THE UNPLEASANT SIDE.

THAT the first Household Suffrage Parliament has proved itself in the boroughs heartily Liberal and heartily loyal to the great Liberal leader we have just seen, but there are other fea- tures of the recent election which we cannot regard without regret and surprise. First and most remarkable of these results has been the enormous and unsuspected strength which the Con- servative party have found in Lancashire,—to whatever cause we ascribe it ; and doubtless the two preponderating causes have practically been the enormous pressure exercised by the Conservative millowners,—and Lancashire millowners are often Conservatives of the hardest and worst type,—and secondly, the anti-Irish passions of many of the hands them- selves, in the quarter of the country where Irish colonies are most numerous and powerful. To whatever causes it be due,—and these no doubt are the two most influential causes,— there is no question as to the fact that whereas in almost all the great cities out of Lancashire the Reform Act has enor- mously added to the strength of the Liberal party, in Lan- cashire itself it has certainly diminished it. Let us only compare the results of the election in 1868 with the previous contest under the old Reform Act :—

No. of Votes Majority No. of Seats. Holders Rejected for Rejected by which of Seats. Candidates. Candidates. Rejected.

1865—Licerpool 2 ... 2 Cs ... Mr. Ewart, L 7160 340 1868 3 ... 2 Cs 1 L Mr. Massey, L 14975 1162 1865—Salf Ord . 1 . 1 L No contest r Cheetham, L 6141 40

1868 „ ... 2 ... 2 C's ... j11ail:. Rawson, L 6912 163 1S65—Warringtn 1 . 1 C No contest

1868 ,, I . 1 C Mr. Rylands, L 1977 78

Mr. Cobbett' C 898 172 1865—Oldham ... 2 ... 2 L's .. iMr. Spinks,C 84-5 231

IMr. Cobbett, C 6102 25 1868 2 2 L's " '" — — (Mr. Spinks, C 6072 55

1865—Stockport 2 ... 2 L's Mr. Tipping. C 601 63 1868 „ 2 ... 1 C 1 L -Eir E. W. Watkin, L 2615 62

Mr. Ambrose, C 2197 180 :

1865—Ashton ... 1 ... I7. 0 contest 1868 „ 1 . 1 C Rt. lion. Milner Gibson, L 2147 123

1865—Bury 1 ... 1 L Right lion. F. Peel, L 373 22 1868 „ 1 ... 1 L Lord Chelsea, 13 2242 519 (Mr. Pope, L 861 113

1865—Bolton 2 ... 2 Cs . " -(Mr. Gibbs, L 727 252

1863 „ 2 . 2 Cs . 1Mr. Barnes, L 5541 314

" 131r. Pops, L 5425 93,1

1865—Blackburn 2 ... 2 C's (Mr. Pilkington, L 744 194

— -(Mr..1. G. Potter, L 577 361

i Mr. J. G. Potter, L 4387 5 0 1868 2 ... 2 C's "' 111r. M. Flelden, L 4184 703 186.5—Preston ... 2 ... 2 C's ... No contest JMr. Leese. L 4181 1868 ... 2 ... 2 Cs — (Lord E. Howard, L 1045 186.5—Clitheroe 1 ... I L No contest 4639 1087

1868 „ 1 ... 1 C Mr Roundell, L 693 G7

1885—Wigan ... 2 ... 1 C 1 L No contest 1868 2 L's... (Mr. Eckersley, C 1908 242 1Mr. Pearson, C 1269 281 186,5—Rochdale...1 ... I L No contest

1868 „ .1 ... 1 L Mr. Schofield 3261 1227 Burnley, the new Lancashire borough, is a gain to the Liberals. We have excepted Manchester, because there, the conditions of the case having been changed by the attempt to contest a three-cornered borough with three Liberal candidates, the comparison can scarcely be made. It will be seen that, though we have gained the new third seat for a Liberal in Liverpool, we have got two Conservatives for Salford instead of the one Liberal member, lost one of the seats at Stockport, lost the only seat at Ashton-under-Lyne,—the only seat at Clitheroe (or rather not gained it, for it was held by a Tory for a month or two just before the general election after the death of the old member), and gained only in Wigan. In spite of the enormous additions to the constituencies, the majorities by which the Liberal seats have been gained have been uniformly lessened, and those by which the Conservative seats have been retained have been uniformly increased. In no less than three cases where a Liberal member had got in in 1865 without a contest at all, a Liberal has been rejected at this election after a contest. And yet it will be observed that the actual numbers polled by the candidates were never less than doubled, often multiplied by seven or eight, in consequence of the increase of the consti- tuency. The sole case in which there is a change in the Liberal direction is the case of Wigan, where in 1865, the last election for both seats, the representation was divided,— the Conservatives, however, showing their superior strength at the election in 1866, while now we have carried both seats. We regard it, then, as demonstrated that for the great Lancashire boroughs one of three inferences must hold ; either the majority of the new voters are generally Conser- vative, or they are specially anti-Catholic and anti-Irish,—or they ate not free voters at all, but under the influence of their employers. We suspect that the two latter hypotheses have far more truth in them than the first. But to whatever cause it may be due, the poll of the great Lancashire boroughs instead of adding to the strength of the Liberal party has materially diminished it, and has undoubtedly cast its moral influence on the Tory side. This is the more remarkable, because in the other great manufac- turing or mining centres,—Glasgow, Birmingham, Sheffield, Stoke-on-Trent, Wednesbury, Dewsbury, Sro.,—the Tories have literally been almost annihilated. Only in the great Lancashire manufacturing towns have they gained in strength, and that signally. We must say, to whatever cause this may be due, that we can only regard it as a very evil sign that, owing either to constraint, or to prejudice, or to preference, the hundreds of thousands of new voters in Lancashire seem to be divided almost less than evenly between the two parties. We should have supposed that in any Lancashire mill there were ten avowed and hearty Liberals to one Tory ; we must now admit either that, if this is so, they are not able to speak their mind, or that, though it is so on other topics, it is not so in relation to Irish grievances and Catholic rights ; or finally, that half, or rather more than half, of them are Conservatives, and think Mr. Disraeli a wiser and honester statesman than Mr. Gladstone. However you dis- tribute the explanation amongst these three causes, the explanation is melancholy enough.

The second bad symptom is the singularly unanimous rejection of the working-men candidates, and that by majorities which seem to put it beyond doubt that they are disliked as members either by the middle class, or by the working-class itself, or both, simply because they are working- men. The Pall Mall ineptly suggests that the reason they are disliked is, that no one supposes that men working by day can also work in the House at night. But how many hard-worked barristers are there already elected. to the new Parliament ? Would Mr. Odger have had anything like the labour of Mr. Vernon Harcourt before the House met ? The simple truth is,—and we must face it,—that the constituencies agree with the Pall Mall in the vulgar dislike for sending to Parliament men who are not even com- pensated by wealth for the misfortune of coming out of a wages-paid class. The constituencies, like their organs, do not care so much to increase the deliberative strength of Par- liament (i.e., to send to it men profoundly familiar with the details of some of the greatest questions likely to be discussed in the next Parliament), as they care to keep up " social dis- tinctions." They do not choose, as the dandies of the press do not choose, to honour with their confidence anybody who is not either their superior in wealth, or their equal in rank, or both. Money will wipe out any social inferiority, but nothing else will. We regard this as a misfortune, both because it is evident that subjects closely affecting the interests of the wages-paid class will never be adequately discussed without the help of able members of that class, and because every political change which tends to wipe out purely conventional distinctions, and to bring upon a perfect political equality members of a nation only too much overridden by the narrowest and vulgarest ideas, is in itself a vast benefit to England. The recognition of such political equality between the middle and highest class in Parliament has already broken down a hundred imaginary and mischievous barriers between them. We believe that the recognition of a similar political equality in Parliament between the working-class and middle class would do the same. However, as yet the constituencies seem to be of the same mind as the Pall Mall Gazette. They would prefer a baronet even of unwholesome political repute to an able and honest man out of a workshop, whose only qualification is that he can assist Parliament to form a better judgment on some dozen of questions of the first magnitude. The repudiation of Mr. Newton at the Tower Hamlets, of Mr. Howell at Aylesbury, and Mr. Cremer at Warwick was of a kind which makes it quite evident that the aversion to Mr. Odder at Chelsea came, as the Pall Mall rightly discerned, from the bourgeois heart of the country,—which cannot endure to put wages-paid men into a post of honour. We must admit that it is a disappointment to us. Wo believe that it is an indication of a state of opinion which is not indeed very evil, but profoundly vulgar. Time alone can remedy it. The last omen of the borough elections which seems to us unsatisfactory is an indication of a state of feeling different from, but very closely allied to, the last ;—we refer to the almost uniform ill-success of the men of thought and the University Radicals. The country evidently does not approve of what Mr. Disraeli satirized as the alliance between the philosophers and the people. Mr. J. S. Mill, no doubt, has been rejected in great measure for his very injudicious support of a man for whom nobody seems to feel respect, and many feel a very sincere disgust and dread,—Mr. Bradlaugh. But Mr. Brodrick's ill- success at Woodstock, Mr. Roundell's at Clitheroe, Sir George Young's at Chippenham, Mr. Lushington's at Abingdon, are not due to causes of this kind. Mr. Hughes' enforced retire- ment from Lambeth is-an indication of the same kind. The constituencies do not like mind so well as wealth, ideas so well as substance. The new constituencies have shown none of that susceptibility to great ideas which we might have hoped from the people,—which the masses of Paris unques- tionably do show. It is precisely the same, in fact, with the London University. Mr. Lowe is doubtless a clever man, and a man of ideas ; but he is not a member of the University by which he was elected, and his ideas, such as they are, have certainly not won him the constituency. Mr. Bagehot, who was a graduate of the University, and was compelled to retire before him, was known almost exclusively for the breadth and subtlety of his speculative thought. He was not the more favourably received on that account. We rather suspect that he was the less favourably received on that account. The young University distrusted mere intellectual ability, though it was a home product and would have won the University credit, and pinned its faith on a political fame already acquired. They rejected the half-known man of high intelligence, and preferred the " right honourable." The case of the University of London is as good an instance as any we have of the utter distrust which the new constituencies feel for ideas. They crave tangible signs of position and success,—a baronetcy, even though tacked to a disreputable political repute,—a millionaire rather than a thinker,—a politician of " made " success, rather than a half-known man of promise of their own constituency. Unquestionably the new Parliament, if heartily Liberal, and heartily loyal, will be nearly the most " Philistine " Parliament of our generation. The English people has not shown itself at all more sus- ceptible to the influence of ideas than the English middle-class. In fact, it is the lesson of the elections that the working-class is at present little but a lower middle class, with the same respect for externals, if not one much more abundant.