The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-23 00:00:00

realised. But, after all, what did he propo tse ?

- -
What did he tender to the millions in order to spin

their undivided support? He never went so far as
the present Ministers. He never proposed an edu-
cational franchise, nor one to a person who merely
occupied apartments. It was reserved for Lord
DERBY and his colleagues to introduce these great
ameliorations, which should be duly appreciated
by those who will become political " units"
in place of " cyphers," in consequence of having a
stake in the country by the possession of property
to a moderate, amount which any provident and
well disposed working man can speedily set aside.
It is true that the . Ministerial measure places the
amount too high, and within too stringent limita-
tions, but there is no possible reason why the
_
possessor of any description of property, re al or
personal, should not be included within the pri-
vileges tendered to Savings Banks depositors.
The Solicitor-General clearly exposed the nature,
cause, and motive of the onslaught. The learned
gentleman entered fully into the question, and ex-
plained the conflicting elements in the extraordi-
nary coalition that has taken place. He said, in
respect of what many. consistent Reformers regard
as the alpha and omega of representative ameliora-
tion : "Let me take, for instance, the question of the
ballot, which I contend is involved in the discus-
sion, not because it enters into the bill, but because
a large section of the members of this house look
of Reform. I know what were the opinions
. uponupon itth ias s
great satisfaction in listening to his decla-
indien
hgraveeoftteinn
eaxnpyesticehneemeea
held by the noble lord in times past
qauenseticoesns.aryl
, rations of hostility to the ballot in this
House. I want to know whether he still retains
the same views with respect to it to which he for-
merly gave expression. I wish particularly to have
an answer upon this point, for I find that a large
number of those hon. members who sit near the noble
lord below the gangway have attended public meet-
ings, and have contended that, although they
deemed the extension, of the franchise in
boroughs to be expedient, yet they did not desire
to have it unaccompanied by the Ballot. If, there-
fore, the noble lord continues to maintain the sen-
timents to which he has so often given expression
on this subject, I should like to know who
are those gentlemen sitting below the gang-
way on the opposite side of the house who
can be reckoned upon as his supporters in any
scheme of-reform which he may introduce ?"
We have heard the views of Lord JOHN RUSSELL
and Lord AL
P Af - ERSTON expressed on this vitally
important question, and they have not been those
merely of negation, but of derision. How, then,
can there be any accord between them and the
really Liberal party ? We shall again refer
to the language of Sir H. CAIRNS, who said :
" Several hon. members opposite, in arguing this
question upon the hustings, have stated that the
extension of the franchise without a re-distribution
of seats would be a farce and a sham. If that be
so, and if the noble lord the member for London
and the hon. member for Birmingham are quite
agreed as to the course which they are to take on
the present occasion, I am anxious to know what
part of their compact touches, and how it touches,
this question of re-distribution ? It is but fair
that the noble lord should tell the country what
he means to do in reference to this sub-
ject. I for one do not think the country is to be
gulled by being told that hon. gentlemen opposite
are the champions of freeholders who have been
handed down to us from the days of WILLIAM the
Conqueror. Tell the people boldly what you would
do in this respect if you had power placed in your
hands to-morrow. What seats would you take
away ? How, many electors—no matter where
they came from—would you deprive of their
votes? In order to catch the popular ap-
plause you pretend that you are anxious to admit
to the franchise some persons who have it not, but
do not conceal the designs that you have upon
voters who will be attacked, and whom,if you have
the power, you will deprive of the franchise. But
I ask another question—What does the noble lord
mean to do with the borough suffrage ? He has not
told us. He says it is not the proper course to
take in opposition to tell you what he
would do if he were in office. But, at
all events, I remember what was said by a right
hon. colleague of the noble lord—the right
hon. baronet the member for Morpeth. Mr.
HUME some years ago proposed in this house an
abstract resolution something like the amendment
proposed by the noble lord. Mr. HUME did not
specify the extent to which he would go ; and what
said the right hon. baronet the member for Mor-
peth ? He said, ' Before you take away the consti-
tution we have, at all events let us know what yon
are going to give us in its place.' Now, I say to
the noble lord, at all events let us know what you
mean to give us in place of this bill, which you
won't allow to be considered even .on the second

reading."
Even the brilliant speech of the hon. and learned
gentleman on the India Bill scarcely surpassed the
oration of last night ; and we have but little doubt
that the result will be the same viz., the
defeating of the objects of those who are disposed
to act in the manner reprobated by the poet, and
" To party give up what was meant for mankind."

The REFORM TRIUMVIRATE are, we are told, to
smash the Government Bill. It needs, however,
but to look at the Triumvirs to see that almost in
the hour of victory, should they gain the vic-
tory, they will proscribe each other. The
two Whig lords cannot ride the Cabinet horse
without one riding before, and as both think they
have equal claims to that honour, even if they toss
up for the front seat, the hinder man will one day
give the foremost a sly push some day on a roughish
road, and, jerking him off, hitch himself into the
saddle, while the foremost one will be ever trying to
look behind him to prevent it, to the hindrance, of
course, of their common progress. And then, one
of the two has never been more than a dummy at
least on Reform business, oftener a drag on it; and
how will he -work with the noble lord who claims a
patent for Reform Bill inventions, who does, to a
certain extent, like the work, and who even now is
a n Conservatives injunction
t to Lord
applying for
DERBY and the
his patent ? But what shall we say of the third
Triumvir ; third in years and in parliamentary
courtesy, but first, during the last few months, in
the eyes of the public ? Politically, he and Lord
PALMERSTON have a blood feud not to be healed at
once ; and it will require all the address of the
other lord to keep him in the line of battle with
the veteran, warlike old Foreign Secretary. JOAN
BRIGHT must he far enough ahead of Lord JOHN
himself; though there has certainly been, through-
out all Mr. BRIGHT'S Reform declamations, an
occasional and rather remarkable coquetting with
the veritable Reformer of 1832. There has been
many a kindly, wooing sentence thrown out, indi-
cating that JOHN of Birmingham would be satis-
fied to play second fiddle to Jonx of Redford, if
only the latter would come to terms which could
be presented to the people. But how can they ?
The boroughs to be disfranchised, the redistribu-
tion of members, the franchise even—all these
mVit: possibly, be subjects of mutual concessiQu