The Sun.
London, England, 1867-08-08 00:00:00

say and to communicate his meaning in language
not exactly fitting for the ears. polite of that assem-
bly, and so Manchester is chosen to have the honour

of his explanations.
A meeting was held at the Free-Trade Hall,
on Tuesday, to protest against the changes
made by the House of Lords in the Reform
Bill, and Mr. BRIGHT was of course in full feather.

The folly of the meeting was shown in tho first
resolution, which denounced the system of voting-
papers as leading to "bribery and intimidation,"

and urged its rejection by the House of Commons.
How any one can possibly connect voting-papers

with bribery seems almost incomprehensible ; but
there is nothing to which people will not

agree when they are resolved to object. It
is easy to summarise Mr. Bniairr's speech

by saying that it was full of bitterness,
and replete with that unfairness of which he is so
great an exponent. lle found himself obliged to
say something in favour of the bill, and therefore
he mixed up his approval of the measure

with abuse of those who had brought it forward.
The public will know how to appreciate this for
themselves, however, and will easily distinguish

the real from the unreal part of the affair.
His strictures upon the House of Lords are
quite ridiculous, and even when he has
to allude to the final decision which left the
lodger franchise in state quo, he now needs qualify
it by saying that they reconsidered the question
with "excuses such as earnest men seldom make,"
and so on. Mr. BRIGHT is quite furious at the very
notion of voting papers being adopted, and there-
fore he devoted a considerable part of his speech to
that topic. He said that he believed the main ob-
ject to be to enable rich men " who possess,
or who may obtain posse-lion of, property in
many counties, to vote in all these coun-
ties without leaving the house in which
they are living." This is a most ridiculous explana-

tion of the affair, and it shows that there are no
very good reasons against the proposition if he is
forced to fall back upon one like this. The in-

fluence of public opinion, which Mr. BRIGHT so
much relies upon, has not worked so successfully
hitherto in many places, for it is a well-known fact
that many stay away altogether, and do not record
their votes on account of the confusion and rioting
that prevail at the polling-booth.
It was, however, in the consideration of the other
amendment that Mr. BRIGHT came out most
forcibly, and made himself most absurd. Ile in-
dulged in abuse of the most vehement kind and
character, and confounded his friends with his foes
in his sweeping censure. The arrogance of this sort
of thing is really unendurable, and in all pro-
bability Mr. BRIGHT has done great damage to the
cause he wishes to serve by his unwise advocacy
of it. People do not care to be told that
they are knaves and fools, if not some-
thing worse, because they do not say ditto to Mr.
BRIGHT in all he thinks and approves of. We are
not to be forced into conviction against our better
judgment, and we have yet to learn that the height
of freedom is to be deprived of the liberty of judg-
ing for ourselves. Let us listen, however, to
what the oracle said at Manchester on this
subject of the representation of minorities.
It is a proposition " which has been aimed

with a deadly malice at the political power of
the great constituencies of the kingdom. I ask
m y countrymen to reject this new and worst device
of their opponents, because it has within it a
principle as, I believe, disastrous and fatal to every-
thing which we comprehend, and which our fore-
fathers comprehended. Of the true principle of
popular representation, I regard it—l say it here
without fear of whomsoever it may strike--I re-
gard it as the offspring and the spawn of feeble
minds." This last thrust is evidently intended for
the benefit of his friends as well as for that of his foes.
It will be seen that Mr. MILL is in favour of this
hated principle, and many others who share this
opinion are found in the Liberal ranks. Any man
who adopts this scheme must, according to Mr.
BRIGHT, necessarily " shake the faith and lose the
confidence of every true friend of Reform and of
freedom." Can anything be more unfair than this
sort of reasoning ? and can there be a more inconsis-
tent thing for one in Mr. BRIGHT'S position to do than
go about prejudging matters under the considera-
tion of Parliament. By his intemperate language
and arbitrary demeanour he himself shakes faith
andloses confidence—and hecertainly shows us very
plainly that he is not so much the friend of Reform
as he is the enemy of fair-play. No cause can
certainly prosper which is advocated in the abut.ive
manner in which Mr. BRIGHT delights ; and in
this speech at Manchester he seems to have
gone back to many of his old errors, and to have
exerted himself to display as much bitterness of spirit
as he possibly could. He said himself at last that
some would think he had used " needlessly strong
words," and they will not be very far from the
truth in coming to that conclusion, but those whose
opinions are worth influencing cannot po3sibly be
misled by such extravagant language, for it cer-
tainly defeats itself by its in' olerance and want of
meaning.