The Sun.
London, England, 1852-03-26 00:00:00

bveninit

LONDON, FRIDAY. MARCH 26, 1852.

The veteran Member for Montrose—the faithful,
consistent, and indefatigable JOSEPH HOME, last
night brought forward his annual motion, asking for
leave to bring in a Bill to amend the representation
of the people. His propositions were, indeed, of the
most satisfactory character. The measure founded
thereon would truly deserve the title of " The New
Reform Bill," which was arrogantly bestowed on the
miserable abortion introduced with so much parade
and self-gratulation by the ex-Premier at the
commencement of the session. The great points
of Parliameniary -reform, were, with one ex-
ception, fully and fairly brought under con-
sideration, and although the " abolition of the
property qualification for Members," was omitted,
it was not from any carelessness or indifference to
the much-required alteration, but:simply because the
question was already before the House in a separate
form, and the almost certain success of the Bill in-
troduced by the Right Honourable Gentleman the
Member for Devon might possibly be endangered by
the subject-matter being connected with other mat-
ters on which a greater diversity of opinion prevailed.
The remaining points were, however, all noticed. We
had—ht, The extension of the franchise ; 2d, protection
to the voter in the exercise of that franchise,
by the privilege of secret voting by the ballot ;
3d, The maintainance of a salutary control by the
constituencies over :their respective representatives,,
by "the limitation of the duration of Parliament,''
and 4th, The more equitable distribution of electoral
power, so that the proportion of representatives
might be made more consistent with the amount of
population and property. We have so frequently
insisted upon the paramount necessity for each and
every of these changes, and advanced arguments in
their favour, that it would be a work of supereroga-
tion to enter into the subject at any length on
the precant occasion. We shall therefore
merely contrast the propositions of Joseru
HOME with those of Lord Joule RUSSELL,
in order that the community in general, the non-
electors as well as the electors, may be enabled to
judge as to which may be most expedient and satis-
factory to the country.
And, first, on the extension of the franchise.
There would have been unquestionably a considerable
increase in the number of electors, if the proposition
of Lord JOHN RUSSELL had been accepted ; and we
have always willingly admitted, that it would have
been a considerable improvement on the existing
system is that respect. But the question now is,
whether Mr. Hums's measure, giving the right of
suffrage not only to every householder rated to the
relief of the poor for twelve months preceding the
time of registration, but to every inhabitant of a
portion of a house, similarly circumstanced, is not
greatly to be preferred, as doing justice to all, and
being, in fact, a final settlement of the question. If
taxation and representation should be coincident, in
accordance with the ancient constitutional principle,
there can be no sufficient reason assigned why every
person who for twelve months had occupied a
dwelling in respect whereof he contributed
to the relief of the poverty of the district,
thus having " a local habitation and a name"
during that period, should not be entitled to a vote,
although his tenement were not rated to the full
amount of 5/. per annum. This part of the case,
however, is not of so much practical importance, for
as the Honourable Gentleman the Member for
Sheffield justly remarked, there are very few houses
under the value of 51. per annum—labourers obtaining
only 9s. per week paying that rent. But it would
be an unwise and arbitrary distinction, creating
considerable annoyance and heart-burnings in the
minds of those who might be excluded, although in
every respect as well:qualified as others who paid a
few pence per week more rent.
The great point, however, is the admission of
lodgers, or persons occupying exclusively a portion
of a house or tenement, and rated to the relief
of the poor in respect thereof. Now, we ask what
actual difference does there exist between such per-
sons and householders, that the latter should be so
highly favoured at the expense of the former. Is it
the intention or wish of the Legislature to prevent
the erection of handsome substantial dwellings divided
into different allotments, where every occupant
would enjoy advantages which he could not possibly
obtain in a cottage worth far more than 51. a year ?
It was one of the great objections to the infamous
removed, that it
buildings, in which many
ptarxacotincallilgyhptroahnidbiatierd, nowsttch happily
different i-1 occupy flats, as is the
custom in Scotland
might
otlandand many parts of the
continent. It was considered essential to remove
that objection, even at a serious loss to the revenue,
and now we would have the obnoxious principle re-
stored, and a great inducement held out for the con-
struction of very cheap and exceedingly nasty
houses, each only calculated for, we can scarcely call
a single family, in place of
onnovfenient domiciles, worth M.
each containing comfortably
sixotithre 8:1 °bar
the accommodation
eightgaee:rc anda'
nfna more convenient
and each
matter appears too clear
to admit of argument; the lodger, who had been in
occupation twelve months, paying rates and taxes,
would surely be as eligible to a vote in every respect
as the householder.
On the ballot and the duration of Parliament there
can be no comparison, for Lord JOHN RUSSELL com-
pletely ignores these much required reforms, opposing
them with the inveterate perversity of a Tory of the
olden time ; while Mr. Hume makes full and fair
pro-
vision for the exigencies of the case, effectually guard-
ing the voter against bribery and intimidation, and all
the cerrupt influences that may be brought into opera-
tion. He also, while affording a reasonable tenure of
his seat to every representative, would yet reduce
its occupancy to such a period as would render
it desirable for every Member to respect the wishes
and feelings of his constituents, and keep in accord-
ance with the views of those by whom he was
placed in his high position: Mr. Hume's Bill has,
therefore, clearly the advantage in these re-
spectr, and so we believe it will be de-
cided when the fisting time shall arrive, and
the electors are required to record their votes at the
hustings.

But the difference on the last point is even greater;
for Lard Joni RussLLL's Bill was positively ob-

jectionna.ble. It attempted to carry out a Whig
job of the most flagrant description. It
professed to preserve the existing state of parties
rather than to bestow the right of representation
on those
~large towns which had sprung into im-
portance. It restored many of the rotten boroughs
that bad been, most properly, disfranchised, and
might thus be considered as directly opposed to the
principle of the Reform Bill of 1832, as being a reac-
tionary and retrograde movement. Now,although the
details of Mr. Home's measure were not, and could not
at that stage of the proceedings be set forth, yet the
principle was so clearly explained that no doubt
could remain of its superiority to the rival pro-
position.

One word as to the nature of the opposition.
Mr. Hums has just cause to complain of
those who shrunk from avowing their prin-
ciples, or disregarded their former protestations.
We therefore earnestly commend the division list
to the consideration of the independent electors
throughout the country. It will prove an instructive
document that should be largely consulted before
any choice should be finally made. The
wilful and determined opponents of reformpeared to
are
bad enough, and should be avoided, but the rats and
time-servers are, if possible, worse, and should be
most strenuously repudiated. We regret to find
that the CHANCELLOR of the ExcnretuElt p
stand on the finality of the Act of 1832. Ti;i3 \iv:is the
policy that disgusted the nation and alienated the
people from Lord JoUN RussELL. If the existing'
Government desire to retain power they must be pre-
pared to conform with the advanced spirit of the age,
and to concede the much-required ameliorations so
anxiously looked fur by the community. No Ad- I

mListr...tiou can continue in oalca without m4ct:ng
the popular feeling on the subject of fiscal, financial,
Parliamentary, moneary, and legal reforms. It is
for the people to see which side will make the best
bidding for their favour, and to bestow it on the
most eligible, without reference to ancient dis-
tinctions.

As early as possible after Easter, or, at the latest,
soon after Whitsuntide, Ministers will consent to the
dissolution of Parliament. The consequence of that
appeal to the country it would be difficult to conjec-
ture, probably for the very reason that it is a matter
fraught with an importance so very extraordinary
and comprehensive. Each of the two great divisions
of the Legislature entertains, or at any rate affects,
an implicit confidence in the triumph of
their respective opinions. The Government an-
ticipates a clear working majority actu-
ated by the principles of Conservatism, and
resolutely bent upon the restoration of monopoly.
The Opposition looks forward, on the contrary, with
no less sanguine reliance upon the enthusiastic an-
cep tance,, of their views in regard to free trade
and Parliamentary reform by the great mass of the
elective population. That the latter interests must
necessarily ba triumphant in the approaching con-
test we feel assured if—and here comes the gist of
all we would wish to imply by our present observa-
tions—the various constituencies throughout the United
Kingdom will be only true to themselves! It is too
late, of course, for all practical purposes,
to repeat the advice of Sir ROBERT PEEL upon a
former occasion, to register, register, register. But
it is happily not too late for us to recommend the
possessors of the franchise to scrutinize with an eye
of the utmost penetration the different persons who,
within a short interval from:the present moment, will

. _
appear before them as candidates. Let the electors
in every instance in the slightest degree doubtful
subject these aspirants for their support to a
*ever° and inexorable cross-examination. The

principal question to be decided upon by
the next House of Commons is one of a value and
of a magnitude altogether too remarkable to allow of
any carelessness on the part of the electors, or of any
indifference in the distribution of their rotes—with-

out involving those who may be guilty of this care-
lessness and indifference in a very terrible respon-
sibility. The question referred to is of infinitely
greater importance than our merely assuring the main-
tenance of Free Trade—it is the question, the vital and
momentous questicn of Retrogression, or of Advance-
ment. That is the alternative about to be sub-
mitted to the country immediately on the dis-
solution of the existing Parliament. It is
imperatively requisite, therefore, that the vari-
ous electors should be alive to the importance
of the juncture in which they will have to select
their various representatives. There is one phase
in the problem about to be submitted to the popular
solution which we are anxious to particularise, for
the purpose of commenting upon its very specious
and pernicious affectation. Politicians have already
presented themselves to some among the constituen-
cies, holding out as a lure to the masses the conquest
of the pretended dangers of Democracy by the bene-
ficence of Conservatism. It is insinuated by them
that of late the struggle between class and class has
recommenced with more than its wonted virulence
throughout the various races of Christendom. They
insist, that if the people of England are
really solicitous to preserve the rights of liberty,
of family, and of property, if they are desirous of
conserving the beautiful fabric of society upon the
basis of civilization, if they are anxious to uphold the
cause of authority against anarchy, of religion against
infidelity, of tranquillity against insurrection—they
must exert themselves to the very uttermost at the
ensuing elections to disarm democracy, by according
their votes to the admirers of a Tory system of go-
vernment. In testimony of the accuracy of all
these assertions they point rather unfortunately
to the record of the events of the last three or four
years on the European Continent. Unfortunately,
we say, because those events must, by every dis-
passionate observer, be acknowledged to demon-
strate exactly the reverse of all they have here as-
severated. Throughout the majority of those great
revolutionary movements which agitated Europe
from 1848 to 1850 inclusively, Democracy raised its
banner in the name of humanity. The first act pro-
claimed in its name in front of the Hotel de Ville,
at Paris, was an act of sublime magnanimity. It was
an act declaratory of a direct antagonism to blood-
shed. It was the abolition by a stroke of the pen of
capital punishment for political offences. That was
the system of brutality inaugurated by the Revo-
lutionists. That was their cruelty, their barbarism,
and their destructiveness. We assert, deliberately
and earnestly assert, that the history of mankind
does not furnish a nobler chapter than that
which illustrated the rise of the new reform move-
ment in Italy under Pio Noxo, in Hungary under
KOiSUTEI, in France under LAMARTINE. Dema-
goguism subsequently triumphed here and there
over the forces of Patriotism, but until then no plea
of the feeblest description had been afforded for
the subsequent atrocities of tyranny. During the
last three or four years on the continent, the mag-
nanimous were the democrats, the criminals were
the despots, the victims were the revolutionists. It
is an egregious absurdity, therefore, to assert,
as the Tory candidates are already beginning to do,
that the interests of humanity are implicated in the
conquest of Democracy by Conservatism, in the tri-
umph of the Tories over the Radical Reformers. The
interests of humanity, on the contrary, are so far
likely to be implicated in the next general election,
that the success of the Tories would inaugurate a
disastrous epoch of retrogression as inevitably as the
success of the Reformers must insure a still further
progress in the course of civilization.