THE REFORM MOVEMENT.

Public meetings continue to be held on the question of Reform. In the metropolis, there was another gathering in Hyde Park on Sunday. It bad no character of importance. The same may be said of a torch- light meeting in " the Britannia Fields," Islington. Here there was a great crowd, and much Chartist oratory was dispensed. Southwark has called its Members to account. Mr. Locke will oppose the bill. Sir Charles Napier, while disliking the bill, would not pledge himself to vote against the second reading. Southwark is for manhood suffrage. An- other meeting has been held in Finsbury. Mr. Cox, M.P., and Mr. Elt, were the spokesmen. Mr. Cox denounced Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston as no reformers, and assured the meeting it was no pleasant thing to sit below the gangway in the House of Commons to represent the people, and there to be sneered at and scorned by the sons and ne- phews of dukes and lords. But he is not to be disconcerted by aristo- cratic taunts, and it is his determination to tell Lord John Russell and Lord Palmerston that neither the one nor the other will ever become the Min' r of this great country unless the full rights of the people are fairl properly, and honestly granted. The meeting voted for manhood e. A similar gathering has occurred in Marylebone. It was at- nded by Sir Benjamin Hall. A meeting at Woolwich, attended by the / Members for West Kent, Alderman Salomons, and Mr. Angerstein, passed resolutions against the bill, and were of opinion that " no reform bill could be acceptable to the country unless it extended the franchise to large masses of the working classes now deprived of political rights."

In the provinces, the reform gatherings have been numerous and full of spirit. The opinions as to what a Reform Bill should enact differ. Many are for manhood, some for household, some for Mr. Bright's suf- frage. All are for the ballot, and all against the Government bill. Hos- tility to the bill indeed is the chief characteristic of these public proceed- ings. A list of towns where meetings have been held will show the extent of the agitation. It comprises Manchester, Preston, Huddersfield, Not- tingham, Guildford, South Shields, Derby, Gravesend, Worcester, Here- ford, Bolton, Chester, Halifax, Bath, Colchester, Stockport, Rochdale, Car- lisle, Leicester, Chatham, Horsley, Brighton, Great Yarmouth, Bristol.

At Manchester Mr. George Wilson presided over a meeting of 4000 persons in the Free Trade Hall. His speech was an attack upon the aristocracy. Mr. Henry Ashworth of Bolton said -

He did not know how the House of Commons or House of Lords might stand in what was called the black book now. But there was a black book published some time ago, from which it appeared that out of 360 members of the House of Lords, upwards of 300 were receiving grants, or pensions, or privileges, or church preferments, or something, which amounted to between two and three millions sterling per annum. (Cries of "Shame !") He won- dered if a reformed Parliament would consent to that. (Cries of "No 1") They need feel no surprise that the members of the House of Lords should call out " Revolutionary." The reformers wanted to see the people who contributed 70,000,000/. annually in taxes have some voice in the national expenditure. (Cheers.) Mr. Watkin, Mr. Samuel Pope, Alderman Heywood, and Dr. Watts were among the other speakers. Dr. Watts said— The preamble of the Government Bill ought to run thus—" Whereas James Taylor, of Birmingham, and Richard Cobden, of Midhurst, some years ago promoted freehold land societies and building societies, with a view to the purchase of forty-shilling freeholds, and thereby to influence the county representation ; and whereas that system has gone on until the representa- tion of some counties has been altered, and if the system be continued the representation of others will shortly be altered ; and whereas such a result is and must be very detrimental to the influence of the ruling county families and the landed aristocracy—be it therefore enacted," &c. (Laughter.) That was the great object of the Bill, let Mr. Disraeli try to disguise its object or alter its provisions as he would.

At Bath Sir Arthur Elton and Mr. Tite were the chief speakers. • Sir Arthur uttered a discriminating criticism on the bill of the Government. He said there were some things in it to praise ; but he asked for the ballot and a large extension of the suffrage to the working classes. He wished the influence of the working classes to be more felt in the House of Commons than it was at present. At the same time, it was not fair, as some persons had recently argued, that the political interests of the aristocracy and middle classes should be extinguished. For this reason he was in favour of the principle of representation of the minorities of large constituencies, whether in town or county. (Applause.) At Hanley in the Potteries Mr. Ricardo, the borough Member, said the country must have no half measure. The Government must be turned out. They had had the impudence to bring in a bill for the representation of the people in which the people were left out. The bill had all the fault of the old system, without any amendment whatever ; and it had one capital fault never to be forgiven—namely, that it most carefully, most deliberately, most insolently excluded the working- classes altogether.

The Brighton meeting was very spirited. The Mayor presided ; Sir George Pechell and Mr. Coningham, the borough Members spoke against the bill. Mr. Coningham said-

" The innovations of the Tory party are not merely confined to the con- stitution. They have commenced an attack on the English language- (Laughter)—for., after proposing to disfranchise the freeholders—the en- lightened proprietors of the forty-shilling freholds, numbering something like 100,000 men—the leader of the House of Commons has the effrontery to come down and say that he does not intend to disfranchise, but only to disqualify, certain voters. (Laughter and cheers.) Sir, it is high time this Tory party, that seems to think it has the monopoly of all the intelligence as well as a large portion of the wealth throughout the country, should go to school. (Laughter.) It is very clear that they are behind the age—that public opinion out of doors has made such rapid strides that even the House of Commons, Liberal as it is, compared to the House of Peers—is still behind and has not yet kept pace with that public opinion out of doors ; and I feel convinced that if the popular element were fully and fairly repre- sented in the House of Commons, so far from conducing to the injury of the real interests of the country—not the vested interests, perhaps, gentlemen —it would largely. contribute to the prosperity of the country, that you would see the Legislature of this country. Do you not see letters from eminent members to their constituents raising the bugbear of a threatened dissolution ? Do you believe, gentlemen, that the Tories dare dissolve on the Reform cry ? No, not for their lives. Why, gentlemen, I assert that if they dare to dissolve on such a question as that, they would have a Reform Parlitiment such as England has never seen since the time of the Long Parliament. Do you suppose that the English people are degenerating or have degenerated, that they are to be bamboozled by false pretences such as these ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer the night he brought forward his Reform Bill ventured to taunt the Liberal party with not having answered. He said, if we were to have a readjustment of members to population, that the counties, quoad population, were entitled to a far larger share of repre- sentation. But he forgot, Sir, that it is property—the great landed pro- prietors—and not the population, which is represented in counties. It is an attack upon property, gentlemen, to propose to disfranchise the free- holder—and this from the Tory party.! (Laughter.) But when the Tories take it into their heads to commence innovation they are generally reckless in their proceedings, so long as they can serve party purposes ; and it is to serve their base party purposes that they have undertaken to bring forward such a scheme as this. I say the honour of this country will be seriously compromised if you do not put a stop to these things, and nothing short of turning Ministers out will satisfy the public indignation. (Cheers.)

At Halifax Mr. Frank Crossley showed up the probable operation of the clause lowering the county franchise. It proposed that the qualification should be in land or buildings. Now, they knew something of what land and buildings would do in Halifax. They knew how every farm in the borough had been taken up and divided into 101. qualifications, how clergymen by some mysterious mode had become

partners with milkmen—(laughter)—and how the revising barrister had passed all these claims as good, though he very much doubted whether some of these clergymen had ever seen the farms, or ever shared in the profits of the milk-dealer. The wording of the existing Act was, that the qualifi- cation should consist of land and building, and it had been held that a cow- shed was a sufficient building, but the Bill now before Parliament proposed that the qualification should be in land or tenements, and there was no- thing to prevent a landlord cutting up his land nominally into 10/. allot- ments, and entering his butler, coachman, footman, bailiff, or friends as tenants. It did not follow that they would ever pay the rents; all that would be necessary was that they should become good pillars and posts, voting as they were told, and saying nothing about it. -Mr. Bright's bill took care to prevent this by providing that in the ten-pound county fran- chise there should, not be less than six-pound valuation in tenements. (Cheers.)

At Hanley, Mr. Ricardo, M.P., remarked that the bill added a new argument to the list in favour of the ballot. Dockyard labourers are to be disfranchised, because they are made to vote against their consciences. Every argument which applies to them would apply to all classes of workmen. ("Hear, hear ! " and cheers.) The voting paper scheme will fall to the ground on account of its own innate stupidity. They must never rest until they had the ballot. (Loud Cheers.) Liberal demonstrations have been held in Stirling and Leith, and we shall probably hear of more from Scotland.

In Ireland a great meeting of the opponents of the Government bill has been held in the Rotunda. The conduct of the Government is declared to be disrespectful to Ireland. The ballot, a lower qualification for lodgers, and a larger extension of the suffrage is demanded. They ob- ject to voting papers.

While these meetings have been held two important declarations have come from other quarters. One from Lord Grey in a letter to Lord El- cho, first published in the Globe ; another from Mr. Edward Ellice to the good folks of Coventry. Lord Grey's letter is as follows- " Carlton House Terrace, March 12. "My dear Elcho—On thinking over our conversation of yesterday it has

occurred to me that there may be some advantage in my expressing to you rather more fully than I then did, and in writing, my opinion of the reso- lution which Lord John Russell has given notice that he will move as an amendment on the second reading of the Reform Bill. "I think this resolution highly objectionable, and I deeply lament his

having determined to move it as well on account of the public evil it has a tendency to produce, as from the regard I have for so many years entertain- ed for him. The question of Parliamentary reform is fast getting into a state very dangerous to the country ; it seems to me, therefore, to be the duty of all public men to give their best assistance towards settling it, and at all events strictly to abstain from using it for the purpose of party war- fare. But if the settlement of the question is the object they have in view, I cannot understand how the party opposed to the Government can doubt that they ought to agree to the second reading of the bill that has been in- troduced: It is true the bill is a bad one, and I certainly could not vote for its passing in its present shape. But it contains provisions for creating new rights of voting, for partially disfranchising some places that now return members to Parliament, and for enfranchising others. The principles, applied more or less extensively, are those on which any possible reform bill must be founded, so that amendments which the committee would have full power to introduce into the bill, as coming within its original principle, might bring it into any shape that might be thought right—even into that recom- mended by Mr. 'Bright, if his views should unfortunately gain acceptance.

" Hence, if the second reading were agreed to, all who disapprove of any of the present provisions of the bill would have the opportunity of proposing others in lieu of them. Were this course followed, the house and the coun- try would be enabled to form a fair judgment on the several schemes that might be brought forward, and the discussion of these could not fail to throw much light on the question (at present so obscure) as to what changes in the constitution are practicable, and really desired by the public. " But instead of allowing the bill to be thus considered in detail, Lord John Russell will invite the House of Commons to get rid of it by a resolu- tion condemning it on account of defects which, granting them to be as great as they are alleged to be, might still be removed in the committee. The resolution is to declare the opinion of the House, That it is neither

hjust nor politic to interfere in the manner proposed in this bill with the free- old franchise as hitherto exercised in the counties of England and Wales ; and that no readjustment of the franchise will satisfy this House or the country which does not provide for a greater extension of the suffrage in cities and boroughs than is contemplated in the present measure.' The importance of the first part of this resolution is taken away by the an- nouncement that the Government intends to modify thepart of the bill to- which it relates. The second is more material. Its effect would be to pledge the House to some unknown extension of the suffrage in towns, so that it may be supported by persons holding every variety of opinion as to what the borough franchise ought to be, from those who think that it should be very slightly altered, to those who go to the full extent of advocating universal suffrage, with Mr. Ernest Jones.

" A majority in favour of a resolution of this kind might succeed in over- throwing the existing Administration, or in compelling it to dissolve Parlia- ment (the last in my opinion would be a great misfortune at the present moment) ; but I am totally at a loss to see how it would conduce to the safe settlement of the difficult question of reform. Suppose that a majority in favour of his resolution led to Lord John's being himself raised to the office of Prime Minister, either immediately, or after a new Parliament had been elected—is there the slightest chance that he would be more fortunate than his predecessors in finding a concurrence of opinion in favour of his o an views ; If he were to propose a five-pound rating franchise, for instancrs,

he must of course reckon upon the opposition of the Members who support the present Government, and also on that of Mr. Bright, and those who share his views. He would alsci most probably find it necessary to propose a much more extensive disfranchisement of small boroughs than the present Government recommend, and on this point likewise he would encounter a great conflict of opinion which would be very difficult to deal with. With these obstacles in his way, there is little probability that he could carry a measure even through the House of Commons, much less through both Houses of Parliament. All therefore that we should gain by the move would be the disturbance produced by a change of Government and pro- bably by a general election, together with a great increase of the difficulties of this already difficult question, by making it the subject of a party battle, and influencing men's passions with regard to it. " I must add, that stopping the progress of a bill by voting a resolution in favour of some abstract principle which might be embodied in clauses and moved in committee, is a course which has not very often been pursued by the House of Commons, and never I believe with advantage. There are only two cases strictly in point that I can remember. One was the resolu- tion, carried by General Gascoyne in April 1831, the object of which was to defeat the first Reform Bill, by declariug the opinion of the House that the total number of Members returned for England and Wales ought not to be diminished. The other was the celebrated resolution carried by Lord John himself in 1835, which declared that no measure upon the subject of tithes in Ireland could lead to a satisfactory and final adjustment, if it did not em- body the principle of applying the surplus property of the Irish church to general education. Both these resolutions afford, I think, warnings of what ought to be avoided, not examples to be followed. The first was uni- versally condemned at the time as a factious proceeding ; it led to the im- mediate dissolution of Parliament and the signal discomfiture of its authors. The second (in which I have never ceased to regret that, much against my own judgment, I was induced to concur) was so far successful that it stopped the progress of Sir R. Peel's bill relating to Irish tithes, and overthrew his Government, but it pledged the House of Commons to a principle of legisla- tion to whioh it was unable to give effect. It delayed the passing of any Irish tithe bill for three or four years, keeping up in the meantime a most mischievous struggle and agitation, and in the end the House was compel- led to abandon the principle it had declared, with no slight discredit to it- self and to the party on whose advice it had acted. I can anticipate no better result from the move now contemplated ; I hope, therefore, that the resolution which is to be moved will be resisted by yourself and others, who prefer the interests of the country to those of a party. In your place I should certainly vote against it, even though I concurred in the principles set forth in the resolution, and were prepared to support them if brought forward in the proper form of amendments in the committee on the bill.

" I have no wish to conceal the opinion I entertain on this subject—on the contrary, I should be glad to have it known ; you are, therefore, quite at liberty to make what use you please of this letter.—Yours very truly,

" The Lord Elcho. " GREY."

The letter from Mr. Edward Ellice to his constituents at Coventry is dated March 9. Mr. Ellice describes the crisis as one of no ordinary difficulty, and says he intends to remain unfettered. The bill in its pre- sent shape is a very bad one. He objects to the disfranchisement of free- holders, to the tampering with borough boundaries, to the voting papers. He approves of the transfer of seats and the "great object of securing the 101. voters in counties."

" But there is one reason especially why I withhold my absolute con- demnation of the Bill. It secures their franchises—threatened by former projects of this description—to our freemen, and provides a special regis- tration for them—to a certain extent an admission, and therefore con-

firmation, of the principles on which their franchise is founded What, then, are the objections beyond those I have stated to the Ministerial Bill? The limited disfranchisement of small boroughs, and the maintenance of the borough franchise at 101. On these points my opinions have always been frankly stated to you, and I see no reason for changing them. I should have preferred a larger disfranchisement ; and when the time has arrived, as it must arrive, for lowering the borough franchise, I should infinitely pre- fer giving the franchise to all resident householders paying rates and taxes than to either a Si. or 61. rental, proposed in Lord John Russell's last two Bills. We shall then have a settlement on principles which may be perma- nent. According to my judgment, a rental and rating franchise cannot be effected, from the different principles of rating in different towns. But I frankly admit my doubt whether the time has yet arrived for the establish- ment of a household suffrage."

The case'must be decided on other grounds. The bill can be carried with "our consent." If carried, and amended, it will be so much gained. If rejected, there will be either a dissolution, which he thinks improbable, or the Government will change hands.

"In the ease of a change of Government we shall have the same propo- sals of Reform repeated as were made in 1852 and 1854, including, probably, the disfranchisement of our freemen, on some abstract principle of uni- formity, without the least chance of the authors of the bill being able to carry them ; and an obstruction—while the discussion and agitation it will excite is going on—of all useful measures of social amelioration and im- provement. I say the least chance of their being able to carry them from some knowledge and experience of the state of parties."

He will, therefore, be inclined to vote for any amendment condemn- ing what he objects to, thus giving the Government the option of pro- ceeding with the other clauses if they please; and to vote for the second reading with the intention of expunging the objectionable clauses in Committee.