The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-25 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The Reform Debate in the Lords was
brilliant and powerful ; but it was open to one
grave objection. It was occupied too exclusively
with the attack and defence of the consistency of
the Ministry. We do not wish to underrate the
importance of this question. The character of our
public men ought to be an object of supreme
jealousy, and confidence in the sincerity of political
life has been grievously shaken by the events of the
session. But a couple of speeches upon the con-
duct of the Ministers might have sufficed. The
position of Lord Carnarvon justified and almost
demanded the expression of his sentiments upon it,
and his vigorous denunciation left nothing to be de-
sired. If anything more were by any possibility
wanting, it was supplied by Lord Cairns, who,
making the best defence for the Government his in-
genuity could suggest, acknowledged that the Con-
servative party opposed the £7 Borough Franchise
because it would have admitted a body of voters of
extreme democratic opinions, that they now propose
Household Suffrage without limitation of value
because they believe that the lower ranks will be
found strongly Conservative, and that they would
last year have consented to an £8 limit as safe and
judicious. The Conservative party have thus
discovered that the Radicalism of the country
is concentrated in the men who live in houses
between 5.:7 and £8 in annual value. Above
and below all is safe ; in that narrow stratum
are all the elements of explosion. Need any-
thing more be said after this? The weakness
of the advocacy of the ablest of advocates con-
firmed the accusation he sought to refute. It
is unfortunate that such an immoderate share of
the debate should have been devoted to mutual re-
criminations, but it is not too late for the Lords
to clear themselves from the imputation that they
are incapable of taking
i a wider view of the
question of Reform than s embodied in the bill.
Before Monday Amendments may be placed on the
paper to remove the worst defects of the Minis-
terial scheme, and indicate, i▪ f they do no more, the
proper lines on which to reconstruct our electoral
system. We understand that such Amendments will
be submitted to the House. If we are not misin-
formed, the House of Lords will be asked before going
into committee to affirm the necessity of extending
the redistribution scheme as a condition to a perma-
nent settlement of the questi▪
on, and it is certain that
other propositions for the amendment of the bill will
be brought forward in the committee itself. Every
One desires that the bill should effect as permanent
a settlement as possible, while no one pretends that
as it now stands it offers a defensible distribution of
representative power. Lord Shaftesbury expressed
the sense of all candid men when he declared his
belief that it would not remain unaltered for a ape°

session. Any proposition for the improvement of the
bill as a lasting settlement demands, therefore, the
support of all lovers of good government. Even if
it be only a protest defining the method to be fol-
loWed in the next stage of reform, it is well that
before the Parliament of to-day gives way to the
Parliament of the future the protest should be lit-
tered. But it may become something more. If the
conditions of action be observed, the attempt to im-
prove the bill may be successful. Opinions have
ripened, and conclusions once subjects of contro-
versy are now generally adopted. But it must be
remembered that the time is short. We are not far
from the end of July, and any alterations to be pro-
posed now with any chance of success must be the
natural rcsult of the discussions upon the bill in and
out of Parhament. It is necessary that Amend-
i,ents should be definite ; it is above all things tic-
' cessary that the proposers of them should have a
clear conception of the principles on which they
proceed, and that by Monday they should be pre-
pared to submit a complete account of their plans
to the Upper House. Let us understand what is
contemplated. Suppose it be suggested that the
process of disfranchisement be carried further
than is provided in the bill. It is certain that this
must be done to secure a permanent settlement.
The contrasts between the electoral Dower of con-
stituencies will be enormously exaggerated by the
enfranchising clauses of the bill, and it will be im-
possible to maintain the privileges of the small
boroughs. But small boroughs have their uses.
Lord Russell reminded the House of Lords on Tues-
day how often men of the greatest eminence had
found in small boroughs a refuge from the injustice
of shifting majorities in large constituencies. If
small boroughs be doomed to disappear, as they
unouestionably are, some effort must be made to
secure by other means the discharge of the func-
tions they have hitherto discharged. Fortunately,
there is a very simple and intelligible way of pro-
ducing this result. If seats be taken from the
smallest boroughs—if, for instance, all boroughs
having a population below 5,000 be absolutely dis-
franchised—the motive for this legislation is the
claim of the large constituencies to increased re-
presentation, and the seats thus obtained must be
conferred on the large constituencies. How they
should be conferred must be a question, but we
submit that it must be by accumulation of repre-
sentatives, and not by subdivision of the constitu-
encies. Lord Cairns on 'Tuesday sanctioned the
prejudice against " three-cornered constituencies,"
but directly he attempted to reason he exposed its
vanity. We had, indeed, no " three-cornered con-
stituencies" before 1832 ; but what then ? Can anY
single characteristic of the so-called representative
system which existed before 1832 suffice, simply be-
cause it was a part of that system, to outweigh a
grain of argument? We had no .‘ three-cornered
constituencies" before 1832 ; but they were created
then, like many other excellent things ; they are in-
. creosed in number now, and they must be further
increased hereafter. They afford the only means of
reconciling that principle of equality which under-
lies every proposal of enfranchisement or redistribu-
tion contained in the Reform Bill with the mainte-
nance of the representative principle. If we sub-
divide populous constituencies, we secure an elec-
tive, but not 'a representative, Government. We
create an assembly in which the proportions
of the majority in the country are enormously ex-
aggerated, and submit ourselves to a Government
apparently strong, but, by reason of the instability
of the majority on which it depends, essentially
weak. Every consideration of the importance of
maintaining a stable and free Government and of
preserving the political life of all classes of society
conspires to deprecate such a consummation. It is
essential that those who propose to extend the re-
distribution scheme of the Ministry should come to
an understanding upon this point. If it be impos-
sible, as we believe, that the scheme in its present
shape can be maintained, it is equally impossible
that the House of Lords can on Monday come to an
abstract resolution affirming this truth without
having some formal plan of extension submitted to
it. The disfranchisement of the smallest boroughs
must be a part of such a plan. The increased re-
, presentation of the largest must be another part. In
what way shall that increased representation be
bestowed is the first point to be determined, and
upon the result of the determination must depend
the decision of the Committee. 'Whether the me-
thod of voting in constituencies receiving third
members should remain unchanged, or whether the
plan originated by Lord Russell in 1854, and sup-
ported by. Lord Cairns on Tuesday, or the simple
Cumulative 'Vote should be adopted, is, we con-
ceive, at present of inferior importance. Our own
preference has been repeatedly expressed, but as
we are only careful for the result, and are indiffer-
ent to the machinery, we should hail with the live-
liest satisfaction the adoption of the plan suggested
by Lord Russell, though we should be content even
to see " unicorn" constituencies multiplied, with-
out any immediate change in the method of voting.
We cannot too often or too strongly insist that if a
proposal for the amendment of the Government
scheme be submitted to the Committee on Monday,
its authors must not shrink from the contemplation
of novelty. They will come forward as persons
holding opinions in advance of the Govern-
ment, but if all they have to suggest is a little
more progress in precisely the same direction As
that in which the Government has moved they will
deserve little credit. Any one can follow a beaten
track ; it is reserved for statesmen to master the
exigencies of a new situation. One change neces-
sitates another. It is impossible to adopt a as/
moving force without considering the strain IV°
all the parts of a machine. If we have new wine,
we must have new bottles. We have no alarm.,
about the immediate effects of the Reform Bill,.
We do not share the opinion of Lord Russell that
it will in itself produce a change for the worse"
But we are profoundly impressed with the convie"
tion that it is a precursor to other changes, and the
true Conservative instincts which will prompt the
proposal of amendents in committee ought not to
be satisfied with m
submitting a plan only
more developed than that now before Parliament;
they should apprehend the future, and provide
for it. a little