THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND THE CONSERVATIVE REFORM BILL OF 1867. A LECTUEE, Delivered at the Cambridge Reform Club, on Monday, November 13, 1876, by SEDLEY TAYLOR, M.A., Late Fellmv of Tr'uiity College, Cambridge, Preceded by a Letter to the Author from PEOFESSOP. FAWCETT, M.P. Printed and Published by the National Press Agency (Limiti.d 106, Shoe Lane, London, E.G. 1S77. PRICE TWOPENCE. Friends of the Library QueeiYs University at Kingston speciAl coLLecrioNS DouqLas LibRAR^y queeN's uNiveusiiy AT kiNQSrON kiNQSTON ONTARIO CANADA I'lnxiTY College, Camiiridge, Dccvmlcr 1, 1876. I issue the following lecture as a i)amplilot in compliance witli the advice of several valued friends. One of them, whose Parli'imentary reputation conunauds a wide influence, sent me the subjoined letter, which I have obtained his permission to make public. S. T. "My Dexu Taylor, I have just been reading j-our lecture with very great interest. I hope you will publish it in such a form that it can be easily circulated and widely read. The subject is one that ought not to be forgotten, and it is of especial interest at the present time, when the cj^uestion of the further extension of the suffrage is again coming into promi- nence, and when, therefore, it is of groat importance to remember how Eeform has been treated by many of those who now direct the Grovernment of the country. Sincerely yours, HENEY FAWCETT.' "Sedley Taylor, Esq." THE EAKL OF BEACONSFIELD AND THE CONSERVATIVE REFORM BILL OF 18G7. GEXTLE:\rEN', — Nothing is so politically instructive for Englisli- meu as the continuous study of the debates in Parliament which have led to the passing of great legislative measures. Nor is it easy to devise a fairer test wherewith to try the statesmanship of the respon- siV)le minister in charge of such a measure than the way in which he introduces it to Parliament, defends its essential principles on the second reading, and pilots it through the reefs and quicksands of the committee. A Peform Bill, touching as it does the very spring-head of political power, is necessarily one of the most momentous under- takings on which Parliament can embark, and is therefore certain, before it becomes law, to receive an amount of searching discussion proportionate to the vast interests which it involves. "We may safely assume that the minister under whose auspices such a measure is carried will have a magnificent opportunity, and will receive a most urgent summons, to put forth the very highest powers of his states- manship. Contemporaries and posterity are therefore abundantly jus- tified in allowing the judgment they form of the political character of a minister ■uho has passed through such an ordeal to be predominantly influenced by the manner in which he has stood the test. These re- marks sufficiently indicate my object ia bringing before j'our notice this evening the most important incidents which marked the debates on the Reform Bill of 18G7, with special reference to the conduct of Mr. Disraeli. The members of the Cambridge Reform Club will hardly require of me any apology for asking their attention to a most important branch of the great subject which is embodied in the name of their club. Were they to do so, it would be natural to dwell on the facility with which facts too old for current periodical literature, and too young for systematic history, are forgotten, or on the fact that a generation of members of the club is growing up which knows the Re- form Act of 1867 only by the vaguest hearsay. In either case — ■ whether old memories are to bo revived, or interest is to be for tho first time aroiised — my attempt will be sure of 3'our indulgent attention. 6 I shall not attempt anytliing like a history of the debates on the Bill, hut, limiting myself to those in the House of Commons up to the third reading, shall merely sketch in outline their most striking incidents, dwelling more particularlj^ on those which throw the clearest light upon the political character of Mr. Disraeli. I hope no one present ■will suppose that in employing the designation of the Minister as a member of the House of Commons, rather than his title as a peer of the realm, I intend any personal disrespect. On the contrary, I give him what I regard as the more honourable style of the two — that by which he will be known on the page of English history. The only other prefatory remark which I need make is that the frequent cita- tions of words spoken in Parliament which will occur in the sequel are, without exception, taken from the only official source for such in- formation, "Hansard's Parliamentary Debates." In Jnlj, 1866, on the resignation of Lord Eussell's Govern- ment, the Earl of Derby, father of the present Foreign Secretary, assumed office with a Cabinet very similar to that now in power. Mr. Disraeli was Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Carnarvon Colonial Secretary, Viscount Cranbourne (now Mar- quis of Salisbury) Secretary for India, Lord Stanley (now Earl of Derby) Eoreign Secretary, Sir Stafford Northcote President of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Gathorno Hardy President of the Poor Law Board. The Government were in a minoritj'- in the House cf Commons, having only succeeded in ousting their predecessors from office by the temporary help of a knot of discontented Liberals, on whose general support they could not count. At the opening of the Session of 1867, the Queen's Speech contained this paragraph: " Your attention will again be called to the state of the representation of the people in Parliament, and I trust that your deliberations, con- ducted in a spirit of moderation and mutual forbearance, may lead to the adoption of measures which, without unduly disturbing the balance of political power, shall freely extend the elective franchise." These phrases, very unusual in royal speeches, in which tlie Sovereign was made to prescribe to Parliament the temper in which it was to carry on its business, received their interpretation on February 1 1 , when Mr. Disraeli, after moving that the paragraph which I have just quoted should be read by the clerk at the table, proceeded to explain tho meanino- which the Cabinet intended to convey by it. It was this — that in their opinion " Parliamentary Eetorm should be no longer a question which should decide the fate of ministries;" in other words, that the Administration to which they belonged ought to be exempted from liability to be driven from office by an adverse vote on the ques- tion of Parliamentary reform — a liability whicli all p^-' • ious Govern- ments had accepted as a matter of course. Now, was tliore anything in the immediate antecedents of those who made this i)roposal to justify a claim so unusual? On the contrary, they had attained office by defeating the previous Government on Par- liamentary Eeform, and yet hero they are, but a few moutlis later, asking to be secured against extrusion from office on that very question. Such conduct may be likened to that of a cricket- ing eleven, who, after having got the other side out, should propose that before they go to the wickets the rules of the game should be altered in their favour, so that balls which hit the middle stump should not count. I cannot believe that any really English statosnum -wlio had imbibed in the playgroimd of some decently-conducted school the least notion of fair play, could have ever brought himself to put forward a proposal so preposterously, so ludicrously, iinfair as that now made in the name of Lord Derby's Cabinet. But let us see how the object of keeping the Government in office was to be compassed. This Mr. Disraeli went on to explain. He intended to propose to the House of Commons a series of abstract Eesolutions on the subject of Parliamentary Eeform, in order to ascertain from the course which the discussion upon them took, what kind of Bill he might afterwards bring forward which would be likely to pass with ease. It is clear that Mr. Disraeli from the first perceived the view which would inevitably be taken of this remarkable proposal, and sought to meet it with a bold denial. '* Do not let the House suppose," he said," that we are angling for a policy ; we are not angling for a policy." Un- fortunately, however, the process of angling for a policy could not be more exactly defined than by the terms which described the plan of the Government. Mr. Disraeli's disclaimer is therefore worth no more than that of the woidd-be fine gentleman in Moliere's comedy, who tried to get over the fact of his father having been a haberdasher by saying he never had been one ; only, being a very obliging man and very knowing in stuffs, he used to have them sent to him from all parts of the world and " give them to his friends for money." Now, just as to " give a thing away for money " is only an ingenious way of saying to " sell " it, so to " elicit the opinions of Parliament in order to found a Bill upon them," is only a roundabout phrase for to " angle for a policy." In pressing the House to submit to this novel pulse- feeling process, Mr. Disraeli adopted a fulsome subserviency of tone fortunately but seldom heard from an English minister, and of which the possession of a good Parliamentary majority seems since to have completely cured him. "If," he said, "the House deigns to co- operate with us and come into council with us, many suggestions of great value wiU be made. Those suggestions will be received not 8 merely witti candour, but if found to deserve tlie acceptance of the House and appear for the public advantage they will be accepted with o-ratitude." All this polite attention to an Opposition known to be in a majority reminds me irresistibly of an absurd advertisement I saw last summer in a German newspaper, which, with your permission, I will read : "A young engaged couple, of extremely respectable family, a'^reeable appearance, polite manners, and cheerful disposition, but who do not possess the means of marrying, offer to a well-to-do elderly gentleman the opportunity, by furnishing the needful funds, of regarding himself as their family connection. Prepaid offers to be addressed to the editor of this journal." Let us shghtly vary the terms of this engaging offer: "A young Conservative Cabinet, of aristocratic composition, imposing aspect, courteous demeanour, and buoyant disposition, but which does not possess a Parliamentary majority, offers to influential members of the House of Commons who will o-uarantee it against loss of ofB.ce on Parliamentary Eeform, the opportunity of considering themselves inscribed in its good books. Apply to the Conservative Whip." Had Mr. Disraeli's programme, announced on February 11, been carried out, the proceedings on the Eeform question would have commenced with the discussion of a string of Eesolutions, which were placed on the table of the House on the following day. These were for the most part extremely general and vaguely expressed propositions, such as, e.g., that the number of electors in counties and boroughs ought to be increased; that it was desirable to add to house franchises other franchises of a different character ; that the principle of plurality of votes might be advan- taoeously adopted, and so forth. A fortnight had been allowed to members to consider the Eesolutions, and on February 25 the House met for their discussion. Forthwith the Conservative leader executed one of those instauteous and unexpected transformations of which we shall see a good many before we separate this evening. The House had been told by him that the object of the Grovernment in bringing forward Eesolutions was to obtain such an expression of its opinion as would enable a Bill to be brought in which would pass with prompti- tude. This language clearly implied tliat the discussion of the Eesolutior.s was to precede the introduction of a Bill. To the surprise of his liearers, however, Mr. Disraeli went on to sketch the outlines of a Bill including a £6 rating franchise in boroughs, a £20 occupation franchise in counties, and various other provisions. This Bill, he said, it would be the duty of the Government on the passing of the Eesolu- tions to iutroduce ; it was a " sincere Bill " which they were prepared to carry. The House was now placed in a position of difficulty, into 9 whicli it was anytliing" lout creditaLle to Mr. Disraeli's statosmansliip to have brought it. To discuss vague general propositions, with precise and definite proposals known to underlie them, was perfectly futile, 5'et this was what My. Disraeli's course manifestly required. For instance, what was the good of debating Eesolution I., that tho number of electors ought to be increased, when it was known that tho Government proposed a definite reduction of the borough franchise from £10 to £6 '? Other provisions of the Government measure which had been mentioned rendered equally valueless the second, third, and. fourth Eesolutions. This objection was forcibly stated in the ensuing debate by Mr. Lowe. The same speaker dwelt with great effect on a still more objectionable feature of Mr. Disraeli's plan — his attempt to shift the responsibility of initiation from its proper place on the shoulders of the Government upon those of the House of Commons. Why, he asked, should the Government be relieved of the liability to be driven from office on the] question of Parlia- mentary Reform which other Governments had always accepted ? " AVhy should they have the mark of Cain put on them, so that no man should kill them ?" It was the business of the House to decide on the acts of the executive, not to undertake its responsi- bility. "Let us," concluded Mr. Lowe, "call upon the Government to withdraw their Resolutions, to introduce a Bill, and to brinf the matter to an issue fairlj' and plainly in the old English fashion, and deal with it in our own down-right way '' Mr. Bright spoke to the same effect. He said it was merely a loss of time to go into a dis- cussion on the Eesolutions, and compared Mr. Disraeli's tentative proposals to a shopman asking across the counter whether there is " an3i;hing more, gentlemen, you woidd like?" Mr. Disraeli, moved, no doubt, by these and other like criticisms, spoke in a very half- hearted tone of " meeting the wishes of the House," and "considering whether there were not some among the Eesolutions that need not be brought before the House." His remarks were received with ominous cries of "Withdraw, withdraw!" and he was curtly told by Mr. Eoebuck that his " tentative process of ascertaining what would pass the House in order that he might bring in a safe Bill, would do no honour to himself, and, if acquiesced in, no honour to the House." The very next evening Mr. Disraeli had to submit to the humiliation of withdrawing every one of his Eesolutions, course which his colleague, Mr. Walpole, then Home Secretary, had declared in the House the night before would be an " utter mistake" for the Govern- ment to adopt. He attempted to some degree to break his fall by implying, amidst loud murmurs, that the loader of the Opposition had "seemed to enter into an engagement" that the second reading of 10 tlie Bill whicL. lie pi'omised to introduce would not he opposed — a statomeut ■\Tliieli Mr. Grladstone at once energetically disavowed. Tliis incident may be considered as the close of the first scene in our drama. The curtain falls on thirteen discarded Eesolutious, the chief actor announcing that he will reappear as soon as the necessary scene- shifting can be effected. Unfortunately, on the curtain being again raised, the audience had to listen to a lugubrious statement from the manager that three of the principal actors had declined to go on with the piece, and cj[uitted his company. That under these distressing circumstances he intended to shut up the theatre until he had recon- structed his company, when he should bring out his national drama, " The Eeform Bill," in a revised form, and with a new cast. This was the gist of a speech delivered in Parliament on March 4, to which, dropping our theatrical metaphor, we will now revert. On that day the Prime Minister, Lord Derby, made a statement in the House of Lords, to which I ask j^our best attention. He began by explain- ing the object which the Grovernment had had in view when they decided to proceed by Resolutions on Parliamentary Reform, viz., " to elicit from the House of Commons the views they took upon the main questions which would necessarily be involved in any Reform Bill." "I admit," said the Premier, "that the Resolutions were somewhat vaguely and indistinctly drawn ; onr object was not to pledge the Government to a specific point upon any of those Resolu- tions, but to obtain the general opinion of the House of Commons as to what measures would be likely to meet with a general assent. The House of Commons having evidently shown its disinclination to proceed by Resolution, Her Majest3^'3 Government did not hesitate, notwithstanding the great disadvantage under which they now laboured, to undertake to bring forward a measure." Now what, let me ask, was this "great disadvantage" under which Lord Derby's Government was now labouring ? Why, palpably this, that they had no policy of their own on Parliamentary Reform, and had intended to fish one up in the House of Commons ; but, being thrown out of their schemes by the recalcitrancy of the House, found themselves under the awkward necessity of having to manufacture a policy at a very short notice. Their " disadvantage" was, in short, that of a poacher who, after promising his wife a fine trout out of his neighbour's stream, has been warned off by the proprietor, and does not know where to find the fish which he had depended on Ms rod and line to secure. This is as good as admitted in the next paragraph of Lord Derby's speech, which states that up to the withdrawal of the Reso- lutions, the Government had not actually " framed a Bill." Two schemes had been under their consideration, " varying from each other 11 in tliat very essential particular — the amount of tlie extension of the franchise." The measiiro which Mr. Disraeli had explained to the House of Commons, "svhich was the less extensive of the two schemes, had been accepted by the majority of the Cabinet, in deference to the opinions of three of tlicir colleagues, but as it was now obvious that their proposal had not been favourably received " on either side of the House" (of Commons), "the Government had decided to abandon" the proposition tliey had at first brouglit forward, and " reciu' to that which commanded the support of the great majority in it, though at the cost of sacrificing three most esteemed and valuable colleagues." These three were Lord Cranbourne, Secretary of State for India, General Peel, Minister of War, and Lord Carnarvon, Colonial Secretary. On the same evening Mr. Disraeli made a short statement to the same effect in the House of Commons. Tlie Bill of which he had explained the provisions on Februarj'- 25, was thrown over- board, and a new one, establishing the Borough Franchise, "upon a sure, extensive, and permanent basis," promised at the end of a fortnight. On the following evening, March 5, Mr. Disraeli endeavoured to account for the j)i'ecipitate haste with which the Government had abandoned their first proposals. Lord Derby, as we just saw, told the House of Lords that the Bill had been ill received on both sides of the Lower House. This, however, was by no means an accurate account of the matter. The Bill was never printed ; it never reached the hands of members, and it cannot, therefore bo properly said to have been discussed at all. Hardly any expression of opinion had followed Mr. Disraeli's statement of its contents. Under these circumstances, some further explanation seemed called for, and the following was the mode in which Mr. Disraeli en- deavoured to supply it. He told the House of Commons that at a private meeting of Mr. Gladstone's supporters they had come to the conclusion that "no settlement could be satisfactory unless it were based on £5 rating." This statement being received with cries of "No, no," from the Opposition, Mr. Disraeli continued thus: "That, at all events, was the information which reached us. Probably, it was not accurate, and much of the information which reaches you about us is equally unauthentic." Hereupon, Mr. Gladstone addi-essed the following explanation to the House : " The right hon. gentleman ScXys that if he has received inaccurate information, we also are subject to the like mi.-fortune. That mav be so, but the difference is this — we do not found our statements in Parliament upon it, nor do we, upon inaccui-ate information, base decisions of vital consequence in matters of public policy. At the meeting referred to," continued Mr. Gladstone, "no resolution about 12 £5 rai.jng was come to, and tlie subject was not even discussed, hardly even referred to. He would put it to the House whether the right honouraLle g-eutleman was justified in attemj^ting- to fasten on the Opposition the responsibility of the failure of his scheme." A fortnight now elapsed, and on March 18 Mr. Disraeli introduced the second Bill which was to make good the calamitous failure of its aboi-tive predecessor. In the exordium of his speech he made a gra- tuitous attack on the Liberal BiU of 18G6, which can be instantly rebutted out of his own mouth. That measure proposed to lower the borough franchise to £7. This proposal, Mr. Disraeli said was avowedl}' founded on expediency and involved no principle. Mr. Gladstone had thought it necessary there should be an admission of the working-classes, and suggested an arbitrary line for admitting as many as he thought proper. Xow let us see in what terms Mr. Disraeli had himself described the qualification fixed by the Eeform Act of 1832 at £10, a figure just as arbitrary as that proposed in 1866 by Mr. Gladstone. '• The £10 qualification," said Mr. Disraeli, speaking on February 28, 1859, "is a test which affords a fair pre- sumption that the holder possesses those qualities which entitle him to perform the acts of citizenship. It is therefore foimded vipon a principle, and the objection against it appears to me to be a sophism." Now it was precisel}- on this ground of electoral fitness that Mr. Gladstone in-ojiosed the £7 franchise; but Mr. Disraeli was now in opjiosition. and so it stiited his purpose to say that a test which he had described in 1859 as founded on a principle was, when brought forward in 1866, founded on expediency and involved no principle. Can we ask for a better proof that in the niotith of Mr. Disraeli " jmnciple " and "expediency" mean onlj* one and the same thing? Let us see, however, what was the great principle on which, as op- posed to the no-principle of a fixed pecim^iary limit, Mr. Disraeli was prepared to found himself. Every hotiseholder who had been rated to the relief of the poor for two years, and had paid his rates, was to have the franchise in a borough. It is easy for me to repeat and for you to hear this proposal as if there were nothing very remarkable about it ; but coming at the time it did, and from the leader of the Tory party, it involved the most astottnding change of front which could well be imagined. In order to make good this statement, I propose to shew that during a series of previous 3"ears ilr. Disraeli had both by the line of policy which he followed, whether in office or in opposition, and also in explicit declarations repeatedly made, pledged himself against any considerable lowering of the borough franchise. It will suffice for this purpose if we begin our retrospect at tlie year 1859, when Mr. Disraeli brought in the unsuccessfttl Eeform Bill of Lord Derby's Government. Its main provision was to extend the £10 household franchise to the counties. Collateral fran- chises of various kinds were proposed, but no lowering of the old £10 qualification in boroughs. Lord John Eussell, on the second reading, moved an amendment asserting the necessity of a greater extension of the franchise in boroughs than that contemplated in the Govern- ment measui'e. To this amendment Mr. Disraeli offered the most 13 determined resistance, and declared himself opposed to any lowering of tlio borough qualification. Ho said: " I cannot look upon what is called reduction of the franchise in boroughs but witli alarm ; and I have never yet met with any argiiment which fairl}-- encounters the objections that are urged to it. You cannot encounter it by senti- mental assertions of the gootl qualities of the working classes. The greater their good equalities the greater the danger. ... If you dwell on their intelligence yuu only increase the power they will exercise." Lord John Eussell's amendment was carried, and the Tory Government, after a fiuitlcss appeal to the constituencies, resigned office. The next year, 1860, saw a AVhig lieform Bill brought forward by the Government of Lord Palmerstoii. It projjused tu ruducu tho borough Cj[ualification to a £G rental. Mr. Disraeli opposed the Bill, on the ground that the reduction suggested would establisli a pre- dominance of the working classes unless it were accompanied by colla- teral franchises like those contained in tlie Bill of the previous year. The sentences in >\hich Mr. Disraeli spoke of these franchises ail'ord such a capital illustration of his double-edged -vsit that I must quote them, though they do not bear directly on our present subject. "They had been called," he said, "'fancy franchises,' and that was con- sidered an answer. Alliteration tickles the ear, and is a very popidar form of language among savages. It is, I believe, the characteristic of rude and barbarous poetry, but it is not an argument in legislation." This from the man who afterwards invented the phrase "plundering and bhmdering" to discredit Mr. Gladstone's Administration, well knowing the eifect which this jingling alliteration woidd have on the presumably "savage" and "barbarous" persons to whom it was addressed. On May 3, 1865, Mr. Baines moved the second reading of a Bill to reduce the borough qualification from £10 to £6, and stated that the measure was avowedly intended to bring in a con- siderable portion of the Avorking classes. During the second night of the ensuing debate Mr. Disraeli made certain declarations which are important from the ximnistakable language in which tliey are couched. He spoke as follows: "All that has occurred — all that I have ob- served — all the residts of my reflection lead me to this more and more — that the principle upon wliich the constituencies of this country should be increased is one not of radical, but I would say lateral reform — the extension of the franchise, not its degradation." Tlie speaker here refers to franchises not depending on a house Cjualifica- tion, as is obvious from what follows : "Although we did (in 1859) to a certain extent agree to some modification of tlie £10 franchise, yet I confess that my present opinion is opposed, as it originally was, to any change of the kind. I think it A^ould fail in its object — that it would not secure the introduction of that particular class we all desire to see introduced, but that it would introduce many a\ ho are unworthy of the franchise." On April 27, 1866, Mr. Disraeli spoke thus : " Though im- partial and intelligent i:)eople are desirous that tlu choicest members of the working classes should form a part — and no unimportant por- tion — of the estate of the C(minious, they recoil from and reject a gros^ and indiscriminate reduction of the franchise. Tliat, I believe, is the 14 real opinion of the country." I have now produced instances spread over the period 1859 up to llie eve of the Eeform Bill of 1867, in which the leader of the Tory Party in the House of Commons had declared himself against any considerable reduction of the horough franchise below the £10 limit fixed by the Act of 1832. Mr. Disraeli's colleagues, too, had made equally explicit declarations of the same policy. I will refer only to three of these. On April 20, 1866, Mr. Gathorne Hardy expressed the following opinion on Mr. Gladstone's Bill: " With regard to the suffrage in the boroughs, I object to a uniform lowering of the franchise to £7 throughout the country, in the manner proposed by this Bill It will give to the working classes who have now an enormous influence beyond their own body, and especially over the small shopkeepers, an undue preponderance of political power." On May 30, 1866, Sir Stafford Northcote said '' he was obliged, with the utmost sharpness and definiteness, to say that he thought to descend to household suffrage, with any safeguards what- ever, would be a most mischievous and reckless innovation on the Constitution. Ujion that ground he opposed, and should alwaj-s do so, any general lowering of the franchise below the present limit of £10." On March 5, 1867, Lord Stanley, the present Earl of Derby, of whom we have lately heard so much, said : " The right hon. gentle- men (Messrs. Lowe and Horsman) have spoken as if it were the intention of those who sit upon these benches to go in a more demo- cratic direction than even gentlemen opposite would be inclined to take, and to bring in a Bill which would reduce the franchise to an almost unlimited extent. I say plainly and frankly that I can conceive no circumstances which would render the adoption of such a coui-se by us in oiu" position, and with our antecedents, either expedient or honourable, and certainly we shall not follow it." In less than one year after the declarations of Mr. Gathorne Hardy and Sir Stafford Northcote, in less than one fortnight after that of Lord Stanley, Mr. Disraeli openly proposed household suffrage, a measure going beyond the wishes of the moderate Liberals, but which the most decided Radicals highly approved. AVhat at this crisis was the conduct of these right honourable gentlemen, of this noble lord ? AVhy, as the very organ of Toryism, the Quarter!// Beview, stated at the time in so many words, they " swalloAved their pledges in silence." Mr. Hardy agreed to " give to the working classes an undue preponderance of political power." Sir Stafl'ord Northcote consented to aid in perpetra- ting " a most mischievous and reckless innovation on the Constitution." Lord Stanley fell in with a course the adoption of which by the Tory Government he had declared but one fortnight before would be "neither expedient nor honourable." Lord Cranbourne, who, as we have seen, took (in company with Lord Carnarvon and General Peel) the straight- forward course of resigning office rather than identify himself with the new tactics of the Cabinet, pointed out to the House of Commons, in language of mortifying distinctness, the discreditable character of the whole transaction. " A Eeform Bill," he said, "is a very important thing— few more so could come under our discussion ; but I venture to think that political morality and the respect in which public men are 15 held hy tlie people of this country aro of more importance than any provisions oven of a Roforiu Bill. I would fur rather see a very bad Eeform Bill passed by tho hon. gentleman the member for Bir- mingham (Mr. Bright), than a Eeform Bill inconsistent with all their traditions, with all their preceding action, with all their professions, and with all tho provisions on which they have induced others to vote, passed by my right hon. friends upon these benches." In order rightly to appreciate the grounds on which Mr. Disraeli sought to base his new proposal, it is necessary to look back for a moment at the circumstances under which he and his party succeeded in ousting Earl Eusscll's Administration fi'om office in the previous year. The Bill brought in by that Government proposed to give the borough franchise to every occupier of a house the clear annual value of which did not fall below £7 ; and the county franchise in like manner to every £14 occupier. The measure was carried through its second reading, but only by the barest majority. In committee Mr. Ward Hunt moved that, in estimating the value of the tenement which was to confer the franchise in the counties, rating value should be sub- stituted for net rental. The motion was rejected, but a month later an exactly similar proposal as regards boroughs was brouglit forward by Lord Dunkellin. It was well known tliat the Government would not consent to the projiosed alteration, for Mr. Gladstone, in intro- ducing the Bill, had distinctly stated that the inequalities of rating in different towns and parishes were so "gross and anomalous" that the principle of rating could not be made tlie basis of value-estima- tions for tlie franchise. Further*, it was also well known that the leader of the 0[)position had expressed the same condemnation of a rating qualification in even stronger terms. On February 28, 1859, when introducing the unsuccessful measure cf that j^ear, Mr. Disraeli said he had always been miich biased in favour of a franchise based on rating instead of on value, but that, on examining the matter in detail, he found it involved in difficulties which appeared to him in- surmountable. The nature of these difficulties he described in the follo^ving words: — "For the purpose of securing tlie advantage of having the rate-book the register you must, of course, leave perfect discretion to the overseer. The overseer has an interest in raising rates, people may say, or he may be a very hot political partisan. Are you prepared to leave to the overseer the absolute discretion of appointing those who are to exercise the franchise? Notwithstanding the Parochial Assessment Act, the rating of this country is most un- equal, and it is only those whose business it has been to examine into this subject in its minute details, who can be aware of the prepos- terous consequences which would arise from a rating instead of a value qualification." Mr. Disraeli now thought proper to vote in favour of a rating qualification, and alleged in justification of this step that subsequent legislation had to a great extent removed the inequahties of rating which had caused him to declare against it as a basis for tho franchise in 1859. Lord Dunkellin's amendment tying down the Government to a rating qualification, was carried against them. In announcing the consequent abandonment of the mea- 16 sure nnrl resignation of the Government, Mr. Gladstone g-ave a few iicrnres wliicli shewed that the inequalities of rating •which Mr. Disraeli had felt so strongly in 18-39 were still quite insurmountable. In order, he said, to enfranchise by a rating qualification, not less than the same numher who would be brought on the register by an occupation franchise of £7, it would in some boroughs be necessary to go as high as £6 rateable value, in others below £4. Further, diiiereut scales of rating would have to be established in one and the same borough, owing to the differences of rating freqiiently prevailing in different parts of the same town which happened to be in different unions. The decision come to by the House of Commons on this amendment of Loi'd Dunhellin's was made by Mr. Disraeli the starting point for a very remarkable entei'prise. He discovered what no one had previously had the least idea of, viz., that in preferring rating to rental value as the basis of es^mation for the franchise in boroughs, the House of Commons had laid down a great constitutional princijjle. On Lord Dunkellin's amfndment "a great decision was arrived at by the unerring instinct of the House," to wit, that to be rated to the relief of the poor and to pay the rate was henceforth to be the condi- tion of possessing the borough franchise. " I take it for granted," he continuetl, "that if ever there was a decision of the House of Commons which meant something, it was that decision which determined the fate of the Ministry : and if anything ever had the character of autho- rity in tliis House at all, it was the vote arrived at on that occa- sion. ... I take it that that vote of the House of Commons meant this : — If you are going to invest men with the exercise of public rights, let that great trust be accompanied with the exercise of public dut}-. "\Ye believe that a lona fich rating franchise is what the House of Commons meant by the resolution it adopted." It is suffi- cient, I think, to refer to a few notorious facts, in order to see that no such inference as that embodied in these words could be legitimately drawn from the adoption by the House of Commons of Lord Dunkellin's amendment. In the first place, that decision in favour of rating as against rental in boroughs was arrived at only by a bare majority of eleven votes in a House of six hundred and nineteen members, and, moreover, was almost exactly counterbalanced by an opposite decision in favour of rental against rating in counties, adopted a month earlier in a House of five hundred and fifty three members by a majority of seven votes. These circumstances alone suffice to deprive both deter- minations of any " character of authority" whatever. But further, on reference to the debate on Lord Dunkellin's amendment, it becomes evident that the principle of jiersonal assessment to and personal pay- ment of the poor rate was not before the House at all. The proposal of Lord Dunkellin was nothing more than this, that in fixing the worth of the tenement which was to confer the franchise, the estimate made by the parochial authorities for the purpose of assessing the poor rate should be employed in preference to the amount of rent paid for the qualifying building. It is true that Lord Dunkellin, in his opening speech, did recommend the principle of attaching the franchise to the payment of rates; but Mr. Gladstone at once pointed out 17 I that no sucli proposal was contained in tlie terms of the resolution before the House. "Let it he understood," he said, " that we liavo nothing to do now with determining whether the man himself shall be rated or not, or shall have paid liis rates, and that those two ques- tions are resowed for some future period. The question now is whether the value of tlie occupation in right of which he is to vote is to be cal- culated upon the column of rateable value." Accordinglj-, the ques- tion of rateal)le value as against rental value was the topic discussed throughout the debate, onlj- two speakers, out of nineteen wlio addressed the House, diverging for a moment to the u'relevant subject of personal rating and personal ratepaying. "We are now prepared to appreciate the »iodn-<) operandi of Mr. Disraeli in endeavouring to supply an autho- ritative basis for his proposal of a ratepaying household suffrage. He found two decisions of the House of Commons, arrived at within a month of each other, both by utterly insignificant majorities, one in favour of rating, the other in favour of rental. Arbitrarily selecting the former, he as arbitrarily chose to attribute to it a character of authorit}', nay more, of infallibility. "A great decision was," he said, " arrived at by the unerring instinct of the House." The next step was to pervert the decision actually arrived at into something totally different, about which not one word appears in the resolution adopted, and which had been onl}- twice incidentally referred to in the course of the debate — viz., that henceforth the possession of the franchise was to depend upon the payment of rates. I have a shrewd suspicion that I can point out what induced Mr. Disraeli to make this singular attempt to trade on the ignorance of the House of Commons of its own decisions. Lord Dunkellin, in moving his resolution, had advocated "the principle of a rating franchise — the principle that those rated to the poor should be entitled to this privilege of citizen- ship." Mr. Gladstone, in reference to this statement, remarked that a good deal of Lord Dunkellin' s speech tended, whether with his own consciousness or not, in the direction of household suffrage. Here was just the hint Mr. Disraeli wanted. He had merely artfully to imply that the House, in adopting the resolution of Lord Dunkellin, had given its sanction to the statements by which its mover recom- mended it. These statements necessarily tended to household suffrage, and, therefore, here was an authoritative decision arrived at by the unerring instinct of the House of Commons in favom- of what Mr. Disraeli's exigencies recj[uired — a io)id fide rating franchise. It is amusing enough to observe the almost ludicrous contradiction between the object which Lord Dunkellin had in view in bringing forward his motion and that to which Mr. Disraeli now attempted to turn it. Lord Dunkellin said it was to him one of the greatest recommendations of his proposal that " it would interpose a barrier, steady and fixed, to the descent to universal suffrage." Mr. Disraeli had the hardiliood to assert that by its adoption the House of Commons had paved the way for the longest step in the direction of universal suffrage j'et made in this countr}'. Mr. Disraeli's broad democratic proposals in reference to the borough house franchise were accompanied by others which, had they passed into law, would doubtless have exerted no inconsiderable 18 Influence in an opposite direction. This Bill included a series of collaterdl or bye franchises. There was to be an educational fran- chise to be conferred on graduates of Universities, persons who had passed senior local examinations, ministers of religion, barristers, medical men, and certificated schoolmasters, and a pecuniary franchise for depositors of £50 in a savings bank, or in British funds, or for those who paid 20s. per annum for assessed taxes and income tax. A borough voter was allowed a vote on any one of these franchises in addition to that given by household suif rage. In the counties a £15 rating qualification conferred the suffrage ; but though the bj'e fran- chises were also to be in force there, they were not to give the dual vote as in the boroughs. The debate on the second reading threw a strong light on a highly objectionable feature of the Bill — the action of its rate-paying clauses in excluding whole sections of the commu- nity, and excluding them in tne most uncertain and capricious manner. Personal assessment to the poor-rate, and personal payment of the rate so assessed, constituted the condition on which the fran- chise was to be given. Now, in a large proportion of cases this con- dition was not fulfilled, owing to the rate being assessed on and paid by the landlord. This would particularly applj' to cottages let with a farm in country districts where there would be only one rating for the land, the farmhouse, and the cottages. The occupiers of such cottages would, therefore, be excluded from the franchise under the Bill. Moreover there were a number of local Acts of Parliament in force in particular boroughs under which all houses below a certain value were rated on the owner, and the same system had been introduced into many other boroughs by means of a piece of permissive legislation — the Small Tenements Act of 1850. Hence in all boroughs where either local Acts or that of 1850 were in operation, the poorer house- holders would not be enfranchised under the Bill. According to a computation made by Mr. Gladstone, the rate-paying conditions would exclude from the suffrage seven householders out of every eight in boroughs under local Acts, and four out of every five in those under the Small Tenements Act, while in London the Bill would produce as good as no enfranchising effect whatever. Further, inasmuch as the Small Tenements Act could at any time be brought into a parish or turned out of it again by a decision of its vestry, the effect of the proposed rate-paying franchise would necessarily be to hand over to local authorities the power of determining whether the poorer class of house- holders should be admitted to or excluded from the franchise. A more mischievous device for playing into the hands of electioneering vestrymen and Parliamentary registration agents could hardly be suggested. It is not my intention to trouble j'ou with details of the inter- minable discussions entailed by the rate-paying provisions of the Bill. They erected the disenfranchised tenant, whose rates were compounded for l)y his landlord, the " compound householder," as he was called, into a Parliamentary nuisance of the first water. The country was deluged day after day with harangues on his hard case, and with proposals for its amelioration, until the whole subject became an unutterable bore. At last the Tory leader, who had begun 19 by stoutly mfantainlng tlie exclusion of the compound housoliolder, suddenly turned completely round, and, to tlie astonishment of his own supporters, agreed to un amendment from the Liberal side of the IIouso which abolished the whole system of compounding for the poor-rate. The incidents of tliis rapid act of tergiversation are so extraordinary tliat you must allow me to dwell for a few moments on the details of the transaction. On May 17 Mr. Hodgkinson moved a clause to the effect that henceforth no one other than the occupier should be rated to parochial rates in respect of premises occupied by him within the limits of any Parliamentary borough. This proposal was tantamount to the entire abolition of the compound householder and the instant enfranchisment of this class of persons who would have gained no advantage from the Bill as it originally stood. It therefore clearly involved an enormous stride in a democratic direction • the certain admission, instead of the contingent and doubtful admission, of some 500,000 persons to the franchise. Mr. Disraeli, however, after remarking that the principle embodied in Mr. Hodgkinson's motion was the policy of the Government measure, announced that he was prepared to accept the amendment, and even endeavoured to force its adoption on his sux^porters without giving them a rea- sonable time for consideration. It was only with reluctance that, on the remonstrance of Lord Cranbourne, he consented to the Chair- man reporting progress. At the adjourned debate the disgust felt by consistent and honourable Conservatives found vigorous expression in the speech of Sir Eainald Knightley, an ancient ally with whom Mr, Disraeli had gladly combined in order to obstruct the proposals of the Liberal Government in the previous year. "On Tuesday," said Sir Eainald Knightley, "hon. members on the Conservative side of the House received the usual intimation from the Secretary to the Trea- sury, earnestly requesting their attendance, as an amendment of great importance was about to be proposed — an amendment of vital im- portance. He would venture to say that every gentleman who read that circular imagined that he was pressed to come down to the House for the purpose of opposing the amendment of the honourable member for Newark. He believed that was the universal feeling on his side of the House. During the discussion he retired for a short time and on his return was perfectly astonished to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequer hacl embraced the proposition of the hon. member for Newark with joy and gratitude, saying it was in perfect accordance with the conclusions at which the Government had originally ar- rived, and that it was also in perfect harmony with what he still had the assurance to call the principle of the Bill." There can be no doubt that the Tory party regarded, and were justified by the words and acts of their leader in regarding, the restricted enfranchisement of house- holders under the Bill, in its unaltered form, as the main compensatino' circumstance which induced them to vote for what must have been to them, on the whole, an unwelcome and even nauseous proposal. No doubt it was open to Mr. Disraeli to say that, in consenting to abandon all restrictions, he was only carrying out thoroughly the principle of his measure, just as a surgeon who, after proposing to cut off your 20 leg belo^v the knee, Avants to take it out at the hip joint, may say that he is only carrying out to its full extent the principle of amputation. In both cases, however, it is the result -which is the important matter, and whether there were, or were not, a change of principle involved in Mr. Disraeli's tactics, there undoubtedly was an enormous change in the scale on which the principle was to be applied, and, therefore, ample ground for the charges of pohtical inconsistency with which more than one of his supporters now assaded him. The history of the passage of the Bill through committee presents us with incidents of only one kind ; the successive abandonment by Mr. Disraeli of almost every provision of his Bill which could be regarded as of the nature of a Conservative counterpoise. I will pass briefly tlu-ough the chief of these incidents, in the order of their occurrence, beginning with the provision, called the dual vote,, which allowed certain specified classes of persons in boroughs to vote twice — once on their household qualifica- tion, and a second time on the score of their being barristers, certi- ficated schoolmasters, holders of £50 investments, payers of 20s. assessed taxes, or what not. This proposal was obviously too in- vidious and unfair to have any chance of adoption. It was vigorously condemned on both sides of the House and withdrawn even before the Bill reached its second reading. Mr. Disraeli in annoimcing its abandonment protested that the dual vote was not brought forward merely as a check and a counterpoise, "no such mere vulgar idea" having entered the mind of the Government. He had hoped the proposal would not have been left so utterly without support and "that some stray philosopher would have risen to say something in its behalf and to have lent dignity to our forlorn position." It is difficult to say wli ether the sardonic contempt which leers through these words is intended for the "stray philosopher," the "dual vote," or the Government of which Mr. Disraeli was the chief ornament. The result, however, is that a proposition seriously made in Parliament is unceremoniously pitched into the waste-paper basket, with an ugly grin of contemptuous indifference, by its responsible proposer. On May 6, Mr. McCuUagh Torrens proposed a lodgei- franchise for the occupant of a room or rooms which would let unfurnished for £10 a year. This was, from the point of view of Mr. Torrens and of the Liberal partv, a most reasonable suggestion ; but how did it sc^uare with the general policy of Mr. Disraeli's measure? That policy, announced, as we have seen, with pomx^ous reference to the constitu- tional principle supposed to have been laid down by the "unerring instinct " of the House of Commons, was personal assessment and payment of the poor rate. A lodger has nothing whatever to do with the rates, and therefore to admit him to the franchise was tantamount to relinciuishing the much vaunted rate-paying condition, and des- cending from what Mr. Disraeli called principle to what Mr. Disraeli called expediency. The Conservative party had a right to expect that no such descent woidd be made, but they were again to learn b}' sad experience how little dependence waste be placed on the declarations of their leader. Mr. Disraeli said he was in favour of a lodger franchise, and promised to bring in a clause for inserting such a 21 franchise ; whereupon Mr. Torrens, having attained his object, with- drew his amendment. On May 20 the Grovernment consented, after being beaten by a majority of 201 to 157, to enfranchise £5 copy- holders. On May 27 JSIr. Disraeli made the highly unconstitutional statement that the policy before the House was "the policy of the House of Commons, not of Her Majesty's Ministers," and on pressure from Mr. Lo he King he lowered the county cj^ualification from £15 to £12, On March 28, at the bidding of Sir Eoundell Palmer, he first abandoned the entire educational franchise clause without even taking a division, and then threw after it that conferring the pe- cuniary franchise, with no better excuse with which to cover these repeated and humiliating failures than a cynical joke on the "dis- tinguished" and "triumphant success" with which the Grovernment had advanced their measure tlu'ough committee. A few more such successes were still in store for Mr. Disraeli and his colleagues. On June 17 Mr. Laing had proposed to give a third member to towns containing over 150,000 inhabitants. The amendment was negatived by 247 to 239, after a speech by Mr. Disraeli who said he " could not conceive " that the policy recommended by Mr. Laing would be ac- cepted by the House. A fortnight later, when Mr. Horsfall moved a clause of almost identical purport, to give an additional member to Liverpool, to Manchester, and to Birmingham, Mr. Disraeli, after allowing two of his supporters to speak against the proposal, suddenly turned round and said he would not only accept it but would also give an additional member to Leeds. Greneral Peel, after saying that he had voted against this proposal when it was brought forward before by Mr. Laing, and that he should vote against it then, added the fol- lowing severe, but richly merited, censure: — "There are three things with respect to which my preceding opinions have been con- firmed : the first is, that nothing has so slight a vitality as a ' vital point ;' the second is, that there is nothing so insecure as ' securities ;' and the third that there is nothing so elastic as the conscience of a Cabinet Minister." I resume the order of time, broken for the moment for the sake of continuity. On June 17, Mr. Disraeli made a proj^osal of a most singular description. The University of London had, after years of waiting and petitioning, been promised Parliamentary repre- sentation after the manner of the ancient Universities, but only to the extent of one member. A clause giving effect to this promise was contained in the present Bill. All of a sudden, Mr. Disraeli proposed, in place of this arrangement, to make a single constituency out of the University of London and the University of Durham combined. The character of these two bodies was as mutually irreconcilable as could well be imagined . The University of London was founded at a time when religious disabilities of more or less stringency repelled to a con- siderable extent from Oxford and Cambridge those persons who were not prepared to conform to the doctrine and worship of the Established Chiu'ch. The University of Durham was called into existence under the auspices of the Dean and Chapter of Durliam Cathedral, mainly for the purpose of educating future clergymen of the Church of England. The spirit of the London graduates was essentially 22 non-conforming, and to a considerable extent anti-clerical. That of the Durham graduates T\"as establishmeutarian, and if not sacerdotal, at least strongly clerical. These two discordant corporations Mr. Dis- raeli now proposed to unite into a single constituency. I do not find in the records of the debate which ensued on this remarkable proposi- tion that its author defended it by reasons of any kind. He did indeed perpetrate a couple of jocularities, of the type with which we have all loug become familiar, saj'ing fii-st that " the University of London woidd have shown greater generosity if it had welcomed its j^ouuger brother," and next, when an honourable member had in- formed him that Durham was the older University, that "this was another instance of the hatred of the younger brother towards the older." Mr. Disraeli had, however, at his disposal an instrument which can be effectiveh^ emploj-ed when good arguments, and even good jokes, are not to the fore, viz., a compact body of supporters read}^ to vote for any proposal, however discreditable, at the command of their chief. He accordingly attempted to force his amendment through by brute force, but was met by the Opposition with alternate motions of adjournment and reporting progress, and at last compelled reluctantly to postpone his enterprise. The close of the debate was marked by an exhibition of the Tory leader's reckless hardiliood of assertion. Mr. Denman, with a feeling of indignation which the pro- ceedings of the Government fully justified, had exclaimed thut "the University of London ought to have time to say whether it would not rather bide its time until Parliament came to its senses, than have the University of Durham thus tied round its neck." Mr. Disraeli made believe to regard this as an ofilcial statement, though he knew well enough it was nothing of the sort. " The hon. gentleman," he said, " appeared to speak with authority on behalf of the London University, and he understood from him that that institution withdrew its claim to Parliamentary representation." Mr. Denman, of course, at once stated, what indeed every one present was fully aware of, that he " had no authority whatever to speak for the University' of London, n~Y any connection with it, nor had he said anything to that effect." The matter stood adjourned to the next day, and Mr. Disraeli's suppcrters, as they walked home, had a good opportunity of consider- ing how far the last utterance of their leader was consistent with the usual courtesy observed among gentlemen. On the succeeding even- ing Mr. Disraeli resumed his attempt. He declined to postpone the clause in order to give the Convocation of the London University an opportunity of making known its wishes, and succeeded by a majority of only a single vote — 226 to 226 — in getting the word '■ University" in the singular, altered to " Universities" in the plural, to prepare for the insertion of "London and Durham" in place of "London" alone. A doughtier champion than Mr. Disraeli now came to the rescue of the distressed University. Mr. Gladstone urged the House, doubtless in those tones of genuine con\dction which outweigh all the gibes and taunts producible from the storehoiise of political insincerity — " not to do the most odious of all things — give that which professes to be a boon, sub- ject to conditions which convert it, if not into an injury, yet into a 23 slight and a disparagement." These manly and straightforward counsels prevailed. Mr. Disraeli, on trying to insert the words, " and Durham" after "London," was beaten"^by"234 to 226, and his petty scheme finally collapsed. On Juno 20, Mr. Disraeli, for the last time,^ liglitencd liis ship by throwing overboard one of the few remaining portions of its original cargo. The Bill contained a clause allowing the use of voting papers at Parliamentary elections. Mr. Torrens moved its omission. Mr. Disraeli defended the clause. "I hold," ho said, " that the principle is founded upon truth and justice." Nevertheless, on the House determining, by 272 to 234, that it would have nothing to do with voting papers, Mr. Disraeli promptly saw the necessity of sacrificing truth and justice to considerations of a different order, and executing yet again that strategic movement to the rear in performing which he had by frequent practice recently attained such remarkable celerity. I have now done with the Bill in committee, and will ask you to accompany me to the debate on the third read- ing. We have seen that, as it originally stood, it was a measure Eudical, indeed, in principle, but limited in practice by the mode in which it was adjusted to the previously existing state oi things, and also to a considerable extent counterbalanced by provi- sions of an opposite tendency. During its progress through the House the checks which limited the principle of household franchise had been all but destroyed by the incorporation into the measure of Hodgkinson's amendment, and the counterpoising anti-popular pro- visions had almost totally disappeared. The Grovernment had assented to all these successive modifications, and now presented to the Hoiise for its third reading what was unquestionably a thorouobly democratic measure. The debate was opened b_y Lord Cranbouvno (now Marquis of Salisbury), who, you will bear in mind, had resigned office rather than assist in bringing in a Eadical Eeform Bill. He commenced as follows : " I see with enormous astonishment that the passing of this Bill is spoken of as a Conservative triumph. . . I wish to know whether this Bill, as is generally supposed, is excbisively the offspring of the Government, or wliether the right hon. gentleman the member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) has not had something to do with it. If he has, it follows as an indisputable axiom that it cannot be a Conservative triumph. Now I heard the demands which the right hon. gentleman the member for South Lancashire made on the second reading of the Bill. Most of the members on this side of the House who heard the speech made by the right hon. gentleman on that occasion thought that it was imperious in its tone, and I do not deny that there was a stringency in the language emplo^-ed which could only have been justified by the character of those to whom it was addressed. Imperious language can only be justified by the obsequiousness with which it is obej-ed. Now I have sketched lightly the demands made on that occasion by the right hon. gentleman. They are ten in num- ber. First, he demanded the lodger franchise. Well, the lodger franchise has been given. Secondly — and this is the only doubtful one — provisions to prevent traffic in votes. Such provisions, however, are to be contained in another Bill. The right hon. gentleman next 24 demanded the abolition of obnoxious distinctions between com- pounders and non-compoiiuders. Not only have these obnoxious distinctions been aboKshed, but all distinctions whatever have disappeared. The fourth demand of the right hon. gentle- man was that the taxing franchise should be omitted. It has been omitted. Fifthly, that the dual vote should be omitted. It has been omitted. Sixthly, that the re-distribution of seats must be con- siderably enlarged. It has been enlarged full 50 per cent. Seventhly, that the county franchise must be reduced. It has been reduced to something like the point at which it stood in the proposal of last year. Eightlily, that the voting papers must be omitted. To my extreme regret, the voting parsers have been omitted. The last two demands were that the educational and savings banks franchises should be omitted. These two franchises have been omitted. (A cry of " Ques- tion.") Why, what, sir, is the question but this? Eemember that the history of this Bill is quite peculiar. I venture to say that there is no man in this House of Commons who can remember any Bill being treated in the way that this Bill has been dealt with. No man in this House of Commons can remember a Government who have introduced a Bill of this importance, and who have j-ielded in com- mittee amendments so vitally altering the whole constitution and principle of the Bill as has been done in the present instance. I think, therefore, it is but fair on the third reading of this Bill, when it appears before us for the last time in a full House that we should be allowed to trace the changes to their sources that have been made in it. I venture to impress this upon the House, because I have heard it said that this Bill is a Conservative ti'iumph. If it be a Con- servative triumph to have adopted the principles of your most deter- mined adversary — the hon. member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) ; if it be a Conservative triumph to have introduced a Bill guarded with precautions and securities, and to have abandoned every one of Ihose precautions and securities at the bidding of yoiir opponents, then in the whole course of your annals, I will venture to say, the Conserva- tive party has won no triumph so signal as this I think that when the historian of the future comes to review what has passed in the last fifteen years, he will say that a more remarkable exhibition has never been witnessed on the part of public men. The campaign which we are now concluding, the battle which you (the Opposition) have now won, was begun in the year 1852, when Lord Derby declared himself the bulwark against the advance of democia -y. From that time forward his party took their tone on all occasions from their leader's declaration. It was the natural attitude which they should assume, the consistent course which they should pursue on every oc- casion, that they shoidd struggle to resist any further encroachments upon the limits prescribed by the Act of 1832. In the year 1859, after resisting time after time the proposals of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) and other hon. members, they brought forward a Bill with the avowed intention of withstanding any further inroad upon the borough constituency. In the year 1860 they strenuously opposed the proposal of Lord Palmerston to the same effect. And so it went 25 on : and tliis is tlie end of it — this is the ignominious conclusion — that Lord iJcrby's Government, tlic Torj' CJovernment, the Government of those statesmen who prompted and encouraged tluit steadfast resis- tance, should in the end have proposed a change far more sweeping than any man had before submitted to the House of Commons. Of aU the strange and mysterious marvels which we liavo seen in the course of the present Session, the one which has been to me the most strange is that the right hon. gentleman the Chan- cellor of the Exchequer should have in this House and else- where denied that he and his party have changed their opinions. Why, sir, when I remember last year when I re- member what we all consulted together about last year, what we all desired to do, what we were urged to do by oiu" leaders, what was the watchword between man and man, and when we all met together what was the common object which we all agreed in promoting, I am sur- prised that, after so short an interval of time has elapsed, they venture to say that they have not changed their opinions. I can only say that I was closely acquainted with the movements of last year, and 1 heard all the exhortations which were addressed to us . . . and when such a statement is made I feel bound, in my own defence, to relieve myself of seeming factiousness by making this statement, that never, from the beginning to the end of the campaign, was a word hinted that could lead us to believe that Lord Derby and the Conservative leaders would have brought in a measure more extreme in the way of en- franchisement than the right hon. gentleman the member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone). If, as he seems sometimes to have inti- mated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any such frcheme in his breast, I can only say that he covered it with an impenetrable veil — Avith a silence that was undoubtedly most judicious, because if the least hint had escaped him of what he intended to do, he never would have gained on the IStli of June that majority which placed him in power. . . . After all, our theory of government is not that a certain num- ber of statesmen should place themselves in office and do whatever the House of Commons bids them. Our theory of governn eat is that on each side of the House there slioidd be men suj)porting definite opinions, and that what they have supported in Opposition they should adhere to in office ; and that everyone shoidd know, from the fact of their being in office, that these particular opinions will be supported. If 3-ou reverse that, and declare that, no matter what a man has supported in Opposi- tion, the moment he gets into office it shall be open to him to reverse and repudiate it all, you practically destroy the whole basis on which our form of government rests, and 5^ou make the House of Commons a mere scrambling place for office. You practically banish all honour- able men from the political arena, and you will find, in the long run, that the time will come when your statesmen will become nothing but political adventurers, and that professions of opinion will be looked upon as so many political manoeuvres for the jjurpose of attaining office." The peroration of Lord Cranbourne's speech contains thoughts of great ni)l)leness expressed in language of befitting dignit}'. " I enti-eat," he said, "hon. gentlemen opposite me not to believe that my feelings on 26 tMs suLject are dictated simpty by my liostility to this particular measiu-e, though I object to it most stronglj^ as the House is aware. But even if I took a contrary view, if I deemed it to be most advan- tageous, I still should deeply regret that the position of the Executive should have been so degraded as it has been in the present Session ; I should deeply regret to find that the House of Commons has ap- plauded a policy of legerdemain ; and I should above all things regret that this great gift to the people — if gift you think it — should have been purchased at the cost of a political betrayal which has no parallel in our Parliamentary aimals, which strikes at the root of all that mutual confidence which is the very soul of our i)arty govern- ment, and on which only the strengt|;i and freedom of our representa- tive institutions can be sustained." Well, gentlemen, I have tried your patience by a very long quotation, but, as I hope you think, not too long an one. The Marquis of Salisbui'y is beyond doubt the ablest member of the present Cabinet. Within the last week he has been ap- pointed to a post of pre-eminent importance, and the public Press has sounded his praises from one end of the country to the other. I conceive, therefore, that unusual weight ought to be at- tributed to his deliberately uttered opinion on the conduct of an administration whose counsels he shared, but whose tactics he was too honest to foUow What, then, were the topics on which he thought right to dwell ? Why, as jon have just heard, they were such as these : — obsequious submission to the demands of opponents, aban- donment of solemn pledges, denial of manifest change of opinion, degradation of the House of Commons to an arena where political adventurers are to scramble for office, policy of legerdemain, political betrayal without parallel in our Parliamentary annals. I pass over speeches made on the same night by other justly indig- nant Conservative members, and go straight to that of Mr. Disraeli in order that we may see what sort of reply he was able to make to the very serious charges advanced against him by LordCranbourne. The first of these related, you will remember, to the changes in the Bill made at the beck of Mr. Gladstone. I quote Mr. Disraeli's rejoinder verbatim: — " The noble lord the member for Stamford says that the Bill is no longer our Bill . that it has been enormously changed in consequence of oui- having accepted the ten conditions of the right hon. gentleman the member for South Lancashire, which he also informed the House the right hon. gentleman had so imperiously dictated. At the time there was some complaint of the imperious dictation of the right hon. gentleman, but it did not come from me." Now, a simple reference to the debate on the second reading shows conclusively that at the time this complaint did come from Mr. Disraeli, and that he made it four times over in one and the same speech. I think it worth while to read you his four complaints, in order to make good what I have asserted. Complaint No 1. — "And then the right hon. gentleman gets up and addresses me in a tone which I must say is very unusual in this House. Not that I much care for that sort of thing, although really his manner is sometimes so very alarming that one might almost feel thankful that gentlemen iu this House who sit on opposite sides of 27 this taWe arc divided by a tolerably broad piece of furnitiiro. The right lion, gentleman, addressing rae in the tone and with the air of a familiar of the Inquisition, puts me to the question and says, ' This must Ido given up ; that must be abandoned,' and so forth." Com- plaint No. 2. — "The right hon. gentleman yesterday made a very stern appeal to me on the subject of the lodger franchise. He said, ' The lodger franchise must be conceded.' Now I thought that was a very extraordinary tone in which to address me, who certainly, on the subject of a lodger franchise, cannot be supposed to have any very great prejudice." Complaint No. 3. — "The third menace of the I'ight hon. gentleman was of this nature ; lie saj's the distinction between the different classes of ratepayers must be abolished." Com- plaint No. 4. — " I come to the fifth article of impeachment, wliich was couched in the same imperative and authoritative language : ' The distribution must be enlarged.'" So much for Mr. Disraeli's accuracy of statement. The reasons he alleged for withdi-awing all the Con- sei'vative safe-guards of the Bill were scarcely less damaging. Listen to a few of them. "The dual vote was given up in conse- quence of the iinanimous reprobation of that political device by the Conservative part}-;" that is to sa}-, the expedient of the Government was rcall}' too bungKng for even its own supporters. On the county franchise Mr. Disraeli was prepared to "vindicate" the Government proposal of £lo, but a meeting of country gentlemen had passed resolu- tions entreating them to go bcdow that point ; inference, a casual collec- tion of scj^uires are likel}' to be better judges than Her Majesty's Conser- tivo Government. A lodger franchise was included in the Eeform Bill of Lord Derby's Government in 1859. True, but household franchise on the sacred condition of rate-paying was not the cardinal principle of that Bill, and this made all the difference. "We gave up the fancy franchises because the lodger franchise had been accepted by the House, and it was quite unnecessary to have the fancy francliises when the lodger franchise was adopted." Now this is really rather too strong. Eecall for a moment the nature of the educational franchise, and ask yourselves whether graduates of Universities, ministers of religion, barristers, and medical men are the kind of people who generally live in lodgings. If they do not, Mr. Disraeli's attempt at an answer is nothing better than a mere evasion. Now listen to his apology for the indiscriminate reduction of the borough franchise. He said the Government felt it would be dangerous and invidious by a moderate reduction of the borough franchise to admit to the suffrage only "a certain and favoured portion of the working classes," and "thought it better to appeal to the sympathies of the great body of the people." Only the year before Mr. Disraeli expressed a diametrically opposite opinion, which I have already had occasion to quote. "Though imiDartial and intelligent people are desirous that the choicest members of the working classes should form a part, and no unimportant portion, of the estate of the Commons, they recoil from and reject a gross and indiscriminate reduction of the franchise." What was the wish of "impartial and intelligent people" in 1866 was "dangerous and invidious" in 1807; 28 what they "recoiled from and rejected" a year ago the Government now "thought it better to adopt." On the top of this comes Mr. Disraeli's ne plus ultra of hardy assertion — his denial that the Government measure had cj^uitted tlie lines of Conservative policy. "I contend," he said, " that the r)ill, though adapted of course to the requirements of the year in which we are legislating, is at the same time in harmony with the general policy whicli we have always maintained I do think the Bill embodies the chief principles of the policy that we have professed, and which we have always advocated." I have alread}^ provided some materials by which you can form an opinion on this point for j-ourselves, and need not, therefore, trouble j^ou here with a refutation of this specimen of what I may call •' West- minster assurance." The best thing we can do is to receive it as Her Majesty's Opposition in the House of Commons did — with " laughter and dies of oh, oh." I do not propose to follow the fortunes of the BiU beyond this point, but want j'ou to consider what was the tendency of the tactics pursued throughout this campaign by the Tory leader, and acc[uiesced in by the Tory party. I think that ten- dency was to degra