The Express.
London, England, 1867-08-08 00:00:00

MR. BRIGHT'S SPEECH AT MANCHESTER.

The Times attributes Mr. Bright's opposition to
the representation of minorities, to his inability, despite
the fact that he is the vested of our orators, to grasp the
essential idea of a representative assembly. In discussing
the aim of Lord Cairns' amendment, Mr. Blight is like a
man who is colour-blind talking about colours. Con-
sidering the liberals who have voted for it, it is
not consistent with the rough honesty of his nature
to declare the proposition comes from a very suspicions
quarter. As to his objection that only twelve consti-
tuencies are to be taken for the experiment, this is not
due to its friends. With his remarks on voting papers the
Times entirely concurs, and trusts the House of Commons
will jealously guard against all danger of interference with
the spontaneous action of voters, and adhere to its first
decision.

The Daily Neves urges that the power of minorities is in
excess in England already. The checks, restraints, and
balances of our system need to be diminished rather than
multiplied. Mr. Bright's vigorous speech disposes very
satisfactorily of the scheme of Lord Cairns, but, unfortu-
nately, after his too frequent custom, he did the best to
' weaken the force of his arguments by violent language. It
is ridiculous, as well as insolent, to speak of the opinions
of Mr. Hare and Mr. Mill as the " offspring and 'pea 4 of
feeble minds ;" and to hold up men like Mr. Fawcett and
Mr. Hughes as undeserving of the confidence of any true
friends of reform and of freedom. Justice revolts
against this language, and the reaction will, the Laity
News fears, profit the cause which Mr. Bright assails.
Those gentlemen have, nevertheless, made a serious pray
tic►l blunder. They and the other democratic supporters
of the representation of minorities in three-cornered con-
stituencies fancy that, once introduced, it will become
general. They underrate the power of resistance in Eng-
lish polities, and the dread of logic and uniformity which
animates the English mind. The limited vote, once
adopted in a few large towns, will acquire soon the sanctity
of an anomaly, and it will be equally difficult to extend or
abolish it.

To the Post Mr. Bright really appears to be answering
the appeal which was lately put to him to make himself
the present champion of the constitution against its ancient
defenders, and it is to be hoped and expected that the bill
will very shortly be relieved from the two vicious and
mischievous additions which alone remain to show that it
has passed through the House of Lords.
The Herald and Standard vehemently oppose the course
taken by the government, and especially Mr. Disraeli, with
regard to the representation of minorities, and use lan-
guage towards Mr. Bright with which their readers last
session had become very familiar. He is called to-day
"a foul-mouthed agitator," "a self-convicted libeller,"
"the implacable enemy of reform," and his arguments
are charietet:aed " idiotic tot ge,
.

The TelegrapA expects Mr. Diane li to recommeTt4 the
adoption of the amended oopyhold franchise; but, on the
clause referring to voting papers, it hardly imagines the
Cabinet will endorse with vigour the action of the peers.
Lord Cairns slid big clause through In the unlucky inter-
val when the Premier lay sick; and Mr. Disraeli would
crown all his bonoun by asking the Peen to " see it in a
new light," as they so sucendully saw the lodger
franchise.

Mr. Bright's speech, according to the Star, may be taken
as a fair exposition of what the robust, common-sense,
and healthy patriotism of England think of the proposal to
force what is called the representation of minorities upon
• few of the great constituencies of the country. Mr.
Bright's language was pretty strong ; but it is difficult to
measure language when dealing with so impudent • pro.
posa I as that which Lord Cairns succeeded in carrying
through the House of Lords.

BIZ W. MANSFIELD AND CAPTAIN JERVIS.

The Times expresses its belief that the minority In the
Hones of Commons on Tuesdaynight were in the right, and
that whatever indiscretion or impropriety Capt. Jervis may
have committed, justice requires that the extreme pa
nalty of dismissal from the service should not be enforced.
We at home, who now know more of the truth of the
matter than even the court-martial did, can see how that
tribunal decided rightly. Why, then, should we allow its
judgment to be set aside by the man whom everyone
now admits to have acted with the utmost intemperance
and unfairness? Are all military controversies to be
decided on the principle that, whatever the rights of the
question, the inferior must always be sacrificed as a
tribute to discipline? If so, let the doctrine be boldly
enounced; if not—if justice and mercy are to have any
part in military affairs, this unfortunate officer, who has
already suffered so much, may be well allowed to return
to his regiment.
It is undeniable, the Post says, that Captain Jervis no
longer holds her Majesty's commiarion because the com-
mander of the forces in India believed him guilty of an
offence of which he had, by a duly constituted court, been
adjudged innocent. This is the real hardship of Captain
Jervis's case ; and, whilst thinking that on the whole the
House of Commons may have exercised a sound discretion
in refusing to interfere, the Post cannot help regretting
that his royal highness the commander-in-chief did not
think fit to overrule Sir W. Mansfield's rejection of the
merciful suggestion of the Simla court-martial.