The Sun.
London, England, 1868-03-10 00:00:00

LONDON, TUESDAY, MARCH 10, 1868.

The Scotch Reform Bill has been read a second
time, notwithstanding the efforts made on the part
of some hon. members to oppose its progress. This
is satisfactory, and encourages one to hope for its
speedy completion. The amendment of Mr. HAD-
FIELD was withdrawn, which was by far the wisest
thing to be done under the circumstances, and per-
haps it was only put forward in order to try the
temper of the House, or to afford opportunity for a
long discussion. Be this as it may, the result is
good, and we hope that the Government will not
meet with these vexatious interruptions as they
proceed with the measure. As for the protestation
made against an increase of the numbers of the
House we see no reason in it all, why there should
be a fixed limit put, and an arbitrary number
assigned, when the, required wants of an increased
population, and the general opinion of the people,
call for enlargement in the representation. It is
quite against the spirit of the age to argue after this
fashion, and to seek to tie us down to the forms
that were suited to an earlier generation. There is
no need to err on the other side, and to increase the
representation indiscriminately ; but we consider
the proposition now made to be a very good one,
and worthy of the support of the House. Mr.
DISRAELI himself said at Edinburgh that there was
no " cabalistic charm" in the number of 658, and
why should we persist in going on as if we thought
that there was. As for the proposal of some that
the small boroughs in England ought to supply the
deficiency ; that is quite preposterous and we
feel convinced that had this scheme emanated from
the Ministers, a great many objections would have
been made against it. As for the argument of Mr.
HADFIELD, that the " population, industry, and
property of Scotland" deserve the concession, it can
easily be answered by saying that, if the change is
to be made, there will be many claimants in Eng-
land to call for the advantages of increased repre-
sentation ; but the Reform Bill of this country be-
ing so far settled, it is not by any means advisable
to begin interfering with it now. The three king-
doms must always have some separate interest, and
it would be going the very way to promote discord
and disunion to call upon one to make sacrifices
for the other that are at once unreasonable and
iz ksome. Mr. B. CocuRANE very properly
summed up the case, when he said that Mr. HAD-
FIELD talked of doing justice to Scotland, while he
opposed a measure which was most assuredly a
" step in the right direction, if an incomplete one."
Mr. SINIOLLETT made some remarks, which he him-
self aptly described as " not laudatory," on the sub-
ject of Reform in general, and the bill before the
House in particular. It may be said, however,
that this speech answered the purpose of edifying
the assembly to which it was addressed, and being
itself what is designated a " smart" fence more than
it actually represented the position of affairs, or
the true merits of the measures, past or pre-
sent. Some of the criticisms of the hon.
member were most amusing, and excited general
merriment, particularly that passage in which he
declared that some years of Parliamentary life had
convinced him " that in no phase of existence was
there so much insincerity as in politics, and the in-
sincerity of politicians appeared to him to culminate
when the question of Parliamentary Reform was
under discussion in the House." Mr. SMOLLETT
concluded by saying that he would accept the bill
as an " inevitable evil;" and, after drawing a most
uninviting ideal of the new House of Commons, he
added that he did not fear for the British Constitu-
Mr. LAING'S observations were far more to
the point, and he very accurately described the op-
position against the bill as organised by the
" regular old party Whigs,"with the hope of
throwing out one of the principal measures of the
Government this session, and thereby em-
barrassing it greatly, and also in the
expectation that they might keep a Scotch grievance
unredressed, and thus secure for themselves some
important votes at the next general election. The
Radicals also wished to have the question of Redis-
tribution left unsettled for some time longer, and
hence the endeavours made to frustrate the resolu-
tions of the Government. There is a great deal of
truth in all this, and no doubt Mr. LAING'S speech
did good service in inducing the withdrawal of the
amendment, and disposing the House to take a
more favourable view of the question before it. The
wishes of the independent, moderate Liberals were
said to be by Mr. LAING that ten additional mem-
bers be given to Scotland, the redistribution scheme,
amended, and the creation of faggot votes rendered
impossible. He earnestly advised the Government
to consider these before the subject again engrossed
the attention of the Legislature, that they might
thereby secure an almost universal support.

tion.

The Lord-Advocate's remarks were very much
to the point, and made clear some before rather
confused matters, and concerning which some dis-
satisfaction
prevailed. The question of distribution,
he said, was purely a question for the committee,
the principle of the bill being extension of the
franchise and an increased number of mem-
bers. In answering Mr. SNIOLLETT'S gloomy
prognostications, the Lord-Advocate mentioned
that the honourable member himself had al-
luded to the rejection of Mr. DENNISTON by the
ten-pound voters of Glasgow, and added that it
seemed as if the old voters could occasionally make
mistakes ; and, in following up this view of the
question, he might have added that Mr. MACAULAY
was rejected by the constituency of Edinburgh.
We entirely agree with the Lord-Advocate in his
opinion, that there is nothing to detract from the,
effect of this bill, and that there is every reason to