The Express.
London, England, 1867-02-01 00:00:00

MR. BRII.IIT AND REFORM.

I Hitherto the Times did not look upon versatility
as one of the oratorical gifts of Mi. Bright, but in his
recent appearances at Rochdale he has conic forward in the
totally new and moat alluring attitude of a good, easy
man, of strong convictions, of inoffensive habits and sus-
ceptible feelings ; one who has fallen on evil tongues and
evil days, and winces tremulously under the pressure of
libels and calumnies which he wants alike the spirit, the
power, and the will to retort. In one part of Mr. Bright's
complaints the Times most heartily agrees, and considers
that nothing can be more unfair, nothing more unhand-
some, nothing more unjust, than the private attacks of
which he has been the object. But to Mr. Bright's
inquiry why it is that political controversies are car-
ried on with a bitterness known to no other disputes
the Tines replies by asking who bee set so evil an ex-
ample, and one so fruitful of mischief. With the excep-
tion of O'Connell and Cobbett, the Titus doubts whether
a choicer garland of abuse against parties and persons
could be gathered from the speeches of any other public
man of the present century than from those of Mr. Bright,
and therefore it is not Cthout a certain feeling of plea.
sure that it observes how keenly the man who has set this
ill example to our public speaker, seems to feel that very
castigation of which he is so lavish to others. It is sur-
prised that the man who make, it his business to decry
institutions of which we are justly proud, to pervert the
facts of history, and to praise other countries at our ex-
pense, should suppose that he can do these things without
raising up some faint echo of his own spirit of bitterneu.
It condoles with Mr. Bright for having found, like other
persecutor,, persons almost as zealous and as bitter as
himself, and exhorts bins to improve the pain that he now
feels by drawing flow it the resolution to treat other, a
little more as he himself would like to be treated.
In the opinion of the Herald the portrait, if it were a
true one, which Mr. Bright drew of himself at Rochdale,
would be the greatest libel ever uttered against the people
of England. Mr. Bright has proved too much, if he has
proved anything, The very example which he is so fond
of quoting—the repeal of the corn laws—shows that the
ordinary powers of that parliament which be has maligned
are quite equal to deal with the gre►test class questions
which can arise. Unlike his friend Mr. Cobden, Mr.
Bright has made his political economy secondary to his
politics. He has always been impatient of the abstract
principles of free trade whenever they conflict with his
political interests, and shut his eyes to the patent fact
that democracies in all countries tend to protection.
That an obscure member of " a small but soicewhat re-
markable religious sect," with no other claims to back
him but an earnest belief in his own superior honesty and
intelligence, should have been able to play so conspicuous a
part in the history of his country, is, in the opinion of the
nimbi, a sufficient refutation of the silly and wanton
slanders which Mr. Bright is in the habit of venting upon
the English governing system.

The i'ost thinks that Mr. Bright a not tar wrong when
he asserts that parliament is impotent to deal with certain
questions, such as the upsetting of the established church
and the redistribution of landed property. The House
of Commons could indeed pass a measure denation-
alising the church, or a measure confiscating the
estates of large landowners, but the exercise of the
power would, so to speak, break its arm. It would be
straining constitutional power to an unconstitutional pur-
pose, and the house might be dissolved on the issue
arising out of its action. It may or may not be difficult
to induce the existing House of Commons to change its
constitution, but Mr. Bright must not deceive himself as
to the n►ture of the complications which would tread on
the heels of the changes he foreshadows ; and it is possible
that the impeachment which he has again thrown, as it
were, in the face of parliament, will serve to fortify its
independence, and to justify before the final court of
appeal a constitutional, comprehensive, and equitable
modification of the representative system.
Mr. Bright never before said so much of himself as in
his late speech at Rochdale, and the Star is sorry that
it, needed unscrupulous virulence on the part of enemies,
and emphatic demonstr►tions of affection on the part of
friends, to induce him to reveal the pure springs of his
public conduct. In reply to the argument made use of
by both tones and " moderates" that Mr. Bright ought
in candour to admit that most of the errors in legislation
and policy of which he complains were heartily shared
by the nation at large, and that be has no right to demand
a representative assembly better or wiser than the nation
it represents, the Star points to the fact that almost every
one now concurs in the wisdom of what was done through
the exertions of liberal minorities, struggling fora time
fruitlessly but eventually with seocess, against majorities
in favour of things as they were, and contends that
thorough representation is the most educating and
elevating of all political influences, and that if the
People were really represented, political knowledge would
go to and fro in the land, and wisdom be increased.

The cause to be pursued by the liberal Nifty must, says
the Telegraph, be practically determined by the nature of
the speech from the throne. That speech might distinctly
promise a substantive measure of reform ; and should
such be the miie, the government proposal would receive
a fair and impartial consideration. The tactics of
the conservatives in 1866 will not be imitated by
reformer@ in 1867 ; and the fair play which
was denied to the Russell-Gladstone ministry will
not be refused to Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli.
Should the cabinet trifle with tho question by adopting
a policy of procrastination, the Telegraph ventures to
assume that the address would not be allowed to pass
without a protest, and that the liberal party would invite
the house to record its dissatisfaction with so gross an act
of omission or of equivocation.