The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-22 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MAY 22, 1858.

it will not be used. It is its business to presuppose that
all human beings may be wicked, and to guard beforehand
against the wrong that their wickedness may du. There-
fore the Constitution, if it rightly performed its functions,
should have guarded against the possibility of the poor
making use of the powers of legislation to satisfy their own
needs at the expense of the superfluities of the rich. In-
stead of taking this precaution, it has given to each of
the many poor voters the same power as to each of the
rich few, in a contest where victory is to the majority.
The result is that, according to the theory of the Constitu-
tion, the rich are left absolutely and helplessly at the mercy
of the poor.
- - - - -

The remedy for this state of things is to be
found in—

The " influence " which, in one way or another, pos-
sessors of property have been able to exercise over voters
—in some few cases cases based on neighbourly attach•
went, but more generally resulting from actual dependence
—bas, from the time that the House of Commons
emerged into importance until now, largely tinctured its
conatitution, and neutralized the mere representation of
numbers.

If this influence were abolished the danger would
remain without the antidote :

If, therefore (says his lordship), the law is to be altered,
let it be reconstructed altogether; if that is impossible,
let the equipoise remain as it stands. To remove one
anomaly and leave the other—to destroy the influence of
the rich without cutting down the overwhelming numerical
superiority of the poor—is to strip property of the single
bulwark which secures it from the power of impoverished
and uninstructed masses.

To show what the sentiments of " the masses "
on this subject may be fairly assumed to be, Lord
Robert votes, very appropriately, the lectures
of Mr. Ernest Jones, delivered two years ago to
the working men of London :

His proposition was, simply and without any circum-
locution, to seize the estates of some of the largest land.
owners, and to divide them among the sufferers. This is
not reassuring as to what his conduct would be it he was
Chancellor of the Exchequer under the new regime. As
this gentleman is said to enjoy considerable popularity
among the classes who would rule us if manhood suffrage
were adopted, there is nothing chimerical in saying that
a new Reform Bill would place the rights of property in
issue.

We have now, we hope, conveyed to our
readers a tolerably fair impression of this young
nobleman's views. We need scarcely add., that
they receive our cordial assent. We have ab-
stained from inserting any arguments or observa-
tions of our own, as other and fitter opportuni-
ties will arise for doing so; but we would wish
the middle classes of England to ponder well on
the simple common sense expressed in these
pars, while there is yet time to control popular
opinion, and guide it in a safe channel. The
real honest working man, be it remembered, has
usually a respect for property ; but he surrenders
his judgment to men whose trade is agitation, and
who, as they could not sink lower, so naturally
hope to rise h►gher, by any convulsion of society.
We find that we must defer the consideration
of Mr. Goldwin Smith's paper, together with Sir
A. Grant's and Messrs. Phillimore's, Dasent's,
and Pearson's, until our second notice. We may
say briefly that we do not like the tone of Mr.
Smith's article. It is sneering and sour; and
gives us only too much reason to believe that the
apprehensions we expressed on the occasion of
his appointment to the high post which he now
occupies were only too well founded.