan cellor of Ireland has, in some respects, greatly the advantage of even the highest legal autho rities in this country. He has had the oppor tunity of watching the effects of a mighty change —amounting to something nearly approaching a revolution—in the Irish law of real property ; a change which, however great in itself and ex tensive in its operation, is nevertheless not ob noxious to the reproach which the term "revo lution" implies, inasmuch as it was brought about neither in pursuance of abstract theories nor as the result of a forcible subversion of the established order of things, but was called for by an imperative necessity, as a remedy for acknow ledged evils of the most serious character, and carried into effect with a due regard for existing rights. It is highly satisfactory to hear, from so competent and trustworthy a witness as Lord Chancellor NAPIER, so unequivocal a testimony borne to the benefits derived by Ireland from the operation of the Encumbered Estates Court. "It became," he observes, "in Ireland a matter "of great public policy to have encumbered " estates purchased by solvent proprietors. who " might be expected to discharge the duties cor " relative with the rights of property ; and, " therefore, it was of great consequence, in each " CM of a sale, to clear the title and free the " property from its charges. This led to the "gradual formation of a suitable procedure, by " means of which titles were subjected to a suffi " cient scrutiny to enable the final " to be made into an indefeasible " has been fbund to be THE TWO SCHOOLS OF PROGRESS. DAME FORTUNE, as everybody knows, enjoys the reputation of being a slippery jade, given to play strange antics at times. Of this propensity of hers, no less distinguished an individual than the Noble Lord the President of the Social Science Congress has been made the victim. Little did we suspect when, last week, we pre sented our readers with an epitome of his Lord ship's " Handy Book" of the law of real pro perty—little, probably, did the Noble Lord himself suspect, when he delivered the oration on which our abstract of his doctrines was founded — that, before the week was out, it would fall to his lot to pronounce from the self-same chair which lie had adorned on the Monday, and that in terms infinitely more clear and convincing than his own, an emphatic refutation of the views he had been at such pains to promulgate at the beginning of the week. " was desirable in theory " simple in its form, and e- So great and so obvious this new mode of establishing property, that it soon increased estates so secured, as com under the old system - Lord Chancellor NAPIER purchase added to the a difference between ble the final conveyance idefeasible title ; and this e as safe in practieeAs it ory. The co_nvpyaoc.e \ --*; conclusive iiritfi • ,• •.• r ',, ' ...,- nis was the lra •:.• s tnri x. ....• Lablishing ti t " Illit - 11 ii .4.- ncreased the • 2 .1 ) ~., ,1 111,, 4 :ompared wit . 00 / 1 : i ;. 4 1 , ~,,, ›, of titles, at -- '; -••-,,, .. to ov m estimates alb • • - . i .O tri 0 marketable .•:.•• 4 '4.- ‘ encumbered and '1"f: