The Sun.
London, England, 1867-04-13 00:00:00

audible. The Tellers for the Noes made their ap-
pearance in about a minute after those on the other
side, and amid a hush of expectation handed in
their return. The figures were quickly entered,
and the clerk handed the paper to the Government
Teller, Mr. Whitmore. A vociferous cheer at once
broke out from the Ministerial ranks, the swell of
acclamation rising to a full diapason of jubilation,
and then slowly falling with music-like cadence.
Meanwhile, the four Tellers had retired a few paces,
had again advanced to the table, and, as soon as a
sufficient lull was restored, Mr. Whitmore an-
nounced the numbers. Another, and even more
fervid, outburstof enthusiasm succeeded, the Minis-
' terialists cheering with almost frantic energy, and
many of them waiving their hats, and giving other
unusual manifestations of delight. A number of
hon. members pressed forward
.to the Treasury
Bench, and shaking hands with the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, who was radiant with smiles, con.
gratulated him with great warmth on the victory
which the Government had achieved. The Oppo-
sition had all this while preserved an unbroken
silence, and only showed by their countenances the
disappointment which they experienced.
_ _

. .
In a few minutes there was a rush to the doors,
and the Chairman having been ordered to report
progress, the house resumed.
_ _ _ ______

MR. OSBORNE AND MR. DILL WYN.

Mr. DILLWYN, in reference to a statement made by
the hon. member for Nottingham early in the evening,
about a memorandum of a conversation between some
mombers of the house, gave notice that, on the first op-
portunity after the holidays, he would call the attention
of the house to the subject, and ask the hon. member a
question as to the mode in which he obtained possession of

,he paper.
Tho house adjourned at ten minutes past two o'clock.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TimEs.—The Governmeat Reform Bill has escaped
a mortal blow. The adjourned debate on Mr.
Gladstone'sAinendment was resumed last night, and
terminated at half-past 1 o'clock this morning with
a majority of 21 in favour of the Ministry. Never
in our time has there been such a " shaking of the
nations" as preceded the Division ; 599 voted, ex-
clusive of tellers. The supporters of the Govern-
ment were found upon the Opposition benches ;
their opponents sat beside and behind them. Mr.

Roebuck recommended the debate with a short but
effective speech against Mr. Gladstone's alternative
scheme, and in the course of the evening many
stout Liberals expressed their preference of the
Rating Franchise proposed by the Government
to the fixed barrier advocated by the leader of the
Opposition even in cases where they supported his
ambiguous amendment. On the other hand, Mr.
Hubbard was alarmed at the democratic results of
the Ministerial measure ; and Mr. Beresford Hope
gave his " rich and grotesque rhetoric" free play, in
following at a modest distance the line of argu'nent
of Lord Crauborne. The committee was excited,
and at times almost tumultuous, as men will be
when their landmarks seems disappearing, and it is
perhaps true that the final result must be attributed
to " unerring instinct" rather to an exercise of judi-
cial reason. The temper of the house bad, indeed,
been moved by an incident of little credit to any of
the parties concerned before the adjourned debate
was resumed. Mr. Osborne produced a document
purporting to record an assurance by Col. Taylor
that Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli were personally
in favour of accepting Mr. Hibbert's amendment,
relieving the compound householder of anything in
the shape of a fine in consequence of an application
to be rated, and pledging Cql. Taylor to press upon
the Cabinet the necessity of allowing this modifica-
tion of the bill. The document had strayed into Mr.
Osborne's hands through Mr. Owen Stanley, who
had somehow obtained it from Mr. Dillwyn, and,
though the latter gentleman naturally enough pro-
tested against Mr. Osborne's conduct in bringing it
before the house without informing him of his in-
tention, it is plain that the proper conduct of public
business required that it should be mentioned, and
that an inquiry should be addressed to the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer whether he had authorised Col.
Taylor to give the assurance he had apparently con-
veyed. If any doubt existed as to, the propriety of
bringing the matter before the house it must have
been dispelled by the result. Col. Taylor was unfor-
tunately absent, having met with a severe accident,
but Mr. Disraeli said the alleged negotiation was
quite unknown to him, and the whole thing was a
mare's nest, and Lord Stanley, in a brief speech, justly
characterised by Mr. Gladstone as every way worthy
of him, and heard with unusual satisfaction on both
sides of the house, declared that the Ministry desired
to carry on the debate perfectly free and unpledged,
without, any understanding of any kind, and chal-
lenged a vote on the merits of the question at issue
and upon its merits alone. We do not doubt that
the subsequentdivision was entirely uninfluenced by
the negotiations, real or imaginary, which Mr. Os-
borne dragged to light, and that the majority against
Nir. Gladstone's amendment was neither increased
nor diminished by it ; but it was not so easy to allay
the excitement it had occasioned. There was a re-
current ground swell after the storm, and the cheer-
ing which greeted the declaration of the result per-
haps exceeded in vehemence all former displays. We
cannot pretend to regret the rejection of Mr. Glad-
stone's amendment. It was framed so as to catch
votes from all corners of the house. If the Govern-

ment tactics were a specimen of " cross-fishing,"
Mr. Gladstone's amendment was a ground-net with
which to drag the stream. It mattered not whether
a member was terrified at the prospect of household
suffrage, like Sir W. Heatheotc, Mr. Hubbard, and
Mr. Gladstone himself, or whether he looked for-
ward to it with subdued eagerness like Mr. Cole-
ridge and Mr. W. E. Foster--he could in any case
take shelter behind Mr. Gladstone's elastic formula.
It had been altered and re-altered till at last it
simply amounted to a repudiation of the criterion
of personal rating, and was thus made acceptable to
those who objected to any criterion and to those who
thought the criterion in question not sufficiently
stringent. It was a triumph in the manipulation
of amendments to have caught Lord Cranborne and
Mr. Bright by the same line. Such devices are,
however, rartly successful, and the one in ques-
tion was no exception to the general rule. It
has met a fate it richly deserved. It could not be
concealed that the real issue lay between the rival
plans of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and
Mr. Gladstone, or if not between these two then
between Mr. Disraeli's proposal and some fresh
scheme to be drawn up after revived and prolonged
agitation, to be introduced no one knows when, to
be carried no one knows how. Mr. Dalglish showed
his appreciation of the real object of the Amend-
ment in the inquiry he addressed to Mr. Gladstone
as to its purpose. But, whatever version of the
point in debate be accepted, the decision could not
be doubtful. The comparative merits of Mr. Dis-
raeli's proposal to enfranchise all ratepayers and
Mr. Gladstone's condition of occupying a house of £5
rating value were succinctly but admirably stated by
Mr. Roebuck. The one qualification avoids class dis-
tinctions, and opens to each householder a way to
get his name inscribed on the Parliamentary Regis-
ter ; the other would draw a fixed line very much at
hazard, involving such injustices of exclusion and
of admission that a reversion of the line would in-
stantly become a matter of agitation. All Mr..
Bright's reasoning could not conceal the glaring
demerits of a definite money qualification. The ob-
jection-that the enfranchisement on personal condi-
tions would tend to increase bribery was, in truth,
an argument against all Reform ; and Mr. Hardy
was justified in his retort that Mr. Gladstone's
scheme would open a door to bribery at least as wide
as any that could be opened by the Government,
Bill. The truth is that bribery depends -on the
voters rather than on the machinery, and if the ad-
mission to the Franchise of those who are now out-
side it must intensify this evil we had better all con-
fess the error of our ways, and decide against any
change in our electoral system. The objection, how-
ever, betrayed the real character of the opposition
to the Government Bill. We are driven to the con-
clusion that the majority of Mr. Gladstone's sup-
porters were bent either on throwing overboard Re-
form altogether to another season, or sought with
Mr. Gladstone himself a refuge from imaginary
ter-
rors in a £5 rating Franchise. A few, like
Forster, who declared his dissent from his leader's
arguments, and Mr. Locke, who protested that he
still held the principles which made him prominent
in the tea-room, were simple enough to suppose that
by striking away the condition affixed to the Fran-
chise by the Government proposal they would secure
unqualified household suffrage against the united
influence of the Ministry and the bulk of the Oppo-
sition ; but we must congratulate them on the failure
of their design. Their success, had they achieved it,
would have been fatal to their hopes and ours, and
by grasping at what is impossible they would have
let slip the considerable measure open for their ac-
ceptance, The success of Mr. Gladstone's amend-
ment must have been followed by the withdrawal of
the bill, and we rejoice that the good sense of the
House of Commons has saved the country from such
a disaster. It is, indeed, time to recognise the truth
that no bill can, under any circumstances, be passed
which will not have some one or more of its fea-
tures distasteful to separate sections of the house,
and if all the discontented groups persist in uniting
upon an amendment so drawn as to express nothing
but the fact of this partial dissatisfaction, legislation
must be impossible.• This is the course Mr. Glad-
stone offered to the committee, His amendment en-