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

FRIDA EVENING,

trentaa aint

LONDON, FRIDAY, MARCH 26, 1852.

The veteran Member for Montrose—the faithful,
consistent, and indefatigable JOSEI`II Jima, last
eight brought forward his annual motion, asking for
leave to bring in a Bill to ansend 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 Rouse in a separate
form, and the almost certain succ ass 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-Ist, 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 maintenance 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. Wa, b.aro at, Arqueo‘iy
Insisted upon tae paramount necessity for each and
every of these changes, and advanced arguments in
their favour, that it would be tt work of supereroga-
tion to enter into the subject at any length on
the present occasion. We shall therefore
merely contrast the propositions of JOSEPH
HUME with those of Lord JOHN 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
sy stem in tbat respect. But the question now is,
whether Mr. Huma'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 bad 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 51. 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 9e. 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
obtain different
ina cottage nl
to
watmoen s
$ where every occupant
would enjoy id g
which
he could not possibly
woas o
lightne of
otheand
b air,
now
such happily
bt n
great objections to the infamous
i v ag
er:h fa r
more than 51. a year ?
I t
atx n
pg
s,
in
which removed,
hi
eh thatmany
a ny
it
practically
might occupy flats, as is the
custom
ment
in Scotland
familiesand many parts of the
at a serious loss to the revenue,
and a great inducement held out for the con-
t astrurecdtt
objection, continent.
jee t
e I
n t,
was
of very even considered essential to remove
hs
and now we would have the obnoxious principle re-
to
cheap and exceedingly nasty
houses, each only calculated for, we can scarcely call
it, the accommodation of a sipgle family, in place of
stored
the larger and more convenient domiciles, worth 701.
or 801. per annum, and each containing comfortably
six or eight families. The 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. I-ham makes full and fair pro-
vision for the exigencies of the case, effectually guard-
ing the voter against bribery and intimidation, and all
the corrupt 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. Iluars's Bill has,
therefore, clearly the advantage in these re-
spects, and so we believe it will be de-
cided when the fitting time shall arrive, and
th• electors are required to record their votes at the
hustings.
Bat the difference on the last point is even greater ;
for Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S Bill was positively ob-
jectionable. 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 had 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
tienary and retrograde movement. Now,although the
details ofMr.llume'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. lIUME 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 reform 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 EXCHEQUER appeared to
stand on the finality of the Act of 1832. This was the
policy that disgusted the nation and alienated the
people from Lord Jous 13.1.155xr.L. 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 for by the community. No. Ad..