The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-19 00:00:00

MGT' WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.

THIS DAY. —lllornialz, lh. 10m.—Afternoon, lh. 3Gm.
ro-Molutow.-Morning, 2h. Om.—Afternoon, 2h. 22m.

4 44-
unt
t7jlC,
-

LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 19, 1867.

We think we may congratulate Ministers upon
heir new measure of Reform, which Mr. DISRAELI,

with singular ability and great frankness, last night

introduced into the House of Commons. Notwith-

standing the very unfair treatment which it met
with in some quarters, it appears, upon a candid
consideration of its merits, that it deserves the sup-

port and sympathy of the House. Not that any-
thing like an appeal to the forbearance of members
need be made, for this measure is, in its details,
fully calculated to meet the present requirements of
the country. The course Mr. GLADSTONE pursued

was one in every way unworthy of him, and not

suitable to his responsible position as Leader of the
Opposition. We are the more disappointed at this,

because the right hon. gentleman gave us reason to

hope at the commencement of the session that he
would adopt a very different course, and one that

would have conduced far more to his reputation.

We can safely say that never, during his career as
Leader of the Opposition, did Mr. DISRAELI mani-
fest so bitter a spirit of party, and act in so factious

a manner as did Mr. GLADSTONE last night. There
seemed to be but one meaning in it, ♦iz., that the bill

must not pass. We protest against the Govern-
ment being treated in this manner, and there was

no occasion whatever for the right hon. gentleman

to make an exception to the general Parliamentary
rule, which does not approve of criticism on the
night of the introduction of the measure. Nothing
whatever was said by Mr. DISRAELI to make it ne-
cessary for so violent a protest to be made. He
put his measure before the House with great clear-
ness, and took great pains to make it. understand
the principles upon which the Bill was based. We

_ -
think the conduct of the Leader of the Opposition

the more ungracious because this measure of Reform

has been an anxious task to the Ministers. There

was no exaggeration in the remarks of Mr. Dis

RAELI about the cost it had been to them.
It was framed under great difficulties, and at
very great sacrifices. They have had to appeal to
a " high-spirited party, to make what no doubt to

some was to a certain extent a sacrifice of prin

ciples," but they all felt that the time had arrived
wheu nothing would do but to consider this impor-

tant question in a comprehensive manner. The
right hon. gentleman drew a very proper distinction
between " popular privileges and democratic rights."
As for the objection that the bill contained " checks
and counterpoises," Mr. DrsnAELI disposed of that
at once, by saying that the Constitution we live
under is a constitution of checks and counterpoises.

So, again, with the notion that they should no
assume that our society is divided into classes, he
asks, very truly, why we should seek to conceal, in
legislating for the nation at large, that this is a coun-
try of classes, and such it will ever remain ? "We
desire," said he, in conclusion, "to give to every
one who is worthy of it a fair share in the govern-
ment of the country, by means of the elective fran-
chise ; but, at the same time, we have been equally
anxious to maintain the character of the house, to
make propositions in harmony with the circum-
stances of the country, and to give a representation
to the nation." Every one who has at all considered
the question of Reform must know how very diffi-
cult it is to deal with ; but it is quite impossible for
anything like a satisfactory settlement to be come
to while people are so busy in looking for the
defects of every new scheme that they cannot pos-
sibly see any of its merits, however numerous they
may be. We feel the more indignant at the
reception of tilis Bill in some quarters, because it
really seems based upon a sound principle, and
offers to those honestly desirous of settling this
vexed question a very fair opportunity for so doing.
It was very true what was said by Mr. DISRAELI
last night on the subject of a " popular basis."
Popular privileges and democratic rights are not
" identical,'l although some persons confuse the
terms in their minds. " Popular privileges are con-
sistent with a state of society in which there is great
inequality of condition; democratic rights, on the
contrary, demand that there should be equality of
condition as the fundamental basis of the society
which they regulate." We believe that more con-
fusion than enough has often arisen from the mis-
takes made upon this point, and the result has been
that in many instances a man of any mark in the
political world has been regarded by the public in
general either as an enthusiast for reform of all
kinds, or else as an enemy to all progress. This is
not, however, the right way to look at the question,
and one great proof of the advance we have made
in these latter days is that it has come to be recog-
nised that men of -whatever rank, and of whatever
side of politics they may be, can and will if they choose
devote their minds to the study of the requirements
of the people, and bring forward sound measures of
reform whenever they may be required.
Mr. GLADSTONE'S speech was chiefly distinguish-
able for its bitterness. He had evidently come
down to the house in a hostile spirit, and he
showed himself last night in this objectionable
manner as a captious and uncompfotnising
critic. He contradicted himself repeatedly, begin-
ning by saying that he would not prejudge the
question, and immediately prejudged it in every
possible way. His speech was as long as
that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's him-
self, which was proof positive that he meant to
make a serious attack upon the Ministerial scheme.
Mr. ROEBUCK also alluded to a discrepancy in Mr.
GLADSTONE'S speech when he began by saying that
the bill was a fraud pretending to let people in while
it shut them out, while next he confessed that it let
everybody in, and would ruin the British Constitu-
tion. We think it was very bad taste on the part
of Lord CRANBORNE, his being in such haste to at-
tack his late colleagues, seeing that he might just as
well have waited for a more suitable occasion. Mr.
LOWE, while opposed to the scheme as a whole, was
not so averse to it asMr. GLADSTONE. Mr. HENLEY'S
speech was quite a relief—for, with all his wonted
sincerity and straightforwardness, he gave the House
excellent advice, which it would be well if they
followed. He said if both sides of the House would
set their shoulders to the wheel no doubt a satisfac-
tory result could be come to. Mr. BERNAL OS -
BO RNE, again, deserves much favourable mention
. for the spirited wanner ill which he came forward