THE NEW REFORM BILL. (From the Times, July 12.)

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 590, 10 December 1851, Page 3

THE NEW REFORM BILL. (From the Times, July 12.)

" Coming events cast their shadows before them." Next session we are to have another Reform Bill, and in the utter absepce of actual pledges, vre are left to

draw auguries of its character from what quarto- wo can. j^ord John Kusse'! has been probed .ia assiduously as Calchas of th« fleet, or (he Pythoness at lu>r In pod. His opinion has beea demanded wit'i 1 cither startling j.upoilunity on the geneir.l enfranchisement ot J_ 10 householders, and on the vote by ballot; not to spe.ik of some other periodici.il inquiries. If, too, we are to jud^e from the reply given by the Commons, and fora the position of s>oine of the merabeis who voted for the latter of the*.e two mea-m'vs, it is just conceivable, chough we hope'jnost improbaole, tbai we may l.ye to see the most offensive pohjt of the CaaJier the law of the land. On Wednesday, however, another point of the Charter suddenly loomed rather bi<* ia the twilight of Ministerial promise. AH of a sudden tho doctrine of "no property qualification" «as introduced to the House under the most, distinguished nuspices. Mr. Hutt had a bdl — a quiet, reasonable bill — to male colonial property admissible for the qualification of memoes 9. Its propriety was indisputable. It was opposed, however, on the giound mat it did not go tar enough—that it was not sufficiently liberal — (bat whilo it expressly permitted a colonial qualification, it enacted, once more the principle 01 any qualification. An amendment was accordingly moved, abolishing all proper.y qualification whatever, and opening ibe choice of the Enghsb and liisb constituency to gentlemoa al largo, [ vo men with 110 estate but their tongue or thei. 1 pen, to younger sons, and all tue $<ei>iiiicss cadets of \ -oiAise or !of fame. The mtrin»ic value of the amendaienl was nothing compared with the associations it threatened to disturb. For a century and a half the property quahfi^ cation has been in Tory eyes one of the Palladia of the British Constitution, and such has been the opinion o i its necessity and power that no doubt has been entertained but that, on its removal, a torrent of envious poverty and insurgent blaguardism would rush in and swamp the House of Commons. Opiuiona of this sort are often held -on very slender ground, and it may be 80 in this iiwrtanoej-but the prestige of the property qualification is tremendous. It stands like an ancient landmark, which though only laid on the sui face has been classed from our infancy with the everlasting hills* Who, then, was the man to propose that this mountain, be removed and cast into the sea? Mr. Feargus O'Conaor, or Mr. Hume ? No such common-place reformer* The mover was a man who, the other da.y t was Secretary to the Treasury, reading and writing fbe letters, possessed with all the secrets of the political soul— tbat ia, of nearly all the soul a Premier ia supposed to enjoy. If it is possible for Lord John Russell o express hia wishes more candidly and strongly than by his own word of mouth, it would be through Mr. Tufnell— so, at least it was the other day; and that alter ego was the man to move the House for one of the most notorious points of the people's Charter. The conversation that endued was amusing enough. It was a dialogue between a man's right hand and his left, with thoforms of a public debate. The relation of a Secretary or the Treasury to the Premier is about the most intimate? and necessary that public busiuess can. create between one matt and another. The Secietary is the organ, theory instrument pf the Premier, and, excepting that a #/eniier cannot but be a gentleman, and cannot do viol^ee to any man's feelings, it can hardly be said that theTSecretary has a will of his own. If hs baa a will, iHjjk generally lost like Mercury in the raja of the sun. ljst,iUiV Tufaell now enjoys, like Tityrus, his long deferce l^' Kberty, and the House w itnes»ed with, some surprise^Lbe first u^o of bis independence on Wednesday morning. So the right hand was heard speaking of the left as " my noble friend," and the left replied to the right as "my right bon. friend." Mr. Tufaell addressed.to Lord John llussell an aiguinntum ad hominem outof his own book, and Lord John Russell appeared to,'re3train Mr. Tufnell's precipitancy by referring his measure to a more convenient season. As his Lordship, however, did not shimk from the appeal to his writmg3, and s,ud the same thing over and over again more fully, emphatically, and precisely, we presume there con be no doubt as to one feature ol the Reform Dili next session. The property qualification is condemned, it has been tried for a century and a half, and has no more kept needy men and demagogues out of the House than it has excluded the Hanoverian family, or secured the perpetual ascendancy of the agricultural interest. Waiting, as we all have been, tor some bint of the coming reform, we could hardly expect that so inapoitant a feature as this should transpire through a public conversation between a Pi emier and an Ex-Secreiary. What next are we to expect 1 Pm haps before the Ist of August, the House v. ill be astounded to hear a casusiljntel change of views between the political Peter Scliemil and his runaway shadow on household sufft;ige a&i «qual constitujnciPs. But, to speak seriously, the property qualification Ims long been nothing more than a trap for tender consciences, and a trifle for hard ones. No man was ever kept out of the House by the mere want of a property qualification, for he could always have procured one if he chose. This barrier of cobweb has not pi evented the House from, containing, as it does at this moment, men who havti not a foot of land tbat they can really call their own, who cannot pay their hotel bill 3. When a poor man gets into the House be takes good care of bis qualification, and when it has happened, as it lias sometimes, that a qualification has been upset, it has invaikbly been in the case of men whose wealth and position were undoubted. For many years past thet question has been a mere technicality, and this is not the time to stickle for institutions that are intrinsically worthless. As for the result, there is, wp had almos said unfortunately, very little prospect of English or Irish constituencies being content with members destitute of money or credit. The first question asked by most constituencies is one of a most interesting nature What money has the candidate ; and is he prepared to bleed 1 So long aa the constituency insist on that qualification there is very little necessity for Parliament to impose another. Of course tins is not a very agreeable admissian to mike on behalf of Bvi ish constituences, but it is the fact. The property qualification that we have most to fight against i 3 th.it which is insisted on by publicans and lawyers. Indeed, we should be well content to see now and then a poor man elected ■» forma panperis, with neither freehold nor tavern bill. It would help to break the neck of the worst abuse and greatest scandal — the capital a member is obliged to sink, and the rent he is obliged to pay, for the honour of devoting his nights and his days, his health, his strength, and his very aoul, to the service of his country.