Glasgow Courier. — 1859-01-22 (Glasgow, Strathclyde, Scotland)

BRIGHT'S BILL. The Herald of yesterday concludes a leader on this subject as follows: When Mr Bright, after all his professions of impartiality, seeks to destroy the balance between various interests, and to place in the hands of one class, and that not the most enlightened in the kingdom, a dangerous preponderance of power, he is destroying whatever reputation for honesty he may enjoy. Englishmen, of all shades of opinion and every class, will protest against this crying injustice. The Daily News of yesterday is favourable to some parts of the proposed Bill. The Times of Thursday said—" In apportioning the members to burghs Mr Bright has laid down for himself a scale by which he gives all burghs which have more than 54,000 and less than 127,000 inhabitants three members each, and all burgh's between 127,000 and 270,000 four members each, and all burghs above 316,000 six members each. We might have supposed that the champion of equality would have meted out the same measure to the counties as to the burghs ; that Bedfordshire, for instance, with 180,010 inhabitants, would have had three members; that Berkshire, with 160,000; that Cambridgeshire, with 164,000 inhabitants; that South Derliyshire, with 143,000; North Devonshire, with 190,00 k Durham, with 200,000 • and many others stmilarly circumstanced, would each have had four members, and that South Devonshire, with 392,000, would have had six members, or that if it was found, as it certainly would have been found, that there were not vacant seats enough to supply so large a demand, counties and burghs would have abated their claims in exact proportion to each other. But this is not done. Mr Bright adopts the standard of population, and applies it fairly enough to adjust the number of members as between • burgh and burgh; but as between burghs and counties he repudiates it altogether. Just as in his favourite model—America—five niggers' count for three free men in the regulation of the electoral districts, so it takes we know not how many inhabitants of a county —for Mr Bright despises them too much to attempt to establish any definite proportion—lto equal the inhabitant of a burgh." The Times of yesterday, commenting on ,Mr Bright's scheme for reform, conclude lf by saying— A/1 that is now desired or desirable is, that we should follow up the refortn act with further disfranchisement and a distribution of the seats thereby gained. The country is not ripe for the Charter. The Daily News is fain to acknowledge that, in the past history of our national liberties, the counties have by no means yielded the palm to the towns in spirit and independence. Not to speak of the great struggle of struggles between King and people in the days of the Stuarts, or the conflicts between the people and the oligarchy of great families subsequent to the Revolution, we may recall the fact that when Chatham and his friends first raised the cry of Reform in Parliament it was popular not only for the free and equal suffrage they but because they would have given one hunreradlitional seats to the counties in Great Britain alone. Sixty years later, when Lord John Russell introduced the first Reform Bill, though circumstances had greatly changed, and the proportion of the town population to the whole community had vastly increased, one-third of the sequestered seats were given to counties. In the Confliot which ensued it ought not to be forgotten that the county constituencies rallied with even more unanimity than those of the towns round the popular standard. Qn the dissolution which took place in April, 1831, on the first objection of the bill, out of eighty-two English county members six only were returned without • pledge to eupport tho memeure and in Ireland the results were hardly less decisive. The Globe says—" It is mainly the centres of manufactures and trade that are to gain; the towns disfranchised wholly or in part are the country towns, which represent what may be called country middle class life. In its main operations, Mr Bright's bill would leave the counties nearly as they are; but he would destroy the country town; he would transfer the representation from the country town to the trading town and suburb; d would overlay even metropolitan constituencies with huge manufacturing constituencies. The scheme v,-.2tild enthrone the manufacturer, with the overlooker cLss to support him in his own district, and the shopkeepZr class in the cities and suburbs. This is not erecting s liberal standard; it is not an elevating project; it is not national; it is not one for which 133 honourable gentlemen can be expected to commit political suicide; it cannot command the concurrence of any political party except that immediately surrounding Mr Bright.