The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-21 00:00:00

is ha—meditating ? Are there not glimmerings
already' -through the gathering storm clouds of
',another conflict yonder in Italy—that even yet it
be in tote for the Italians—that even yet it
may be free from the Alps to the Adriatic I'

If evidence were wanted of the need of a Reform
of the _Representation of the country,the debate and
division of last night would be all that is required.
By an accident, which could not be anticipated,
Mr. BERKELEY'S motion ran clean into the debate
on the Government Reform Bill, and cut it in two.
That was no fault of Mr. BERKELEY'S. The even-

ing need not have been lost; the insignificant ques-
tion might have been disposed of, and the debate on

the Reform Bill have been resumed, for there was

plenty of time after the division on Mr. BERKE-
LEY'S motion was taken. The second reading is
also a settled thing, and the debate as purely formal
as the late one on the treaty. What, however,

_
proves that the House does not represent the people
is this—that it is read a second time, without a

division, a bill which the country hardly cares for,
while, by a majority of 254 to 147, it refuses to
read a first time the bill which it desires more than

any other.
On Monday Mr. BERKELEY declined to postpone
his motion in favour of the Government Bill, be-
cause " his was the better bill of the two." We are
confident that short sentence expressed the general

opinion out of doors. Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S is a
franchise bill. Its object is extension of franchise.
On this very point Mr. BERKELEY'S Bill would be
more than a match for it. It would extend the
franchise in two ways. First, it would induce
thousands to vote who at present refrain from doing
so through fear of displeasing others. Secondly, it
would enfranchise still greater numbers who now
vote, indeed, but do not vote as they wish. Between
the two classes we are confident that more real
voters would be created by Mr. BERKELEY'S Bill
than by Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S. The dependent
classes, who constitute in one way and another per-
haps a third of the electors, have now a vote, but
not a franchise; Mr. BERKELEY would give them
a franchise also. The difference is, Lord JOHN'S
Bill increases the number of manageable and brib-
able electors ; Mr. BERKELEY'S Bill would convert
electors of such kinds into independent voters; hence
a bill to extend subserviency will be easily read a
second time, while one to substitute independence
for subserviency, will not even be allowed an intro.

duction.
Mr. BERKELEY, and his opponent this time, Lord
PALMERSTON, labour each under two great difficul-
ties ; the former has to prove an unwelcome but
self-evident truth, the latter to commend to the
house a profitable lie. VOLTAIRE it was, if we
rightly remember, who said, that if handsome
State endowments were appropriated to preach*
ing and proving that all the angles of a
triangle were not equal to two right angles, he
would engage to find a large body of educated men
to do the work. Now, Lord PALMERSTON has got
the task of showing that corruptors and intimida-
tors can act on you as easily when they cannot in-
sure the success of their operations as when they
can. But Lord PALMERSTON preaches to a house
to whom corruption and intimidation are im-
mensely gainful, and to whom secret voting would
be a loss of all their gains ; willingly enough,
therefore, they believe, or affect to believe, the
gainful creed, and vote Lord PALMERSTON'S reason-
ing perfect. They vote that the Ballot will not re-
press the evils of intimidation and corruption, because
almost all the county members sit in the house in
virtue of the former, and half the borough members
in virtue of the latter. Mr. BERKELEY'S difficulty
is just the other way. How find any intermediate
links of proof to make a speech from ? It would
tax the ingenuity of most of us to prove that two
and two make four. Even if we separated the units
and counted them one by one, our youngest children
would not thank us for our trouble. What, then,
shall a man do who has to prove to two or three
hundred gentlemen a proposition quite as plain as
that we have referred to ? Take mechanical secu-
rity that no one shall know, by personal knowledge,
how any one of several thousands of electors voted,
and then, we say, paying men to vote for a parti-
cular candidate, or frightening them into voting for
him, will receive a heavy discouragement. These
practices will become difficult, almost to impracti-
cability. Does any man need argument to prove
this ? Does he not instantly feel, " I would not
spend my money if I could get no receipt for it, and
I would not incur the odium of coercion when, per-
haps, my attempt to practise it would induce the
man to cheat me." And there the matter ends.
And all the ingenious inventions of Sir G. C. LEWIS,
Lord J. RUSSELL, Lord PALMERSTON, and our
aristociacy are but the consciously deceptive argu-
ments of men who want to retain unrighteous
power at the cost of fearful evils. We do not give
them credit for sincerity. They hash up ludicrous
arguments against the ballot, not because they
doubt its efficiency, but because they are too sure
of it.
Well, the matter is not ended yet. As Mr.
BERKELEY told Lord PALMERSTON, the division
list next morning would be no pleasant subject of
contemplation for his lordship ; he would then find
himself skulking away from all the popular and
independent members under the gaberdine of the
Tories, and subsisting by Tory support. Mr.
DUNCOMBE also will not, we trust, let the subject
rest in committee on the Reform Bill. Amen&
ments may be advantageously moved there which
will compel the corruptionists and intimidators to
hang out their true colours. And possibly- Mr.
BEToirr may not be mistaken. It may be found
that the dependent condition of the new voters will
be so manifest that very shame will compel the
concession of protected voting.

The letter of " A Housekeeper," on the Budget,
deserves some consideration as representing the
opinions of a class who are pretty good judges of
the practical effect of alterations in the tariff on
the social comfort of the middle classes. The
"Housekeeper" in question expresses her extreme
dissatisfaction with the changes introduced by the
financial statement, and though it is as yet hardly
time to judge of the fair working of proposed inno-
vations, her opinions are not without some founda-
tion. The grand sounding reductions, which
amount to a large sum on warehouses stored with
hogsheads and hundredweights, when viewed in
'their retail lspect present a very different figure.
We suspect it is the large merchants and manu-
facturers who are really the ones to benefit by tho
proposed alterations, while a good share of the
trifling sums that they may take off the
price of retail commodities, will find its way into
the pocket of the retail vendor instead of that of the
customer. Thus, in the case of the removal of the
paper duty, the public will have to wait some time
before they derive much advantage. The journals
which are Dow issued at a penny will not reduce
their price, and the managers of newspapers, cheap
magazines, and serials of every description will justly
say that where they save the fraction of a farthing es
each sheet of paper they cannot be expected to re-
duce their price by two or four farthings, thus
incurring
a positive loss. Paper houses, carriages,
and ships may, as promised, be made some day,