Stockton Herald, South Durham and Cleveland Advertiser. — 1866-05-04 (Stockton-on-Tees, Cleveland, England)

FRIDAY, MAY 4TH, 1866.  THE REFORM BILL.  AFTER a debate of more than unusual interest and length, this bill has been read a second time, being carried by a majority of five votes. This, certainly, is nothing for the Ministry of Earl Russell to rejoice over in a House, which, according to the Liberal newspapers, contained a majority of eighty members, returned in favour of the Government. Phere can be no doubt that it was this fact that induced Earl Russell again to attempt to carry another Reform Bill, and try to force an unwelcome measure upon a reluctant, or, at most, an indifferent country, which saw no necessity for the extreme views of Earl Russell and Mr Gladstone. It was to be expected that when the old reformer came into possession of power he would try to resuscitate his dead hobby—once more ride triumphant over the constitution. He was encouraged to try the dodge on the strength of the Palmerston-elected Parliament, not doubting but that the members who were returned under the name and vestige of his old rival would comply with his desires. He tried them, and found them opposed to his vagaries ' • and a majority in a professedly Liberal Parliament, which boasted a majority of eighty reformers, melted down to five under the decaying heat of Earl Russell's alchemy. It was to be expected this would be the case. The principle of the bill was too democratic for even the professed Lfberals, and the less democratic portion of that section of Liberals saw in the measure a danger to the well-being of the nation, from which they instinctively withdrew. Hence the defection in the Liberal ranks. This was not shown till the statistics procured by the Government made it plain that the working classes already possess more than an equal share in the Parliamentary representation. The four great classes who form the elective body are thus represented: —The agricultural, 20 per cent. ; manufacturing, 30 per cent. ; commercial, 24 per cent.; and labouring, 26 per cent. The defection in the Liberal ranks was caused by these facts. The less rabid of them saw that there would be no safety in giving larger powers to the already dominant party, to whom it was proposed by the bill to give a largely overwhelming number of voters, and, therefore, wisely withdrew their allegiance to such a scheme. There is no doubt the majority would have been nil but for the severe pressure placed upon certain members by the Government, who, while they condemned the measure in their judgments and conversation, voted for it. The question is,—what will the majority of five lead to? Will it ensure the passing of the bill? Will it retain the Ministers in office? We are of opinion that it will not. It does not necessarily cause a resignation of office, although the high-minded Minister Earl Derby left office after obtaining a majority of seven on his Reform Bill in 1859. There is, however, a great difference in the conduct and proceedings of the two Ministers. One is straightforward and outspoken, and will, under no circumstances, truckle for place and power ; the other is timeserving and truculent, pockets an affront, and tries other means to accomplish his purposes. Earl Russell does not believe he has lost the bill—he imagines that he can yet see victory, and holds on by the reins, hoping to guide his hobby to the desired goal. He remembers that the second reading of the Reform Bill of 1832 was carried by a majority of only one, and it went successfully through committee and became law. He thinks it possible to manceuvre the present measure to a similar issue. But what are the probabilities? In the first place there are thirteen seats declared vacant through the inalpractices of the Liberals. He hopes these will be filled by Liberals, who will vote for the bill. He believes further that many of the members who voted against the second reading will be induced to vote for the third reading. Thin will  depend in a great measure upon the bill to be laid before Parliament for the distribution of seats. It is well known that there are about 36 boroughs intended to be partially, and a few to be totally, disfranchised. Is it probable that the members of these doomed boroughs will commit political suicide, and vote to disfranchise the towns that provide them with seats? We think they will not. There is, therefore, a probability that nearly all of them will vote against the third reading; and, further, many members voted for the second reading to prevent the catastrophe either of a resignation or a dissolution who will vote for changes in the bill which will deprive it of the extreme democratic character it now possesses. Should it by chance pass the House of Commons by a small majority in the third reading, it will not be adopted by the Houise of Lords, who are guided chiefly by the majorities of the Lower House. We believe such changes will be effected in committee that the character of the bill will be greatly modified. There are several towns lately sprung into importance in the north which have largely increasing populations of working people, as shown by Mr Pease, in a letter in another column. It is probable that in the event of a bill passing for the re-distribution of seats these towns may be enfranchised. It is right they should have a member each—the interests they represent are of an important national character ; but they have no member in Parliament. We find that the iron-manufacturing districts in Staffordshire are well represented. Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Walsall, and other towns there are represented. Why not Stockton, Middlesbro', Hartlepool, and Darlington, which have large numbers of working people who have secured for themselves the franchise? Should a bill for the re-distribution of seats become law these towns must undoubtedly have members. There is no probability of this for the present. It was proposed to enfranchise them by the bill of Earl Derby, in 1859, but the bill was defeated by the Liberals. The effect of such a measure would be to withdraw a large number of voters from the counties and confine them to boroughs, thus preserving an equitable balance between the town and county voters. It would appear that Earl Russell has repudiated his "rest and be thankful.' theory, and has committed himself to "war to the knife" on the reform subject. He is fast falling into imbecility, and the dreams of his early career haunt him like a mania; and he will practise any device to carry out his democratic policy, merely for the sake of a few short years of political power, careless of the consequences to futurity. Will he succeed? Nous verrons.