The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-21 00:00:00

THE WEEKLY PRESS.

The Examiner to-day has several articles in sup-
port of the government Franchise Bill. Discussing
what it terms the false pretences of the opponents
of the bill, it observes that the political Pharisees
strain at a gnat and will not consent to swallow anything
less than a camel. The mem of moderation are seised with
a sudden aversion to half measures ; more or none is their
cry. They cannot abide anything fragmentary. At parts
of • whole they will not look ; they must have the: whle
before them, however large and unmanageable masit
may be. They cry for more than can be done, in order
that nothing may be done. Never before did we see a
great debate tarn altogether on • question of method
and the quarrel fastened on the road which
really attaches to the destination. The only chance
of the tones lies in wasting the session until
it becomes impossible to complete even one chapter
of reform this year. The resources of loquacity are inex-
haustible, and the Examiner sees no physical reasons why
the present thing called • debate should not go on to
May-day. If the loss of the present measure were brought
about by the unmixed folly of its wrongheaded opponents,
a better bidding and a larger bill would be certain next
session. Hitherto, with two or three exceptions, the
representatives of important towns have been thrust aside
to make way for well-meaning but weak mediocrities who
could testify to nothing but their own anxiety to keep in
the ministry, and the Examiner wants to know in plain
terms to what cause we are to attribute the absence in
debate of so many tried and trusted advocates of popular
opinion. To doubt their sincerity and readiness to do as
they have often done before is impossible. What then?
Why have their voices not been heard? Day by day we
have seen the spirits of the party droop, and its best friends
turn away in disgust. If Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone
are really to be sustained, and if reform is not to be
suffered to fall through, it is time there should be an end
of this. The hour is critical, and plain-speaking has be-

come a duty.
The Saturday' Rerieto, criticidw: the reform debates,
allows that it is generally easier in the house to attack
than to defend, and in this instance the leaders of the
opposition have a conspicuous advantage, for they have
not only the stock arguments of conservatism to debate on,
but they have had a special windfall in the strange mis-
take made by the government in breaking up their mea-
sure into fragments. The Saturday Review is anxious to
pay a tribute of gratitude to Mr. Doulton, who so ob-
viously foregoes the consideration of his own interest in
order that he may bear his testimony against a course of
action which, in his opinion, is likely to compromise the
interests of the nation. Possibly the Hones of Commons
may submit to be terrorised by a strong government, but
if it does the independence of parliament is a phrase in
history. If, however, it does not answer, and if the par-
liamentary worm turns, we have seen the last of Earl
Russell.
The Spectator says the prospects of Lord Grosvenor's
motion have improved greatly in the delay. On Saturday
last government calculated on a majority of about thirty,
but it has melted daily, and the highest estimate is now
fifteen. As usual, peers' sons are the first to assert their
independence, but some Bcotehmen look askance at the
bill, no county member is very zealous, and at the last
moment there may be a few disappearances. Up to Friday
night the probabilities were that the second reading would
pass, but by so small a majority that the escape of the bill
in committee is next to impossible—unless, indeed, the
Redistribution Bill is very conservative, which is quite on
the cards. The only great speech hitherto made on the
side of the government, is, in the opinion of the Spectator,
that of Mr. 8. Mill. The most satisfactory made on its
own side of the question is that of Sir E. B. Lytton.
The Spectator acknowledges that some of the most valued
of its readers are greatly irritated by the course it has taken
on the Reform Bill, and admits that they have made re-
monetrance after remonstrance about it. Onr contemporary
seeks to distinguish its own form of opposition from that of
Mr. Lowe and others, and regards it as unwise for the govern-
ment to propose a tender of power without information
as to its extent, or as to the persons to whom it wait to
be transferred, but the main objection of our contem-
porary is simply that blank reduction applied without
attention to circumstances ends inevitably and speedily
in government by numerical majority, ends, that is, in the
reign under one form or another of physical force.
Every day makes it increasingly clear to the Economist
that the bill will not become law, that the majority relied
on by the government a week ago has much diminished,
and perhaps will yet diminish still further, that a feeble
majority of twenty or under (and that largely composed of
persons who vote in fear of their constituencies and upon
compulsion) cannot effect a vital change in the constitu.
tion of England. Mr. Mill, the Economist says, in another
article, has altered his opinions out of deference to a party
exigency and a popular cry.