The Express.
London, England, 1867-08-10 00:00:00

THE WEEKLY PRESS.

Our weekly contemporaries generally regard the
Reform Bill as passed. The Spectator observes that among
the clauses of the bill is one intended to repay members
for passing it by guaranteeing their seats for one more
year. It provides that in cue of a dissolution before
January 1, 180, it shall take place as if no alteration had
been made in franchises or oonatituencies, thus protecting
the house against a general election. No minister would
dissolve in the face of a reform bill, in order that a perils-
ment should be elected without its operation ; and mem-
i bets, therefore, are safe for sixteen months. Moreover,
Mr. Disraeli is ash too, because he can, if pressed, threaten
members not only with a dissolution, but with two
dissolutions in a twelvemonth—with a fine, that is,
estimated at four millions sterling. A cooler attempt
to make parliament independent of the nation and
the ministry of parliament we do not remember,
or a mere conspicuous proof of the effect which the inordi-
nate expense of elections has in depraving the tone of the
House of Commons. They might almost as well have
decreed that Mr. Disraeli's written order should have the
force of an act of parliament. However, there are com-
pensations in all things. The interval will give the house-
holders time to recover from any fever fit of gratitude, and
the ministry time to lose their new-born popularity.
The Examiner remarks that as the minority clause will
at first only be tried in eleven constituencies, we shall
probably know a great deal more about its practical work-
ing after the next election th►n we know now. If it
fails to realise the sanguine expectations of its supporters,
there is no reason for its being carried further, and no
likelihood of its being so ; and if on the contrary its de-
teriorating influence on the character of the representa-
tion is made practically apparent in Manchester and
Birmingham, Berkshire and Bucks, it will not be
easy for any government, however constituted, to
beguile parliament into an extension of the system.
The majorities by which the other suggestion, of the
peers were negatived must on all hands be felt to be decisive.
Upon the whole, we have a right to congratulate ourselves
that the goal has at length been won. We naturally
regret that the names on the back of the hard-fought bill
which before many days will have become law should not
have been those of the statesmen by whose advocacy of
its principles, in season and out of season, its policy was
rendered possible. But this is only the fortune of
war—the honourable penalty which courageous and gene-
rous natures are frequently called on to pay for being
ahead of their time. It was so with the repeal of the
Test Act—it was so with Catholic Emancipation—it was
so with the repeal of the Corn Law—it is so now. It will
always be so while prudence is subordinate to patriotism
in the minds of those whom the people delight to honour.
_ . . . .

The Saturday Rerkw regrets that the Rouse of Commons
has yielded the representation of minorities; but its
decision, even if wrong in itself, has present and temporary
advantages. It ensures the plunge of the bill through
the Lords, which is not saying much, for the Lards cannot
really reject any provision in a Reform Bill on which the
Commons are decided. But it further makes the bill
almost palatable to those who dislike it in the country and
in the Commons, and this is a good thing. It lessens the
inevitable asperity which the triumphant career of