have not come to any accord upon principles. To precipitate a decision in the case of a single human life would be cruel. It is more than cruel-it is parricide in the case of the Constitution, which is the life and soul of this great nation. If it is to perish, as all human things must perish, give it, at any rate, time to gather its robe about it, and to fall with decency and deliberation.

"To-morrow!

Oh, that's sudden! Spare it! Spare it!

It ought not so to die.""

This was indeed eloquence, but the Attorney-General, notwithstanding, might well ask in bewilderment, What was it Mr. Lowe wanted to have done? what was his practical object? His argument resolved itself into this-that we should stand on things as they are, because they are, and without showing any reason why they are. Sir Hugh Cairns contended against the bill's going into committee. The House was not agreed upon any one of its fundamental principles; what, then, was the use of going into committee upon it-a process meant not to re-construct, but only to amend a measure? The Lord-Advocate did his best to demolish Sir Hugh Cairns' arguments, and when he sat down, Lord Grosvenor, the nominal leader of the " Cave," upon whose support of the amendment the Opposition had counted, rose to make the important announcement, that, seeing the amendment seemed likely to be made a question of the maintenance or resignation of the Ministry, he should in this instance support the Government, as, though he had not much confidence in them in the matter of Reform, in the present state of European politics, and in the present condition of our finance, it would be a great misfortune to the country if they, particularly Lord Clarendon, were compelled to quit office. Mr. Gladstone's speech, which followed Lord Grosvenor's, was memorable for some sharp handling of Mr. Lowe's speeches contained in it. With regard to Mr. Lowe's charge of creating anomalies, instead of getting rid of them, Mr. Gladstone said: "I deny that it creates a single anomaly in the true and proper sense of the word. I ask of those who make the charge, did the Reform Act create anomalies, or not, by disfranchisement and redistribution of seats? If you choose to say that the man who destroys a gross anomaly, and substitutes a much milder form of the very same thing, creates an anomaly, to that charge we are open; and to that charge the Reform Act was open." With regard to the general tone of Mr. Lowe's speeches, Mr. Gladstone had several indignant remarks to make. One passage he called "one gross and continued error, both of taste and judgment." And although," he continued, "it is a very great treat to listen to his speeches as intellectual exercises, yet no man must imagine that any practical good was to be got out of discussion with such a disputant. How, let me ask, can we occupy common ground with my right honourable friend? How can we cherish the slightest hope of mitigating the differences which exist between us, or of arriving at a settlement with one who approaches a question of this gravity in such a spirit, and with such a degree of license, so far as

regards his own individual opinion?" Mr. Gladstone went on to argue against Mr. Lowe's objections to the bill in detail. He defended the system of grouping, and he defended the proposed extension of parliamentary boundaries. In fact, Mr. Gladstone's speech was an elaborate and eloquent vindication of the Government bill from the many attacks that had been made upon it. "We have now to deal," he said in conclusion, “I will not say with an alteration so much as with a growth of circumstances, with a growth of numbers, a growth of wealth, a growth of intelligence, a growth of loyalty, and a growth of confidence in Parliament among all classes of the community. And our view is thisthat under these circumstances, we are entitled to say that now again has the time come to apply with caution, yet with firmness, those principles from the operation of which we have already reaped such blessed fruits;" viz., the principles of the Reform Act of 1832. "It is in the prosecution of that work that we are confronted with the hostility which has met us in the various stages of this bill-hostility that may be formidable; indeed, hostility of which I will not even now presume to predict that it may not meet with a momentary success; but to which I will say, that any triumph which may be gained, will recoil with tenfold force upon the heads of those who may achieve it." In the earlier part of his speech, Mr. Gladstone had made an indignant protest against the mode of procedure of the Opposition. Captain Hayter's amendment was, he said, an indirect attempt to defeat the bill altogether, and, as such, a violation of Lord Derby's pledge that it should receive fair play. 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, the 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 on 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

A.D. 1866.]

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 which 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 7. 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 die. "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 the 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 the 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 the Government good service in the next division which they had to encounter upon Mr. Walpole's amendment, the debate upon which

66

171

had been interrupted by Lord Stanley's spcech. Mr. Walpole was beaten by a majority of 14.

66

A far more vital question, however, was raised on June 11th by Mr. 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." In order that it may be clearly understood what is meant by "gross estimated rental" as opposed to " rateable value,” we will copy the headings of a valuation list as it is prepared for rating purposes by the parochial overseers:― Name of Occupier.

66

66

Name of Owner.

Description of Property.

Name or Situation of Property. Estimated Extent.

Gross Estimated Rental.

Rateable Value."

A valuation list classifies every house in the parish under these heads, for purposes, as we have said, of local taxation. 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. One parish may be richer than another perhaps, and so be able to assess its inhabitants at a lower rateable value, or accidents of physical situation may make municipal operations more expensive in one case than in another-from whatever cause, there is not, and never has been, any uniform standard of “rateable value." In the judgment of the framers of the bill of 1866, "gross estimated rental," though subject, no doubt, to some local variations, yet afforded a far safer and more uniform basis for both the borough and the county franchise than the "rateable value,” which was dependent upon "local usage and personal caprice." The arguments of Mr. Hunt, Lord Dunkellin, and their supporters seemed to show at least some misapprehension of the state of the case. The rental valuation was spoken of as if it was something wholly unofficial and dependent upon the will of the tenant himself, instead of being just as much a parochial and official matter as the computed "rateable value," which occupied the next column

to it in the rate-book. People who had never seen a rate-book, and had not taken the trouble to listen attentively to Mr. Gladstone's explanations, talked as if "gross estimated rental" had nothing to do with the rate-book, and was being put by the Government in opposition to it. Whereas it was all along merely a question between the sixth and seventh columns of this same rate-book. At least, so it appeared outwardly; really, these two amendments were part of the general tactics of the Opposition, as we have already described them, and were aimed against what was most vital and essential in the Government measure. The substitution of "rateable value" for "clear yearly value" in clauses 4 and 5 of the bill would, as will be easily understood by any one who considers the difference between the two as given by the rate-book, considerably diminish the number of new voters to be enfranchised by the bill. That is to say, a £5 rating franchise even would hardly admit as many voters as the £7 rental franchise, because tho "rateable value" was always something below the 'gross estimated rental," and sometimes, as we have seen, very much below it. Mr. 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.

66

Mr. Gladstone, in a short, clear speech, defended the basis adopted by the 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 the Government intended to pursue, that it was at once felt that the crisis of the whole matter had at last been reached. Piercing through all arguments as to details, he went to the heart of his opponent's case, and showed that what Lord Dunkellin wanted was not merely “rateable value," as against rental, but that the motion was avowedly meant to restrict the suffrage, and as such, in the end, to defeat the bill. 'But," said Mr. Gladstone, "from the moderato amount of enfranchisement proposed in the bill, wo are not, under any circumstances or conditions, prepared to recede. By it we intend to stand." Lord Dunkellin's motion, he continued, if carried, would strike off 60,000 voters from the 200,000 which it was proposed by the bill to enfranchise. Another motion on the order book, by the member for Wenlock, would take away another 40,000," so that a deduction of one half from the total enfranchisement in boroughs seems to be the aim of

66

the more moderate among our opponents." The proper basis of political franchise, he maintained, " is not the net value of any property to the landlord (its rateable value), but the capacity of the occupier to pay," or, in other words, the rent he was able to give for his house. No doubt there were inequalities in the "gross estimated rental" column of the rate-book; but in contradiction of Lord Dunkellin, he declared the inequalities in the rateable value column to be infinitely greater, and such as would, were the amendment allowed to stand, insuperable obstacle in the way of the working of the bill. For these and other reasons, the Government were determined to stand or fall by the clause as it originally stood; and Mr. Gladstone sat down, having made it fully apparent that the coming division, should it prove hostile, would be taken by the Ministry as decisive of their resignation.

prove an

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. "Every interest in the country," said the member for Birmingham, "would be the safer and happier for the introduction of 200,000 more of the working classes to the electoral franchise. If the amendment were carried, and the Government overthrown, the question would not be disposed of; it would rise up again, and break up every Government till it was settled; and he put it to the Opposition whether it would not be wiser to accept this moderato measure frankly, and show once more that confidence in the people which had always been repaid by increased loyalty and obedience to the law." 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 the 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, were put, and 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

A.D. 1866.]

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. Mr. Gladstone went on to give a general review of the action of the Government. After the division," he said, "which took place on the 18th inst., and during the interval which has since occurred, the alternative which the Government had to consider was, whether it was their duty at once to resign their offices, or whether, on the other hand, they ought to accept the vote which had been arrived at on the motion of my noble friend (Lord Dunkellin), and to endeavour, if they could, to adapt that vote and the operation of it to the framework of their measure and the attainment of its essential object. .. Now, sir, when we came to examine the effect of the motion, and to consider whether it was possible for us to adopt it, we were struck with these difficulties:-in the first place, the inequality of its operations in the different boroughs; in the second place, the inequalities of its operation in the same borough; and in the third place, the almost insurmountable difficulty of choosing any formal figure of enfranchisement, relative to rating, which would express faithfully and exactly, and without material deviation on the one side or the other, the scale of enfranchisement which we had contemplated and submitted to the House, and to which we thought ourselves bound by consideration for the public interest to adhere." Mr. Gladstone proceeded to enlarge upon these three points, and to declare that the Government had felt the practical difficulties in the way of accepting Lord Dunkellin's motion to be so great, that they saw no other course open to them but that of unqualified resistance to it, on the ground that it broke up the essential framework of the measure by which they had deliberately pledged themselves to stand or fall. Having thus sketched the conduct of the Government, Mr. Gladstone 66 gave a plain, unvarnished tale" of that of the Opposition, which, as it sums up the history of the Reform Bill of 1866, may be quoted here. "We found our selves met with these proceedings on the bill:-On the 27th of April my noble friend, Earl Grosvenor, mado a motion as

173

an amendment on the second reading, the effect of which would have been to compel us to produce the Seats Bill before the House had given any opinion whatever on the Franchise Bill. That motion was rejected, in a House unprecedentedly large, by a majority of five, the numbers being 318 as against 323. The next step was that, on the 2nd of May, the honourable baronet, the member for Northamptonshire (Sir Rainald Knightley), made a motion to instruct the committee to include in the bill clauses for the repression of bribery and corruption. One difficulty already was, that we had an overweighted measure, and that it was almost impossible to find time to consider it. We remonstrated; but the House thought fit to overrule the view of the Government, and by a majority of ten the honourable baronet carried his motion. I do not say now whether he was right or wrong. I speak only of the amount of obstacles which we found besetting us on our road to the end which we had in view. On the 4th of June, another motion was made by the member for Wells (Captain Hayter), which certainly ended without a division, but which was debated for three nights, and which evidently must have had, and was intended to have, the effect of putting aside the consideration of the bill for this year. On the 7th of June, Lord Stanley moved to postpone the enfranchising clauses to the clauses relating to the redistribution of seats. That motion was made without any public notice whatever. But it was within the knowledge of the Government at a subsequent period, that, through channels which I am not able to point out, information had been conveyed, that either that motion or some such motion would be made on that day and on that hour; such information, however, being conveyed exclusively to certain gentlemen on this side of the House whose votes appeared likely to be favourable to the motion. Notwithstanding that information, the motion was negatived by 287 against 260. We were then met by the motion of the right honourable the member for Cambridge University (Mr. Walpole), who proposed to raise the county franchise to £20, and thereby to maim, in our view-at all events greatly to alter-one of the fundamental clauses in the bill. That motion was rejected by a very small majority of only fourteen; and then came in another form a motion which was admitted to have for one of its objects the raising of the county franchise-I mean the motion of the member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Ward Hunt). That motion was rejected only by a majority of seven. Then camo the motion of my noble friend the member for Galway, raising the very same point for the boroughs which had been rejected by only seven for the counties, and applying that principle to the boroughs which had been refused for the counties, although it was within the knowledge of us all that whatever difficulty was connected with rateablo valuo would be greater in the boroughs than in the counties. That motion was carried by a majority of eleven; and it was upon a deliberate review of this series of facts, from the recital of which I have endeavoured to exclude every qualifying epithet-it was on a deliberate review of this series of facts, combining that review of previous divisions and debates, with what I have already stated as to the