The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-05 00:00:00

~~~~

LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1867,

Last night in both Houses Ministerial explana-
tions were given, that in the Lords being of the
two the more definite and explicit. Lord DERBY
entered into as elaborate a statement as he possibly
could under the circumstances, and in a great mea-
sure, if not altogether, cleared away many of the

doubts that seemed to envelope this subject.
Oue thing, at all events, is evident, that it has
been from no indifference or want of care on the
part of the noble Earl at the head of her MAJESTY'S
Government that the task of settling the particulars

of a Reform have been so difficult to accomplish.

People are apt to speak and think of a Cabinet as if
only one mind moved it, and as if one decision was
necessary to impel it forward, forgetting that there

are many opinions to take before a subject of para-
mount importance can be dealt with, and that the
members of a Ministry are not automatons. Lord
DEnnY explained to the house that he and his
colleagues fully realised the difficulty of their posi-
tion, and estimated the chances against them in
their attempts to pass a Reform Bill. They, there-
fore, considered it to be desirable to proceed to " a

sort of tentative process," and thus it was that
they invited the House of Commons to come to a
conclusion upon the question. The subject of the
Resolutions was not to pledge the Government to
any particular point, or to any one of them,

but to arrive at a general notion of what measures
the House would adopt. Unfortunately, however,

his vas not agreed to by the House, and hence it is

impossible to know what is really desired by that
_...

assembly. The Cabinet had then to frame a Bill,
the particulars of which was not decided upon be-

'ore. The chief obstacle that had previously im-

peeled their way in coming to a unanimous deci-

sion was the awkward subject of the extension of

he franchise. One of the two schemes before the

Cabinet was more " extensive " than the other.

After due consideration the larger and more exten-

sive scheme was adopted, and, although one of his
colleagues was scarcely favourable to it, still Lord
DERBY trusted that they might bring it forward.

It happened, however, that two other members of
the Cabinet upon reconsidering the figures declared

that they could not agree to the propositions, and

hence the first who had dissented was, of course,

relieved of the task he had imposed upon himself.
Of course it did not need many words on the
part of Lord DERBY to impress upon his hearers
the anxiety and annoyance which this intelligence
occasioned them. They had to chose between the
adoption of a more desirable and a more extended
scheme of Reform, or else they must sacrifice three
of their colleagues all of them, " men of mark and
character in the Cabinet," and all of them, we be-
lieve, in their several positions had displayed more
than ordinary ability. Perhaps it will be considered
that the decision they arrived at was a mistaken
one, and that it certainly did not succeed. When
the Resolutions were in a manner rejected by the
House it became necessary for the Cabinet to re-
consider their position. Lord DERBY declared that
he felt he could not, consistently with his duty,
either resign his position or abandon the hope of
carrying a Reform Bill through Parliament. In
a week's time the Ministers trust to replace the
colleagues they have lost ; and the noble lord said,
in conclusion, that he trusted the " remainder of his
colleagues will be equal to the occasion, and thus
in the course of the present session they may bring
to a successful conclusion this great and paramount
question which has so long baffled all administra-
tions."

Mr. DISRAELI was necessarily more brief in his
remarks to the House of Commons. He said that by
Friday he hoped to state that the Government of
Lord DERBY was complete. The right hon. gentle-
man also adverted to the time when the Reform
Bill will be introduced, naming the eighteenth of this
month. As he said this will afford ample time for
the due consideration of the measure, and when it is
in Committee the Government propose that
the House should sit in committee on the bill de die
in dieu. Mr. OSBORNE thought that the confusion
in the Cabinet afforded him a grand opportunity
for making one of his displays, and accordingly
declared that they ought to receive more definite
accounts as to the policy and intentions of the
Government. As to this we do not see what plainer
statement could be made than to state the day on
which the Ministerial plan was to be presented to the
House. It may also be added that the explanations
which were given were so criticised that it did not
afford much encouragement to give more. In the
course of his remarks, Mr. DISRAELI said that the
Ministry had resolved to recur to " their original
policy with respect to the borough franchise."
This gave great offence to Mr. OSBORNE, and he
demanded that either General PEEL or Lord
CRANBORNE should enlighten them. Not satis-
fied with this, Mr. OSBORNE again interrupted the
business of the House, at a late period, to com-
plain that all had not been said to the House of
Commons which had been said to the Lords.
It is quite out of character that such a factious
spirit should be displayed, and such hindrances in-
terposed in the way of carrying on affairs. Mr.
GLADSTONE made a few remarks, which were hardly
characterised by the same spirit of encouragement
which animated him on a former occasion. Perhaps,
however, he was afraid of committing himself under
the circumstances of the case. The right hon.
gentleman was very ingenious in his comparisons,
declaring that the changes of the Ministry reminded
him of a Greek dance ; he, however, forgot, as
do, what he and his friends did last
people generally
year. They altered their plan so suddenly
that the present Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, who was then the critic, blamed them for
" changing their front in face of the enemy." We
hope that all the uncertainty and doubt that has
hitherto enveloped this subject will shortly cease,
and, indeed, we see no real reason to prevent a
Reform Bill being carried. Only one thing is impera-
tively necessary, that those who possess the most
influence should not be too particular in putting for-
ward their own peculiar views to the detriment of
he real object in view—the passing of the measure
,his Session.

There seems masa) to hope that we shall, at least,
have to thank Lord DERBY'S Government for a
practical endeavour to adjust some of the inequalities
of our Poor-Law system. We are glad to find that
the measure proposed by Mr. GATIIORNE HARDY is
likely to receive a very general support, especially
from those gentlemen who have long interested
themselves in endeavouring to ameliorate the con-
dition of the sick poor. Of course the new bill
leaves something to be desired. There will still bo
glaring inequalities in the rates, and there will be
many respects in which the management of the sick
poor might be improved. Nevertheless, the bill
will do a great deal, and its recognition of the dis-
tinction between the infirm and afflicted, who are
physically incapable of earning their own living,
and the idlers and vagrants who are are glad to
live at any one's expense but their own, is almost
its most important feature. The necessity of such
a distinction has always been insisted on
by those who are familiar with the mixed
population of our largo workhouses ; but
it is the very point -on which the present Poor
Law and its predecessor both erred—the one from
excessive leniency, the other from excessive seve-
rity. The juste milieu is still to seek, and we hope
that Mr. HARDY has at last entered on the right
path for arriving at it.
The deputation which waited on the President of
the Poor-Law Board on Saturday was anxious to
to persuade Mr. HARDY to add to the provisions