The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-17 00:00:00

THE REPORM BILL. -LAST NICIIT'S DEBATE.

The Times continues to see in the speeches of the sup.
porters of the government bill, flaws, evasions, and
suicidal arguments. Mr. Forster only did mischief in
arguing against distrusting the effects of enfranchisement,
by reminding the house that the government are afraid of
their own proposals, and show, therefore, themselves, a
practical distrust of reform. It is conceded almost without
dispute that a franchise bill and nothing more would leave
things worse than they are at present. Even Mr. Mill's
speech, in the opinion of the Times, was not, when criti-
cally examined, in favour of the government ; for Kr.
Mill was speaking of reforms which have hitherto been
dismissed as literary rather than political problems, and
were not before the house. Mr. Layard last night
displayed his wonted combativeness, and Lord Dun-
kellin followed ably in Lord Stanley's track. Sir
Hugh Cairns put damaging questions with a dialectic
skill of which he is master. Mr. Maguire and Sir Francis
Crossley are, in a different sort of way, both estimable men,
and we should be the last to accuse either of them of a
lack of intelligence, but the government must be indeed
ill-supported whose best defenders do not appear to under-
stand the arguments it is heumbent upon them to meet.
The Daily New says that Mr. Forster's speech was
directed with good effect against the mischievous de-
lusion that it is necessary to adopt ingenious ex-
pedients for artificially adjusting the claims of
classes, so as to prevent the higher orders from being
over-ridden by the lower. The sentiment of social and
national unity is the characteristic of the age, and we
nowhere see the lower middle classes or the working classes
combining against the rest of the community, and uniting
to send mere delegates mid spokesmen of their own order
to the House of Commons. Sir Bulwer Lytton and Mr.
Adderley seem trying all they can to put into the heads of
labouring men that idea of class ascendency which, in their
own interest and that of the country, they should carefully
avoid suggesting. One thing is quite clear, that if classes
are to be numbered, for political purposes, as Mr. Adderley

suggests, the effect will be to teach the most numerous
their strength ; and whatever the first arrangements of our
constitution-mongers, the end of such clan-representation
will be to ensure the untempered predominance of the
largest class. With characteristic blindness, the now
ruling orders are, by their conduct, inviting the calamity
which in words they deprecate.
The Poet thinks that the arguments pro and eon. were
practically exhausted when Lord Stanley and Mr. Mill
had respectively addressed the house, and last night the
large majority of the speeches made were of that clam
which prove by intrinsic evidence that they are uttered
exclusively for the benefit of distant constituents.
According to the Herald, Mr. Maguire spoke an hoar
and shelf, tired himself and wore out the house, and yet did
not adduce a single argument in favour of the government
bill. Lord Dunkellin spoke to good purpose, supporting the
amendment of Lord Grosvenor, in a speech which, if •
trifle too long, was marked by vary great ability. It really
is astonishing that any government could have been so mad
as to force men of genuine liberal principles, like Lords
Grosvenor and Dnnkellin, representatives of great whig
families, into opposition. Mr. Forster's speech had one
merit—that it was • short one ; and a speech weaker in