The Express.
London, England, 1867-05-27 00:00:00

NIGH WAITS AT LONDON. BRIDGE.

t DAFLiiWninir. 76742RIT.Z.7.Aibie;;;Z Sb. not.
tomoanow—monani. Mk. 4899..—.. soon, 9b. 2019.

LONDON, MONDAY, MAY 27.

LITTLE as has been the progress yet made in
the discussion of the County Franchise, it has
served to engraft some very material changes upon
the original scheme of the Government. Mr.
DISRAELI has been careful to announce on several
occasions that he had no intention of interfering
with the property qualifications. These stand
under the present law, it may be useful to recall,
at the figure of 10/. rental for freeholders for
life, for copyholdera of every clams, and for lease-
holders where the original term was for not less
than sixty years. The freeholders in fee alone
have a vote at a 40s. rental. This last clam
maintains all its privileges unimpaired ; but by
an amendment carried on Tuesday the franchise
was given to freeholders for life, and copyholders
at a 5/. rental. And on Friday Mr. DISRAELI
stated that he accepted this vote as con-
clusive in regard to sixty year lease-
holders also. It will also follow as a matter
of course that it will be applied in the case of
Scotland ; and the universal 10/. ownership fran-
chise in that country, which was left unchanged in
the Bill, will be lowered to 51. But while this
process has been successfully accomplished as re-
gards the property qualifications, doubt and diffi-
culty still hang around the position of the ordi-
nary tenant. The Bill proposed to reduce the
qualification in his case from a rental of 50/. to
15/. rateable value, only imposing upon those ad-
mitted under the extension, in conformity with
Mr. Disasztes leading principle of establishing
petty but vexatious class distinctions, the condi-
tion of having actually paid all poor-rates due
prior to 20th July. For the words " premises
"of any tenure " Sir EDWARD COLES/WOKE
moved a substitution of words of which,
taken in conjunction with a subsequent and
supplementary amendment standing in his name on
the notice paper, the effect would have been to
require that the 151. occupation franchise in coun-
ties should consist of a dwelling-house, held sepa-
rately or jointly with any land, the house in the
latter case to be rated at not less than 5/. The
inconsequential vote of the committee leaves the
whole question open for further consideration.

The reason assigned for requiring a dwelling-
house to be on the land which gives the quali-
fication, is to stop the creation of faggot votes.
And it is obvious that some such method must be
resorted to. A large estate might be cut up into
innumerable 151. tenancies without in the least in-
terfering with the actual arrangements for culti-
vating the land by the old tenants, but merely
interposing a body of nominal tenants between
them and the landlord. As all these would be at
will, no risk or inconvenience, and very little ex-
pense, would be incurred, and a landowner might
thus confer votes on all his personal friends and
all hie confidential servants. Sir E. COLIHROOKZ'S
idea of restricting the operation to such
patches as comprise a 51. dwelling-house
would certainly greatly diminish the faci-
lity for such proceedings, for labourers'
cottages do not in general reach a 51. rating. But
it may be found hard, when householders are ad-
mitted in counties, to persuade the country party
to refrain from insisting on enfranchising all
householders in the country. The condition of
residence might fairly enough be insisted on, see-
ing that it forms a condition of the householders'
vote in boroughs. This would stop the creation
of faggot votes in the hands of friends, and
equally, with the condition of the existence of a
house, prevent the creation of any, except in the
hands of cottagers. But in some one or other of
these ways we shall be brought face to face with
the question whether the mere labourer shall
have a vote. If Parliament thinks that his
education and independence entitle him to the
franchise, it had better be conferred directly,
than allowed to be given by fictitious
means to those who may be selected as least in-
dependent. But if the whole class is deemed too
illiterate and inapprehensive to be able to form a
sound opinion on questions of state, then it is
clear that we must prevent its being enfranchised
for the purposes of its masters, by fixing a figure
below which the dwelling-house occupier shall not
qualify. It is not strange that the members for
Scottish constituencies should be our guides on
this point. The continued system of subinfeuda-
tion in that country has furnished a means by
which even a 101. property qualification can, by
means of subordinate tenures, be made to furnish
an unlimited number of faggot votes in counties.
No effectual remedy has been discovered in that
country but the requiring the condition of resi-
dence. In England, leaseholds, now that the rate
of qualification is reduced so low, may be still
more easily worked to the same end ; and the dif-
ference in the character of the tenure must compel
us to fix a higher value on the dwelling-house, in
addition to demanding the condition of residence.
But both in Scotland and in England there
might fairly be required a further concession
in the matter of property qualifications. It

is idle in Mr. DISRAELI to reiterate that
nobody would now propose a 40-shilling
freehold qualification if it were not already
in existence. In his savings banks and
consols franchises he is himself proposing a still
lower rate—a 25-shilling qualification. Why, if
501. in a savings bank is to confer a vote, is 601.
or 801. invested in land of any tenure not to have
the sante effect ? Why is a copyhold still to need
a value of 51. to confer a qualification, when
it may be converted into a freehold by a
simple legal process, and would then yield two
and a half qualifications ? There is obviously no
reason to be assigned for such a distinction. The
fancy franchises abolish the theory that the 40-
shilling qualification is exceptionally low, pre-
served only from respect to antiquity. And the
class of owners of a patch of ground worth 40s. a
year is a very safe and substantial one, alike in
England and in Scotland. As to the latter
country, though the name freeholder has a different
signification, there is no reason why the substan-
tial thing should not be conceded. This is a
point on which all Liberals might unite, and
against which the Tories could hardly find a
tenable argument left.