The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-28 00:00:00

THE SUN.

MONDAY. MARCH 28, 1859.

Lord PALMERSTON is perfectly up to his work.
He thoroughly understands what he is about, and
while volunteering not only his advice, but his
imperative instructions to Ministers, he adopts the
most skilful mode of capturing stray and wavering
votes. If we are to credit the noble viscount, the
adoption of the resolution will not lead to the
resignation of the Government. Nay, more, they
must not resign; the House will not allow them
to do so. Still less must they think of an appeal
to the country. That could not for a moment be
tolerated. The chosen representatives of the people
must throw everything into confusion—must reject
the Appropriation Act, the Ways and Means Act,
the Mutiny Act, and refuse to make provision for
the Exchequer bonds falling due in May—rather
than allow the opinions of the various constituencies
to be ascertained, and the real sentiments of
the people to be discovered respecting the course
adopted by the extraordinary coalition framed to
substitute a new party for the present occupants of
the Treasury benches.
Lord PALMERSTON has long been recognised as a
proficient in the art of badinage. He well merited
the title of " First Lord of the Jokery," but never
did he enter on a more refined piece of irony than
when he was patronising the Cabinet, and
telling them that they must act in accord-
ance with his suggestions, and "be con-
demned to z etain their places," under cir-
cumstances which would be intolerable either to
himself or Lord JOHN RUSSELL, notwithstanding
their well-known anxiety for place, power, and
patronage.

But what does he offer in lieu of the present
bill what inducement does he propose to the
independent Liberals to replace him in the Down-
ing-street Eden ? Would he adopt Mr. LOCKE
KING'S motion, or give a £lO franchise for coun-
ties ? Far from:it! He " should have supposed
that portion of the Government arrangements
had been suggested by the honourable member for
Birmingham," Adding, "if we are to determine
who are to embark in the same boat, I should say
that the honourable gentleman is rowing with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer and the noble lord
the Secretary for India, much more than with my
noble friend the member for the City London."
If this be so, surely Mr. BRIGHT and his friends
and disciples ought to ignore the resolution, and
endeavour to carry the measure into com-
mittee, where it could be duly amended,
and moulded into any shape that the
majority of the House deemed expedient. They
must know that both the noble lords are pledged
that no other
against THE BALLOT, which ;they profess to believe to
:‘,bleinthisetray?pchoaualdndtoemndeffera ofsu reform;eh extensiveana
concessions,
or measure of equal magnitude
or hope to carry `s
with that now in office ; and yet, without expecting
to come into power themselves, they are to join in
a factious vote, that must postpone the question for
another year, and probably adjourn it sine die, because
it does not go to the full extent of their wishes,
and some of the details—which may be altered in
committee—do not entirely meet their approval.
This point has been over and over again explained
clearly, distinctly, and unequivocally. But as the
deaf adder would net hear "the voice of -the char-
mer, charm he ever so wisely," so. right honourable
and honourable gentlemen are determined to do
anything, however unreasonable, provided it gives
them a chance o once more getting to " the sunny

side of the hedge" and the cheerful position at the
right hand of the Speaker.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL differs in some respects
from others. He has a lively faith in himself—
considers that he has a " right divine" to inaugu-
rate any measure of Parliamentary Reform—all
others being mere invaders. Their offence approxi-
mates to that of the old buccaneers ; they are plun-
dering him of his private property, and must be
resisted to the last extremity, no matter what may
be their bidding. Reform belonged originally to
the RUSSELLS, GREYS, and kLLIOTS, but
now it is the exclusive property of the
Ducal Establishment at Woburn, and Lord
w'
its appointed representative. The advice
of
jNis
Earl GREY was, therefore, contumeliously re-
jected. He saw his own jewel deborating another
person, and resolved to obtain it per fas aut neja s,
at any trouble or annoyance. The triangular duel
was therefore arranged. The Ministerial "Mid-
shipman Easy" met his strangely-assorted op-
ponents, and, as in the novel, they have inflicted
almost greater damage upon themselves than upon
their opponents.
What agreement is there between the three
wizards now busily engaged in stirring the political
cauldron ? Lord JOHN RUSSELL wants to turn out
the Ministry, while Lord PALMERSTON declares
that even, if so inclined, they shall not be permitted
to resign, and we believe that the Honourable Gen-
tleman the Member for Birmingham would be very
much obliged to any friend who could satisfy him
as to his own views and feelings. He has of course
a paternal partiality for his own offspring, and
would probably rather continue a protracted agita-
tion for a series of years, than, suffer a single fea-
ture of the bewitching baby to be spoiled. But will
he promote his views by rejecting the second reading
of the Government measure, preventing the pos-
sibility of any enactment being carried within the
present session, and most probably setting it aside
for several years ? He cannot hope to be placed in
the position of First Lord of tke Treasury, or even,
if offered a place in the Cabinet, to be enabled to
bring round either of the ex-Premiers to his views.
What, then, does he wish for ? What does he
seek ? Simply to set aside the present Govern-
ment, in order to replace it by one which he has
already characterised in no ordinary terms of 're-
proach and censure.

But a fourth combatant has entered the field.
Mr. 0. STANLEY has made a regular mull of it,
and his friends will have cause to deplore the
coup macaque which he has administered. We
cannot give any degree of credit to the honourable
gentleman either for good feeling or judgment, but
he has unquestionably exhibited the real feeling of
many of those who have joined in the onslaught
against the Government, and who look rather to
personal objects than the general welfare of the
country.

For four long evenings have the Brains and
Heart of England" been debating—what ? Who
shall occupy the Treasury benches. That, as Lord
STANLEY stated at the opening of the discussion, is
the issue being really tried by the House. But the
House, like the Judges, " sits in all the daily
papers ;" hence the issue really on trial there is
tried under fictitious names. The people of Eng-
land, with their demands for Reform, and the Whig
and Tory Aristocracy, with their secret purpose to
hinder all Reform they can, are in the House of
Commons a kind of John Doe and Richard Roe ; it
would never do, it would not suit the purpose of
either party to let the electors and non-electors of
Britain appear as principals in the action, and to
take up the demands which, in their petitions, they
really prefer. Nor would it do to say as plainly,
We who hold the reins alternately, mean to take all
possible care that we shall do so still. " Constitu-
tional Reform," therefore, is made the great question
while the real one—who shall hold office—is never
mentioned, except by some honest HUGH CAIRNS,
and the people's demands are passed by as matter
of little concern to either party.
The question of equality of franchise is discussed
and re-discussed, debated and re-debated, as
if the destinies of the country hung upon
it. We believe that a purely factitious importance
is attached to it. We do not know that any of the
franchises proposed by the Government have been
shown to be bad. They may be, many of them,
included in others ; they may not add many to the
constituencies; but bad they are not. We are told
of the importance of variety of franchises ; the
object, of course, is to get various classes into the
constituencies. But it seems to be wholly over-
looked by the objectors, that these various classes,
not being pachydermatous animals, must live in
houses; that an occupation franchise, therefore, must
include all the classes, all the varieties of the genus
homo which inhabit this country—those, of course,
excepted, which do not dwell within the electoral
tropics of 40s. freehold as a property qualification,
or the £lO rent, or what rent you please, as the
residential qualification. While these lines of de-
marcation exist, few and immaterial will be the
votes created by the subordinate franchises. Be-
-1 tween the property and the residential qualifica-
tions will be found nearly all the diversified
constituency by which our House of Commons
is elected. We must think the importance of
identity of franchise therefore exaggerated ;
and we must confess it appears to us impos-
sible to defend a lower occupation qualification
for the boroughs than for the coudies. It is
notorious that in many a country district you may
get for £l5 or £2O a house and grounds which in
a borough would cost you double, and in the
suburbs of London three or four times, those sums.
The same occupation franchise for towns and
counties will undoubtedly give votes to very diffe-
rent classes—the county class being the superior in
point of income or property.

What, however, we would specially call atten-
tion to as the great sham in the debate, is that all
parties talk as if they were anxious to secure inde-
pendent constituencies. Our great morning con-
temporary has often adverted to the hypocrisy of
discussing a Reform Bill, and burking by common
consent the grand point of disfranchising depen-
dent boroughs—those whose smallness is incom-
patible with their independence. But the other
piece of hypocrisy is far less excusable. We may
forgive even Lord JoHN RUSSELL, or Lord PAL-
MERSTON, if they had a Schedule A in their
thoughts, for saying as little as they could about
it. In the event of dissolution, all the proscribed
would, of course, return members pledged by the
most solemn hustings' oaths to resist their disfran-
chisement; there is some excuse for politicians on
either side not provoking relentless enmity. But
it is hypocrisy to affect concern to secure indepen
dent constituencies, when the real object is to keep
them dependent.

The truth is, the whole debate is confused by the
dishonesty so palpable on this point. The strife is
between two parties, who both want to retain con-
trol over the electors. Their inward thought is,
how shall we obtain more voters " under the
influence" of our class. How electors shall be
created who are independent of stewards, lawyers,
bankers, mortgagees, employers, customers, and so
forth is not the real question with them. Neither I
Whig nor Tory members, we fear not a great many
manufacturing members cvcn, wish. to bestow votes

where no " influence" can be used. Hence the in-
consequentialness of half the reasoning on the fran-
chise. It is verbally conducted as if " free and inde•
pendent electors" were the coveted object. In
reality nothing is further from the wishes of pro-
bably the majority of the speakers. Concede,
really, the independence of the voter, and a great
deal of worthless " clishmaclaver" might well be
spared. There is no such difference between a
county and town elector as there is between
tenant and landlord. It is not the farmer who
craves a vote to protect himself against the borough
householder ; it is the landlord who craves the far-
mer's vote to perpetuate the ascendancy of the
landlord class ; the manufacturer who wants the
artisan's vote to gain the " head of my firm" a seat
in Parliament. The interests of town and county
are now identical, and are known to be so. The
ambition of town magnates and that of county
magnates alone are in collision. Both desire to
retain manageable constituencies.
This it is which confuses all their reasonings.
Grant to each voter the privilege of independence.
Let him do his own voting. Permit him to put his
opinion. as to who is the best man into the ballot-
box—and smooth, comparatively, and easy would
be the task of arranging our constituencies. With
the loss of the power to intimidate, coerce, and
bribe, would vanish most of the acrimony of the
contest. The endeavour would then really be to
give a fair expression to the opinions of all districts
and classes in the country. The independence of
the electoral unit should be the first object of a
Reform Bill; .and, the country can feel no interest
in turning out one Ministry and installing another,
unless it be to secure the electoral independence,
failure to bestow which was the great defect of the
old bill. We doubt not Mr. LABOUCHERE'S friends
will inform him that on this point their minds are
quite made up. But we have a word or two yet to
say to the Hon. Member.

We have much pleasure in directing attention
to a very excellent report of a banquet (copied
from The Era) which was given to Mr. BENJAMIN
WEBSTER by a large number of his friends and
admirers on Wednesday last, on the occasion of
the rebuilding of the New Adelphi Theatre. We
regret our own inability at being present,
but we take this opportunity of making
amends to an excellent actor and most
worthy friend. The chair was occupied by a true
friend of the drama—Mr. BERKELEY, of ballot re-
nown—and it could not be more fittingly done
honour to than by the honourable and eloquent
member. We will not enter into the peculiar
merits of his speech—its perusal will speak for
itself, and gladden the hearts of those who love the
drama as the exponent of our dearest recollections.
Mr. BERKELEY acted his part " right well," and
proved that his heart was in it.
Of BENJAMIN WEBSTER we have little to say—
that part has been so well performed by Mr.
BERKELEY that we shall not attempt to
" Gild refined gold, or paint the lily,"

by any supererogatory encomiums. If a man's
actions be the best test of his worth, Mr.
WEBSTER is a living instance in his own
person. He has risen to his present posi-
tion by the mere dint of genius—prompted by
a very laudable ambition—and encouraged in his
praiseworthy perseverance by a discerning and
patronising public. Nor has his labour been in
vain. That he had to struggle is the more to his
honour, for no man ever attains to excellence with-
out a grand struggle for the mastery. Life is made
up of struggles—and the glory of having so long
endured, and yet surmounted them, would have been
infinitely greater could the world but know it !
But these things may not be—

" Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air."

But not so with WEBSTER. He was born under a
lucky star, which, though it glared rather malig-
nantly on his earlier career, now shines beneficently
on his happier destiny. May it so continue—

" Shining on shining on by no shadow made tender,
Till fame falls asleep in its sameness of splendour."
Of WEBSTER'S speeeh we shall only say that his
speaking almost seems better than his acting. This
may look like an equivocal compliment, for many
men shine more out of their vocation than
in it ; but to an actor the compliment
is twofold, for, like Sergeant EITHERSIDE,
WEBSTER shines in both. And so does his
congenial rival, BUCKSTONE—the best of players
and the most eloquent of orators. It is indeed very
encouraging to behold men who are brought up to
speak the " sayings of others," yet so apt aid
fresh in "doings" of their own. 'ln after life we
revert with a fond and trembling recollection of our
younger days, and WEBSTER must, in his own day-
dreams, half shrink within himself at the fancy of his
grotesque ambition in playing the "man of all work"
on the stage of youthful adventure. We can
imagine his shy misgivings in presenting himself
before the world's wonder of other days on the
giddy stage of whirling amazement, with his senses
all bewildered in the misty vision of countless
heads before him—not one of which could he dis-
cern, but all swallowed up in one blank of despair
at his first advance to the footlights. Poor fellow !
put your best foot foremost. And. so he did—and
behold the result !

THE BALLOT SOCIETY AND THE
112MBEIt FOR BOD3IIN.

We publish two more letters on the Ballot So-
ciety's Council, and Mr. WYLD. The Council of the
Ballot Society seem an odd sort of people. It ap-
pears from their own showing that they were una-
nimously of opinion that Mr. WYLD'S amendment,
in favour of the Ballot, to Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S
resolution, was the right course to adopt, and yet
by some extraordinary mode of reasoning, incom-
prehensible to us, they came to the unanimous con-
clusion that Mr. WYLD ought not to bring forward
his amendment in favour of the Ballot ! It is true,
they say they have come to this "unanimous" con-
clusion, in opposition to their own "unanimous"
opinion in favour of Mr. WYLD'S course of proce-
dure, on the " advice " of the " Parliamentary
Friends of the Ballot." But who, we beg to ask—
and the advocates of the Ballot and the supporters
of the Ballot Society have a right to know—are
these " Parliamentary Friends of the Ballot 9" The
Ballot Society, though so wondrously expert at
passing unanimous resolutions condemnatory of the
course which Mr. Wyld is determined to adopt,
have not condescended to furnish with the name
of even one of these "Parliamentary Friends of
the Ballot." But if they will not deign to furnish
us with any names, will they confer on us the
smaller favour of informing us what is the number
of these legislative friends of the Ballot, who were
so much frightened at the amendment of Mr. Wyld,
and who have been so successful in inoculating the
Committee of the Ballot Society with their appre-
hensions, that that Committee " will not be
responsible for any prejudicial results that
may follow, but will take steps publicly to
clear themselves." It were better that they
took steps publicly to clear themselves from the
charge of retarding instead of promoting the cause
of the Ballot. What is the, use of this Society if
its Committee, though unanimously in favour of
Mr. Wyld's amendment, not only become unani-
mously opposed to it, but are also unanimous in
publicly denouncing it, without being able to offer
any better reason for the gross inconsistency and
supreme absurdity of their conduct, than the
" advice" of a handful of persons—very probably
only one or two—whom they are pleased to call
" the Parliamentary Friends of the Ballot"
[ED. MORNING ADVERTISER.]
[We cordially agree with our contemporary in
the above exposure of the sham attempted to be
played off in accordance with the mock " Parlia-
liamentary Friends of the Ballot." When a man
wants tb do a thing he is ashamed of in his own
person, he throws the odium on the " advice of his
friends." We warn the Ballot Society—or it may
be the majority of them—not to presume over much
on the public forbearance, for of late they seem to
have reckoned without theirhost.—ED. SUN.]