The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-19 00:00:00

THE REFORM BILL DEBATE.

The speech of Mr. Disraeli deepens the convic-
tion of the Timer of the unsatisfactory character of his
bill, and increases its fear that the hope of obtaining a
thoroughly complete scheme from the present ministry
must be discarded. Until some competent member of the
government admits that the universally condemned plan of
dual voting L in no respect vital to the measure, we
are compelled to regard it as an essential part, and indeed
Mr. Disraeli's language at the close of the 'discussion im-
plied as much. So far as relates to the determination to
fix upon household suffrage, qualified by a sufficient resi-
dence, the scheme deserves support ; and the other errors,
saving the fatal one of duality, are remediable. The ex-
istence of the government and the hope of settling the
question this session depend upon their readiness to modify
the bill. Happily their previous conduct gives us no
raason to despair that they will make any amount of con-
cession to the clearly expressed opinion of the house.
The characteristic feature which distinguishes Mr. Dis-
raeli's scheme from the proposals of former governments is
described by the Daily News to be the capacity which
each of its parte admits of being fraudulently abused.
Showing this by a variety of details, the Daily New par-
ticularly dwells on the inevitable effect of the rating
qualification to lead to wholesale corruption and
demoralisation. Putting aside the methods /by which
Mr. Disraeli manages to magnify the sum total
of enfranchisement which he provides by marching the
same men off and on again, in order to obtain the effect of
large numbers—the very provisions themselves for the
second vote invite abuse. What Mr. Gladstone said of
the project of dual voting applies to almost every part of
the government scheme. It is capable of becoming, and is,
therefore, sere to be made, " a gigantic engine of fraud."
As to the dual vote not a word was said in its favour. It
is clear that it must be withdrawn, if the measure is to be
proceeded with. This done, it will be for the government
and the house to consider whether, by the substitution of
• lodger franchise for the more objectionable of the secon-
dary qualifications, and by some provision for enfranchise-
ment of compound householders as such, • reasonably
satisfactory settlement might not be arrived at.
The opinion of the Post may be gathered from its con-
cluding remark, that the ministry were entitled to have
their measure brought in and read, but that it would cer-
tainly bars proved • saving of much valuable time if it
had received last night the quietus which awaits it at its
next stage.

The Herald urges upon the liberals to embrace this op-
portunity of settling the question. If they follow Mr.
Gladstone's lead nothing can be done now ; and if they
get into power they will find that nothing can be done
next year. The self-denial required of them is not great.
The inevit►ble consequence of the passage of a measure
like the government bill will be to preserve them
their present majority, if not to increase it. While
experiencing the greatest pain at the attacks on the
bill from the Mnistetial side, the Herald finds
consolation on the thought that this division, which must
cripple the power of the conservatives for a long time to
come, will show the House of Commons that reform is no
longer a party question.

It is not the Conservative party now, says the Standard,
it is the liberal leader who stops the way. Nevertheless,
the measure to his intense mortification, was, on the whole,
favourably received. Unless • grors breach of faith be
contemplated, the bill will undergo important modifica-
tions no doubt, will pass, and satisfy all reasonable minds.
_ . . .

Th. Tdegraph denounces the bill in the strongest lan-
guage. It is dead ; it is time it were buried. Along with
it must be interred the official reputation of a ministry
which has sought to foist upon the nation tho makeshift
policy of a failing party.

- The Star follows Mr. Gladstone In examining and con-
demning Mr. Disraeli's application of the ratepaying prin-
ciple and summing up the whole discussion says that if
Mr. Disraeli's declaration that the government will never
introduce household suffrap pure and simple be correct,
their career is virtually at an end.

The attendance of members at prayers yesterday
was so large that almost every seat upon the floor of the
house was taken. When public business commenced at
half-past four o'clock the members' generic", especially
that opposite to the treasury I •nch, was unusually
crowded. The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Teck with
some difficulty found places in one of the members' gal-
leries. Several members of the other House of Parliament
occupied the mats reserved for ministers. So limited,
however, is the accommodation provided for peers, that a
considerable number of members of the Upper House,
including the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dukes of
Marlborough, Argyll, and Cleveland, the Earls of Cardi-
gan, Kimberley, Harrowby, &c., were for some time com-
pelled to stand in the gangway in front of the Speaker's
gallery. Mr. Adams, the American Minister, occupied a
scat in the diplomatists' box during the greater part of
the evening.