New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1903-10-10

not the proper person to give effect at distant
point, and in most difficult circumstances, to
the views of ordinary men"
For light on the great struggle for household
suffrage in 1867. Mr.. Morley goes to Gladstone's
own private record. In this he finds some high
ly important and interesting comments, among
them the following:
Perhaps we ought to have recognized that
the idea of household suffrage when the phrasa
had once been advertised by a government as
its battle-ground. irresistible, and that the
only remaining choice whether it should
be household suffrage cribbed, cabined and
confined by the condition of personal ratepay-
Ing. or a household suffrage fairly conforming
In substance and operation to the idea that the
phrase conveyed. The first in our view
totally inadmissible; the second beyond the
wants and wishes Of the time. But the govern
ment, 1T must be admitted. bowled us over by
the force OF the phrase and made II our next
duty to bowl them over by bringing the reality
OF the bill into correspondence with its great
profession. This we were able TO do In some
degree, when we reached the committee, for
some Of the restrictions included in the meas
ure were such as the double facing liberal
fringe did not venture to uphold against the
assaults of their party. But the grand
question of compound householding which was
really TO determine the character of our legis-
lation, was one on which could not reckon
upon either the conscientious the intimidat-
ed and prudential support OF our liberal fringe.
The government were beyond all doubt. at least
for the moment, masters of the situation. . .
do not suppose that in the whole history of
the mystery man. DisraelD this proceeding
can be surpassed. The Tories having been
brought to accept household suffrage on the
faith of the limitation imposed by personal pay
ments OF the rates, found at moments notice
that that Limitation had been thrown overheard
ana that their leader had given them bill
virtually far larger than any that Mr. Bright
had sought TO impose upon them. 1t was GER
tainly no business of ours to complain and they
made 1t business OF theirs / imagine that
they still relied upon rectifcation of the bill by
the House OF Lords. And the lords did rectify
IL largely; but these rectifcations were all re-
jected when the bill returned to US EXCEPT the
minority representation which Mr. Disrael
was strong enough TO secure by means of the
votes or a body of liberals who approved II, and
which he accepted to humor or comfort the lords
a little. while he detested IT, and made as
Bright said the best speech ever delivered
against It SO came about the establishment of
effective household suffrage in the cities and
boroughS of England.
The process effecting this wide extension of
political power to immense classes hitherto
without it," writes Mr. Morley. was in every
respect extraordinary. The great reform was
carried Dy a Parliament elected to support Lord
Palmerston, and Lord Palmerston detested re-
form II was carried by a government I'm a de-
cided minority. 1t carried by a minister
and by a leader OF opposition. neither OF whom
was at the time in the full confidence of his
party. Finally. il carried by House of
Commons that the year before had, In effect
rejected a measure for the admission of only
four hundred thousand new voters. while the
measure to which it now assented added almost
a million voters to the electorate" He con-
tinues:
We also do best to seek rational exnIanationa
in large affairs IL may be true that eff there
were no plumbers there would be no politics"
but when have made full allowance for
blunder caprice. chance, folly, craft stiI rea-
son and the nature OF things have a share The
secret Of the strange reversal IN 1867 OF all that