The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-13 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 13, 1866.

The interest with which the opening of the great
debate has been anticipated during the last few
weeks has gone on gradually increasing until yes-
terday afternoon the precincts of Westminster
presented an unwonted appearance, and the
densely-thronged galleries of the House of Com-
mons betokened an exciting discussion. Nor was
the expectation of the eager listeners disappointed,
for the long debate of the evening showed that
whatever its electoral deficiencies or political
shortcomings our present Parliament gives at
least no unworthy representation of the spirit, the
intelligence, and the general ability of the nation.
Opening with the eloquent discourse of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who on this occasion,
as at Liverpool, found his strongest arguments in
the general principles of Reform, rather than in any
particular commendation of the Bill itself, the
debate was continued by the calm good sense and
unimpassioned logic of Lord STANLEY, his most
dangerous, because most unbiassed opponent, and
less prominent members on both sides, who played
their parts with vigour and spirit. As a matter of
course the debate was adjourned, and will probably
go on for several nights, since there are a
host who are ready to come forward with
their arguments, their remonstrances, their
appeals, and their recriminations. Into the several
views we have not space to enter. The detailed
report will find, as it deserves to do, plenty of
readers, for this is a question which, in spite of all
sneers or denials, has aroused the warmest interest
throughout the country at large. The principal
points at issue, however, are simple enough, and
are argued, as we have said, with a vigour and an
eloquence worthy of an assembly of English states-
men. It is only just and reasonable to allow to
both supporters and opposers of the bill and the
amendment the position of men arguing on what
they think to be constitutional grounds for what they
believe to be the best interests of their country.
Granting to both sides this preliminary position,
we may examine their respective arguments without
prejudice or suspicion. Mr. GLADSTONE says that
pledges have been repeatedly given by the leading
1. C&A.LICII.II, U .11CLAJ GALL G 11.16 Auctc. uivnC
successfully to raise and enlighten the people by the
creation of savings banks, by the enfranchisement
of the Press, by promoting education and other
kindred measures, whose objects have all been to
render the people better fitted for the possession of
political power. To turn round and deny its own
work to render the people fit for electoral privi-
leges, and then withhold those privileges, he declares
to be inconsistent, unjust, and impolitic. He asserts
that as a class the working-men of the country pay
five-twelfths of the taxation of the country, while
they only possess one-seventh of the electoral power
—thus manifestly contravening that doctrine of
constitutional government which provides that re-
presentation should be based upon taxation. As
for the division of the Franchise Bill and the Re-
distribution measure, Mr. GLADSTONE urges that
as the new electors could not get:on the register till
June, 1867, there would be ample opportunity for
the settlement of both branches of the question.

Taking Lord STANLEY as his most formidable
opponent, and as the ablest advocate of the con-
trary theories, we find him objecting to the reticence
which the Government have observed with regard
to the Redistribution measure. " How can any one
guarantee," he asks, " that precisely the same
members may constitute the Cabinet in 1867, even
if it be nominally the same ? When we are fram-
ing a new Constitution for the country, it is as un-
safe," he says, " to sanction part of a plan, without
knowing the whole, as it would be to under-
take the building of a palace room by room
without any general design, but only on
the assurance of the architect that he knows his
business. The anomalies of the electoral divisions
are, Lord STANLEY contends, a worse evil than the
exclusion of the working classes from the franchise,
because the one in process of time has a tendency
to cure itself, the other to get worse and worse.
The rise of rents and wages has a gradual effect in
extending the franchise, whereas owing to the cen-
tralising tendency of trade great towns grow rapidly,
and small boroughs fall off. The difficulties in
the way of Redistribution would, he contended, be
increased by the Franchise Bill, supposing that any
question of foreign or domestic policy required a
dissolution previous to its settlement. The
House would have to appeal to the old
constituencies—already condemned—or if the regis-
ter allowed it it would be under a provisional con-
stitution neither embodying the old system nor the
new, and the increased weight of many of the exist-
ing boroughs would naturally be given against any
measure which affected themselves.

There is undoubtedly weight in these objections
and force in the arguments which were brought
against the bill, but the question in reality is not
whether the measure be theoretically perfect, not
even whether it is the best that could have been de-
vised under the circumstances, but whether the Re-
form Bill shall or shall not be carried this year.
Whatever politicians may contend, it is the exten-
sion of the franchise that is the ail-important ques-
tion in, the popular estimation ; it is that which
comes
home to their sympathies, their sense of jus-
tice, their personal interests. They have long been
a measure of relief. Now, at last, after a
series of delaypromised
sandevasions, which are a standing
disgrace to the Liberal
time
ian
al e form.when
andparty,they have it offered to
them in a tangible
then, because it is not
appoint them again, andallp thacisti
e 'wish or as ire to, dis-
pth.eacallo; ewted
prize is actually within their grasp, Will not the
evils entailed by such a course be greater and more ,
disastrous than any drawbacks may which
attend