The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-07 00:00:00

that can only be wilfully misunderstood, that there
is no reason whatever why we should not have a
Reform Bill from a Tory Government ? In the
_ .

first place, " there is nothing to show that the Tories
or Conservatives have always been the enemies of
Reform." Eight years ago they brought in a
most sensible Reform Bill, which the Whigs de-
feated in 1859. As for the Whigs they have since

then enjoyed the good things of office, and the
public have seen how much and how little they
have done for Reform. Seven years is a long time
in which to do nothing in a matter which they pro-
fessA to consider of so much consequence to the
country, and concerning which they had pre-
tended to be so well-informed when their

political opponents took it up and endea.
voured to settle it according to the bcs

of their ability. As it is truly said in this criticism
of their conduct during their tenure of office, " the
whole subject was as much, nay more, laid
upon the shelf than ever during the adminis-

_ .
tration of that Tory of Tory Administra

tions—" the Liverpool Cabinet." Alluding to
the attempt made last year to introduce
a measure of Reform, it is said people are apt to
rely " much upon death-bed repentances," and the
Whig Ministry was well known to be upon its
death-bed, so no proposition of theirs was very
likely to find lodging in the Statute Book. Those
who have railed so much at the treatment which
the measure of last year received at the hands of
the House of Commons might find it very awkward
to reply to some of the searching queries put by the
writer we refer to. " Why," he asks, " during
their so-called palmy days of office did the Whigs
never attempt to bring in a Reform Bill ? why was
it postponed until they were actually in the struggle
between life and death ? a person neither materially
ill-natured nor satirical might fairly call it their
dernier ressort." It is, however, both more important
and interesting to look to the present and the future
prospects of Reform than to be for ever contem-
plating its past history ; and truly the retrospect is
neither profitable nor pleasant. We return, then,
to the charge, and ask why Lord DERBY should not
bring in a Reform Bill? In his early days he was
the warmest advocate of Reform, and a prominent
member of that " very Administration, headed by
the late Earl GREY, which carried the Bill, the
whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." It seems
strange that it should be necessary to refer to this
fact, which surely must be well known ; but then
there is so much exaggeration used by certain parties
and they leave out so much in their speeches and
writings, that it is of consequence to remind those,
whom they seek to delude what is and what is not
the truth. Who, for instance, to hear the vocifer-
ous denunciations of Mr. BRIGHT and his clique
about the matter, and the way in which they go on
about the ruin of England and the shipwreck of
constitutional government if the present Ministry
remain in office, would think that he who is its chief
was instrumental in carrying the Reform Bill of
1832, a far more comprehensive and complete mea-
sure than any which they can hope to carry, and
which was more reactionary in its tendency than
any change now introduced can possibly be? The
Lord STANLEY of the days of the first Reform agi-
tation was as much the dread of the extreme Tories
then extant, including the Duke of WELLINGTON,
Sir R. PEEL, &c., as JOHN BRIGHT may be to the
extremists of the party now. " It is not to be denied
there is no man living who has done more for the
cause of Reform and progress than our present
Prime Minister." So much for the past ; and for
the present it is asked, does the noble lord regret
in 1867 the course he pursued in 1832 ? Would he,
if in a position so to do, undo what he then did and
with such zeal and efficiency, and call back rotten
boroughs into existence while Manchester and Bir-
mingham should be left wholly unrepresented ?
The answer is not far to seek. During last summer
he referred to the course he took respecting the
famous measure of the past. He did so with no
attempt at regret or contrition for the very active
part he then played ; and this may serve to confute
the assertions of Mr. BRIGHT the other day when
he first affected to forget that the noble Premier
had been engaged in the work, and then insinuated
that he would not now willingly renew those efforts
or tread in those stei s.
" Why, then, should the country," it is asked most
appropriately, " doubt his bringing in a good and
useful Reform Bill now ? both he and his son, Lord
STANLEY, may fairly be called two of the most
gifted statesmen of the age." It would not require
any very great stretch of ingenuity on the part of
the noble earl and his followors to make out a toler-
ably good case for themselvess and their party if
they declined just now to promise a Reform measure
or to assist the House of Commons in framing one.
The abuses that in 1832 impeded the way of progress
do not now exist, nor is the occasion so momentous a
one, but the opportunity is not taken by the Conserva-
tives to contradict those who press forward the
claims of Reform upon the country. All that the
leaders of the party object to is acting too hastily
and introducing ill-matured and hasty schemes.
We do not wonder that, after having summed up
the case briefly, but emphatically, the writer of
this letter should exclaim, " Let the country
therefore give Lord DERBY'S Government a fair
trial, for I am certain it must by this time be sick
and tired enough of being governed by the Whigs."
If anything were wanting, indeed, to complete
this weary and vexed feeling, it would
have been furnished by the course pursued
by Earl RUSSELL on Tuesday. The noble lord could
not have made a worse beginning to a session than
he then did ; and in all his remarks, retrospective
and prospective, one could recognise not so much
the disappointed advocate of a great cause, as the
indignant ex-Premier who foresaw that his cherished
idea would not be realised. In short, the more at-
tentively we study the political horizon the more
clearly do we see the folly and the wrong it would
be to begin over again the work of 1859, and sweep
away a Conservative Government ready and willing
to lend their aid to the work of reforming the repre-
sentation of the people. If such, however, be the
end of this renewed attempt on their part to settle
the matter, we hope that the common sense of the
country will declare against the pseudo-Liberals,
who will neither act themselves nor let others act;
and, at any rate, let them not insult consistency by
denouncing their opponents for not being Reformers
when they have been so active in bringing about the
result.

The latest act of the dominant party in America
tends still further to confirm the belief that the
Radicals assume to themselves the functions both
of Executive and Legislature. Their last object
is to prevent the further contraction of the cur-
rency during the present year, and the House of
ltepresentatives have passed a resolution directing
the Committee of Ways and Means to prepare a
Bill to that effect. 'There are, however, symptoms
that, in matters of general politics, the despotism
of the Radicals is becoming intolerable ; and two
incidents are recorded which, at the present crisis,
are very significant. One is actually a retrogade
movement on the part of THADDEUS STEVENS,
who is not usually very apt at making concessions.
The bill which he presented to Congress some little
time ago as the new reconstruction scheme was the
subject of the surprising change. ',this Bill, which