Mr. Gibson's speech at Worcester on Thursday seems to have
been less violent in its language than his controversial speeches usually are ; but it was not more accurate. He declared that the question of the County Franchise was not before the constituencies at the last General Election, and his proof is that Mr. Gladstone said little about it in the Midlothian cam- paign, and Lord Hartington nothing at all in Lancashire. The reason is obvious. The question was one on which there was no controversy in the Liberal camp, and to the principle of which -there was no avowed opposition even in the Tory camp. But 31r. Gibson's cavil shows the cloven hoof. Why this eager- ness to prove that the question of the Comity Franchise has not been approved by the country if the Tories sincerely desire the enfranchisement of the rural labourers P They do not desire it, and their determination to force, if they can, a Dissolution on the question, is a proof of it. Mr. Gibson was equally inaccurate in accusing Mr. Chamberlain of saying that for the rejection of the Franchise Bill Lord Salisbury is alone responsible. Mr. Chamberlain saki precisely the contrary. And most inaccurate of all was Mr. Gibson in crediting Lord Beaconsfield with house- hold suffrage in the boroughs. Let him consult Lord Salisbury's speech on the third reading of the Reform Bill of 1867, and he will see his error.-
Previous page
