The Sun.
London, England, 1867-09-04 00:00:00

the noble lord have imagined that the Conservative
Government would bring in and pass a Reform Bill
such as that which has lately become the law of the
land?

Why then does he now set out to predict what is
to be done by those whose course he cannot under-
stand, and should therefore not presume to follow
in a speculative manner. We would add that there
is reason to ask why none of these " remedial mea-
sures" were effected during the blessed time when
the Liberals had a monopoly of office. These
they kept back as a piece de resistance for emergen-
cies, or which they put off sine die, in order that no
one should dream of ousting them from place and
power ? Perhaps these are queries that it is more
easy to ask than to answer, but at any rate we re-
gret that Earl RUSSELL should betray so manifest a
spirit of intolerance and bitterness, and display such
uncalled-for petulance_ The noble lord's letters are
generally unfortunate, and this last does not appear
likely to redound to his reputation for forbearance,
or to exhibit him in a more favourable light to the
public.
Mr. GLADSTONE'S reply is much more concise,
and, as usual with the right hon. gentleman, very
mysterious. It is difficult to decide whether he feels
satisfied, and whether those about to celebrate the
event of the passing of the Reform Bill ought to be
satisfied either. First of all, he says that it appears
to him to be justifiable for them to rejoice at the
extension of the franchise, and then immediately
goes en to declare that the satisfaction
would have been much more complete if some
other parts of the subject had been treated better,
and had " tbe enfranchisement in boroughs not
been connected with provisions so inconvenient and
irrational with respect to the payment of rates
through the owner." Here Mr. GLADSTONE inge-
niously puts in his pet grievance, concerning which
he contrived to " bore" the House of Commons
pretty completely during the early part of
the session. We may notice particularly in
this correspondence that want of unity which
is so fatally apparent among the Whigs and Radi-
cals in all they attempt to do, which makes their
best-laid plans fall short, and their best endeavours
unfinished and incoherent. Thus we have Earl
RUSSELL declaring that he does not sympathise with
the proposed rejoicing in celebration of the passing
of a Reform Bill. And then we have Mr. GLAD-
STONE'S emphatic assurance that it appears to him
the said celebration is " amply justifiable." Let
us fancy these men engaged in solemn conclave in
order to decide upon the construction of a measure
for amending the representation of the people. How
could they possibly arrive at a satisfactory conclu-
sion when they start from totally different premises?
It is true that Lord RUSSELL is decided in his cen-
sure, while Mr. GLADSTONE halts between two
opinions; but the right hon. gentleman has the best
of it in the long run, for he throws cold water upon
the Government scheme, but does not wholly con-
demn it.

Mr. DILLVITN, in his explanation to his consti-
tuents the other day, made special reference to the
want of unanimity that exists among his party. He
said that even if the Liberals were " united toa man"
they could not have passed such a Reform Bill as
that just effected by the Tories, and nothing could
have been more opportune than the appearance of
these letters of the two leaders of the party to
verify this assertion and bear out this statement.
If anything were wanting to vindicate the
scene that took place in the tea-room,
surely this correspondence does so fully,
fairly, and most completely. It is evident that
the very part which Mr. GLADSTONE refers to
as satisfactory is that to which Earl RUSSELL
points ominously, and stigmatises as" Lord DERBY'S
leap in the dark." All of these incongruous ele-
ments have shown they never have shaped a de-
finite measure, and we can assure any one
who still thinks that Reform was not left in the
hands of itslegitimate directors that to have done so
would merely have been to have insured its failure
total and complete. If Mr. GLADSTONE hasdissembled
his love in speaking of the measure, Earl RUSSELL
has certainly gone the length of kicking it down
stairs as unworthy of his regard and re-
spect. We fancy, however, that the present Admi-
nistration can afford to be indifferent to their
praise or their censure, for they can look beyond
them, to the approval of the people, for whose
benefit the measure was framed, and whom it
chiefly concerns.