10 FEBRUARY 1866, Page 3

Mr. G. Bentinek, in_a letter to the Tunes on Reform

published this.day week, proposes -what is. in_ fact very much like what the Southern- party in America contend for. He says the counties• ought to have 110 or 150 fresh members taken_ from.the greattowns. -on-account of the,counties' mueklar.ger proportionate population.. Well, bat is. Mr. Bentinck willing to-devote theeounty members to representing these agricultural masses? Will he . give the. .county franchise to the-rude and ignorant labourers ? If not,. there is no force in his argument at all, for the advocates of ex-. tended borough representation do propose to give the new repre- .sentatives to the masses on whose.- numbers-they rely. •for,.the justice of the change. Mr. Benkineki proposes practically to. give the proxies of the agricultural poor to the landed....gentry,,which is :we submit,- a flaw in his scheme. Any good. Reform Bill will probably leave the registered borcregirelectors more numerous than: ,the registered county electors.. A counter county Reform:Bill, if it is to have a leg to stand on, must -demand-more electors in ,:the-. counties -in the same proportion in which _it, demands.-mere members- But the-whole principle is rotten; The number and: variety of borough interests are very great,—of landed interester very few. Landed interest,- is solid- and, homogeneous. That is. the tree reason against giving the rural population members-in, airoportion to their numbers:-