The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-01 00:00:00

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sia,—When the Government brought in their Reform
Bill, and the public learnt that Lord John Russell was
to appear as the champion of the people and oppose this
Tory measure, most of us expected that he would bring
forward a measure of his own, so that we might compare
the two and choose the best. If Lord John had been at
the head of a large party he would probably have laid his
measure on the table ; but this not being the case, his first
efforts were to make a party. And this is the reason why
Lord John did not give us even the faintest outline of his
bill. He know very well that it was absolutely necessary
for him to bring together Lord Palmerston, Mr. Bright,
and as many of the Peelites as possible, and he knew that,
if he brought in a Reform Bill in accordance with the
opinions of Mr. Bright, Lord Palmerston and the Peelites
would vote against him ; whel eas if his bill suited the
latter gentlemen, them he would lose Mr. Bright. Fur-
ther, Lord John did not dare to oppose the Government
Bill by a motion "to read it a second time that day six
months," because, as far as it goes, it is a very liberal bill,
and he cnew that many Liberals would have voted for the
bill rather than postpone the question of Reform till next
session. There was, therefore, only one other course open
to his lordship, and that was to move a resolution, which
he would wish us to believe is not intended to postpone the
settlement of the question, nor to displace the Ministry,
but to amend the bill.

His lordship probably never anticipated such a length-
ened discussion. He thought the matter would soon be
decided, and the Government soon removed. In fact, the
impatience expressed by no less a person than Sir C. Lewis
to finish the debate as soon as possible, pretty accurately
expressed the wishes of Lord John and Lord Palmerston.
They were afraid the public might think twice before it
came to a decision; and they knew that the more the de-
bate was protracted, the greater was the danger of hints
being inadvertently dropped touching the nature of the bill
which the country might expect from them.
Now .Sir, this is just what has taken place. This pro-
tracted'debate has enlightened us on almost all the particu-
lars of the bill which the country would obtain if Lord
John were restored to power.
Before, however, proceeding further, I will just notice
the extraordinary inconsistency of Lord John's amendment.
Any one who has read the debate must be aware that the
uniformity of the borough and county franchise is looked
upon by the Whigs as the main principle of the Govern •
ment bill, and to this uniformity they are opposed. Under
these circumstances the proper mode of proceeding would
have been to move that the bill be read a second time this
day six months. But Lord J oluk himself said that he ap-
proved of many of the provisions of the bill; and, as his
resolution only relates to two items, we may conclude that
he entertains no strong opposition to the remaining clauses.
In this case the proper mode of proceeding would have
been to endeavour to amend those two provisions in com-
mittee. In whatever light, therefore, we look at Lord
John's amendment, it is evidently irregular; and as it com-
mits his lordship to nothing, it is certainly dishonest, and
can only have been framed with a view to catch as many
votes as possible, and to defeat the Ministry.
And now, Sir, let us examine the bill itself, and compare
it with the hints which have been dropped from those who
wish themselves to be considered the champions of the people.
In the first place, Lord Derby proposes to reduce the
county franchise to £lO. The leading Liberals propose £2O.
Now, Sir, which is the most liberal, the Conservative or
the Whig ? Some say that it is one of the principles of our
constitution that borough members represent resident occu-
piers, and that county members represent property, and
therefore the Government proposition is unconstitutional.
But the Chandos clause of the Reform Bill of 1832 altered
all that; and those who maintain the above doctrine, them-
selves propose to reduce the county qualification to £2O. So
much for their consistency. Furthermore, we never heard
anything about its being unconstitutional when the proposal
was made by Mr. Locke King, and no one has ever given
us a reason why a man occupying a £lO house in a county
should not have a vote as well as a man occupying a £lO
house in a borough.
In the second place, the Conservatives propose .to give
the franchise to lodgers who pay £2O a year rent, whether
their rooms are hired furnished or unfurnished. Most lodg-
ings which let for £2O a year furnished, would let for about
£lO a year unfurnished. But it would be impossible to
make a distinction in this respect, because many lodgings are
let partly furnished, so that it would bo difficult to describe
what constituted a furnished and what an unfurnished
lodging. By the Government Bill, lodgers as a rule would
be placed exactly on the same footing as householders.
.Now, what do the Liberals propose? Mr. Bright, in one of
his speeches, rather ridiculed the idea of lodgers voting, and
Sir James Graham disapproves of it. We may, therefore,
fairly assume that a Whig Bill would exclude the lodgers.
Wo •know that it would reduce the household suffrage to
£B, or perhaps to £6. Now, Sir, who is best qualified to
give a vote—a householder who pays £6 rent, or a lodger
who pays £2O rent ? Those who propose to reduce the
household qualification, profess to do so in order to include
the best of the working classes. Now, sir, just consider
London. How many clerks and artisans live in lodgings ?
Nearly all I And how Many occupy a£6 house ? Very
few! I don't know where to find any houses of that rental
in London. There are seine; no doubt; but they certainly
aro very few, compared with the number of lodgers, and the
£2O lodgers are certainly a more respectable class. Here,
again, the Conservative proposition is the most liberal and
the best.

But, in addition to this, the Government propose a £6O
savings-bank deposit qualification. Mr. Bright may sneer
at this as a reward to prudence, but there are not many who
will join him in that. Sir Benjamin Hall found out one
borough in which this franchise would at present add only
one voter to the register. This, however, was a small
borough, and, as Sir Befijamin did not mention another, I
presume it was an isolated case. But no one can doubt
that if this proposition should pass, many thousands who
have never yet placed any money in a savings-bank will
soon begin to do so, if they wish for the franchise, and thus
will learn and practise prudence while acquiring a right to
vote. By this means the best of the £6 householders will
obtain the franchise. The reason why £3O is the sum fixed
upon would seem to be, that it is about equal to the value
of a forty shilling freehold.
And this brings me to the consideration of the borough
freeholders. The Conservatives propose to transfer them
to the boroughs in which their freeholds are situate; and
the Whigs call this transfer a disfranchisement.
The Liberals, as I have before stated, propose to lower
the borough qualification to £6 or £3. Sections 24 and 25
of the Reform Act of 1832 enact that a person shall
not vote for a county in respect of a freehold which
gives him the right to vote for a borough. The result of
this would be, that while the Liberals condemn the Con-
servatives for proposing to transfer the freeholders to their
boroughs, the Liberals themselves propose to carry out the
very same policy, by simply lowering the borough house-
hold qualification, and thus converting county freeholders
into borough householders. So there is not much dif-
ference as to the nature of the operation, and only a trifling
difference in the mode of operating. And here I must re-
mark upon another Liberal inconsistency. How is it that,
when talking of these borough freeholders as county voters,
Whigs always call them the most independent class in the
county ; and yet when it is proposed to transfer them to the
boroughs, Whigs always pretend to be afraid of the grossest
corruption creeping in ? Perhaps some kind Whig can ex-
plain this, even to the satisfaction of the freeholders them-
selves.

In the fourth place, th,f, Conservatives propose to give us
voting papers. This, Sir, is the most important proposi-
tion of all, because we all know that many thousands of the
best class of electors will not mix in a mob, and conse-
quently attend no meetings and do not vote. We may,
therefore, assume that if they were to vote, it would not be
for a mob-orator. Hence the opposition of many of our
fluent speakers to this proposition of voting-papers. Some
say they would be unconstitutional and would open the doer
to all sorts of corruption ; yet no one has explained how
this corruption is to creep in. But one fact, and that a
monster and an all-important one, is worth more than all