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 recognises 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 " prophesyino. " 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 bdroughs 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
a £6 franchise, and that a £7 or £8 rental would be
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 f ran-
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
pchitlpro.
sßalr: we
has brought forward in favour of
there may naturally be excused from attaching
is onettach g much
weight to his conclusions. B n
question
But
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,
such as we now have; if by 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 annot, 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 I

those that refuse to follow a leader who carefully
avoids the strongest point on his antagonist's side,
and allowsthe case to go by defaultwhich 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, ther© 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 benevolent spirit of kindliness and cha-
rity pervades English society
in a greater degree
than at any former period ; onlyneeding 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

been incompatible had what we may call the me-
chanism of dispensing charity and relief in London
been commensurate with the feelings of humanity
that pervade English society. Yesterday (Thurs--
day) the magistrate of the Thames Police-court,
Mr. Partridge, in acknowledging the receipt of £5
from " 0.P.Q." for the poor-box fund, wished it to
be publicly stated that the magistrate had now suf-
ficient funds to meet all legitimate requirements.
The court, he said, did not possess the necessary
machinery on the staff to distribute relief to the
poor on any large scale. There was no occasion for
any more money to be sent. He explained that the
poor-box fund was originally intended for the re-
lief of the well-known peculiar and immediate
cases of distress which come under the notice of
the stipendiary magistrates in the course of in-
vestigation. Much good, he said, had been done ;
and he caused it to be emphatically understood
that the clerks and officers of his court,
already overworked by the transaction of their
own special duties, could not efficiently respond to
the charge of seeking out cases of distress beyond
those which might happen to come in the way of
police business. Last winter, he went on to say,
£7OO was distributed from the poor-box, and the
labour of distribution was immense. Then adverting
to the operation of the Houseless Poor Act, he de-
signated it a wise and beneficent measure, that ought
to relieve the magistrates of the police-courts to a
great extent from applications for relief. Concur-
ring in all the magistrate's remarks, there are many
benevolent persons who will feel sorry that the cur-
rent of eleemosynary charity should be checked so
long as cases for relief are in plenty ; especially so
long as starvation is occurring in our very midst.
Concurrently with this announcement the painful
details of a coroner's inquest were appearing in the
newspapers ; details of a case of starvation that
assuredly would have been prevented had any orga-
nisation existed for seeking out, by house to house
visitation, cases of want and distress. As the inquest
here adverted to stands adjourned in order to ascer-
tain if sufficient evidence cannot be procured to
sustain a criminal charge, we shall forbear to express
any opinion reflecting on the conduct of any of the
parties concerned. Such an outline of the circum-
stances we will, however, give as shall suffice to
illustrate the position we took up ; namely, that if
some competent organisation had existed whereby
cases of imminent starvation could have been sought
out and revealed, the death which was the subject of
inquiry would have been averted. About three weeks
ago an old lady called at the surgery of Mr.
Meldola, a surgeon, residing in Green-street, Beth-
nal-green, and said, " A woman is dying of con-
sumption at 6, Havelock-place. If you are passing
by, call in, as your opinion is wanted." He did not
call, the request seeming informal ; and, before the
coroner's investigation shall have been completed, it
will be premature to offer any opinion relative to
the propriety or impropriety of Mr. Meldola's
behaviour. On Christmas-eve he was again
summoned, and this time formally. He then went to
the patient, Julia Susannah Bellinger, aged 49,
whom he found a mere skeleton. By the aid of
stimulants she was kept alive until Boxing-day,
when she died, and a post-mortem examination was
held. The resalt showed that theie was a total
absence of food in either the stomach or intestines.
She died—as Mr. Meldola testified—from the ex-
haustion of sheer want; to be plain, from starvation.
A daughter—Julia Bellinger—threw more light
upon the case. She deposed that deceased was the
wife of George Bellinger, a weaver, from whom she
had been separated some years, and who contributed
nothing towards her maintenance. Deceased had
12 children, none of whom did anything for her,
but her son Eugene, a boy 16 years old, who allowed
her Bs. a week for his board. Deceased lived in wit-
ness's house until three years ago, when she went to
reside with her mother, who had £lOO a year income,
besides the interest of £5OO. Deceased, though living
with her mother, was often in a state of starvation.
Witness took her mother a little bit of meat to eat,
and a sausage roll, but Mrs. Clempson (mother of
deceased) took it away, and gave it to deceased's
son, Eugene. Witness asked deceased's mother to
light a fire, as deceased was very cold ; but Mrs.
Clempson refused, saying, "This is my house ;
will do as I like in my own house. No person shall
interfere with me in it." She was kind when kind-
ness did not touch her pocket, and often grumbled
at the waste when witness gave deceased wine.
Mrs. Clempson herself then gave evidence. She
said she did not call in a doctor because her
daughter was suffering from a chronic disease, and
doctors were expensive. Deceased could not eat
food, she said, but could have partaken of beer and
wine ; witness did not, however, think it right to
give those drinks. She remained 60 hours insen-
sible, but witness did not think it necessary to
send for a medical man, as " a doctor's bill is no joke.',
Thus, until the conclusion of the inquest, stands the
case. We forbear to comment on the demeanour
of any of the parties concerned at present, our solo
intent being to illustrate the need of some sort of
visitation under authority before the spirit of charity
and philanthropy, so fortunately rife, can have full
scope. Institutions for the dispensation of charity
exist by the score. Do they not fritter away their
energies by operations too isolated, and might they
not with advantage to the public send delegates to
meet in conclave for the purpose of discovering a
means whereby the contributions rejected at police-
courts might be dispensed with effect ? Evidently
there is, and we believe there ever must be, a consi-
derable number of cases of hidden want and suf-
fering which the Houseless Poor Act, however well
administered, can never touch.