Chapter XXV: THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued) (2)

"The total number of deaths caused by those engaged in the suppression amounted to 439, and the total number of dwellings burned was 1,000.... The whole number subjected to the degrading punishment [of flogging], during the continuance of martial law, we think could not be less than 600." These are the words of the Report of the Royal Commission, consisting of General Sir Henry Storks, Governor of Malta, Mr. Russell Gurney, Recorder of London, and Mr. Maule, Recorder of Leeds, who were sent out to Jamaica in the beginning of 1866, and who sat for fifty-one days examining witnesses. Long before the Commission went out, however--in fact, as soon as the news of the "suppression" arrived in England--public opinion had been roused. Public meetings took place, and a committee--the Jamaica Committee--was formed headed by Mr. John Stuart Mill, to see that full investigations were made, and that legal remedies were sought against those who had been guilty of illegal excess. Mr. Carlyle came forward as a champion of Governor Eyre. The Jamaica Committee announced that, "having been advised that the facts disclosed in the Report of the Royal Commissioners afford a proper ground for an indictment for murder to be preferred against Mr. Eyre and the other persons concerned in the trial and execution of Mr. Gordon, and that no other mode of vindicating the law in reference to those facts is open to them, they have instructed their solicitors to proceed forthwith with an indictment against Mr. Eyre." They did proceed with an indictment against Mr. Eyre, Brigadier Nelson, and Lieutenant Brand. Mr. Eyre was domiciled in the country--he had been recalled from Jamaica and superseded--and the question of committing him for trial was argued before a Shropshire bench of magistrates. The Shropshire bench of magistrates declined to commit him. The London stipendiary magistrate, being a trained lawyer, understood his duty differently in the case of Nelson and Brand; he committed them for trial at the Central Criminal Court. The prosecution failed in the end; but not before it had elicited from the Lord Chief Justice a charge to the grand jury so elaborate, so learned, so telling, and so clear, that it may be said to have once for all defined the scope of "martial law," and to have once for all settled the rights and duties of local authorities in dealing with riot or insurrection. Two points stand out clear from the Chief Justice's charge: first, that martial law, exercised in Great Britain or in any of her dependencies, means the law administered by courts-martial--the law, that is to say, which is laid down for the trial of military offenders by military courts; secondly, that, by the Petition of Right and all the statutes and examples which have confirmed it, civilians are in no case amenable to this law. What, then, the Governor and the military authorities in Jamaica had the right to do, was to use all diligence in suppressing what, for a moment--though probably wrongly--appeared to be a formidable insurrection; and to do this by military force. They had undoubtedly the right to put to death or flog any rebel captured with arms in his hands; their justification in this was, that highest law--necessity and the right of self-preservation. They had also the right to seize any dangerous persons and hand them over to the civil courts. But they had no right to assume a jurisdiction over the whole actions of civilians, to hang and flog and burn on mere charges of "complicity" or of past guilt. The trial of Mr. Gordon--all the trials that took place in the county of Surrey in that dreadful time--were no trials at all; they were military cruelty and race tyranny aping the forms of law. The grand jury threw out the bill, but made a formal presentment, "strongly recommending that martial law should be more clearly defined by legislative enactment." Mr. Eyre and his subordinates escaped, and in 1872, numerous suits instituted by his opponents having failed and a considerable revulsion of feeling having taken place in his favour, his expenses were paid by Government. It is a consolation that the changes which followed upon her ordeal of fire were fruitful to Jamaica. After Sir Henry Storks returned from his temporary government of the island, a new Governor was found in a distinguished and able Indian official, Sir John Peter Grant. Under his rule security was established and brought a moderate measure of prosperity in its train.

During the whole of the year 1866 two great subjects occupied everybody's mind--the war in Germany, its antecedents and its consequences, and Parliamentary Reform at home. We may proceed at once to tell the story of the unsuccessful attempt of Lord Russell's Government to carry the Reform Bill, and of the serious popular agitation that followed upon their overthrow. The cause of the defeat of the Bill of 1860 was undoubtedly the indifferent attitude of Lord Palmerston, which represented that of the public. In 1865 Mr. Baines brought in a Bill, which was defeated. Soon afterwards Lord Palmerston died and the principal barrier to a successful Bill was removed. Even before his death, in the months that were spent in canvassing for the general election, "both among Liberal and Tory candidates," said Mr. Bright, "the question of Reform was mentioned in some way or other, either in their written or spoken addresses to their constituents." But when, after the news arrived that the veteran Prime Minister had died, Lord Russell succeeded to his place, and Mr. Gladstone took the position of unfettered leader of the House of Commons, it was known that Reform was to be immediately approached as a Government measure. Many of their colleagues were averse from re-opening the question and to overcome their scruples a mild Bill was promised.

Parliament opened amid general interest and excitement with regard to Reform; and in March Mr. Gladstone brought in his "Bill to extend the Right of Voting at Elections of Members of Parliament in England and Wales." This important Bill, upon which was based so much of the Reform Bill of 1867, was at first sight extremely moderate. In the first place, it advanced the property qualification for the borough franchise which Lord Russell's Bill had fixed at £6 to £7--a step which Mr. Gladstone explained as follows: "A £6 rental, calculated upon the most careful investigation, and after making every allowance and deduction that ought to be made, would give 242,000 new voters, whom I should take as all belonging to the working class. I should then arrive at a gross total of 428,000 persons" (that is, by adding together old and new electors), "which would, in fact, probably place the working classes in a clear majority upon the constituency. Well, that has never been the intention of any Bill proposed in this House. I do not think it is a proposal that Parliament would ever adopt.... I do not think that we are called upon by any overruling or sufficient consideration, under the circumstances, to give over the majority of the town constituencies into the hands of the working class. We therefore propose to take the figure next above that which I have named--namely, a clear annual value of £7." Under the £7 qualification it was calculated that 144,000 voters of the working class would be admitted to the borough franchise--enough to give the artisan class its due weight and share in elections, without swamping the other elements of the constituency. Mr. Gladstone also proposed--by means of the abolition of the ratepaying clauses of the Reform Act of 1832, by registration of compound householders, and by a lodger franchise applicable to persons occupying rooms of the annual value of £10--to further increase the number of borough voters by 60,000, giving a general increase of 204,000. To this increase must be added the proposed number of new county voters, "fourteen-pound tenants," 172,000 in number; and the depositors in saving-banks, etc., 24,000 more. In all, the number of new voters to be added by the Bill was estimated at 400,000, equally divided, according to the belief of the framers of the Bill, between the middle class and the artisans.

Mr. Gladstone introduced his Bill on March 12th, 1866, in a speech worthy of the occasion. At the outset he read the passage in the Queen's Speech which bore upon the question:--"When that information (relative to the existing rights of voting) is complete, the attention of Parliament will be called to the result thus obtained, with a view to such improvement in the laws which regulate the rights of voting in the election of members of the House of Commons as may strengthen our free institutions and conduce to the public welfare." Words like these gave him a good starting-point. He appealed to them and to the numerous occasions on which the same recommendation had been given from the Throne. "By no less than five Administrations, in no less than six Speeches of the Queen anterior to that of the present year," had the need of Reform been suggested to the House. Such an accumulation of authority, he went on to say, seemed to excuse him from the necessity of arguing the abstract question of the advisability of Reform. He took that for granted. Again, Mr. Lambert's work had been so well and quickly done that Government found itself ready to offer the Bill at once, without waiting a year. But--here was the important point--partly with a view to break up the opposition to Government's proposals, partly to prevent the Bill from becoming unwieldy and its progress too slow, it was to consist really of two Bills. The first was a Bill for the Extension of the Franchise; the second, to be considered after the settlement of the first, was to be concerned with the Redistribution of Seats. Into Mr. Gladstone's details we need not follow him, for we have already sketched the main provisions of his Bill. He commended it to the House, hoping that "if, unhappily, issue was to be taken adversely upon the Bill, it would be, above all, a plain and direct issue"--that is, whether or not there ought to be enfranchisement downwards. In other words, Mr. Gladstone, though he had nearly ignored the general question of the need of Parliamentary Reform, courted discussion of that general question. He brought in his Bill, not like a Trojan horse (he said) "approaching the walls of the sacred city, and filled with armed men, bent upon ruin, plunder, and conflagration," but rather as bringing recruits to the Parliamentary army--children to the Parliamentary family. "Give to these persons," ran his peroration, "new interests in the Constitution; new interests which, by the beneficent processes of the law of nature and Providence, shall beget in them new attachment; for the attachment of the people to the Throne, the institutions, and the laws under which they live is, after all, more than gold and silver, and more than fleets and armies; at once the strength, the glory, and the safety of the land."

The night following the introduction of the Bill was marked by the second of Mr. Lowe's famous Reform speeches, and the first of those fierce attacks upon the Russell Ministry which more than anything else contributed to bring in the Conservatives in the following year. Mr. Lowe was then member for Calne. He had held office under Lord Palmerston as Vice-President of the Council from 1859 to 1864, and had long been known in the House as an accomplished man and ready debater; but probably few, in 1866, had any idea of the real greatness of his oratorical gift, and of the splendid displays he was to make of it before the close of the Session. At the very outset of his speech on the 13th of March he denied the necessity of Reform altogether. And then came the famous passage that made Mr. Lowe the bugbear of the working classes. "Look at what a [working-class] majority implies. I shall speak very frankly on this subject, for--having lost my character by saying that the working man could get the franchise for himself, which has been proved to be true, and for saying which, he and his friends will not hate me one bit the less--I shall say exactly what I think. Let any consider--I have had such unhappy experiences, and many of us have--let any gentleman consider the constituencies he has had the honour to be concerned with. If you want venality, if you want ignorance, if you want drunkenness and facility for being intimidated; or if, on the other hand, you want impulsive, unreflecting, and violent people, where do you look for them in the constituencies? Do you go to the top or to the bottom?" Lastly, Who asked for the Bill? Not the people, not the House of Commons, but the Radical leaders, as a salve for a theoretical and not a practical grievance! "All I can say," concluded Mr. Lowe, "is, that if my right honourable friend does succeed in carrying this measure through Parliament, when the passions and interests of the day are gone by, I do not envy him his retrospect. I covet not a single leaf of the laurels that may encircle his brow. I do not envy him his triumph. His be the glory of carrying it; mine of having, to the utmost of my poor ability, resisted it." The cheers that greeted this speech--and not only the Opposition, but for a moment the Ministerialists, were carried away by its eloquence and wit--were a kind of omen of the difficulties that the Government were to meet with during the progress of the measure. In this debate on the first reading, Mr. Horsman, the Liberal member for Stroud, took up the same position of hostility to the measure as Mr Lowe; and it was in answer to him that Mr. Bright threw out his famous nickname for the new party. "He has retired into what may be called his political cave of Adullam, and he has called about him every one that was in distress, and every one that was discontented." The name of "Adullamites" was ever afterwards given to the group of seceding Liberals, and their position was called the "Cave."

The Bill was brought in, and read a first time, and the House adjourned for the Easter Holidays to think over the situation. It was evident that a storm was coming and questions perhaps graver than that of the fate of a Cabinet or of a measure were dependent on the issue. A great meeting was held at Liverpool, at which Mr. Gladstone made a speech in defence of the Bill. Mr. Lowe's Liberal constituents at Calne wrote him a strong protest against his conduct and clearly indicated that he must not ask for a continuance of their confidence. His answer to them was, in fact, an answer to a perfect chorus of invective with which he was greeted by every Liberal newspaper and in every meeting of Liberals throughout the country.

He maintained that he had but fulfilled the announcement which he had made to them at the time of his election in 1865, when the words of his address had been, "I attach too much importance to the blessings we already enjoy, to risk them in pursuit of ideal perfection, or even of theoretical improvement." And, while with perfect frankness he affirmed his belief that "ignorant, drunken, venal, violent" people were to be found at the bottom of the constituencies, he denied that he had meant the words to apply to a whole class of his countrymen. But this disclaimer availed little; the words had been spoken, and they stuck. The popular excitement which they caused continued after the failure of the Bill and throughout the winter of 1866, and was directed mainly against the "renegade Liberals." Mr. Gladstone's Liverpool speech was of the most uncompromising kind. "We do not desire," he said, "we should be the first to resist, sudden and violent sweeping changes; but the progressive enlargement of the popular franchise--with due regard to the state and circumstances of the country--we do not consider liable to the application of any of these epithets. Having produced this measure, framed in a spirit of moderation, we hope to support it with decision.... We stake ourselves, we stake our existence as a Government, and we also stake our political character, on the adoption of the Bill in its main provisions. You have a right to expect from us that we should tell you what we mean, and that the trumpet which it is our business to blow shall give forth no uncertain sound. Its sound has not been, and I trust will not be, uncertain. We have passed the Rubicon, we have broken the bridge and burned the boats behind us.... The defeat of the Bill, what would it procure? an interval, but not an interval of repose--an interval of fever, an interval of expectation, an interval for the working of those influences which might extend even to the formidable dimensions of political danger."

The great debate on the second reading began on the 12th of April; and never within living memory had a finer display of eloquence, argument, and energy been witnessed within the walls of the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone had seen enough of the spirit of opposition that had been awakened to render it necessary for him to make an elaborate speech on moving the second reading, directed mainly against the amendment of which notice had been given by Lord Grosvenor, the eldest son of the Marquis of Westminster. This amendment, which was to be seconded by Lord Stanley, was to the effect "that it was inexpedient to consider this Bill until the House had before it the whole scheme of representation;" that is to say, that it was inexpedient to break up the Reform legislation into two parts, to separate the question of the franchise from the question of redistribution. Mr. Kinglake, a supporter of Government, moved an amendment to the same effect, though he was ready to postpone redistribution until the second reading had been carried. This compromise was accepted by Government. It is not necessary to go through the points that Mr. Gladstone raised; for to do so would be to anticipate the course of the debate, so exhaustive and voluminous was his eloquence. The former part of the speech was of a more general kind than that which had introduced the Bill originally; it was a sort of answer to Mr. Lowe and to those who had denied the necessity and the demand for Reform, and it dwelt with immense force upon the pledges given in past years by Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Horsman, and others, now strenuous opposers of Reform in any shape. Mr. Gladstone had previously denounced as a "deplorable arrangement," "a gross blunder springing from that kind of cleverness which so often outwits itself," the design of the opponents of the Bill to place themselves under the guidance of "the representatives of two of our noblest and most ancient houses." Indeed, it looked very much like a combination of aristocracy against democracy, when from the Liberal side of the House rose Lord Grosvenor to move an amendment, and from the Conservative side rose Lord Stanley to second it. Lord Grosvenor's speech was not specially effective, except from the family weight of the speaker. It mainly turned upon the affront put upon the Whig families by Government, in not having sufficiently taken them into their counsels. Lord Stanley was more telling. Alluding to the coming general election, he protested against the chance of allowing the extension of the suffrage to be dealt with by one Parliament, and the redistribution of seats by another. The Franchise Bill, if carried, would confer a great increase of power upon the Radical element in the constituencies--an increase of power which would lead to the return of a much more Radical Parliament than the present, pledged by the very circumstances of its existence to extreme measures. Was it safe to leave to its tender mercies a question involving so many complicated interests as that of the redistribution of seats? Mr. John Stuart Mill, in an able speech, followed Lord Stanley, and had no difficulty in showing this to be the real grievance and bugbear of the great families who had still so much influence over British politics, though Lord Stanley had hardly ventured to put it into such a definite form; but were there any real grounds for this fear of the working classes? For it was at bottom that and nothing else. The blue book of Mr. Lambert, said Mr. Mill, after an eloquent vindication of the rights of the workmen as a class, had revealed the fact that but twenty-six per cent. of the electors were of the working classes.

Mr. Mill's speech may be said to have established his parliamentary reputation, and many of the subsequent speakers took great pains to answer his arguments. Indeed, it was necessary to do so, if the opposition to the Bill was to be justified, for Mr. Mill's speech had been a vigorous attempt to show that on many important questions legislation would be wiser and better if the working classes were more represented. Education, sanitary reform, the diminution of pauperism, the diminution of crime--in a word, the social side of politics--would, he maintained, be better handled by a reformed than by an unreformed Parliament; and, if so, an approach to democracy should rather be welcomed than feared. These were the points chiefly dwelt upon by the Opposition speakers--by the orthodox Conservatives like Sir Hugh Cairns, by Mr. Disraeli, by the "Cave," represented by Mr. Laing, Mr. Horsman, Lord Elcho, and notably Mr. Lowe.

Mr. Disraeli's summing up of the case of the Opposition was clever, but not very telling; it was, except at the end, too vague. The end, however, gave Mr. Gladstone what he wanted. Quoting from the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and addressing himself to Mr. Gladstone's famous assertion that the working classes were "the same flesh and blood" as the upper classes, Mr. Disraeli said:--"Sir George Lewis would not have built up the constituent body on the rights of man. He would not have entrusted the destiny of the country to the judgment of a numerical majority. He would not have counselled the Whig party to reconstruct their famous institutions on the American model, and to profit in time by the wisdom of the children of their loins. Sir, it is because I wish to avert from this country such calamities and disasters that I shall vote for the amendment of the noble lord."

When the leader of the Tory party sat down, Mr. Gladstone rose and took for his starting-point the last words of Mr. Disraeli. "At last, sir," he said, "we have obtained a clear declaration from an authoritative source; and we now know that a Bill which, in a country with five millions of adult males, proposes to add to the present limited constituency 200,000 of the middle class and 200,000 of the working class is, in the judgment of the leader of the Tory party, a Bill to reconstruct the Constitution on American principles." The speech which followed was, for sheer eloquence, one of the very greatest of Mr. Gladstone's parliamentary efforts; it began at one o'clock in the morning, and, after reviewing the whole course of the debate, it ended at three. "You may drive us from our seats," he ended, "you may slay, you may bury the measure that we have introduced. But we will write upon its gravestone for an epitaph this line, with certain confidence in its fulfilment--

'Exoriare aliquis nostris ex ossibus ultor!'

You cannot fight against the future. Time is on our side. The great social forces which move onwards in their might and majesty, and which the tumult of these debates does not for a moment impede or disturb, those great social forces are against you; they work with us; they are marshalled in our support. And the banner which we now carry in the fight, though perhaps at some moment of the struggle it may droop over our sinking heads, yet will float again in the eye of heaven, and will be borne by the firm hands of the united people of the Three Kingdoms, perhaps not to an easy, but to a certain and not distant victory."

It was three o'clock in the morning when Mr. Gladstone finished his speech, but the crowded and excited House showed no signs of fatigue. When the Speaker put the question, the roar of "Ayes" and "Noes" which answered him was heard far beyond the walls of the House by the waiting crowds outside. Amid great excitement the two camps parted into their respective lobbies, and shortly afterwards the result of the division was announced as follows:--For the second reading, 318; against it, 313. Majority for Government, 5. Both sides of the House cheered the announcement of these critical numbers--the Liberals for the fact of a majority, the Conservatives for the smallness of it. When the uproar had somewhat abated, Mr. Gladstone stated that he would declare what course the Government proposed to take on the Monday following, the 30th of April. In the few days which intervened there were many rumours abroad as to the probable resignation of the Cabinet. However, when the House re-assembled, Mr. Gladstone announced that the Government did not consider the division on Lord Grosvenor's motion any sufficient reason for resigning, and that they were prepared to proceed with the Bill in the manner which the House seemed to prefer. They would now lose no time in producing the Redistribution Scheme as well as the Scottish and Irish Bills, and they promised that the House should have ample time to consider the Redistribution Scheme before going on with the Franchise Bill. In answer to some reproaches of inconsistency from the Opposition benches, Mr. Gladstone replied that the Government had indeed pledged themselves to stand or fall by the Bill, but as yet the Bill had not fallen--the alteration now effected in it was, after all, a question of arrangement only, and did not affect any vital principle of it.

On the 7th of May the Redistribution of Seats Bill was introduced. The Bill provided, first, for the redistribution of seats, properly so called; and secondly, for a more accurate settlement of borough boundaries than had been accomplished by the Reform Bill of 1832. With regard to the first question, Mr. Gladstone announced that Government had no intention of trying to get rid of bribery by a wholesale extinction of small boroughs. In the first place, to get rid of bribery was not the object of the Bill; and secondly, corruption, that "leprosy of English politics," was not confined to small boroughs, and no hard and fast line of electoral purity could be drawn between boroughs above or beneath the ten thousand line of population. Moreover, the question of small boroughs had since the Reform Act assumed a very different aspect. In 1832 the extreme measure of extinction--"capital punishment," as Mr. Lowe called it--had to be employed wholesale, since in many places throughout England the exercise of the franchise had become a mere "mockery of the representative system." Now, however, every member did in some way or other represent the views, as well as the interests, of a real local community; and the representation of the small boroughs was in so much better a state generally that no such summary measures as those adopted in 1832 ought now to be taken with regard to it. No borough, then, was to be absolutely extinguished, but "the fair demands of justice and growing population," in other words, the electoral deficiencies of the great manufacturing towns, were to be met by the milder expedient of arranging small boroughs in groups--a principle which had been already successfully adopted in Scotland and Wales. These groups were to be arranged according to geographical convenience; in some cases they were to consist of two boroughs, in others of three, and in one case of four. "When the population amounts to less than fifteen thousand we propose to assign one representative, and when it exceeds that number we propose to give it two." Mr. Gladstone then proceeded to run through the names of the various groups proposed. There were eight pairs of boroughs: in seven instances the group was composed of three, and in one, as we have said, of four. That is to say, that where two or more small towns had been accustomed to return each of them a representative, they were, in future, to constitute a group returning one jointly. Mr. Gladstone calculated that by these arrangements forty-nine seats would be set free for redistribution, and having now sketched the disenfranchisement side of the scheme, he proceeded to consider the still more important question of enfranchisement. The franchise was to be given for the first time to the six boroughs of Burnley, Stalybridge, Gravesend, Hartlepool, Middlesborough, and Dewsbury. Government proposed to apportion the remaining forty-three seats as follows:--Twenty-six additional members were to be given to the English counties, a third member to Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds, one member to the University of London, four additional members to the metropolitan constituencies of Chelsea and the Tower Hamlets, and one to the borough of Salford. The seven seats still remaining were to be handed over to Scotland. Ireland and Wales, Government considered, were already adequately represented, and they were, therefore, left out of account in this division of the spoils of redistribution. With regard to the question of borough boundaries, a vexed and difficult one, the Bill proposed little in the way of actual legislation. It provided that "wherever the municipal boundary includes any area that is not now within the parliamentary boundary, the parliamentary boundary is to be so far enlarged as to include that area." The Commissioners of Enclosures were to decide the boundaries of the newly enfranchised towns, of the newly separated halves of the Tower Hamlets, and, in cases of municipal extension--such as occurred when any outlying suburb of a town became large enough and united enough to claim municipal privileges--the parliamentary line was to follow whatever local line might be adopted.

In conclusion, Mr. Gladstone stated that Government was prepared to treat the two Bills--the Franchise Bill and the Redistribution Bill--exactly as the House thought best. They were willing, if the House desired it, to make one Bill out of them, but in no circumstances would Ministers advise a prorogation of Parliament till both questions had been disposed of. This marked concession to the demands of the Opposition only produced some captious remarks from Mr. Disraeli, to the effect that Government did not know its own mind; and that, in leaving the choice of the mode of procedure to the House, it was abdicating its functions.

After leave was given to bring in the Bill, the Scottish and Irish Reform Bills were introduced. The Scottish Bill provoked some discussion, but, on the whole, the House seemed to have made up its mind to let the Franchise question comparatively alone till the Redistribution of Seats, which most members considered a far more personal and pressing question, should have been settled. In the week that intervened between the introduction and the second reading of the Redistribution Bill, two notices were put upon the order book of the House, which gave Government ample warning of a troublesome time coming. One was Mr. Bouverie's motion to consolidate the Franchise Bill and the Redistribution Bill and make one measure of them; the other and more important one, moved by Captain Hayter, was to the effect "that in the opinion of this House the system of grouping proposed by Government is neither convenient nor equitable, nor sufficiently matured to form the basis of a satisfactory measure." Before they came on for discussion, however, the Redistribution Bill passed the second reading without formal opposition, though Mr. Disraeli took the opportunity of making a vigorous defence of small boroughs. After the Whitsuntide holidays the hottest part of the contest began. Lord Russell wrote a strong appeal to Lord Grosvenor, but without effect. Government announced that they were prepared to fuse the two Bills, and that they were willing to give every facility for discussion of Captain Hayter's amendment, but the "Cave" and the Conservatives were not to be conciliated; and Sir Rainald Knightley's motion, to add to the twofold Bill, already unwieldy in size, provisions against bribery and corruption at elections, both surprised and annoyed Ministers. Mr. Gladstone opposed it warmly. As he said afterwards, "We had already an overweighted measure, and it was impossible to find time to consider it alone," without adding to it any fresh material for discussion. But the Opposition rallied round the motion, and it was carried by a majority of ten against Government. Mr. Gladstone once more gave way and announced that if Sir Rainald Knightley could produce a matured scheme for the prevention of bribery at the proper time and place, Government would not oppose the discussion of it. Captain Hayter's amendment against the system of grouping was brilliantly debated for five nights. Mr. Mill, Mr. Lowe, Sir Hugh Cairns, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Disraeli showed themselves at their best; and the clever skirmishing of Mr. Lowe, and the more serious but hardly more logical speeches of Mr. Disraeli, contrasted well with Mr. Mill's grave sarcasms upon the "dense solid force of sheer stupidity" in the Conservative party, and the sincere enthusiasm of Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Disraeli, in the speech which concluded the debate, did his best to defend his party from the charge of factious opposition; but when one considers what a much more sweeping Bill than the one they were at present opposing, on the ground of its Radical tendencies, was passed by him and his party in the following year, his arguments appear hardly convincing. When he resumed his seat, the amendment was negatived by 403 to 2, the greater part of the Opposition having left the House to avoid voting, seeing that Lord Grosvenor's defection from their ranks left them little or no chance of obtaining a majority against Government.

So far, and upon questions of general principles, Government had in the main, though with great difficulty, and at least one hair-breadth escape, been successful; that is to say, the House as a whole, with the exception, perhaps, of Mr. Lowe, were agreed that Reform in some shape or other was inevitable. But the Opposition were also agreed in the determination not to let the Russell Ministry settle the question. A successful Reform Bill would have continued the Liberals in power, as later it kept the Conservatives in office, and Mr. Disraeli saw his opportunity and seized it. Reform, especially that side of it which is concerned with the redistribution of seats, rouses the most apathetic Conservative member, and Mr. Disraeli could therefore count upon the undivided support of his party. But Mr. Gladstone's majority would have baffled all their efforts, had it not been for the unexpected defection of the "Cave." The opposition of Lord Grosvenor, Mr. Lowe, Mr. Horsman, and others to the Bill meant victory to the Conservatives; and Mr. Disraeli would not have been Mr. Disraeli had he not known how to use the advantage thus given him. So that while in committee the fortunes of the Bill went wavering backwards and forwards over the debatable ground of "rateable value," or "gross yearly rental," all the world knew that it was in reality no question of details, no question indeed of Reform, but a question of a Liberal or a Conservative Ministry that was being so obstinately fought out. The general consciousness of this gave an unusual piquancy to the discussion of even the dullest of those details of which a Reform Bill is full. The cleverness and determination of the opponents of the Ministry were notably shown in a most unexpected attack upon the Bill made by Lord Stanley on June 7th. The House in committee was engaged in debating the 4th clause of the now consolidated Bill, relating to the county franchise, which it was proposed to reduce to £14. Mr. Gladstone had just made an elaborate defence of the clause against a hostile amendment moved by Mr. Walpole, and all seemed going on as usual, when, to the amazement of the Tory side of the House, no less than of the Liberals, Lord Stanley, the member for Lynn, advanced quietly to the table and moved "that the portion of the joint Bill which relates to the redistribution of seats be taken first," or, in other words, that the Franchise Bill should be postponed _sine diê_. "This brief speech," says the historian of the year, "had the effect of a _coup de théâtre_." Lord Stanley went on to give various plausible reasons for the motion, but the House, in spite of its astonishment, was not to be taken in.

The tendency of the motion and the animus which prompted it were very plainly visible, and the indignant Liberal benches applauded every word of Mr. Gladstone's speech in answer to it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ironically complimented the Opposition upon their perfect knowledge of the "art of ambush." At last, it seemed, they had made up their minds, so long in uncertainty, as to what step they should take next, and this new strategy was the result of their cogitations. Loudly cheered by his supporters, Mr. Gladstone went on to say that Government would never suffer the conduct of the measure to be taken out of their hands by such a motion. They were pledged to accomplish, or at least to attempt, the enfranchisement of the people, and to that object they would adhere so long as they retained the support of the House. Lord Stanley's motion was defeated by a majority of 27, a larger majority than had yet fallen to the lot of Government since the beginning of the Reform debates, for the strong sense of unfair treatment among the Liberals kept several waverers loyal to the Ministry who would otherwise have voted with the Opposition. Nor was this all. "The engineer was indeed for once hoist with his own petard," for the feeling awakened by Lord Stanley's motion did Government good service in the next division which they had to encounter, namely, upon Mr. Walpole's amendment, the debate on which had been interrupted by Lord Stanley's speech. Mr. Walpole was beaten by a majority of 14.

A far more vital question, however, was raised on June 11th by Mr. Ward Hunt, member for Northamptonshire, and one leading to much more important consequences. He proposed to make the basis of the county franchise, not the "gross yearly rental" of any given property, but its "rateable value;" while Lord Dunkellin followed suit with a similar motion with regard to the borough franchise. The Bill as originally drawn up gave the borough franchise "to the occupier, as owner or tenant of premises of any tenure within the borough, of a clear yearly value of seven pounds or upwards;" and the same expression was used in the case of the county franchise; clear yearly value meaning the same as "gross estimated rental."

The "gross estimated rental" of a house, according to the Union Assessment Committee Act of 1862, is defined as "the rent at which the hereditaments might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, free from all usual tenants' rates and taxes and tithe commutation rent-charge, if any." But the rateable value, the yearly value, that is to say, at which the house is assessed in the rate-books for rating purposes, is computed from the "gross estimated rental" by making various deductions. The scale of these deductions varies according to local needs; thus, in some places, "rateable value" is ascertained by deducting 10 per cent. from "gross estimated rental," in others 15 per cent., and in others as much as 35 or 36 per cent. The substitution of "rateable value" for "clear yearly value" in clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill would considerably diminish the number of new voters to be enfranchised by the Bill. That is to say, a £5 rating franchise would even hardly admit as many voters as the £7 rental franchise, because the "rateable value" was always something below the "gross estimated rental," and sometimes, as we have seen, very much below it. Mr. Ward Hunt said frankly that the object of his amendment was to raise the county franchise to a higher standard than if the clause passed without amendment. He thought the £14 franchise would admit an excessive number of votes.

Mr. Gladstone in a short, clear speech defended the basis adopted by Government, and once more patiently explained what was meant by the terms "rateable value" and "gross estimated rental," an explanation of which many members of the House stood greatly in need. A smart passage of arms followed between the Solicitor-General and Mr. Disraeli; and finally, upon a division, the amendment was negatived by a narrow majority of seven votes. Lord Dunkellin's motion, to the same effect with respect to the borough franchise, met with very different success. Its mover supported the principle of rating rather than rental, because he believed it, he said, to be the more convenient, inexpensive, and constitutional method of giving the franchise of the two. Whatever were the inequalities of rating, the inequalities of rental, he contended, were greater still. Mr. Gladstone again rose in answer, this time to give so determined a statement of the course Government intended to pursue, that it was at once felt that the crisis of the whole matter had at last been reached. A warm and exciting debate followed. Mr. Bright strongly supported Government, urging that if the amendment were carried, the great aim and object of the Bill would be defeated, and the legitimate hopes of the working classes once more disappointed. Other speakers followed, but all the world knew there was not much to be said now on either side. Finally, Mr. Gladstone clinched his first speech by the brief repetition of Government's determination not to accept the amendment, and to regard the carrying of it as incompatible with the further progress of the Bill. It was a quarter-past one o'clock when the crowded House divided, and amid a scene of great excitement the following numbers were announced: For the amendment, 315; against it, 304. Majority against Government, 11. Long and loud was the cheering of the Opposition. Mr. Disraeli had won his battle, and the immediate political future, at least, was in the hands of the Conservatives.

On the day following this important division it was generally known that the Russell Ministry was at an end; in fact, in the evening Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone formally announced to the two Houses that the Ministry had sent in their resignations to the Queen, and motions of adjournment to the following Monday, the 25th of June, were agreed to. It was on Tuesday, the 26th, however, that Mr. Gladstone made his promised statement in the House of Commons. The House was crowded in every part, and when the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, he was greeted with a burst of tumultuous cheering. "Sir," he said, "the suspense, which the House yesterday so kindly consented to prolong, is at an end, and her Majesty has been pleased to accept the resignation of their offices, which was last week tendered by the Government. The House is aware that her Majesty thought fit in her wisdom to postpone the acceptance of that tender when it was first made. It appeared to her Majesty that, upon the first aspect of the vote which led to the tender of our resignation, it might, perhaps be considered as a matter of mere machinery and detail, susceptible of adjustment, rather than as one which tended to break up the framework of the Bill; and her Majesty also felt, and I think the House and the country, without distinction of party, will agree in that sentiment, that, in the present state of affairs on the continent of Europe, there is necessarily a disadvantage in a change of Government. Without the slightest approach to any invidious preference or distinction, it may truly be said that at such a moment it is not easy for any incoming Administration to step at once into the exact conditions of relations with Governments and Ministers abroad which was enjoyed by their predecessors; and that difficulty, whatever may be its amount, is in itself a public disadvantage." Upon these grounds, then, the Queen had been for some little time unwilling to accept their resignation, until a long conference with Lord Russell had convinced her that the step was inevitable, and the resignations were accepted.

The accuracy of this statement is fully borne out by the correspondence between Lord Russell and the Queen, published by Mr. Spencer Walpole in his "Life of Lord John Russell." From the first her Majesty had desired that, in view of the serious state of the Continent, the Ministry should act in a spirit of compromise and conciliation. The Prime Minister fully acknowledged the critical condition of foreign affairs, and therefore strongly advised her Majesty to postpone her visit to Scotland. But he also wrote that "Lord Russell would ill serve your Majesty's interests and those of the country if, by any premature concession, he were to expose his own character and that of Mr. Gladstone to the loss of public confidence, and those who would most taunt and reproach them with such a concession would be their implacable and inveterate enemies." This was before the division on Lord Dunkellin's motion; after it had occurred, he wrote that the proceedings of the last few weeks had convinced the Ministry that nothing was to be gained by protracted discussions on the Bill, that the reasons against a dissolution, founded on the general apathy of the South of England, appeared to them valid, and that there was no alternative to a resignation. The Queen replied that she had been completely taken by surprise, as she understood that there was no crisis, and that she did not consider Ministers were fulfilling their duty to herself or the country by abandoning their posts in consequence of a defeat on a matter of detail and not of principle. The Premier stuck to his text that Lord Dunkellin's amendment was a vital issue; he thought, however, that it might be possible to postpone the Bill with a declaration that it would be submitted unaltered to the present or a new Parliament. Finally, the Cabinet determined that if they could obtain from the House an expression of confidence together with a desire for the reintroduction of the Bill at an early period, they would retain their offices. When there appeared no reasonable prospect of the fulfilment of these conditions, they had no option but to resign.

The dislocation of the Liberal party was so complete that no reasonable prospect remained of a stable Government being formed by any of the fractions into which it had been temporarily shivered. When, therefore, the Queen sent for Lord Derby and requested him to form a Ministry, that statesman, although the Conservative party was in so decided a minority in the House of Commons, accepted without hesitation the responsibility of undertaking the government of the country. Mr. Disraeli became Chancellor of the Exchequer; Mr. Walpole went to the Home Office; Lord Stanley and Lord Cranborne were appointed Secretaries for Foreign Affairs and for India respectively; General Peel and Sir John Pakington accepted the chief posts in the War Office and the Admiralty; Lord Carnarvon became Secretary for the Colonies; and the Marquis of Abercorn accepted the Vice-royalty of Ireland. This, it will be evident, was a purely Conservative Administration; such, however, had not been the desire of Lord Derby, who made overtures to some of the leaders of the recalcitrant Liberals, which were declined. Mr. Lowe was approached, so were Lord Grosvenor and Lord Lansdowne; the last would have joined, had not his sudden death intervened. Lord Shaftesbury also declined, and so did Lord Clarendon, either because, according to Bishop Wilberforce, he "hated Disraeli," or because, according to Lord Malmesbury, the Conservative irregulars were preparing an attack on his foreign policy. The Adullamites would have joined a Government under Lord Stanley, whose explanation of his father's ill success with the dissentient Whigs made a few days later to his constituents at Lynn, was doubtless the true one. "We have not desired," he said, "to form our Administration upon any narrow party basis There are many of the Whig party whose sympathies are well known to be with us, whose support in debate and divisions we have no doubt of receiving, and whose official co-operation, where it has been asked, has only been withheld not on account of any real or wide difference of political opinion, but rather from that natural and honourable scruple which makes men shrink from the appearance of changing their party--of walking, as the phrase is, across the floor of the House--under circumstances where they may possibly appear to be personal gainers by the change."

Mr. Disraeli went down for re-election to his constituents in Buckinghamshire, and there delivered an address that adumbrated with considerable clearness the course which the new Government intended to, and which it actually did, pursue. There was a notion that the Conservatives were more favourable to intervention in the affairs of foreign countries than the Liberals; that in their hands the country was more likely to drift into war; and this notion, so fatal to the popularity of any political party with that pacific generation of Englishmen, Mr. Disraeli took great pains to dispel. "The abstention of England from any unnecessary interference in the affairs of Europe is the consequence, not of her decline of power, but of her increased strength. England is no longer a mere European Power; she is the metropolis of a great maritime empire, extending to the boundaries of the farthest ocean. It is not that England has taken refuge in a state of apathy, that she now almost systematically declines to interfere in the affairs of the continent of Europe. England is as ready and as willing to interfere as in old days, when the necessity of her position requires it. There is no Power, indeed, that interferes more than England. She interferes in Asia, because she is really more an Asiatic Power than a European. She interferes in Australia, in Africa, and in New Zealand, where she carries on war often on a great scale. Therefore it is not because England does not recognise her duty to interfere in the affairs of the continent of Europe, that persons are justified in declaring that she has relinquished her imperial position, and has taken refuge in the _otium cum dignitate_ which agrees with the decline of life, of power, and of prosperity. On the contrary, she has a greater sphere of action than any European Power, and she has duties devolving upon her on a much larger scale." On the subject of Parliamentary Reform Mr. Disraeli was decidedly explicit. He would not for one moment allow that Reform was a Liberal preserve, and that in dealing with the question the Conservatives were poaching on forbidden ground. "I hear very often," he said, "that the subject of Parliamentary Reform is the great difficulty of the present Ministry, and will be their stumbling-block. I am quite of a different opinion. I see no difficulty in the subject at all; and if we stumble, rest assured we shall not stumble over the subject of Parliamentary Reform. If Parliamentary Reform is to be dealt with, I consider the present Government have as good a right to deal with it as any body of statesmen in existence. The great Reform Bill of 1832 was mainly devised by Lord Derby, and was entirely carried by his energy; and with regard to the only measure on the subject, since the great Reform Bill, ever mentioned with respect, why, I myself brought it in. I have remarked, during the recent campaign in the House of Commons, that every division that took place, and every strong manifestation of opinion which was expressed, ratified the principle upon which the Bill of 1859 was founded. And night after night, sitting in that House opposite to me, distinguished Liberals of all hues rose, and, in a tone of courteous penitence, publicly avowed how much they regretted they had voted against the Bill of 1859."

On the 9th of July, the new arrangements having been completed, Lord Derby made a Ministerial statement in the House of Lords, the leading ideas of which were in close agreement with those enunciated by Mr. Disraeli in the speech from which we have just quoted. At this late period of the Session, the Budget for the year having been already discussed and settled, it was out of the question that the new Government should do more than wind up the business of legislation with all possible despatch, and then dismiss the members to their homes. In a considerable section of the large Liberal majority that now crowded the Opposition benches, a determination was apparent to give the new Ministry a fair trial, and neither to join in, nor permit the success of, any factious or precipitate attempt to place them in a minority.