The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-21 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TRIES.—The Liberal Party is to meet at Mr.
Gladstone's house to-day to consider the course it
becomes them to take in respect to the Reform Bill.
There are impartial observers of public affairs who
have always distrusted the capacity of any Conser-
vative Government to carry a permanent settlement
of Reform, and their opinion will certainly have
received some confirmation from the debate on Mon-

day night. When a Minister hitherto opposed to any
downward extension of the borough franchise, unless
counterbalanced by proportionate lateral extension,
brings in a measure of which Household Suffrage is
the main feature, he should frankly acknowledge the
fact, and explain the grounds, of his conversion. He
should appeal to the loyalty of his own followers,
and the patriotism of his opponents ; he should dis-
tinguish clearly between the vital and the variable
elements of his scheme, pledging himself to main-
tain all that is essential, and expressing his readiness
to qualify where it is possible to concede. A failure
to appreciate these essential conditions of success has
been the grand error of Lord Derby's Ministry.
They have not explained—perhaps they have not
realised —the radical change of policy involved in
their present position. On the contrary, Mr.
Disraeli persists in magnifying the distinction
between Rental and Rating into an issue between
revolution and constitutional amendment, and
Lord Derby has made a last appeal to his sup-
porters as If Household Suffrage had always been
a Household Word in their mouths. Whether the
Conservative party will rally to Lord Derby in
obedience to this new war-cry remains to be seen ;
but, whatever we may think of their patriotism, no
one can accuse them of political inconsistency if they
should waver in their allegiance. There is, how-
ever, no limit to the power of amnesty vested in the
House of Commons on behalf of the country, and
there never was an occasion when it was more ne-
cessary that it should be strained to the utmost.
Can the bill now before Parliament be so moulded
as to justify passing it ? We venture to hope that
it vet may, always supposing the Reform policy of
the Government to be as malleable for the public
good as it has shown itself to be for the satisfaction
of private scruples. With all its shortcomings and
all its extravagances, the bill contains in House-
hold Suffrage one piece de resistance that will bear
a great deal of cutting and carving without losing
its substance. The " direct-tax franchise," which
Mr. Gladstone tore in pieces so effectively, may
easily be modified, in accordance with Mr. Lowe's
suggestion, into an Income-tax Franchise pure et
simple. By the omission of licence-duties from
clause 6, the " ratcatcher" qualification is already
negatived, and by striking out " assessed taxes"
from the same clause it may be made impossible for
the possessor of " a miserable three-legged jade to
qualify 363 persons with a single horse that may
not perhaps have cost him £3." Again, there is
little to be said against the enfranchisement of fund-
holders or savings-bank depositors, if simple and
sufficient securities can be devised to prevent the
fabrication of votes. But approach it from what-
ever side we may, the clauses introducing House-
hold Suffrage are and must be the key of Mr. Dis-
raeli's position. If he can hold his ground there, he
will remain master of the field ; if he sacrifices it by
an obstinate defence of points which are untenable,
all is lost for the Conservative Government. The
view stated by Mr. Roebuck on this part of the
bill will probably. commend itself as fair and
reasonable to a majority of independent Reformers.
He is willing to accept the proposal of Household
Suffrage as the basis, so to speak, of negotiation,
pointing out the fallacy of making everything turn
upon distinctions between rental and rating. The
present £lO franchise is a form of Household Suf-
frage subject to various conditions, one of which is
that the owner or tenant shall have occupied the
premises for at least a year, and another that he
shall have been rated and shall have paid his rates
during the same period. What is now contem-
plated is, in the delicate phraseology of Mr. Dis-
raeli, to change the law " so that value shall not be

an element." The effect of this change would, of

course, be to enfranchise all householders who are
rated and pay their own rates. It so happens, how-
ever, that by various limitations, and especially by
the operation of the Small Tenements Act in cer-
tain boroughs, a large proportion of householders
below ZlO, estimated by Mr. Disraeli at 486,000 out
of 723,000, do not pay their own rates directly, but
only indirectly through their landlords. Mr. Glad-
stone would have enfranchised all of these whose
"gross estimated rental" might amount to £7, dis-
regarding the circumstance of their names not ap-
pearing on the rate-books. Mr. Disraeli would
leave them unenfranchised, unless they choose to
avail themselves of facilities to be given them for
taking upon themselves the payment of their own
rates. The object of both, and of all who desire a
discriminating extension of the franchise, being to
include as many skilled artisans and as few " migra-
tory paupers" as possible, it may obviously be
doubted whether this will best be effected by a
Household Suffrage thus restricted, or by a rental
franchise unfettered by any obligation of ratepaying.
This is a very proper topic for discussion in Com-
mittee, but we entirely agree with Mr. Roebuck,
that to erect it into a Parliamentary casus belli
would be a grievous error on both sides. Mr.
Gladstone himself admits the convenience of
making the downward limit of representation coin-
cide with that of personal rateability, and this,
after all, is the professed aim of the Government
bill. The system of dual voting, we understand, is
already abandoned, but there are other objections
to the bill in the non-enfranchisement of lodgers,
and the almost illusory plan of redistribution. To
cure all these defects in a measure which has al-
ready been embodied in a definite shape is, doubt-
less, a colossal task, but it is not yet hopeless. Mr.
Roebuck's advice may still be adopted, if the House
of Commons possesses the necessary puLlic spirit.
" Our plain and simple course," says he, " is to dis-
cuss this bill upon the second reading, to read it a
second time, to bring it into committee, make it
what it can be made—if necessary, take it out of
the hands of the Government ; but, at all event!,
let us pass the bill." In this spirit alune can a legis-
lative settlement of Reform be accomplished, but it
will never be honestly faced till some delusions still
current are finally discarded. One of these, ac-
cepted by Mr. Disraeli, is that power can be given
to the working classes without any sacrifice on the
part of the upper and middle clams. This is a