The Sun.
London, England, 1865-05-23 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS

TlMES.—cord Elcho may be congratulated on hav-
ing converted so good a Whig as Lord Grosvenor to
his own views of Reform. Lord Grosvenor has for
eighteen years represented the city of Chester,
where, as Captain Dod informs us, " the Grosvenor
family have great influence," on " principles of ra-
tional progress, tempered with a spirit of modera-
tion." He therefore enjoys a more independent
position than the majority of borough members, and
he has availed himself of it with creditable frank-
ness in an address which we published yesterday.
Having voted in favour of Mr. Baines's Bill in 1864,
and against the same measure in 1865, he disdains
to disguise the motive of this inconsistency, and
attributes it to " further consideration." Last year
he regarded that bill as no more than a testimony
to " the principle of a measure of Reform ;" this
year he sees it to be a "specific proposition" fraught
with revolutionary perils. The grounds which Lord
Grosvenor assigns for his present opinion are worth
studying, since they are a fair specimen of the rea-
sons which influence many minds in the same direc-
tion, and will probably be reproduced, with slight
variations, in many future addresses. The first
ground is the absence of " any strong feeling in
favour of lowering" as opposed to " extending" "the
franchise." The second is the non-existence of any
practical grievance to be remedied by a Reform Bill.
The third is the difficulty of finding any resting-
place between a £6 borough franchise and universal
suffrage. At the same time Lord Grosvenor is pre-
pared to extend the electoral body " where it can be
shown that this can be done without giving undue
preponderance to any one class of the population."
By the establishment of qualifications based on pro-
vidence and intelligence ho still hopes to give the
working men a larger share of representation, and
he adopts Lord Elcho's proposal that, previous to any
legislation, a scheme of this kind should be originated
by a Royal Commission. This is sensible and tempe-
rate language, and it does not appear to have damaged
Lord Grosvenor in the estimation of his constituents,
for it is actually in contemplation to return him
again without a canvass, and free of expense. His
reasoning, however, is too negative to form the
foundation of a policy. It is perfectly fair, apart
from any question of political pledges, to require
the advocates of an organic change to make out a
prima facie case. But it does not follow that a
prima facie case cannot be made out in any other
way than by pointing to a violent agitation among
the unrepresented masses, or to great standing
wrongs inflicted on them by the present holders of
the franchise. It may be made out, for instance, by
proving that large numbers of citizens qualified in
every way for the privilege of voting, and superior
in capacity to the ten-pound householders of 1832,
are in fact excluded from the suffrage, and thereby
estranged more or less in sentiment and divided in
organisation from the classes above them. We do
not say that it is so, but it may be so ; and if it
were, it would constitute a good
_prima facie reason
for opening the door wider, even though the clamour
from without should not be very loud, or the hard-

ship of being shut out very serious. People who
are for ever dwelling on the conflict of interests
between class and class are not to forget the inte-
rests which the whole nation has in common. If
we are to indulge in ideals at all, Parliament ought
not to be regarded as an arena where the delegates
of various classes may scramble together for selfish
benefits to be obtained at the expense of others, but
as a true Wittenagemote, where all free opinions
should be welcomed as contributions to the public
treasury of wisdom. If we are to deal with facts
alone, experience happily does not warrant the
belief that political power will always be abused
by those who can do so with impunity. A pure aris-
tocracy is not necessarily more disinterested than a
pure democracy, and yet pure aristocracies have
been known to exercise their trust for centuries
with a tolerably honest regard to the common
weal. The same may be said even of unlimited
monarchies, and the proper lesson to be drawn
from it is—not that such forms of polity are com-
parable with mixed Constitutions like our own—
not that a vast multitude of uneducated persons
should be enfranchised at once—but that human
nature, in its political relations, is not quite so cor-
rupt as is too often assumed. If it is a libel on those
who have hitherto governed this country to say that
they have wilfully sacrificed the poor to the rich, the
many to the few ; it is no less a libel on those whom
a moderate Reform Bill would enfranchise to assume
that they would employ their newly-acquired power
in levelling the rights of property. We strongly
suspect that what inspires timid politicians with a
horror, not only of Mr. Baines's one-barrelled Re-
form Bill, but of any progressive Reform, is a con-
fused idea of its logical consequences. It is not so
much because they dread the immediate effect of im-
porting a " democratic element" into the House of
Commons that they hesitate to extend the franchise
except laterally, as because they do not see where
they are to stop. It must be confessed that Radical
orators are the victims of a very similar blindness,
and have done much to aggravate the perplexity of
cautious Whigs. It is they, even more than
their Conservative opponents, who have talked
of instalments and downward slopes, and propagated
by all the tricks of metaphor the notion that any
further " concession" involves the inevitable result
of manhood suffrage. A doctrine more fatal to the
cause of Reform it would be difficult to conceive,
especially when it is illustrated by constant reference
to the model of American institutions. Mr. Disraeli,
no doubt, has this danger in his eye when he depre-
cates a democracy as " the tyranny of one class, and
that one the least enlightened." Lord Grosvenor
evidently alludes to it when he contrasts " the real
liberty which we enjoy at home" with the "counter-
feit that maybe found abroad." Now, without enter-
ing into the virtues or defects of Republicanism in
America, we protest against it being thus adduced
as a precedent. There is a great deal to be learnt
from the example of America in every department of
politics, but to argue as though the suffrage were at
the bottom of all or most of the distinctions between
Great Britain and the United States is unjust. It
would be easy to enumerate circumstance after cir-
cumstance, historical, geographical, ethnological,
and social, each of which might be considered with
equal justice as the grand cause of difference in
their political development. The state of society in
America may or may not be " the bottom of an
abyss," but there is no reason in logic or common
sense why we should finally glide into it if we en-
franchise the most respectable of our artisans.
Universal suffrage itself would not assimilate this
country to America, any more than monarchy would
assimilate America to this country ; but the master
fallacy lies in representing any downward extension
of the franchise as a " step towards" universal suf-
frage. In one sense of course it is so, but in the
same sense any expansion of the narrowest oligarchy
may be described in the same terms. In another
sense—the only sense worth discussing—nothing is
a step towards universal suffrage which does not
tend to bring it about, either by appealing to con-
siderations which, if admitted, would justify it, or
by removing some obstacle to its introduction. A
sound Reform Bill—that is, a Reform Bill founded
on the presumption of personal capacity rather than
on any theory respecting the equilibrium of classes
—is open to neither of these objections. It does not
appeal to any consideration which would justify
universal suffrage until every member of the com-
munity shall have acquired a position or shall earn
a rate of wages which it would be Utopian indeed to
anticipate. It does not remove any obstacle to the
introduction of universal suffrage, but, on the con-
trary, places those who would resist it in a stronger
position than they now hold. We gladly accept
Lord Grosvenor's adhesion to " the establishment of
qualifications based on providence and intelligence,"
and are more hopeful than he appears to be of its
adoption by the nation. By all means let us have
an inquiry, but let that inquiry be conducted-in a
liberal spirit, by the light of principles, and without
too great deference to foregone conclusions about
the proper adjustment of class-interests.
HERALD.—When, on the eve of a general elec-
tion, the parliamentary leader of one of the great
national parties issues an address to his constituents,
that address is naturally considered in the light of
an appeal to the country at large. In that light
Mr. Disraeli's letter to the electors of Bucks will
be read with attentive interest by men of all par-
ties in every county and borough throughout the
United Kingdom, and we hope that it will go far
to dispel illusions which have had a very mischie-
vious operation, and open the eyes of thoughtful
and conscientious politicians to the real nature and
importance of the issues which the constituencies
will so soon be called upon to decide. The leaders,
and the great majority of the Liberal party, appeal
to the country on the strangest ground ever taken
up by a body of responsible public men. They say,
" There is really no difference between us and the
Conservatives ; the struggle is merely a personal
one, and the country will surely not do us the in-
justice to turn us out merely that the Tories may
sit in our places." . Now, if it be true that there is
now no difference between the two great parties,
whereas formerly, as it is admitted, there were great
questions of principle on which they were entirely
opposed to each other, how has this unanimity been
been brought about ? Have all the questions at
issue been settled ? Certainly not : it was on a ques-
tion of principle that Lord Derby's Government
was turned out in 1859, and that question has
never been settled. It was on questions of principle
that the Conservatives were called on, year after
year, to fight the battles of the Church,l and that
strife is not yet decided. Is it, then, that the Con-
servatives have come over to the principles of
Liberalism upon these questions ? Certainly not ;
no one pretends to say that on constitutional or
ecclesiastical questions the Conservatives have
changed or conceded aught since 1859. Is it, then,
that the Liberals have seen the error of their ways,
repented, and embraced Conservatism ? If it were
so this would be a curious reason for claiming the
confidence, of the country in opposition to the Con-
servative leaders, who for twenty years have fought
for the doctrines to which their adversaries are such
late and reluctant converts. If it is admitted that
the country is to be governed on Conservative
principles it would seem to follow that it should be
governed by those who are the recognised repre-
sentatives of those principles. It is a new
thing in the ethics' of government by party, that
when a party in power finds its distinctive prin-
ciples becoming unpopular it should resign its
opinions, instead of resigning its offices, and,
abjuring all connection with its old creed, appro-
priate that of its adversaries. But the case of the.
Liberals is somewhat worse than this. They say that
there is no distinction between themselves and the
Conservatives; but they do not frankly abjure the
ideas which formed a very marked distinction some
years ago; They want to play fast and loose. As
Liberals by profession they hope to retain the sup-
port of those who still profess the ideas which in
1859 constituted Liberalism ; while they quiet the
apprehensions of the tens of thousands of nominal
Liberals who abhor Mr. Baines and Mr. Miall with
impartial terror, by a phrase which is intended to
assure them that official Liberalism shall never be
more than a name. If they were to avow themselves
Conservatives a new Radical party would be formed
independent of them, and they themselves would
soon cease to have a party existence. But if they let
the sober part of the constituencies, which a near
view of democracy has thoroughly alarmed, believe
that they have any other than Conservative inten-
tions, they would find themselves left alone with
the Radicals, in a hopeless and permanent minority.
They claim the support and confidence of the latter
on the faith of their own thorough insincerity. It is
a startling proof' of the political demoralisation
which six years of Whig government has wrought,
that a Liberal Ministry rests its chief hopes of suc-
cess at the coming elections on the fact that no one
believes in its Liberalism. We will not attempt to
deprive Lord Palmerston and his colleagues of that
claim to public confidence which is derived from the
meritorious violation of unscrupulous promises, and
the deliberate non-fulfilment of expectations incon-
sistent with the national interest. We fully believe
that the Prime Minister of the Reformers detests
Reform; and that the Ministers who vote with the
Liberation Society would really be sorry to find them-
selves on the winning side. But we must protest
against the extravagant valuation set upon these
claims to popular support. We cannot allow
that it is a matter of entire indifferbnce to the
public welfare whether we have in office a Con-
servative Ministry or a Liberal Ministry of Con-
servative predilections. Mr. Disraeli's address
reminds us how we have passed a period of
six years in the enjoyment of the latter blessing.
Lord Palmerston certainly, his colleagues probably,
did not really wish to overturn either the Church or
,the Constitution, 13ut they came near doing both.

-
and if they had had a majority strong enough to,
overpower the Opposition and overawe the House
of Lords, they would in their own despite have done
both. The history of the expiring Parliament has
been sketched in a few pregnant sentences by Mr.
Disraeli. It is the history of repeated attacks by
the Dissenters on the Church and by the Democra:ts
on the Constitution ; attacks which, we will admit,
the Government did not wish to further, but to
which, nevertheless, they were compelled almost in-
variably to lend their votes and their official autho-
rity. The Conservative Opposition has met and
frustrated those attacks ; and the country has
garded its success not only without impatience, but,
with evident satisfaction. Taking heart at last, the.
elite of the independent Liberals have ventured to,
speak out ; and a House of Commons electedta-
pass a Liberal Reform Bill, which in its first session
threw out Lord Derby's Reform Bill, because it
did not contain that democratic Shibboleth, a £6
clause, has in its last session debated and cci-
demned that very clause ; the opposition being
conducted and the majority made up by Liberal
members. As Mr. Disraeli observes, the country
is determined on the two points which have been
most fiercely contested in this Parliament ; it will
have a National Church, and it will not have a
democratic constitution. When the Conservative
leader, and the party which, under his guidance,
has anticipated and enforced this national de-
termination, England believes that the National'
Church is necessary to impress a religious character
upon the action of the state ; to prevent legislation
and government from assuming a tone of secularism
most dangerous to the piety and morality of the
people. With the Conservatives, the country desires
that while the basis of the representative systole
should be extended so as to include the best intclll-
genee and virtue of all classes, it should not be se
altered and degraded as to give absolute ascendailoY
to one. In a word, the votes of Parliament and the
opinion of the country have endorsed the principles
of Lord Derby's Reform Bill, and the policy for
which, during six years of anxiety and difficulty, the
Conservative party have earnestly and not in vain.
contended. If that policy is to be faithfully carried
out, if those principles are to guide our future legls-
lation, if we are to be rid for the future of incessant,
insidious attacks on the privileges and property 01
the Church, and of a factitious agitation which pre-
vents all settled confidence in the foundations of the
constitutioi, we must owe it to a Conservative
House of Commons. Only such an expression of the
national will as would be implied in the return of a
decided Conservative majority, and such Par-
liamentary discouragement as only a decided
majority can inflict, will put the agitators to
silence or give security to the country. That
the Conservative party are not, as some
scrupulous adversaries have assserted, bent on re'
sisting all constitutional modifications—that they
are not indifferent to the claim of the working 0103,
to be recognised as an element in the political elasil-
ei?.ce of the nation. Mr. Disraeli's address will 0°31.1
vince any one who is not pre-determined to oali
and to distrust. And the present language of tli°,
Conservative leader is in strict accord with his y 0,0.:
conduct ; with the provisions of the bill whiell.T,
strove in vain to carry, and with the terms in which
he has uniformly spoken of the claims of the unre-
presented. The Views which he held in 1859, and
which then cost him and his party the loss of power/
are now the common views of educated, thoughtful,
and moderate men. Then they were reviled 8°
illiberal, and as a mere mockery of reform ; noW
we believe that the working classes themselves 100
lr
back with regret upon a liberality which, if mode"
rate, was sincere, and a reform which, if not viololtl
was limited because its author meant that it shoal°
pass. There are few except disappointed Whigs or
desperate Radicals who will not recognise the es
pression of their own best hopes and wishes in
Disraeli's words :—" Public opinion may not, rer_k
haps, be yet ripe enough to legislate on this subjetf,t
but it is sufficiently interested in the question ra
ponder over it with advantage. So that, when tht
time comes for action, we may legislate in the spy
of the English constitution, which would absorb the
best of every class, and not fall into a democraoh
which is the tyranny of ono class, and that one the
least enlightened."