NEWS OF THE WEEK.
TICE great Representation Debate is at length over ; the climax, foreseen a week ago, has arrived with somewhat more emphasis than was contemplated ; Ministers have been defeated on Lord John Russell's motion by a majority of 39 in a House of 626 Members.
The course of discussion and events in Parliament, almost sug- gests the idea that public opinion, like Fate, which can be felt though not defined, dictates, and sways men, making sport of party and of individuals. Our political leaders are exhibited in the condition of drifting towards a conclusion which not one of them had predetermined ; at the same time' however, more than one have gained strength by identifying themselves with that prevalent conviction of the public of which they have become the exponents. There have been many able speeches in the nights succeeding those which we noticed last week ; the most remarkable, curious, and undefinable of which was Lord Palmerston's. It explained his previous reserve ; for it exhibited him in the light of not very ardently disliking the moderation of the Government measure, though clearly seeing its want of apti- tude to the situation, while he offered to Ministers all the ad- vantages of a strange, sarcastic, sportive, forbearance on his own part. This week, amidst many minor debaters, three have stood out very conspicuously—Sir James Graham, Mr. Glad-. stone, and Mr. Disraeli. Of these, Sir James unquestionably made the most way and for very sound reasons. Mr. Sidney Herbert may be said, last week, to have placed in a very clear light the relations of Ministers to the general subject within Parliament. Sir James Graham explained, the whole position of the question and of Ministers with reference to the state of the country and the manifest conclusions of the public opinion. He boldly sketched out what would be acceptable at the present juncture, and we cannot refuse our assent to his representation, since he comes so closely in its main characteristics and essentials to that measure which appears to us to be the best standard yet proposed of an English Reform Bill. He agrees with us on the question of voting papers, of expenses at elections, conveyance of voters, the multiplication of polling places, a moderate redistribution of seats, the identity of the franchise, and,—turning point of the whole debate,—the exten- sion of the franchise in boroughs. Sir James indeed did not point
out the test by which he would discriminate between the bo- roughs to be disfranchised and those which are to retain their representation; but we are convinced that nothing can be more consistent with the historical usage of the country, with present circumstances, or the spirit of our representative system, than to take the test of inhabited houses, both for disfranchising bo- roughs and for newly enfranchising those which have grown large enous-11 to claim the right. The savings bank clause ap- pears to be given up, at least in its present shape, even by Go- vernment. The discussion has confirmed our opinion that the object of a " lodger " clause could be made more directly, fairly, and safely attained by an income tax franchise. In counties, Sir James is for accepting the ten-pound occupancy franchise ; but the sum and substance of the measure which he sketched out is an extended county franchise designed in the spirit- of is coun- try representation, a large reduction of the borough franchise, in order to a genuine representation of the town population ; and ha-seemed to admit that public opinion could not be denied the concession of the ballot, though he, like ourselves, is not amongst - its advocates. Sir James was amongst those who urged Govern- Mont to avoid a fatal issue on the bill before the House, and to bring in a new measure. Report had not only anticipated this speech, but had indicated for Sir James Graham a very dis- tinct consequence of it.
Mr. Gladstone's confirmed public expectation in a more quali- fied manner. Any discourse more able, more refined, more ori- ginal, it would be difficult to compose. He opposed Lord John's' resolutions thwarting the progress of the measure, but condemned'
also the measure ; and he -was for getting into Committee, in order that irrespectively of cabinets, past, present, or future, the representative chamber might take the review of its own consti- tution into its own hands.
Mr. Disraeli's speech was one of the most powerful, and not the less so because one of the most measured in its language. It is a pity that it did not serve as the preface, rather than as the posteript to the debate, for, it presented the Ministerial measure in a much more distinct light, as resting upon three great principles—that there must be an addition of as many persons to the electoral body as there had been in 1832—that some large oommunities which have increased since that date are entitled to direct representation in the House—and that the pre- sent borough system must, as a whole, be maintained. He denied the disfranchisement ascribed to the bill ; insisted on the' necessity of reducing the county franchise to the ten pound
point—for there would have been a great struggle at the twenty= pound ; and affirmed that a Conservative Government, as Lord-
Palmerston implied that it might have done, could not enrarge. the borough franchise beyond the existing ten pound point.' Conservative in its standards, the present Government, as ho showed from a recapitulation of its acts, has been Liberal in its measures at.home, national in its policy abroad. As the con- sequence of a 'political crisis—and here perhaps was the weak point in his speech—he insisted that a defeat of the Government
would endanger peace on the continent. _ We are inclined to think that this speech is not the one which Mr. Disraeli would have held himself advised to deliver at an earlier date in the week. It is understood, however, that an im- portant section of the House of Commons, which might have given the Government an actual majority however small, had, in the meanwhile, ascertained that one probable Minister would not refuse to entertain a proposition which they have at heart, and thus Ireland has asserted her importance as an arbitrator in the balance of parties. For the division which settled the fate of the bill and opened a way for Lord John's resolution, gave 330 to the Opposition, 291 to the Government—an adverse majority of 39.
Our contemporaries are noting the usual three courses which lie before Ministers—to dissolve, to resign, or to go on, simply. dropping the bill. As a temporary expedient, the last course' would not be inconvenient to any party ; it would facilitate the passing of some business whioh rather presses upon the House of Commons and the Executive, such as the Budget. A dissolution would lay the grand question before the public in an aspect most injurious to the present Government, and that in many ways ; for instance, boroughs to be disfranchised would feel no favour
for the authors of the bill ; on the other hand the Liberal party generally would find that they could obtain a larger measure from Lord John Russell, Mr. Bright, and Mr. Sidney Herbert, while, the most prudent as well as earnest portion of the Liberal party would discern in the indication given by Sir James Gra- ham that measure which would be the favourite.
Between the division on the motion for the seoond reading and the acceptance of the resolution, Mr. Wyld interposed an amend- ment adding a claim for the ballot to Lord John's terms ; but even ho, Henry Berkeley, and Mr. Gibson deprecated this incon- venient interposition of a substantive question, and by 325 to 98 the House declined to consider the subject.
