The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser. — 1854-02-21 (Liverpool, Merseyside, England)

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF FREEMEN.  There is yet another feature in the bill, by no means the least important, and that is th prospective disfranchisement of the Freemen o corporate towns. The ostensible ground for this political suicide, this retrograde step, in the extension of the franchise is the alleged corruption of this class of voters, and the influence of bribery upon their exercise of the franchise. Such a charge ,is false and malicious, proved to be false after the most searching investigation, and only reiterated by those who are unscrupulous, in their assertions, and, following the example of one of their wooden idols, would vote that black is while in order to keep their party in office. The real offence is, that the majority .of the Freemen are Conservatives, and are not to be bribed by Radical money, nor beguiled by Radical promises.  It is not for being bribed,'tut for being inaccessible to it; not for their truckling to party, but for their steady adherence to Conservative principles that the outcry is raised against them; and Lord JOHN RUSSELL has the daring effrontery, the miserable servility to party influence, the most contemptible truckling to the basest spirit of fac tion which ever disgraced a legislrtive assembly, to propose that this, the most independent "of all classes of voters, shall be deprived of the franchise. This is no privilege granted through favouritism, or, like a Radical's vote, purchased with money, but a freedom acquired by seven years' faithful service, to the sati,faction of the master—a distinction far mere honourable, and a training far more advantageous, than any of the means either of deposits  in savings' banks, payment of taxes, or house occupation, by which the Minister seeks to select the fittest men for the enjoyment of electoral privileges and, therefore, the proposal to curtail the franchise, in this respect, while it is extended through so many equivocal channels, at once stamps the bill as an emanation from the vilest spirit of political fanaticism such as, without this evidence, we should hardly have believed even Lord JOHN RUSSELL to be capable. It is the crowning capital of his column of Radical perfidy, and would justify the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry into the state of his intellects, at no time very sound, but latterly betraying the effect of advancing age, after a life of fussiness and trickery.  IT is so• rarely we can find an' opportunity of giving the present Ministry credit either for good intentions or political wisdom, that we gladly seize the occasion of the proposal made by the Poor-law Minister to alter the law of settlement. By the bill which he has introduced into the House of Commons, it is proposed to equalise the poor-rate over each union by gradations of ten per cent. each year during the next ten years, so that the change shall be felt as slightly as possible. It will, no doubt, be thought a hardship by those parishes in which the rates have hitherto been comparatively light, that they should bear a portion of the burden of other parishes, but a calm consideration of the subject will serve to demonstrate its justice. It will be remembered that the maintenance of the destitute is not only a legal obligation, but a Christian duty, and that by the present division of parishes there is much practical inequality, and, consequently, injustice. One parish has many wealthy inhabitants, and yet, from having but few poor, those have the least burden who are the most able to bear it. Another parish, with but few wealthy inhabitants, has many poor, and the burden is heavy on those least able to bear it. An equal distribution of the rate over a whole Union would remove much of this inequality, and by the mode proposed the change would be scarcely felt. Anqther advantage will be, an abolition of the heavy costs attending disputed settlements, which would be a positive boon to the ratepayers, and tend materially to abate much of the misery often experienced by those who are recipients of relief. The only tangible objection to the proposed change is, the approach to a sytem of centralisation, which is repugnant to English notions of local government, but this is an objection more apparent than real ; nor will it be found that the alteration now contemplated will be less a system of local government than the present mode. There are also several minor advantages attendant upon the proposed change, which, if party differences are not allowed to interfere with their development, may operate to place the system of poor relief upon a more satisfactory basis than it is at present..