The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-03-05 00:00:00

character ;" but it would not be one that it is at
all desirable to have in such a representative as-
sembly. History abounds with examples—many
of them very dismal ones indeed—of the mischiefs
which even one sort of such " variety of charac-
ter " may do among the commons of England.
The democratic element, we humbly conceive,
already prevails with quite sufficient influence in
the House of Commons. The interests of the
country,—if those interests are inseparably con-
nected with the stability of our monarchial insti-
tutions, which we contend they are,—can never
be benefitted by any greater predominance of
such an influence in that House.

Of course, we are waiving altogether any con-
troversy on the subject of representation as a
natural right. We repudiate altogether any such
right as respects the representation of the people
in Parliament. Were it natural, it must needs
be equal; and the right, moreover, of one sex as
Well as of the other. And yet, who ever heard
projected any plan of representation that did not
begin by excluding all women, and thus at once
Prohibiting at least a full moiety from a right
which is pretended to be inherent in all, and one
which our democrats do not hesitate to represent
as not only universal, but inalienable and inde-
feasible ? No,—if it be a right at all, it is only
to be considered so in so far as it may conduce to
Public utility—in so far as it may contribute to
the establishment of good laws, and secure to the
People the just administration of those laws.
These, however, are results which must ever de-
Pend upon the ability, and the disposition, of the
representatives themselves. And the argument
is, therefore, incontrovertible, that the men most
likely, by their qualifications, thus to know and
promote the public interest, must be men selected,
hot by ignorance and disaffection, or even by
the POpUlur plausibilities of the times, but by the
intelligence, the loyalty, the virtue, and the
estYectability of the country.
Where is another consideration that deserves
the most serious attention in proposing to lower
the elective franchise in the way which Lord
J°llls7 RUSSELL'S bill provides for. That provision,
we have shown, will not include any of those
hundreds of thousands of respectable and educated
Persons who do not happen to be householders; but
it will introduce, in their stead, a class of persons
necessarily inferior in every social and intellectual
Point of view to the present £lO householders.
New, among whom has it been found that bribery
at elections most commonly prevails ? In almost
`emery ease that has lately come before Committees
'of the House of Commons, has it not been clearly
shown, that bribery and corruption are almost
entirely confined to the lowest class of voters?
And if that lowest class, under a £lO rental fran-
chise, are found to be so open to corrupt infiu-
etre, may it not most reasonably be apprehended,
an evil will be extended and aggravated
'rider the operation of a lower franchise still ?
'Wen
a
-..., not
mean to say that the people who will
thus be
enfranchised are all of necessity, morally
inferior to those immediately
se above them. But the
very circumstance of their occupying houses at a
lower
rental tin
-Plies that they must be, generally
speaking, the more necessitous classes. And,
with such, it is altogether a question of tempta-
tion. The poor elector is selected to be tampered
with, just because, unfortunately, he happens to
be poor. It may be no fault of his, but rather his
Misfortune, that he is so ; and when he is
thus tempted, and yields, he can only say with
SUARESPERE'S poor apothecary—
" My poverty, and not my -will consents."

We are not of those who have much hope of ex-
terminating altogether the vice of bribery. So
long as there are persons ready to be bribed, will
there be found, it is to be feared, those who will
not scruple to tempt them ; and we may depend
upon it, as a rule, that the greater the poverty
the greater the chance of such temptation pre-
vailing. Let Parliament pass what enactment it
may, for the suppression of such an evil, so long
as human nature remains what it is, we fear that
bribery and corruption among the lower classes
of electors will still continue the curse of such a
system.

Under all the circumstances, therefore, we
think it must be evident to every impartial mind,
that the Reform Bill of Lord JOHN RUSSELL is
manifestly inferior to that of Mr. DISRAELI. It
18 so, most assuredly, in the respect we have here
Pointed. out ; and should it unhappily pass with-
(nit any modification of that, its only provision
'which recommends it to those who have ulterior
13biects in view—we mean the democrats of the
country.—it may justly be feared that it will
have the effect of deteriorating the character of
the Rouse of Commons in no slight degree—of
subverting long-established and settled rules of
Parliamentary representation—and thereby, in-
Stead of promoting, rather impairing the great
interests of the country.