The Sun.
London, England, 1865-06-22 00:00:00

sition, who have at least the recollection of Lord
DERBY'S Bill to fall back on, have not always
shown themselves to be very hearty in the cause.
Mr. BERKELEY has industriously kept the ballot
before the public, but though he has succeeded in
winning a large body of adherents out of doors, he
has not effected much inside the walls of the House.
The extension of the franchise has been copiously
discussed, but very little has been really done. Mr.
GLADSTONE'S vigorous and powerful speech excited
the enthusiasm of reformers, and alarmed his old
allies to such an extent that while the one party
was rejoicing over his conversion, the other per-
suaded him to modify his statements and qualify
his opinions. The redistribution of seats being the
most invidious part of a Reform Bill, we are apt to
hear less about it, unless some energetic and not too
scrupulous reformer is addressing populous town when
he sweeps away all the old boroughs with the most
praiseworthy indifference to consequences, and the
most sublime disregard of Mr. MILL'S theory as to
the right of minorities to be represented. To say
the truth, the class of respectable mediocrities who
appear to be most popular in the largest constituen-
cies is not encouraging, if it is to form the staple of
our legislature. Such men may be very useful as a
drag upon the wheels, they may serve to fill up the
crevices very fairly and safely, but if an energetic
policy or enlightened legislation is to be looked for
among them, the result of the exclusive return of
such representatives would be less satisfactory. But
in this, as in all else, a wise medium is the safest
course ; and while we do not admire the adoption
of the representation by a number system, still there
are no doubt very glaring inequalities in the distri-
bution of seats. The fact of the matter being that,
in the bill of 1832, the Tory boroughs were for the
most part disfranchised, while the Whigs, who had
won the victory, very naturally did not turn it
against themselves, but spared those comfortable
pocket boroughs which still flourish amongst us.
But though it is much easier and pleasanter
to preach than to practise, you run the risk of being
taken at your word occasionally, and the people who
have heard the high-flown sentiments of Whig states-
men so often that they have got to believe them are
beginning to apply to Whig practice. Unluckily
the fine perorations about the rights of the people
andthe free constitution of the country apply equally
well to both sides, and there is no protective clause
in the general principles which stipulate that Whig
boroughs should be passed over in a Reform Bill.
So that in the new measure that some Government
or another will have to bring in before long the
people are quite prepared to exercise a close scrutiny.
It may do very well for one side to make the speeches
and the other side to make the sacrifices for once,
but the experiment can hardly be repeated after the
experience of thirty years. The Tories of 1830-32
could expect no better treatment, and they had to
thank their own obstinacy for what they lost; but
the so-called Tories of our day are wiser and less
prejudiced ; and since they are not unwilling to
admit the principle of Reform, they will gain the
right to see that the same measure is applied to both
sides. Their empty promises will no longer avail.
The kind admonition to " rest and be thankful"
will scarcely be heeded by a great and enterprising
people, whose very anxiety to preserve their Con-
stitution makes them eager to eliminate all the
elements of decay. This is the time for promises,
but promises have been given before and have pro-
duced very little. Let the constituencies judge by
the acts of the past rather than by the professions
for the future, and they will scarcely be likely to
repeat the mistakes made in the last election._
In this its last Session, however, the House of
Commons may claim to have accomplished some
really useful measures, though the season has not
been rife with occasions of political contest. The
Courts of Justice Bill, the Union Chargeability Bill,
and the Partnership Amendment Bill are all good and
productive measures, and the principles asserted in
them are really sound. The Courts of Justice Bill
has been talked of for many years, and it is only
wonderful that so great a public inconvenience as
the dispersion of the public courts could so long
have been tolerated. The Union Chargeability Bill
was similar in principle to a measure introduced by
no less a reformer than Lord BROUGELk3I thirty
years ago, and it may be hoped that its adoption
will prove the first step towards removing some of
those heavy burdens which press so unfairly on the
pauper and the ratepayer alike. The Partnership
Amendment Bill is only an extension of that Limited
Liability principle which has been so generally ap-
proved of in commercial circles. These three mea-
sures are therefore something to boast of as the
result of the brief and uneventful session which
closes the present Parliament ; and the larger works
left to be done by its successor will, we hope, be
worthily fulfilled.

The rules which regulate the connection between
members of the House of Commons and their con-
stituents are difficult of arrangement and settlement
in many instances, and in most cases it may be said
that the fewer there are the better for the interests
of all concerned. At any time the officious inter-
ference of third parties is always mischievous, and
cannot possibly conduce to any good or beneficial
result. A. notable instance of this has just been
seen in the correspondence between Lord ELCHO
and the Protestant Electoral Union. A better
reply could not have been given than that which
was sent by the noble lord to the extraordinary
communication which was forwarded to him. In
his answer, Lord ELCHO gives a very proper defini-
tion of the terms which should exist between mem-
bers and their constituents. It may be said that
the circular letter was unwarrantable to a degree
that amounted to impertinence, and represented a
peculiar style of thinking, and exhibited a sectarian
spirit such as are quite incompatible with the course
which an enlightened representative should follow.
The information which was sought to be obtained
by the compilers of the circular was whether Lord
ELCHO would support or oppose some of the motions
before Parliament concerning Roman Catholic
endowments. As a candidate for the represen-
tation of Haddingtonshire in Parliament, the Pro-
testant Electoral Union of Scotland wished to
learn from Lord ELcuo if he was in favour of
a motion for the withdrawal of the Maynooth
Grant and all " other Parliamentary grants in sup-
port of Romanism ;" also if he would support or
oppose " any proposal in Parliament for the en-
dowment of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ire-
land out of the Consolidated Fund or otherwise ?"
To this communication his lordship very properly
made answer that personally he had not the honour
of the acquaintance of those who addressed him,
that publicly he had no knowledge of the existence
of the Protestant Electoral Union of Scotland, and
that politically he did not recognise the jurisdiction
of any such self-constituted body. A more suit-
able reply could not have been framed than this,
and Lord ELciio merits the thanks of his consti-
tuents and the approval of the general public for
his bold and straightforward course. A more dele-
terious mode of proceeding can scarcely be imagined
than that which has been followed by this Society,
and it is the more incumbent on the part of those
who are the objects of its investigations to disclaim
its privileges and deny its rights on account of the
approaching general election, WI,: ever in done or