The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-14 00:00:00

MR. ELLICE, M.P., ON THE REFORM

BILL.

The Right Hon. Edward Ellice has addressed
the following letter to his constituents at Coventry:
" Arlington-street, March 9.

"My dear Mr. Marston,—l hope you and my
other friends who propose to call the meeting on
the bill now before Parliament for the reform of
the representation will excuse me for declining to
attend it. The crisis is one of no ordinary diffi-
culty. Incidents arise from day to day which may
change one's opinion as to the course to be pursued
on it, and I intend to remain unfettered by any
personal declarations and engagements which may
prevent my voting, either on the whole bill or on
any details of it, in such a manner as I may think
most conducive to the interests of my constituents
and the general interests of the country. I will at
the same time pay the most respectful deference
and attention to any wishes or resolutions the meet-
ing may express or come to on the subject.
" And I desire, according to my old habits, to
maintain no reserve with my constituents with
respect to the principles or details of the proposed
measure, as they are presented to the public, and in
so far as I can form an opinion upon them.

" There can be no doubt that the bill in its pre-
sent shape is a very bad one. I shall feel it im-
possible to support the disfranchisement of the
county voters having freeholds in towns—the gene-
ral alteration of borough boundaries for obvious
purposes ; and the revival of a system of non-
resident voting—l have no faith in voting papers.
If other extensions of the franchise are somewhat ca-
pricious, I have no great dislike to them. I approve
cordially, so far as it goes, the transference of 15
seats from small boroughs to large constituencies in
England, and, above all, the great object of securing
the £lO voters in the counties. _ _ _

"But there is one reason especially why I with-
hold my absolute condemnation of the bill. It
secures their franchises—threatened by former
projects of this description—to our freemen,
and provides a special registration for them—
to a certain extent an admission, and therefore con-
firmation, of the principles on which their franchise
is founded. Much has been said of the rights of
the working classes to share in the representation.
I know of no better principle on which they can be
extended. From my experience of the manner in
which this franchise has been exercised at Coventry,
I can testify to the perfect independence and absence
of corruption which has characterised all parties,
whether supporting or in opposition, voting by
virtue of it at our elections, more especially since
the Reform and. Municipal Reform Bills.
"What, then, are the objections beyond those 'I
have stated to the Ministerial Bill ? The limited
disfranchisement of small boroughs, and the main-
tenance of the borough franchise at £lO. On these
points my opinions have always been frankly stated
to you, and I see no reason for changing them. I
should have preferred a larger disfranchisement ;
and when the time has arrived, as it must arrive,
for lowering the borough franchise, I should infi-
nitely prefer giving the franchise to all resident
householders paying rates and taxes, than to either
a £5 or £6 rental, proposed in Lord J. Russell's last
two bills. We shall then have a settlement
on principles which may be permanent. Accord-
ding to my judgment a rental and rating
franchise cannot be effected from the different
principles of rating in different towns. But
I frankly admit my doubt whether the time has yet
arrived for the establishment of a household suff-
rage. More progress in general education, and
larger experience of the, working of the municipal
franchise, will amply compensate for the delay that
may be occasioned by anything new, if we can ob-
tain in this emergency, without the alloy of the ob-
jectionable clauses, the advantages of the present
bill.

" There are, then, other considerations, which
must be weighed in deciding upon this case. These
concessions are offered by the Conservative party,
and can be carried with our assistance. No refor-
mer will deny that they will be so much gained. If
the absolute refusal of the bill, even with any
amendments, is insisted upon, the Government may
either dissolve which I think improbable—
or it may change hands. In the former case, we
shall have the country thrown into confusion, and
the impediments which now obstruct the revival
and prosperity of trade aggravated and increased.
In the case of a change of Government we shall
have the same proposals of reform repeated as were
made in 1852 and 1854, including, probably, the
disfranchisement of our freemen, on some abstract
principle of uniformity, without the least chance of
the authors of the bill being able to carry them ;
and an obstruction—while the discussion and agita-
tion it will excite is going on—of all useful mea-
sures of social amelioration and improvement. I
say the least chance of their being able to carry
them, from some knowledge and experience of the
state of parties. The party which offers the present
bill, and the members whose personal interests or
the interests of whose constituents would be affected
by the disfranchisements in either of the former
bills, are a majority of the house. We have not yet
arrived at that state of opinion out of doors which
enabled us to override personal interests and objec-
tions in 1832.
" My present impression, therefore, although the
case may change from new incidents before the se-
cond
reading. would be to vote for any resolution, in
amendment of that reading, condemnatory of the
provisions I object to in the bill ; thus giving the
Government the option of proceeding with the other
clauses [if they please. If no such resolution is
proposed, but a question arises for the simple rejec-
tion of the bill, I shall be inclined to vote for the
second reading, with the intention of expunging
the objectionable provisions. If they were not
expunged, then to vote against the third reading.
" I have no objection to your communicating this
letter to your friends. They may differ with me,
but they will admit I act on no personal grounds,
and that, as has been my constant practice, I deal
frankly and unreservedly with them. I am wholly
opposed to the bill of my good friend Mr. Bright.
He appears to me to found his whole proceeding on
a fallacy. He insists that the representation should
be distributed according to property and population,
and thereupon proposes to give the whole power of
representation to population. I think all interests
should be fairly represented—the various classes of
our society—and that the working classes, above
all others, should have their full share of the repre-
sentation. All this can neither be arranged in one
day, nor in one bill, but any step taken in the right
direction should be secure, and any such step leads
necessarily, as it ought to lead, with caution, pru-
dence, and experience, to a further one to the same
end. The difference between this country and
America is that in America the field was prepared
for the seed—all was equal ;it was a new country,
in which new institutions were implanted without
disturbing old ones. In this country there are
bard old roots in the ground, wkich will not be
easily rooted out—certainly not without a more