Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1883-11-03 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

THE HERALD.  SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1883.  THE POLITICAL OUTLOOK. POLITICAL readers of the public news papers have no ground Of complaint to-day, what with the admirable and statesmanlike address of Sir Charles Dilke before the Scotch Liberals on  Tuesday, and the three speeches of Lord Salisbury at Reading. A conference of representatives of the Scotch Liberal Associations, similar to the English Conference recently held at Leeds, met at Glasgow on Tuesday to the number of about 600, and adopted a series of resolutions in favour of the introduction of the Franchise Bill next session, a redistribution of seats, the abolition of the minority clause, a thorough reform of the land laws affecting Scotland, and urging the appointment of a Minister of Cabinet rank for the management of Scotch affairs. It becomes more patent every day that it is the desire of the vast preponderance of the people that the present Parliament should no longer delay the great reform which its majority were returned to accomplish. It is true that here and there men of position and power in the Liberal ranks—Mr Courtney, for example —would prefer that the Government should deal with other measures on its original programme, leaving the extension of the franchise for its final effort. But the Liberal party as a whole is practically unanimous in calling upon the Government to introduce as the first great measure of the next session a Bill for the assimilation of the county and borough franchise. The unanimity of the Scotch Liberalsi on this question, corroborating and supplementing the expression of Liberal opinion in England, attests the accuracy of this view ; and we may depend upon it that Mr Gladstone and his colleagues will give to the resolutiops of these two great Conferences the weighty consideration which their representative character may fairly and legitimately claim. Lord Salisbury has already warned us that the Conservative party will not assent to the assimilation of the borough and county franchise without at the same time having before them the Ministerial proposals for the redistribution of electoral power. The Conservative leader would have his adherents believe that it is a piece of party strategy, meant to gain a party advantage, which prompts the Liberals to divide these two great questions of constitutional reform. Is it not rather a piece of party strategy which suggests tkat they should be taken together? We wish we could honestly believe that Lord Salisbury was sincere in his desire to effect a real reform of Parliamentary representation, but neither he nor his party have brought the question of an extension of the franchise and equitable representation within the range of practical politics. The popular dein aud for the redistribution of electoral power, as for household suffrage in the counties, has been created and sustained by the Liberal party, and that reform will follow the assimilation of the borough and county franchise as a matter of course. Lord Salisbury charges the Liberals with desiring to divide these two great questions in order to further party interests; is not that the reason for which he desires the extension of the franchise and redistribution of seats to be taken together? Is it not a party manceuvre, taken in the hope of frustrating the whole object which the Liberals have in view? It is not an equitable die. tribution of electoral power that Lord Salisbury desires to obtain, but he advocates the introduction of that measure along with the assimilation of the borough and county franchise in the hope of wrecking both. Much as he and his order have scouted public opinion, Lord Salisbury is beginning to recognise the growing power of the people. The political battle, he admits, is being transferred from Parliament to the constitu„ encies, and, as was the case at Inkerman, it is a soldiers' fight. However intended this observation may have been, Lord Salisbury could not have paid a more telling tribute to the growth and progress of advanced Liberalism in this country. He admits that the people are no longer content to be governed according to the will of " sovereigns and statesmen," but are determined that the nation shall become free in reality as well as in name, and that the administration of its affairs shall be in strict accordance with the wishes of the people. It is true that Lord Salisbury resents the suggestion of Mr Bright that the House of Lords ought to act in obedience to the will of the people, and he scornfully declines to believe that by refusing all reforms meant to make it a representative assembly the House of Lords will imperil itsown existence, " The Upper House," he tell us, "cannot be abolished or reformed without its own consent," and that consent, he believes, will never be given, for "although the fear of death will induce II man to do many things, it never yet has induced any man to commit suicide." But Lord Salisbury is not the House of Lords, nor even a faithful and trust.