The Express.
London, England, 1852-03-13 00:00:00

Cite eritreoo.

TO CORRESIPONDZNTS.

t Second }dittos id "The Express,. cenallasne tba sons 'venire's
t• Gamut," patelshod every Toady and Friday .410. ;a lime
for post.
t lTellaiumellit, Intended foe "The Exprosa,"Lor.don Etesina payer.
moat be at the 001ce. 10. Hoevaritaalraet. by Too o'clock ea the
day of pablltation.

NIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE
Tae lUT.MOrnillj, Th. 110. Afternoon. :a. 4ltn.
Toatonsow—Maraing. Y. I$ -Afternoon. P. Soon.

LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 13.

ASIONO those whose opinions are received as
oracular on questions relating to the tactics of
popular and parliamentary movements con! idera-
ble difference prevails as to the wisdom of the
course adopted by Lord JoHN RU:IaELL, with tho
assent of the gentlemen who met at his house on
Thursday, in relation to his reform bill. Lord ions
has deferred the motion for the second rending of his
bill for three months—that is, he intends to alma-
don it for the present. And to reconcile such of
his friends as seemed disposed, with Mr. Di:smiler.,
to turn refractory on this score to his determination,
Lord Jour intimated that, when he again brought for-
ward his reform measure, it should be with alterations
and improvements. Those who approve of Lord Joss's
determination urge that tho reception his hilt met,
proves two things. In the first place, that though the
public at large are convinced of the necessity of parlia-
mentary reform, they are not at this moment in a mood
to exert themselves effectively to obtain it; in the
second place, that the details of Lord Jons's bill
gave satisfaction to no one section of reformers. On
these grounds it is argued that to press such a bill
at this moment would be sure to occasion dissensioos
and divisions among the liberal opposition, and that
therefore it was expedient to withdraw it.
On the other hand, those who disapprove of Lord
Joes'sdetermination,assert that if further parliamen-
tary reform was urgently and immediately required,
with a liberal party in power, much more must it he
Deeded now that a reactionary party is installed in
cake. By hanging fire on the question of retiirtit in
existing circumstances, they allege, Lord Joirsvir-
tually confesses that he introduced his bill less be-
cause lie believed it necessary than because ho
thought it might increase his popularity ; and that he
was deceived in his estimate of the importance attri-
buted by the public to parliamentary reform. They
add that such conduct is not suited to inspire
parliamentary reformers with confidence in the ex-
Premier. W ith reference to the alleged dmger of
dividing liberals, they suggest that Lord Joins
might have taken the second reading on the prin-
ciples of his measure, promising to give due afters.
tion to all objections and amendments in committer.
They also represent that as among the great liberal
party there aro some who attribute more immediate
importance to ono class of reforms, and some to
others, it is unwise and unsafe to manifest indiffer-
ence to any.
As the Spectator said to Sir honer de Greeley,
" much may be said on both sides." On the whole,
however, the arguments of those who would have
preferred seeing Lord JOHN press the second read-
mg of his bill at present seem the more weighty.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE and those who agree with him,
it is insinuated, it is true, rest their claims
to public support mainly on their advocacy
of an extended suffrage, and may, therefore,
be suspected of a personal bias. But if at-
tention is to be paid to this consideration,
it might, on the other hand, bo alleged that the
Manchester party have had imputed to them a too
' exclusive care for commercial interests. It is not the
persons who urge the arguments on either side, or
their possible motives, that ought to bo regarded.
but the validity of the arguments themselves. And
this must be kept in view, that the opponents of
Lord DERBY who are likely to secede from the liberal
ranks, because more reforms are insisted on than
they think essential, are of that half-hearted class
where earnest co-operation cannot be so certainly
counted upon; while those who are likely to be dis-
gusted by an appearance of indifference to great and
vital principles, are tho most active and indefatigable
of the liberals. Timidity, over-caution, aro more
damaging in assailants than in those who stand on
the defensive. These weaknesses are more easily
tolerated in those who seek to retain, than those who
aspire to gain office. If the show of boldness which
Lord JOHN RUSSELL sought to give himself by in-
troducing his Reform Bill, was required in the
minister, much more must it be required iu the op-
position leader. Any appearance of faltering at
the opening of his campaign against the new minis-
try may be most prejudicial to his cause.
The wisdom of the opposition tactics is, however,
all things being taken into account, but a secondary
consideration. What is of mach more consequence
is, that the public should be fully possessed of the
vital importance of parliamentary reform. Unless it
is so, no mere dexterity of popular or parliamentary
leaders can ensure success to the cause. If the
people are deeply impressed with the importance
of electoral reform and eager to obtain it, their
io:felaitis will more than make up for any casual mis-
Ron of their leaders.
Now, we need only refer to the columns of our con-
temporary the Times to show how essential to the
pubic welfare is a large measure of parliamentary
reform. Day after day has the 'Limes been exhorting
the liberals not to enter upon what it is pleased to
call a factious and irritating opposition to the Ditsie
ministry. The reason assigned by the lYn,e. is, that
Lord DEBBY may thereby be provoked to undertake
in good earnest the restoration of protection, and
that a dissolution of parliament may end in the res.
turn of a protectionist majority. •But the Tise • pro-
fesses all the while to be friendly to free-trade, and
that mainly because of its conviction that the national
mind is irrevocably made up in favour of a free-trade
policy. The argument of the Times, therefore, comes
to this, that our representative system is so radically
vicious, that an election will probably give Lord
DERBY a House of Commons prepared to legislate
alike in defiance of common sense and public opinion.
Again, no further gone than yesterday, the Times,
not contented with pouring out the vials of its wrath
in a stream of vituperation upon the members of pars
Bement who met at Lord JOHN Itussetis, bemuse
they resolved not to temporise with the Dsiene mi-
nistry, taints them with their inability to resist it
effectually. And wherein is that inability alleged
to consist? In the inability of the gentlemen in
question to meet the demands of corrupt electors.
The Times does not pretend to say that the majority
it anticipates for ministers in the event of an elec-
tion, is to be obtained by pure means, by appeals
to principle unaided by corruption. The triumphant
taunts of the Times rest upon the assumption that
the great majority of the existing constituencies are
so hopelessly and incurably corrupt, that it is cer-
tain they will barter their principles, and abandon
the interests of the great public for selfish, short-
sighted, mercenary considerations.
Such is the opinion entertained of our electoral
system by the Times, the most blatant mouth-piece
of the anti-reformers. Such is the view taken of it
by those who, while they recommend the exclusive
urging of the free-trade question, loot liberals should
be divided, insist at the same time, upon its being
urged uncompromisingly and without delay, in order
that ministers may be forced to dissolve before they
have time to avail themselves of their official influence
to corrupt the constituencies. The very men who
tell us in one breath that the cause of free-trade will
be endangered by pressing the question of electoral
reform at present, tell us in the next, that the help-
lessly corrupt state of the electorate renders it im-
possible to ensure a fair representation of the public
interests and wishes in the House of Commons, un-
less the constituencies are taken by surprise and
unawares.
Without parliamentary reform it is vain to flatter
ourselves that we can successfully struggle against
the devices of re-action installed in office. Loid
DERBY and his colleagues may have diseritninatimi
enough to see the difference between a mere parlia-
mentary majority, and a majority out of 41,),,r, 1 hey
may not wantonly insult public opinion, be ?mentos
tiously running counter to it. But they will arid
themselves of every subterfuge to make our nominal
andoo
sun
or coahloer enpireerst
te,
will obstruct, procrastinate, and postpone all ltres-
ntatotiotnheiinr tohholistl:rouesena.:.,l ti.ohine3;
sary reforms that have yet to lso effected. filer
will increase the arrears of sound legislation until
thatpublic
e uneasinessodersr e vol u l'"to
arrest them in their mad and self-willed career,
andtioit
adlilscio.nitteniotersait.oehllirto