The Press.
London, England, 1858-12-18 00:00:00

1226


tion of democrat, we plead guilty to the charge.
If to denounce the Ballot when established
for a limited constituency, as a fraud upon the
unenfranchised, and as calculated to generate a
feeling that they are branded with unmerited serf-
dom, is to incur the imputation of democratic
opinions, we accept the imputation ; but we
know that it is false. Writing in the sense, in
which these terms are understood in America, we

avow our attachment to the republican (as contrs-
distinguished from democratic) elements of the
Constitution, no less than to the aristocratic and
to the monarchical. We see, that the two latter,
the safety of which is inseparable, are attacked.

The desire to maintain a balanced constitution
'oust always entail upon its defenders the charge
of,complexity of principle and of purpose from
those, who confine their efforts to the establish-
ment of the predominance of one element of
power. Mr. COBDEN told one of his audiences,
we think in 1845, that simplicity of object was
essential to the success of agitation; and added,
that the two other essentials were, the avoidance

of argument, which he said should be displaced by
the constant repetition of, and declamation upon,
certain preconcerted data; all of which must be
taken as proved.
We are not under the necessity of at present
resorting to this prescription, however popular
with his disciples ; and shall simply conclude
by expressing our hope tbat the defenders of
the aristocratic and monarchical elements of the
Constitution will not overlook the influence,
which the possession of real property, indissolu-
bly connected as it is with the interests of this
country, must always have upon the character of
its present, and upon the education of its future,
possessors.
The greater part of the real property, as well
as the majority of the population, are beyond the
precincts of the present boroughs. We desire a
redistribution of representation, according not
merely to population, but according to pro-

perty.
We rejoice in the fact that the distinctions and
differences between the possessors of this pro-
perty, as regards their comparative wealth, con-
dition, employments, and pursuits, are almost in-
finitely varied ; but we point to two facts, that
if the collisions between the Lower and Upper
branches of the Legislature are not to be aggra-
vated to the detriment and, as Mr. BRIGHT ex-
pects, to the destri ction of the latter during the
existence of a future Reform Act, some element
tending to increased congruity and independent
co-operation must be infused into the composi-
tion of the House of Commons.

The greater part of the real property of Eng-
land and Wales lies, as we said before, beyond
the precincts of the boroughs, coincident with
the niajority of the population. It is in the in-
creased representation of this property that we
look for the more harmonious working of the
Constitution.

The creation of electoral districts has been held

up as a bugbear, on the false inference that it
necessarily entails the adoption of universal suf-
frage. There is no more necessary connection
between them than between Tenterden steeple
and the Goodwin Sands. The tendency of the
creation of electoral districts is exactly opposite
to those of the Ballot. The former would con-
nect more closely, the latter would sever, the
existing connection between representation and
the unenfranchised classes • the one would pro-
mote their contentment, the other would arouse
their distrust.

We have no wish totally to ignore ancient
landmarks, but we suggest this as our first
point for the consideration of our readers.
In the second place, we desire to call the atten-
tion of the friends of true religion, and of its
extension to the poor, to the anomaly pre-
sented by the vote of the house of Commons
in favour of the abolition of Church-rates,
while eighty per cent. of the parishes of
England and Wales are contented, nay, desire,
to maintain them, or obtain an equivalent. How
does Mr. MALL, who has avowed his desire to
abolish Church-rates solely for the purpose of
disconnecting the Church from the State, com-
mand this anomalous majority ? Is it not clear
that it arises from the packed character of the
majority of the House of Commons under the
Act of 1832 ? Were the greater part of the real
property and the majority of the population of