The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-07 00:00:00

REFORM UPON THE SHELF.

THERE is not one word about a " Reform Bill"
in the Queen's Speech ! The House was much
amused on Tuesday by an imaginary soliloquy
of Lord PALMERSTON. "I" (the Premier might
be supposed to say) " can now meet Parlia-
" went with confidence. They may ask me
" what is my domestic. programme What am
" I going to do with Parliamentary Reform?
" I refer them to a late noble colleague of
" mine." We are not surprised at the " great
" laughter" which followed this happy point ;
for certainly Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S conduct
about his " Reform Bill" is exquisitely absurd.
We shall catalogue the Noble Lord's changes,
which have the effects of " cross-readings."
While leading the Melbourne Whigs Lord
JOHN RUSSELL abused the reaction against
" Reform," and he spoke of " finality." The
Radicals became alienated, and " the party"
broke down in 1839, when " the Bedchamber
difficulty" gave it a brief respite. Then Lord
JOHN RUSSELL wrote his " Letter to the Elec-
" tors of Stroud," and talked of " Progressive
" Reform," and made certain appointments of
Privy Councillors (who had voted for the bal-
lot), upon which Earl GREY (then Viscount
Howicx) and Sir C. WOOD resigned. When
the Conservatives came into office in 1841,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was bereft of Radical
popularity. The Anti-Corn-Law League stuck
to Free Trade, and professedly would have no
party polities ; and Lord JOHN RUSSELL had
no chance with " progressive reform," and
was called " Finality Jack."
In 1848 his I ordship tried to get rid of the
" finality" epithet. On the 21st of June, 1848,
Mr. HUME made a motion for Household Suf-
frage, and derided the " Reform Act" of 1832.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL defended that measure,
but said, " that he had always been of opinion
" that it would admit of improvement from
" time to time." Trying to regain Radical
sympathy, his Lordship suggested " the dis-
" franchisement of freemen," and he " thought
" the 101. franchise too much fettered by
" restrictions," and he said that " the public
" mind was now turned to the question." Such
speaking utterly failed to wash away the word
" finality."

SATURDAY,

In the following year " progressive reform"
(under another aspect) was brought before the
House of Commons (4th of June, 1849). Mr.
COBDEN and Mr. BRIGHT were then in the full
tide of their " popularity." Lord Join./ Res-
SELL talked at " the Manchester School" with
considerable acerbity. He spoke of " the
" great popularity of the aristocracy," and
reminded Mr. BRIGHT that in England " the
" democracy of to-day became the aristocracy of
" to-morrow." He talked of " the narrowness
" of mind" peculiar to certain Radicals, and
he railed at " artful and designing dema-
" gogues." In that year Lord JOHN RUSSELL
seemed ambitious of regaining the " finality"
title which he had tried to cast off on the 21st
of June, 1848.
Under the Coalition Lord JOHN RussEt.r.
brought forward a most peculiar measure,
which he wept over in withdrawing. And now
neither Lord JOHN himself, nor the Ministers,
nor the Radicals, have a word to say upon the
subject. Is it, or is it not, a practical subject
in the estimation of the Liberals ? If they
answer, " Yes," the question immediately
occurs, Why do not they require that it should
assume a practical shape in Parliament ? If
they reply, " No," we put it to them, Is it just
or honest to try and entrap Radical votes
under false pretences ?
The truth is, that a Reform Bill from the
Whigs, under present auspices, is a mere bub-
ble ; and it has been well said that Lord PAL-
MERSTON " hates Reform like a Bourbon."