The Sun.
London, England, 1831-12-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

The new measure of Reform is now before Par- 1
lament. It was introduced last night by Lord John
Russell, who in a manly and perspicuous statemew,
explained the nature of the alterations by which the
present is distinguished from the former Bill. The
first question that naturally sugeests itself is,whether
the principle to which Ministers were pledged have
been compromised by those changes'? Our answer
is ut once that it has not. The schedules A and B
are preserved—the disfranchising and enfranchising
clauses are preserved—the right of the 101. house-
holder is preserved ; in short, not only is every thing
preserved which principle required, and the express
declaration of Lord Grey taught the country to ex-
pect, but more has been done with that view (as if
to avoid the possibility of an imputation) than, in
the judgment of moderate men, was required
by the circumstances of the case. It is not, how-
ever, as we conceive, to be inferred, either from the
speech of Lord John Russell, or from the fact of the
Bill having been introduced in its present shape
after much previous discussion and arrangement,
that further alterations may not be made in it, even
with the consent of Ministers, before it passes into
a law. At all evehts it is likely to be much
debated even in the House of Commons,
where the symptoms of resistance, though
they may have some xhat diminished in tone
and language, have certainly not disappeared in
reality. As to the specific alterations by which the
present Bill is distinguished from the former, they
appear, on the hasty consideration to which we are
necessarily restricted at this moment, to consist
chiefly in arrangements for simplifying the practical
operation of the measure, the most important of the
new Clauses being that which continues the Iran-
tiliw possessed by right of birth and service to free-
Inns, with only the condition of residence attached
to it. This concession will probably satisfy the cor-
porate bodies, some of whom resisted the Bill in
consequence of its interference with those rights.
It is with pleasure that we notice the difference
which appears in the tone of last night's debate, as
compared with the discussions to which we were
before accustomed. There were no threats of hos-
tility, to be persisted in through every stage—there
were no violent attacks or recriminations; a little of
the vituperative spirit might have appeared now
;said then, but it was evidently under great restraint,
e-titi on its good behaviour. Even Sir Charles
Wetherell spoke in a subdued and chastened style.
We may therefore look forward to proceedings more
in the nature of a deliberative assembly within the
House; and it is to be hoped that the example will
extend to other quarters, where a still greater lack
of temper was manifested, and where not only good
manners, but good sense, were often sacrificed
to what was erroneously considered strong writing.
Ns we stated yesterday, the Bill is to he read a
second time before-the holidays. Friday is the slay
named, and the Committee is to be postponed until
after Christmas. It does not appear that the Mini-
sters expect any very obstinate resistance to the im-
portant stage of the second reading, when they seem
to think it unlikily to produce an adjourned debate.
Still, as most of their opponents have declared ,
themselves adverse to the new measure, the prin-
ciple of which they considered to be exactly the same
as the former, the tactics, therefore, of the last ses-
sion are to be preserved, eo far as the House of
Commons is concerned. Those tactics were to op-
pose the measure in detail, and endeavour, as it
were, by a side-wind, to upset the principle. We
are now speaking of the uncompromising enemies of
Reform ; but there are many of a different class,
who will, no doubt, seeing the importance of Re-
form to the prosperity and happiness of the country,
endeavour to make the Bill as perfect as possible,
not that it may be defeated, but that it may be
passed with every advantage of consideration. Upon
the whole we conceive that the country has reason
to be satisfied with what has already taken place ;
and the prospect of a more temperate discussion in
its future stages holds out the best security that can
be given for a final satisfactory arrangement.—
Morn ink; Herald.

On the part of a considerable number of advo-
cates of Reform there has been, hitherto, too much
menace and declamation, and too little calm reason-
ing and argument, in supporting a question that can
so well hear to be reasoned, and which the inter-
ference of the passions can only impede and em-
barrass, and which, indeed, that sort of interference
has already deeply and seriously prejudiced. It is
in the recollection of the public, and the public have
cause to remember it, that, for several weeks before
the second reading of the late Bill in the House of
Lords, a constant fire of intimidation and menace
was directed against that assembly through intem-
perate pamphlets and the fierce columns of a portion
of the daily press. We protested, at the tune,
against attempting to carry a question by vulgar ap-
peals to servile fears and sordid feelings, which stood
011 the high ground of just policy, and, like every
question founded in justice and sound principle,
could only gain strength, not in the degree in
which the passions are inflamed, but in proportion
as the understanding is enlightened. There can he
no doubt that the course and vulgar attacks made
from day to day upon the House of Lords—the arro-
gant manner in which the intemperate portion
of the Reform Press denied to the second branch of
the Legislature the right to exercise the privileges of
a deliberative assembly—the insulting calculation
upon the effects of their fears in counteracting their
inclination—there can be no doubt, we say, that such
injudicious attempts to secure a majority of the
House of Lords in favour of the Bill produced ex-
actly the opposite effect. As Legislators, the 'Mem-
bers of the Upper House ought to have taken into
their consideration nothing but the merits of the
question they had met to discuss ; but as men of high
rank, not treated with common respect, and, us men
of spirit, now allowed to be capable of deciding a
great measure of national policy on any higher mo-
tive than what resulted from casting up the balance
between sordid interest and vulgar fear, we can-
not wonder that they were put upon their mettle,
and that they rejected at once, and indignantly,
a measure, the success of which was anticipated
by its more clamorous advocates, not from the wis-
dom and justice of the House of Lords, but from
their passive terror and political cowardice. We
hope that such an offensive and injurious mode
of appealing to the House of Lords on Reform will
not be renewed. We hope all sincere Reformers will
`cc that their cause has already been injured by in-
temperance, and that it never can be served by it.
11'e think that, after what has passed, if any writers
have recourse to abuse, invective, and threats, in
treating of Reform, in preference to argument and
reason, the public will have good reason to suspect
they are not the sincere friends of the cause which
sue h violence prejudices and degrades. We have
looked into two pamphlets lately published by
Ridgway, which arc in a better tone and spirit, be-
cau•e they are more calm and argumentative, than
lowly previous publications which were (rioted and
praised by the Ministerial Press. One of them i.
" What hare the Lords done ? and what
will they do next ?" From the title it is obvious
that the subject of the ptiblicatton is the conduct
of the Lords with regard to the lisform Bill,
It is written with fr;edorn ; but it is the chas-
tened freedom of sound judgment and good taste,
The following passages will show that its tone,
though firm, is more persuasive than dogmatic,
and that it treats with becoming respect the patri-
cian order of the State :—" That the House of Lords
was entitled t o reject the Bill sent to them from
the Commons no one of common understanding de-
Nits. The power of using a right or privilege alone
bestows a value upon it ; that tt must cease to be
valuable when the liberty of exercising it is with-
held, is perfectly dear. Hence the natural and
allowable jealousy of all men, at any seeming at-
tempt to couttoul the exercise of the rights, privi-
leges, or prerogatives they enjoy. But the Peens
had been treated for some time past as if they were
inaccessible to any such jealousy—as if they were
nut endued with the common feelings of human pa-

tore, for the protection and defence of their rights.
These rights were challenged, as opposed to those
of the people, though all rights are distributed by
the Constitution equally, for the benefit of all. The
conduct of many Noble Lords on the late occasion,
there is every reason to believe, might be traced to
displeasure at such rash attempts to interfere with
their prerogative. It cannot be imagined, indeed,
that any of the majority were favourable to the
I3:11; on the contrary, all were, more or less,
and many irreconcilably, adverse to it; some, how-
ever, hesitated as to the policy of voting against
it, and powerful motives concurred to overcome
the hostility of its less violent and less interested
opponents. Had these been allowed to operate, the
result might have been different. The unfortunate
attempts alluded to raised up a counteracting influ-
ence, and turned the balance against the Bill. In the
course of these attempts the House of Lords were
treated with far too little consideration—in some
instances with determined disrespect. It is natural
that men imbued with a high sense of honour and
personal courage should shrink from the suspicion of
being intimidated in the discharge of a great public
duty—that, filling the most exalted station, as the
hereditary Judges and Legislators of the land, they
should recoil from the thought of becoming mere
instruments of the popular will—that, proud of
having a sacred trust committed to them by the
Constitution, they should revolt at the efforts to
render it nugatory in their hands. While we can
reasonably ascribe honourable motives to men, we
must refrain from charging them with others. Many
Noble Lords may have voted in the majority without
meriting the odium so justly and discriminately la-
vished upon all. To believe this is not only an act
of duty to them, but it is a strong eround of hope
and confidence for the country. Honest men are
ever prompt to acknowledge an error and repair a
wrong. The whole stare of things is now changed.
The Lords have maintained their rights—they have
asserted their authority and prerogative—they have
upheld the dignity of their House,—can they re-
quire any thing more to satisfy their sense of what
is due to themselves? Can any extenuating motives
be urged in defence of those who are prepared for
further resistance ?" The other pamphlet to which
we have alluded is in the form of " A Letter to the
Earl of Harrowbv, on the present State of the
Reform Question." Its tone is calm and temperate
—its remarks judicious and sensible—and such as
might be expected from a reasoning and cultivated
mind. We have only space for one or two short ex-
tracts. Ai' ith regard to the mutual forbearance which
ought to be practised towards each other on this
great and stirring question of Reform, the author
says—" If the Peers have any wish to conci-
liate the people, they will for the future admit their
pretensions to the possession of intelligence sufficient
to understand their rights and interests, and of pa-
triotism enough to forbear the full exaction of them,
if the greater interests of the commonwealth should
require the sacrifice—for the future they evill forbear
from taunting the middle—that is the most im-
portant—class with the epithets of a fierce, a sweep-
ing, a furious democracy ;—they will forbear to
identify them with incendiaries, and to charge them
with schemes of revolution and blood. On the
other hand, the people are bound to concede to the
Peers, in their places, the deference due to the
highest legislative assembly, venerable for its anti-
quity, exercising an undoubted right of judgment on
the decisions of the Lower Assembly—loyal, in op.
position to the Crown, and bold, perhaps, to a fault.
Menace, the people should recollect, hazards more
than it can possibly gain, since courage is a much
more common property than either good sense
or good temper." Again :—" To the present mo-
ment the Peers, as a conservative assembly, may be
conceived to have acted a conscientious, and, on the
score of caution, a meritorious part ; but on what
ground a further opposition could be justified, with
the certain conviction that the people will not relax
their chief demands, and that ultimate resistance
cannot avail, is inconceivable. 1i it not, then, the
part of every genuine patriot, whose judgment still
resists the importunities of the friends of Reform, to
retire, at least, from a conflict, the prolongation of
which must add to the calamities of his country,
and, in private, to devote his talents to the miti-
gation of evils which cannot be prevented.—
The people, on their part, will appreciate the
sentiment, and respect the opinion they cannot
approve. They will more than ever learn to
love a Constitution which provides ample re-
dress for every grievance, and abundant re-
sources for every exigence. In the possession
of moderate but substantial good, lawfully ob-
tained, and certainly secured in the enjoyment of
more settled order and tranquillity, they will be less
disposed to incur the risk of uncertain changes.
They will commit the idle bubbles of the specula-
tists and, with them, the gloomy auguries of the
alarmists, to the winds." We cannot but ex-
press our concurrence in the sentiments of a writer
who, without any sacrifice of principle, treats the
question of Reform in that tone of moderation and
sober argument which we had from the beginning
recommended. Let the agitators, who desire change
for the sake of convulsion, still wing their ominous
flight on the turbid elements of the passion, but be
it our task, arid that of all the sincere friends of be-
neficent Reform, to conquer by the weapons of rea-
son alone.—Morning Herald.

The important disclosure about which so much
anxiety has been shewn, and justly shewn, was made
last night in the House of Commons. Lord John
Russell there brought forward and explained the
plan of the new Ministerial Bill for Parliamentary
Reform. To us, from the rapid view which we
have been enabled to take of it (and we sincerely
hope our countrymen will join in our opinion), it is
satisfactory. It sacrifices no principle of the old
Bill,—it differs but little from it in the details ; and
where it does thus differ, the change, we should
conceive, is favourable to public rights and the po-
pular interests. However, the measure must un-
dergo again an ample discussion, during the conti-
nuance of which we shall have many opportunities
of canvassing its specific provisions. But there is
one advantage, produced perhaps by time and reflec-
tion, in which the new Bill has a decided advantage
over the other. It is, we think, likely to be more
kindly received. Of this we had almost despaired,
from a recent speech of Sir Robert Peel's in the
House of Commons ; but his language last night has
put us in spirits again, and inspired us with
hopes : not that the Ministry were unable to have
carried their measure through the Lower House,
whatever might have been the opposition of Sir
Robert and his friends (Mr. Hunt, of course, in-
cluded in the number l); but because its second re-
ception with the Lords will, of course, be much in-
fluenced by what may have occurred before. Indeed
union has now become so paramount an object, that
had the Bill at present introduced differed still less
from that which was rejected, and the respectable
part of the Opposition been able to hang a change
of opinion on that minuter difference, for our parts
they should have been fully welcome to do so. We
would not have reproached them with the identity
of the two measures. The public, we hope, would
have been satisfied, and they might have " come
off" without the imputation of instability, vacilla-
tion, or timidity. May we again hope, then, to
t.ce the nation in good humour, and the people
and Legislature, with their excellent Sovereign,
recalling their powers and energies from party
conflict*, and applying them wholly to theim-
provement of the internal condition of the country t
The lapse of a very short time will tell us whether
we may answer those questions in the negative or
affirmative ; but during that short time there must
he no relaxation of zeal and resolution to carry the
Reform. NV e proceed to the analysis of the Bill. It
will be recollected that the last Bill embraced chiefly
three points—the disfranchisement of certain de-
cayed or nomination boroughs, the enfranchisement
of sonic large towns or important and populous
districts, and the extension of suffrage both in to‘ln*
and counties. The important parts of these provi-
ions in the old Bill are preserved, or rendered more
liberal and efficient in the new, though the mode of

arriving at the result is somewhat different. In the
framer Bill all the boroughs sending Members to
Parliament which had a population below ,000,
were disfranchised ; and those which had labove
2,000 inhabitants, but below 4,000, were deprived
of their right of any but one Member. Population
was tr, by this means, made the basis of represen-
tation ; but it was conceived that places so unim-
portant as to have fewer than 2,000 or 4,000 inha-
bitants, were not entitled to the right of being re-
presented by two Members in Parliament, while
large towns (of 100,000 inhabitants fee in•
stance) had none. Nearly a hundred boroughs were
either partially or entirely disfranchised by this
rule, and a disengaged representation provided
for large towns and counties. By the present Bill
the process of disfranchisement is somewhat diffe-
rent. The fiamers of the measure have ordered the
numbers of houses, and the amount of assessed taxes,
to lie taken of 100 boroughs, which are the
least considerable in these two respects. Of
these 100 boroughs, 56 are to be totally dis-
franchised—a number corresponding with that of
schedule Ain the former Bill; and to the remaining
4-1 only one Member would have been given, unless
the Government had resolved, in compliance with
the wishes generally expressed last session, to retain
the full number of Members at present in the House.
By the Bill of last year 23 seats remained, after
adding to the county representation, after giving
Members to large town,, and after increasing the
deputations from Scotland and Ireland. In dis-
posing of these 23 seats, it is propo,ed to give ten
to the boroughs in schedule 13, one to Chatham, as
separate from Rochester, and twelve to the large
towns in schedule D, such as Bolton, Brighton,
Bradford, Blackburn, Macclesfield, Stockport, Hali-
fax, and others, which by the last Bill were only to
have one Member each. The reason why the number
of houses and the amount of assessment are pre-
ferred to the returns of population in determining
the extent of disfranchisement, is, tl:at they are less
liable to mistake or exaggeration than the enume-
ration of inhabitants. The new Bill proposes no
change in the relative proportion of the Members
given to towns and counties, or in the proportional
representation of the different kingdoms of the
empire. By the new mode of forming the list of
boroughs to be totally disfranchised, and that of
those subject to partial disfranchisement, five boroughs
which ware formerly in schedule A have been
transferred to schedule B ; and five in schedule B
have been transferred to schedule A. The follow-
ing are in the latter unlucky predicameet :—Ald-
borough (in Yorkshire), Amersham, East Grinstead,
Oakhampton, and Saltash; while Petersfield, Eye,
Wareham, Woodstock, arid Lostwithiel, are so for-
tunate as to retain one Member. 'With regard to
the qualification, some changes are introduced
into the new Bill. It will be recollected that
a great many difficulties were encountered
during the former discussions, in determining
the question of a 101. rent, whether the house
was to be valued, or taken as rated in the parish
books. By the present Bill ail these difficulties will
be removed. A return will be made of all the
houses of 10/. annual value within a borough, and
the occupant or owner will have a vote, if rated to
the poor, at whatever amount he is rated. If not
rated at all, he can acquire the power of exercising
his electoral rights by demanding to be put on the
parish books for his contribution to the poor, and
becomes a voter when that formality is complied
with. The questions which divided the House in
former discussions of the borough qualification, are
thus much simplified, and the rights of the citizens
more infallibly secured. But besides this change, the
constituency of boroughs and cities has undergone an-
other alteration in the present Bill, as compared
with the last. It will be remembered that freemen,
if resident, or living within seveN miles of their re-
spective boroughs, were allowed by the former
measure to exercise their rights during their
lives, but it was provided that their privilege
should not descend to their children. By the pre-
sent Bill, the right of voting conferred on freemen
along with their other rights by birth or servitude,
' is to be continued on its present footing, and not to
be terminable with the present generation, as in the
late measure. A third change determines that free-
holders in cities or boroughs which are counties in
themselves, shall retain their votes either for the bo-
rough, city, or county, as heretofore, without being
subject to any of the proposed regulations of the late
Bill. These are the only alterations which the Bill
has undergone worthy of being enumerated in a
short summary like the present. Some of them,
we admit, are of considerable importance in simpli-
fying its machinery, and others in increasing its
efficiency ; but at the same time, as friends and
supporters of the late measure, we must repel the
charge brought against it of such imperfections as
justified its rejection, by persons who are opposed to
its successor.—Timcs.

The new edition of the Reform Bill, revised and
corrected, was introduced to the House of Commons
last night by Lord John Russell, and the altera-
tions or improvements, for in this case the terms are
nearly synonymous, are, it must be confessed, neither
few nor unimportant. The principal of them are
these :—Five of the proscribed boroughs, including
the much-disputedAldborough, escape from schedule
A to schedule B ; eleven of the mutilated boroughs
will be released from schedule B, and will regain
their two Members; and two will be given to
several of the towns in schedule D, to which one
only was allotted by the former Bills. These two
latter objects are attained by the restoration to the
House of, its original complement of six hundred
and fiftpeight Members. Caine, Horsham, and
Northallerton are to lose one Member each. Mr.
Mackinnon's plan for taking the census of 1831
instead of 1821 is adopted with regard to the num-
ber of houses, by which the boroughs are to be esti-
mated, instead of by the population. With regard
to the qualification, the 101. householders must not
only pay that rental, but be assessed at that amount
to the poor's-rate and taxes. Again, by the former
Bills the elective franchise in corporate towns was
to be secured only to the freemen now living,
and was afterwards to become extinct ; according
to the present plan the rights of freemen, by birth
or servitude, will be permanently maintained.
Such are the leading changes in the Mt.
nisterial Bill, and the first commentary which
suggests itself on viewing them is that so well
applied by Sir R. Peel and Mr. Croker, that there
is not one of them which was not strenuously urged
by the Opposition during the late discussions, and
as strenuously resisted by those Ministers who now
are forced to acknowledge their justice and expedi-
ency. Taunted and vilified as the Opposition have
been with the odious charge of factiously seeking to
delay the progress of the B;ll, the measure now pro-
posed is indeed a triumphant vindication, and an un-
willing tribute to that honesty, patriotism, end sound
judgment which guided their conduct. Nay, one
remarkable alteration, that, namely, which restores
the original number of Members to the House,
is, with an immaterial variation, the very altera-
tion for venturing to approve of which the last Par-
liament was exposed to the unlimited abuse, and in-
curred the final penalty of a dissolution. The friends
of Ministers will probably not impute to their pa-
trons the adoption of these changes against their
own conviction and sense of right ; how then can it
any longer be denied by the Ministers or their adhe-
rents that the House of Lords essentially served
the country by rejecting a project so full of errors
and incongruities as the late Reform measure is
now admitted to have been ? It may be asked,
why, then, (lid not the Lords improve the Bill in
these particulars, and return it so amended to the
Commons, instead of utterly rejecting it on the
second reading ? We may answer, in the first place,
that suggestions embodying the improvements in
question having actually emanated from the Oppo-
sition in the Lower House, and Ministers having
there refused to entertain them, it is reasonable to
conclude that tl ey would not have been accepted
from the Lords. In the seeprid place, these amend-
ments in the detail have left the principle of the
measure as objectionable as ever. Numbers will

still overbear property ; the preponderating power
in the State will still be vested in the hands of the
meatiest, the most cotitemptible, and the most dis-
reputable class of the community ; the influence of
the great towns is still destined to overwhelm the
agricultural interest, and, in fact, those principles
are still maintained in nearly all their former mons-
trocity, which the sober and enlig-hterted part of
the nation regard with di,trust, with aversion, and
with dread. The Constitutional party will there-
fore feel it their duty to resist the present Bill as
perseveringly, and we trust as successfully, as the
two former.—Akrning Post.

At length the new Reform Bill is before the
country. The parts of the late Bill which recom-
mended it to the nation were the disfranchising
clauses. Through the instrumentality of the rotten
boroughs, the Members of the House of Commons
ceased to be the representatives of the nation. The
attention of the country will, therefore, be first di-
rected to the boroughs included in schedules A
and B of the last Bill. The number of boroughs
included in schedule A was 56. The rule accord-
ing to which boroughs were included in that sche-
dule was in possessing a population under 2,000 by
the census of 1821. Since that time the census of
1831 has been nearly completed. But then there
existed ;t motive for resorting to improper practices
in taking the census of 1831, in the case of the
small boroughs, which did not exist in 1821. Lord
John Russell observed, that to guard against such
practices—as the test of population might not
in all cases be perfectly accurate—it would be
better to take houses than persons, it being
less likely that improper practices should be
resorted to with regard to the number of
houses than with regard to the number of persons.
By adhering to the rule, however, modified as it is
by taking the number of houses, the changes, as
as far as they extend, are disadvantageou.. Instead
of fifty-six boroughs totally disfranchised, there will
now be fifty-one. The number of boroughs is-
eluded in schedule B, subject to partial disfran-
chisement, is next to be considered. The rule was
a population under 1,000 or above 2,000. Schedule
Bin the last Bill contained forty-one blrougLs. By
the present Bill it contains thirty boroughs, that is
eleven fewer than in the former. We need not
say that in respect of both these schedules, the Bill
has been anything rather than improved. Whatever
adds to the proportion of small boroughs returning
representatives is an evil. 'Whether the population
or the assessed taxes of the boroughs formerly in-
eluded in schedule A and B be considered, they are
so insignificant that we can hardly help regretting
that any of them should have escaped partial dis-
franchisement.

" The boroughs (said Lord John Russell) in schedule
B were placed there originally more with a view to the
general form of the representation than with any other
particular object ; and, in the first place, not to give to
the smaller boroughs such a large share in the repre•
sensation as they would have if they were allowed to have
two Members, and also with the view to diminishing the
Members of the House. With respect to the propriety
of all these boroughs not having two Members, the
opinions of the framers of the Bill remain unchanged.
With respect to the number of the Members of the House,
it has been matter of serious consideration whether, after
the number has been enlarged from that paint at which it
was pnt in the last Session, so as to be only twenty-three
less than it is at the present moment—whether, after
that enlargement of numbers, it might not be more ad-
vantageous to retain it at that point, and whether the ob-
jection to that diminution of numbers might not be con-
ciliated without neglecting the great principles of the
Bill. In considering that question another advantage
was perceived ; namely, this :—lt had been one of the
most constant objections to the measures of Government,
that many of the large towns, left with only one Mem-
ber, would be in a state of discontent tid they had
obtained two. Without yielding to that argument, for I
think that in many instances one Member would be fully
sufficient to represent the particular interest of these towns,
it was evident that there would be a great advantage, if,
by giving them two Members, these objections might be
in some degree obviated, and the larger among these towns
would be placed in a better situation ; but at the same time
it was evident, that if we proposed to give the whole
number of vacant places created by the schedule B to
these large towns, we should be giving a degree of weight
to the manufacturing towns, which, without some balance
or counterpoise, would be considered objectionable. It
then came to a question whether we should give that num-
ber to the large counties. It appeared to us that it would
not be an advantage to adopt a farther division of counties
for that purpose, or to give three Members to those
counties which now possess two. The only way, there-
fore, to avoid the difficulty was, to give a certain number
of these Members to the highest towns in schedule B, sup-
posing that we took the list of forty-one towns in schedule
Bas it stood last session. That course it was resolved
to adopt; and it is, therefore, proposed, that of the
twenty•three Members whose seats, after the arrange-
ments I have mentioned, will remain to be disposed of,
ten shall be given to the more considerable towns, that,
under the last Bill, would have returned but one Member
each to Parliament." _ _

Here we have the explanation of the grounds for
partially disfranchising only thirty boroughs, in ad-
dition to the fifty-one totally disfranchised. The
next part, in point of importance, is the enfranchise-
ment. Our readers will have observed, from the
above passage, though somewhat obscurely worded,
that the twenty-three Membt ra, by which the pre-
sent number of the House exceeds the number in
the last Bill, are to be retained. Of these, ten
Members are to be given to ten large tons having
only one Member by the former 8,11. These large
towns are Bolton, Brighton, Bradford, Blackburne,
Macclesfield, Stockport, Stoke-upon-Trent, Halifax,
Stroud, and Huddersfield. One Member is to be
given to Chatham, which in the former Bill was
joined to Rochester (which will now be left to
itself), and one is to be given to the county of Mon-
mouth, now possessing only ono representative;
and the eleven to boroughs taken out of schedule B.
The number of Members for Scotland and Ireland
will remain as fixed in the last Bill. With regard
to qualification, some important alterations have
been made. In every city or borough persons of
full age, and not legally disqualified, occupying a
house, warehouse, or shop, separately or jointly with
land of the yearly value of ten pounds assessed to
the pours' rate, should, on the same being duly re-
gistered, be entitled to a vote. The former Bill
continued the franchise to all existing resident free-
men, and apprentices, and others with inchoate
rights. The present Bill continues the franchise to
all freemen possessing it by birth and servitude, for
ever, provided they reside within the city or bo-
rough, or within seven miles of the place of voting,
The mention of this last alteration was loudly
cheered by the Opposition, and we need not say
that we look upon it as tending greatly to dete-
riorate the Bill. It is evidently a sop to those rich
men who cannot support the idea of parting with
the power of bribery and corruption. We foresee
that it will in time open a door to jobbing in free-
men, thereby to swamp the independent voters.
Some other minor regulations are introduced,
but the above are the essential variations. The
limits of the boroughs will be settled by the
Bill and not by Commissioners, Ministers being
now in possession of sufficient materials to guide
them. The rule of requiring three hundred electors
in every place is to be departed from. It would
seem to be in contemplation to give to all the towns
now destitute of municipal authorities, charters with
rights assimilating them to the city of London;
where the Mayors or Chief Magistrates are to be-
come the returning officers, in place of the return.
ing officers named by the Bill. The Bill is, in mat-
ters of detail, superior to the last ; but it is inferior,
in so far as it gives a greater number of Members for
small towns liable to be unduly influenced, and in so
far as it continues the franchise to freemen for ever.
We are not insensible to the immense improvement
which this Reform, if obtained, will be upon the
former state of the representation, but it is not
equally efficient with the last. We can make every
allowance for the difficulty with which Ministers
have to contend, and only hope that the Opposition
will he propitiated by the concessions made to them.
We observe that Lord .lohn Russell and Lord Al-
thorp do not defend the new B:11 on exactly the
same grounds. Lord John, somewhat casuistically

we think, endeavoured to show that Earl Grey was
under another engagement when he made the pledge
that the new measure should not be less efficient
than the former, and that the pledge could only be
interpreted with reference to such prior engagement.
" If (said Lord John) my Noble Friend at the head of
his Majesty's Government has said—nay, has entered, as
he undoubtedly has, into a voluntary engagement—that
the new measure shall not be less efficient than the fitriner,
there can be no question that he made that engagement,
bound by another engagement, not less in force, and to
which he must have felt himself under the necessity of re
conciling it, and in conformity with which the public must
receive it. [however anxious his Noble Friend might he
to concur in laying before Parliament a measure not less
efficient than the former, yet he would never lose sight of
that oilier obligation, which compelled him to give support
to no proposition which did not respect fist privileges of
the other House of Parliament, and go to uphold the Just
prerogatives of the Crown. If there are those, who, in-
ferring solely to the voluntary engagement of my N 011,2
Friend, would require him to go farther, he hoped they
would bear in mind that he was bound by both engage-
ments."

This defence amounts almost to an insinuation
that Earl Grey, when he proposed the former Bill,
had lost sight of the obligation alluded to by Lord
John. The obligation existed when the former 1111
was proposed as much as it exists now; and the
pledge supposed the obligation taken into account
when an assurance was given that the new 13:11
should be equally efficient with the former. Lord
John would open a door to indefinite evasion, for it
might always be easy to get rid of a pledge by
alleging a prior engagement of an indefinite nature
to respect the privileges of the other House and the
prerogatives of the Grown. Lord Althorp, how-
ever, alluding to the triumph at the alterations in
the Bill displayed by Sir Robert Peel, observed,
that Ministers looped upon all the alterations, or
nearly all of thtun, as improvements, " but at
the same time," said his Lordship, " I have
a right to remark, that where objections have
been made that did not seem to involve points
of any material consequence, it seemed to us wise to
adopt them in the spirit of conciliation ;" and that
the points on which the Bight Honourable Gentle-
man congratulated himself and his party " plainly
showed him that the Right Honourable Gentleman
is fully aware that the principles of the Bill really
remain the same, and that those points, which, du-
ring the last session, occasioned the warmest discus-
lion, have undergone no alteration." The Irish
Members present expressed dissatisfaction with re-
spect to the Reform to be given to Ireland. The
second reading is to be opposed ; but, from the tone
of Mr. Baring and several other Members, there
seems little rervion to doubt that the Bill will not he
strenuously opposed. The second reading is to take
place on Friday next; and the House is to sit on
Siturday, so that the division will take place on
Saturday night. The House will then adjourn over
the Christmas holidays, to meet again early in
January.—Morning Chronicle.

SECOND Et )ITION.
SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

OF THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
At Four o'clock, there being only Thirty-four Members
present, the .flouse adjourned until To-morrow.