The Press.
London, England, 1854-02-04 00:00:00


was cordially accorded, and the basis of union
was announced as identity of opinion on the
critical subject of an extension of the fran-
chise.
Faithful to his purpose, Lord JOHN RUSSELL
proposed in February, 1852,a" large measure" of
Parliamentary Reform, including, among other
extensions of the franchise, a five-pound suf
frage in towns. It was rumoured at the time
that, while Sir JAMES GRAHAM approved of the
five-pound franchise, he was loss satisfied
with other parts of the scheme. It is under-
stoad that he explicitly declared to the
leaders of the Manchester school that no
measure would satisfy him that did not con-
tain extensive disfranchisement of the small
boroughs, and transference of their rights to
the large towns. From that moment Sir
JAMES GRAHAM was " looked to" by these
gentlemen.
On the breaking up of the Whig Cabinet,
from internal dissensions which immediately
followed, Sir JAMES GRAHAM seemed to sever
himself from his former friends, and seated
himself on the Opposition bench, next to
Lord JOHN RUSSELL, as the leaders of the
party of Parliamentary Reform which was to
be the avowed basis of the future Adminis-

opinions and subsequent
vanced and so uncompromising were their
opinions that it is understood Mr. Guam)43,
as representing the followers of Sir ROAM
PREL, felt it his duty to address a letter of
remonstrance to Sir JAMES GRAHAM, and to
terminate their political connection.
At the period when Lord DERBY'S Admi-
nistration ceased; immediate war with France
was expected by the whole country. This
contingency did nbt affect the opinions of
Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Sir JAMES GRAHAM On
the subject of Parliamentary Reform. On the
contrary, they made " a large measure of Parlia-
" mentaq Reform" the condition of their join-
ing the Ministry of Lord ABERDEEN, who
himself placed a Radical Reformer in his
Cabinet to seal the bond.

---
It is clear, therefore, from these premises,
that Lord JOHN RUSSELL and Sir JAMES GRA-
HAM have acted throughout with due delibe-
ration, and a deep intention. It is their grave
opinion that a further measure, and a " large
measure," of Parliamentary Reform is expe
dient for the interests of their country. It is
their grave opinion that the constitution of
this country should be more democratic. That
is a clear and intelligible policy. We think it
a dangerous, not to say a fatal, one. But to
suppose that statesmen of high reputation
and vast experience should now, because it
may be inconvenient to some of their hangers-
on, renounce a policy which they have either
counselled in the most responsible posit'
or recommended at the most int
periods of their career, is the height of ,
dity and unreasonable expectation. Far Tr,
this, Lord JOHN took the opportunity afforded
by the first night of the session to declare
opinion that delay in this matter was
deprecated, and that foreign war would
facilitate than impede this dowestic
ration.

It would be idle, therefore, for the Conser-
vative party to believe that they have any
chance of safety except in their own energies.
Let those, however, who wish to uphold the
free and aristocratic settlement of this coun-
try, our only security for freedom and order,
not despair. There are exigencies when poli-
tical questions are taken out of the narrower
limits of party, and principles prevail more
than the mere habit of association, It was not
merely the warning voice of Lord DERBY that
was raised in the House of Lords on Tuesday
night against the dangerous innovations that
are menaced. Another statesman, powerful
in an illustrious name, distinguished for
his capacity in affairs, and honoured for
his political integrity, spoke in accent. that
will be responded to by the intelligence and
the public spirit of the country. Freedom
owes much to the name of Grey, and, in Win-
ing his hereditary duty of upholding his
order, the present bearer of that title
conscious that he is maintaining the cause
real Liberty.

is
) of

LORD ABERDEEN.
WE have had occasion before this to notice
the deportment of Lord ABERDEEN in the
Houma et Lewde.i. AR is not becoming his
station,, or.lhat august assembly. Though not
a rhetori4n, we expect from a leader of a
Ronseer"Parliament a tibtsseology which at
least should not be rude, and an old diploma-
tist ought at any rate to be able to veil his ex-
citement. On Tuesday night Lord ABERDEEN
absolutely called the Earl of DERBY "ft
fellow " ! He even condescended specifically
to attack this journal, and speak of " his
" honourable, and perhaps right honourable,
" calumniators in • THE PRIM' "
Now, it is not very likely that Lord ABER-
DEEN should know anything of the writers in
this journal. He knows as much about them,
probably, as he did of the intentions of Prince
MENSCRIXOFY, and of the resources of Turkey.
It matters little what may be the status of the
writers in this paper. Its influence must de-
pend upon what is found in its columns, and
on that alone ; and its success has been occa-
sioned by that alone. It is written to uphold
the Conservative cause, to vindicate the true
principles of English party, and, by imparting
to the public authentic information, to assist
them in forming accurate judgments of
matters of State, on which their prosperity
may depend. It is written to calumniate no
one ; nor would there be any necessity to have
recourse to malicious misrepresentation if we
wished to impress upon the country, as we do
wish, that Lord ABERDEEN is an unsafe, inca-
pable, and dangerous Minister. A simple
narrative of his long, though, comparatively
speaking, obscure, career would suffice for
that end.

tration.
A eeordingly, lap thaudiasolutiongf Parliament
in the tellueieir esseeth of July. both Lord
JOHN RUSSELL and Sir JAMES GRAHAM deli-
vered manifestoes o* ligs of London
and Carlisle, which le 0 tin the minds
of Parliamentary Reformers of their present
opinions and subsequent measures. So_ ad-

Itl VAILlia,
ositions, that end.
iluential But the " calumny " appears to be a OMB'
f absur- ment in " THE PRESS" that Lord ABEZDZER IS
".'ar from the author of the treaty of Adrianople. Cer-
afforded tainly, we do look upon the treaty of Adriano-
dare his ple as the sure consequence of the policy pur-
ls to be sued by Lord ABERDEEN •when he was Seeratery
ld rather of State in 1E429, and we are not but is that
regeiie- opinion. It is not merely generaluniver
441: But thei his Lordship says that be was,