The Sun.
London, England, 1867-02-12 00:00:00

head, attempted to deal with the subject, and
failed, then followed the Coalition Government of
Lord ABERDEEN, which also came short of success.
The Conservative Government of Earl DERBY, in
1859, shared the same adverse fate, and, in 1860,
the Ministry of Lord PALMERSTON had to give up
after daring the achievement of the task. In 1866
another Government failed in the same manner, and
the conclusion which her MAJESTY'S Ministers
draw from all this is that Reform should no longer
be made a party question, and should
not again be suffered to decide the fate
of Ministries. In this opinion we fully concur, and
indeed it is one which we have long entertained, and
repeatedly urged upon publi: men of Lite. So long
as this important matter is made the stalking-horse
of prejudices and the bone of contention among
dissatisfied persons ; and, above all, so long as its
decision rests upon the chances and changes of
party popularity on one side and Opposition
strength on the other, it will be idle and useless to
expect to come to a satisfactory solution. If there
be some who do not like this notion of settling the
matter, they may thank themselves for their having
come to this pass ; for, as Mr. DISRAELI emphati.
tally observed last night, " it was the vote of 1859,
proposed by Lord Jonx RUSSELL, that made Re-
form a party question." This is strictly true, and
no man ever dealt a more deadly blow to a work of
great importance in the Legislature than the noble
lord did by his ill-advised proceedings at that
juncture.

Those who have been prone to cavil at the course
pursued by the Conservatives of late years in regard
to this important matter should really, in common
justice, give heed to the explanations tendered last
night by the leader of the party in the Commons.
He said that in 1852, when " daily rumours" got
about to the effect that Lord Jolts RUSSELL was
about to relinquish the principle of Finality
to which he had pledged himself and the
Whigs in a very peculiar manner, the leading men
of the Conservatives consulted as to what course
they should pursue, and the result of their delibera-
tions was that they resolved, if " Lord JOHN chose
to give up the Bill of 1832 nothing should induce
them to take up as a principle opposition to Parlia-
mentary Reform; the consequence has been that
the party has observed a consistent conduct on that
point—there never has been a bill brought forward
the second reading of which was ever oppcsed."
We think that it is a burning shame to the Liberal
party that they cannot say the same ; and, in fact,
that the moat factious opposition which has dis-
graced the House of Commons in modern times came
from them. Besides vindicating his own party
from the charges brought against them, Mr.
DISRAELI also devoted a part of his discourse to the
defence of the late Lord PALMERSTON. As he truly
remarked, en passant, " There is no man whose
opinions on Parliamentary Reform are spoken of
with more levity than Lord PALMERSTON'S." How-
ever, it is a mistaken idea to take hold of that the
noble lord did not wish to see a measure of Parlia-
mentary Reform carried. When he was at the head
of a very powerful majority he inserted a para-
graph in the QUEEN'S Speech to the effect
that it should be taken into the consideration
of the House. When he shortly afterwards
had to relinquish office, he intimated to Lord
DERBY that some settlement should take place, and
also assured him that if he thought fit to bring for-
ward a well-considered measure, it would receive a
fair and candid consideration. " flow, then," ap-
propriately inquired the right hon. gentleman,
" can you call Parliamentary Reform a party ques-
tion under these circumstances ?" We all know the
sad sequel to that story—how, when the measure
referred to was brought in, the efforts of Lord
PALMERSTON to keep to the engagement he had
made, a private member below the gangway brought
forward a motion which upset the Government,
and threw out the bill then before the house.

What Mr. DISRAELI sought to prove, and we
think succeeded in proving, was, that upon the
House of Commons rested the responsibility of this
question having become a party question. The
Conservatives have, not shrunk back from the dan-
gerous work, and, after the struggles they made in
1859, none can call them cowardly or recusant
if they now decline to throw down the gauntlet and
again renew the fierce skirmish, the thoughts of
which may have inspired the autumn orations of a
BRIGHT, or vindicated the Italian visions of a
RUSSELL. It follows, then, that a middle course must
be adopted, and assuredly, however comparatively
easy it may be to gain the desired object by Resolu-
tions, it is not a light task to convince the house
that it is so. We hope and trust that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer may not find that his words
of last night were profitless ones, or that he failed in
making out the merits of his case. He appealed to
the good sense of the House, and it should not fail
in that capacity. He also addressed himself to the
patriotism of his hearers, and Englishmen, of what-
ever rank or class of politics, should not be back-
ward in responding to that call. It was a power-
ful passage in which Mr. DISRAELI referred to the
manner in which it would be advisable to reconstruct
the House of Commons. Her MAJESTY'S Govern-
ment think that it should be done upon those prin-
ciples, and not upon those of any other country.
W e entirely agree with the right hon. gentleman in
his earnest and eloquent defence of the time-hon-
oured principles upon which the Constitution of
this country is founded. If we now quit, without
due consideration, the ancient traditions of the
policy under which we live, we shall assuredly make
a very great mistake, and the sooner we
realise this truth the better. The Commons
of England, as the right honourable gentleman
showed last night, have assumed a charac-
ter "hi reference to the other Estates which
was never contemplated in the days of the
Plantagenets and the Tudors." As for the House
of Lords, as this able critic of our social condition
observed, the power of the peerage is greater in
every part of England than in their own house.
The "taxing power" has caused a great deal of
tho immense influence now possessed by the Lower
House ; and all classes seek to be represented there.
As for the saying that there is a wider influence of
the peerage in that House, Mr. DISRAELI speedily
disposes of it by stating that, on the contrary, the
" influence of the peerage in the House of Commons
is not a usurpation of our rights, but in all
deference to our authority." Every interest seeks
to be represented in the House, and hence the
variety of its character. We consider that it is an
admirable definition which is here given of the
means whereby the House has been made important
and pronounced influential. The variety of char-
acter has given them deliberative power—the
deliberative power has afforded their holding
the Executive, and it is the hold on the Executive
that affords the only security for the rights of
Englishmen. After the many violent and vehement
attacks which have been made upon the present
position of the House, it is a relief to find so firm
a determination on the part of Government to
maintain its principles inviolate, and to hold fast to
the old plan which has stood so many trying tests,
and been proved by so many searching ordeals.
"Her MAJESTY'S Government can counsel and can
countenance no course that would e,ange and alter

the character of the House of Commons ; they will
respect and reverence the causes that have elevated
the rude popular assembly of the days of the
Plantagenets into a Senate which commands the
admiration of the world. We no not believe that
there exists any security for our retaining that
character unless we oppose a policy which
would give to any class power whether
they are high or low, or whether they arc in-
fluenced by a democratic feeling or an oligarchical
feeling—which would give to any class a preponde-
rating power in this House." We feel convinced,
indeed, that whatever it may be wise to do in the
way of change or alterations in the present systems
it is imperatively necessary that all should deter-
mine and resolve that what they will not do will be
to change or alter the fundamental principles upon
which the House of Commons rests.

We particularly commend to the notice of all
that passage of Mr. DISRAELI'S speech which refers
to foreign countries and their institutions. In
France there is a popular Assembly elected by
universal suffrage ; but who can say that it is equal
to the English House of Commons ? No French-
man would presume to do so. If we turn from the
Latin race to the House of Representatives that
flourishes on the other side of the great Atlantic,
what do we see there ? Another Assembly elected
by universal suffrage, and who can declare that the
House of Representatives, at Washington, equals
our House of Commons? There we have a nation,
as the right hon. gentleman puts it, of the same
blood, brains, and intelligence' as ourselves, and
perhaps of greater enterprise. "But the House of
Representatives is elected by one class, they have no
variety of representation; and neither the Legislative
Assembly of France nor the Representative As-
sembly of America rules in the country in which
they exist as institutions. Again, we see Germany,
where it is now intended to have a Parliament
elected by universal suffrage, and already we find
that it is made a provision that the ministers of the
KING are not to sit in that house. If one class pre-
ponderates in these assemblies the effects of all they
do is naturally nullified, and we had better take
that lesson to heart in time. The distinguishing at-
tribute of the House of Commons is variety, and
that must be preserved, no matter what " violent,
thoughtless, or pernicious doctrines are now
preached." In concluding his eloquent speech,
Mr. DISRAELI declared that we are not to
run away with the notion that her MAJESTY'S
Ministers were angling for a policy ; they have cer-
tain distinct principles to guide them which they
wish the house to sanction. It is true that the
course proposed is not flattering to the members-of
the Government, but this is not, he truly says, the
time to defer to the self-complacency of a Ministry
or to the pride of party. " I earnestly hope," ex-
claims the right hon. gentleman, " that the House
of Commons will rise to this occasion ;" and we
trust that his wish will be realised, despite
what has been said of the failures and defi-
ciencies of the house of late. We think that its
leader took a fair view of its position when
he said that those who take a large and noble view
of human affairs will " recognise that alone among
the countries of Europe England has now for almost
countless generations, by its Parlia►nent, exhibited
tho fair exemplar of a free Government, which she
has maintained by her House of Commons, and she
has cherished that free spirit which is the soul of the
commonwealth, without which empire has no glory,
and the wealth of nations is but the lees of corrup-
tion and decay." Mr. GLADSTONE'S remarks were
worthy of the occasion, and we willingly ac-
cept them as au augury of the future of
the measure now proposed in the House.
There are enough, and more than enough, of jea-
lous and bitterly prejudiced politicians, but we think
better of Mr. GLADSTONE than to rank him among
them. If he support the proposition of Ministers
it may be the turning-point of their success ; and
we feel convinced that he will be no loser in the
appreciation of the public for the course he may
thus take in contradiction to the voice of party.
National interests demand that no jealous opposition
be given to the scheme of Lord DERBY'S Govern-
ment, and the people will soon learn who are their
true friends by scanning the ranks of the Ministerial
supporters.

Seldom, e
tlaateer politicalyaenatricsi,phaatisonanyandbusy specula-
tion measure
x of
g such
Government proposal respecting Par-
liamentary a u
iesthes
Reform which was last night brought
under the notice of the expectant House of Com-
mons. The Cabinet had kept their secret with
surprising success, and although every one was
ready with his suggestion or his rumour, no one was
able to indicate confidently the line of policy to be
pursued. During the recesss, indeed, we had perio-
dical canards, promulgated from various quarters,
to the effect that the Government intended
to leave the subject altogether alone, and
were opposed to any further interference with
the system of Parliamentary Representation.
Such rumours have all proved worthless, and the
paragraph which attracted most attention in the
Speech from the Throne was that in which the
QUEER appealed to her faithful Commons to lay
aside for once all party spirit, and to discuss this
vexed question in a spirit of mutual forbearance.
As yet the Government have given no reason to the
House or the public to complain of delay. On the
very first night of the season the Chancellor of the
Exchequer fixed an early day for the exposition of
the Ministerial intentions, and already within a
week from the opening of Parliament the principles
of their Reform policy are clearly indicate", and a
day fixed at no distant date, though at a sufficient
interval, for their full discussion.

Every one is by this time aware of the manner in
which the Ministry proposeto proceed, and although
Mr. GLADSTONE was right in saying that it was
approval of the House or the
r
smoemnedwihtsaetl
fu nt
ou s u
thea
l , it is none the less likely to com-
country. The question has been left in an unusual
position by successive Cabinets. The
ma-
chinery has come to a deadlock, and political
every
e y party
ar t yhas tried its hand in turn to get into
working order,
again without success. Its intricate mechanism is
not the work of any living craftsman, and therefore
all repairs or alterations must be matters of theory
rather than of practice. One party advises a
wholesale change, little short indeed of taking
the work to pieces and putting it together afresh.
Another is so fearful of the result of such rashness
that they would make mere surface additions or
modifications of little real value or service. Surely,
then, the wisest and most practical course, since no
one can assume the uudispu!ed authority, is to find
wisdom in the multitude of counscllori to decide
upon principles, and then to mould the details ac-
cording to the public wish and the experience
gathered from official statistics.
We have always contended that Reform should
not be treated as a party question, but dis-
cussed as a national question in that broad,
patriotic, and enlightened spirit which on
matters affecting the public welfare is
happily common to all Englishmen. We have
party spirit and fierce contentions going on con-
tinually in ordinary matters, but when once a real
danger threatens the country what do we see ?
All ranks, all parties, all creeds, combine honestly