The Express.
London, England, 1867-03-16 00:00:00

OUR CONTEMPORARIES.

(THIS DAY.)

THE COMMENT PROPOSALS OP •EPOEY.

There is this morning a chorus of dissent on the
part of the non-government journals, from the leading pro-
posals laid before his party yesterday afternoon by Lord
Derby. The first mistake, the Times says, is in proposing
a higher standard for the county franchise than
the House of Commons approved last year ; but
the crucial part of the scheme—the dual voting—
is odiously invidious. Nothing can be worse advised.
It rouses the sentiment of everyone who is exposed by
means of it to a disadvantage. Some enemy must have
induced the ministers to go out of their way to seek dis-
comfiture, for this blot in the plan is unredeemed by any
compensation. The ministry will have to face the ques-
tion whether they will give up this part of their plan and
be content with the rest. Concluding with a question,
the Times asks—Can we hope to see the problem of reform
solved in 1867, or must we wait another year and look for
other agents?

The measure, the Daily News says, his not the slightest
chance of passing the House of Commons, or, if it were
pushed through by dint of unscrupulous combinations, of
satisfying the country. Some by-purpose has probably
presided over its formation. It looks like a measure for
reuniting the conservative party, in preparation for a re-
newal of the policy of obstruction when the inevitable
defeat comes. The government offers the name only of
household suffrage in boroughs, and it will be a question for
the liberal party whether any advantage can be anticipated
from the discussion of the scheme. If it be true, as Mr.
Forster, speaking the other day at Bradford, said it was,
that a household suffrage, restricted to direct ratepayers,
will be narrower than a 61. rating qualification, where is
the justification of the provision for conferring a second
vote upon householders paying direct taxation, when
ministers did not venture to propose any such check as an
accompaniment to the more liberal 61. qualification?
There is no good reason why a householder who pays his
rates through his landlord instead of directly should be
excluded from the suffrage. This false discrimination is
the first false principle. The principle of dual voting is
the second. In every one of its provisions the forth-
coming bill is bad.

The Herald says that in its leading points the mea-
sure embodies all the concessions which it is possible for
a conservative government to make, and by it the minority
are resolved to stand or fall. It is confident that the
country at large is not indisposed to accept the double
vote.

The Standard thinks the conservative gentlemen must
have listened to the statement with mingled feelings of
surprise, relief, and satisfaction, and it believes that every
day the scheme of the ministry will become more popular.
Pausing a moment to comment on the remarkable spec-
tacle of a tory cabinet proposing household suffrage with
whatever restrictions, the Star proceeds to condemn the
accompaniments. The majority of the present electors
would be entitled to two votes, and it requires no array of
figures to prove that the effect of such a plan would be
disastrous to the cause of progress, and increase no.
mensely the power of the kirks. It introduces into the
constitution of England for the first time a most invidious
classification of the people. It divides them in a gross
and offensive way into rich and poor, and brands the poor
on account of their poverty as only half citizens. The
Star imagine., therefore, that the liberal leaders will not
hesitate to denounce the scheme as a whole on Monday
evening as unacceptable.

Household suffrage is not again to be retracted, says the
7c/raraph, whichever party may carry through our elec-
toral reformation ; it affords us a sure footing after all the
quicksands of rating and rental, but the measure which
contains it in this case is thoroughly unacceptable as it
stands. It is a good and bold blll turned into a deceitful
and unjust bill ; it gives, and then it takes away ; and,
beyond all, it establishes an absolutely intolerable distinc-
tion in the land. Even if this proposal is thrown over-
board, the residential drawback, the want of a direct pro-
vision for lodgers, would still be an important abatement.