The Express.
London, England, 1851-02-19 00:00:00

gitt rameggi.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

IretCwwwent.lntentled far "The Es prem.," Lowden Evening paper,
muet be at the ottlee, td, liourerte•street, by Two o'cloat ba the
day of pabdcatioa.

HIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Tow DAT—Menise. 41k. 110 a Afternme, 4h. 4 tn.
Tomosactr—lliorria& Sit. 4e.. .Aftermoon, Sh. 24e.

LONDO.V, TrEDXESDAY, FEBRUARY 19.

Mn. LoCKE KlXo's proposed extension of the
borough franchise of 101. to the counties of England
and Wales is us moderate and unexceptionable an
instalment of extended suffrage as can well be ima-
gined. If an occupant of a house rented at 101. per
annum within a borough is qualified to judge of
what is required in a member of parliament, can it
be believed that the occupant of a house of similar
value in a county is incompetent ? If the Tothill-
fields ten-pounder is a reliable elector, why doubt tho
ten-pounder of Old Brompton, and exclude him from
the exercise of the suffrage?
In fact, the non-extension of the ten-pound suffrage
to the counties implies even a 6,reater absurdity than
these considerations suggest. House-rent is higher
in towns of any size than in rural districts. A im-
pound qualification within boroughs admits in many
instances a lower class of voters to the roll of electors
than would be admitted by the ten-pound qualifica-
tion in counties. The exceptions to this rule are the
small boroughs in rural districts, where the ten-
pound franchise deprives of the suffrage classes who
would possess it in Finsbury or Manchester; the
only ettlet of that exclusion being to narrow the
constitueney for the convenience of bribing can-
didates. _ - .

The arguments in support of Mr. LockE ]Suds
motion are: that the ten-pound franchise has been
found perfectly- safe in large boroughs; that than
can, consequently, he no danger in extending it to
the counties; and that the numerous individuals
who would, by this extension, be admitted to parti-
cipate in the exercise of the suffrage are at present
debarred its exercise, to say the least without any
advantage being thereby conferred on the general
public, and with great injustice to themselves.
We know not with what thee the protectionist con-
servatives can object to Mr. Locke kiNG's motion.
They are incessantly dinning into our ears the moral'
and intellectual superiority of the inhabitants of the
agricultural over those dilly manufacturing districts.
They will be guilty of a glaring self-contradiction if
they maintain that to keep virtually a higher rate
of qualification in the former than the latter, would
be unsafe among what they call the sounder communi-
ties when no evil has resulted from its adoption in
the others. . . .

There are indeed some who maintain that the
existing qualifications in counties give a monopoly of
the electoral franchise to owners and occupiers of
land, excluding from it in a great measure the re-
spectable inhabitants of country towns and villages.
/or our own part we decidedly incline to this
opinion; and what is more, we believe that this ex-
clusion is felt extensively by one of the soundest and
most trustworthy sections of the population. We'
believe that the inhabitants of our more considerable
country towns and villages are m fact better informed
and more given to deliberute reflection and habits of
self-control than the excitable proletarians of our
great industrial marts, perhaps even than a majority
of the millionaires rani lumina in guryite rests of
these democracies. The extension of the ten pound
qualification to counties would improve the quality
fur more than the quantity of their constituencies.
The protectionist conservatives may perhaps b ex-
pected to dissent from the proposal to call this class
into political activity, from apprehensions that it
may not be sufficiently imbued with implicit belief
in the wisdom of protectionist policy. As far as our
own experience goes, we fear it must be contessed
that its opinions on this head arc rather what many
protectionists consider heretical. But as this is the
only objection that can be urged against them, the
" farmers friends" ought fur that very reason to be
chary of opposing the proposal to enfrunehise them. To
enhance their own consequence, they have uniformly
assumed that there is only one interest in the agri-
cultural districts. They have often and loudly com-
plained of the division of the population into parties en-
gaged in agricultural pursuits, and parties engaged in
mercantile and numufacturing pursuits, adopted in
the census returns as deceptive. They claim the
shopkeepers and small manufacturers of country
towns and villages us part and parcel of the ageicul-
; tural interest. After having dune this pertinaciously
fur so many years, if they now oppose the introduc-
tion of the ten-pound franchise into counties, on the
ground that the political influence of the owners and
occupiers of land may thereby be weakened, they
will expose their own veracity to ugly suspicions.
What course ministers may see tit to pursue, with
relation to Mr. LoCKE KINtN motion, it is nut easy
to conjecture. Lord Sorts RUSSELL's last declara-
tion on the subject was magnificently oracular. In
reply to a q.uestion from Sir lustful, WacrisLEY, the
noble Premier stated, last week, that on former occa-
sions he had admitted that certain amendments of
the Reform Act of 1532 and certain extensions of
the suffrage were desirable, adding that " he would
certainly oct up to that opinion when he thought the
proper time had come to do so."
It is posZile that on Thursday night we may
hear Lord Jons protesting that he does nor thiax
the proper time has come ter extending the ten-pound
qualdiesetion to counties. We wish rather than
hope that in this anticipation we may bo found to