The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-02-21 00:00:00

TUESDAY MORNING, FEB. 21, 1854.

BEFORE proceeding to offer any observations on
the ministerial measure of Parliamentary Reform
which was proposed to the House of Commons on
*Tuesday last, by Lord JOHN RUSSELL, it might
be as well to ascertain if the subject is really worth
discussion,—if, indeed, there is any serious inten-
tion of again bringing the question before the
Legislature. Were it not something akin to high
treason to question the sanity of a man who,
though holding no office, occupies the high posi-
tion of a Cabinet Minister, and leader of the House
of Commons, we might entertain the impression
that Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S mania for doing some-
thing daring had displayed itself in a chaotic web
of day-dreams, and that his colleagues, fearing the
break-up of the Coalition by any opposition, had
allowed him full sway to tell his own tale, in his
own manner, knowing full well that Parliament
would never be called upon for a decision. It may
therefore, perhaps, be hardly fair to treat Lord
JOHN. RUSSELL'S frame of mind as one in which
he can be said to be responsible for his actions ;
and such will be the conclusion to which most in-
telligent men will arrive, upon examining the con-
fused string of discordant crotchets which make
up this long-promised scheme of Parliamentary
Reform. It would appear, indeed, that such was
the impression in the House of Commons, on its
announcement, for it was greeted with no enthu-
siastic cheers from Radicals, nor denounced with
threats of opposition by the supporters of our
ancient institutions. Like the same little lord's
attempt two years ago, it failed to arouse either
anger or approval, and the opinion which seemed
generally to prevail was, that the Ministers would
not dare to press it to a division. For such a
course they would have ample excuse at a time
like the present, when the emergencies of war are
monopolising the public attention; and, indeed, the
persistence with such a bill would involve a two-
fold difficulty, inasmuch as its rejection ought to
necessitate a resignation, while its passage would
inevitably lead to a dissolution of Parliament.

It will be seen from an abstract of the provisions
of the bill, which we have given in another column,
that it embraces a variety of alterations, some of
them startling from their novelty, and others from
their audacity, forcibly reminding us of the cha-
racter of its author, given by the late Rev. SIDNEY
SMITH. There is, also, an evident attempt to
stifle opposition by concessions to opposing parties,
leaving it doubtful as to which may gain the ba-
lance of advantage—an attempt which, like that in
the fable, of the old man and his ass, to please
everybody, may end in pleasing nobody. The bill
professes to deal with the franchise common to
counties and boroughs, to create a new kind of
franchise for each, to disfranchise certain boroughs,
to create new ones, to add to the present number
of county representatives., and to take away all
prospective privileges of freemen. These subjects
we propose to treat seriatim, so that a correct
opinion may be entertained of the alterations which
it is proposed to effect.