The Sun.
London, England, 1866-10-18 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—Our reports of the meetings which are
being held in different parts of the country are
headed with the word "Reform," and nothing is
more natural than to connect them with the mea-
sures and events of last session. The late Govern-
ment resigned office because it despaired of carrying
a measure which, whatever might have been its ulti-
mate results, would only in the first instance have
added something under a quarter of a million to the
existing constituencies. Such a measure, whatever
might hereafter flow from it, was, doubtless, pro-
perly described as Parliamentary Reform. But
what has that measure, and what have those who
supported it, in common with the meetings which
are taking place in the great towns ? Being got
up by the same body, their language is always
the same—a demand for Manhood Suffrage. The
matter which some people consider one of the
most delicate and difficult things in the world is
looked upon by Mr. Bright and his friends as a
thing of the most transparent simplicity. Given the
number of adult males free from crime and pau-
perism, subtract from that number those already
possessed of the franchise, and' the amount of
wickedness and injustice is nieasured by the sum
that remains. Only 16 out of every 100 possess the
franchise, and the announcement is greeted with
cries of " Shame." Mr. Bright states his own case
very fairly when he says that the question is
" whether in future the government and the legis-
lation of this country shall be conducted by a single
class in a sham Parliament, or by the nation through
its representatives fairly and freely chosen." He
nowhere tells us what he means by" the nation,"
but his audience necessarily understand him to mean
the whole hundred, 84 per cent. of whom do not
now possess the franchise. Now, this claim may be
perfectly well founded, but what we wish to point
out to our readers is that it is the language, not of
Reform, but of Revolution. The word " Reform"
properly implies the attempt to bring back an in-
stitution to its original purity ; but, acccording to
this view, England has always been governed by a
sham Parliament and a privileged class, and never
enjoyed a Government worthy of the name of na-
tional. Mr. Bright and his followers break openly
with the past of this country, and the whole of his
speech at Glasgow is one long and acrimonious
calumny on the most durable, the most prosperous,
and the most renowned institution that the world
has ever seen. This should be clearly understood,
because there will be many who will point to these
meetings and say that it is necessary to concede some-
thing to conciliate such vast numbers of our fellow-
countrymen. Any measure of Parliamentary Re-
form which may be proposed must be discussed and
decided on its own merits. What we want to point
out is that it has, and can have, nothing in common
with the demand of these meetings. What answer
is it to five million men who seek to be admitted to
the franchise to tell them that we are willing to
consider the claims of two hundred thousand? The
two questions differ, not in degree, but in kind.
Reform is conceived in a spirit friendly, Revo-
lution in a spirit hostile, to our institutions. It is the
object of a Reformer to keep up a close connection
between the past and future of England ; the Revo-
lutionist would interpose as wide a gulf between
them as that which separates the ancient regime of
France from the present empire, and meetings for
the one purpose in no degree tend to support the
other. Observe the spirit in which Mr. Bright
speaks of what we have been accustomed to consi-
der the happy, free, and prosperous state of this
country. He says that "84 per cent. of our male
population might as well live in Russia, although in
Russia there is no Parliament at all." That is, he
estimates the value of the institutions which Eng-
land, "The Mother of Parliaments," as he called
her the other day, enjoys over those of the most ab-
solute Government in the world at absolutely
nothing—a sham, the Government of a privileged
class, with which the nation has nothing to do. He
charges upon this class Government the corruption
that takes place at elections, forgetting that where
there is no freedom there is no corruption, that the
expenses of elections in the United States are enor-
mous, and that in those English constituencies
which come nearer to what he would approve the
legitimate expenses are such as none but the rich
can bear. He has no doubt that the Government
of England before the Reform Bill was one of the
worst in Europe, and looks back upon our history
with shame and abhorrence. We were, it seems,
constantly engaged in wars, while the rest of
Europe, we suppose, was at peace ; we paid
heavy taxes, while the rest of Europe, we sup-
pose, was taxed lightly ; and we were Protection-
ists and Prohibitionists, while the rest of Europe
enjoyed free trade. Such value does he set on
the right of election as hitherto enjoyed in this
country that lie asserts that if you took the first
658 well-dressed and cleanly-washed persons who
passed through Temple-bar we should have a better
Parliament than now exists. "The house," he says,
" does not represent the justice and the intelligence
of the nation, but its prejudices, privileges, and sel-
fishnesses." Of course, of its intelligence and know-
ledge of business, of its aptitude to find persons
capable of conducting the great offices of the State,
he thinks nothing at all, since lie considers persons
equal to these tasks could be found among 658
washed and well-dressed passers-by—though why
washed and well-dressed we do not know. They
would be free, he thinks, from a great number of
influences that weigh upon the present House of
Commons. But this is, after all, but a negative
merit, even did it exist, which is very unlikely. Mr.
Bright ventured to tell the people of Scotland that
the tillers of the soil, who in Scotland are thoroughly
independent of their landlords, " are becoming more
degraded every day." He considers it to be the
fault of Parliament that the landed property of the
United Kingdom is in so few hands, and, as this is
the result of the most unfettered liberty, he clearly
implies that a Parliament such as he would wish to
n
see would interfere with that
erty. Such is Mr.
Bright's view of the past history and present state
of this country ; such is his estimate cf the remedy
which should be applied to it. He has not shown
us how one single grievance of which he complains
would be remedied by the changes he advocates.
He believes that ignorance and suffering might be
remedied to an incalculable extent, and that many
an Eden might be raised up in the waste wilderness
which spreads before us. How this is to be done is
a secret which he has hitherto carefully kept, and
will not, we fear, divulge to our present "sham
Legislature." One thing we would suggest to Mr.
Bright after the very strong language which he ap-
plies to history and institutions which very few
Englishmen beside himself, whatever be their poli-
tical opinions, can think of without feeling some
honest pride. When the claim is put forward for
the poorer part of the community that the whole
direction of the affairs of the country shall be placed
in their hands, we confess it does appear to us a
little unreasonable that they who claim to be our
future rulers should insist upon being exempted
from that ordeal of criticism which every class,
every person, and every institution in this country
is obliged to bear. It is of evil augury for the
fitness of the great mass of the people—for those
powers which are claimed on their behalf, that their
advocates entirely refuse to allow that fitness to be
Ircalled in question, and never address an audience
without denouncing in the most emphatic terms,
and holding up as proper subjects of popular ven-
geance, those members of Parliament who have
Ventured to argue—whether rightly or wrongly it
matters not so far as the present question is con-
cerved—that the hands in which it is proposed to
place the supreme power are not so fit for it as
those in which it is placed already. One of the
charges that is usually brought against a Govern-
ment by a numerical majority is its extreme into-
lerance of any opposition to its will, and it is a
singular way of disproving that charge, instead of
answering an argument, to direct the torrent of
popular vengeance against its author. Whatever
our Constitution has hitherto been, we have cer-
tainly enjoyed under it full freedom of discussion.
Is it quite sure that that is one of the blessings
which will attend on the introduction of Mr.
Bright's millennium ?

HERALD.—It would not be right to say of Mr.
Bright's Glasgow speech that it is precisely iden-
tical with the speeches already delivered at Bir-
mingham, at Manchester, and at Leeds. He has
evidently felt the taunt which charged him with
always saying the same thing, and he has endea-,
voured to give us a little variety. The variations,
however, are all in the same key. He has not in-
troduced Mr. Lowe on this occasion, or the favourite
bravura on the theme of Adullam. He has given
us one or two arguments, which, though not new,
have an air of being apposite to the matter in ques-
tion. Ile rails a little less furiously at his personal
opponents. lie has grown in charity, and reviles
not individuals but classes. In other respects, there
is no improvement in Mr. Bright's manner of
speaking, and no novelty in its matter. This pre-
sent speech, like all his speeches, is devoted
to the great purpose of proving how much
better England would be governed were the
many, who are poor and ignorant, to be her
governors, than she is now, when it is the few rich
and educated who govern. It is a perfect model
of a demagogue's oration--successful, because it
was made to succeed—cheered by the thousands
who heard it, as it could not fail to be cheered; for
it was a long and elaborate eulogy of the virtue and
intelligence of the audience. How could such a
speech fail of success? Are we to reckon it as one
more proof of the political capacity of the working
classes, that they display so keen a delight in hear.
ing themselves flattered by Mr. John Bright?
Added to the pleasure of being told of their own

goodness, they Lad the further gratification of hear-
ing their superiors reviled for their stupidity, their
meanness; and their wickedness. This is Mr.
Bright's way of reconciling class with class—of
bringing about that millennium when " all should
legislate for all"—of promoting universal peace and
brotherhood in the nation. He points to the sins of
the higher classes; he indicates the fat acres pos-
sessed by the minority ; he tells of the millions pau-
perised through the agency of the governing fami-
lies—simply to bring about a better feeling among
all classes. " The class which has hitherto ruled
England has failed miserably. It revels in power
and wealth, while at its foot lies a multitude which
it has neglected." These are the words of our peace-
maker. Here is our assurance of the Eden which is
to come through manhood suffrage. Carried away
by the noble ideas suggested to Lim by his own ima-
gination, thinking of the terrible wickedness of the
class which revels in wealth and power while the
millions are neglected and oppressed, and moved by
the spirit of prophecy, Mr. Bright thinks he is able
to discern, " as it were, above the hill-tops of time
the glimmering of the dawn of a better and a nobler
day for the country and for the people that I love
so well." The people that he loves so well ought
to be grateful to know what this beneficent spirit is
about to do to realise his vision.

COUNTRY MARKETS.

..___
NEWCAS TLE-ON-TYNE-T UESDAY.

At our market to-day there was a small supply of wheat
from the growers, the condition of which was very poor.
A good demand was experienced, at an advance of is to 2s
per qr. on both new and old. Fine malting barley scarce•
Malt firm. Old beans and peas is higher. Old oats
realized fully late rates, but new wore neglected. Flour 10
por sack dearer.