Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-04-02 00:00:00

THE REJECTED REFORM BILL.

It would surprise nobody, one would think, that
such should be the fate of the Ministerial Reform
Bill. The whole course of the long debate tended
so decidedly in that direction, that whatever hope
might at one period have 'been entertained of it
among the more sanguine of the ministerialists,
must have quite faded away some tie before the
division took place,. And what at 'last aggravated,
no doubt, its hopelessness, was the 'emphatic deola-
ration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in bis
speech which wound lap the debate, that he would
not pledge himself to -the adoption of any provisions
in committee—did it happen to get there-:-in
pursuance of Lord John Russell's resolution.
" The hon. and learned member who has just ad-
dressed us, put me a question, and calledfupon me
frankly to reply to it. Si; I will frankly reply to
it. I say that every proposition in that bill'is matter
of detail, irrespective of three great principles upon
which it is founded ; that the committee 'is the pro-
per stage 'in which to discuss those :propositions,
and that 'to the discussion of those propositions in
committee I and the rest of the Government will
give a candid consideration. But whether the point
be a great one or a small one, whatever view the
hon. and learned gentleman may take of it, 1 decline
to pledge myself before the discusSion takes place,
to defer to any determination that the committee
may arrive at. Sir, that appears to me to be a de-
mandthat is alikeunreasonable and unparliamentary."
This would have sealed its fate, had it not baen done
already. It was a resolution, he contended, which
only dealt with the details of the measure that it
would 'be the business of the Committee to consider;
while with its principles, in the main, the House had
shown a general agreement. But this was a course
of argument by no means calculated to catch those
few waverers as to the expediency of the resolution
which Lord John Russell had brought forward with
so damning an object. Had the twenty or five-
and-twenty votes which, up to that time, were
doubtful, been secured against the resolution, the
result, of course, would have been different. That
is to say Lord JOHN'S device would have been
thwarted.. But then this would not have advanced
the Bill, either in the shape in which it would have
presented itself to the committee, or perhaps in any
shape that would have been acceptible to the gov-
ernment, whose measure it would no longer have
been. To carry out the principle, therefore, now
recognised by the House, at the instance, it seems,
not only of Lord JOHN RUSSELL, but of Lord
PALMERSTON, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, and other Oppo-
sition leaders, the course would appear to be,
to adopt at once, and altogether, the model of pro-
ceeding by resolution, as in the case of the India
Bill last year.

As respects the resolution which the House has,
doubtless from a variety of motives, adopted on this
occasion, it is one, of itself, we humbly conceive, on
which any practical proceeding can now, or at any
time, be taken. It declares that it would be neither
just nor politic to interfere, as the Government
Reform Bill proposed, with the freehold franchise as
hitherto exercised in the counties, and that no re-
adjustment of the franchise would satisfy the House
-or the country which did not provide for a greater
extension of the suffrage in towns then was
contemplated by that measure. But this is
all. There is no definite purpose manifested by it,
as to the positive character of, any future Reform
Bill. As Mr. Gladstone, in the course of the debate,
very forcibly pointed out, respecting the resolution,
the leading men who proposed and supported it had
an agreement of opinion which was limited to
the terms of the motion itself, and which, the -very
day after it was carried, would leave them to pursue
their distinct and opposite courses. This, he said,
was far from being an inducement to him to vote
for the resolution, but rather operated in a contrary
direction, as certainly it has done. And now the
Liberal Reformers, of all shades, who combined to
pass this -resolution, are just in the very position
predicted—left to pursue their several distinct and
opposite courses. And this is what is so unsatis-
factory after all, for it not only brings us no
nearer to the settlement of the question, but
it has lost us, apparently, an opportunity
of making a practical effort to settle it. It remains,
however, to be seen that they who have carried their
resolution will do,—how they will act upon it, or if
they will proceed to act upon it at all.
Very much will depend, however, in the first place,
upon what Ministers themselves will do. And this,
at present, seems somewhat a mrtter of uncertainty.
The Times takes it for granted that they will.
resign, as a matter of course, and mentions the
circumstance of their having selected
their gentlemen to be elevated to the peer-
age, as a usual prelude to the resignation of
a Ministry. But the ministerial organs appear to
think that it is at present unsafe to predict what
may be the ultimate result.