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

'

z

NEWSPAPER
/ •
'•-•,Y=F-Wte
-1, •
,s:›• k„4
of the Chancellor of the Exchequer,4 reeartcl'
to its original policy," and, whatever exception
`may be taken to this form of expression, we rejoice
in the fact. The original policy was, at least, bold,
and not of that worse than useless type, distasteful at
once to Conservatives and to Reformers—to Lord
Carnarvon, as he confessed last night, as much as to
the majority of his late colleagues—which would
unsettle everything and settle nothing, which would
grant so grudgingly as to increase the energy of agi-
tation, and would precipitate change out of mere
exasperation at the niggardliness of concessions
which feebly attempted to conciliate opposition. We
may assume, from what Lord Derby and Lord Car-
narvon said yesterday, that the first and last resolu-
tion of the Ministry has been in favour of a large.
and widJ enfranchisem,:mt. The point on which Lotd
Carnarvon dissented from his colleagues seems to
have been the possibility of establishing different oc-
cupation franchises in lan2e and small towns, and
we think the Mini,try wisely decided that no such
vari:ui.m of electoral privileges could b:1 maintained,
even if it could ever be enacted. It is as impossi'ale
to restore local franchises now as it would be for
the Crown to turn half a county into a forest. The
act of enfratiehi-ement must neither he partial nor
capricious. When, however, Mr. Gladstone says,
as lie did last night, that lough the Bill of the
Government may contain what is new, it must con-
tain nothing that is new-fangled, we must demur to,
language which seems to appeal to the prejudices of
men who are too indolent to consider anything pre-
sented to them for the first time. We trust, with
Mr. Gladstone, that the measure to be introduced
on the 18th will be " good. simple, straightforward,
constitutional, and intelligible," but we do not sup-
pose Parliament or the -nation is incapable of taking _
in a new idea that nothing but a reduction of the oc-
cupying qualifications can beunderstood. If, as we
hope, proposals of wide enfranchisement be made,
there should be at the same time proposals to secure
the continued representation of all shades of opinion
in the House of Commons, and such proposals must
be more or less a novelty. if we are for the first
time about to add to our constituencies numbers
sufficient to control them, we must take care that
the newly-enfranchised voters shall not altogether
extinguish the electoral privileges cf those now on
the register. Mr. Gladstone probably had some
special scheme in view when he uttered his caution,
but his language was too wide to pass without pro-
test. All that can be required is that every proposal
shall be judged upon its merits when it comes before
the House of Commons. Mr. Warner, an advanced
Liberal, last night asked the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer whether he was so far willing to reconsider
the abandoned fifth Resolution as to admit the prin-
ciple of plurality of votes where the voter possessed
a plurality of qualifications. This is a new notion;
but if we condemn it, it is not because it is new, but
because we believe it would afford an unstable
security for effecting the end it has in view. Mr.
Charles Buxton, another Liberal, has another
•
novelty. He intends to ask the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether he will extend his proposal of
enfranchisement so as to take away the second seat
from all boroughs having a population below 10,000,
and, after providing for the London University and
the twelve boroughs proposed to be called into
existence, give the remaining thirty-one seats to as
many of the largest borough and county constituen-
cies. He would thus create thirty -one " three-
cornered" constituencies, and in them would allow
the voter to give his votes cumulatively or distribute
them at his discretion. This is, again, a new prin-
ciple in our electoral machinery, and, we believe, no
objection has ever been raised to it, when restricted
to the extent Mr. Buxton suggests, except that
members of the House of Commons are too much
interested in negativing a measure which would un-
settle so many seats to permit it to pass. It ought
to be considered. To refuse to consider it or any
other plan on the ground of novelty would go far to
support the charge Mr. Gladstone himself feared
might be brought against the House of Commons
—that it was incapable of legislating on this ques-
tion, of treating this great occasion with the force
and energy it demands. We trust the Ministry will
be neither timorous nor pedantic. There is a fort-
night before it ; let that fortnight be given to coun-
sel equally removed from prejudice and rashness,
and Parliament may then vindicate its sincerity and
capacity of legislation when a comprehensive scheme
is submitted to it.