The Press.
London, England, 1858-09-25 00:00:00

THE PRESS, SEPTEMBER 25, 1858.

in managing their own business and dealing with
matters of local interest—not in considering great
measures of State policy, involving the well-being
of the empire.

Now, we have no wish that any of the classes
whom we have here enumerated should be eli-
minated from the House of Commons—their pre-
sence there is most useful and desirable; but then
we do not wish to see there an undue proportion
of any. We do not, therefore, wish to see an
undme proportion of country gentlemen, or of
those returned under the influence of large
proprietors or large capitalists, or of place-
men under the control of the Crown. We
shall assuredly have a very imperfect legis-
lative assembly whenever any particular classes
greatly preponderate over the others; for, if
we cannot get all classes in the community
duly balanced in the representation, we shall
have class legislation, an evil against which
your Reformers make the loudest outcry.

- Now, we suppose that the most active agitators
for Reform will not dare to avow that their ob-
ject, when they ask to re-form the House of
Commons, is nut to improve it. We call, then,
upon them to bear in mind that the House of Com-
mons is to be improved. We call upon them never
to lose sight of this fact; and when they assert
that such and such a set of men have a claim or
a right to the elective franchise, on account of
the peculiar virtues which they may possess, we
must assert, on the other hand, that they ought
to have this additional virtue before it can be
said that they have any such claim or right—viz.,
that they are men who will return as their mem-
bers the kind of men who are wanted in the
House to deal with the vast and important affairs
of this great empire. We wish, therefore, our
countrymen to study the nature of the qualifica-
tions which ought to be possessed by those who
compose the most powerful estate of the realm.
We wish them to remember that Government is
not a matter of mere will, and fancy, and incli-
nation, but that on every question there is a right
way and a wrong way, and that the all-important
object is to collect in one assembly a body of men
who will be most likely not only to discover the
right way, but to follow it.
As an example of our meaning, let us take the
Atlantic Telegraph Company. The task to be
performed is to lay the cable : for this end there
should be a selection of persons to conduct the
enterprize. Now, if the selection were placed in
the hands of persons guided by personal interests
and inclinations, who would select this man
because he was a pleasant companion, and that
because he had many shares, and another because
he could make a speech, and so on, neglecting
those endowed with science, knowledge, and ex-
perience, who had devoted the best energies of
their lives to considering these kind of
operations, what reasonable prospect would there
have been that the mighty enterprize would have
been brought to a successful termination ? If
then, the electors had been influenced by the
unwise motives in their choice instead of the wise
ones—and if in consequence the enterprize had
failed—of what avail would it be to say, " Well,
the electors were all shareholders, and they had
a right to choose the Directors "? Very true,
but if they did not know better how to exercise
their right it would have been far better for
themselves had they never possessed it.
In constructing, therefore, Parliamentary con-
stituencies, the grand principle which ought to be
kept in view is, that they should be constituted
on the special ground that they are likely to
return men whose presence is wanted in the
Legislature. The point to be aimed at in their
construction ought to be, not to form what may
appear to be good constituencies, based on the
claims of those who may compose them, but to
create constituencies, of VARIOUS kinds, who are
likely to return members with different qualifi-
cations and different characters, subject to dif-
ferent influences, forming together one homo-
geneous whole ; the talents of each being brought
to bear, according as each may excel, in dis-
cussing and conducting the various affairs sub-
mitted to their consideration.
What, then, is required is to construct a Legis-
lature which will conduct in the wisest and safest
manner the affairs of the empire. If this object
can be obtained more effectually by constructing
constituencies with '20,000 voters in each, than
by constructing constituencies with twenty voters
in each, the larger number ought to be adopted,

and vice-versa ; the paramount lto construct a Legislature which wi lest being
best adrai.
nister public affairs. But in the proposals of
Radical Reformers this object is generally lost
sight of. They would seem to prefer enfranchising
the whole male adult population, even were
there a positive certainty that such enfranchise-
ment would produce the worst possible Legis.
lature, rather than restrict it to a tew, even were
there a positive certainty that the so doing would
produce the best. They seem to say, "Give us
the constituencies we ask for, and what sort of a
Legislature they will create is a matter we will
not take into our consideration.
Now, we submit that this principle, if fully
carried out, would be fatal to our national
prosperity, perhaps existence. We well know
that a House of Commons, into the election of
which the popular element should not very
largely enter, would be a very imperfect and
dangerous machine ; but of this we feel equally
sure, that a House of Commons, elected exclu-
sively by large and populous constituencies,
would be still more imperfect and far more dan-
gerous.

In dealing, therefore, with Reform, we ask of
the Radical Reformers that we should come to a
fair understanding on the object to be aimed at.
We invite Mr. BRIGHT and his party to give us a
direct answer upon this point. If they say we
will only deal with the claims of the people and
will exclude from our consideration all that may
result therefrom, then we cannot even argue with
them, because we have nothing in common with
them, and we can only, therefore, give to their
schemes and their pretensions the most uncom-
promising resistance in our power. But, if they
say we desire by our Reforms to improve, then
are we ready to enter the lists with them and
fairly to argue out with them this question :
Are your Reforms calculated to improve the
character of the Legislature, or, are they not
calculated to deteriorate it and render it less fit
and less able to manage the vast and complicated
interests of this great empire ?

THE TYRANNY OF JOURNALISM.
WE had thought that the nonsense about the
agricultural mind and the quarter-sessions states-
men, which at one time was a much-used and
not ineffective property of the players upon the
political stage, had been thrown by among other
rubbish, and that, after passing through the
various phases of a downward progress, it had
ceased to be thought worthy of being kept in
stock even by the most hackneyed of platform
orators. We were, however, it seems, mistaken.
The tendency to return to old conceptions, which
is so remarkable among our artistic decorators, is
shared by our political writers, and the journal
which has been termed the leading journal of
Europe, and which arrogates to itself the func-
tion equally of dictating to nations their policy.
and to private individuals the modes of employ-
ing each of the twenty-four hours of their daily
life,—the journal which assumes to be a monopo-
list of progress, has been the first to set the
example of retrogression. The Times has
thought it worth while to fall back upon those
worn-out forms of expression, and to pick up for
its own use the rags that have fallen from the
ruins of the old League platforms.
The terms of the Chinese Treaty are not coin•
inunicated quite so quickly after its conclusion as
the Times thinks they ought to be. Lord DEltl3l"
does not dispose of his horses in the manner the
Times deems proper. Mr. HENLEY and,
.Mr.
NEWDEGATF: make speeches which the limeer
feels knock a weapon of offence out of their
hands and the Times feels consequently every
disposition to say something extremely
an strong,
and damaging of all these gentlemen, d ot
government by a Conservative party. They see,
too, they think, in these occurrences and in the
life and death of an eminent country gentleman, an
opportunityreostfagbelistthinigagaantehrwutshte aotldthweretebernt.toweeriaill
agriculture and commerce, between town and
country. To this occupation the Times bal

devoted several days and several leaders, and
as late as yesterday morning the public was
presented with the following diatribe :
" Is it ignorance, or idleness, or mere stupidity
which produces these most vexatious occurrences ?
Is Lord MALMESBURY utterly unaware that there
are large interests involved in this Treaty of
Tiensin ? Does he believe that a treaty of com-
merce is like an appeal at Quarter Sessions—a
thing that can be entered and respited, and taken
up and opened when it is quite convenient to all
parties, and when everybody is at leisure ? It
may be that he is quite incapable of compre-
hending that any one can possibly take any
interest in the matter. While the Government
is for the most part carried on by gentlemen
farmers it is not safe to speculate that any one
of them knows much of the exigencies of com-
merce, or would care to emancipate himself from
the slow traditional routine of other days. It is
difficult to conceive Lord MALMESBURY, or Mr.
HENLEY, or Mr. NEWDF.GATE risking his thoughts
upon a telegraphic wire, otherwise there was
abundance of time to receive directions to open
and copy the Treaty while Mr. BRUCE was yet
in London, nearly a week ago."

We have stated elsewhere why the terms of
the Chinese Treaty have not been in the
possession of the Times or of the public so
soon as the Times deems it ought to have
been; but in no event could it have been
the result of anything done or undone by gen-
tlemen farmers, by Mr. HENLEY or by Mr.
NEWDEGATE, and this stale sneap is so entirely
inapplicable to the case under consideration that
it evidently cannot be the result of any thought
or mental process on the part of our contem-
porary, but must simply be the ebullition of a
bitter and uncharitable spirit, worked up to
exploding point by disappointment and a special
anger.

It is hardly worth while, perhaps, to occupy
much time and space to prove that the Adminis-
tration of Lord DERBY does not merit the epithet
of " idle" which the Times has applied to it in a
later part of the article which we have quoted.
There has not been an autumn for years in which
the Times has not flung the same accusation
against every Government. Anybody who will
take the trouble to turn to a file of the paper will
find much the same things said every August and
September for years back of the Governments of
Lord PALMERSTON, Lord ABERDEEN, and Lord
Joior RUSSELL. They appear to be stereotyped,
these sort of railings. And surely, as regards
the persons who are individually attacked, it
must be sufficient to remind the public that there
arc not in Parliament men who possess or have
exhibited more extensive knowledge of the
manufactures and trade of this country than
the very gentlemen whom the Times foolishly
thinks to injure by describing them as gentle-
men farmers. The late Mr. COPPOCK had as
many and as good opportunities of form-
ing a correct judgment of the business capa-
cities of public men as anybody, and we have
repeatedly heard him say that he considered the
country gentlemen by far the best men of busi-
ness and of administration, and especially the
best conductors of Parliamentary committees in
the House of Commons. And Mr. Corrocx's judg-
ment was certainly not likely by his association
or by his political opinions to be biassed in favour
of the men of whom he thus thought and spoke.
They are, however, now in power. Their acts can
speak out, have spoken for them ; and whatever the
Times may say to the contrary, the public at large
perceives clearly that even putting policy, about
which men naturally differ, out of the question, the
business of the country has not been depart-
mentally so well done for many years as it is
now ; and that, whether we take the new men
introduced by what the Times calls a Govern-
ment of routine and red-tape—whether we take
Lord STANLEY, Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD, and
Mr. GATHORNE HARDY, or the more practical
statesmen, such as the CHANCELLOR of the Ex-
CIIEQUEFt, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Lord MALMES-
BURY, Mr. HENLEY, and Mr. WAr.roLE—we
have an Administration which in the rapidity,
decision, and completeness with which it conducts
the business of the empire, has never been sur-
passed.

Mr. NEWDEGATE, the other gentleman farmer,
against whom the Times labours in attack,
18 not a member of the Government, but