THE NEW REFORM BILL. [From the Times, February 10.]

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume VIII, Issue 728, 24 July 1852, Page 4

THE NEW REFORM BILL. [From the Times, February 10.]

Lord John Russell's Reform Bill is about as great & plurality as was ever comprehended in its title. For the multiplicity and variety of its contents it might class with the miscellaneous Estimates, or with that vulgar description of bill which mine host of the Red Lion presents to his guests on the eve of departure. Could we suppose that Lord John had kept a note-book of all the bits of Parliamentary reform talked about for these twenty yeais, selecting those of the roo»t harmless and plausible character, it might very x easi!y have formed- the letter of instructions lo the fraraers of this bill. It is hard to say what it docs not contain, except a principle. The principles of the old Reform Bill were prominent enough 5 en'ranchisejnent and drsfranchisetnent wsre written upon it with a distinctness which made every man in these isles a warm friend or a still vsrarmer foe. So blindly and unflinchingly did the bill go at the extinction of abuse 3 and the creation of a sound and popular franchise, that it was only when k had been for some time before the House, and al! parties were irretrievably committed, that it was discovered to be an enormous j transference of power from the south to the north, from the agricultural to the manufacturing districts. It was the last victory of the AngloSaxons, as they ate called, over the Normans, of the burghers over the barons, the populations over the sttongholds. vlVheu this was urged as an objection, the answer was " What of that? It is our duty to lefortn the Pailiament system, and we are prepared to stand all the consequences." The principle, if any, of the present bill is, not to disturb the existing balance between the south and the north, the plough and the loom, the Land Lore' and the Cotton Lord. The problem proposed by tbe Minister to himself has been to extend the franchise «.s much as possible without aS^ecsing the existing adjustment of interests and cesses. » We have already been able to inform our readers that Lord John Russell extends the borough franchise to £5 householders, , and tbe" county franchise to tenants rated at £20 a year. Io conformity with these alterations he reduces the long leasehold and copyhold county qualification from £10 to £5, and the Irish franchise from £8 to £5, in the cities and boroughs, wliose boundaries lie also means to extend. As we intimated yesterday, he proposes to give votes for the county to persons paying 40b. a year assessed taxes, at)d living out of the limits of boroughs. This is all the creation of new franchise in tbe bill — not indeed, quite all, for, to the surprise of. everybody, our old friend the Jew bill makes it's appearance in the heart of the measure, as ablupily and strangely es the chapter about the Jews in Mr. Disraeli's "Biography of Lord George Beniinck." There may, perhaps, be very good reasons for trying this bill by way of a rider, now thai it has Jailed so often in a more substantive fon/i, but we cannot get over tb'e absurJity of making the Jew Bill a clause in the Reform Bill, and having a separate bill for the disfrancbisiiment of St. Aibau's. The clause or rather clauses, to which we- refer, are a reconstruction of all the Parliamentary oaths so as to let in the Jews. As the electors of Perth were informed the other day, the bill will contain provisions to prevent the cieation of fictitious freeholds. With regard to small boroughs the bill recognises them, though it does not recognise either their corruptions or their subjection to neighbouring proprietors. Lord John proposes to take all the boroughs that have now less than 500 £10 householders .and freemen, and enlarge their constituencies by the addition of neighbouring towns or other places. Thus, as we formerly observed, the much scouted-precedent of the hundred of BdssetW, the reaction of which hastened the first Reform Bill, furnishes the principal feature in tbe second. Among the numerous clauses included in the showy benevolence of the bill come in the representatives themselves. If the candidate does not happen" to possess a property qualification, he is no longer to be under the necessity of begging or borrowing one for the nonce ; in fact, tbe property qualification for members is to be abolished. Further, those members who are so fortunate as to be promoted from one Government office to another are no longer to be sent back to their constituencies, as Mr. Fox Maule is at this moment. Lord John Russell, as if he had no wish to perform twice the office of Parliamentary, executioner, most carefully guards his bill from the imputation of being -a penal measure. To set about the grea.t task with calmness, he has drunk of the waters of Lethe, and effaced from bis.recollection tbe thousand and one scand&ls of the last twenty years. Possibly he would not admit what has lately been proved on the highest possible evidence, that since the Reform Bill there has been far more corruption than before. Of tbe 67 boroughs to be enlarged, there is probably not one which is not a notorious example, of the influences which it was the professed object of the first Reform Bill to destroy. 1 There is not one which is not either purchaseable, or under the control of some neighbouring proprietor, and, as was admirably shown some timesince in this paper by

an ex M.P., the amount of real corruption, of oppression, and moral degradation, is generally far greater, in die latter case than in "the former. The measure of corruption, however, in these small boroughs, is not yet full. They are to have accomplices in the shape of satellite'towns, with perhaps the infusion of new arisiocratical influence, new families to contend fof the represen-tation-with the old indigenous boroughmonger. DisfranchiseroentLord John leaves to others. If, from this time forward, and with this rod held up in terrorem, any borough should, on inquiry, be found to be utterly corrupt, then Parliament is advised by a special act in each case to transfer its franchise to some populous borough. By way of example, in the present bill he gives the two ffeats of -the long dormant Sudbury to Birkenhead and Barnsley, and meditates some such appropriation of the two seats of St. Albans, when it is disfranchised. We are inclined to think that England expected more- of Lord John Russell than that he should merely give two examples of what ought to be done. With this warning, it will be very hard if the most corrupt borough does not manage its corruption with such seciecy and address as to elude a Parliamentary inquisition. All parties in it, however otherwise divided, "will combine to secure their house from intrusion, just as the husband and wife, whose quarrels are the scandal of the village, always combine against the constable. But the worst corruption will wholly escape this process by separate trial. The borough described by our correspondent,, the ex M.P., in which the whole frasoe of, society was perverted into one engine of corruption, will never be "One of the vulgar delinquents in the hands of the Parliamentary police. Such is the Refotm Bill which Lord John Russell aGSures us is the result, not of a hasty pledge or a sudden emergency, but of many years quht observation. To us it bears undeniable marks of pressure from without in the specious and illusory character of its boons. The admission of £5 houst holders to the borough franchise may bring fresh expenses on the candidates, but we cannot conceive it materially affecting- the choice of representatives. In the city of Westminster, with a population of 219,930 by the census of 1811, with 25,336 £10 householders, besides other inhabitants who pay scot and lot and are qualified for the franchise, only 14,125 bad registered themselves previous to the last election, and of these only about 6,000 voted. What difference will the extension of the franchise to £5 householders ra&ke in this instance ? The same question may be asked of any large borough, and, as to the smaller ones, we cannot help suspecting that every one of the new £5 householders, will be £5 out of the pockets of the candidates. We are aware that 6ome respectable auihoiities value more any general extension of the franchise, however illusory, than special disfrancbisements and enfranchisements, and they will probably not concur with us in our opinion of tliebill. But these authorities do not come to the question quite in the same spirit that we do. They wish the question of Parliamentary raform to be kept always opeu. They would rathei have a vague, inconsistent, unsatisfactory measure, leaving as much as possible undone, than one which bore some appearance of finality, or which promised a truce for some 20 years. So long as the notorious and incorrigible boroughs are spared they may possibly keep the question continually raw and unsettled ; and instead of a war for the sake of peace, such as the last Reform Biil was meant to be, and actually proved to be, we shall probably now have a weak compromise, followed by fresh and increasing demands for Parliamentary reform.