The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-02 00:00:00

THE REFORM BILL.

A communication from " IL," treating at great length
of the present position of reform, appears to-day in the
Tines. The subetance of the observations is to this effect :
The paining of a reform bill, ho says, by no means neces-
sarily settles reform, but on the contrary may lead to
agitation with a force proportioned to the disappointment
which the bill may hays occasioned, and this he believes
to be the present state of affairs. The government
measure, it will not be disputed, has inspired among the
very classed it was intended to conciliate a dissatisfac-
tion not less general and violent than that which ensued
lon the rejection of the bill of last session. It is easy for
a conservative government to pass a reform bill, but in the
same ratio is it difficult for them to settle the question,
and a measure which, like the present one, is opposed by
the great body of the liberal party will never satisfy the
country. The personal payment of rates is a principle
which has been repudiated by the whole liberal party out
of the House of Commons, and even Mr. Roebuck and Mr.
Bass, under other circumstances, have condemned it. The
inequality of its operation—admitting in a few places all
in a lump, and excluding in a great many places all whole-
sale—has never been justified. Pointing out the mode
in which the bill would operate respectively in Sheffield
and Birmingham, and showing that it would practi-
cally give the representation of Leeds to one of
its suburbs, " H." proceeds to describe its effect
in the different parts of the United Kingdom, asking if
anyone expects that the men who are excluded in this
way will quietly acquiesce in their exclusion ? Cunning
and treachery may secure the puling of this measure, but
it is one which to the utmost and the latest of their power
the real liberal party in the country will labour to subvert,
and they will continue their agitation till the day when the
House of Commons shall be compelled to abrogate it. All
the real leaders of the libertl party—Mr. Gladstone, Mr.
Bright, Mr. Forster, Mr. Baines, Mr. Stansfeld—are
pledged against it, and they are not men to com-
promise a principle which they know to be false
in its basis, and unjust in its operation. Why
are one set of men to have the franchise without
condition, when it is refused to others except upon con-
dition ? Everyone knows perfectly well that the " prin-
ciple" has been adopted because, and only because, it
would necessarily restrict the numbers, and it is the confi-
dence that the great majority of householders in boroughs
will be excluded that teconciles Sir Stafford Northcote

and the real tories to the measure. They support it be-
cause they believe and know it to be an imposture. It is
because the liberal party are entirely of this opinion that
they do and always will to the end make war
upon it. The House of Commons may pass such
a bill if they please. but the party who demand
reform never will accept such a measure as a settlement.
The proposition of the dual vote, then of the personal pay-
ment of rates, and thirdly of the lengthened residence,
all show that the scheme of the government was framed
on the principle of distrust of the class which it professes
to enfranchise. Unless the decision of the 12th of April is
virtually reversed—unless Mr. Hibbert's amendment can
be moulded so as to make it clear that a man is not to be
excluded from the suffrage simply because he pays his
rates in one form instead of another, the bill cannot
be accepted by the country. A solution may, how-
ever, still he possible. If Mr. Gl►dstone's amendment
in some form or other be virtually adopted ; if the
residence clauses are struck out ; if a lodger fran-
chise be added—if, in short, household suffrage
without restrictions (and something more) be cor-
ceded ; if the county franchise is materially lowered ;
if a sweeping measure of redistribution is carried ; then,