The Sun.
London, England, 1866-01-05 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.--Mr. Bright's speech at the Reform meet-
ing at Rochdale has in it a peculiarity which we
never noticed before. For the first time in a public
life which now extends over a quarter of a century,
he appears to speak as a man conscious of responsi-
bility for what he says. He recogniks the existence
of persons who differ from himself—nay, even of
timid brethren who are not prepared to go all the
length that he himself would desire. He speaks of
considering, not what would be abstractedly the
best, but what a Cabinet might reasonably be ex-
pected to propose, and, after the example of his
great prototype, O'Connell, he is willing to take all
he can by way of instalment, reserving to himself
the right to demand the rest whenever opportunity
shall offer. Somewhat embarrassed with this new
character, Mr. Bright's speech no longer assumes
that clear and categorical form to which he has ac •
customed us ; he works at the same time three sets
of propositions—one his own ; one to which the
Ministry is, he considers, pledged beyond redemp-
tion ; and one which some wicked people, timid
counsellors, or " prophesying " Brahmins," have
suggested. He wishes the Reform Bill to be sim-
ple, and therefore disentangles it of two questions
which he nevertheless has much at heart. The first
of these is the Ballot, and the second the Redistri-
bution of Seats. The Ballot, as he truly says, will
be of no use to the working man until he has got a
vote to give • and as for the Redistribution of
Seats, it would be difficult to carry it in the same
bill with the reduction of the franchise, but very
easy after the reduced franchise has been once ob-
tained. In this declaration Mr. Bright, perhaps,
exceeds in the amiable virtue of candour. He says
that were the Reform Bill to contain the disfran-
chisement of the small boroughs the members for
those boroughs would be sure to league them-
selves against it. Will not these members for
small boroughs equally combine against a mea-
sure avowedly passed for the purpose of render-
ing the disfranchisement of those boroughs pos-
sible ? " Surely in vain the net is spread in
the sight of any bird," more especially if the
fowler has taken care to inform the birds of the
precise purpose for which he has spread it. The bill
which Mr. Bright desires is one giving a £lO fran-
chise in the counties, and a household franchise
similar to that on which municipal councils are
elected for the boroughs. The bill to which Mr.
Bright considers the Government pledged is a £5
rating or £6 rental for the boroughs, and a £lO
rental for the counties. But there is a third class
of proposals. He has been told, though he does not
attach much value to it, that there are persons who
advise Lord Russell to have a £l2 or £l5 franchise
for the counties, and others of such remarkable cre-
dulity or timidity as to believe that a £2O franchise
would be satisfactory. In the boroughs there are
those who think that there is something dreadful in j
a £6 franchise, and that a £7 or £8 rental would be I
enough to admit the working man. If the Govern-
ment adopt this latter scheme, they will, according
to Mr. Bright, be peddlers and not statesmen. Now,
Mr. Bright probably well knows that the proposi-
tion which has at present met with the approval of
the Government is a £6 rating franchise for the
boroughs and a £2O rental for the counties. So that
all this tripartite division of what he wishes, what
the Government is pledged to, and what wild and
wicked people represent to the Government, really
means that they are going alike to differ from Mr.
Bright and from their former selves, and to do the
thing which he cannot believe they will ever do.
We trust we shall not be considered hypercritical in
saying that this speech of Mr. Bright, copious
though it be in detail even to a fault, presents the
same scantiness of argument in favour of his pro-
posals of which we have so often to complain. We
know that the Government is pledged to Reform,
we are presented with great plans of innovation,
and when we ask for the reason of those plans, or
an answer to the strongest arguments which are
urged against them, we are met with the assertion
that a vast number of people have not the franchise,
which seems to be considered as a sufficient proof
that they ought to have it ; we are told of selfishness,
monopoly, and privilege, and that the powers of good
—the identity of which with Mr. Bright and his
friends requires no proof—are gaining on the powers
of evil. Dissatisfied with this rather meagre fare,
we search a little further, and at last we light upon
what, we confess, appears to us a very sound prin-
ciple. Mr. Bright says that a proper franchise would
be, not that which excludes no man, but that which
excludes no class ; and he says that the Whole class
of working men are excluded by the present state
of the franchise ; which proposition he modifies
afterwards by saying that the ten pound clause in
the Reform Bill excludes " the great body of the
working people." The whole pinch is in the diffe-
rence between these two statements. Subtract the
great body of the working people from the whole
body of the working people, and the remainder forms
a representation of the working class, which, be it
small or great, negatives the argument on which
alone Mr. Bright proceeds—that it is necessary to
give representation to classes, not to men, and that
our present system does not do this. When the
return comes to be laid before Parliament, Mr.
Bright will see that a considerable number of the
working classes are already admitted to the fran-
chise, and that the franchise is in the power of a
much larger number if they only desire to possess
it. This being the only argument which Mr. Bright
has brought forward in favour of his proposal, we
may naturally be excused from attaching much
weight to his conclusions. But there is one question
to which we really hope he will afford some answer.
He now takes his stand on the representation of
classes as opposed to the representation of indivi-
duals, and we agree with him. But how does he meet
the argument drawn from the immense numerical
superiority of the class whom he proposes to admit ?
He is perpetually speaking of the excluded 5,000,000;
supposing one-third of them to be admitted, or even
less, what will become of the representation of the
classes above them ? Will there still be a representa-
tion of classes, or will not the very principle he con-
tends for be lost by the overpowering numbers of a
single class ? This has always been felt as the main
difficulty of the question ; yet Mr. Bright confines
himself to commonplaces, which assume, most un-
truly, that there is nothing to be urged on the
other side. If Mr. Bright does wish that the
working class should be supreme in this country,
why does he not point out the advantages to be de-
rived from so mighty a change ? If he does not
wish it, why does he not show us how we can en-
franchise, as he desires, the great bulk of the work-
ing classes, and yet preserve a share of power to the
classes above them? How will he meet the argu-
ment that if we are to regulate our franchise by
high intelligence, it would give us a narrow aristo-
cracy; if by moderate wealth, a mixed Government,
i
such as we now have; fby numbers, a pure demo-
cracy? This argument is the real difficulty in the
way of a great lowering of the franchise. If Mr.
Bright can find an answer to it, he will give to his
cause an irresistible impulse ; if he cannot, all the
long and laboured harangues with which he is en-
tertaining us are just so much sound and fury, sig-
nifying very little and proving nothing. We hope
Mr. Bright will take the earliest opportunity of
giving the country his ideas on this point, and that
if he does not do so he will be a little tolerant with
those that refuse to follow a leader who carefully
avoids the strongest point on his antagonist's side,
and allowsthe case to go bydefault which he assumes
to have triumphantly proved. Mr. Bright seeks to
show that the passing of a Reform Bill will not ne-
cessitate immediately a new election. "It will not
condemn the present constituencies." But though
it will not condemn them it will execute them. It
has been shown over and over again what immense
effects a £6 renting franchise in the boroughs will
have on existing electoral bodies. It is only adding
to present constituencies, we are told; but adding is
altering, and, in many cases, altering to such an ex-
tent that the constituency loses its identity, as at
Walsall, for instance, where it would be increased
fourfold. If the new constituencies are to return
the same members as the old, the change would be
simply trifling with the public time ; if, as Mr.
Bright and his friends doubtless hope, there would
be a very striking change, the argument for a dis-
solution would become irresistible. The same rea-
sons which passed the bill must require the bill to
be carried into execution. It would be ridiculous
indeed to make a great organic change about which
its authors cared so little that they were in no hurry
to see its effects. Besides, the bill is desired as a
step, and when it is carried those who regard it
only as an instalment would be naturally anxious
to use the vantage ground they had gained for the
purposes of fresh progress.
PosT.—Starvation in a city tempting with
wealth, as London does, would seem to imply either
a callous indifference to the wants of the poor, or
else a defective organisation for the discovery and
cegnisance of cases suitable for relief. Some cases
may, indeed, lie beyond the scope of this alterna-
tive ; such, for example, as belong to the category
of suicidal and murderous starvation ; but from the
very nature of things they must be few. The former
of these assumptions will be summarily abandoned
by all persons who, reading their newspaper from
day to day, note the donations, frequent, and often
profuse, which charitable individuals tender from
their superfluity. To assume ostentation as the
motive would be a mistake, for, oftener than other-
wise, donations find their way to the police courts
under the testing signature of mere initials. We be-
lieve that a benevolentspirit of kindliness and cha-
rity pervades English society in a greater degree
than at any former period ; only needing the supple-
mentary aid of some well-devised organisation to
give it effect. We are led to offer these remarks by
the simultaneity of two events which should have