The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-20 00:00:00

LONDON, FRIDAY, APRIL 20, 1866.

Another night of long and somewhat tedious
debate has been spent over the Reform Bill, and
the arguments pro and con have been gone over
again and again, leaving, one would suppose, little
to be said on either side of the question. The chiefs
of either party did not come forward last evening,
but left the battle to be waged by their supporters.
Mr. MILNER GIBSON, MT. HUGHES, Mr. GRAHAM,
and Sir W. HUTT on behalf of the measure, and
Lord ELCHO, Mr. DOULTON, and Mr. GATHORNE
HARDY in favour of the amendment, were the
speakers, and endeavoured to infuse a little
variety into the debate by the introduction of a
little recrimination and personality. Mr. GRAHAM,
who opened the campaign, boldly declared his
belief that, with regard to the majority of its sup-
porters, the amendment might be described as the
lurking place in which the enemies of Reform lay
in wait to assassinate that which they shrank from
openly assailing. Mr. GRAHAM devoted himself
principally to answering the arguments brought
forward by Sir HUGH CAIRNS, which he grouped
under three heads. The first was that personal fit-
ness constituted no title to the suffrage; the second
that the reduction proposed by the Bill was preci-
pitate and reckless ; the third that the division of the
scheme of Reform was unconstitutional and im-
proper. Mr. GRAHAM drew his answers to these
assertions principally from the speeches of the
right honourable member for Buckinghamshire
in 1860. Mr. GRAHAM himself brought a very
sensible argument forward with respect to the
dreaded preponderance of the working classes.
That, he said, was a danger very much talked
about ; but nothing was said about another danger
—that of the preponderance of the middle classes.
This is an evil, in fact, which we are actually suf-
fering from at present, though it is unfashionable
to talk about it ; and to the overwhelming influence
of the commercial classes we are indebted for the
somewhat materialistic policy which hasgained upon
us of late, and which, in the long run, tends to defeat
itself, and foster war, by its abject devotion to peace.
No one at the present day wishes to rush into war for
every difference of opinion, still less to undertake
the equivocal and ungracious task of forcing a
Particular ruler or dynasty on an unwilling people ;
but it is. unquestionable that the timorous and
selfish conduct of England in several recent ques-
tions of international justice and the faith of treaties
has not only weakened her influence, but has done
damage to the cause of freedom and national
independence in both hemispheres.
Mr. MILNER GIBSO
N, ;n supporting the mea-
sure, which he did as a matter of course,
narrowed the question to a very small com-
pass. The real question before the House,
according to Mr: GIBSON'S mode of
putting it,
was whether there should, or should not be, a re-
duction of the franchise. He warned the house
that if the bill were rejected, the country generally
would believe that the House of Commons had
answered the question in the negative. The public
would not understand the technicalities of the
Parliamentary regime. They would all say if the
amendment were carried, that the House of Com-
mons
had declared against the extension of the
franchise. " 'rhe country," continued the right hon.
member, " will see that this is the time for
They are tired of these theoretical
statements and mere phrases about being in favour
of Reform, and they 104 mark the men who have

action.