The Sun.
London, England, 1867-11-14 00:00:00

The new number of the Edinburgh Review,*
clothed in its peculiar blue and yellow, has been
eagerly sought by many readers, who were anxious
to know what view the orthodox Whigs would take
of the political events of 1867. Would they approve
the act while censuring the actors, or would they
condemn both alike? Would they be grateful to
their rivals for having finally disposed Of a trouble-
some obstacle? or would they resent any political
poaching on their ancestral manor? The writer of
" The Session and its Sequel" does not leave the
anxious long in doubt. The opening paragraph
gives his readers to understand that the Admi-
nistration of Lord DERBY have sacrificed every-
thing to carry a very bad and dangerous measure,
which is not likely to settle the question even tem-
porarily.

NN hen things are at the worst they mend, says
the old proverb, and accordingly it must be a relief
to the implicit believers in the wisdom of the Edin-
burgh to find that a state of affairs so unsatisfactory
in itself, and so disagreeable to the leaders of the
Whigs, is not likely to last. Terrible is the retri-
bution in store for the men who have dared to take
the work out of the hands of the rightful workers.
Let them not delude themselves or others by plead-
ing that they have only followed the example of
PEEL, who gained immense popularity and applause
for boldly undertaking the task which others could
not or would not do. In 1846 and 1829 two notable
instances in which great Liberal measures were
passed under Tory auspices, the parsons, and the
principles, and the circumstances were different.
In 1829 and in 1846 the Tory party were the only
ones who could carry the necessary measures. In
1867 the Liberal Government and party had been
driven from office solely on account of their deter-
mination that the work should be well done. In
1829 and 1816 the leaders acted on a political con-
viction, and carried the measures they introduced.
In 1867 the leaders were without conviction and
cared nothing for their bill. Climax of the whole,
like the postscript of a lady's letter, comes the final
charge. " Lastly, in 1829 and 1846, no attempt
was made to blind the public by defrauding of the
honours of the day those to whom they were due.
' The credit,' said Sir ROBERT PEEL in 1829, be-
longs to others, not to me ;' and the glowing
words which he spoke in 1846 have taken their
place among the title-deeds of Mr. COBDEN'S wide
inheritance of fame. In 1867 the good sense of the
public has sickened at attempts, alike despicable and
ridiculous, to claim originality and consistency in
the very act of plagiarism and of tergiversation."
But supposing that Mr. COBDEN had been seven
years in office with a good majority, and allowed
the question of Free Trade to sleep in peace mean-
while, would the glowing words of Sir ROBERT
PEEL have been quite so appropriate? Supposing
that CANNING had had the KING and the country
with him, and bad been followed by a powerful
party—suppose that even his opponentshad acknow-
ledged the necessity of Catholic Emancipation, and
had even attempted to legislate on it themselves,
would he have left the task to his successors? If
we are to compare old things with new, let us at least
see both sides of the question. If the Tories of

1867 are not the same as the Tories of 1829 and
1846, do the Whigs of the last seventeen years
bear any closer resemblance to their predecessors?
The Edinburgh reviewer seems to have an
uncomfortable suspicion that this question may be
asked by his readers. " There is doubtless," he
says, " a degree of truth in the reproach that the
Liberal party seemed to claim a patent right in
Iteform, and to treat as trespassers all those who,
not bearing its badge, might presume to touch the
ark which it alone was privileged to bear. A vice
of this kind besets all parties on such occasions.'
lle
last fifteenadmits,indeed, on looking over the history of
the years—"
Perhaps the balance
of discredit was against tho Liberals, until
the huge weight, which 1867 has thrown
into the other scale, made it not touch
merely but actually thump the ground."
What the worst part of the crime of 1867 is—
whether it is the doing too much or doing too little,

too hasty abandonment of the ties of party, or too

ready concessions to popular pressure—is not easy
to discover ; but we meet with one startling asser-
tion respecting the compound householders : "It
depended entirely on the manner in which he was
dealt with, whether a bill founded on household
suffrage should be miserably narrow, or whether it
should be wide beyond all the demands and expec-
tations of the country. It may almost be said that

the compound householder, for the purposes

of the measure, meant the people of Eng-
land." This worthy, who has already oc-
cupied a position of unexpected dignity and
importance, will certainly be surprised to find his
national value !

But perhaps one of the most remarkable pheno-
mena of "The Session and its Sequel" is the man-
ner in which Mr. BRIGHT is upheld as the real hero
of Reform, while all the while the writer is con-
demning the policy which Mr. BRIGHT approved.
Mr. BRIGHT certainly did not think the measare too
sweeping. Ile has always favoured household suf-
frage. The reviewer makes no secret of the dis-
pleasure and uneasiness with which he has seen the
Reform Bill converted from " a puny into a gigan-
tic measure." The political immorality of the
Government has, he says, "involved a serious con-
stitutional disorganisation." What a compliment to
the people of England as represented by the
compound householder. But we are not left
altogether without a clue to the secret crime of
the Ministry. It was the duty of Lord DEBBY
to have acted as locum tenons for the Liberals,
instead of daring to meddle with matters too high
for him. A minority may usefully hold office until
the majority shall have recovered the organisation
it has lost, and become capable of resuming its
office. "The Ministry of the Parliamentary mino-
rity in this case discharges, it may bo, a humble,
but certainly a useful, function. This function,
however, Lord lhnnv renounces with contempt.
was determined,' he says, not to stop a gap.'" This is

the uupartion3ble crime, heighten,d of course by the

success which has attended the machinations of the
wicked. But in plain English, what have the Con-
servative party done so immoral and so dishonour-
able? They have certainly not snatched the task
of carrying a Reform Bill prematurely from the

hands of their rivals. There is very little doubt
that they would have been heartily glad to have
been spared the necessity of meddling with the

question. They have often been accused, and with
justice, of opposing the reasonable demands of the
people and resisting the progress of the ago. But no
sooner do they show signs of being open to conviction

* The Edinburg& Review. No. 258. October, 1867
Longman and Cu.