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

Tht

•

LONDON, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 1854.

- --

Yesterday, the 13th of February, 1854, will be
memorable in the annals of the progress made in
the great system of Parliamentary representation.
It will be memorable, whatever the result of the
speech then delivered by Lord JOHN RUSSELL—.
supposing that speech lead (which is improbable)
to nothing more than a fruitless agitation, or sup-
posing, on the contrary, that it prove actually
(as was intended), inaugurative of the " large
measure" of Reform, upon which the Coalition is
known to have staked, at once, its existence and
its reputation. Whatever, we say, be the con-
sequence of the elaborate statement laid before
the House of Commons last evening by its
Leader, the principles then asserted by the Noble
Lord, in his position as one of the most eminent
statesmen within the popular branch of the Legis-
lature, are of a nature such as cannot fail to se-
cure to the date of their enunciation an elevated
and permanent place in the national remembrance.
As yet, indeed, it would be simply premature
to deal with more than the broad principles upon
which has been based the scheme of Parliamentary
innovation proposed to the country by its present
Government. It were manifestly premature to enter
at this moment, on the morrow of the day upon
which the whole of this comprehensive, and in many
respects most complicated, project was first ex-
plained by its principal originator—it were mani-
festly premature to adventure forthwith upon the
examination of those broad and fundamental
principles upon which the details have been built
up—it remains yet to be considered (later on)
whether as an incongruous or as an harmonious
superstructure. Changes so considerable as
those proposed last evening by Lord JOILN
RUSSELL require ample leisure for their close
and impartial consideration. Fairplay, indeed,
demands some pause before opinions are
pronounced upon the numerous, and many
of them minute, and most of them un-
precedented, innovations suggested by the Admi-
nistration. It would be altogether unjust
to attempt a premature analysis of a measure so
eminently requiring for its proper estimate the
calmness of unimpassioned deliberation. Therefore
as Lord JOHN himself prefaced his remarks yester-
day by endeavouring to propitiate the most pre- !
judiced of his hearers by depreciating the import- 1
ance of the Bill, for leave to introduce which he I
was about to ask the House of Commons—so
would we here liintat the propriety of according to
the Noble Lord's statement a careful and (as far as
possible) an impartial scrutiny prior to our ad- i
venturing upon its detailed and piecemeal exami-
nation.

If, in this way, we regard the proposed mea-
sure of Parliamentary Reform in its entirety, we
recguise, at the first glance, an enormous omis-
Sie'll• An omission such as, in our view, cannot
but militate against. its efficacy, if it be ever
brought in its
present shape into actual operation.
hltermeutost be
the
arobviouseat on the instant that we allude
the Ballot eve believe omission of the Ballot. Without
that every effort will be vainly
made to purify our
system of popular representation.
Without the Ballots
believe that the veritable
majority of the peoplewe
can never be really repre-
sented in the Lower Ho
the New Reform Bill,usteh of
Parliament. And
e " large measure" of
the Coalition, the sheet anchor of the Administra-
tion, as explained last evening the House of
Commons by Lord Jonx Ru_ssslit:, had no sort of
reference whatever to the B
passed a aa o tb dumbly
aedndthepopu
lax cry for the Ballot over
indiffer-
ently as it might have
the demand
of some little Chartist faction for tyhe extension of
o a ta
si o n.
the
the suffrage to the entire male adultppul
This omission of the Ballot we regard
main flaw in the new Reform Bill as sketched out
yesterday by Lori Jord JOHN RUSSELL.
Conspicuous, however, if not pre-eminent
among the chief merits of the " large measure"
of the Coalition is that introduced to the notice
of the House of Commons last evening by
Lord JOHN'S significant avowal, that the Bill
of 1831 did not make sufficient provision
for the admission of the Working Classes, their
admission, that is to say, to the enjoyment of the
Privileges and prerogatives of representation. Re-
txtnising the necessity of compensating for this
t3leetoral niggardliness of the Bill of 1831, by the
Paltieal munificence of the Bill of 1854, Minis-
lon propose to open the door wider, now, by ex-
-64, withth: suffrage to all those who are rated at
residence of two years and a half,

whereby it is calculated that the right of voting
will be extended to a considerable number of the
labouring population. It is the principle of this
we look to—the principle which has now been
formally asserted that the working classes have a
right to a somewhat larger share in the system of
national representation.

Wherefore, we repeat, it is already apparent
to us that the prominent merit of the New Re-
form Bill of the Coalition is its declaration of
this great principle—its chief demerit the total
omission of the Ballot in its scheme of innova-
tions.

A measure so considerable as this requires,
however, let us add once more, time for
its due and deliberate consideration. The
reasonableness of which assertions must be
at once manifest when it is remembered that
the New Reform Bill involves the disfranchise-
ment of 29 boroughs which have fallen below 300
electors and have less than 5,000 for a popula-
tion, and the substitution of one for two Members
in the instance of 33 boroughs having less than
500 electors and under 10,000 for a population !
A project consequently placing 62 seats at the
disposal of the Legislature, or rather 66, includ-
ing the forfeited seats of St. Alban's and Sud-
bury. Remember that these 66 seats the " large
measure" of the Coalition proposes to distribute
thus—by giving another member to those coun-
ties which have (exclusive of the population of
represented towns) more than 100,000 as their
population, by dividing the West Riding of York-
shire, which has a population of 800,000, and
the Southern Division of Lancashire, which has
500,000 inhabitants, and allotting to each of the
four divisions three representatives, by awarding an
additional member to all towns having more than
100,000 inhabitants—and by other additions
giving representatives to the Inns of Court, to the
University of London, to two of the larger towns
of Scotland, and to the Scottish Universities, to
Birkenhead, and Staley-bridge, and Burnley,
and Chelsea, and Kensington. Remember
all these, and the remaining points of the scheme
proposed to the House of Commons yesterday
evening, by Lord JOHN RusszLL, and it must then,
we conceive, be obvious enough to any man's
capacity—that some moderate lapse of time is
requisite in order to enable the country ade-
quately to appreciate the "large measure" sug-
gested by her MAJESTY'S Government.

The first three Government measures have been
favourably received by the House of Commons.
No one, at the present price of coals, was reluc-
tant to throw open the coasting trade ; none could
with decency object to the most stringent propo-
sitions on which a Government would venture for
suppressing bribery and "undue influence ;" and
it would require no small hardihood to defend our
present law of settlement and of compulsory re-
moval.; of the poor. As Mr. BArNits shows, on
the authority of a Parliamentary committee of the
highest character, and by appeals to every one's
knowledge who has paid attention to the subject,
the present law is not only an intolerable cruelty
to the poor, but in numerous instances a real
injury to their employers. The detestable system
of " close parishes," as it is termed, where one or
two proprietors combine to keep the poor from
acquiring settlements on the property they cul-
tivate, thereby forcing the burden of their
pauperism on the neighbouring parishes, and 1
compelling their labourers to walk many
weary miles backward and forward to their
work, has long and justly been marked for de-
struction at the earliest opportunity. Even slave
proprietors do not waste the strength of their
"niggers" in this way, nor farmers that of their
horses. For the following fact we can vouch,
though we suppress names A large farmer living
about four miles from a city was met by an
acquaintance who lived there, and informed
that it was reported he was going to keep his farm
horses at the White Horse—an inn within the
city gates. The rustic potentate indignantly
inquire whether "he thought him a fool, or
whetlierlhe cit was a fool himself." The wag
assured him that it was generally believed. Why,
rejoined he of the top-boots and riding-whip, " do
you think I should let my horses tire themselves
out before they got to their work, and have to
walk all that way back after they had done it ;
you must be a fool to take that in !" " Well
then," was the reply, "how is it that four of
your labourers lodge at the White Horse, and
that you won't let them have a house in your
parish ; or do you care more about tiring your
horses than your men ? Which is the fool now,
sir ?" A faint defence of the close parishes was,
indeed, ventured by Mr. KNIGHT on Monday,
Sir J. TIOLLOPE, however, whose aid he seemed
anxious to purchase by commendations, would
not take the bribe, but declared decidedly for the
principle of the Government measure. Notwith-
standing his plaints no one seemed to recognise
the injustice of making parishes which had
escaped rates by refusing homes to their labourers,
share the burdens as well as the privileges of
property.

Mr. BAINES'S propositions are two. " That
from the passing of this bill it shall not be lawful
to remove any poor person by force upon the
ground of settlement from any parish in England
or Wales ;" and that " the area of chargeabi-
lity shall no longer be the parish, but the union."
He aims ultimately at equal rating as be-
tween the parishes of each union, and the hard-
ship of this upon some parishes he proposes to
lighten by removing inequalities at the rate of
one-tenth per annum, so as to extend the process
over ten years. As to the first proposition, it is
a sheer necessity. The cruelty to the poor, and
the cost to the ratepayers of nearly 14,000 re-
movals, of at least 40,000 persons per annum,
have settled that point. It is, moreover, the ne-
cessary complement of free trade. If commerce
in every shape is liberated from restrictions, so
must be the labour by which commerce is created.
The operative must be made free of his country ;
and he can never be so if a week's distress, or an
unforeseen, accident subjects him to a compulsory
removal to the place where he or his grand-
father, it may be, was born ; a place which
may have become to him almost a foreign land.
We are not quite clear, from Mr. BAINES'S speech,
as to hia mode of reconciling union, instead of
parish settlement, with the abolition of forcible
removal. Sir Jolly PAKINGTON wished him to
make his bill clear on the poor man's " right of
settlement." It seems to be taken for granted
that settlement as well as rating will go with the
union ; of course, in ten years time, no parish
would have any interest in removing a pauper
within its own union. But if Mr. BAINES'S doc-
trine be accepted, that relief can be claimed where
the destitution occurs (and it ought to be so), and
if the destitute man cannot be compelled to re-
move to the union of his settlement, it would
seem that his support must fall upon the union
in which he is resident at the time. If so,
of what use is a right of settlement to
him ? It can be of avail only in the case
in which, after short residence in a distant
union, which has not, therefore, become a home
to him ; lie may desire to be removed to his real
home when circumstances have disabled hith from
earning his livelihood among strangers. The re-
servation of such a right would be certainly
humane and desirable.

Mr. PASHLEY has reminded us, in his admi-
rable work, " Pauperism and the Poor Laws," that
" district relief" was tried under the statute of
14 Elizabeth, c. 5, till it was superseded by the 39
Elizabeth c. 3, the fundamental act of our present
system of parochial relief ; and he seems disposed
to lay great stress on its failure and supercession
by a return to the parish system in a reign of ex-
traordinary administrative ability. He also points
out the important fact, that therating varies almost
as much between different unions as it does
between parishes in the same union. In Glou-
cestershire the average of the Tewkesbury Union
is lOid. in the pound, that of the' Dursley one
33. sicl. In the North Riding of Yorkshire, the
Darlington Union pays on the average Bd.i the
Reeth Union 2s. 6d., in the pound,' and the list'
may be enlarged indefinitely. Mr. BAINES retains
the Union as the area of rating and the basis of
management, chiefly on the ground that local
supervision and local interest are essential to pre-