The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-17 00:00:00

usually followed, and declared that a moderate
enfranchisement of the people was the best
way to avert the peril, " gradually changes made in
time," he argued very
sensibly and justly, " wise
concessions gracefully given, did not tend to bring
revolution. It was the resistance to all changes,
the refusal to grant reasonable popular demands,
that tended in the end to endanger the institutions
of the country." Referring to the effect produced
by the great Reform Bill of 1832, he asserted that
the tide of the uneducated masses was then rolled
backed for 30 years, and he believed the same thing
would happen now. had not the upper classes
been wise in time something like universal
\
suffrage would have been adopted, and he
believed that the result of lowering the franchise at
the present day would be precisely the same as it
had been then.
In the House last evening the arguments in favour
of the measure were strongly urged by Mr. LAYARD.
His speech corroborated, though no doubt acciden-
tally, the statements of Mr. BAXTER as to the effect
of the bill of 1832, in rolling back the tide of demo-
cracy. So far fro becoming more democratic, he
declared his conviction that England was becoming
more Conservative. The annual motion against
the law of primogeniture had fallen into desuetude,
the Charter was never heard of, and as member for
one of the most democratic constituencies in the
kimgdom he ventured to affirm that it did not
contain a single Chartist. The willingness of the
working classes to refer their difficulties to men of
position instead of to their owi immediate associates
had been strikingly evidenced during the great Staf-
fordshire strike, when the men, instead of going
to any demagogue for assistance, applied to
Lord LICHFIELD, a nobleman well known for his
.a.itnougn nig iirtntratthn was not entirely successful
they afterwards presented the Earl with an address
thanking him for what_he had done. This certainly
showed that during a time of irritation and discon-
tent these men entertained no feeling of animosity
against the ranks above them simply because they
were above them ; but they had the good sense to
perceive that a man who by education and po-
sition was entirely removed from the influences
of trade was the most likely to take a fair
and impartial view of the situation. Referring
to the wholesale charge so recklessly brought against
the working men as a class of being open to cor-
ruption, Mr. LAYARD, with spirit and justice, re-
turned the charge upon the heads of those who
brought it. "You have no right," exclaimed the hon.
member with honest indignation, "to throw it in the
teeth of working men that they are unfit to exercise
the franchise because they are corrupt, while you are
their corruptors." This is, in fact, the real secret of
the matter ; and if corruption and bribery, if un-
fair influence and intimidation are to exclude our
artizans and mechanics from the right of voting
for a Parliamentary election, let us at least be con-
sistent in our application of the principle, and deci-
mate our existing House of Commons.
The great speech of the evening on the Oppo-
sition side was, of course, that of Sir HUGH
CAIRNS. An able logician, an experienced con-
stitutional advocate, an eloquent orator, Sir
HuGH CAIRNS is always a powerful friend and a
formidable foe, but last evening his address was
more argumentative than impassioned. He went
back to examine the constitutional principle of
representation, and spoke at length upon the
necessity of preserving the balance of political
power. He contended that the bill was a
step towards universal suffrage, but the same
might be said of any extension of the franchise
whatever. He admitted that the working classes
were entitled to a fair representation, but he be-
lieved this measure would give them a predominance
which no one desired, and which would not be for
their own advantage an' mrlrp +l-- .1' . . 42., ; a
general good. A powerful reply to all the argu-
ments against the measure was brought forward by
Mr. 11AGuIRE early in the evening, when he quoted
tho words used by Mr. DISRAELI in 1859, when he
asked, " Is this question of Reform to be suffered
to remain as a desperate source of faction, or only
to be taken up at a moment of great popular excite-
ment, and settled, not by the reason, but by the
passions of the people? Are we to establish a
chronic irritation in the public mind upon a subject
which, of all others, should not form the staple of
our party contests." This, as Mr. MAGUIP.E said,
was *ntrong opinion, but who can deny its truth or
its applicability to the present occasion ?

Sir FITZROY KELLY keeps firm to his post as the
staunch champion for the repeal of the Malt-tax ;
and last night his determination was put to the
proof. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the
hon. and learned member whether he would postpone
his motion on the subject, in order that the debate
on the Reform Bill might be continued. Sir F.
KELLY very forcibly replied that he would do so on
condition that Mr. GLADSTONE would give him
another day prior to that on Ni hich the Budget was
brought forward. To this very reasonable request
Mr. GLADSTONE replied by one of his ingenious cir-
cumlocutions, respecting the " convenience of the
house," the " exigencies of the public service," &c.,
but wound up by stating that he would not give a
night, because he had already pledged himself to
bring forward the Budget on the first Government
night after the disposal of the motion for the second
reading of the Representation of the People Bill.
According to this view of the question,the right hon.
gentleman had no right to ask Sir F. KELLY to post-
pone his motion, because it was virtually sacrificing
it to put it off until after the consideration of the
Budget. Sir F. KELLY intimated that he should
therefore be obliged to bring forward his motion
to-day, which announcement was received with
cheers. Mr. GLADTSONE, it is true, admitted that
there was an extensive desire for the discussion of
this subject, but his acts did not correspond
with his words. After this unpromising episode it
does not seem that we have good ground for
hoping that the right hon. gentleman has altered
his views on the subject of the Malt Tax, or at all
events modified them. It has long been known
that Mr. GLADSTONE has had a prejudice against
the reduction of the Malt Tax, far more against
a repeal. We may fairly say, however, that the
period has arrived when he must concede some-
thing in this respect. It is all very well to talk
about indirect taxation, but the commerce and
interest of the different classes of the community
should weigh more with statesmen than the
accomplishment of favourite schemes, and the
maintenance of particular schemes. The recent
calamity of the Cattle Plague has also greatly
changed the aspect of things, and calls imperatively
for some change in this direction. Half of this tax
Should be remitted at any rate, and unless this be
done the Opposition will have a right to say that
Mr. GLADSTONE'S financial reforms are very elastic,
and can
be turned to suit any purpose. Justice
and reason certainly call for this reduction, and we
hope that the
Government will be prepared to do
their duty in this respect,
on this subject to show the Snueeffiescsiietnyt
fhoarsthbeeernedsuacid-
tion of the tax, if its repeal be
possible, and Mr.
GLADSTONE will find that he has
mistaken the feel-
ing of the House and the country if he persist in
meaeuring out his financial fichem,-;,,
by
line and