American citizen. [volume] (Butler, Butler County, Pa.) 1863-1872, 1867-05-01

The ocean telegraph reports that Mr..
Gladstone bad offered an amendment to the
Reform bill of the Tory Government which
had been rejected by 2l majority. The tel
egram states merely that the proposition
was to fix the rating o. votes at five pounds;
but the details of the debate will soon reach
us. In the meanwhile it must not be sun
posed that the feeling upon the subject has
essentially changed. The difficulty in the
House of Commons we presume to be "a want
of harmony in the Liberal party, which no
leader however skillful could overcome
Last wear Mr.. Lowe taunted Mr.. Gladstone
with the foolish sacrifice of the great mnjor-
ity which he inherited from Lord Palmer
ston. But it was impossible for the new
House to continue the Palmerstonian policy
of smiling and sneering and drifting, The
most radical opponents of the Palmrstonian
system are TO be found in the Liberal ranks;
and it is as impossible for Mr.. Lowe and Mr..
Bright to agree, as for Mr.. Bright and Lord
Derby. And this is the KEY Of the situation.
There are really four parties in the House
Of Commons; the Tory party proper; the
Glad tone Liberals, with whom John Bright
acts; the Adullamites, or the squad of con-
ceryative Liberals who act with Mr.. Robert
Lowe; and the true radicals, of whom John
Bright is the representatives. Bright and
Mill both vote with Gladstone; but for rca-
sons somewhat differiEg.lrom his The To -.
ries will have no change whatever. To
them modern times are a snare, progress is
delusiun, and John Bright is John Wilkes
and Guy Fawkes combined. Robert Lowe,
chief of the Adullamites, j. one of the most
brilliant and lucid of modern Parliamentary
orators. lie rejects utterly the idea of any
right but legal right he denies that JUS
tice' and moral rights have any place in
politics. In his opinion politics is expedi-
ency and nothing more. He insists that the
Retormers are bound to show soma existing
grievance for which an increased suffra ge
will be a remedy; and he denies that Re,
| formers are logical in stopping at FIVE or
seven or ten pound rating as a qualification
for the suffrage, instead of pushing on to q
pure democracy The Reform asked for he
contends would be merely step toward de-
mocracy and democracy is anarchy and
chaos coine again. Gladstone has never
| declared that suffrage was a natural right,
nor has he reasoned upon a pri0rt consider
atoms, except to say that good policy re.
quires the participation in the Government
of every man who is not personally unfit,
or whose participation would not be pOliti.
cally dangerous lie does speak, however,
of moral rights in politics. Such, for in
stance, as the right of every C tizen to pro-
lection by the state to which he gives his
allegiance. Then come Bright and Mill,
the cleurest brain and the most eloquent
/ tongue in England, one of whom claims
manhood suffrage as right, while the other
the vote for women.
Mr.. Loweand his friends combining with
| tho Tories, defeated Gladstones bill and
broke up the Russell Ministry. We pre-.
sumo that upon the same grounds he has
taken the same course now. His philosophy
is peculiarly agreeable to tho British mind.
! II is essentially that of Burke, who would
not allow moral principles to be obtruded
into political discussions. But, as a late
acute critic of Lowe remarks, if the sole
proper ground Of political action be expe,
diency, may it not be expedient to consider
| whether even an unreasonable sense of in
! justice upon the part of five millions of the
population ought not to be regarded? Lowe
denies that these millions suffer any griev-
ance for which enlarged suffrage is rem>
edy but if they think that they do, it is
quite enough. 1t is not point which Mr..
Lowe can decide for them or for the country.
His argument now was the Tory argument
in 1892 but he admits the reform of that
year to have been good measure. Yet il
enlargement Of the suffrage be step toward
Democracy, and therefore perilous, it was
as true in 1882 as it is inlS67.
De Toqueyille was of opinion that De-
mOcracy, or popular government, was inevi-
table. If that be indeed so, it is the nat>
ural result of increasing intelligence and
| civilization. Do we wish to withstand civil
izatIon? Was the Spain of Charles V. as
happy country as the United States to day?
-HayperiS Weekiy.