The Express.
London, England, 1853-12-14 00:00:00

THE ATTEMPTS TO CHECK REFORM.

" Where are ye ganging ?" was the question put
by an inquisitive proprietor of an orchard to a suspi-
, cions-looking Scot who had just crept under the
hedge, and was preparing to make way athongst the
, apple,. " Bock again," w the sage rep lam, Whit
are you about here ?" is the question put by many a
• clever detective to a gentleman in a high state of
waistcoat, and chains, and rings, moving through a
public assembly with his hand in remarkable proxi-
' mity to his neighbour's pocket. " Nothing," answers
' the gentleman, with the most provoking sim-
' plicity, exclaiming, at the same time, against
• the tyranny of being hurried away from
so delightful a meeting, contrary to his inclina-
tions. " What are these ?" says the policeman to
IV. Sykes, withdrawing at the same time a centre-
bit, a watch-spring saw, and divers other like imple-
ments, from the capacious pockets of the worthy in
velveteen shorts and ankle-jacks. "Tools to get an
honest living by," replies the ingenuous Sykes. Every
one is amused by these answers. Every one expected
them, but no one believes them. Sawney's position,
the swell-mobsman's obvious intention and known
antecedents, Sykes's centre-bit, are sufficient proof
is the eyes of the world of the objects aimed at by the
respectable trio. The great point that the three
worthies ought to have endeavoured to prove would
be, that they really had some other end in view
than that of which they were suspected. If Swaney
could have proved that his sweetheart was waiting for
him undera tree in the orehard,or if theputative well-
dressed pickpocket could produce a patent of peerage,
or if the respectable Mr. Sykes could bring evidence
of his being a market gardener, and that the dreaded
centre-bit was a well-known garden implement, the
world would apologies for its suspicions, and allow
the injured individuals to go on their way
rejoicing. Just so in cases of political delin-
quency. In our capacity of political detectives
we seized an evening journal, on Monday evenings
in a auspicious position. A leading article in that
paper appeared to us to be one of a series of attempts
which are now being made, and to which we always
intend to direct attention, the object of which is to
defeat, by hook or by crook, the efforts of those who
wish to obtain a real measure of Reform. We made
a palpable charge against the paper in question,
founded on its own language. The obvious defence
of the accused would have bees to explain what it
did mean, whereas it contents itself with a sullen
point-blank denial of our assertions, and then
complains of ungentlemanly treatment. The
anti - Reform article commenced by denying
that there was any enthusiasm on the subject of
Reform. We pointed out that this was precisely the
line of argument adopted by the old Tories against
the first Reform Bill. The writer then went on to
say—" Every fresh step in extending popular fran-
chise involves fresh questions in what degree and
in what direction their enlargement can possibly
proceed,: and every such step must bring us nearer
the limits—wherever these may be fixed—which
cannot be passed with safety." It had said just be-
fore that " it was the opinion of those who move the
masses that while the difficulties and dangers which
threaten the progress of political improvement
from above—viz., from privileged resistance—are di-
minished, those from below may have increased." It
mentioned universal suffrage—it is difficult to say
why, for scarcely any one at the present day strives
for universal suffrage—and took occasion to warn
statesmen, rather uselessly we should imagine,
against the danger of " a sweeping transfer of a pre-
ponderant constituent power into hands hitherto un-
tried and hitherto unqualified." Now no ono can read
these sentences without tracing in them separately,
but still more collectively, a desperate dread of what
we persist in calling the only true reform,—a real
extension of the suffrage, and a transfer of the fran-
chid) of any disfranchised towns to large town con-
stituencies at present unrepresented. Any other
measure than this would be a mere Sham, a transfer
of political power from the right hand pockets of the
landlord to the left, a pause in oar historical progress,
and in fast, though perhaps not in appearance,
nothing better than a preservation of the electoral
privileges at the point where they now stand.
The Coalition organ of last night evades the whole of
this argument, and denies that there is any discussion
as to whether electoral privileges should be preserved
at " the point where they stand." This is the sole
attempt at a reply to our interpretation of the sus-
picious sentences. Is this honest ?
Again, on Monday, in the article alluded to, our
contemporary introduced a remark which it pro-
fessed to find in a late publication, to the effect that
the first use every one makes of power is to procure
subsistence. The italics are the Coalition writer's own.
He then gives a quotation, from which it is attempted
to prove that the only result of granting power to the
labouring classes will be that these classes will insist
upon being fed. In his remarks upon this quotation
(which we examined at full length yesterday), the
writer in question goes on to say : " Inour opinion apoli-
tied truth of first rate importance is here hit upon, and
one which, palpable as it might seem, is perhaps the
truth most forgotten by popular politicians. That
which we may call the physical fact above stated,
seems to us at the root of all the public disturbances
which have generally followed political changes." If
this is not an argument against the extension of the
suffrage, what is it ? We accordingly alluded to the
physical fact (the Italics are not ours) as the "over-
whelming theory brought forward against the
greater admission of a popular element in the Legis-
lature."

" We have brought forward no such theory, who- I
ther overwhelming or otherwise, for any such pur-
pose," tartly replies the paper in question last night
—and thus shuts up the discussion on that point. Is
this fair? What follows is worse. The quotation
in question, on which we persist in stating our contem-
porary founds its theory, asserted that Pericles in-
vented the public works in order to employ the indi-
gent—that the early Roman rulers did something
of the same kind, and that Louis Napoleon follows
in their wake. All these great works, it is said,
proceeded from the same cause—the necessity of em-
ploying and salarying a sovereign people. Now the
general historical name for a clams of the people who
are fed by their rulers is the Proletariat. We used
the word Proletariat to describe this class, although
the writer we were answering did not. We denied the
applicability of this term to the classes who are now
fit for the suffrage in England, but who do not pos-
sess it, end we asked, "supposing it to be the fact
that Louis Napoleon's
sole object in furthering the
completion of the great works in Paris is to keep a
few thousand proletaries quiet, what is there in this
to serve as a text for the denial of the franchise here
to thousands who are not proletaries, who have much
better occupation than to need a necessity of the
establishment of public works to enable them to earn
their bread?"

Our contemporary replies, with the same brevity as
before, "we have not quoted any statement about
' proletaries,' whether Oreek, or Itoman, or Parisian,
to 'serve as a text' upon which ' to found an argu-
ment' for the denial of the franchise here in Eng-
I land to thousands who are not proletariee."
We asked before, "Is this fair ?" We ask now, Is
this true? It is the impudent "I don't know
nothiok at all about it" of the juvenile at the dock.
After thus abandoning the whole ground of contro-
versy, our contemporary attacks our " controversial
candour," for mentioning its columns as some-
times used as a vehicle for ministerial opinions. It does
not deny the fact, but begs to tell us that its columns
are sometimes also used es a vehicle for its ewn—an
assertion which we are glad to hear, and which we
have no intention to dispute.

CITY CORPORATION CoMMISSION.—The Commis-
sioners did not meet yesterday, cor hu any day been an-
nounced by them for resuming the inquiry.