The Sun.
London, England, 1867-03-12 00:00:00

on the subject of the franchise, and had he kept
strictly to that all might have gone smoothly as a
marriage-bell ; but, unfortunately, he permitted
himself to touch upon dangerous ground, and called

attention to ." certain proceedings that had been

adopted in respect to a reform in the representation
of the people." This was, of course, a most un-
usual plan to pursue, and, as might have been ex-

petted, it led him on to make a long speech, in the
course of which he was very discursive. What
reason could there possibly have been to go back to
the time of the Reform bill being passed, and to

quote certain passages of his own speeches during

,hat memorable epoch ? There will be plenty more

appropriate and fitting opportunities for so doing
before long. It was said by a Minister of the
Crown that the new measure about to be proposed

by Government is to restore to the " working
classes that advantage of which they have hitherto

been deprived," and this has nettled the noble lord
considerably. He went into details to show that
great care had been taken to extend the Reform
Bill of 1832, in order that it might make the

working classes " a part of the great family of

the Constitution." After dilating upon this part
of the subject some time, the noble lord's com-

mentary came down to more recent days, and he
said that there were several mis-statements with
_ _.

regard to his attempts to introduce a Reform Bill
to Parliament. In 1852 the Government resigned,
and his measure of 1854 was not a failure, but
the Crimean War intervened, and caused it to be

put aside.
When Lord RUSSELL, on the strength of his
great experience, and the considerable attention

he had given to Reform, announced his intention
of commenting upon the principles of the Bill

about to be introduced, Lord DERBY very pro

perly interfered, and said that " great latitude had
already been taken, and it was not the thing for
comments to be made upon a Bill not yet introduced
to Parliament, and of which, as a House, it was ab-

solutely impossible for them to know anything what
ever." Noways discouraged the noble lord alleged
that he had a right to comment upon what was
discussed in the public papers every day, but this
was not a substantial reason to give, and it is al-
ways the custom in Parliament to wait until any
particular measure is introduced before a discussion
upon its abstract principles is taken. Some allow-
ance must be made for the disappointed ambition
of the ex-Premier, but still we think he overstepped
the due limits when be persisted in his predeter-
mined course of criticism. It was the more uncalled
for and unnecessary, because, owing to one circum-
stance and another, a great deal has already been
said on the subject of Reform in the other house,
and we cannot see any possible gain that can accrue
from these fierce criticisms upon important ques-
tions that demand the calm consideration and fair
dealing they can possibly meet with at the hands
of members of the Legislature. So far as we can
gather from the drift of Lord RUSSELL'S observations,
he wishes the principles on which any new measureis
based to resemble as closely as possible the great
scheme of 1832. That measure, he says, which
Lord DERBY sustained in the House of Com-
mons, with an eloquence which defeated all its
opponents, has now for 35 years been the law of the
country, and he doubts if the foundation on which
it is based can be improved. He seemed rather
afraid that the present Government would go too
far, and deprecated anything which would tend to
swamp the middle classes.
Lord DERBY said he had heard the speech of the
noble lord with unfeigned astonisl.ment, for he had
disappointed expectation, and " indulged in
a series of autobiographical reminiscences"
which were interesting iu themselves, to their
lordships, and " especially to the noble
lord himself." He bad gone back to the
seventeenth century, and had also given them a
history of various bills that had been introduced,
but he had not spoken in regard to the returns for
which he moved. This shows certainly that these
said returns were a very convenient peg on which
the noble lord could hang his wished-for statement,
and by means of which he could give vent to his
indignation on the subject. We think that Lord
DERBY was quite right in his disapproval of the
practice of discussing the abstract principles of
Reform, and what might and might not be
likely to be found in the forthcoming measure.
At the same time, the noble earl said that he
considered it to have been certainly a mistake in the
first Reform Bill to " have abolished all those
various franchises which gave a degree of variety to
the electoral body of this country, and instead to
bring the whole down to the dead level of a ten-
pound occupation." After a few alterations had
been made the returns were agreed to.
In the House of Commons Mr. D. GRIFFITH
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question
relating to certain matters, and wished to know if
towns of great importance, and boroughs which
were incorrupt, were to lose a member, why it was
intended that others, which were "proprietary and
nomination ones, should not make a similar sacri-
fice." Mr. DISRAELI replied to this leading query
by declaring that it was made with acuteness, but
did not fall within the legitimate limits of questions
such as are put in the House. Such an inquiry
rested upon a " series of assumptions," which could
only be established or refuted by a process of debate,
and not by answering a question. We really do not
think it at all suitable for those questions
and observations to be thus repeatedly made,
and for the members of the Government to
be continually persecuted by irrelevant re-
marks, and attempts to promote discussion that
may lead to compromising answers. When it is
taken into account how closely every word that
falls from the lips of a CabinetMinisteris scrutinised
—how it is quoted again and again at awkward
junctures, and subjected to every possible form of
Parliamentary criticism, it is unfair and unwise to
expect that such questions can be attended to.
There will be plenty of opportunity when the
debates on the subject of Reform have commenced
to make all necessary remarks, and till then those
who are so prone to let their zeal outrun their dis-
cretion restrain their impatience, and not jump at
conclusions, or seek to confuse those who have
already too much to think of.

Very numerous and very various are the sug-
gestions made to assist the Government in their de-
liberations on Reform, and very unpractical and
impracticable are some of the solutions suggested
of the great problem of modern statesmanship.
Few of these schemes, however, are more worthy of
serious attention than the one recently put forward
by Mr. E. W. COX,* Recorder of Helston. Mr.
Cox's suggestions are noticeable from their happy
combination of the doctrines of Liberalism and
Conservatism, for their endeavour to consult at
once the interests of progress, and of preservation.
Mr. Cox, in his preface to the second edition of his
pamphlet, expresses his gratification at finding the
main features of the Government resolutions in
harmony with his plans. The preface was written
naturally before the withdrawal of tho resolutions,

* Representative Reform. Proposal for a Constitutional
Reform Bill. A Letter to the Earl of Perby by E. W.
Cog, Recorder of Holston. Second edit:cn. Law Times
Office, Wellingtou,street.