NEWS OF THE WEEK.
TnE new Reform measure has been propounded by Mr. Hume in the Houle of Commons; and the venerable mover has had the satisfaction, not only of making a very long speech him- self, but also of eliciting some long speeches from other Members. The motion was somewhat altered from the original terms : it now stands as a proposal for extension of the suf- frage, so as to include, not merely "householders," but "all householders ", ; vote by ballot ; more equal distribution of the franchise in respect of population, though not exactly "electoral districts"; and triennial Parliaments. But Mr. Hume stated that the main point was the extension of the suffrage ; the others being rather matters of detail. The grounds on which he rested his proposal were these. 1. The agitation ; in proof of which he pointed to the large number of petitions,—assuring the House that they were not the produce of an organ- ized agitation. 2. The general discontent, evinced by the Chartist commotion, the demonstration of April the 10th, &c.; and he admonished Ministers respecting their duty of preserving the peace. 3. The exclusion of large classes ; the constituencies only including one-sixth of the adult males; whereas' he con- tended, every adult male is entitled to be present in Parliament by procuration, &c. 4. The inequalities in the distribution of the franchise ; by which the small constituencies neutralize the large. 5. The financial extravagance of the Government, sanctioned by the Commons ; which he ascribed to the fact that the nation, hopeless of making the House go right, has grown indifferent to its proceedings,. and lets it do as it lists. To this representation Lord John Russell undertook the answer ; and he anawered categorically. He maintained that there is no real popular deinanll for sucks measure; but if there is any spontaneous and extensive demand, it is for "the People's Charter." The measure would be no settlement; because, if it were carried into effect, the advocates of the Charter would say that it was a mockery of reform, and would still demand their own measure. If, as Mr. Hume contended, every man had an indefeasible right to the franchise, that argument would preclude them from stop- ping short of universal suffrage. There is, however, great danger in altering our mixed constitution, which has lasted so long and is so strong: That to which the people really have an indefeas- ible right is the best government and the best legislation pos- sible : and, asked Lord John, would Mr. Hume's plan secure a better Legislature ? On the contrary, the House is already obe- dient enough to public opinion ; as witness the many measures which it has adopted in deference to that opinion, from com- mutation of Tithes to repeal of the Corn-laws. There were, indeed, defects in the Reform Bill—Lord John admitted in 1839 that the subject of freemen demanded attention, as well as other points; and the time now seems to be come for looking at them— not, indeed, that he has any bills ready.
Three points in contradiction of Mr. Hume were cleverly worked by Mr. Disraeli. He showed that people were much im- pressed with a notion that the expenditure and taxation have unduly increiused ; a fallacy which had served the agitation out of doors, though it was one too gross for Mr. flume to enlarge upon in his speech. The petitions were the produce of an Organized agitation, by that new profession the systematic agi- tators, whose head-quarters are at Manchester. And Mr. Hume's franchise was too exclusive for Mr. Disraeli—theoretically. Setting aside Mr. Disraeli's effective essay, and comparing the Orations of the leaders on both sides—Mr. Hume and Lord John Russell, one is struck with the empirical nature of both. Mr. Hume argues for universal suffrage, and professes to recom- mend " household" suffrage, but what he really proposes is a n'anchise based on payment of poor-rates; all resident ratepayers, Whether householders or lodgers, to htlye right Of being awned,
and if assessed of voting. Why Mr. Hume should pitch upon that particular exception to the broad rule of enfranchising
"every man," was not demonstrated. His proposition, therefore, does not satisfy theory ; and Lord John is right in asking whe- ther it would secure a better Legislature. Neither is that made out. On the other hand, the efficiency and popular sympa- thies of the present House of Commons are not made out by Lord John. It has conceded, but not without a world of
commotion ; and some of the measures which Lord John enumer- ates as concessions b:, the House, really were measures dictated by this or that Mini try. The repeal of the Corn-laws, for in- stance, was the gift of Sir Robert Peel, made at the greatest cost to himself. Alt' ough Mr. Hume proposed a compromise between universal a' Frage and an exclusive suffrage, he was right in describing velasion as dangerous : it is dangerous. And there can be no aoubt that if the franchise enabled workmen to send into Parliament some samples of the working class— not aristocratic tribunes of the people, white-waistcoated Gracchi —Parliament would not only enjoy a greater degree of popular confidence, but would derive advantage from the aid of men prac- tically informed on matters connected with the condition and pursuits of the working classes. An English Peupin would be a valuable addition to the Commons.
But such questions are not yet on the cards. Mr. Hume's plan is not one for discussion with a view to business; it is only a symp- tom of the general unsettlement—that general unsettlement with which no man, either among the new Reform party or the Whig party, is able to cope. It comes before Parliament without the prestige of a real and spontaneous claim on the part of the people: it is, in spite of Mr. Hume's formal disclaimer, "got up." The Reform Bill of 1831 was not excogitated by the people, nor freely conceded by Parliament : but a combination of circum- stances made it the interest of a Ministry to propose the bill; and the people, seizing that windfall, compelled the Parliament to enact the law. The time for a new Reform Bill will come round when there shall again be a Ministry that shall deem it expedient for its own interest to have a new Reform Bill. Meanwhile, dis- posing of Mr. Hume's particular scheme does not supply the real want. Lord John admitted, on introducing the Reform Bill, seventeen years ago, that other measures, including some of Mr. Hume's points, demanded "future consideration" : in 1839, he recognized the abuses arising out of the freemen's franchise; and now, forsooth, in 1848, he confesses that "the time has" come when such abuses and their remedies merit attention,—though he has not any measures prepared even now ! Probably he will allow twenty years to pass, for completeness and symmetry. Admitted abuses, however, ought not to exist after they are known. Some of them might be removed, without resort to po- pular agitation, by any Government capable of maintaining it- self in office; and it is shameful that a Minister can acknowledge them and yet suffer them to remain from session to session.
