The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-26 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, JAN. 26, 1866.

Whenever a great question of public interest is
under discussion, there is sure to be plenty of
specifics for its treatment, plenty of private schemes
and individual devices for attaining all the desirable
objects and getting rid of all the attendant incon-
veniences. The topic of Parliamentary Reform is
no exception to this rule, and the general belief
that the coming Session will not pass over without
some active measures being taken has brought for-
ward a number of theorists, who have each some
suggestion to make or some plan to propose for a
better and more satisfactory settlement of a con-
fessedly difficult question. A sign of the improve-
ment which has taken place among our politicians
of late years is to be seen in the fact that Parlia-
mentary reform is no longer treated exclusively as
a party matter, on which Whigs and Tories, what-
ever their individual shades of opinion, must rank
themselves on opposite sides, but it is rather re-
garded
by the more thoughtful and intelligent men
of all classes from the same point of view—a desire
so to enlarge and adjust the representative system
as to give a fair representation to every class of the
community, while preserving unchanged those con-
stitutional guarantees which have hitherto proved in
spite of every obstacle and deficiency the safe-
guards of European liberty. The tendency towards
dealing with the matter of Reform in a cautious
and yet comprehensive manner is shown by the
growing objection to retaining a mere money
standard as the qualification of the voter. There
is certainly no logic to prove that the man who
lives in a £lO househas superior capacities or claims
than the man who pays £9, and the same argument
may be adduced against any limitation of the kind.
Again, if we accept a system of household suffrage,
why are we to include a man who pays £5 a year
for his house and exclude a man who pays £5O for
his lodgings, when the one has, perhaps, no inte-
rest whatever in the maintenance of our political
system, and the fortunes of the other are identified
with it. In spite of Mr. BRIGHT'S objection to the
6t fancy franchises," there is a very strong feeling
in favour of their adoption, at least in part. It is
certainly very desirable that our electoral system
should be as simple as possible, but at the same time
it must be comprehensive, and in our com-
plex civilisation there must be something
more elastic then a mere rule of figures,
if we wish to have an actual representation of the
people, not a mere theoretical House of Commons.
Mr. CLAY'S views on the subject are just and sen-
sible, and he has recently taken the opportunity of
explaining them to a reform meeting at Hull. Ile
has a plan of his own, which we will not dignify by
the name of a Reform Bill, but which he calls a bill
for a supplementary franchise. He intends to intro-
duce this bill in the new Parliament, and its object
is to admit every man to the franchise who is able to
pass through such an examination as is required of
the out-door officers of-Customs. Indeed the ex-
amination which Mr. CLAY proposes as a test of
political intelligence is less rigid than that to which
the Custom-house officers are subjected, inasmuch
as he does not, of course, include the knowledge of