The Sun.
London, England, 1865-09-22 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The versatile leader of the Opposition
has made his annual appearance in the capacity of
a Buckinghamshire farmer. The characters are
various in which Mr. Disraeli delights to appear.
He is everything, not by starts, but periodically,
and has been poet, statesman, churchman, and far-
mer with the regularity, as well as with the varia-
tion, " of each revolving moon." He is now, indeed,
scarcely peculiar in this ambition, for there are few
of our leading public men who do not from time to
time turn their hands to scholarship, to art, to
science, to farming, or even—most perilous of all
subjects—to theology. Mr. Disraeli ventured boldly
into that disturbed arena last year, and, being " on
the side of the angels," ruslitcl in unhesitatingly
where less privileged persons fear to tread. He is
not less courageous in his personation of a farmer
than in his character as a theologian, and he ven-
tures on predictions and advice with a happy con-
sciousness of his ability to get out of a difficulty,
and with a thorough-going confidence to which
even Mr. Henley does not aspire. That gentleman,
though possessing eminently the experience and the
qualifications of what Mr. Disraeli called at Ayles-
bury " the agricultural mind," confessed the other
day his inability to advise the tenant farmer on the
mysteries of his craft. Mr. Disraeli's genius is not
so easily held in check, and he has just received a
particular encouragement in his agricultural studies.
He ventured last year to advance a theory for im-
proving the breed of Buckinghamshire sheep, which
was somewhat keenly criticised. The very cross
which he recommended, however—that of a Down
with a Cotswold—has this year received the first
prize of the Bucks Association. We shall not
grudge him such a testimonial to his agricultural
judgment, though he himself informs us that the
competition has not been very severe ; but we must
demur to the logic with which he infers from this
success that we may " therefore place confidence"
in his estimate of the crops of the year. It must be
allowed, however, that his estimates are founded on
a very safe principle. It consists in simply remem-
bering that Buckinghamshire is not conterminous
with Great Britain, and that it will not do to argue
from the character of the crops in the county to the
value of the crops in the whole countty. It is a
simple principle, but no doubt a very important
one, and it would appear from Mr. Disraeli's speech
that it is one of which the Buckinghamshire farmers
peculiarly need to be reminded. They seem, in his
representation of them, to be very " local " in all
:their habits and ways of thought, and if one of
them fails in his wheat or his root crops he imme-
diately jumps to the conclusion that the wheat crop
or the root crop of the country is below the aver-
age. It is a very British peculiarity, and Mr. Dis-
raeli employs his cosmopolitan capacities to a useful
purpose in correcting such a misapprehension. Last
year the Buckinghamshire root crop was extremely
meagre, and until the appearance of Mr. Disraeli at
the annual meeting of the association the farmers,
he tells us, " were speculating on the price of meat
in consequence of the want of food and fodder that
would occur." But then Mr. Disraeli " ventured
to remind them" of the great philosophical truth
that " nothing was so unwise as to draw your con-
clusions from a contracted area of observation ;"
or, in other words, that there are other counties in
England besides Buckinghamshire, and that the
root crops in them were more successful. This
sagacious warning proved to be well-founded, and
this year Mr. Disraeli has to make the converse re-
mark. The Buckinghamshire root crop is good,
but that in the north of England, he tells us, is bad,
and when Mr. Henley, therefore, the other day,
argued that the price of meat might be kept down
by the excellence of the root crops, he, too, com-
mitted the great philosophical blunder of " drawing
his conclusions from too limited an area." From
such a judicious observer it is satisfactory to be as-
sured that while the harvest of the country is " fair,"
that of Buckinghamshire is " good ;" that throughout
the greater part of the county the wheat was stacked
before the weather broke •, and that if the barley was
somewhat tarnished by the rain, the misfortune was
compensated by the benefit done to the roots. Mr.
Disraeli pays a handsome tribute to the conduct of
the Government in reference to the Cattle Plague,
and such an example is particularly opportune at
the present moment. The regulations of the Go-
vernment may not be altogether correct, still less
sufficient, but they are the best to be had, and the
first necessity, when dealing with such a danger as
now alarms us, is that every one should obey orders.
Farmers are quite sufficiently disposed to neglect
the most ordinary precautions, and it should be the
aim of all persons in authority to support the
Government in the measures which, after good
advice and careful consideration, they have thought
it proper to adopt. Mr. Disraeli, therefore, does a
public service at such a moment in expressing his
conviction that " though it may not be difficult to
criticise some things that have been done or said,
there has been a sincere desire on the part of the
Government to do their duty, and that they are
prepared to propose all such measures as are neces-
sary for the occasion." "It is our duty," he adds,
" to support them as much as we can, and where
they are wanting to supply the deficiency. Buck-
inghamshire, happily, has hitherto been free from
Cattle Plague, and considering to how large an
extent the prosperity of the county depends upon
its stock, it is especially to be hoped that its im-
munity may continue. With the same prudence
which has been observed in other parts of the coun-
try, the Association consented to deprive its meeting
of half its attraction by not allowing horned cattle
to be collected for exhibition. With regard to this
subject, too, Mr. Disraeli has to make a cautious
suggestion on the " local" tendencies of Bucking-
hamshire farmers. They have, it appears, founded
numerous local societies in anticipation of the
plaugue ; but he reminds them that if it should in-
vade the county an effort must be made on a much
larger scale. Mr. Disraeli is very cautious in finding
fault with this bump of locality. Indeed, he praises
it, as " the deepest and most precious, as well
as the most captivating and enduring, influence that
can govern men." This is what we should call, to
use his own language, " a local exaggeration," but
it is evident he thinks there may be too much even
of such a good thing, and it is instructive to observe
that his whole speech is more or less directed to
moderate this Buckinghamshire propensity. It
seems that the Royal Central Bucks Agricultural
Association is much too local. It has been formed
by an amalgalmation of two societies, the Royal and
the Central. The former was the oldest society of
the sort in England, and it was constructed, there-
fore, with the somewhat antiquated object of en-
couraging " local" qualities, humble merit and
humble skill, such as those of " the hedger, the
thatcher, the dairyman, the ploughman, and the
cottager." It was perceived that more than this
humble and local encouragement was wanted in the
present day, and the Central Society was therefore
founded to encourage more general excellence, and
the two were subsequently combined. But the
Buckinghamshire local habits proved too strong for
the success of the society. The Association is treated
as though it had nothing to do with any other part
of the county but the district around Aylesbury,
and the local rewards for clean cottages and good
character do not attract general exhibitors of agri-
cultural produce to the central show. In this state
of things Mr. Disraeli gives some advice which it is
peculiarly gratifying to receive from his mouth.
Looking on the matter, he says, from a business
point of view, what is wanted is, not these humble
and local qualities, but wealth. The real purpose
of the Society is to improve stock and crops, which
are " to be the source of worldly prosperity ;" for
this purpose what is required is excellence, and
" you can only obtain excellence by competition."
" You have been attempting," he says, " to do
two things at the same time which are perfatly
incompatible—to reward local merit and to aspire
to national and general excellence." In effect,
therefore, he tells the Buckinghamshire farmers
plainly that if they want to advance the general and
national prosperity, and, by consequence, their own,
they must abandon their ideas of local protection and
encouragement, and must compete with the whole
county, and, indeed, with the rest of England.
Admirable advice ; but, we are inclined to ask, is it
Mr. Disraeli or some enthusiastic Freetrader to whom
we are listening ? Has Mr. Disraeli really dis-
covered that general and national prosperity cannot
be advanced by schemes of local encouragement, and
is he about to convert Buckinghamshire farmers to
principles of Free trade and general progress ? He
appears himself to be conscious that his advice might
be taken for a political apologise, for he remarks that
in consequence of this local policy the Bucks Asso-
ciation has been " not progressive, but at least Con-
servative in its position." We welcome so candid
an admission that Conservatism is not progress,
and are still more happy to see that Mr. Disraeli
associates standing still with a local and restrictive
policy. We trust he will for the future be better
able to appreciate the precisely similar arguments
which he still opposes in Parliament, to the effect
that if we wish to increase our national wealth we
must increase the excellence of our productions, and
that if we would increase the excellence of our pro-
ductions we must admit the most unrestricted com-
petition with the whole world. We venture to hope
in short, that, with his peculiar capacity for seeing
great philosophical truths in very trivial matters, he
will generalise these observations upon Buckingham-
shire agriculture into maxims of political conduct,
and that we shall soon see him giving as good advice
to his followers in Parliament as to the members of
the Bucks Agricultural Association.

POST:—Mi. Bright has declined to attend a Re-
form meeting in Glasgow, partly on the ground that
the state of his health compelled him to shun en-
gagements which would entail a good deal of eau-

tion and excitement, but principally, as we hope,
because he feels it would be inconvenient to enter
at once into any agitation for the extension of
the franchise. Political friends, and political
opponents would alike regret to hear that Mr.
Bright was physically unequal to undertake a
mission that would be to him a labour of love.
But while to a certaint extent we agree with Mr.
Bright as to the importunity of forcing the Reform.
question, we cannot think that he has at all honestly
explained the reasons which have led him to form
the opinion he avows. Mr. Bright says he is not
anxious that this question should be dealt with
during the official life of the present Prime Minister.
Lord Palmerston, he says, is the only man connected
with the Liberal party who is at once both able and
willing to betray the cause of Reform. Mr. Bright
assumes that one sentence from the lips of the Pre-
mier would have passed the Reform Bill of 1860,
and that sentence he refused to utter. " His col-
leagues preferred their places to their honour as
public men, and they consented to the greatest poli-
tical fraud of our times rather than leave the Trea-
sury bench for a season." Now, in passing, we
must be permitted to remark that this sweeping
attack, including as it does every member of the
Administration, from Lord Russell to Mr. Milner
Gibson, should be made, if male at all, in the House
of Commons, and, as may be reasonably desired, in
the presence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
But we are entirely unable to believe that Mr.
Bright is serious in making such a charge. At all
events, there can hardly be another man in England
who would venture to accuse Mr. Gladstone, we will
say, of having forfeited his public honour, and,
merely to retain a seat on the Treasury bench, of
having consented to a great political fraud. If the
statement were in any sense true, the House of
Commons that gave its confidence to the Govern-
ment of Lord Palmerston would not deserve the con-
fidence of the country. For our own part, too, we very
much doubt if even the weight of Lord Palmerston's
influence would have persuaded Parliament to pass a
measure which nobody, except Mr. Bright and his im-
mediate followers, cared for. But, be that as it may,
we are quite certain it was no part of the duty
of the Prime Minister to exercise any personal
authority he possessed to control or coerce the
representation of public opinion in the House of
Commons. Further, it is not difficult to under-
stand the objections which Mr. Bright entertains to
pressing the Reform question. The " Advanced Re-
formers," as they are called, seem to be half afraid
that the Government will ask Parliament to con-
sider the expediency of amending the representative
system. We ventured to state some short time since
that whenever the present Administration brought
in another Reform Bill, it would be carried, and we
say now that we are by no means sure that it is de-
sirable to consult Mr. Bright's convenience. To
speak plainly, we are inclined to think that the
sooner the subject is examined the better. It will
take some time to collect and analyse the informa-
tion which is required to frame a measure for ex-
tending the franchise so as to admit many persons
who it may be assumed are capable of appreciating
electoral obligations without disturbing the consti-
tutional balance of Parliamentary power ; and look-
ing at the general unanimity which exists in point
of principle, it might be advisable to pass a Reform
Bill through its first and second stages in the House
of Commons and see what could be made of it in
committee. This, of course, is what Mr. Bright
most particularly objects to. He is sensible that
Lord Palmerston's Government could settle the ques-
tion. He is aware that it might be settled by com-
bining the " lateral" and the " vertical" theories in
a practical scheme. He knows that he and his po-
litical friends stand well nigh alone in the way of
an arrangement. Moreover, now that the Conser-
vatives cannot hope to embarrass the Government
on the Reform question, they may be willing to assist
in disposing of it. Mr. Bright perceives all this, and,
wisely in his sense, he calls to his followers to halt.
Some of them do not appear to comprehend the com-
mand ; still, no doubt, it will be obeyed. But what
course her Majesty's Ministers and the Home of
Commons may see fit to pursue is, we con-
ceive, altogether another matter. We cannot
discover that there is, or that it is probable
there will be hereafter, any necessity whatever
.for agitating this question. Nor, on the
involved
in hand, do we take it that the principle
in an extension of the franchise is contested. It is
true that there is no intelligible claim to be consi-
dered, and that therefore any measure extending the
franchise would be, so to speak, gratuitous, but under
the actual circumstances we are not convinced that
it would be judicious to wait for a formal, or possibly
a clamorous, demand. Mr. Bright's suggestion is in
itself significant. The real difficulty is one that will
not be abated by time. Ten years hence, as now, the
question would have to be resolved by a process
which may hardly be described as argumentative.
Put shortly, we have to ascertain whether the fran-
chise may or may not be extended on the basis of
the subsisting constitutional equilibrium. The expe-
diency of its extension may be said to be conceded
on the condition which the word implies. We
have not to determine if it would be expedient to
change our form of government. There can he no
argument on such abstract points. What we have to
require is—how, if at all, the franchise may be safely
and equitably extended ; and that is a question which
admits of a certain and conclusive answer. The
Government of Lord Palmerston will act upon its
proper responsibility, and the decision will rest, not
with Mr. Bright, but with the House of Commons
and the country.