The Press.
London, England, 1854-02-18 00:00:00

Vrott6ings in Varliament.

THE NEW REFORM BILL.
The legislative business in the House of Commons
opened for the week on Monday with the introduc-
tion of the promised Ministeilal scheme for represen-

tative reform.
Lord J. RUSSELL, in moving for leave to bring in
the two bills into which the measure was divided,
began by endeavouring to cool what he characterised
as the exaggerated expectations and apprehensions
which the proposition had called forth on one side
and the other. These he attributed to the associa-
tions connected with the very name of Parliamentary
Reform, and which arose from recollections of the
famous bill of 1832, and the conflict it provoked.
That measure had, indeed, been discussed amid
furious party conflicts, with tierce popular excite-
ment out of doors ; with Bristol and Nottingham in
flames; with the country apparently on the verge of
revolution ; with violent contests in both Houses
of the Legislature, and a collision between them in
the end. The present measure, he contended, was
but a supplement to, and improvement upon, the act
that had already taken root in the constitution, could
be discussed calmly, arranged deliberately, and ad-
justed into working order without shock or disloca
tion to the machinery of legislation. Under the
same view of the measure he denied the cogency of
the arguments which were founded on the prospect of
war, and which urged thepostponement of the scheme
until our foreign horizon cleared up once more. He
saw nothing in war that should stop internal amelio-
ration ; and added that in the war which now seemed
pending there was no reason to anticipate any serious
dangers, or the necessity to put forth those extraor-
dinary efforts that had in former periods absorbed
all the interests and strength of the country. Prece-
dents, also, were in favour of the same conclusion. The
objection that the country was on the brink of war or
actually engaged in it did not prevent Mr. Pitt from
proposing a Reform Bill in 1782 ; nor did it weigh
with Fox or Grey in 1788, 1797, and 1810, when
the nation seemed in far greater peril. Lord J. Rus-
sell then described the state of the representation in
1890, recapitulated the changes which had been since
effected, and mentioned a number of important
acts that had been passed since, of which he assigned
the credit to the Reform Act of 1832. He then al-
luded to the defects and deficiencies which he be-
lieved to exist notwithstanding that act, and for
which he now intended to suggest remedies. These
he classified into three heads—defects in the sche-
dule of places disfranchised ; defects in the schedule
of places enfranchised ; and defects in the electoral
qualification. He went on to discuss and remedy
these alleged deficiencies seriatim, laying down the
principle on which every separate modification was pro-
posed as he went along. First, of disfranchisement,
the rule was simple and intelligible :
" At the time of the Reform Bill I said there were a
certain small number of boroughs which would still have
a sufficient number of electors to enable them to make an
independent election of members to serve them iu Parlia-
ment. I find the number of electors which I then stated
I thought all boroughs should have at the least, to enable
them to send members to this house, was 300. I find,
however, there are several boroughs whose constituencies
fall below that number. I find, likewise, that there are
borough which, although they have more than the number
of 300 electors, are yet of a population which is not consi-
derable—in fact, falling below 5,000. 1 should propose,
therefore, to deal with the boroughs which are in that po-
sition. (Hear.) Going on to some of the boroughs which
are not so small, I find there is a certain number of other
boroughs which have less than 500 electors, and others
which have a population of less than 10,000, though more
than 500 electors, which return two members. I propose
to deal with those boroughs by taking away one of their
members. The number of boroughs—taking the double
return of electors and population, which come under 300
electors, and the others which have 300 electors and a po-
pulation of s,ooo—are 19, and they send 29 members to
this house. (Hear, hear.) The number of boroughs which
will come into the next table, which have either less than
500 electors or less than 10,000 population, are no fewer
in number than 33 Now, therefore, if the former bo-
roughs were entirely disfranchised, there would be no less
than 62 seats by which the number of this house would be
diminished."
Secondly, of enfranchisement, he found much to ob-
ject to in the suggested system of " equal areas " or
equal population, believing that many advantages ac-
crued from a measured degree of variety in the dis-
tricts returning members to Parliament. His plan
for filling up the vacancies above mentioned was ac-
cordingly somewhat complex. The noble lord gave
the following details :

" I have stilted more than once, in answer to honour-
able gentlemen who complained that there were places of
8,000 or 7,000 inhabitants which returned as many mem-
bers a 8 places having 60,000 or 70,000 inhabitants, that, if
we were to reform our representation according to the
numbers of the people, the towns of 10,000 or 15,000 inha-
bitants must yield their claim to great counties which had
200,000 or even 400,000 inhabitants. I remember the
right honourable member for Bucks maintaining that ar•
gamest with great ability, in answer to the preposition