Friday's News Print E-mail
The CARLISLE PATRIOT is registered at the General
       Post Office for transmission beyond the United
       Kingdom, pursuant to the Post Office regulations.
========================================
                  THE CARLISLE PATRIOT
========================================
                  Friday, November 19, 1858
                               _____*_____

We have recent advices from India. Tthe strongest body of insurgents in the
field, at the head of which is the somewhat celebrated TANTIA TOPEE, have
been signally beaten, and lost their cannon.  In Oude the remains of the
insurrection is apparently strong, but though the numbers are large, the
mass are mere camp followers and marauders.  Very small detachments of our
troops put thousands to flight.  LORD CLYDE was ready to commence a cold
weather campaign with a force which is likely to wind up the conflict.
    The French, aided by a few Spanish troops from the Phillipines, have
made a lodgement in Cochin China.  The cause of complaint is that the French
and Spanish Romanist missionaries have been ill-treated, and, indeed, BISHOP
DIAZ murdered.  Reparation, it is said, has been demanded in vain.  The
Government of the Emperor could not allow his overtures to be so
disdainfully rejected, and his solicitude being made a pretext for
persecution, (the 'Moniteur' informs us,) an expedition was resolved upon,
and the commencing operations are successful.  The Cochin Chinese will find
that it is not an easy matter to shake off an European invasion.
                                  =========

    Mr. GLADSTONE's mission to the Ionian Republic has been the topic
chiefly dwelt upon, since our last, in the daily and weekly journals.  In
the midst of a most glorious uncertainty a document made its appearance in
the 'Daily News', in the form of a dispatch from SIR JOHN YOUNG, the High
Commissioner, to Mr. Secretary LABOUCHERE, bearing date Corfu, June 10,
1857, and a smaller dispatch, from the same functionary, dated July 14, and
addressed to Sir E. BULWER LYTTON.  the first only is important.  It points
out, in plain language, the troublesomeness and worthlessness of the people
over whom he rules;  and his advice is that England should shake off the
Southern islands, the source of every evil.  As to Corfu, he says, it could
hardly be given up without bad faith;  but it ought to be held by England in
full sovereignty.  The island is fertile;  it is a good naval station;  and
has the further recommendation that it does not wish to be separated from
England.
    "Besides the other advantages (he says) to both England and Corfu of
such a change, this island would, in the course of a few years, become
completely Anglicised and enriched by British capital:  it would pay its own
expenses, and furnish besides a considerable surplus revenue."
    This policy was recommended to Lord PALMERSTON;  who took no public
notice of it and shelved the document.

Great was the wrath of the few papers which still cling to the Noble
Viscount's skirts.  The Derby Government, it ws intimated, had acted in this
matter as with the Ellenborough dispatch - they had, by the publication of a
document which should, at present, have been held sacred, rendered an
agreeable arrangement almost impossible.  The Derby Ministry, therefore, had
shewn itself utterly incapable of governing, &c., &c.
    At this stage the truth comes out.  An official statement from the
Colonial Office to the papers declares that no member of the Government had
caused or sanctioned the publication, and that the Government is entirely
ignorant of the quarter whence it came.
    We think we can tell.  We are not the depositories of Whig secrets, nor
accomplices in Whig machinations;  but, as we have said, we think we can
tell.  The Whig Governors of distant Colonies have long been in the bad
habit of sending home the main portion of their dispatches in private
letters to their personal friends in power.  Lord CANNING did this with Mr.
VERNON SMITH and Lord GRANVILLE.  Sir JOHN YOUNG was well acquainted with
the system.  What was to prevent him from acting upon it?  How capital a hit
on the part of some member of the late Ministry and still place-expectant,
to cast a stumbling-block in Mr. GLADSTONE's way, and thus embarrass him and
damage the Government !

The small knot of persons who lately met at the Guildhall Coffee-house in
London, and commissioned Mr. BRIGHT to prepare a Parliamentary Reform Bill,
have sent round to the newspapers a draft of a Bill, with notes, 'for
publication and discussion by the Press, and for the consideration of
members, constituents, and non-electors, previous to the ensuing session of
Parliament.'  It is entitled "A Bill to extend and amend the people's
representation in Parliament 22 and 23 Vict., Session 1859".  It is not said
that Mr. BRIGHT is the author, or that his intentions and desires are set
forth in it;  but we have a right to assume that the parties with whom he
has entered into alliance would not commit the glaring blunder of
forestalling and running counter to him at the very outset.

    Mr. Bright's Bill, then - if his it be - consists of twenty-three
clauses and two schedules.  The preamble alleges that, whereas more than six
millions of persons have the constitutional right to vote, whilst little
more than one million are legally privileged to exercise that right, and
upwards of five millions are deprived of it;  and whereas it is expedient
that so large a portion should no longer continue unrepresented, and that
members should be more equally distributed, the borough members amongst
towns, and the county members amongst counties, - it is proposed to enact,

    Clause 1, that twenty-nine boroughs returning one member each, and
forty-two returning two members each, mentioned in schedule A (including
Cockermouth), having less than ten thousand inhabitants, shall cease to
return any members, but that the voters therein shall be entitled to vote
for members for the county or division of the county in which such boroughs
are situated.
    Clause 2.  That fifteen boroughs named in schedule B., being towns
having less than twenty thousand inhabitants, shall return one member only;
and that the retained boroughs of Bedford, Berwick, Boston, Canterbury,
Colchester, Durham, Gloucester, Hastings, Hereford, Lancaster, Lincoln, Lynn
Regis, Salisbury, Shrewsbury, Staffords, Warwick, and Winchester, shall have
their boundaries extended by the addition of surrounding parishes or
townships so as to raise the number of inhabitants to at least twenty
thousand.
    Clause 3.  That the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge shall cease to
return members, but present voters may vote for those cities.
    Clause 4.  That Birkenhead, Burnley, Chelsea, Staley Bridge, Gravesend,
Kensington, Kingston, Richmond, Ramsgate and Margate, shall be constituted
Boroughs sending two members each.
    Clause 5.  That the cities of London and Westminster, and the
Metropolitan Boroughs, Finsbury, Marylebone, Tower Hamlets, Lambeth,
Southwark, and the towns of Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool, shall be
divided into smaller boroughs of from fifty to one hundred thousand
inhabitants.
    Clause 6.  Such new boroughs to return one member to every twenty-five
thousand inhabitants.
    Clause 7.  Counties and Divisions of counties to be further divided, so
as to allow a separate division for one member.
    Clause 8.  No person voting for any city or borough to vote for any
county, and no voter for any county to vote for any other county, nor for
any city or borough.
    Clause 9.  The twelve counties of Berks, Bucks, Cambridge, Dorset,
Huntingdon, Leicester, Oxford, Rutland, Salop, Westmorland, Wilts, and
Worcester, to return one member each less than at present;  the five
counties of Cumberland, Hereford, Northampton, Northumberland, and Notts, to
return only two members each.
    Clause 10.  The twenty-two members taken from the above named counties
to be given to the counties of Chester, Kent, Lancaster, Middlesex,
Stafford, and York, in proportion to population.
    Clause 11.  The extensions and divisions mentioned to be effected by
commissioners, whose reports shall be laid before Parliament.
    Clause 12.  No person to vote except for the place in which he actually
resides.
    Clause 13.  All adult male persons who for six months previous to the
24th of June in each year shall have been resident occupiers, either in
whole or in part, of any dwelling house or tenement, within any City,
Borough, County, or Division, shall be entitled to vote in the election of
members for the same;  provided the rent paid or agreed to be paid for such
occupation in any of the Boroughs mentioned in section 5, be not less than
ten pounds a year;  and if in any other Borough, or any County, be not less
than five pounds a year.
    Clause 14.  Persons, for six months previous to June 24th, in receipt of
salary or wages of £50 a year, or of an income from the Funds of £10 a year,
of having paid Income tax, or having had £50 deposited in a Savings Bank, or
being a Graduate in any University, or a Forty-shilling Freeholder, shall
also be entitled to vote for any City, Borough, or County in which he
resides.
    Clause 15.  All Registers to be under the control of the Registrar
General, who shall appoint Chief Registrars, and District Sub-Registrars.
    Clause 16.  Yearly on the 24th June, Overseers of every parish shall
make out lists of persons entitled to vote as rated occupiers;  claims to be
sent in to the Registrar;  list to be made out in seven days, and publicly
exhibited for ten days, when objections may be made in writing and sent to
the Registrar, who shall make a minute thereof referring to the number of
the party on the register.
    Clause 17.  Such lists to be certified by declaration of the Registrar;
a false declaration to be deemed a misdemeanor.
    Clause 18.  Yearly, in August, the lists to be revised in public, and
settled by the Registrar;  parties not sustaining their objections to be
liable to costs, and the amount being certified, the certificate may be
registered by the Clerk of the County Court of the District, and shall have
the force of a county Court judgment.
    Clause 19.  Persons obtaining registration by fraud or misrepresentation
to be held guilty of misdemeanor.
    Clause 20.  Votes to be taken by Ballot compulsorily.
    Clause 21.  Triennial Parliaments.
    Clause 22.  Two or more members may be elected by the Legislative
Assemblies of Canada, Nova Scotia, New South Wales, Victoria, the West
Indies, Cape of Good Hope, and such other Colonies as her Majesty in Council
may from time to time nominate.
    Clause 23.  Eight members to be also elected by the European inhabitants
of India, namely, two for Calcutta and Bengal Proper, two for the North West
Provinces, two for Madras, and two for Bombay;  such members to be elected
under the provisions of a separate Act.

Notes are attached, statistical and argumentative.  Under an Act of this
sort, the Tower Hamlets would return 21 members, Marylebone 13;  Liverpool
15;  Manchester 12;  Birmingham 9; Westminster 9;  Finsbury 12;  Lambeth 10;
Leeds 6;  London City 5;  Southwark 6;  Bristol 5;  Greenwich 4;  Kensington
4;  Sheffield 5;  Wolverhampton 4;  Bradford 4;  Bolton 3;
Newcastle-on-Tyne 3;  Brithton 3;  Hull 3;  Salford 3;  Norwich 3;  Oldham
3;  Sunderland 3;  Stoke-on-Trent 3;  Preston 3;  Portsmouth 3; &c.  It is
assumed that a ten pound franchise in larger towns is on a par with a five
pound franchise in small towns.
This, then, is Mr. Bright's scheme, or, at least, the scheme of the busy
persons with whom he consents to act, counsel, and guide.  It amounts to a
Revolution.  The Borough representation would entirely swamp the Counties -
the landed and agricultural interest - and the greatest powers of mischief
are given to the worst parts of it.  Such a House of Commons would be at
irreconcileable feud with the House of Lords in six months;  we should have
three or four Ministries in a year;  supplies would be denied to the Crown;
the Church, as an establishment, would be pulled down and its property
sequestrated;  the voice of the House of Lords would be first voted, in Lord
JOHN RUSSELL's language, the "whisper of a faction"  and then the House
itself would be declared useless.  At this stage the descent would be
rapid - the Monarchy - the Public Funds - Property - all of a heap, and in
the general confusion we should probably receive a practical solution from
Cherbourg of a mystery which is at present only a speculation.
    It is important to know beforehand what these people mean.  They contend
that it is a "radical error" to say that property forms any part of the
basis of representation. "The province of the Legislature", it is said, "is
not to 'en'-franchise, but to 'dis'-franchise, not to say who shall but who
shall not vote.  The Constitution gives to all the right to be represented -
all are therefore constitutionally entitled to vote.  The law may take that
right not only from the criminally corrupt but from such as are too poor to
exercise it independently.  Property cannot make a man independent, but it
may evidence the means of subsistence which are necessary to independence.
    By the Constitution and by Law the Commons of England represent, not the
property, nor people of property, but the people.
    Representation is a personal right, &c.  This, as here put, is a string
of mixed truism and sophism.  Property cannot be divorced from the political
and social compact.  The franchise is a trust, a public duty, as well as a
personal right, the latter being derived from the qualification prescribed
by law.  If the right were a natural one, it would be tyrannous to withhold
it from women, or to fix the age of twenty-one as the entrance upon it.
    This Reform, as it is called, is undisguised spoliation.  The serpent
slavers its victim before swallowing it.  "The voters in Boroughs ought not
to vote for County representatives also.  The County Families are proud of
the larger areas, the greater populations, and the territorial sympathies of
the county constituencies.  The Bill does not propose to deprive them of
these distinctive characteristics, but to render them more exclusive.  Much
use it would be to them when outnumbered, three to one, by the borough
representatives !  Surely, if the county voters are to be confined to a
single vote - to a vote for one member only - the borough constituencies
should be alike restricted.
    What the Ministerial Bill may be, when it comes forth, none but those
officially concerned can at present pretend to say.  A hint, however, may be
taken even from the outrageous proposition before us.  In all cases there
should be double representation, the smaller boroughs being expanded by the
addition of neighbouring towns, villages, and hamlets;  but no elector
should be permitted to vote for more than one candidate.  Adopt this
principle, and you may very much extend the franchise in both counties and
boroughs;  you would put an end to bribery, lessen the expenses of
elections, and give the country a real representation founded, jointly, on
numbers and property.  It certainly would be an improvement in Counties to
restrict the privileges of non-resident electors and faggot-voters.
    The opening of the Reform campaign, as it may be termed, is an
admonition to friends of the Consitution that 'now' is the time for
preparation.  It would not only be disgraceful to be caught napping, it
would be criminal, because a betrayal of the best interests of the
ountry  --  of England which is safe from all enemies but those within the
citadel.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
========================================
 
< Prev   Next >