The Press.
London, England, 1858-01-16 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JANUARYI6,IbSB.

approves of their independence. And as for
the Acts of Parliament, many of them are
forced upon Government by the Opposition,
and some of them even are enacted by the
Opposition and Government combined against
the wishes of three-fourths of the sum of all
the wills, of all the intelligence, and of all the
virtue of the nation ; and it is matter of
history that measures so passed have exer-
cised no little influence in modifying
opinion. Furthermore, almost every great
political question has been at first in
a minority, and even when it ultimately
triumphed it did not necessarily follow that
there was more than a bare majority of opinion
in its favour, if even that. To erect, therefore,
such a shifting and intangible fiction into the
ruling principle of political philosophy seems
an expedient very likely to get rid of all philo-
sophy on the subject, and to leave the deter-
mination of right or wrong in political action
to the sole test of ultimate success—success
very often dependent upon some lucky chance.
But it is only to the absolute and un-
compromising way in which Mr. Lorimer
states his theory that we object. Under cer-
tain limitations and restrictions it is the true
theory of politics, for all laws to be useful
must be popular—that is to say, must chime
in with the prevailing phase of public opinion,
formulating it into statute, and giving the
sanction of the State to principles which have
already obtained the sanction of the majority
of the thinking portion of the citizens. Legis-
lation in any other direction may occasionally
be right, and ultimately be sanctioned by the
public opinion in the face of which it at first
proceeded ; but such laws are the inspirations
of great statesmen—the anticipations of genius
in advance of the current reason of the times.
To say that they are impossible is to negative
the possibility of farsighted and gifted states-
manship—to ignore the lives of a Strafford,
a Chatham, a Burke, or a Brougham ; to say
that they are common is to assert the vul-
garity of genius.

Admitting as we do the paramount, though
denying the exclusive and arbitrary, influence
of public opinion in determining the destiny
of nations, it becomes a most important ques-
tion whether the general tendency of what we
call public opinion is favourable to national
stability or the reverse. This, as our author
says, is the " problem of politics." It is not
to be solved by the ancient method, which
sought to determine the one best form of
government, for the plain reason that no one
form could suit the infinite diversity of cir-
cumstances among which nations are placed.
Neither, he maintains, is it to be solved by the
modern Liberal method of lowering the quali-
fication attached to the exercise of political
suffrage. Mr. Lorimer maintains that the end
in view will only be gained by organisations
of increasing complexity as civilisation ad-
vances :

Instead of equalising to a common level, the remedy
is only to be found in an accurate cognisance of the
various claims of the different orders of society, by a just
and impartial recognition of actually existing social d.s-
tinctions, not by the annihilation of all distinctions what-
soever.

liy widening the circle of those who are directly to par-
ticipate in political influence, we can nolonger, as formerly,
feel assured that we are thereby giving more ample ex-
pression to the spirit of the people and the time ; on the
contrary, by ignoring altogether every other principle by
which this spirit may be measured except that of mere
enumeration, we are tending towards a state of matters in
which there is danger of a large portion of the whole social
influences of the community being first denied all constitu-
tional expression, and then ceasing to exist in any other
form than that in which, by conforming itself to the cha-
racter, it can find expression by the mouths of the
numerical majority. It is still exclusion, it is still disfran-
chisement. against which we have to struggle ; bnt the
claims which come upon us now are of a very different
kir d from those which arise from the simple fact of the
claimant being a human being, subject to our laws, and not
having violated them. Intelligence, industry, wealth,
power, the elements not of similarity, but of dissimilarity
amongst men, are those which now are clamorous for re-
cognition ; and the task which is imposed upon us is the
reconciliation of these new claims with that of naked man-
hood, which we have already admitted.

These doctrines Mr. Lorimer illustrates at
considerable length from ancient and modern
history. This is the most interesting part of
his book, and displays a copiousness of know-
ledge, a judiciousness of selection, and a con-
ciseness in statement which remind us more
of Sir James Macintosh than of any recent

writer. We regret we have not space to
quote some of these illustrations. We can
only state as the result that there are no his.
torical precedents upon which in speculating
on the future of England we can with certainty-
rely, because no nation has gone through the
stage of political progress into which we have
entered. Historical precedents are not encou-
raging, and, according to our author, concur in
establishing the cycle of Polybius, from which
no State as yet has escaped. " The first
" order," says Polybius, " is monarchy, which
" is established by the bare work of nature,
" without preparation or design. From me.
" narchy rises royalty, when art has been
" applied to correct the views of the former;
" and when royalty has degenerated into its
" congenial evil, which is tyranny, the destrue-
" Lion of the latter gives birth to aiistocracy.
" This again being changed according to the
" natural order of things into oligarchy, the
" subjects, roused to vengeance by oppres-
" sion, resist the injustice of their governors
" and establish democracy. And, in the last
place, when the people themselves become
" haughty and untractable, and reject all law,
" to democracy succeeds in the course of time
" the government of the multitude (ochlocracy).
" The next and last step leads to utter politi-
" cal disorganisation, analogous to the savage
" condition which preceded the commence-
" meat of political life." We have seen more
clearly in modern times how ochlocracy leads
back to despotism.
The question therefore remains to be deter-
mined whether we shall escape the cycle. "Is
political progress necessarily democratic '?
Is the cycle to be escaped by allowing the pre-
sent tendency to proceed unchecked, by
giving full scope to democracy, and more
especially by extending the franchise through
means of a reduction of the qualification ?

Here, then, we find ourselves landed in a
discussion on the principles of the now Reform
Bill.

Mr. Lorimer—as may already have been
gathered from the sketch we have given of his
opinions—is against the Liberal method, hold-
ing that it would only precipitate the march to
an ochlocracy, " there being no historical ex-
" ample of a State which has thus stopped
" short on the high road to democracy." We
need not say that we perfectly concur with
this opinion. We in vain try to discover any
stand-point where we could stop, and say
we refuse to go farther. So long as the
suffrage is conceded purely on democratic
principles there seems no stand-point short
of the abyss—that is, short of universal
suffrage. But if we refuse to be guided by
the democratic principle, there is an old con-
servative principle which may serve our pur-
pose. We mean the constitutional doctrine
that representation should be based on pro-
perty. As such a system, while it al-
lows of the extension of the suffrage
—provided the democratic element whichwould thus be introduced into the Con-
stitution be balanced by giving additional
votes to property—satisfies both progress
and order, it seems to solve the problem of
politics. Our author, however, is not an advo-
cate of this scheme. He says that property is
already adequately represented through means
of the House of Lords ; and he apprehends
that a graduated property franchise would be
unpopular with the " advocates of equality "
" that a cry would be raised that the people
" (which in the mouths of such persons means
" the mob) were being defrauded of their
" rights, and we should find ourselves at once
" in presence of the final struggle between an,
" equal and an unequal universal suffrage.
There is some truth in this. No doubt the
Chartists could not be hoodwinked to the
consequences of such a scheme ; but provided
it could be carried through the House of Com-
mons, their resentment might be braved with-
out any serious danger. Now, in our opinion,
if the option is given to the Commons of a
simple reduction of the franchise, or the adop-
tion of the principle of graduation, here are
very cogent reasons why they should prtster
the latter. They cannot shut their eyes to the
fact that the new voters under a reduced frau•
chise would be the majority of the electoral
body ; and they cannot be certain that their
re-elections would be at all secure under the