The Sun.
London, England, 1868-10-13 00:00:00

BRIGHT, who declares that if Birmingham
elects two Liberals and one Tory, it will have
been deprived of one of its members instead
of having received an additional representative.
Most unreasonable of all is Mr. MILL,
the chief supporter of the clause, who is reported
to have said, that if this should be the result of its

working in Birmingham, he would verymuch regret
that the clause was passed. In other words, should
it turn out that the clause answered the very pur-
pose for which it was ostensibly devised—the repre-

o Itation of the minority—he will lament that- ho
::ver supported it. This is only another proof of
the fact, that when the philosopher leaves the study

for the House of Commons be becomes as keen a
partisan as anybody, perhaps keeter. Mr. Mny
was quite prepared to see the Liberal minority

represented in Conservative Berkshire, Bucking-
4amshire, and Oxfordshire ; but he was not pre-
pared to see a Conservative minority represented

a Liberal London, Birmingham, and Manchester.

The objection to the minority clause urged by Mr.
BRIGHT and Mr. GOSCHEN arises from a contracted.
view of the theory of representation. They hold
that' if a constituency returns a Liberal and a
Conservative, it is virtually unrepresented ;
whereas, if the electors be half Liberals
and half Conservatives, it is far more really
represented than it it returned two members of the
same party. As for the Liberal being "neutra,=
lised " by the Tory, that is inevitable and just, if
the Tory electors are equal in number to the
Liberal electors. It matters not if the equality be
spread over the whole kingdom or be confined to
any particular borough. Some years ago Truro
returned two gentlemen of the same name and
opposite politics. There was a Liberal Mr. Simi
and a Conservative Mr. SMITH, but Trurd was not
on that account more "unrepresented" than it would
have been if the Tory Mr. SMITEL had sat for Orkney
and left the second scat in Truro to a Liberal Mr.
JONES. If we follow this " neutralising" theory
out to its logical results, we must conclude that it
would be better for the 200 Tories of Eye to elect a
member than for the 4,000 Tories of London to
elect one. That, according to Mr. G °SCHEN and
Mr. BrucuT, would be a truer representation, even
though it involved four members being returned
by seven-twelfths of a constituency, while

the other five-twelfths were forbidden to return
one. This is a rectuctio ad absurdum. Fur-
thermore, it must be remembered that in
the House of Commons a member is known, not
L-,s the representative of any particular con-
stituency, but as a supporter or an opponent of
the Ministry. If, for instance, the next House
should be composed of 258 Tories and 400
Liberals, it will net matter when the critical
division has to be taken whether any individual
Tory is returned in conjunction with a Liberal or
with a Tory. The tellers will not stop to ask
whether an M.P. is supported or " neutralised" by
his colleague. The nation will be even more

indifferent. On the other hand, when purely local
questions have to be discussed in Parliament, like
a railway bill or road bill, it will generally be found
that the members, however opposed in politics,
vote together. Where the " neutralising " argu-
ment would have force there it does not exist. The
Cornish members voted almost en ma= to resist
certain clauses of the Mines Assessment Bill,

for they were perfectly agreed in thinking
those clauses objectionable. It was, as
Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM said, Cornwall against

all England. But who thinks of Cornwall
or any other constituency in connection with the
Irish Church ? It is not places, but figures,
which are looked to. Opposing SMITHS are

altogether lost sight of in the one great fact of a
Ministerial or Opposition majority. We trust we
shall hear no more of this very antiquated but very

absurd objection. If a constituency is equally
divided, the representation ought to be so, or it is
not a true representation. It is for each party to
get a majority if it can.
For the superfluity of Liberal candidates there
is, as we have intimated, more to be said than for
the opposition to the minority clause. This super-
fluity arises from more than one cause. In tl.o
first place, it is not unnatural that after a Reform
Bill has been passed by which the franchise has
been conferred upon a large number of the working
classes for the first time, they should desire to elect
men who will represent their particular interests.
In the next place, it is not surprising that the
Reform Leaguers, whom Sir STAFFORD NORTH-
COTE has lately credited with being the real
authors of the Reform Bill (inasmuch as it
was their demonstrations which convinced the
Conservative Government of the necessity of
Reform) should desire to share the fruits of their
victory. They found but a poor reception when
they offered themselves to a constituency. They
were always de trop ; they had laboured and other
men had entered into their labours. What wonder,
then, if they turned somewhat crusty, and insisted
upon standing as candidates, even at the risk of
dividing the Liberal party I We do not say that
this is right ; we are sure, in fact, that it is unpa-
triotic. Yet the Reform Leaguers are but men
—some of them rather vain men—and we are
therefore not surprised at a course of conduct,
which wo must, nevertheless, both regret and
condemn.

Of course, this self-seeking on the part of tho
Liberals has been a text for many a sarcasm from
Conservative journals. These can point to the
almost unbroken discipline in their ranks, to the
self-denial which is shown by individual members
of the party, which prohibits them from seek-
ing their own advancement at the risk of
injury to their cause. There is some reason
for these sarcasms. Yet they arc not alto-
gether just. It must be remembered that the
Conservative policy, being that of resistance to
all change, is one that leaves little room for diffe-
rence of opinion. Very different is the Liberal
policy. It is for constant, continuous change.
Thus room is afforded for a wide diversity of ideas.
Some Liberals will be for going faster and farther
than others. Some are not prepared to support
changes which others think indispensable. Indepen-
dently of that, Liberals are by their very constitu-
tionless amenable to rule, more independent of party
leaders. So long as a man makes up his mind to
oppose all reforms, there is no opportunity- for him
to choose how he will oppose. But when a man is
prepared to effect sweeping changes, there is
abundant room for hint to differ from his colkagues
as to time, mode, and extent. The position of the
two parties towards each other is almost identical
with that which the Roman Catholic and Pro-
testant Churches bear to each other. Sectarianism
is impossible in a Church which forbids liberty of
opinion ; it is inevitable where liberty of opinion
is the first article of faith. Nevertheless, there can
be no doubt but that this individuality has been
carried to excess by the Literal party. Liberty is
in danger of becoming license. Liberal electors
cannot do better than remember Mr. BRIGHT'S
warning against voting for a man because he make!
the largest pledges.