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

COUNTRY BRANCEl—Bradford, Yorkshire.

APOPULAR lIISTORY of LONDON from
the Invasion of Julius Cresar to the Present time.
Part thif Second—From 1066 -to 1867.

E. Moses and Son, corner of Minori©s and Aldgate ;
New Oxford-street, and Tottenham-court-road, London;
And Bradford, Yorkshire.

Gratis and post free on application.

CONSTITUTIONAL LIBERALISM.
"m 11 E A
PRICE ONE PENNY.

Y."

Office-49, Essex-street, Strand,

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

MIS DAY. —Morning, sh. 32m.—Afternoon, sh. 49m.
ro-Monatow.-Morning, 6h. 10m.—Afternoon, 611. 29m.

,0710-
(wgit),

Amt,

LONDON, TUESDAY, 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 hon. 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-
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.
HARDY 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
set 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
in 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 Sir. DISRAELI

tions.

subscquently 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 it 3 obstinate reten-

tion on the part of the Government. Neither 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 o:

" 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

'avour 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

;est of his steadiness, or education a test of his
ntelligence. 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 righb 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 themost independent I can discoYez

SOUS.

among the working classes ;" and in the next, " I
would ask any man who was anxious to prevent
a settlement of this question to continue agitation
whether his imagination could devise a more effec-
tual method of doing so than by establish-
ing enfranchisement on Lrtificial qualifica-
tions, separating man from man, making
distinctions between one voter and another,
—not those which circumstances of birth or edu-
cation may have created, and which we may look
upon as dispensations of PROVIDENCE, but distinc-
tions arbitrarily created by Parliament, which would
be found in practice to be worth less than the paper
on which they are written." We would ak the
right hon. gentleman what is the distinction between
£7 and £6 but a "distinction arbitrarily created
by Parliament ?" Very certainly it is no conse-
quenco of his birth or education that he pays £1
per annum more for his house, neither can it
exactly be included among the dispensations of
PROVIDENCE. Yet Mr. GLADSTONE did not

see any injustice or impropriety in founding
a Reform Bill upon this arbitrary principle. These
epithets, these nicknames, have no logic in them.
All speculative legislation must be more or less
arbitrary in its character, and in spite of what either
side may say the work before the House of Com-
mons is now in a great measure speculative. To
make it really productive of good, not only party
feeling but prejudice must be laid aside, and the
house must fearlessly enter upon new paths, which
may be none the less direct, and none the less valu-
able that they have been hitherto untried.

In some respects we consider that Mr. ROEBUCK'S
speech was the most important in last night's debate,
because, in the first place, ho is a thoroughly hide-
r pendent member and a tried Reformer of many
years' standing, and also because he is a man of
great weight in the house, and his opinions must be
duly considered and well weighed. Mr. ROEBUCK
then came forward as the champion of the Govern-
ment last night, not as the devotee of the Ministe-
rial scheme pure et simple, but as the exponent of
those who seek to retard its course, if not
altogether to assail its existence. We commend
the speech of the hon. member for Sheffield to
the earnest attention of all those who may still
waver as to the course they shall pursuo when it
comes to a division, feeling convinced that they will
find therein expressed sound judgment and an ener-
getic spirit. First of all, asks Mr. ROEB UCK, why is
it that he supports the second reading of this bill ?
and why does he wish for Reform at all ? And in
connection with this theme he declares that he does
not seek to " better the character of the House."
We entirely agree with this last sentiment, and, in-
deed, we may find a great deal of the
mistakes that are made by Mr. BRIGHT
and others is this, they are always directing
their attacks upon the House of Commons,
as regards its intrinsic worth, instead of merely en-
deavouring to extend its influence and improve its
representation. Since the House has been reformed
in 1832, as Mr. ROEBUCK emphatically remarked,
" it has produced a body of legislation such as the
history of the world cannot offer." Of course the
combating of minds is of great service, and great
advantages arise therefrom ; the " timid meet the
bold, the hasty the slow, and the courageous the
diffident." Mr. ROEBUCK does not claim to be en-
rolled among those who seek to establish the
" natural rights of mankind ; but he seeks
Reform because the people are not satis-
fied with the present system of represen-
tation." We think that a very wise distinc-
tion is drawn in this speech between those who are
against all reform, and those who go to the other
extreme and demand manhood suffrage, and such
like improvements. All portions of the artisan or
labouring class may aptly bo represented in the
House ; but that is no reason why the whole should
be represented there. As Mr. ROEBUCK says, an-
other portion is not educated, is vicious, and totally
unfit to have the government of mankind in their
hands, and to such we may well be afraid to intrust
the destinies of this great country.
A very plain course is thus put before the House,
and the hon. member for Sheffield asks Mr. GLAD-
STONE if he agrees in this object, and if he does
not, can he, or will he, state plainly what it is that
he does want. There is much to admire in the
straightforward manner in which Mr. ROEBUCK
always explain himself, and we make bold to say
that the house must have felt it a relief to listen to
a man who came direct to the point, and boldly
declared what he wanted and what he did not want.
After having listened so long to the eloquent dis-
course of one who certainly subscribes to the
doctrine that language is given to us- to conceal
our thoughts, Mr. ROEBUCK says plainly that he
wishes to exclude some from the franchise, and does
not intend to mince the matter at all. The Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer has shown them a way to
do so, and has brought forward a very wise pro-
posal. The provisions of the measure are put in
because it is desired to admit the " worthy portion
of the artisan class," but Mr. GDADSTONE came
forward and declared that you must make no dis-
tinction at all, it is not fitting to do so. Why,
argues Mr. Roebuck very powerfully, " I must
make a distinction, unless I go to manhood suf-
frage;
but the right hon. gentleman the leader
of the Opposition persists in saying that you
must look to a man's worth, intelligence, and
virtue." The only way in which we can presume
to judge of the existence of these qualities is by
examining how a man lives ; and hence the desira-
bility of following the proposals of this bill, or some
scheme equivalent to the same. Men of common
sense must concur in the advisability of applying
some test, and not going haphazard into the matter.
IVe think Mr. ROEBUCK'S remarks must have
been very annoying to those who were seeking
to make mountains out of molehills, and yet
would not come to the point and let one
understand what they wanted, "instead of harping

on the eternal string that the bill before them would

not do." " There is no use," said he, "in mincing
the matter or going into these minute pettifogging

questions which we have heard discussed; let us take

a large and broad grasp of the subject." Going on
with the consideration of the best means virtually

to reach the desired end, Mr. ROEBUCK confessed
that he thought they were more likely to suc-

teed if we followed the course already indicated

by the English Constitution than if we had

everything divided into squares like a map.
The representation of a variety of interests is the

only thing that is really needed in the House of
Commons, and those who aim at more or less will

not reform the House as it ought to be reformed,

:o suit tho wants and wishes of the nation. Mr.

GLADSTONE and Mr. BRIGHT, and others, seem to
forget that by giving an undue preference to any

particular class they are injuring others. Thus to
let in an overwhelming number of one section will

swamp the others, and thus virtually render the

scheme of the Constitution ineffective. There will

be danger in entrusting the power of voting to those

not fitted for it, and we may say so boldly, and

make up our minds to it, instead of taking up what

may be in some degree the most popular side of the

question, and capsizing things and misleading per-

We would direct particular attention to that part