The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-26 00:00:00

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

THIS DAY.—Morning, sb. 32m.—Afternoon, sh. 49m.
lb-Mortßow.-Morning, 6h. lOra.—Afternoon, 6h. 29m.

ott Sum

LONDON, 7 UESDAY, MARCH 26, 1867.

It must, we should think, have occurred to many
who listened with interest and attention to Mr.
GLADSTONE'S elaborate speech last night that the
right bon. gentleman was somewhat unreasonable.
in his requirements. Without waiting for the deli-
berations of committee, without having the oppor-
tunity of testing the practical sense of the House
and of ascertaining the wishes of many members of
their own party, he called upon the Government at
once to notify what portions of their bill they in-
tended to alter, and to declare explicitly their inten-
tions. He says that the bill must " undergo
a total, or, at least, a substantial alteration ;"
and he apparently expects some representa-
tive of the Cabinet to spring up in his
place, and express the pleasure with which himself
and his colleagues will submit to such an alteration.
We have very little doubt that, under other cir-
cumstances, Mr. GLADSTONE would be the first to
denounce such conduct as pusillanimous and un-
worthy of a responsible Administration. He is, in
fact, expecting the Government to accept his dic-
tum to take the expression of his own views and
opinions as representing the collective wisdom of
the House ; and yet, judging from the speeches of
Mr. ROEBUCK and Mr. OSBORNE, there are some
independent members who wish, on this matter, to
exercise an independent judgment. Mr. GLAD-
STONE himself was last year by no means disposed to
accept this sort of dictation, and held, as some
thought, only too rigidly to his original scheme,
notwithstanding the manifest wishes of the House.
The fact is we have had too much of this political
punctilio, this attaching a point of honour of a
difference of £l, and making a Government ques-
tion of some minor clause that will not perhaps
affect five hundred votes. Even now, after all,
they talk about excluding party feeling, and
treating Parliamentary Reform as a national ques-
tion on national grounds. There is an evident
desire in some quarters to induce the Minis-
try to commit itself to some particular
point, to give a pledge that it will stand
or fall by some particular provision, although such
a declaration is the very way to bring into the de-
bate that party spirit which it is so desirable to
eliminate. Mr. GLADSTONE does not appear to see
the absurd position in which a Government of any
party would place itself by coming down to the
House and saying, " Here is our own bill ; but any-
thing you dislike in it we will alter upon pressure.
We will expunge such and such clauses, and add
such provisions, if you wish." No Ministry can be
expected to make such a declaration. It is enough
for them to express a willingness to obtain the
views of the House without pledging them-
selves to a rigid adherence to any of the minor
provisions. It must be remembered that they en-
deavoured at first to be guided by the directly-
expressed opinions of the house in the form of
Resolutions, and that this was objected to by none
more strongly than by Mr. GLADSTONE himself.
What, then, does he expect them to do? As Mr.
llAttnv very justly pointed out, the objections
which he last night took to the measure are such
as might most properly have been introduced
in committee. They were objections to detail,
difficulties which might be best adjusted by the
unrestrained discussion of committee. He
said last evening that " to reject this Bill, and to
sot forth another plan, unless it be absolutely neces-
sary, would be a great evil, because it would tend
to retard the settlement which all so mcch desire ;"
and yet, what other interpretation can be put upon
his conduct than that he wishes for its wholesale
rejection ? "I am anxious," he said, "to exhaust
to the uttermost the means of knowing whether, by
going into committee on this bill, we may hope to
bring the question to a satisfactory conclusion.

But surely Mr. GLADSTONE must know that it is
impossible to put the question in such definite
terms. The Government have already inti-
mated their willingness to discuss the bill
iu a spirit of forbearance and conciliation, and
with the solitary exception of the unpopular dual
vote, it is as yet uncertain what points find favour
with the Liberal party, and to which they take
exception. We have only Mr. GLADSTONE as
spokesman, and it is certain that his opinions are
not identical with those of some old and consistent
Reformers. As regards the dual vote, it is worth
while to remember that the principle was contained
in one of the Resolutions, and that Mr. DISRAELI

subsequently expressed his willingness to withdraw it,
saying at the same time that he believed its cha-
racter and object had been misunderstood. So far,
then, as this clause of the Bill is concerned, there
is not much reason to apprehend its obstinate reten-

tion on the part of the Government. Noither have
we had any intimation that they will make any
strong opposition to the introduction of the lodger
franchise, or its substitution for one of the qualifi-
cations which they propose. As a specimen of the
spirit which too often animates all critics of a
Reform Bill, to. whatever party they belong, we
may rceall the strong opposition which was made
to the Bill of 1859, which was the first to include
the lodger franchise. Mr. BRIGHT, on that
occasion, gave his celebrated nickname of

" fancy franchises" to such a deviation

from routine.

But it is according to

the whim of the moment that such propositions

are received. If they find a place in the Bill sub-
mitted to the country they are denounced as

" visionary," " intricate," " impractical ;" if they

are omitted, it is then the time to declare that no

measure is perfect without them. In the same way,
when the Bill of last year was rejected by the House,

Mr. BEALES and his friends were clamorous in

favour of a £7 franchise. Here is a household

suffrage proposed, and evidently accepted
by the House, and lo! a host of objections

spring up. We ought, we are told, to secure the
most prudent, steady, and intelligent.of the working
class as voters, but we must not make the savings
bank a test of a man's prudence, long residence a

test of his steadiness, or education a test of his

intelligence.

No doubt all such tests are fallible

and incorrect in individual cases, but we cannot
legislate for individual cases. We must accept
those principles which are generally sound, and those
applications of them which are generally conclusive.
Some details must be taken as evidence : if we are
not prepared to take refuge in wholesale declarations,
such as Mr. LowE's assertion that the £lO suffrage
is the plank between us and ruin, orMr. GLADSTONE'S
belief that all flesh and blood has a right to vote.
All the ingenuity of the leader of the Opposition
could not prevent him from contradicting himself
when he came to this part of the question. He

says in one sentence—" If I am to choose between
person and person, I say give me the best, the most

intelligent, and the most independent I can discover