The Express.
London, England, 1848-07-08 00:00:00

Mit R!lelifi•

MAILS.
The malls for British North America, and the United States,
will be made up en the evening of the 11th July.
The West India Mails, excluding itermuda, :Masan, Havanna,
Honduras, New Odom., Vera Cruz, Tampico, and Porto Rico, and
Including those for Madeira, !acme, Cartbagena, Banta Martha,
Cttagren, Pllllllllll, Went COMI of South America, and St. Juan-de.
Nicaragua, will he made up on the evening of the 17th July.
The malts for Vigo, Oporto, Lisbon, Madeira, Cadiz, and Gibraltar
will be made up on the morning of the 17th July.
The overland mails for Gibraltar, Malta, Greece, the lonian Islands,
Egypt, Aden, Ceylon, India, Ling-Kong, and China, via Southamp-
ton, wilt be made upon the mating of the 20th July.
The overland clmed nulls, cid !famines, to the Mediterranean,
Egypt, Adeo, Ceylon, India, Hung-Kong, Ste., will be made up on the
evening of the 24th July.
'The mails for New South \Vales, Van Dieman's Land, and New
Ea\ land will be made up on the evening of the 31.1 July.
The mails for the West Want of Africa and Madeira will be made
up oa the srening of the 71st July.
The mails for the Brazils, the Inver Plate, Monte Video, Pernam-
buco. Bahia, Madeira, and Buenos Ayres, will be made up on the
evening of the 4th August.

NOTICE TO ADVERTISERS.
The number of STAMPS issued by the authorities of the
Stamp-Mfice, during 1847, to the
DAILY NEWS Rai 3.447.009
This, we believe, is within eight per cent. of the number
Muted to the Morning Revak, Morning Chronick, and
Morning Post, ALL POT TOOETIIEE.
In addition to the above, issued to the DAILY NEWS,
Morning Paper, there were issued for the Evening Edition,
THE EXPRESS 778.714
Which was more, we believe, than were issued either to
the Globs or Standard, Evening Papers.

To CA)RRESPONDENTS.
S. U —Les . osmayoer ovm dose gad game.

MOB MATS& it LOPUOII BRIDOL
Tn. DAT —llaralos. lb 'Magda Alibm•Mff =b.f.. 7.
'14.-mossow—lforalsi if mi5...1.0 I Afifirimf4 1,4.1. Iv

-- -
LONDON. SATURDAY. JULY 8.
It' the condition and prospects of a great popular
question may be estimated at each period by the
character of the opposition to it, the reform move-
ment has made great progress in the interval between
the first debate on Mr. Hume's motion and that of
Thursday last ; for the change in the complexion of
the anti-reform advocacy is most perceptible. On the
first occasion, the tone was that of a champion who
is quite persuaded that he is safe, and only for form's
sake exchanges a few thrusts. Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S
speech sounded like an echo of Mr. CANNING in days
long gone by, when nobody in parliament took reform
au serie,,r, and the orator well knew that what his
hearers demanded from him was not reason or argu-
ment, but a colour, to put upon the vote they
were predetermined to give. All Lord JOHN
RUSSELL'S points were an exact repetition
of Mr. CANNINCs. The country did not want
organic change. Oar constitution was the ad-
miration and envy of surrounding nations. In
England, a man might rise from the lowest s'ation in
society to the highest. If the House of Commons
were reformed, it would not be emopatible with an
unreformed House of Lords. All these saws Lord
J.R uss ELL had heard, twenty times from Mr.CsNNING,
in opposition to his own motions for reform; and
there was as much truth and pertinency in them then
as there is now. Whether Lord John, a tardy pupil
in his opponents' school, now actually thinks that these
are arguments, we do not know ; but we feel sure
that Mr. CANNING did not, that (to use a stale
metaphor) he laughed in his sleeve at them, and that
if he had ever been brought to close quarters, he
would have fought the battle with weapons totally
different. He estimated his tory supporters very
justly in supposing that they did not require any-
thing better, and as for reformers they were not
strong enough (at least he thought so) to be worth
the trouble of any more ingenious sophistry.
It is possible that Lord JoHN RUSSELL, when he
delivered his speech against reform, may have
been of a somewhat similar way of thinking. It
was not then many weeks since the glorious
tenth of April, when the demon revolution,
or at lout a noisy braggart that attempted to look

like him, sneaked away at the sight of a special con-
stable's staff ; and perhaps Lord JOHN thousht that
democracy had been extiuguished with Mr. CUPPEY.
If so, subsequent reflection has brought wisdom,
if not to him, at least to his supporters, for on Thurs-
day there was no renewal of this old and once ser-
viceable sty.o of argumentation. Nobody took down
front their shelves any more of Mr. CANNING'S dusty
instruments of warfare, or borrowed from Lord
JOHN those which he had brushed and burnished tor
the former occasion. The speakers on Thursday had
completely altered their tactics. They no longer took
their stand in defence of " things as they are. They
gave up the defence of their own position, and only
tried to show that their assailants were us vulnerable
as themselves. The series of speeches ugainst Mr.
Duras motion was a succession of a.saults
not upon reform, but upon the details of (hi
particular plan of reform which Mr. HOME
has brought forward. The burden of the; complaint
was that the plan is not systematic—that it rests on
no definite pnociples, and is open, at various points,
to the double question, why go sU far ; and, since you
go so far, why not ~o farther ?
The assertion is only true in a sense in which it
denied by no one. Mr. COBDEN accepted the charge,
and none of Mr. Ilens's supporters repudiate it. Bat
it comes with an ill grace from the speakers and
writers who advance it. There is not one ot them
who does not proclaim that he also is for reform. A
member of Sir HOBERT PEEL'S cabinet congratulalcs
the ministry on having done with finality ; and we
find, to our great edification, that all the world are
reformers, each in his little way. Then, may not Mr.
Huns retort on his assailants their cavilling objection
against himself ? Does any one of their little plans
rest on any abstract principle any mo, o than his, or
contain in itself any demonstrative ria.on for
doing exactly so much and no more ? In
what, then, do their schemes of reform diffsr
from his ? In that which is of more importance
than anything else—that his proposition is for a veal
reform, theirs for a small one. If it is asked what
principle is involved in Mr. llsslifs proposition, this
is the principle. I. is the principle of a large reform.
Whatever people may say, for the sake of success
in a debate or in a leading article, every ono knows
that the question is nut about any particular collec-
tion of details, about any six points, or four, er five.
The question is that ot a large alteration in our repre-
sentative ay stem. Any plan a hich is brought forward
as a standard for a party to rally round, must be of the
nature of a compromise. The new reform bill is
t. ither more nor less so than the old one.
There is probably as much variety of opinion
among those who voted with Mr. livme, as there
was among those who voted with Lord GREY in 1831.
But they are agreed in this, that they demand a large
measure. There is no other principle in the matter,
and there needs no other. .The measure is ititesded
to hc such as all may vote for, who think that u terse
reform of parliament, in a democratic direction, but
short eif actual democracy, is desirable in itself, and
suitable to the circumstances of the present time. Iu
this respect the scheme perfectly fulfils its purpose.
It draws the Inc with sufficient 'Batiste tness. hose
who are for no change at all, or for such changes only
as would make no difference in the spirit of the
government, of course vote against it. All others
may vote for it, reserving their ulterior opinions. It
excludes all who do not come up to its mark, but
admits all who go beyond it.
One lesson the consistent supporters of reform may
take to themselves—a lesson which becomes more im-
portant in proportion as the contest ceases to be a
were mock tight and becomes a serious conflict of op-
posing reasons. Their practical conduct as politicians
necessarily partakes of compromise. Their demands
and systematic aims must often fail short of their
principles. But let them not therefore cut down their
principles to the measure of their demands. It they
do, they lose far more in vigour of argument, and in
the imposirg influence of a sense of consistency and
power, than they can possibly gain in charming away
the fears of those who would, but dare nut, follow
them. Let them disclaim nothing which is a legiti-
mate consequence of their principles. Let them tell
the truth—when it is the truth—that their private
opinion goes further than their public demands, and
that if they ask less than what their principles would
justify, it is not because they
.fear to avow, or are un-
able to defend, their principles, but because they
think they are doing more good by tunnel; their
efforts with those of others to attain a nearer object,
and one more immediately practicable.

THE anti-reform majority of Thursday night was a
ministerial majority. The FIRST LORD or THE TREA-
SURY moved the negative on Mr. Humg's motion. A
lord of the Treasury and ono of the secretaries to the
Treasury acted as tellers for the anti-reformers.
Seven cabinet ministers, twenty holders of inferior
ministerial appointments, three officers of the royal
household, thirteen relations or connexions by mar-
riage of ministers, and seven ex-employees looking for-
ward to office, voted in the majority; to say nothing
of lawyers and military and naval officers with an eye
to promotion, or relations of whig peers and church-
men. On Thursday night ministers publicly assumed
the office of leaders of the anti-reform party.
La us look a little more closely into the
composition of that majority which supportLd
our anti-reform ministers. There were in it
132 members (tellers included) who have hitherto
professed reform principles; ar.d there were 221 con-
servatives. The avowedly and consistently conserva-
tive element of this majority decidedly preponderates.
But both the conservative and the ci-levant reforming
members who voted in it belong to one class. They
are either persons who hold office, or who have held
and hope to hold it again; or relations of the great
whig and wry aristocracy ; or lawyers and military
and naval men looking forward to advancement in
their profession. They all belong to that caste
which has for the last century and a half
carried on a scramble for place and pension
in the House of Commons, neglecting the
real business of legislation and government. They
are members (by birth or adoption) of that great
family compact which governs by an imperfect re-
presentation of the people, and whose calling, " by
which they have their living," would be destroyed by
parliamentary reform, as surely as the trade of the
Ephesian silversmiths was destroyed by the diffusion
of Christianity.
In Ib3l the whig minority of the aristocracy, con-
vinced that under the old boroughmongerin4 system
their rivals would always prove too many for them,
seceded from the camp and patched up an alliance
with the people. The new allies between them car-
ried the Refer in Act. The people believed that the fruit
of that act was to be the breaking up of the old
system of oligarchical government. 'The whig aris-
tocracy knew better. The late Earl GREY on more
than one occasion took credit with himself for having
so framed the Reform Bill that it would not per-
manently exclude either party from office. The
meaning of this phrase was, that the Reform Act had
sufficiently strengthened the whig party in wile.,
merit to admit of its holding office alternately with
the tory, without admitting the people to any greater'
participation in political power than they had pre-
viously enjoyed. Experience has convinced the people
that this description given of the Reform Act of 1831 1
by its author is almost literally true, and they now
demand a real reform act. And the whig aristocracy
combine with the tory aristocracy to refuse the
people's request.
That alliance of the whig aristocracy with the
people which constituted what has been called since
1830 the Reform (or Reform Bill) party was finally
and publicly dissolved by Lord Joirs RUSSELL on
Thursday night. But the circumstances in which
the whig,s beat their retreat out of the reform camp
show that the people are stronger in the House
of Commons than the whigs ever intended they
should be.
The reform party has on this occasion broken up
into three distinct sections. Eighty-six reformers
(tellers included) voted on Thursday in support of
Mr. 11 can's motion. One hundred and thirty-two
went out on the division along with two hundred and
twenty-one anti-reformers against the motion. An
uncertain, but considerable number of reformers, who
could not make up their minds to oppose ministers,
but who were resolute " not to march through
Coventry" with them, as the minor section of the anti-
reform majority abstained from voting. The apostate
ministers have failed to obtain the countenance of a
majority of the parliamentary reformers to their
alliance with the tones.
A new distribution of the House of Commons into
parties dates its commencement from the division of
Thursday night. Henceforth the real distinction is
into the advocates and the opponents of real parlia-
mentary reform. The reformparty in parliament starts