LETTERS

TO THE

HERTFORD REFORMER.

I.-STATE OF PARTIES.

[From the Paper dated May 30, 1837.]

THE defeat of the Liberal candidate at Westminster has been followed by a similar result of the contest at Bridgewater. It is easy to ascribe these defeats to mismanagement, or to intimidation, or to the good organization of the opposite party :-but we should do well to remember that it was otherwise in 1832;-that the Liberals could scarcely have been better managers then than they are now; that the Tories were certainly as rich, and as well disposed to avail themselves of their wealth and influence, as they can be at present. But though the boat and her crew be the same, yet she will not make her way into harbour so quickly when the tide is ebbing as she did when it was running in at the rate of ten knots an hour.

There is a turn in the tide,-or if we like it better, the flood is done, and it is slack water. This is enough to account for far greater defeats than the Liberals have as yet sustained, unsupported by those extraordinary causes which enabled them to crush the Tories in the elections of 1831 and 1832, they now feel the disadvantages to which the Liberal party is ever exposed when contending against Conservatism.

The Liberals profess to be the advocates of truth and justice; without regarding men's interests or prejudices. Therefore they ever have been and still are a minority in all political contests;-their great victories have been

FF

gained by their course happening to coincide for a time with the interests of some powerful portion of society. Every man appreciates justice when it is on his own side, -and thus all oppressed parties in their turn become auxiliaries of the Liberal cause, but they do not therefore become liberal; nor are they interested in the struggle on any high ground of principle ;-so that when their particular wrong is redressed they presently quit the contest; -and are very likely to engage in it the next time on the other side;-being often as tenacious in upholding the injustice from which they derive profit as they were in combating that under which themselves were sufferers.

Again, nine men out of ten are, under ordinary circumstances, Conservatives.-Who takes the trouble of going out of his way,—of altering his habits,—of watching over the evil tendencies of his nature? Ordinary men are sure to be Conservatives if their outward condition is tolerable; -it is a matter of course that the majority of persons in the richer classes should naturally be Conservative;-so are the majority of the poorer classes, except so far as they suffer or think that they suffer from things as they are they are not apt to be Reformers from the pure love of truth and justice.

A truly Liberal government, as it relieves the oppressions suffered by all parties and all orders, so it also reforms the abuses of all.-But it has been long ago remarked that he who reforms an abuse, gains lukewarm admiration. and zealous enmity.-The present government reformed the Rotten Boroughs, and incurred by so doing the deadly hatred of the Tories:-they reformed the Poor Laws, and have thus given mortal offence to a large proportion of the most ignorant and violent of the poor, who cling to their abuses as fondly as the Tories do to theirs.- But we do not find that the gratitude and support of the country at large are at all in proportion to the resentment and enmity of the Tories on the one hand, or of the misguided advocates of pauperism on the other.

We must be prepared, then, to see a Liberal and honest government always in a situation of peril, after the enthusiasm excited by its first great reforms is over.-Its friends relax their efforts, while its enemies rally.-The Liberal governments of George the First and George the Second's reigns, had the steady support of the Crown, because so long as a Pretender was to be dreaded, resting his claim on Tory principles, the Crown was obliged to be liberal. Had not Charles Edward sunk towards the end of his life into utter personal degradation, and had not he, unhappily, been the last of his race,—for his brother, the Cardinal, was out of the question,-George the Third would not have dared to be a Tory.-Without the support of the Crown,-hated by the aristocracy, the clergy, and the lowest of the populace,-sure of the opposition of ignorance and dishonesty,-where can a really honest government look for friends but amongst the best and wisest part of the people at large,-where is its hope but in the diffusion of principles of truth and honesty?

This is the glorious task of the true Liberals ;-to appeal to reason, not to ignorance,—to principle, not to selfishness; for their triumph can be gained by no other means. For any one particular measure they are, indeed, sure of the support of those whose interest it promotes ;but for their cause in general, they can have no supporters but men to a certain degree honest, and intelligent,—and in proportion to the degree of honesty and intelligence in the nation at large, will be the efficiency of the support which they will receive. We must not doubt that this support is to be won by recalling to men's minds the real merits of some of the great questions now at issue, between the Government and the Conservatives;-and by reminding them of what the Conservatives as a party are, and ever have been. Least of all can we believe that any honest man, after a moment's reflection, would tolerate the notion of looking to measures, rather than to men :for this doctrine can only mean that provided certain

measures are adopted by the government, it matters not of whom that government consists :—that is, it is a matter of indifference whether that common honesty which we regard as indispensable in the humblest menial servant be, or be not, to be found in the character of a prime minister-whether the man, who acts from interest, or from compulsion, against his conscience, is for the very sake of his baseness, because he is ready to be the tool of any one who is the strongest,-a fit person to be entrusted with the government of a Christian people.

II. CHURCH RATES.

[From the Paper dated June 20, 1837.]

We trust that our meaning will not be mistaken when we say that we do not regret postponement of the Church Rate Question to another year. In that question are involved principles of such vital importance, and the true solution of its difficulties is, in our judgment, so little perceived by the disputants on either side, that we are by no means anxious to see it brought to a precipitate, and therefore an imperfect and mischievous, settlement. The proposed plan of the government did not make the maintenance of the churches cease to be a national object, because it provided for their repairs out of the proceeds of the bishops' lands. The bishops' lands are as much national property as the lands belonging to Greenwich Hospital. And if the Greenwich Hospital lands presented an amount of surplus revenue, which was to be devoted to the building of King's ships, those ships would be just as much provided by the nation as heretofore. But if such an appropriation were avowedly intended to satisfy the scruples of the Quakers, because they objected to the building of ships of war,-then we think that in allowing this exemption, we should allow an exceedingly important principle, and one which would tend to deprive the royal

navy of its national character,-and make it become the navy of only a certain part of the community,-those, namely, who did not hold Quaker opinions. We hold that it marks a very critical point in the relations of society, when there is reason to allow the protest of a minority, so far as they themselves are concerned, against any measure or institution approved of by the majority. In some cases such a protest must always be inadmissible; —if the minority will not venture their lives and fortunes in support of a war which they disapprove,—the national bond is at once destroyed. Nor does the size of the minority in this case make any difference, because the question admits of no compromise:-there must be either war or no war; and therefore unless the minority yield to the majority, the majority must yield to the minority,— which is still less reasonable. Other cases, of which the appropriation of national funds is one,-do manifestly admit of compromise:—and here the size of the minority does make a great difference ;-for we may truly say with respect to political influence, "De paucissimis non curat Lex:"-but supposing the minority to be equal to twofifths, for instance, of the nation, it would become reasonable that all the national funds should not be appropriated according to the notions of the majority;—it would be fair, that where consideration is so obviously practicable, the notions of so important a minority should be in some degree considered and complied with. But then this consideration should be shown rather in the modified character of the national act or institution in itself,-than by maintaining these in their full rigour, and allowing the minority to be exempted altogether from their operation. If the Dissenters are so important a minority, that any appropriation of the national funds which they may disapprove cannot strictly be regarded as the act of the nation, they may claim something more than a mere exemption from contributing to the funds so appropriated themselves. They are more than a few individuals,—