The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, JULY 10. 1884.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIII, Issue 7223, 19 July 1884, Page 2

The New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, JULY 10. 1884.

The Bill for tho reform of the parliamentary franchise in Great Britain is the most important measure of the kind, by far, that has been introduced since the great Reform Bill of 1832. If carried, it will add about two million voters to tho existing electoral lists; in other words, it will alter these so that they will contain the names of about 5,000,000 instead of about 3 000,000 persons as at present. That is the estimate of tho “ Fortnightly Review,” one of tho most distinguished and ablest of tho Democratic periodicals ; tho ‘‘ Fortnightly,” naturally enough, supporting tho measure strongly. Of course, it is vehemently opposed by the Conservative party, and although already carried in tho House of Commons by a large majority, has boon thrown out of the House of Lords, on an amendment of Earl Cairns, by 205 votes against 140. His motion was to the effect that tho proposed increase of the franchise was inadvisable unless tho other proposed Bill —that for tho re-distri-bution of seats —is simultaneously before the country. Mr Gladstone, in reply, has announced that the Parliamentary Reform Bill must be carried now, and he will introduce tho measure again at once, but he is quite willing that Parliament shall be also assembled next November to consider tho Redistribution of Seats Bill. Great excitement seems to exist with regard to the Reform Bill.andinjudicioua people talk of resorting to extreme steps to compel the Lords to pass tho obnoxious measure, to which they are very strongly opposed. To us, in tho Democratic Australasian colonies, the Bill does not seom to smack of extreme Radicalism. It proposes to extend the residential franchise from tho towns, where it already exists to the coun ties. In other words, it proposes to make tho qualification for the House of Commons almost identical with that which we have in New Zealand for a vote for tho House of Representatives. It must, however, always be recollected, that so great an enlargement of tho franchise, though perfectly safe here, might not be equally safe in the Home Country, where the number of utterly moneyless and wholly uneducated persons is far larger than in New Zealand. It is probably for some such reason as this, that already the objection has been taken by some members of the House of Commons that, though the extension of the franchise might be a sound measure for England and Scotland, it would not work well in Ireland. Perhaps that view may account for the insistance of the majority of tho House of Lords on the Redistribution of Seats Bill being considered at the same time as that for the extension of tho franchise. Something might be said in favour of their contention. It might be argued that Mr Gladstone during the fifty years for which ho has sat in an unreformed Parliament Las always found Liberal measures supported and carried with little difficulty, and the wish of the nation at large thoroughly represented. This has been the fact; but the more statesmanlike view of the matter, perhaps, would he, that the only limit to the exercise of the suffrage should be such an absence of that very moderate amount of money and education as would render the nonpossessing class dangerous to the State. With regard to the prospects of the new Reform Bill in Great Britain, we think there is no doubt that it will be passed, though the opposition of the House of Lords to its becoming law at once, does not seem to us at all to their discredit. The threat held out by Earl Grey fifty years ago, when. the Reform Bill of that day was rejected, that he would ask the King to sanction the creation of sufficient peers to swamp the then existing majority against the Bill, would probably never have been carried into effect. Lord Brougham, who was then the legal adviser of tho Whig party, has told us since, in his book on the Constitution of Great Britain, that ho does not think that extreme course would have been taken, even if the Reform Bill of 1832 had been again rejected. Certainly now it is idle to speak of swamping the House of Lords by the creation of new peers, as they seem only to have done their duty in throwing out a newly announced Bill, apparently open to grave dangers, unless surrounded by cautious restrictions. Clearly it was part of their duty to check hasty legislation on important new measures. It is of course satisfactory to learn that even so cautious a Conservative as Lord Salisbury does not think that the country would really be in serious danger if tho Bill were carried, and that possibly it might show some developments not at all unfavourable to Conservative influence in the country districts.

£Sinco the foregoing article was in type we received, about midnight, a cable message from London, which we publish elsewhere, and ..which shows that a division has been taken jn the House of Lords upon the compromise resolution moved by Lord WEirxss, that tho Reform Bill should bo passed at once, on condition of a Bill for redistribution of seats being introduced during the autumn session. The resolution was lost on a division, by fifty votes. Much excitement exists throughout the country in consequence.]