NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE Whig Ministers have once more recorded their apostasy from the principles which they were accustomed to maintain with such
an outward show of patriotic ardour on the Opposition benches.
On Thursday, they spoke and voted against Mr. TENNYSON'S mo- tion for shortening the duration of Parliaments, with the most
thorough contempt of every thing like consistency. Poor Lord
ALTHORP, indeed, admitted that he had voted, be could not tell how often, in favour of motions similar to that which he then op-
posed ; and the only reason he could adduce for his change of con- duct was the fact, that now the People were really intrusted with the power of electing their Representatives, whereas before the Re- form Bill passed popular election was but a mockery. Surely the Reformers of England are under infinite obligations to his Lord- ship! He was in favour of frequent elections when they could render no service to the mass of the community, and could merely
li"'serve the turn of his own aristocratical party ; but now that the voice of the People has really something to do with the choice of Members of Parliament, he is determined not to repeal the Sep-
• tennial Act.
Mr. STANLEY'S speech contained a good deal of personality and little argument. He, it seems, has never been in favour of Trien- nial Parliaments ; he has only been intimately connected during *1 the whole of his political life with men who constantly advocated a return to them. But this is of little moment : the part of Mr. STAN- , LEY'S speech to which we wish to direct attention, is that wherein he ridiculed the Members who declared their several predilections for : Parliaments Quinquennial, Quadrennial, &c. Now, how dues it happen that all these newfangled notions have lately been thrown :out? During the whole of the Reform struggle, there was no difference of opinion : from the hour when Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S speech was uttered, the whole country expected Triennial Parlia- .nients: it was deemed prudent not to press the question at that time, but every one expected that one of the very first measures f the Reformed Parliament would have been the repeal of the eptennial Act. This the Whigs well knew : Lord JOHN RUSSELL ad intimated, in his opening speech, that the settlement of the uestion was only deferred for a time, and the day was fast ap- .oaching when it was sure to be discussed and settled in the new ouse of Commons. Then it was that the Whigs—Mr. JEFFREY n Edinbugh, and Mr. MACAULAY in Leeds—threw down the pple of discord, in the shape of a propOsition for Quinquennial Parliaments. The Whigs artfully suggested, and afterwards •en- ouraged that difference of opinion on this sObjict,'which Mr. STANLEY ridiculed and exposed on Thursday nightoiith so much elf-complacency. The folly of the Reform Members—of Sir DANIEL SANDFORD, 'r EDWARD CODRINGTON, and Mr. JAMEs--Lin 'thus • giving' a' handle to their antagonists, is too palpable to need remark. •_ Sir; 11ANIEL SANDFORD has mistaken his forte—lieis not cut out for debater, or a statesman. His speech on ,Thursday iwai-a ,Sad. allure; a fact of which Mr. STANLEY'S reply must, we 'should hink, have made him sensible. -: Lord JOHN RUSSELL performed his part in the miserable drama. e reiterated the-old' fallacy that Triennial Parliaments naist ecessarily be Biennial, because, forsooth; it had been dsual lo dis- olve Septennial Parliaments after. the expiration of Six 'years. Vhy, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, why should not a three. ears Parlia- ent last three years, neither a day more nor a day less ? Suppose he present House of Commons shotild be dissolved on the 1st of uly 1835, what is there to prevent.the assembling of a new Per-- lament on the 1st of January 1836, or sooner? An argument against the motion was urged by Lord EBRINGTON, hich the Globe quotes as one of the "true objections"— " When in the -course of the discussion on the Reform Bill he was taunted by opponents of the measure, that if it were carried, it would only prove a stepping stone to a further ri7e aura of reform, be stated, that although he enter- tamed opinions in favour of a large measure of reform, yet if he could see the measure carried in the shape in which it was brought before the House, he was ready to vine up his opinions in favour of ulterior measures, and take that as a final and conclusire measure."
If Lord EBRINGTON'S constituents are satisfied, as he said they were, with his determination, to oppose " ulterior measures of Re- form," there is an end of the matter as far as he and they are concerned. But as regards the fact of the Reform Bill being re- ceived as a final measure by the Nation, that is altogether a dif- ferent affair. The Globe says- " A reform has been effected which was held out by those who introduced it, and accepted by those who supported it, as a settlement of the question of Par- liamentary Reform. The Reform Act was never talked of by its authors or its friends as a stepping-stone to further demands, but as a security that further de- mands would not be insisted upon."
This is simply a falsehood. The hundreds who heard, and the millions who read the speech of Lord JOHN RUSSELL on intro- ducing the Reform Bill, as the organ of Ministers, can testify that he expressly mentioned the duration of Parliaments and the mode of voting as questions the settlement of which was matter for future discussion. Why, even Lord ALTHORP declared, that " he did not object to the discussion of the measure," and that " he saw nothing in the present time to prevent its considera- tion." Mr. STANLEY also argued the question, or pretended to argue it, on its own merits, and did not affect to consider it as a settled point, which the House by a previous contract was pre- vented from dealing with. Moreover, 185 Members—coustitnt- ing, we have little doubt, the majority of the Reformers present (though we cannot positively assert the fact, as no list of the majority has been published)—agreed on this point, though they differed on others, that the Septennial Act ought to be repealed. Under these circumstances, it is a piece of no common assurance in the Globe to assert, that the Reform Act was " ac- cepted by those who supported it" as a settlement of the question of Parliamentary Reform.
One of the consequences of this decision of the House of Com- mons will be the exaction of strict pledges from the candidates for all extended constituencies, at the next election, to resign when- ever called upon by a majority of their constituents. The electors will insist upon the Members they return being their actual Re- • presentatives. All the trash which is talked in the House about " delegates" and " legislatorial attornies" will make no impres- sion upon those who are determined to have a real, not nominal representation. The vote of Thursday night will prove another stimulus to the democratic spirit of the age. The numbers upon this division were 235 to 185; majority, 50. Last year on the same question, the numbers were 213 to 164; majority, 49. So that the comparative strength of the opposing parties remains nearly the same. There is a fair prospect of the Poor-laws Amendment Bill being carriei through the House of Commons with its main provisions uninjured. Those who object to the bill as a whole, are evidently weak in number, though loud and virulent in their denunciation of it; and if the division on the first clause, which relates to the appointment of the.Central Board, and was debated in Committee on Wednesday night, be taken as indicating the strength of that party which affects to approve of the principle of the measure while they strive to prevent that principle from being carried into full operation, there is little to apprehend from their efforts at muti- lation in its future progress. The clause, indeed, was agreed to nominally without a division, but really by a majority of 312 to
17.; -for a motion to postpone the consideration of it was negatived by that majority, and it passed immediately afterwards without amendment. Lord ALTHORP stated in the course of the discus- sion; that. he intended to propose some alterations in the details of the measure.. The members of the Central Board are to be liable to criminal prosecution, though not to civil action, for alleged im- proper exercise of their authority : according to the first draught of the bill, . they could not be called to account for misconduct, in any way.-.. They are,. not to have the power, as at first proposed, of eommitting,_ for contempt; but application must be made to two Jiistiees l.f the:Peace for the punishment of contumacious persons. The rules which they may form for administering the Poor-laws ate to be Tai 1 on the table of the House of Commons whet sitting, as soon as they, come into operation. Lastly, the Commissi;ncrs are .to ',be empowered to suspend the operation of the proposed enactment that the allowance system should entirely cease on a certain day in the summer of 1835, in places where great incon- venience would arise from putting it.in practice.
It Will ha seen that, in the last, instance, the powers Commissioners are enlarged. As regards the first Om
lions, they arc certainly improvements, but of no g Did measure remains substantially the same as whe forward ; and the alarms, pretended or sincere, of thloie-
the idea of introducing the French system of Centralization into England, appear to be scarcely felt iu the House of Commons.
This is satisfactory ; for never was any cry more ignorant and delusive than that which has been got up against the bill on ac- count of the appointment of a Central Board of Control. It is well observed, in a pamphlet* just published, that " there are cases in which many special or local authorities are as bad as one general authority is good. All depends upon the nature of the objects in view." In the following passage, the objects to be gained by the proposed measure, for amending the Poor-laws. and the 'necessity and advantage of some central authority for carrying it into effect, are briefly indicated; but the whole pamphlet bears the mark of an original mind, and would well repay a perusal.
“Is this a case that requires central authority as to the field of operation ? The object in this case is not, as some will have it, merely to min- .ster relief to the poor, but to undo a world of mischief that has been done to the nation by a bad method of administering relief to the poor : the object of the Commission is to cure and prevent pauperism; to set us free from the greatest evil that af- flicts this country, and the greatest danger that threatens her—beggarly, slavish, Lay, crime-begetting pauperism. This is a national object; one in which all are concerned ; not the poor only, and each parish for itself, but all classes, and • all the parishes. This, then, is an object which requires that the authority to be exer:ed, should be immefliately responsible to the supreme Government, and always watched by the whole public ; that is, a general or central authority. Another reason for seeking this object by means of a general authority, is that the i bject has been missed by a number of special authorities independent of each other. Separate parish-management has pauperized the bulk of the peo- ple; and all the exertions of separate parish-management to remove the evil of limpet ism, since it became intolerable, have proved abortive."
We do not fully concur with the author of the pamphlet in his re- commendation to give the Commissioners " ample salaries," if by
ample is meant very large. If the office is to be filled by men of activity and talent and zeal in the cause, 15001. a year will be an ample salary ; and if much more is given, the work will be badly
done. highly-paid officials are generally lazy and inefficient
public servants. We agree with the author in deprecating that diminution of the Commissioners responsiblity which is effected by rendering them subject to the Secretary of State, who has in fact a veto upon their regulations. We would make the Commis- sioners responsible for every thing, and have no Viceroy over them in the person of an indolent Secretary of the Home Depart- ment.
Mr. Munson/saes bill for the registration of births and deaths, and the one which lie is about to introduce for the registration of marriages, appear to be in the main sensible and well-digested mea- sures. The tax-collectors are to register every birth and death, and to transmit a duplicate of the record to the tax-surveyors, who
are to make periodical returns of the same to a general registry-
oflice in London. Licensed clergymen of all persuasions are to have the power of solemnizing marriages, upon production by the parties of a licence, which Justices of the Peace are to give. The officiating clergyman in all cases is to be the registrar of the marriage.
It would have been a still further improvement, as the Globe suggests, to have rendered marriage simply a civil contract. The
main objection to this, we presume, is that the clergy would lose their fees, which in many parishes amount to a very considerable sum. Mr. BROUGHAM, indeed, said that he would not shock the religious feelings of a large portion of the community by making marriage a mere civil contract ; but there is no reason why the religious should be thus shocked, for all who chcse might have the ceremony performed in church or chapel, by a clergyman. It is also worthy of remark, that the tax-collectors arc to be the re- gistrars of births and deaths; and this arrangement is advanta- geous for its economy : but are the Assessed Taxes to last for ever? Many hope to see them repealed in a few years. The evidence in favour of the Warwick Borough Bill still occu- pies part of the attention of the Peers. On Tuesday, Lord ROSE-
BERRY complained that so much time was taken up with private
business. Lori BROUGHAM reproved his brother Peer, and as- serted that the Warwick Bill was not a private one, as Lord ROSE- BERRY had stated by inuendo. Notwithstanding the Chancellor's sharp remark, Lord ROSEBEURY'S mistake was a very natural one. Everybody knows that the Conservative Peers who attend the trial so regularly are the friends and partisans of Lord WARWICK.
When the public business (so called) comes on, most of them leave the House. And then the Ministers begin to arrive ; Earl DURHAM'S station is no longer solitary, and the Opposition benches are thinned. All the proceedings on the Warwick bill justify Lord ROSEDERRY in calling it private business.
There is no end to bills for " promoting the better observance of the Sabbath," as they are termed by courtesy. On Tuesday, Mr. POULTER introduced one into the House of Commons; and on Thursday, Lord \VYNFORD persevered in forcing his miserable
abortion of a measure for the same purpose to a second reading in the House of Peers. It was most unmercifully handled by Lord BROUGHAM; who pronounced it to be so excessively bad, so
full of absurdities and blunders as to be past all cure in Com- mittee. Every one, even the Bishop of LONDON, the Earl of WICKLOW, and others of his Tory friends, entreated Lord WYN- FORD to withdraw it ; but he begged so hard that it might be read a second time, and promised such extensive alterations, that their Lordships agreed to humour the old gentleman, by a majority of 16 to 13,—a very full House for the Peers. Last night, the House of Lords adjourned, for the Whitsuntide
• The Principles of Delegated, Central, and Special Authority, applied to the Poor- Laws Amendment Bill. Ridgway.
holydays, to Thursday, and the House of Commons to Wednesday next.
