The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-14 00:00:00

what cannot but be a stormy career. The house received it lan-
guidly enough, and nothing ensued upon its enunciation, save
a few vindication de rigueur of freemen by members whose
electoral strength lies largely among that particular class, and
a little string of questions from a few Scotch and Irish mem-
bers as to the measure which is to be meted to their respec-

tive countries. In fact, it is abundantly evident, from the
tone and manner of the house that the representative body
entirely agree with their constituencies that—be the bill good
or be it bad—the present time is a singularly inopportune one
for bringing it under discussion. As regards the character
and merits of the scheme, apart from the question of its op-
portuneness, its supporters will, wo suppose, designate it as
comprehensive, and its opponents may well describe it as
multifarious and destructive. Among the latter we are dis-
posed to rank ourselves. The act of 1831 involved, if it did
not distinctly enunciate, the principle of making population
the basis of representation but to a limited extent only, and
that, not at the moment apparently, a very dangerous one.
There were many places whose industry had passed away,
whose population had dwindled, and whose members conse-
quently represented only a shadow or a tradition. There were
other places which, from hamlets and fishing villages, had
grown into large towns and wealthy cities, busy with com-
merce and replete with active and productive capital.
It was consistent only with common sense that, suppos-
ing there to be an invincible constitutional objection to any
enlargement of the House of Commons, representation should
be transferred from the shadow to the substance ; and, had
the operation been conducted on distinct and constitutional
principles, there would have been no ultimate hazardous pro-
gress involved by the undertaking. Unfortunately, Lord
John, for convenience probably in the first instance, adopted
population as the measure of claim to representative privileges;
and the admission, however modified, of this principle has
compelled the author of the Reform Bill of 1831, as we al-
ways predicted it would, to adopt, now in 1854, that theory
for which the Radical party have so long and so steadily
struggled the theory, namely, of proportional representation,
taking mere population as its basis. This is, indeed, the mein
feature of Lord John's scheme. The - accordance of repre-
sentation to the Inns of Courts we cannot approve of, As
well, it seems to us, might electoral. rights be given to the
Shipowners' Association, to the Railway Companies' Clearing-
House, or to the Clergy Mutual Assurance Company. As for
the advantage of having more lawyers in the house, it will
give us no great pain, and will inflict on the nation no great
loss, to forego it. The extensions of the franchise which the
noble lord proposes we equally object to, as unfitting and un-
called for. That for which Lord John claims the credit of
being Conservative, is a mere sham, and can never have any
sensible influence. The number of graduates of our Univer-
sities of Government and of commercial clerks, who are
excluded by the existing form of franchise, we take to be
very insignificant, and even if they numbered three times
what we conceive them to do, would be nothing in the scale
against the mass who will rush in by the opening practi-
cated by the lowering of the county franchise to 10/., and
of the borough to a muncipal 61. rating. Neither do we see
any security for Conservative principles or Conservative ten-
dencies in the 501. savings bank provision, upon which Lord
John appeared to lay considerable stress. Judging from the
vast sums of money which they have expended, there was
probably scarcely one of the men lately out on strike who
could not have qualified under it; and supposing an election
to have occurred in October last, with Lord John's bill in
full operation, what class of men does he think they would
have returned to the House of Commons—a Lord John
Russell, or a Mr. Cowell—a Mr. Spencer Walpole, or a Mr.
Newton—a statesman and an upright gentleman, or a plat-
form spouter and an ignorant socialist. There is one more
proposed alteration in our existing system of which we have
yet to speak—the most uncalled-for and the most unjusti-
fiable. We mean, that by which it is intended to exempt, in
future, members of Parliament, accepting office under the
Crown, from submitting their new position to the approval
of their constituents. No one has advocated more strongly
than ourselves the proper independence of representatives, or
opposed more constantly everything tending to the establish-
ment of a system of delegation ; but this long-existing con-
stitutional usage involves no such thing, and only gives to
the constituency that proper control which they ought to
have over their representative, and assures them against the
possibility, without their own connivance, of their influence
being converted, by their member, into a means of personal
advancement for himself. Let Lord John Russell consider
well before he lays upon the table of the house, in the shape
of a bill, the scheme of which he, last night, gave a pro-
gramme, lie may depend upon it, Mr. Drummond is right
—the measure contains that which must be, sooner or later,
destructive, and exhibits no reason in the world for stopping
where it professes to conclude.

( From the Dailg News. )
The great feature, and the very great merit, of Lord John
Russell's new Reform Bill is, that it proposes a large exten-
sion of the suffrage. The reduction of the county franchise
to 101., and of the borough franchise to 61., are bold, sound,
and excellent propositions. In places like the City of Lon-
don, St. Pancras, Marylebone, Islington, Southwark, Lam-
beth, Kensington, Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, and
many others, a 6/. franchise must be practically equivalent to
household suffrage, and certainly a 10/. franchise in counties
must " bring within the pale of the constitution" all those who
are above the grade of mere agricultural labour. All this is
excellent, and thoroughly worthy of support, and if the
scheme ended here, nothing better could have been expected.
Rut the bill goes much further. Its great and good features
are damaged by an unhappy crotchet—that of seeking " to
represent the minority." This is the drawback ; and it will
be the duty of reformers to decide whether or not a large ex-
tension of the franchise shall or shall not be taken as a suffi-
ciently great and sound instalment of reform—a sufficiently
bold step iu the right direction—to cover, like charity, a mul-
titude of minor sins. At present we have about a mil-
lion of voters, and we may now consider that we are offered a
scheme which will certainly, if carried out, add some hundreds
of thousands to their number. Indeed it seems probable that
the effect of the 61. franchise in towns, and the 101. franchise
in counties, may about double the number of persons entitled to
be placed on the electoral rolls as compared with those now ac-
tually registered. With this extension we are asked to combine
certain crotchets more or less acceptable to certain cliques.
What shall we do ? Shall we take the bill or reject it ? To
take it would in all human probability strengthen the Liberals
in the House of Commons sufficiently to enable them at an
early future again to revise our modes of election. To reject
it would still leave us with the undiminished force of a just
cry for Reform. All the sharaßeformers—all those who have
" bought " their seats in the Housoes
possible,of Comm Commons,
dand
denouncere
want of course to keep them_aslong
tohre
oßbMetaster measure, do
They
all in thiller under
power covertoo
inflict
ta
amortal
o demandltal
f
wound on the Government Bill for the simple reason that to
wi
interested M Ps
-election. The array of the different sets of
pass would send them again before their constituents for
re
-election.
the scheme, joined with the open hostility of those
foes of the people, the Tories, may secure a very formidable
phalanx in opposition to the New Reform. But the pub-
lic, for their own sakes, must not be hoodwinked.
Theirs is the task to weigh the promise against the disap-
pointments—the good against the evil—the extension against
the crotchets, and to decide whether they will or will
not require their representatives to vote for the measure.
After all that may be said against the measure, the real ques-
tion is, Will it, or will it not, be found, after careful criti-
cism of the various provisions, that the good outweighs the
evil ? That is the point at issue. Considering the quality
of the house to which it is presented, is it as liberal a scheme
as could be brought forward with any chance of,success ?
Against the proposal that each elector in constituencies re-,
turning three members shall only vote for two, we liaVe