The Sun.
London, England, 1866-06-14 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—This evening the House of Commons
will be invited to return to the consideration of the
County Franchise. There are only two nights in
the week—Mondays and Thursdays—which the
Government can claim as their own, and even on
tbese they are liable to be forestalled by any private
member, who may move the adjournment of the
house as a pretext for discussing whatever subject
he thinks more important than reform. As for any
fractions of the off nights, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer declared, when e first brought on the
Franchise Bill, that he expected no such boon, and
he has not been disappointed. Subjects of great
interest engross the hours given up to independent
members. Fenianisin and Coal, the Reciprocity
Treaty and the Danubian Principalities, Fire In-
surance and the National Gallery, have each its
turn, and sometimes the debate has to be adjourned.
Meanwhile, the Reform Bill itself lies helpless and
lumbering, like the Great Northern goods train
broken down in Welwyn Tunnel. Other bills which
ought to be making progress have followed the track
of their predecessor and been smashed against
it. The Bankruptcy Bill, the Irish Land Bill, the
Terminable Annuities Bill, and half a dozen more
are huddled together at the back of Reform, and the
engine-driver in chief, in danger behind and before,
begins to suspect that it would be best to uncouple
his engine from the trucks which he has not force
enough to drag along, and leave them to their fate.
The time has come for the Government and the
House of Commons to recognise the position they
are in, and to understand distinctly what each other
means. The day of secret assurances has gone by.
What are the facts of the present situation ? The
House of Commons has gone into Committee on
the Representation of the People Bill, and has ap-
proved as the limiting annual value of property
which shall qualify occupiers as county voters ; but
it has not yet decided whether the £l4 shall be £l4
of rateable or of clear annual value. That is the
first point to be decided to-night, and we may ex-
pect to see it discussed with renewed vigour after
the publication of the county electoral statistics,
which appeared on Monday. When it is finally
settled, and the minor question disposed of, as to
whether it shall be necessary for the occupier to
hold all the property which gives him his qualifica-
tion of one and the same landlord, the house will
have to proceed to the consideration of the Occupa-
tion Franchise in boroughs. The points involved
in the Borough Franchise question are even more
numerous and intricate than those of the County
Franchise. Lord Dunkellin gave notice on Tues-
day evening of his intention to move that rateable,
and not annual letting, value be the ground of
qualification. Mr. Bovill proposes the adoption of
£8 instead of £7 as the limit. Mr. Walpole will
recommend that the direct payment of rates by the
occupier shall be maintained as a necessary con-
dition of qualifying as a voter. We do not dwell
upon the arguments in favour of these proposals—
some of which are undoubtedly of great weight
—because they will all be enforced in their
regular order in the House of Commons. It is
sufficient now to notice such propositions as pend-
ing, and to remember that they by no means ex-
haust the amendments which will be proposed to the
Franchise part of the bill. Mr. Sandford and Mr.
Yorke are in favour of reducing the franchise in
the larger boroughs only, differing, however, in
their definition of a large borough. One member
-proposes to reduce the qualification of the lodger
franchise from £lO to £7, and another Liberal
metropolitan representative, disregarding Mr. Glad-
stone's refined distinction between lodgings let with
and without " the use of the kitchen fire," would
make the rental of £lO sufficient, whatever items it
covered. The Savings-bank Franchise is the sub-
ject of amendments, hostile and friendly, and as to
the Dockyard men the Chancellor of the Exchequer
himself now proposes to save the privileges of those
who are on the register, while Mr. Charles Buxton
is in favour of enfranchising all the officers of the
Customs and Inland Revenue Departments who
have been hitherto disqualified from becoming elec-
tors. On the other hand, there is a suggestion on
the notice book for putting an end to the class of
freemen electors, saving the rights of those who are
now voters and may be said to have vested inte-
rests. The prospects of the Franchise portion of
the bill are disheartening, but it is plain that we
cannot ccnfine our attention to that portion. If
one thing be more certain than another about the
Reform Bill, it is the resolution of the House of
Commons not to sanction incomplete proposals.
The Government, recognising this resolution, have
fused their two bills, and they cannot, in honour,
abandon either half of the consolidated measure.
The Redistribution portion is, however, in a state
of helpless confusion. Mr. Gladstone declared,
in the debate on Captain Hayter's amend-
ment, that the Government scheme of grouping
was open to reconsideration, and it would
seem as if every member for a borough proposed
to be grouped had since taken the hint and
put on the notice paper his own notions of the
best plan of dealing with the borough he repre-
sents. The most ingenious combinations are sug-
gested, as may be im.:tginel when every man does
what is right in his own eyes. The fervour of
grouping; has even caught some members whose
seats are not threatened. Sir George Stucley sits
for Barnstaple, a place whose character, indeed, is
sufficiently well known, but which, as its population
exceeds 10,000, the most daring Reformer has not
proposed to deprive of any of its privileges. Sir
George, however, looks ahead, and so comes for-
ward himself to suggest that Bideford and Ilfra-
combe be added to Barnstaple. The enfranchising
proposals of the Government are as much attacked
as their disfranchising scheme. The plan of giving
a third member to populous counties and towns will
be opposed by Sir Rainald Knightley, who would
subdivide counties, and by Mr. Sclater-Booth ;
and, on the other hand, Mr. Walter Morrison's
suggestion for cumulative voting in three-cornered
constituencies has been endorsed by Mr. Lowe, who
has put a similar notice on the Notice Book. Some
of the towns proposed to be enfranchised repudiate
the boundaries devised for them by the Government,
and others which are not included in the enfran-
chising scheme insist that they have better claims
than those which are. We think no one who is free

from the disturbing influence of personal interest or
feeling imagines that a Reform Bill can be pushed
much further this year ; but, as it must be brought
in again next session, it is worth while to examine
the causes of the present failure. It cannot be denied
that the Opposition has been obstructive, but its
success has been rendered possible mainly through
the errors of the Government. The Government
have not commanded the respect of the House in
dealing with Reform. They lost caste at the outset
by consenting to the " dodge" recommended by Mr.
Bright. The language of some of the most pro-
minent members of the Cabinet further impressed
their hearers with the belief that they had failed
to consider, much less to master, the difficulties of
the question. No later than Monday night Mr.
Gladstone insisted upon the fitness of the men who
would be enfranchised by a £l4 rental qualifica-
tion, as if the character of the constituency in which
they are to be enrolled could be left out of conside-
ration ; and the objection raised on the same occa-
sion against the distinction between urban and rural
voters, as unknown to the Constitution, betrayed
an equal misapprehension of the elements of Re-
form. We do not approve the sharp line of demar-
cation Mr. Disraeli has attempted to draw between
town and country voters, but it is absurd to sup-
pose that all the objects of the Constitution can be
found categorically stated in so many distinct pro-
positions in the Statute Book. It is a matter of
fact that there are different classes and interests in
the country, and that it is an object of Reform to
secure due representation for all of them, just as
they are in some sort all represented now. We are
sorry to lose the opportunity of carrying a Reform
- Bill now, but it is consolatory to think that if Re-
form lapses this session, the Government will have
the recess in which to reconsider the question, and
we may well hope that by next year they will have
thoroughly digested it, and have prepared a coin-
, plete scheme which may meet -with general accep-
tance.

HERALD.—The prospects of metropolitan art were
never very brilliant, but the interesting debate
which Mr. Beresford Hope raised upon them a night
or two ago leaves the subject in a more forlorn
condition than we have been accustomed to find it
in for several years. After so many discussions and
decisions it seems that everything is as little settled
and undecided as ever. If there be any progress
making in the debate at all it is that we may have
to-morrow or the next day to redebate all that we
have already discussed and reconsider all that we
have already decided. We do not yet know whether
the Royal Academy will house itself in Burlington-
house or near the South Kensington Museum. It
is not yet settled whether the National Gallery
shall be a new one, or an extension of what
we have. And the suggestion of Mr. Hope and
several of the other members is that it might be
quite as well to reopen the whole subject, and on
one side perhaps send the gallery into Piccadilly,
and on the other reinitiate the academicians to re-
main where they are. In fact, the committee of
taste of the house in 1866 is at issue on points of
taste with the house of 1865 ; and the discussion of
Friday evening may be taken as feeling the pulse of
new members on the delicate question how far they
may be up to the mark of a new decision on the
subject. Though the members who propose this
indelicate censure on their predecessor might
reasonably have been asked to have made out a
very conclusive case, it does not appear they have
any case at all. As regards the gallery, the only
•

so.----

argument for preferring Piccadilly is the fun. ►at
Burlington House being already a national property
might be adapted for it at a less expense than will be
incurred by the erections in Charing-cross. Not,
therefore, is it certain that the ultimate cost might
not be equal, or if unequal that the difference may not
be compensated by the superiority of site.

;t tb