The Sun.
London, England, 1866-03-26 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC

TIIE " SPECTATOR" ON EARL GROSVENOR'S MO-
TION.—The Landlord of the House of Lords de-
clines Earl Russell's Reform Bill. A few days ago
the House was considering one of the hundred me-
tropolitan
railway schemes—the bill, we believe, for
the Mid-London Railway—when Earl Grosvenor
rose to move that the bill be read that day six months.
" Why Lord Grosvenor ?" whispered a member, not
quite up in his " Governing Families," " the railway
is not going to Chester." " Because there are two
hundre and fifty of his father's tenants sitting
here," was the unexpected reply, and we believe the
estimate was considerably under the truth. It is
the same man, heir to the great influence and greater
wealth which such a fact indicates, who will move
the House of Commons on the 12th of March to
reject any incomplete Reform Bill, and the fact has
a grave significance. It shows, in the first place,
that the Peers intend to fight through the Com-
mons, instead of awaiting the debate in their own
House ; and in the second, that the Ministry can-
not rely on the unbroken aid of the Whig families
who carried the bill of 1832, and who still lead so
considerable a section of the House. It is all yery
well to taunt the member for Chester with an ex-
clusive care for the interests of his order, but
Englishmen have materialistic minds, and the
action of an Earl Grosvenor, who can have
nothing to get by breaking with his hereditary
party, has a very different effect from that of a
member who has. It makes ratting respectable,
which neither Mr. Lowe's arguments nor Mr. Hors-
man's sarcasms have as yet succeeded in doing.
A dozen men will quote Lord Grosvenor as an
excuse for avoiding the lobby where one would have
quoted Mr. Laing, and will feel as they do it that
they avoid the taunt about the Cave of Adullam.
It was not the princes of the tribes, the men with
vast herds, or it may be town lots in the cities of
refuge, who betook themselves to the cave, but the
discontented and the distressed, people who did not
inhabit, much less own, the Belgravia of the day.
The mutineers and the waverers will undoubtedly
feel greatly encouraged by a defection which
guarantees them against social penalties for ratting,
and insures them also, we suspect, against the
danger of deserting the winning side. The name
of the mover in such cases is almost as important
as his motion, and in this instance the motion is
singularly well drawn. We may admit frankly
that what the daily journals are saying is true, and
that Earl Grosvenor in moving that the house insist
on a completed bill intends only to make any bill
whatsoever impossible, and still his motion remains
one for which consistent Liberals can vote. It strikes

not only at the greatest of the many blots in the
bill, but it strikes at the only one which it is pos-
sible for the Government to remedy without reced-
ing too visibly from its resolves. The absence of
redistribution clauses makes the Government bill
absolutely unreasonable. Supposing that even a
majority of the House of Commons accept the new
franchise, or franchises so like them as not to in-
volve a censure on the Cabinet, what will be the
result? They will have intensified the grand
anomalies of the present electoral system, the dis-
parity between Northern and Southern strength,
the equality between Harwich with its 386 electors,
and Manchester with 23,000 electors upon its roll;
and will, moreover, have enfranchised in one session
whole classes whom they will be compelled to dis-
franchise in the next. They will be legislating
absolutely in the dark, for they will not know the
extent of the transfer of power to which they have
resolved to accede. Time qualification has been
carefully fixed at the somewhat irrational figure of 7,
which is not even, like the £6 rating, the limit of
direct taxation, in order to prevent working men
from obtaining a clear majority of the borough
scats, but nobody knows till the disfranchising

clauses are read whether the end will be secured or
no. If fifty boroughs are disfranchised and their
members given to towns, it will not be secured, and
Liberal Ministers having gone as far as that—may,
should a sudden cry arise, go some way farther.
The Houses will be legislating at haphazard upon
the one vital point of any Reform Bill, the transfer
of power from a mixed constituency to a consti-
tuency in which a majority belong to a single and
very united class. It is unfair to Liberals who, like
ourselves, consider this the one danger of our society,
to compel them to vote without seeing whether the
danger exists or not, iu the face indeed of a decla-
ration from Ministers that its existence will
be kept perhaps till next session a State secret.
And while this compulsion is put on them, they
perceive that because it is put, because the redistri-
bution clauses are to form a separate bill, the
strongest wish of the nation, a settlement which
shall last, is rendered almost hopeless. Why are
Liberals who honestly want to give fifty, or sixty,
or a hundred seats to the working men, and do not
want to give them more, who wish to remedy an in-
justice, but not to enthrone Democracy, to vote for
a bill which, while it secures no peace, may give
the masses perhaps fifty, perhaps two hundred,
members ? Their pledges ? Stuff ; they pledged
themselves to give to the non-electors their fair
share of power, and they will redeem their pledges
the instant Government gives them the opportu-
nity. They do not pledge themselves to run the
risk of disfranchising half the electors to whom the
pledges were given. Again, the Government can
if it likes accept this motion without resigning, it
may be, even without a division.; Mr. Gladstone
did not produce any argument of principle against
making the bill complete. He simply said there was
not the time for it, and he may admit without dis-
credit that he made a miscalculation of hours. Mr.
Lowe will not make two speeches on the same night
because a schedule is tacked to the act, and if he
and his followers are a little mere lengthy, so
much the better for the Ministry. A bored House
of Commons will pass anything rather than be
bored any longer. Or if that is too hard for Mr.
Gladstone's pride—and he is doing an extraordinary
amount of humility just now, which suggests some
inward rasp—he may take the house at its word for
once, take a line of his own, and agree to a No-
vember Session, a Parliament called ad hoc. The
partridges will all be dead then, and from Ist No-
vember to 16th December, or thereabouts, members
will be just as happy in town as shivering in their
counties. Let the bill be brought forward then,
complete, and in the six weeks debated through,
out of
finished, passed, and got fairlythe road of the
State locomotive, which it has now brought for
years nearly to a dead lock. If the House of Com-
mons cannotfind time to consider therepresentation
of the nation, it had better reform its system of
business until it can, for no such excuse will be ac-
cepted anywhere outside its walls. It rattled a bill
transferring a trace of four millions a year from
English to German graziers through Parliament
fast enough, and must on such a question as Reform,
if necessary, make all the time required. But we
shall be told the Government will not yield, will
not mend their bill, will stand or fall, as they pro-
mised to do, by their own incomplete proposal.
Very good ; then they must go out.
THE " SATURDAY REVIEW" ON MR. GLADSTONE
AS LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF CO3IMONS.—Mr. Glad-
stone has been long enough leader of the House of
Commons to afford a test of his ability in his diffi-
cult post. That portion of the press which devotes
itself to his especial glorification has already dilated
on his extraordinary—extraordinary because, as it
would seem, unexpected—success. We are invited
to gaze on the edifying spectacle of a statesman of
the highest talents and the keenest impulses sub-
jecting himself to the most austere and rigorous self-
denial. He nightly puts a bridle on his lips and a
curb on his manners. Pegasus ploughs honestly, if
sullenly, and plods the backward and for-
ward furrows without a single curvet or caper.
The great orator is complimented for being
neither dictatorial nor sarcastic. Punctual,
careful, austere to himself and conciliatory to
his opponents this is the picture which his
eulogists draw of the present leader of the house.
There is enough of truth in all this, at least
to some extent, to justify the congratulations of his
friends. But the question is not whether Mr. Glad-
stone is undergoing this edifying self-discipline, nor
as to the amount of moral and spiritual good which
a man may do himself by such a course of constant
and severe watchfulness over his natural tendencies
or acquired habits, but how far a character subject-
ing itself to this constant strain and artificial con-
trol is likely to win or to retain the confidence
of followers. What Mr. Gladstone's friends claim
for him is a wonderful success in going through a
self-imposed but necessary martyrdom, just as
if one should be in ecstasies at the apathy with
which a Fakir endures a knife stuck through

his forearm, or at the unwavering constancy with
which he stands on one leg for two months. The
thing done is painful, and revolting to the natural
man ; but that it is done, and done without wincing
or other external sign of suffering, is the devotee's
triumph of art over nature. But, after all, it is un-
natural; and whatever is unnatural, although it
may excite surprise, and awe, scarcely conciliates
sympathy. As to the facts of the case, and the
annals of Mr. Gladstone's brief leadership, we shall
not contest the assertion that during his seven
weeks of rule he has done next to nothing to
offend anybody, and next to nothing to stir up
hearty goodwill. Confidence, especially Parlia-
mentary confidence, is of course a plant of slow
growth, and confidence is precisely that plant
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not cul-
tivated with success. All men admire and respect
him, and some love him with a pardonable vehem-
ence of partiality. But there are few who under-

stand him-. Of kr. Gladstoue's scrupulous care to
avoid offence, and to check his natural tendencies,

since ParhaMent met, there can be no doubt.

was noticed on the first day of the session that,
with a humility all but ostentatious, he slipped into
the house, and into his place of dignity, with a good
taste —so good that its very excellence provoked
comment. And throughout the session he has been
mild, conciliatory, and nearly tiresome in his defe-

rence and submissiveness. To Mr. Bright his de-
meanour has been all but fawning ; and to his great
opponent, Mr. Disraeli, he has never ventured be-
yond the negative affront of simulating sleep. In-
deed he could not with safety do otherwise ; and
Mr. Gladstone has carefully studied Mr. Disraeli's
manner in office. The bland simper of the Tory
chief has been exactly reproduced by the impertur-
bable serenity of the Liberal leader. If pliancy
could conciliate, and if admirable sterrage over

shoals and sunken rocks could create confidence,

Mr. Disraeli and Gladstone might contest the pam
of Parliamentary popularity. But this is just what
they have not done. Mr. Gladstone has worked

hard by exhibitinc, a masterly inactivity both
in offence and defence, but it may be doubted
whether he has gained much way. A ship which

is always lying to scarcely advances on its voyage.
We can only recall two blunders in Mr. Gladstone's
brief reign. He made a mistake in not asking Mr.
Disraeli to second the Speaker's nomination, and

his apology was but grudging and half-hearted.
And on one occasion, stung by what a leader ought
never to hear, or, if he hears, ought never to show
that he hears—namely, some impertinent " Oh,
ohs !" during the Devonport Dockyard debate--
he lost his temper for a moment, and began to
hector and lecture his enemies ; by which he
drew on himself the very ugly retort from Mr.
Otway, that, if he interrupted the leader, it was
only by following that leader's example, who was
very notorious for similar comments, ejacu-
lations, and apostrophes. These are the only ripples
which we can recall on the Dead Sea of the Session.
A momentary gleam of interest in his work was
displayed by Mr. Gladstone when, for a little space,
he had to disenss the beauty of savings' banks, and
could disport himself for an instant, even by anti-
cipation, on the flowery glades of budget. But,
with these exceptions, from Dan to Beersheba all
has been barren. In the debate on the address, Mr.
Gladstone fasted on the dreary husks of Fenianism.
Throughout the Cattle Plague debates he merely
registered and accepted the corrections of Mr. Bright
and Mr. Stuart Mill. He was complimentary to
Mr. Clay and his most fanciful of fancy franchises.
On the Queen's University he had no policy, and
on Mr. White's economical crazes he was dull.

On Mr. Gregory's motion on International Law he
was silent, and on the Church Rates Bill he spoke
one way and voted another. On Mr. Coleridge's
Bill he neither spoke nor voted ; a circumstance the
more significant since, on the last appearance of the
measure, he opposed it with animation and distinct-
ness. This certainly was a question on which a policy
might fairly be expected from the leader of the
House, and from one so long a representative.
When Mr. Gladstone yields, as on the Devonport
Dockyards, he yields without alacrity ; and any
opportunity for asserting a principle or a policy
with dgnity, he has either evaded or has been un-
able to grasp. From the leader of the House of
Commons people generally expect some opinion,
and perhaps some explanation, of a foreign policy ;
but, for all that we know of Mr. Gladstone's views
on this not unimportant branch of public business,
we might suppose that any broader question than
the best mode of getting the largest revenue out of
a cur-dog was beyond the functions of an English
Minister or an English House of Commons. Such
was the dreary dulness of the Treasury Bench up to
last week. At, length, however, came the occasion
which no dexterity could avoid. The fence was be-
fore the new Master of the Hounds which he must
either face or shirk. No craning could make the
stakes less stiff or the ditch narrower. The two
nights' debate on the introduction of the Reform
Bill presents a somewhat melancholy study to
those social philosophers who concern themselves
with the miseries of common life. Indeed, we are
not sure that the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals might not take up Dlr. Glad-
stone's sufferings on that sad occasion. His worst
foes could hardly have invented a martyrdom so
severe as that which the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer endured on that dismal Monday night. For
an orator to know that he is dull, irretrievably dull,
and that every one of kis hearers knows it too, is
something worse than the purgatory of fluent
talkers. As a reformer and franchise-monger and
electoral statistician, Mr. Gladstone is at sea. Give
him the chance of enunciating a broad paradox or
truism—say the necessity of universal suffrage, or
the Platonic ideal of a State in which none but the
virtuous should represent honesty, industry, and the
seven cardinal and theological graces, and Mr. Glad-
stone is at home. He sweeps on through a stately
array of platitudes or fallacies, no matter which, which
really impose upon himself. This is an orator's
function. He believes in himself ;he is carried
away by his own readiness and volubility. If he
has never the matter out, he feels the delight of an
inventor in developing his extemporaneous genera-
lisations. Such was Mr. Gladstone's case when he
delivered himself of his famous saying about the
abstract right of humanity to the franchise. He
had to conduct a cause which he did not quite un-
derstand; to recommend a scheme which he cer-
tainly did not excogitate, and which laboured under
the sad mischance of being, after all, nobody's plan.
It may be doubted whether the Reform Bill was in
existence a fortnight before it was tabled in the
house. Like the walls of Athens, it exhibits every
sign of what is called a tumultuary origin. Not only
was it hastily drawn up, but it must have been,
altered, interlined, and erased at the very moment
of production. Mr. Gladstone had to read from
what we call an unrevised proof. It happed to him
as sometimes happens to people of our craft. An
article is prepared, and written, and set up; and, on
the morning of publication, down comes some pro-
voking telegram which only just contradicts all one's
facts, upsets all one's deductions, and throws the
whole literary engine out of gear. Something of this
sort seems to have happened to the Reform Bill.
We dare say it left Lord Russell a whole, and in its
way complete. But these vexatious returns were
not ready till the eve of publication. A measure
which ought to have been founded on ascertained
facts had to be botched and cobbled to suit the facts
which were very slow in making their appearance.
And Mr. Gladstone had not got a firm grasp of the
facts ; and, what was still more provoking, the facts
were not exactly the facts he had reckoned upon.
However, the fatal day of March would not wait;
Monday evening came, and Mr. Gladstone had to
defend and recommend a bill which is not quite
clear that he had read, or, if he had read, had been
able to collate with what was its alleged justifica-
tion and ground. The advocate had got up his
case, as far as he condescended to get it up, from one
brief, and had to address the Court from another.
No doubt, if Mr. Gladstone could have drawn a
picture of the working-man wholly given up to
savings'-banks and evening classes, and could have
said, " Here is the ideal citizen whom unjust laws
and unrighteous restrictions shut out from all share
in the concerns of his and our common country,"
he would have galloped famously. But though he
might have meant to say this, he could not say it,
except with limitations and qualifications and draw-
backs fatal to all oratorical flow and ease. The
unexpected fact turned out to be that this very class
was actually making its way to political supremacy,
wiihout any extrinsic aid. The fall in the value of
gold, and the consequent rise in rents, was silently
elevating the whole political strata of society. Mr.
Gladstone had got his grievance, and had probably
nursed it and cherished it, and was ready to dilate
upon its atrocity—when, lo and behold, the griev-
ance was found to be non-existent. The working-
man's oppression turned out to be as well-founded
as that of Canning's knife-grinder. Mr. Gladstone
did not swear—at least not audibly—but he evi-
dently showed that he was in the sulks. This is not
a happy position for the leader of the house.
Hitherto, nothing has come before the new Parlia-
ment in which Mr. Gladstone's heart has been en-
gaged. The very statistics which usually exercise
such an inexpressible charm over his mind were not
his own statistics, and it was not in him to shed a
poetic gleam over averages and tables which laboured
under the double disadvantage of being both un-
familiar and unlooked-for. Does it then really
come to this, that a leader of the house must be
either something of the prime buffo or of the prig ?
Must the Treasury Bench be the home either of
" geniality" or of boredom ? Mr. Gladstone may
be all but a demigod ; but Aristides got ostracized
because he was so very good. It may be that the
house would prefer a second-rate if first-rates are
to be hopelessly dull.