The Sun.
London, England, 1860-12-12 00:00:00

oppose Parliamentary reform." If there be any

doubt among the old Tory faction as to the accu-
racy of this opinion, let them only attempt to test

it upon the very next opportunity.

In reality, it has long since become one of
the most notorious political " facts" of the age that
the necessity for Parliamentary Reform is ad-
mitted by all parties alike. The only question
now remaining as a bone of contention
among the rival parties being the still
so far problematical question to the extent to
which Parliament should be reformed. That
Reform of some kind should ba conceded, all are
agreed upon. The need for this is allowed both on
the side of the Liberal (Coalition) Government and
upon the side of the Conservative (Reforming)
Opposition. Ever since the DERBY-DISRAELI
Ministry decided upon preparing a measure of
Parliamentary Reform, the Opposition to Reform
ceased—the triumph of Reform became a mere
question of time—the extent of Reform became a
mere question of convenience and expediency. Yet
since that period the cause of Reform has -virtually
somehow not advanced one inch towards its triumph
in the adoption by the Lords and Commons of a
substantial enactment. This moreover simultane-
ously with the wider and wider diffusion of
Reform principles throughout the country among
electors and non-electors alike, and this too most
conspicuously in the instances of the more remark-
able of the leading constituencies. With Reform
advocated thus, far and wide, all over the United
Kingdom, with the necessity for Reform conceded
definitively two or three years back by the Tory
Opposition (conceded so unmistakably moreover that
a Tory Reform Bill can now be reverted to as a sub-
stantial historical document), it certainly does upon-
the face of it appear monstrous and inexplicable
that the Question of Parliamentary Reform
should yet continue to this very hour
undetermined. Nay, not merely still undetermined
in any way, but actually to all appearance set
aside by general consent within the Legislature
for two or three sessions to come, by an indefinite
postponement. The reason for all which is mani-
festly nowhere discernible, saving in the jealousies
of political parties, in the implacable jealousies of
the two great ' opposing sections of the popular
branch of Parliament—those two great political
parties, alternately in and out, according to the
accidents of time, like the fluctuating " ins" and
" outs" of the little doll figures in the toy barometer,
alternately her MAJESTY'S Opposition and her
MAJESTY'S Government. But for these petty
spites and heartburnings of jealousy among the
great contending parties of the State, we should
long since—we must, by necessity, long since—have
had this vital question of Parliamentary Reform
settled, an d what is more, settled satisfactorily. When
Lord DERBY and his colleagues, two or three years
back decided upon bringing in a Reform Bill, and
laying it upon the table of the House of Com-
mons—as they did frankly, boldly, and honestly,
this bill, being besides of that plastic and elastic
character that it might have been readily ex-
panded to any dimensions, and moulded into any
shape that the majority of the House might
have decided upon in Committee—the rough
draft of the enactment so introduced was pre-
cluded from the chance of getting even as far as
that third stage of" the Committee"—by the paltry
jealousies rankling in the Whig section of the so-
called liberal Opposition. Jealousies of a kind not a jot
less paltry, inciting the Torysection of the Conserva-
tive Opposition to retaliate last year upon their old
enemiesthe Whigs by aiding and abetting anybody
and everybody also who chose tohave ailing at Lord
J. RUSSELL'S "Poor Little Bill"—and how many
were there not who had an arrow keenly barbed
and delicately poisoned lurking in their quiver for
that wretched little target, that miserable little
microscopic pariah of a reform measure ! The
position of Reform, in fact, in the House of Com-
mons for a long while past has been such, so strange,
so anomalous, so extraordinary, that it almost jus-
tifies one in doubting whether the great Reform
Leader on the side of the Government, the.
noble lord who has the historic glory of
having in his early manhood introduced
Lord GREY'S measure into the unreformed House
of Commons—in doubting now whether he still
continues at heart really in earnest as a Reformer !
Let Lord JOUN but show himself to be as earnest
as Mr. BRIGHT in the championship of Parliamen-
tary Reform, and not another legislative session
would elapse, could elapse, without that great
problem of reform being solved—to the strength-
ening of the Constitution by means of a rational
widening of the popular representation.

The right man, then, in the right place—and by
a majority of 1,175. Not one word have we to say
against so respectable a citizen as Mr. ScovELL
—not a word had we to say against that respect-
able citizen Mr. COWAN, the paper maker, when
he was supplanted MACAULAY at Edinburgh. Re-
spectable citizens are in one sense the most valuable
part of the community, and we need not dilate on
their merits ; but among those merits is rarely that
of fitness to represent their country in the British
Parliament, much less of fitness to supersede men
like the late Lord 'MACAULAY, or men like Mr.
AUSTEN HENRY LATARD. We do not rejoice, there-
fore, in the defeat and disappointment of a valuable
man of business and his supporters, but in the
choice by Southwark of a man who, as all the in-
telligence of the nation would say, ought to be in
our Senate. We may certainly thus express our-
selves with the greater freedom, because, on the
China war question, which was the cause of his
exclusion from Parliament, we differed from him
very decidedly, but we by no means wish those
from whom we often differ wry strongly to be out
of Parliament. We could conscientiously give
them our own votes on their general merits, while
opposing them to the uttermost on a particular
question.

To Southwark belongs the credit of choosing
representatives on piirely public grounds—a gene-
rous policy which cannot be too strongly commended
to all constituencies. It 'is a disgrace to large
constituencies if they drive all the, more dis-
tinguished men, the men who are the nation's
property, to seek refuge in some petty nomination
borough, by uniformly electing respectable medio-
crities from their own neighbourhood. We
want, it is true, some of our first-rate merchants
and manufacturers in •the House of Commons.
Their questions are frequently before the house,
and their special knowledge is of course needed ;
but surely large constituencies should have an eye
to something beyond their local business. They
form an important part of the nation, and ought
ever to choose one of their representatives, at least,
from national considerations. Birmingham, Shef-
field, we may add, Lynn and Herts also, set a right
example in this respect. We cannot afford to miss
such men from the house as BRIGHT, and ROE-
BUCK, or Lord STANLEY, and Sir TIULIVER: LYT-
TON. Whether we agree with or differ from them,
we all agree that we should not like our House
of Commons without them. One of Lord
PALMERSTON'S antagonists in the House of
Commons =cc remarked, "We are all proud
of him," expressing therein the thorough English
feeling of pleasure in the talents of a worthy op.