The Sun.
London, England, 1865-02-22 00:00:00

wry,
tented with nothing but demolition and those Wh°
shrink from all repair • and he would uld like, if be
could, to see a line drawn between the two ex-
tremes, further in advance than it now is, but on
the principles with which his name is identified. 9.11
the other hand, Mr. Baines, and the gentlemen iv°
think they can force Reform, like cucumbers or,
melons, by the expenditure of a considerable sum(ll
money in aid of agitation, take quite another "lief'
The only principle which they have at all clearly
enunciated is the very principle Lord Russell quietly
puts aside. He desires to be practical, and they are
all for theory. He would extend the franchise..ll
contribute to the public security, while they wef t
admit the working classes to vote on the idea
all men in a free country are entitled to exercise tu::,
electorial franchise. Of course, nobody is bound
follow Lord Russell ; and though he has made I
appear that rest and thankfulness are not inconiPa;
tible with progress, eager travellers may Wish niged
on faster. But, at all events, Reformers •,h
come to some understanding among themselves `Oath
regard to their claims. Mr. Baines's Bill is aubecs
ceedingly pale reflection of Mr: Baines' sneeit-ist'
and Lord Amberley has said nothing that enw"
r
corresponds with, or is absolutely averse frog, ths..
principles to which his father adheres. The Veit
tions to be answered are plain enough. What la 6
that is wanted, and what is it wanted for ? P° it'
the claim rest on any practical grievance, or i!,,11
merely a theoretical aspiration ? Is Mr. Baines's -°ll
an end, or the means to an end? It is easy te c° 0
ceive that, on the eve of a general election, Ole.
declamation may be convenient in a party srei!liey
But these questions are not party questions. 'or
should be considered impartially, and to be so eted,
sidered they must be fairly and explicitly att„aeSs
Lord Russell appears to think there are selfisTog
and ignorance to be overcome, and. we raaY,ta it
we can cordially concur in the proposition. orre.
is by no means evident whether Lord Russel'
en-
ferred to the ten-pound householders, to the 1111_,Ag.
franchised working classes or the House of Le..;ii
This ambiloquy in itself tends to:create susfoLel-
and distrust. 1n 1832 the Reformers spoke into°,
ligibly, but now they speak in' parables. Then, blie
their words were weighted with the force of 1),11 ed,
opinion ; but now there is no national echo. Intti-
there is nothing for the country to echo. The '-
,ilea°
cence, however, that was for a time taken to in —4v
the absence of motive has gradually come to be rels-
ded as significant. People reasonably requre infethem
tion on a subject whieh is said to concern
no
intimately, but of which they have themselvest to
knowledge. Even in a fog it is not safe to !III': ser
the first adventurous link-boy who offers ul'ote
vices as a guide, and still less is it wise to deo°,
in broad daylight from a way which, if not otig-
gether smooth, is safe and ascertained, on ter ja
gestion that another unknown path is nearer but
more agreeable. Novelty. is all veil well'tioa•
security is a much more important consideratone
There is no possibility of dissembling. thaf the
main objection to any extensive reduction 0 ao-
franchise consists in the conviction that it is in
04
posed with ulterior objects, that organic ellatTatedt
the government of the country are contenir,stioo
and that a large modification of the represe%
would lead to the subversion of the consulrefit'
If this apprehension is fallacious, it admits °. t 0
tation. But if a £6 franchise is an instalme ge
is
be receipted on the theory that universal sliffr: Mr•
the debt due to the nation, then manifeatiJeracyt
Baines's Bill would be a step towards den:libel
and every step in that direction would lea
_AV., ti the
in the rear of progress. It would dimin theif
freedom of the people within the State au f the,
security from without." Any reduction, °no of
franchise that tended to destroy the reduction
power essential to the maintenance of a Folly
monarchy would inflict a heavy blow uP°l;ctocral
mentary government ; the power the an",ed
were depeived of would eventually be aecill'opioieu,
the Crown ; and though some may be e." be '
that such a change would in many respects._, novi
undesirable, it is wholly beside the suestibue.". sole
raised. Canning, when he was discussing t said.
theory, admitted that there was much to bent an
favour of a more despotic form of governre'd
to this day the Germans, who are suPropoD
French Liberals to be free and enlighteneo,yereiga
bring themselves to understand how a Se we are,
reigns without directly governing. But as oov
not about to pull down the national edifiee,,..„l etioa:
necessary to draw plans for its reconsr. Cola
Granting, for the argument, that the housoe par"
be made more convenient, if it answers to II ,re.
pose, if it is associated with ideas we are 11. no'on'
pared to part with, if it is firm and fastci dineelptsin
,tlloet
dation, and if that foundation be lai lir 1,
heart of the English people, it will not eu
our time, but preserve to future
generations
blessings we enjoy under its roof.