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

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—Mr. Bright's speech on Monday at Leeds
was little more than a repetition of his speech at
Manchester, as that was but a renewal of the argu-
ments used on other platforms. Mr. Bright's an-
swer to this obvious criticism is that the subject is
the same, and that therefore what is said on it must
be the same. This, however, is a fallacious reason-
ing, for the subject of Reform is a large one ; it has
occupied the attention of Parliament for many
years ; it has furnished a theme to all our most able
statesmen, and the opinions upon it have been iu
the highest degree diverse and interesting. When
we say that Mr. Bright says nothing new, we mean
that he does not carry the discussion further than
the repetition of those stock common-places which
have been the property of every orator from Frost
and Feargus O'Connor to the present_" Reform
League." The half-dozen rotten boroughs, the
two or three score small and more or less decayed
boroughs, are opposed to the great seats of industry
and the masses of population, after the manner
of all previous agitators on this subject, while the
arguments which are known to have had the greatest
force with the educated classes and to have swayed
the decision of the House of Commons are never
alluded to, much less answered. We have now
before us, it may be assumed, all the reasoning
that is to be laid before the gatherings of working
men during the autumn and winter. The anomalies
of the present franchise will be paraded before
them in the most striking form, whether by tables
of statistics, or by the comparison between some
small borough, which may happen for the moment
to emerge from its obscurity, and Manchester or
Leeds. Mr. Lowe will be held up for the fiftieth
time as the frightful example of the hatred towards
working men which prevails in the House of Com-
mons, and the audience will be once more advised
to have the extract from his speech framed and
glazed. Somebody or other will be denounced as
wicked, or base, or malevolent, and the speaker
will resume his seat amid the usual cheers. It
is evident, however, that beyond these rudiments
of the subject, the working men will not be
enlightened. For any real knowledge of the state
of the Reform question, and the manner in which
it is likely to be treated by Parliament, they must
refer to the debates in the House of Commons itself
during past Sessions, or to the discussions which
have taken place in the Press. Their present leaders
are like themselves. They ascend the platform only
as a " demonstration." They tell us that one of
the legitimate uses of public meetings is to make
demonstrations—that is, proclaim loudly a settled
opinion, and threaten to enforce it. This is what
the Radical leaders are now doing, and it is obvious
that the more the meeting partakes of this character
the less necessary it is that the arguments should
be calculated to :persuade opponents. All that is
wanted is to excite friends. If the account of the
rotten boroughs and the coerced counties fulfils its
purposes of making the audience more eager and
more determined in their pursuits of the franchise, it
matters little that there are other persons who do
not look upon the arithmetical part of the question
as all in all. If so many thousand people can be
.roused to indignation at the idea of their own ex-
clusion, the opinions of those who believe that a
property qualification produces a more trustworthy
and laborious assemblage than universal suffrage
may be disregarded. Hnce, though we should look
with interest on any demonstration that may be in
store, and duly read the speeches of the chief orators,
we may say that we consider all real discussions as
at an end till February next. If anything has been
made clear by the agitation of the year, it is the
immense superiority of Parliamentary over platform
oratory, not less in genius than in usefulness. Last
Session raised, if possible, the character of the
British House of Commons through the singular force
and eloquence with which the question of Reform
was debated, all the consequences of the change philo-
sophically examined, and the Government measure
in particular subjected to a criticism which, whether
friendly or adverse, was generally based on sound
reasoning. There was hardly one of the leading
men in the House, except, perhaps, Mr. Bright,

who did not sustain his reputation, and several new
speakers distinguished themselves by the skill with
which they addressed themselves to a great problem.
But what has the platform given us? Of all the
harangues that we have read during this year as pro-
ceeding from town-halls and concert-halls there has
not been one of merit. It is not only that a vein of
coarseness runs through all, that verbosity and vul-
garity seem to suit the taste, of the audiences and
to be duly supplied by the speakers, but there is an
avoidance of any real grappling with the difficulties
of the question, which would make one think that
the debates of some four or five Parliamentary ses-
sions devoted to Reform had been in vain. There
are, however, differences even in Reform speeches,
and we are glad that Mr. Bright on this occasion
abstained from dragging in the Queen's name, and
also that he did not think it necessary to repeat his
premature denunciations of any and every Bill which
may proceed from the present Government. No
one is better aware than Mr. Bright thatthe Queen's
Speech at the opening of a Session does not reflect
the individual opinion of the Sovereign, but the de-
cision of the Cabinet, and that to represent the
Queen as opposed to the' dominant class" in the
country is wholly incorrect. While Lord Palmer-
ston was Premier the Queen said nothing about
Reform in her speeches ' • last year she mentioned it
under the guidance of Lord Russell, and if by any
chance the present Ministry were to decide agains t
bringing in a Bill, her Majesty might, perhaps, even
utter some anti-Reform sentiments. Mr. Bright, iu
a sudden access of loyalty, has been pushing the
Queen forward on more than one recent occasion ;
but as it cannot be the desire of the Sovereign to
accept any such invidious and unjust laudation, we
are glad to find that it has been abandoned. It is
also an improvement in his latest speech that he does
not call upon his followers to reject a Reform Bill
from the present Government before they have seen
it. He does not, indeed, fail in his usual invectives,
for we are told that there are men on the present
Ministerial benches who would sell the mace from
the table of the House of Commons in order to keep
in office. But it is probable that, like the rest of
the Liberal party, Mr. Bright will now be con-
tent with opposing the Government Bill after
he knows what it is. The present agitation
differs from the one which preceded the Act of 1832
in this, that then men of all ranks and professions
joined in the demonstrations, while now they are
confined to a single class. Mr. Bright was the only
Member of Parliament at Leeds on Monday, with
the exception of Mr. Forster, whose speech ex-
pressed as much divergence from as agreement with
the views of the meeting. The other Members of
Parliament for that part of the country staid away,
and therefore the West Riding Demonstration, how-
ever multitudinous, cannot claim the weight accorded
to it by Mr. Bright. The agitation has, indeed,
now gone far enough for us to perceive its character
and strength. It has given us a better means of
estimating the opinion of the country than we pre-
viously possessed. It has shown that while the pro-
gress of education and the sharp discussions of Par-
liament have created a desire for the suffrage among
the uneufranchised class which ought not to be dis-
regarded, there is throughout the whole educated
class a determination that the political power shall
not be transferred in mass to the poor. Not half-
a-dozen Liberal Members of Parliament acknowledge
the principles of Mr. Beales, and we believe we are
not wrong in saying that the majority of them will
be ready to accept a just and moderate measure of
Reform, from whatever party it may come. The
haste, the indiscretion, we may almost say the vio-
lence, of the late Government caused their ill-con-
sidered bill to fail; but there is in Parliament as
well as in the country a conviction that safe and
beneficial reforms may be made. But no demon-
strations, however imposing, and no platform elo-
quence, however vigorous, will make Parliament,
and the higher and middle classes who support it,
give the power of the country into the hands of the
slaves of the Trades' Unions. Such atrocities as
that reported from Sheffield are but the extreme
cases of a tyranny which is at this very moment
paralysing a large part of the trade of the country.
Every year sees these organisations more powerful,
more pitiless, and more unjust. The middle classes,
who have so long and so successfully governed, will
not abdicate power to place it in such hands.
HERALD.—
What are we to say of Mr. Bright's
oration at Leeds, but that it is precisely like the
oration at Birmingham and the oration at Manches-
ter ? We must repeat this, even at the risk of its
being taken for a compliment to our demagogue.
Mr. Bright, borrowing a retort from " one of the
wisest of the ancients," asks us whether he is to say
a different thing about the same thing ; and his
crushing answer to his critics is that when they have
refuted what he has told them already about this
thing he will tell them something new. Unfortu-
nately for the peace of society no one has succeeded
in convincing Mr. Bright that on " this thing" he is
wrong ; and therefore we are doomed to this
"damnable iteration." Neither age nor custom can
wither or stale that infinite sameness. The text
never varies; the sermon, like Mr. Tennyson's
brook, " goes on for ever." It is clear, because it is
shallow ; it is noisy, because it cannot get loose and
become a big river.

"Labilur et labetur in =no volnLilis revum."

The rustic on the bank is almost sick of hoping that
the stream may die away. Sometimes it flows with
a dull, oily motion ; sometimes it is obstructed, and
then it rages and foams furiously. What may we
do to dam it, and prevent its becoming a nuisance to,
the country ? If Mr. Bright's course is only to be
varied when Mr. Bright himself admits that he is
confuted, we fear there is but small prospect of any
immediate change. That the House of Commons
is the only real basis of the representation of the
people—that it can only fulfil its function when
every man is permitted to have au equal vote in
the representation—this is the perpetual burden
of Mr. Bright's complaint. On this one note
the never-ending variations are abuse of the
Tories, laudations of Mr. Bright himself and his
colleagues for their, former efforts, the attack on
Mr. Lowe, and the fulsome adulation of the work-
ing classes. The arguments, such as they are, have
been heard a hundred times before. Because the
working men are the most numerous class,
because they are the foundation of our national
prosperity, because they have contributed by their
labour to establish our manufactures and to make
our wealth, therefore they are fitted to exercise the
privilege of the franchise. Because as a body they
exist, and are not drunken, or venal, or ignorant,
therefore they are bound to take a part in the elec-
tion of members of Parliament. The conclusion
may be at a long distance from the premises, but
as these meetings are avowedly demonstrations of
force rather than demonstrations of opinion, any
defect of logic is not likely to affect the popularity
of the orator. What answer can any of Mr. Bright's
opponents give to this kind of argument that could
have the blessed effect of silencing Mr. Bright, or
at least of making him change his tone ? No one
has denied that there is a great deal of sobriety, of
intelligence, and of honesty among the working
classes. No one denies that -they have contributed
to build up the fabric of England's greatness—that
they are an essential part of the body politic, and
ought to be included in the Constitution. What
we have affirmed is that the good qualities and good
deeds of the working men do not establish a neces-
sary claim to the franchise. A man may be sober,
and honest, and even intelligent ; it does not follow
that he should have a vote for the election of a
member of Parliament, or that the House of Com-
mons is an imperfect representation because he does
not directly take a part in its constitution. The
House of Commons does not pretend to be a repre-
sentation of every unit among the people., It is a
representation of the whole people according to
classes and interests. It would not, we affirm, be
a representation of the whole people, but only of a
portion of the people, if it were elected by manhood
suffrage. Inasmuch as the working class, though
not the most honest or the most intelligent, is the
most numerous of all classes, to give them the
franchise indiscriminately would be to swamp all
other classes, and to make the House of Commons
not an assembly of our best men or most capable
legislators, but simply an assembly representing the
peculiar views and interests of the most numerous
class. Hence it is that, under our Constitution,
it has been deemed fairer to all classes, and in
the interests of the liberty of all, to place such
restrictions on the enjoyment of the franchise as
shall make it not a mere animal right but a pnivi-
lege—a grade of citizenship, which is open to every
man equally, but which can only be reached by
the elite of the working men—by those who are
the most industrious, the most sober, and the most
thrifty among their fellows. This is the plain an-
swer to Mr. Bright's position, in which we cannot
promise that there shall be any variation. It is
the answer not only of the party whom Mr. Bright
calls the Tories, but of the great majority of the
men of all parties, comprisingby far the largest
portion of the intelligence and worth of the nation.
We may differ among ourselves as to what limit
should be placed to the extension of the suffrage ;
we are all agreed that there should be some limit.
Even Mr. Bright and Mr. Forster, the only two
prominent members of the so-called Liberal party
who have joined this movement, confess that they
are in favour of some limit ; that they do not be-
live in manhood suffrage. What pretence can Mr.
Bright have therefore for decrying the Tories for
being enemies of Reform ? Is every one who does
not desire manhood suffrage an enemy of Reform?
The Tories, according to Mr. Bright, have proved
their unfitness to be entrusted with the question of
Reform in having joined with the Adullarnites in
turning out Mr. Gladstone's bill. Yet so little do
the Reformers themselves think of this bill that
there is not one single word which has been uttered

,•••mr
by way of epitaph to its memory. Not a singly
public nieeting has been held in its favour ; nor is
it pretended that these demonstrations of force arc
demonstrations for anything else but manhood
suffrage. Will Mr. Bright himself have the ira'
pudence to tell us that the tens of thousands who
have been 'gathered together at Birmingharol
at Manchester, and at Leeds, are actuatea,
by any other motive than to get manhood
suffrage ? If it was not out of sympathy
with Mr. Gladstone's bill that they came, then
it is nothing more than a piece of party malign/1f
which makes Mr. Bright denounce Lord Derby ass
Reformer, because he was opposed to one particular
partial scheme of Reform—a scheme which, by Alr;
Bright's own showing, was imperfect and bad, and
unconstitutional. But, in Mr. Bright's philosopllf
any weapon is fair against an enemy. A pubhs
meeting, which is a demonstration of force, is pre'
cisely the very safest place in which to utter caluny
vies of a political opponent. From that coward 0
castle, a demagogue's platform, there is nothing too,
vile, too absurd, too false, which may not be utterea,
with impunity. There is no one there to contradict
Mr. Bright, nor is there any contradiction needed I
for is not this a demonstration of force? Proceed'
ing from vituperation to prophecy, Mr. Bright de'
dares that the object upon which working men have
set their hearts will be accomplished, because the
best and most intelligent portion of the middle clash.,
and those " just of the highest social class," will and
iu their accomplishment. There is a powerful middle
class movement, we are told, in favour of the work'
ing classes, and it is on this Mr. Bright calculates
We can only hope that this is his main ground 0I
reliance. Yet we can hardly believe that Mr. Bright
is so much a dupe of his own self-conceit as seriously
to imagine that the middle class is with him in tbJl
agitation. He must be ten times more vain than to
took him for if he does not perceive that he is doing
his very best to estrange the middle class from hie
side ; but if there is one policy more than another
which is likely to influence the middle class against
him it is the policy of these demonstrations of force.
There never was a man worse calculated to lead the
middle class of England than Mr. Bright, the mar
ber for Birmingham. There never was a man wh°
has made himself more obnoxious to the middle
class than this very same gentleman. There never
was a greater delusion than to suppose that, he-
cause the middle class helped Mr. Bright and Mr'
Cobden to fight the battle against the corn 10/01
therefore the middle class is prepared to help Ntr,'
Bright to introduce manhood suffrage. What IS
the truth about the corn-law agitation ? The,
greater part of the middle class who then aided
Messrs. Bright and Cobden were the manufao'
turers and the people dependent on them who were
personally interested in the question, and with
whom it was a political and social battle against ts 7
landed proprietors. The working classes swellel
that movement simply because it was a question 01'
the price of food, which is the nearest of all queS;
tions to the working man. But it is just as absurd
to set down the working class as upholders of free
trade as to believe that the middle class are sur
porters of manhood suffrage because both thol
classes were united in the question of the repeal
the corn laws. In the present day the safety of that
country and of the Constitution against Mr. Bright
s mainly due to the fact that the great majority_oh
the middle class is opposed to manhood suffrage+
rand opposed to Mr. Bright as a popular leader'
There as not one quality which that gentleman LTe
which can entitle him to the confidence of the
middle classes. As a Liberal his career has been
nothing but a fruitful source of ridicule and damage
to Liberalism. As a Reformer he has appealed to
physical force. He is not even an Englishman rn
any proper sense. He never loses an occasion for
vilifying his own country. He sees liberty, justice,
and greatness everywhere but in England. EYe:
in the Atlantic Telegraph he can see nothing but
triumph for America. The middle class of England
believes that it has done something to achieve ths",
great work ; but, according to Mr. Bright, it is ISt:
Cyrus Field, a " friend of mine "—who « by bit'
• cable has moored the New World to the Old V'