The Sun.
London, England, 1867-10-15 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, OCT. 15, 1867.

Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN has taken his turn
in addressing his constituents, and has made a very
fair speech. It possesses at any rate this merit that
it is devoid of party spirit, and is neither prejudiced
on one si4 nor infatuated on the other. It is true
that he seemed inclined to begrudge the Tory party
the credit that is given to them of having consis-
tently advocated the cause of Reform, but we find
in this nothing out of character from one who was
closely concerned in the fortunes of the late Go-
vernment, and naturally felt an interest in their
reputation and progress. In one respect ho scarcely
put the case fairly when he said that Lord RUSSELL'S
Government resigned office because they could not
carry a Reform Bill that was in accordance with
their principles, while Lord DERBY'S Government
remained in office through consenting to a bill at
variance with all their former principles. In point
of fact the measure of this Session was not so much
against the views and sentiments of the Tories as
of the Whigs. These latter politicians have always
been greatly opposed to any subversion of their
old exclusive notions, and a necessary change,
such as was this year inaugurated, was far more
likely to be done effectually by those who regarded
the question as a whole from an abstract point of
view than by those who had been confusing them-
selves and others for a term of years, and were more
inclined to try tinkering and patching rather than
start in a new line. Mr. HUGESSEN allows the
Conservatives the credit of not having allowed any
" predilections for old opinions to stand in the way
of attempting to settle the question of Reform," and,
indeed, they are fairly entitled to this praise.
Lord DERBY'S famous declaration of a " leap in the
dark" showed boldness, at any rate, and it likewise
proved that, he and his colleagues had confidence in
the body of the people to a greater extent than the
Opposition leaders bad. Perhaps nothing more
completely damaged the success of the Reform
scheme of 1866 than the hesitation displayed by
those who should have been its champions. First of
all they said it was an instalment, then that they
must stand or fall by it as it was for its intrinsic
merits, and last of all seemed to indicate that
something grand was yet to come. No wonder
the timorous were frightened, and the short sighted
perplexed, at all this mystery and dark insinua-
tion. Had the Government of Lord RUSSELL
shown half the spirit that characterised their suc-
cessors they would not now be wandering in the
cold shade of Opposition, to find out what errors
have marked the conduct of their opponents, and
what stigmas of reproach they can affix to their
doings.

Mr. KNATCHBULL-lIUGESSEN is an authority
on the subject of Reform, and hence he can speak
con amore about it. He regrets that the defeat of
Mr. GLADSTONE in April prevented that right hon.
gentleman from bringing forward amendments,
which would have come better from him than from
others ; but the hon. member still thinks that his
own scheme will be found to work well, and it has
the sanction of the leaders of the Liberal party.
He proposes to take away a member from every
borough with a population below twelve thousand,
and to disfranchise all boroughs with a population of
less than seven thousand. We are glad to find that
Mr. lII:GESSEN speaks out in favour of the repre-
sentation of minorities, which he rightly designates
a " non-party question." As he puts it very ably,
suppose a constituency of a hundred thousand had
a third member given to it on account of its im-
portance, and one party comprised sixty thousand
and the other forty, it was obviously unfair to let
the former return all the members, because then the
existence of the latter would tell against themselves,
and add to the political importance of their
opponents. As for its being raid that the
several boroughs already represented mino-
rities, that argument admits that the principle
is represented somewhere, and hence it is better to
represent minorities directly than indirectly. Mr.
BRIGHT was very indignant at the proposition, as
it will be remembered, and his absurd remarks are
alluded to in this speech, when Mr. lIUGESSEN
shows that it was idle of him to accuse those who
framed the scheme with aiming a blow at the power
of the large towns because the " great majority " of
the constituencies affected would be county and not
borough ones.
It is no wonder that independent members on
the Liberal side feel indignant at the dicta-
torial tone adopted by Mr. BRIGHT, and the
terms with which he designates their con-
duct if opposed to their views. Tho honourable
member makes a protest against this mode of
procedure, and declares that Mr. BRIGHT and his
school of politicians appeal to foreign aid and
ignorance when attacking, those who do not coin-
cide with their views. " Directly any one differs
from them he is branded as a Tory or a heretic.
This style of rebuke is an importation from
a trans-Atlantic Democracy." Mr. lIUGESSEN con-
cluded his interesting remarks by declaring that
he was anxious to agree with Mr. GLADSTONE on
most questions, but that he would "never pledge
himself implicitly to follow any individual." On
the whole, we may look upon this speech as a very
fair illustration of the course that should be pur-
sued by those who look upon politics as something
beyond a mere adhesion to party and a struggle
for office; and Mr. 1-IL-GES.EN sets forth some