The Sun.
London, England, 1866-04-09 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

" THE SPECTATOR" ON MR. GLADSTONE AT
ElX472fili W-Viry gir/MlMit:-"CO-diuW
to resist Ran altogether, but that is all it was. It
brings neither consolation nor conviction to those
Liberals who, contending for_ a wide Reform—a
shall bring the main body of work-
men within the pale—still domur to intrust the en-
tire State to the hands of a single class. Mr. Lowe
has certainly:contrived in his letter to the electors of
Caine to put himself in an untenable position, and
it is clever of Mr. Gladstone, though a little un-
worthy of the leader of the Commons, to make the
insecurity of his opponent's standing-ground visible
to the world. It is very absurd of 31r. Lowe to say
that the lower electors are venal, violent, and
drunken, and also that non-electors have often great
prudence, self-reliance, and perseverance, as if the
franchise could in any way diminish those qualities,
and Mr. Gladstone made the point with his usual
incisiveness. It- is also very fair to tell anti-Re-
formers that the promises now seven times repeated
are of themselves a sufficient reason for the intro-
duction of a Bill, and to taunt moderate Tories with
the fact that their own leaders brought in a Bill at
least as wide, But in all this there is no answer to
the really formidable antagonists of the Government
—to those who, like Earl Grosvenor and Mr. Bou-
verie, say they will vote for no Bill which is not
complete, or those, like ourselves, who say that the
object of Reform is to perfect representation, and
that this Bill not only does not do it, but prevents
its ever being done. It is these people the Cabinet
has to answer, and with these it steadily, and, so to
speak, warmly declines to cope. What is the
use of answering Tories ? The Government
can vote them down, and Mr. Lowe with
them, if necessary, and in any case arguments will
make with them no manner of difference. The
point is to answer the objections raised on all sides
by those who, being Reformers, see neither prin-
ciple nor expediency in this measure, who cannot
alone defeat it, but who, marching before a more
numerous band, will undoubtedly either coerce the
Government into a compromise, or drive it tempo-
rarily from the field. Mr. Gladstone's present ar-
gument does not touch them at all. It simply
amounts to this, that theworkman is worthy of the
franchise, which no one among us all ever attempts
to dispute. Indeed we should go further, and say
that if he were clearly unworthy, his unworthiness
ought only to affect the amount of representation
conceded to him, and not his right to any repre-
sentation at all. What we contend is, that, being
worthy, he should be represented in such a way as
to give him as much direct and appreciable power
as he can have. without injustice to the claims of
every other class in the nation. Tois) eilcit
ususrauertinhagt provisionceonrd.
securing
eenprironpog
fisentatety? omvienrusnmtehnet schemeprovision;
ruption. In other words, we want household suf-
frage in all the large boroughs—household suffrage
being simple and final, while a rental is complex
and temporary—and the exclusion of little boroughs
from the measure. What answer does Mr. Glad-
stone make to the principle so embodied, the prin-
ciple, that is, of admitting the workmen wherever
they are independent, and omitting them wherever
they are not ? Simply none at all, merely an asser-
tion that they are excellent people which is the very
basis of our objection, that Mr. Lowe is self-contra-
dictory—which is a matter of course when a democrat
talks Toryism, and that Government is bound
by its pledges—which is very true, very moral, very
satisfactory, and nothing to th“eitilenfionremdia,,htei; p_cuorusre3
Government has not pledged itself to any form of
Reform Bill. We do not suppose Mr. Gladstone,„ charm
fancies that the mere word
without reference to its meaning, that.tt
peasant,
can be saved, like the soul of a Neapolitan
aOdy on
by an endless repetition of the Credo.
retpharetsefnatitahtivise
ourgnn ds,itdheeopfoitnhteisd,ifsaciuthssiinonwiLutes?_tioinlis
i; I deny that we can
institutions or democracy, goveran_tosbehyenno, sineshoirs
governmentextremely
adbryo
t intelligencesspe a
e its meaning most
arrive atwgeoaocdcegpotvtehrantin:eesnntteanpear.t. from
tion."
cordially, though it goes too far form,—the uni-
verse not being governed on constitutional principles
--but it remains to definq representation. We have
done it till we are tired, and prefer this time to
quote the words of one of the truest, heartiest, and,
as we think, ablest democrats who ever lived, a man
whom even the Star would not dare to accuse of
erypto-Toryism, M. Louis Blanc :—" Many persons
fancy that the sovereignty of the people is realised
by the government of the greatest number, no
matter how that government is organised or how it
exercises its authority. For my part, I confess that
I know few errors of a more dangerous character.
Sovereignty cannot be a mere question of addition.
A nation is something more than a cypher. What
really constitutes a oration, what makes its great-
MO, what created its power, id what it contains of