GENERAL SUMMARY.

Colonist, Volume III, Issue 269, 18 May 1860, Page 3

GENERAL SUMMARY.

Ministers have obtained some signal victories over a compact and well-organised Opposition. A resolution, having for its object the defeat of the Budget by a sidewind, was moved by Mr. Disraeli on the 20th of February, and thrown out by a majority of 63. It was proposed by this resolution to separate the Treaty of France from the Customs Act, or, to speak less technically, from the Budget, in which the intended alterations in the Customs Act are contained, and to consider it upon its own merits as a question of policy, before the House went into the consideration of the financial scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This resolution apparently touched only a point of form, but really struck at the whole plan of the Government, which proposed certain changes in our commercial system, arising out of the Treaty, or so directly associated with it, that to sit in judgment upon either without reference to the oth«r it would have been fatal to both. Mr. Disraeli's device failed of its object. In a single night's debate the House pronounced an emphatic approval ofthe course of procedure laid down by Ministers. Notwithstanding thii significant hint, Mr. Do Cane in the same interest as his chief, followed up Mr. Disraeli's motion on the following night by a direct amendment on the Budget. Nothing could be fairer or more honest than the terms of this amendment, which distinctly protested, firstly, against any addition being made to the existing financial deficiency by a diminution of the ordinary sources of revenue; and, secondly, against the reimposition of the Income-tax at an unnecessarily high rate. By the explicit and comprehensive form of this amendment all the questions, general and particular connected with the Treaty and the Budget, were indicated as coming legitimately within the scope of debate, and the issue of the discussion may be presumed to have been accepted on both sides as the test alike, of public opinion and the strength of parties. After a debate of three nights, which included all the principal speakers in the House, the amendment was thrown out by the enormous majority of 116. The result was received with a burst, of enthusiasm, and the House adjourned to contemplate in retirement the last items of that protective system which a few nights more will expunge for ever from our statutes. The subsequent progress of the Budget in its annihilation of sundry duties, has developed so much influence on the part of Ministers that the country may now be congratulated, for the first time since the old days of Peel and Wellington, upon having a strong Government. Unless something untoward happens abroad, we may, therefore, look forward to a period of solid legislation, in wbich the Administration will be able to mature and accomplish many useful and important measures which the dislocation of parties during the last few years effectually frustrated. Notwithstanding all the small interests that are arrayed against particular items, the resolutions in reference to the abolition and reduction of duties on a variety of articles under the Customs Act have been carried in succession. One of the item 3 more .fiercely contested was that of tha duty on silk manufactures, the defence of which was undertaken by Sir J. Paxton, in virtue 4)f being the representative of Coventry; but a more decided stand and certainly with better reason, was made against the

repeal to the duty on paper, at a moment when it was found necessary to keep up the duty on tea and sugar, and to increase the income-tax. In all cases, however, Ministers have carried their objects not merely by majorities, but by such majorities as bear testimony to a powerful Cabinet.

An address to the Crown thanking her Majesty for the Treaty and pledging Parliament to its provisions, was moved in both Houses, and, though opposed in both Houses, it was triumphantly carried.

Next in interest to the Budget and the Treaty, and the collateral issues of foreign politics, comes the Reform question. On the Ist of March the Ministerial pledge was redeemed in a somewhat memorable way.

The production ori one night of three Reform Bills, for England, Ireland, and Scotland, by Lord John Russell, Mr. Cardwell, and the Lord Advocate, must be regarded as a remarkable incident in our Parliamentary history; although, strange to say, the greatest apathy prevails on the subject both in the House and the country. More serious matters have occupied public attention. The Treaty and the Budget, the annexation of Savoy,, the war in China, were all themes of greater immediate attraction than the extension of the electoral franchise, or the) redistribution of seats. Perhaps, after alii the season was well chosen for the consideration of these measures, since it is only in the absence of agitation and pressure that legislation on popular questions may be expected to proceed dispassionately. At the same time, the mere looker-on is tempted to suspect that there can be no great necessity for a Reform Bill, at a time when the classes whom it is intended to reach evidently care so little about it.

Lord John Russell's bill falls into two divisions: the Franchise and the Representation. Under the former two changes are proposed, the lowering of the county franchise, to a *£10 occuapation franchise and of the borough franchise to" £6, the rent being taken as the basis. Under the latter division, it is proposed to take one member each from 25 boroughs that now return two members, and to distribute the 25 seats thus gained in the following proportions :-r-l5 to -counties, and the remaining 10 to new borough constituencies, and to the augmentation qf existing boroughs at present inadequately represented. By this arrangement the London University is to return one member, and Kensington and Chelsea, erected into an independent borough, two members. It must be admitied that it would not be easy to devise a simpler scheme, or to hit upon a project for extending the representation which should be less open to objection on the ground of novelty. The Radical Reformers are, of course, disappointed but as the gist of their complaint against the bill is 'not that it does anything of which they disapprove, but merely that it does not do enough, we may anticipate the passage of this exceedingly mild measure through the Commons without my greater opposition than might be offered to a Turnpike Bill. The Irish measure proceeds on indentically the same principles. The county qualification is to be reduced from £12 to £10 r and the borough from £8 to £6, increasing the constituency upon the whole by rather less than 70,000. Two new seats are to be created, and to be supplied by the transfer to Ireland of the seats of two English constituencies which had been disfranchised. It is further proposed to make Irish peers eligible for election in their own country as they are now in England. The opposition to this bill is likely to be somewhat stormy. On the English side of, the question, objection is taken to the transfer of two seats from England to Ireland ; and on the Irish side, the proposition to make peers eligible to seats in the. House of Commons was received with quite a howl of protests. By the Scotch bill, two out of four seats now suspended in England are to be appropriated to Scotland, one to be given to Glasgow, and one to the four Universities; a £10 occupation franchise is to be given to counties, and a £6 franchise to boroughs, the basis of both being the valuation rolls; and the property qualification in counties is to be rednced from £10 to £3, enforceing residence in the latter case. These proposals are not considered satisfactory, the Scotch interest demanding a more liberal representation, and a lower spale of fran-