The Press. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1885.

Press, Issue XLI, 25 February 1885, Page 4

The Press. WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 1885.

We have not been amongst either the detractors or the apologists of Lord Salisbury. A debater of bis drastic virulence is not likely to want the former, while his headlong courage as a party leader will certainly find full scope for labours of the latter. In stating the other day our views of the pending reform measure we could not avoid taking note of the part played in respect to it by the Conservative Opposition under his guidance. We think, however, that their course is by no means incapable of explanation, and we propose following np our late article with a few words on this side of the subject. There appears to us to be two if not three good reasons why a Conservative party leader should be on the whole well contended with the Redistribution Bill as it stands. As Mr. Gladstone was careful to explain, it might easily have been carried farther, both in the way of disfranchisement and of the creation of new seats. Where no borough under 50,000 inhabitants is to have more than a single member, the giving a member te a boroHgh with only 15,000 may easily be represented as an indefensible anomaly, and we see that the logical-Radical party, if we may so call them, have already opered trenches against the Bill on this basis, under the guidance of Mr. Ooubtenat. If, again, 50,000 inhabitants justify the concession of a member, it seems a long way to have to go to. get np to 150,000 before reaching the minimum limit of exceptional representation. Looking to the feeling of the Reform party at Home there is good reason for thinking that if Mr. Gladstone had thought fid to propose a stronger measure he would have had all the support of that party; and any Conservative statesman might well think twice before determining to let the question go to the country upon the issue thus raised. It is to be remembered, too, that the attitude of both parties towards Reform— that of the Conservative party especially —has been inevitably modified by the results of their experience since the first Reform BilL The changes whioh it has been made the means of effecting are no donbt of great magnitude. The abolition of the property in slaves, the reconstruction of the municipal corporations, the creation of the County Courts, free trade in corn, the abolition of the excise system, the throwing open of the Universities, the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, the Irish Land Aot, vote by ballot, the creation of an almost household suffrage, are all measures whioh may safely be pronounced to have been impossible before the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832. Bat it would be quite untrue of any of these measures to represent its passing as in any degree doe to mob violence or the dictation of a tyrant majority; one and all have either been conceded to the admitted necessity of the case or f ought oat in fair argument. In some cases the Conservative party have themselves been largely parties to the carrying of the measure. The sadden success of the Dissenters in obtaining admission to Oxford University was well known at the time to be a surprise to themselves, bat it was mainly doe to the adhesion of about forty votes from the Conservative benches, following the lead of the then Lord Stanley. There was a harder fight On the. Free Trade question, but its successful issue was heralded by, -the announcement, one after another, of conversions from the Protectionist leaders. Mr. Walters, of the Times, was among the first to make the usual statement that his vote would henceforward be given with that party. Sir Jambs Geaham was another. And, much abased as was Sir Robert Peel for his final surrender, it is not a great exaggeration to say that he was about the last of his own immediate followers to give way on the question. The attack upon the Irish Church was no doubt the work, in the first instance, of the ultra advanced party. But it was even then spoken of in political circles as an attack to which no defence was possible, if only the right time and manner were chosen to make it, and it has since' come out that Mr. Dvsbahli looked upon a prolonged opposition as both hopeless and unwise in the interests of the Church itself. We need go no farther. What has been done under the Reform Bill has been the work of all classes. The extremists on both sides have been forced to modify their coarse in obedience to the moderates of both sides. The liberal Conservatism whioh Sir Robert Pbblwss said to have inTented has become a leading element among all classes alike, and Reform Bills have ceased to be feared, because it has been foond by experience that all parties may be trusted, whatever changes they require, to carry them oat with doe 'moderation and a just regard to all interests that may be affected. Lord Churchill's announcement of his intention to stand for Birmingham is not the least significant of the indications that the Conservative party at home are folly prepared to take their chance of support among the rank and file of the people. Thus looked at, there appears much to justify the course of the Conservative leaders, acting, it most be supposed, ia the interests of their own party, with regard to Mr. Gladsione's Bill. Most certainly, if it is to pass, it is far better for them that they should be recognised as cordial promoters of its becoming