The Sun.
London, England, 1859-02-28 00:00:00

SHOPLIFTING.

Speridoni Luseg, an Italian, was indicted for stealing two
pieces of silk, of the value of £B, the property of Mr Charles
Candy, a warehouseman in Watling-street, City, and also
with stealing 13 yards of silk, of tho value of £2 10s., the
property of Mr. Thomas Perry.

From the evidence it appeared that tho prisoner entered
the warehouse and asked to look at some silk robes. The
silks were shown, when it was observed that he had secreted
a parcel under his coat, which afterwards turned out to be
two lengths of silk.

Mr. Ribton addressed the jury for the prisoner, in a very
long speech, in which he contended that the witnesses were
mistaken.

The jury found the prisoner guilty.
Two former convictions having been proved, the Re-
corder sentenced him to two years' imprisonment.

THE NEW REFORM BILL.

(Front the Times.)

The most uncandid partisan must admit that the
task which Government has undertaken this day
to discharge is one of no ordinary difficulty and
danger. For a Tory Ministry to propose a Reform
Bill must always be an operation of a very delicate
character, and in the present instance the failure
of preceding Governments in the same career may
naturally be supposed to aggravate the embarrass-
ment of the situation. On the other hand, the
framers of the coming Reform Bill enjoy an advan-
tage which was not given to their predecessors.
Mr. Bright's autumnal campaign has thoroughly
ventilated the subject for them, and taught them
very clearly what it is which the people do not
want. In this respect it would be difficult to
exaggerate the services which the member for
Birmingham has rendered to the cause of peace,
order, and good government throughout these.
islands. By making propositions which everybody
disapproved he has been, sorely against his will, a
guide to the discovery of what it is which the
intelligent and impartial public would approve.
He has established beyord dispute that in this
practical country there exists no taste for discus-
sions and no confidence in conclusions founded on
doctrines of abstract right, and that the problem
which Government has to solve is not how to satisfy
certain theoretical maxims of equality, but how to
provide in Parliament an instrument fitted for the
discharge of those duties of which the constitution
makes it the depository.

Coming to their task with such advantages and
such disadvantages, Government have doubtless
carefully considered the causes which led to the
almost immediate abandonment of the bills pro-
posed by the Governments of Lord John Russell
and Lord Aberdeen. The most obvious cause was
the practical difficulty of securing adequate support
for passing those bills into law. The extension of
boroughs in the first case, and their disfranchise-
ment in the second, necessarily gave a considerable
number of members on either side of the house a
very strong interest in the failure of the measure.
This interest proved more powerful than oidluuty
party tics, and held out to the reforming Govern-
ment the prospect of having to contend against
the compact mass of the Opposition, strength-
ened and encouraged by very numerous deserters
from their own ranks. A little calculation
served to show that, in the presence of a
large number of members of all parties acting
together with perfect unanimity for one common
object, and in the absence of any strong pressure
to counteract those influences, it was vain to
attempt to fight the battle of 1832 without the
weapons which had then gained the victory, and
that nothing was left but a prudent and immediate
retreat. The public will therefore not be sur-
prised if in the construction of their bill Ministers
have exactly inverted the process employed by
Mr. Bright, and if, instead of disfranchising
boroughs according to an arbitrary numerical
standards, and embarrassing themselves with a
vast number of vacated seats, for which in the
absence of equal electoral districts it would have
been extremely difficult to find constituents, they
have begun by ascertaining what number of seats
are wanted to supply acknowledged deficiences, and
no more, by the process of disfranchisement. Any
one conversant with these subjects will easily
supply the names of the new constituencies which
would thus be formed. In this part of the measure
there would be but little novelty, and, indeed,
novelty in such a case was scarcely possible. To
supply this not very considerable number of seats
they would not require either to have recourse to
the extension of boronghs, as proposed by Lord J.
Russell, !for yet to the plan of total disfranchise-
ment so largely adopted in the first Reform Bill.
No borough, we believe, will be entirely disfran-
chised. The schedule to the act will, in fact, cor-
respond to schedule B of the original Reform Bill.
From a certain number of the smaller boroughs,
returning two members a single member will be
withdrawn, and the seats thus obtained will be
given to the new constituencies which it is intended
to create. There are many, doubtless, who will
hear with disappointment the announcement that
it is proposed to confine the, work of enfranchise-
ment within such narrow limits, but it is only fair
they should remember that it is a very, different
thing to draw out abstract schemes of Reform '
in the closet, and to frame a measure which has
a chance of being carried through the House of
Commons in the face of a powerful and interested
Opposition, with but a lukewarm and occasional
support from the public out of doors.
The public will nct be surprised if the Ministe-
rial measure adopts as a basis of the County
Franchise a £lO occupation, which has already
more than once received the approbation of the
House of Commons, when embodied in the measure
of Mr. Locke King. This is not the place for
entering into a discussion of the merits of this
proposal, which, doubtless, will be rather a start-
ling one to a certain number of our county mem-
bers. Its adoption by a Tory Government must
be accepted as evidence of the growing liberality of
the times in which we live, and must in all fairness
be considered as a proof of the wish of Ministers to
deal with the question, if not on very wide, at any
rate on honest and intelligible principles, and to
exhibit a suitable deference for the verdict which
the House of Commons has pronounced on this
subject. It will also, we believe, be proposed to
facilitate the voting of constituencies so largely
increased as those of the Counties will be by a sys-
tem of voting papers, which may relieve the elector
from the necessity of travelling a long distance in
order to record his vote at the nearest polling place.

As regards the Borough Franchise, it has been
considered that it would be ridiculous, after so
considerably lowering the County Franchise in
order to produce uniformity, to destroy that uni-
formity as soon as created by a further reduction
of the amount. The Ministerial Bill will therefore,
if we are not misinformed, propose that henceforth
the franchise for boroughs and counties shall be
uniform, resting on an occupation of £lO, and thus
seeking to establish a limit below which no