THE GOVERNMENT REFORM BILL.

Colonist, Volume II, Issue 166, 24 May 1859, Page 3

THE GOVERNMENT REFORM BILL.

The presence of a Reform, or as Ministers call it a Representation Bill, in Parliament, has imparted some life to the out-of-door agitation. In the metropolis there have been a great number of public meetings. The campaign opened by the ansemblage of a mob in Hyde-park on Sunday, the 6th March, which was addressed by small democrats, who used violent language and expressed, ultra opinions. The peace, however, was not broken. Then followed meetings in the boroughs. Sir* Benjamin Hall attended two in .riidborough he represents, and took the opportunity to vindicate himself from the charges of unfairly dealing with the early information he had of Lord Ebrington's. resignation. At all the metropolitan meetings the Representation Bill, has been torn to pieces and denounced. But with differences. While St. Pancr.is asks for manhood suffrage, Paddington only demands a fair share for the industrial body. At the Westminster meeting, Mr. Thomas Prout, a veteran Reformer, presided. Sir De L. Evans and Sir John Shelley were speakers. MryMurrough came forward as the advocate of Mr. Bright; and his friend "Mr. Mantell, of Sheffield," described by his friend Murrough as one who was "as illiterate as any one present," carried-a resolution in favor of manhood suffrage against the views of Mr. Bright and the leaders of the meeting. Mr. W'emys Jobson was also a speaker. The meeting was for "kicking" the Government bill out ofthe j House. At the Tower Hamlets, Mr. George Thompson reappeared in public, and declared that the bill was a "cool, deliberate, and intentional repudiation of the claims of the working classes;" and Mr. Ayrton said it was a "declaration of war" against them. [The savings-bank franchiso was especially ridiculed. Mr. Ayrton said it was a " myth," and Sir Benjamin Hall shewed from figures to the St. Pancras people that it would add just one to the constituency of Newport; the vast majority possessing being already entitled to the franchise.] In Lambeth, Mr. Williams, Mr. RoUpell, and Mr. Ernest Jones figured as leaders. Here again Mr., Bright's franchise was repudiated and manhood suffrage carried. At Chelsea, there, were Mr. Hanbury and Mr. Byng, the Middlesex members. Chelsea objected to equal electoral dis-

tricts, and demanded two members for itself instead of being muddled up with Middlesex. In Finsbnry Mr. Shaen, Dr. Epps, and Mr. T. Duncombe have discussed and decided against the bill. The greatest, but on the whole the most unsuccessful meeting was one held in the Guildhall on the llth of March. There was great uproar. Mr. Ernest Jones was refused a hearing. When Baron Rothschild presented himself the cries for " Rothschild "** lasted ten minutes, the;shouters not knowing-that he was before them*and vainly essaying to speak. Throughout " the meeting was of the most riotous description," and it ended abruptly. The Lord Mayor1 presided over this tumultuous gathering. The speakers were Air. Samuel Morley, Mr. Peter Taylor, and Mr,, Serjeant Parry. None of the city members were permitted to spoak. The resolutions submitted are supposed to have been carried. They condemned the Government bill. [The moat important fact connected with this meeting was the absence of Lord John Russell. A letter was read from him, in which he said he. thought he had better reserve his opinions for the House of Commons'; but in which he distinctly objects to the disfranchisement of freeholders, the voting papers, and exclusion of tlie working classes from the suffrage.] .There have, moreover, been demonstrations against the bill throughout the whole country. Reports have come to hand of those held at Birmingham, Norwich, Newcastle, Sheffield, Southampton, Devonport, Bradford, Leeds, Hertford, Wakefield, Oldham, Kendal, and Bvidgcwater. At Birmingham, Mr. Bright made a long and aide speech. He pointed out thafc he had warned his constituents not to trust the Government. Had he nofc proved right ? Tiie bill offers things that not only nobody wanted,. but which men stand aghast at and refuses with the most insolent contempt nearly everything they demand. Goiin? through tlie provisions of the bill, Mr. Bright denounced the voting papers, tlie disfranchisement of freeholders, the tampering with 'borough, boundaries,--the permission given to free-, holders to vote in boroughs as freeholders, the savings-bank clause, nnd all the " fancy franchises.' He declared that Mr. Disraeli had insulted the country with his " miserable bill;" and said that it was not possible a measure so little worth considering could pass into law. Appealing to- the passions of his hearers, he said the middle classes Jiave no patriotism, the working classes no appetite for freedom, and denounced, as he did in October, the few hundred families who fatten on the of taxes.