iBfiT 
 
 r-'
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 THE 
 
 EARL OF BEACONSFIELD 
 
 AND THE 
 
 CONSERVATIVE REFORM BILL 
 OF 1867. 
 
 A LECTURE, 
 
 Delivered at the Cambr'ulgc Reform Club, on Monday, 
 .Novemlicr 13, iSju, by 
 
 SEDLEY TAYLOR, M.A., 
 
 Late FdhKV of Triiii/y Ci'//r:;r, Ci/ii!iiriJ^;t', 
 Preceded by a Letter to the Author from 
 
 PROFESSOR FAWCETT, M.P. 
 
 Printed and Purltsiied by the National Press Acenxy (Limitid), 
 io5, S:: >E L.vn;:, Lonix.'N', E.C. 
 
 r^ R I C E 1' W O P E N C E
 
 /g67 
 
 Tkixity College, 
 
 Camuiudge, 
 
 Decemla- 7, 1876. 
 
 i/3 
 
 tj I issue tlie following lecture as a paiiiplilet in compliauce 
 
 c/s 
 
 >. witli tlie advice of several valued friends. One of them, whose 
 
 ec 
 
 ^ Parliamentary reputation counnands a wide influence, sent me the 
 
 ea 
 
 ^ subjoined letter, which I have obtained his permission to make 
 
 public. 
 
 S. T. 
 
 "My Deak Taylor, 
 
 I liavo just been reading A'our lecture with 
 o very great interest. I hope you will publish it in such a form 
 *" that it can be ea'-ily circulated and widely read. 
 
 Tlie subject is one that ought not to be forgotten, and 
 
 uj . 
 
 O it is of especial interest at the present time, wdien the c|ue3tion of 
 
 the further extension of the suffrage is again coming into promi- 
 nence, and when, therefore, it is of great importance to remember 
 how Eeform has been treated by many of those who now direct 
 the Government of the country. 
 
 S Sincerely yours, 
 
 § HENEY FAWCETT.' 
 
 "Sedley Taylor, Esq." 
 
 390731
 
 THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD AND THE 
 CONSERVATIVE EEFORM BILL OF 18G7. 
 
 Gextleme:^, — Notliing is so ^politically instructive for Englisli- 
 men as the continuous study of the debates in rarliament 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- 
 sible minister in charge of such a measiire 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 lleform 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 thejudgment they form of the political character of 
 a minister who has passed through such an ordeal to be predominantly 
 influenced by the manner in which he has stood the test. Tliese re- 
 marks sufficiently indicate my object in bringing before your notice 
 this evening the most important incidents which marked the debates 
 on the Reform Bill of 1867, with special reforence 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 tlie great subject which is embodied in the nauTO 
 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 3'oung for systematic history, are forgotten, or on tln^ 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 be revived, or interest is to be for tho 
 first time aroiised — my attempt will be sure of your indulgent attention.
 
 G 
 
 I sliall not attempt anything lilce a histoiy of the debates on the Bill, 
 hut, limiting myself to those in tlie House of Commons up to the third 
 reading, shall merely sketch in outline their most striking incidents, 
 dwelling more particularly 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 tlian 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 
 wliich 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, "Hansai'd's Parliamentary Debates." 
 
 In Julj, 186G, 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 Excherj[uer, Lord 
 Carnarvon Colonial Secretary, Viscount Cranbourne (now Mar- 
 quis of Salisbury) Secretary for India, Lord Stanley (now Earl 
 of Derby) Foreign Secretar}^, Sir Stafford Northcote President 
 of the Board of Trade, and Mr. Grathorne Hardy President of the 
 Poor Law Board. The Grovernment were in a minority 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 the Sovereign was 
 made to prescribe to Parliament the temper in Avhich 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 the 
 meaning which the Cabinet intended to convey by it. It was this — ■ 
 that in their opinion " Parliamentary Reform should be no longer a 
 question which should decide the fate of ministries;" in other words, 
 that the Administration to wliich they belonged ought to be exempted 
 from liability to bo driven from office by an adverse vote on the ques- 
 tion of Parliamentary reform — a liability which all p"- • i-ous Govern-
 
 ments liad accepted as a matter of course. Now, was tliore anything 
 in the immediate antecedents of those who made this proposal 
 to justify a cdaim so unusual? On the contrarj'', tlioy had 
 attained office by defeating tlio previous Government on Par- 
 liamentary Eeform, and 3-et here they are, but a few months 
 later, asking- to be secured ag-ainst 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 statesman >\ho 
 had imbibed in the playground 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, unfair as that 
 now made in the name of Lord Derby's Cabinet. But let us see how 
 the object of keeping the Grovernnient 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 Resolutions 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 wliich would 
 inevitably be taken of this remarkable proposal, and souglit 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 iiolicy." 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 would-be fine gentleman in ]\Ioliere'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 Pavli anient in order 
 to found a Bill upon them," is only a roundabout plirascfor 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 ^\ith us, many suggestions of 
 great value will be made. Those suggestions will bo received not
 
 8 
 
 merely witli candour, but if found to deserve the 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 
 '»yill read : "A young engaged couple, of extremely respectable family, 
 a"i'oeable 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 re<'-arding 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 iullueutial members of the House of Commons who 
 will guarantee it against loss of office on Parliamentary Eeform, the 
 opportunity of considering themselves inscribed in its good books. 
 Apply to the Conservative 'NVliip." 
 
 Had Mr. Disraeli's programme, announced on February 11, 
 been carried out, the proceedings on the Eeform question would 
 liuvo commenced with the discussion of a string of Eesolutions, 
 which were placed on the table of the House on the following- 
 day. These Avere for the most part extremely general and vaguely 
 expressed propositions, such as, e.g., that the number of electors 
 ill counties and boroughs ought to be increased ; that it was 
 df^sirablo to add to house franchises other franchises of a different 
 chavactor ; that the principle of plurality of votes might be advan- 
 tageously 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 that the discussion of the 
 Eesolutlor.s was to precede the introduction of a Bill. To the surprise 
 of bis ht-arers, liowever, Mr. Disraeli wont 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 bo the duty of the Government on the passing of the Eesolu- 
 tions to introduce ; it was a " sincere Bill " which they were prepared 
 to carry. The House was now placed in a position of dilficulty, into
 
 9 
 
 whicli it ^\-as anytliing' but creditable to Mr. Dl'^raeli's statosmansliip 
 to have brouglit it. To discuss vague genoral propositions, with 
 precise aud d('liuite proposals known to underlie them, was perfectly 
 futile, yet this was what Mr. Disraeli's course manifestly required. 
 For instance, what was the good of debating Resolution I., that the 
 number of electors ought to be increased, when it was known that the 
 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 Resolutions. This objection was forcibly stated in the ensuing 
 debate by Mr. Lowe. The same speaker dwelt with groat effect on a 
 still more objectionable feature of Mr. Disraeli's plan — his attempt to 
 shift the responsibility of initiation from its proper place ou the 
 shoulders of the Government upon those of the House of Commons. 
 AViiy, 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 alwa^'s accepted ? 
 "Why 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 Dill, and to bring the 
 matter to an issue fairly and plainly in the old English fashion, and 
 deal with it in our own down-right way '' Mr. Bright sjioke to the 
 same effect. He said it was merely a loss of time to go into a dis- 
 cussion on the Resolutions, and compared 'Mr. Disraeli's tentative 
 proposals to a shopman asking across the counter whether there is 
 " anj^thing more, gentlemen, j'^ou would 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 "considerino- 
 whether there were not some among the Resolutions 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. Roebuck 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 Resolutions, (course which his 
 colleague, Mr. Walpole, then Home Secretar}^ 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 0]>position had 
 "seemed to enter into an engagement" that the second reading of
 
 10 
 
 the Bill wliicli he promised to introcliice -would not be opposed — a 
 statement which Mr. Gladstone at once euerg-eticaly disavowed. Tliis 
 incident may be considered as the close of the first scene in our 
 drama. The curtain falls on thirteen discarded Resolutions, the chief 
 actor announcing- that he will reappear as soon as the necessary scene- 
 shifting can be cfFected. Unfortunately, on the curtain being again 
 raised, the audience had to listen to a lugubrious statement from the 
 manager that throe of the principal actors had declined to go on 
 with the piece, and quitted his company. That under these distressing 
 circumstances he intended to shut up the theatre until he had recon- 
 structed his company, when Im 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 your best attention. He began by explain- 
 ing the object which the Government 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 iipon 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 ; our 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 Majesty's Government did not hesitate, 
 notwithstanding the great disadvantage imder which they now 
 labovired, 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 oft' by the proprietor, and does not know 
 where to find the fish which he had depended on his rod and line to 
 Becure. 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 that very essential particular — tlie amount of tlie extension of tlio 
 francliise." Tlie measure whicli Mr. Disraeli had explained to tlie 
 House of Commons, which was the less extensive of the two sehemob 
 liad been accepted by the majority of the Cabinet, in deference to the 
 opinions of three of their collcayuos, but as it was now obvious that 
 their proposal had not been favourably received "on either side of 
 the House" (of Commons), "the Govermnent had decided to 
 abandon" the proposition they had at first brought forward and 
 " recur 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 AVar, and Lord Carnarvon 
 Colonial Secretary. On the same evening Mr. Disraeli made a sliort 
 statement to the same effect in the House of Commons. The Bill of 
 which he had exjjlained the provisions on Februar}'- 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, ]\[r. Disraeli 
 endeavoured to account for the precipitate 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 be 
 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 calictl 
 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 addressed the following exphmation to the House : 
 " The right hon. gentleman says that if he has received inaccurate 
 information, we also are subject to the like misfortune. That ma;y 
 be so, but the difference is this — we do not found our statements in 
 Parliament upon it, nor do we, upon inaccurate information, base 
 decisions of vital consequence in matters of public policy. At the 
 meeting referred to," continued Mr, Gladstone, "no resolution about
 
 12 
 
 £5 rat'ng was come to, and the subject -was not even cTiscnssed, hardly 
 even referred to. He would put it to the House whether the right 
 honourable gentleman was justified in attemi)ting to fasten on the 
 Opposition the responsibility of the failure of his scheme." 
 
 A fortnight now elapsed, and on March 1 8 Mr. Disraeli introduced 
 the second Bill which was to make good the calamitous failure of its 
 abortive predecessor. In the exordium of his speech he made a gra- 
 tuitous attack on the Liberal Bill of 1866, 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 
 avowedly founded on expediency and involved no principle. Mr. 
 Gfladstone 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. Now let us see in what terms Mr. 
 Disraeli had himself described the cj^ualification fixed by the Reform 
 Act of 1832 at £10, a figure just as arbitrary as that proposed in 
 1866 by Mr. Gladstone. " The £10 qualification," said Mr. Disraeli, 
 sjieaking on February 28, 1859, " is a test which affords a fair pre- 
 sumption that the holder possesses those qualities Avhich entitle him 
 to perform the acts of citizenship. It is therefore founded upon a 
 principle, and the objection against it appears to me to be a sophism." 
 Now it was precisely on this ground of electoral fitness that Mr. 
 Gladstone proposed the £7 franchise; but Mr. Disra'eli was now in 
 opposition, and so it suited his purpose to say that a test which he 
 had described in 1859 as founded on a principle was, when brouglit 
 forward in 1866, founded on expediency and involved no principle. 
 Can we ask for a better proof that in the mouth of Mr. Disraeli 
 " prineii^le " and "expediency" mean only 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 pecuniary limit, Mr. Disraeli was 
 jn-epared to found himself. Every householder 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 tiie 
 Tory party, it involved the most astounding 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 years Mr. 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 the year 1859, when Mr. Disraeli brought in the unsuccessful 
 Reform 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 Russell, on the second reading, 
 moved an amendment asserting the necessity of a greater extension 
 of the franchise in boroughs than that contemjDlated in the Govern- 
 ment measure. To this amendment Mr. Disraeli offered the most .
 
 13 
 
 fleterniinecl resistance, and (Icclared liimsolf opposed to any lowevinf^ 
 of tlio boroiig-li qualification. lie said : "I cannot look upon "what 
 is called reduction of the fvancliise in Lorouglis but Avitli alarm ; and 
 I have never yet met with any argument which fairly encounters the 
 objections that are urged to it. You cannot encounter it by senti- 
 mental assertions of the good qualities of the working classes. The 
 greater their good qtudities the greater the danger. ... If you 
 dwell on their intelligence you only increase the power they will 
 exercise." Lord John Russell's amendment was carried, and the Tory 
 Government, after a fiiutlcss appeal to the constituencies, resigned 
 office. The next year, 1860, saw a "\V"hig Eef'orm Bill brought forward 
 by the Government of Lord Palmerston. It proposed to reduce tho- 
 borough qualification to a £G rental. Mr. Disraeli opposed the Bill, 
 on the ground that the reduction suggested woiild establish a pre- 
 dominance of the working classes unless it were accompanied by colla- 
 teral franchises like those contained in the Bill of the previous year. 
 The sentences in which Mr. Disraeli spoke of these franchises allbrd 
 such a capital illustration of his double-edged -v^it that I must cpioto 
 them, thoiigh they do not bear directly on oiir 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 popular 
 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 blundering" to discredit Mr. Gladstone's Administration, well 
 knowing the effect which this jingling alliteration woidd have on the 
 presumably "savage" and "barbarous" persons to whom it was 
 addressed. On Mayo, 1865, Jfr. Buines moved the second reading 
 of a Bill to reduce tlie borough qualification from £10 to £6, and 
 stated tliat the measure was avowedly int ended to bring in a con- 
 siderable portion of the working classes. During the second night of 
 the ensuing debate IMr. Disraeli made certain declarations which are 
 important from the immistakable language in which they are couched. 
 He spoke as follows: "All that has occurred — all that I have ob- 
 served — all the results of my reflection lead mo to this more and more 
 — that the principle upon which 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." The 
 speaker here refers to franchises not depending on a house cpialifica- 
 tion, as is obvious from what follows : "Although wo did (in 1859) to 
 a certain extent agree to some modification of the £10 franchise, yet I 
 confess that my present opinion is opposed, as it originally Avas, to any 
 change of the kind. I think it Avould fail in its object — that it would 
 not secure the introduction of that particidar class we all desire to see 
 introduced, but that it would introduce many who are unworthy of tho 
 franchise." On April 27, 1866, Mr. Disraeli spoke tlius : " Though iui- 
 partial and intelligent people are desirous that tlu choicest members 
 of the working classes should form a part — and no unimportant por- 
 tion — of tho estate of the Commons, they recoil from and reject a gross 
 and indiscriminate reduction of the franchise. That, I believe, is tho
 
 14 
 
 real opinion of the countiy." I liavo now produced instances spread 
 over the period 1859 np to the 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 hoi'ough 
 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. Upon that ground he opposed, and should always do 
 so, any general lowering of the franchise below the joresent limit of 
 £10." On ]\Iarch 5, 1867, Lord Stanley, the jiresent Earl of Derby, 
 of whom we have lately heard so much, said : " The right lion, gentle- 
 men (Messrs. Lowe and Hoisman) 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. What at this crisis was the conduct of 
 these right honourable gentlemen, of this noble lord ? Why, as the 
 very organ of Toryism, the Quarterly Review, stated at the time in so 
 many words, they " swallowed their pledges in silence." Mr. Hardy 
 agreed to " give to the working classes an undue preponderance of 
 political power." Sir Stafford 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 Cranbourno, 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 tlie House of Commons, in 
 language of mortifying distinctness, the discreditable character of the 
 whole transaction. " A Reform 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 "by the peopTe of this country are of more importance than any 
 j:)rovisions even of a Eoinnn Bill. I would far rather see a very bad 
 Reform Bill passed by the hou. gentleman the member for Bir- 
 mingham (Mr. Bright), than a Eeform Bill inconsistent with all tlieii* 
 traditions, with all their preceding action, with all their professions, 
 and witli all the 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 bach for a moment 
 at the circumstances under which he and his party succeeded in ousting 
 Earl Eussell's Administration from office in the previous j^ear. The 
 Bill brought in by that Government proposed to give the borouo-h 
 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 Avas 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 brought forward 
 by Lord Dunkellin. It was well known that the Government would 
 not consent to the proposed alteration, for Mr. Gladstone, in intro- 
 ducing the Bill, had distinctly stated that the inequalities of ratine 
 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 the franchise. Further, it was also well known that the 
 leader of the Opposition had expressed the same condemnation of a 
 rating qualification in even stronger terms. On February 28, 1859, 
 when introducing the unsuccessful measure cf that yeav, Mr. Disraeli 
 said he had always been mucli 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 wiiich appeared to him in- 
 surmountable. The nature of these difficulties he described in the 
 following words: — "For the purpose of securing the 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 liot political partisan. 
 Are you prepared to leave to the overseer the absohite 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 wliich would arise from a rating instead of a 
 value qualification." Mr. Disraeli now thought proper to vote in 
 favour of a rating quaUfication, and alleged in justification of this 
 step that subsequent legislation had to a great extent removed the 
 inequalities of rating which Lad caused him to declare against it 
 as a basis for the franchise in 1859. Lord Dunkelliu's amendment 
 tying down the Government to a rating qualification, was carried 
 against them. In announcing the consequent abandonment of the mea-
 
 16 
 
 snre fmrl rr"=iTTintifm of the Government, 'Mv. Glacl«;tone crave a few 
 jfi^-nres which sliewed that the inequalities of rating which Mr. Disraeli 
 iuidfolt so strongly in 1839 Avere still quite insurmountable. Jn order, 
 he said, to enfranchise by a rating qualilication, not less than the 
 same number who would he brought ou tlie 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, different scales of 
 rating would have to be established in one and the same borough, 
 owing to the differences of rating frequently prevailing in different 
 parts of the same town which happened to be in difi-erent unions. 
 
 The decision come to by the House of Commons on this amendment 
 of Lord Dunhellin's was made by Mr. Disraeli the starting point for a 
 very remarkable enterprise. He discovered what no one had previously 
 had the least idea of, viz., that in preferring rating to rental value as 
 the l)asis of es':imation for the franchise in boroughs, the House 
 of Commons had laid down a great constitutional principle. On 
 Lord DunkoUin's amfudnient "a great decision was arrived at by 
 tlie 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 
 continued, "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 this 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 duty. We believe that a londjide 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 DunkoUin'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 exactl}^ 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 Ijord Dunkellin's amendment, it becomes 
 evident that the principle of personal 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 b}^ the parochial authorities for the purpose of assessing the 
 poor rate should bo employed in preference to the amount of rent paid 
 for the ([ualifying 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 IMr. Gladstone at once pointed out
 
 17 
 
 that no such proposal was contained in the terms of the resohition 
 before the House. "Let it be understood," he said, " that we have 
 nothing to do now witli determining whether the man himself shall 
 be rated or not, or shall liave paid liis rates, and that tliose two ques- 
 tions are reserved for some future period. The question nuw is whether 
 the value of the occupation in right of which he is to vote is to be cal- 
 culated upon the column of rateable value." Accordingly, the ques- 
 tion of rate;il)le value as against rental value was the topic discussed 
 throughout the debate, only two speakers, out of nineteen who addressed 
 the House, diverging for a moment to the irrelevant subject of personal 
 rating and personal ratepa_Ying. "We are now prepared to appreciate 
 the modufi 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 iu 
 favour of rating, the other in favour of rental. Arbitrarily selecting 
 the former, he as arbitrarily chose to attribute to it a character of 
 authority, nay more, of infallibility. "A great decision was," he 
 said, " arrived at by the unerring instinct of the House." The next 
 step was to pei'vert the decision actually arrived at into something 
 totally different, about which not one word appears in the resolution 
 adopted, and which had been only 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 authoiitative decision arrived at by the 
 unerring instinct of the House of Commons iu favour of what Mr. 
 Disraeli's exigencies required — a loud 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 
 ]iis proposal that " it would interpose a barrier, steady and fixed, to 
 the descent to universal suffrage." Mr. Disraeli had the hardihood to 
 assert that by its adoption the House of Commons had paved the way 
 for the longest step in the direction of universal suffrage yet made iu 
 this countr3\ 
 
 Mr. Disraeli's brond 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 
 collateral 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 sulfi-age. In the counties a £15 
 rating qualification conferred the suffrage ; but though the bye 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 stcond 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 the 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 proj^ortion of cases this con- 
 dition was not fulfilled, owing to the rate being assessed on and paid 
 by the landlord. This would particularly apply 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 
 woidd, therefore, be excluded from the franchise under the Bill. 
 Moreover there were a number of local Acts of Parliament in force in 
 particidar boroughs imder 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 oiit 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 fi-anchise. 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 you 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 by 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 
 
 Ly stoutly nifantaiuing- the exclusion of the compound householder, 
 suddenly turned completely round, and, to the astonishment of his own 
 supporters, agreed to an amendment from the Liheral side of the 
 Ilouse which abolished the wdiole system of compounding- for the 
 poor-rate. The incidents of this rapid act of tergiversation are so 
 extraordinary that 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 
 liave 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 supporters 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 Grovernment 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 Ilouse 
 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 tlie Chancellor of 
 tlie Exchequer had 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 Grovernment had origiually ar- 
 rived, and that it was also in perfect harmony with wliat 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 tlie main compensating 
 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 oS your
 
 20 
 
 leg below the knee, wants to take it ont at the hip joint, may say that 
 he is only carrying out to its full extent the principle of amputation. 
 In both cases, liowever, it is the result whicli 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 political inconsistency with which 
 more than one of his supporters now assailed 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 through the chief of these incidents, 
 in the order of their ocv^urrence, beginning with the provision 
 called the dual votO; which allowed certain specified classes of 
 persons in borou<>'hs 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 announcing its 
 abandonment protested that the dual vote was not brought forward 
 merely as a chock and a counterpoise, "no such mere vulgar idea" 
 having entered the mind of the Government. Ho had hoped the 
 proposal would not have been left so utterly without svipport 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 wliether 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 contem^'tuous 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 square 
 with the general policy of Mr. Disraeli's measure? That policy, 
 announced, as we have seen, with pompous 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 
 j)ayment of the poor rate. A lodger has nothing T\hatever to do with 
 the rates, and therefore to admit him to the franchise was tantamount 
 to relinf|uishing 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 wore again to learn by sad 
 experience how littlu dependence was to 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 
 
 francliise ; whereupon Mr. Torrens, liavini;,' attained his object, with- 
 drew his amendment. On May 20 the (iovernment consented, after 
 being beaten by a majority of 201 to 157, to enfranchise £.5 copy- 
 ]ioklers. On May 27 Mr. Disraeli made the higiily unconstitutional 
 statement tliat 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 'ko King he lowered the county qualification from £15 
 to £12. On March 28, at the bidding of iSir Eoundell Palmer, he 
 lirst abandoned the entire educational franchise clause Avithout 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 Government 
 had advanced their measure through 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 ho " could not 
 conceive " that the policy recounnended 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, IMr. 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. General 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 proposal 
 of a most singidar description. The University of London had, after 
 5'ears 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, 
 ill 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 coidd 
 well be imagined. The Univei-sity 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 
 Church. The University of Durham was called into existence under 
 the auspices of the Dean and Chapter of Durl;am 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 tlie 
 Durham graduates was cstublishmentarian, and if not sacerdotal, 
 at least strongly clerical. These two discordant corporations Mr. Dis- 
 raeli now proposed t-o unite into a single constituency. I do not find 
 in the records of the debate which ensued on this remarlcable proposi- 
 tion that its aiithor defended it by reasons of any kind. He did 
 indeed perpetrate a couple of jocularities, of the type with which we 
 have all long become familiar, saying first that " the University of 
 London would have shown greater generosity if it had welcomed its 
 younger 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 effectively employed when good arguments, and even 
 good jokes, are not to the fore, viz., a compact body of supporters 
 ready 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 Avas 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 that "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 official statement, though he knew 
 well enough it was nothing of the sort. " The lion, gentleman," he 
 said, "appeared to sj^eak with authority on behalf of the London 
 University, and he understood from him that that institution withdraw 
 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 Loudon, 
 n'^r any connection with it, nor had he said anything to that effect." 
 The matter stood adjourned to the next day, and Mr. Disraeli's 
 supparters, 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 
 oj^portunity of making known its wishes, and succeeded by a majority 
 of only a single vote — 226 to 22o — 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 conviction which outweigh all the gibes and taunts 
 producible from the sterehouse of political insincerity — " not to (\o the 
 most odious of aU things — give that which j^rofesses 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 straighffor^rard 
 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 June 20, Mr. Disraeli, for the last 
 time,_ lightened his 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. DisraeH defended the clause. "I 
 hold," he said, " that the principle is founded upon truth and justice." 
 Nevertheless, on tlie 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 Eadical, 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 coimterpoising anti-popular pro- 
 visions had almost totally disappeared. The Grovernment had assented 
 to all these successive modifications, and now presented to the House 
 for its third reading what was unquestionably a thoroughly democatic 
 measure. The debate was opened by Lord Craiil)0urnc (now Marquis of 
 Salisbury), who, you will bear in mind, had resigned ofiice rather than 
 assist in bringing in a Eadical Eef orm 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 exchisively the offspring of the 
 Government, or whether 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 obseqiiiousness with 
 which it is obeyed. Now I have sketched lightly the demands made 
 on that occasion by the ri;>;ht hon. gentleman. They are ten in num- 
 ber. First, he demandecl 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 uou-compounders. Not only have tlicse obnoxious 
 distinctions been abolished, but all distinctions whatever have 
 disappeared. The fourth demand of the right lion, gentle- 
 man was that the taxing franchise sliould be omitted. It lias 
 been omitted. Fifthly, that the dual vote sliould bo omitted. It has 
 been omitted. Sixtlily, that the re-distribution of seats must be con- 
 siderably enlarged. It has been enlarged full 50 per cont. Sevoathly, 
 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. 
 Eighthly, that the voting papers must be omitted. To my extreme 
 regret, the voting papers 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.") AVhy, what, sir, is the question but this? Remember tliat 
 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 Grovernment who have 
 introduced a Bill of this importance, and who have yielded 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 tliat 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 triumph. 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 exery one of ihose 
 precautions and securities at the bidding of your 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 oxhiljition 
 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 democra;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 should 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 18G0 they strenuously opposed 
 the proposal of Lord Palmerstou to the same effect. And so it went
 
 25 
 
 on : and tliis is the end of it — tliis is tlie ignominious conclusion — tliat 
 Lord Derbj-'s Government, the Tory Government, the Government of 
 those statesmen who prompted and encouraged that steadfast resis- 
 tance, shouki in tlie end have proposed a change far more sweeping 
 than any man had before submitted to the House of Coumions. Of 
 all the strange and mysterious marvels which we have 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 liis party liave changed their opinions. 
 Why, sir, when I remember last yoiiv when I re- 
 member what we all consulted together about last year, what we all 
 desired to do, what we v.'ere urged to do by our leaders, what was the 
 watchword between man and man, and when Ave all met together what 
 was the common object which we all agreed in promoting, I am sur- 
 prised th.it, after so short an interval of time has elapsed, they venture 
 to say that they have not changed their opinions. I can only say tliat 
 I was closelj^ acquainted with the movements of last year, and 1 heard 
 all the exhortati(ms 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 stateinent, 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 liave brought in a measure more extreme in the way of en- 
 franchisement than the right hon. gentlenuvn the member for South 
 Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone). If, as he seems sometimes to have inti- 
 mated, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any such scheme in his 
 breast, I can onl}^ say that he covered it with an impenetrable veil — 
 with a silence that was undoubtedly most judicious, because if the least 
 hint had escaped him of what he intended to do, he never woidd have 
 gained on the 18th 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 offi.ce and do whatever the 
 House of Commons bids them. Our theory of governn eat is that on each 
 side of the House there shoxdd be men supporting definite opinions, and 
 that wliat they have supported in Opposition they should adhere to in 
 office ; and that everyone should 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 021 Avhich 
 our form of g.overnment rests, and 3'ou make tlie 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 Avill become nothing but 
 political adventurers, and that professions of opinion will be looked iipon 
 as so many political manoeuvres for the purpose of attaining office." 
 The peroration of Lord Cranbourne's speech contains thoughts of great 
 nobleness ex}»ressed in language of befitting dignity. " I entreat," he 
 said, "hon. gentlemen opposite me not to believe that my feelings on
 
 26 
 
 tills subject are dictated simply by my hostility to this particular 
 measure, though I object to it most strongly, as the House is aware. 
 But even if I took a coutra3y view, if I deemed it to be most advan- 
 tageous, I stiU 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 shoiild 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 annals, which strikes at the root of all 
 that mutual confidence which is the very soul of our joarty 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 Salisbury is beyond doubt the ablest member of 
 the present Cabinet. "Within the last week he has been aj)- 
 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 tuo 
 honest to follow What, then, were the topics on which he thouglit 
 right to dwell? Why, as you have just heard, they were such ;ts 
 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. 
 
 1 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 ix;ay 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 wiU remember, to the changes in the Bill made at the 
 Ijeck 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 our 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 in this House who sit on opposite sides of
 
 I 
 
 27 
 
 this table are divided by a tolerably broad piece of furniture. Tlio rigbt 
 lion, gentleman, addressing- me in the tone and with the air of a 
 familiar of the Inquisition, puts me to the qu.cstion and sa3\'3, ' This 
 must be given up ; that must be abandoned,' and so forth." Com- 
 plaint No. 2. — "The right hon. gentleman yesterday made a very 
 sfiTii appeal to me on the subject of the lodger franchise. Ho said, 
 • Tlie lodger franchise must be conceded.' Now I thought that was a 
 vt ry extraordinarjr tone in which to address me, who certainly, on the 
 subject of a lodger franchise, cannot be supposed to have any very 
 oTcat prejudice." Complaint No. 3. — "The tliird menace of the 
 riiilit hon. gentleman was of this nature : He 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, which was 
 couched in the same imperative and authoritative language : ' The 
 clistribntion must be enlarged.'" So much for Mr. Disraeli's accuracy 
 of statement. The reasons he alleged for withdrawing all the Con- 
 servative safe-guards of the Bill Avere scarcely less damaging. 
 Listen to a few of them. "The dual vote was given up in conse- 
 quence of the unanimous reprobation of that political device by the 
 Conservative party;" that is to say, the expedient of the Government 
 rtas reall3' too bungling for even its own supporters. On the county 
 franchise Mr. Disraeli was prepared to "vindicate" the Government 
 n-oposal of £15, biit a meeting of country gentlemen had passed resolu- 
 ions entreating them to go Itolow that point ; inference, a casual collec- 
 iou of sc[uires are likely to be better judges than Her Majesty's Conser- 
 ive Government. A lodger franchise was included in the Eeform 
 Bill of Lord Derby's Government in 18.59. True, but household 
 ranchise on the sacred condition of rate-paying was not tlie cardinal 
 )vineiple of that Bill, and this made all the ditference, "We gave 
 ip the fancy franchises because the lodger franchise had been accepted 
 ly the House, and it was quite unnecessary to have the fancy 
 i-anchises when the lodger franchise was adopted." Now this is 
 •cally rather too strong. Recall for a moment the nature of the 
 ?(bicational franchise, and ask yourselves whether graduates of 
 Universities, ministers of religion, barristers, and medical men are 
 lie kind of people who generally live in lodgings. If tliey do not, 
 \Ir. Disraeli's attempt at an answer is nothing better than a mere 
 •vasion. Now listen to his apology for the indiscriminate reduction 
 )f the borough franchise. He said the Government felt it would bo 
 langerous and invidious by a moderate reduction of the borough 
 ranchise to admit to the suifrage only "a certaiji and favoured portion 
 )f tlie working classes," and "thought it better to appeal to the 
 ympathies of the great body of the people." Only the year before 
 Ir. Disraeli expressed a diametrically oj^i^osite opinion, which I have 
 b-eady had occasion to cj^uotc. "Though impartial and intelligent 
 'Gople are desirous that the choicest members of the worlcing classes 
 hould form a part, and no unimportant portion, of the estate of tho 
 'ummons, they recoil from and reject a gross and indiscriminato 
 eduction of the franchise." What was the wish of "impartial and 
 iteliigent people " in 186G was "dangerous and invidious" in 1807;
 
 28 
 
 what they "rocoiled from and rpjected" a ye:\v ago the Government 
 now "thoug-lit it better to adopt." On the top of this comes Mr. Disraeli's 
 ne 2^^'Us ultra of hardy assertion — his denial that the Government 
 measure had quitted the 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 
 liarmony witli the general policy which we have alvea3'S maintained 
 I do think the Bill embodies the chief principles of the policy that 
 we have professed, and which we have alwaj's advocated." I have 
 already provided some materials by which j'ou can form an opinion 
 on this point for yourselves, 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 ys'Q 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 i^ropose to follow the fortunes of the Bill beyond 
 this point, but want you to consider what was the tendency 
 of the tactics pursued throughoiit this campaign by the Tory 
 leader, and acquiesced in by the Tory party. I think that ten- 
 dency was to degrade English politics by sacriiicing to the desire of 
 retaining office consideratinns winch no really high-minded statesman 
 would have ever thought of sacrificing. Let me try to make this out. 
 AVhat was the string of Eesolutions introduced at the opening of the 
 campaign but an attempt — a hardly disguised attempt— to evade 
 Ministerial responsibility, by thrusting on Parliament the task of con- 
 structing a policy, in order that the Cabinet might hang on behind, 
 instead of getting up in front and taking the reins into their own 
 hands, as it was their duty, and ought to have been their pride and 
 their happiness to have done. A great body like the House of Com- 
 mons is excellent for deliberation, but utterly unfit for initiation ; 
 and any attempt it might make in this latter direction woidd inevi- 
 tably result in a general lowering of its rejjutation and public credit. 
 Mr. Disraeli was prepared to purchase continuance in power at the 
 cost of impairing the credit of the Honse of Commons. Fortunately 
 Parliament at once recognised the character of the transaction, and 
 perceived that it was their reputation, and not that of the Cabinet, 
 which would have to pay the piper when the dance was over. They 
 said in effect to the Government, "You may do what you like with 
 your own money, but you shall not piit your hands into our pockets, 
 and make ducks and drakes of ours. We will not have you come 
 angling for a policy here. This is the place to cook the fish, not to 
 catch it ; so be good enough to bring -us one, and then we'll see about 
 getting it ready for table." The chaotic disorder to which this atti 
 tucle of the House of Commons instantly reduced the j^laus of the Go^ 
 vernment says very little for the amount of statesmausliip at their dis' 
 posal. When they put forward a scheme depending, to so precarious 
 an extent, on the presumed snbservicncy of the House of Commons, 
 the Cabinet was bound, in common prudence, to have had a second 
 thoroughly digested proposal in reserve, readj-to bo brought up in the 
 event of the failure of the first. Now, what was the position of the 
 moutlipiece of the Government in the House of Commons after the
 
 29 
 
 compulsory witli.'Trawal of tlio Effovm Eesoliitions? He had, na 
 Tve sa-w, already sketeliod out tlie loading provisions of 
 a Bill, Avhieli, on tlio passing- of the Eesolutions, it vrould 
 devolve on the Government to introduce. Thus far it seemed 
 as if the Cabinet had duly prepared itself with a stout second string 
 to itsboTT. This turned out, however, to be even less substantial than 
 its predecessor. Mr. Disraeli had had the incredible temerity to 
 explain to Parliament a proposal wliich had not received the definitive 
 sanction of the Cabinet, and by which it was not prepared to stand. 
 Tip to the withdrawal of the Eesolutions, according to the admission of 
 the Premier himself, the Government had not " actually framed a 
 Bill," but had had under their consideration two schemes " varying 
 f fom each other in that very essential particular — the amount of the 
 extension of the franchise." In other words, they had not settled the 
 cardinal point on which everything else hung. Directly the refusal of 
 the House of Commons to go into the Reform liesolutions brought 
 the Government face to face with the definite realities of a Bill, 
 irreconcilable differences of opinion brohe out in the Cabinet, 
 and it was resolved to proceed no further with the measure 
 explained to tlie House of Commons, but to bring in an 
 entirely new Bill, which was of such a character that three 
 principal Secretaries of State jDreferred to resign their posts 
 rather than give it their support. Accordingly Mr. Disraeli had to 
 submit to the mortification of dismissing the " sincere Bill" which he 
 said the Government wore prepared to carry, but which, from the 
 short duration of its existence, had received the nickname of the "Five 
 Minutes Bill," to rejoin its forerunners the discarded Eesolutions. A 
 worse specimen of jMinisterial incapacity than this whole transaction it 
 would, I believe, be hard to find in our political history. 
 
 I have pointed out the mode in Avhich, on introducing the Household 
 Suft'rage Bill, j\Ir. Disraeli constructed what, for rhetorical purposes, 
 might appear like a solid Parliamentary basis for its support. We saw 
 that, in order to effect that construction, he first arbitrarilj' selected one of 
 two contradictory decisions of the House of Conimons arrived at by the 
 most inconclusiveh' small majorities, and attributed to it a character of 
 authority and even of infallibility. Next, he adroitly manipulated the 
 substance of the decision as to make it appear to fix on rating as the 
 condition of exercising the fianchise, when iu reality it only decided 
 that rating should form the basis of value estimations in reference to 
 the franchise — an entirely diff'erent thing. I cannot suppose that so 
 obvious a distinction as this was not perfectly clear to the mind of Mr. 
 Disraeli, and can therefore only regard this mode of dealing with a 
 jecent Parliamentary decision as a S2:iecimen of that policy of Icgor- 
 demain attributed to him by his foriner and present colleague, the 
 Marcpiis of Salisbury. " You are cpiite sure, gentlemen," sa^'s tho 
 "Wizard of Westminster, "that the card which I hold in my hand is the 
 King of Hearts which you saw me draw out of your own pack ? You 
 feel certain you are right ? I breathe for one moment on the card, 
 and you discover 3'our mistake ; it is, you perceive, the Knave of 
 •'5pades ! " This kind of trick is delightful to witness at the Egyptian
 
 30 
 
 Hall, but appears less appropriate wlieu it is cxliibitcd to the Housd 
 of Commons from the Treasury Bench. 
 
 In proposing household suffrage Mr. Disraeli completely subverted 
 the established Tory policy, which, as we saw, was opposed toanycon- 
 pideral)le lowering of the borough franchise. He abandoned the line 
 which lie had for years both adopted himself and urged his followers to 
 adopt, in order to have recourse to a measure of enfranchisement much 
 more extreme than that which, when proposed in the previous year by his 
 political opi)onents, he had violently resisted. Kow in what light 
 ought we to regard tliis sudden change— nay, reversal — of policy? It 
 is, we must all feel, of great importance that a statesman should be at 
 liberty, without any staiii on his honour, to avow and act upon a 
 change of conviction which he believes to rest on sound and adequate 
 grounds, even though such change may have come upon him rapidly, 
 and the public announcement of it may take his supporters 
 by surprise. The conduct of Sir Eobcrt Peel in throwing 
 over Protection and proposing Free Trade, was a case in point, and, in 
 my judgment, was the act of a patriotic and self-sacrificing statesman. 
 Mr. Disraeli, in his earlier daj^s, pursued Sir Robert Peel on account 
 of this cliango of policy with bitter and unceasing invectives, and we 
 have seen that on the third reading of his Reform Bill he had in his 
 turn to listen to similar charges of broken faith and political betrayal. 
 Still, if his conduct in 1867 could be shown to exhibit the same indica- 
 tions of a genuine conscientious change of opinion as marked that of 
 Sir Robert Peel on the Corn Law question, he would be entitled to the 
 same favourable verdict. There is, however, a cardinal distinction 
 which prevents the circumstances of Sir Robert Peel's case from form- 
 ing a precedent for that of Mr. Disraeli. Sir Robert Peel openly 
 avowed his change of opinion, and consequent change of policy. Mr. 
 Disraeli denied in the most explicit terms that his policy had under- 
 gone any change whatever. I cannot refrain from quoting to 3^ou the 
 noble passage in which the great convert to Free Trade made his frank 
 confession to the House of Commons in 1846, and contrasting with it 
 the woids in which the Tory convert to household suffrage denied his ^ 
 need of any confession in 1867. "I wiU not withhold," said Sir 
 Robert Peel, "the homage which is due to the progress of reason and 
 to truth by denying that my opinions on the subject of Protection have 
 undergone a ch.mge, AVhether holding a private station or placed in 
 a public one, I will assert the privilege of yielding to the force of argu- 
 ment and conviction, and acting upon the results of enlarged experi- 
 ence. It may be supposed that there is something humiliating in 
 making such admissions. Sir, 1 feel no such humiliation. I have not 
 so much confidence in the capacity of men to determine what is right 
 or wrong intuitively as to make me feel abashed at admitting that I 
 have been in error. I should feel humiliation if, having modified or 
 changed my opinions, I declined to acknowledge the change for fear 
 of incurring the imputation of inconsistency." " I contend," said Mr. 
 Disraeli, " that the Bill, 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 'which we have always maintained. ... I
 
 31 
 
 do think the Bill embodies the chief principles of the policy that we 
 have professed and which we have alwaj's advocated." If, gentlemen, 
 j'oii are as much convinced as I am that Mr. Disraeli's tactics involved, 
 on the contrary, a complete abandonment of the chief principles 
 and policy professed and advocated by himself and the Tory 
 party, you will feel that such a denial as that just quoted 
 fixes a great gulf between his conduct and that of Sir Robert 
 Peel, to which some persons have sought to assimilate it. If it is once 
 recognised that a minister, after supporting for years with vote and 
 voice a particular line of policy, may, without loss of reputation, sud- 
 denly turn round and advocate a diametrically opposite policy, pro- 
 testing all the while that he is acting in harmony with the principles 
 which he has always professed — from the moment, I say, that such 
 conduct as this is allowed to pass without censure, the confidence we 
 have hitherto been justified in reposing in the declarations of policy 
 deliberately made by our public men must be seriously impaired. It 
 cannot, therefore, I think, be doubted that Mr. Disraeli's tactics on this 
 occasion, acquiesced in, as they were, by the bulk of his party, tended 
 directly towards the degradation of English politics in the direction 
 which I have just pointed out. 
 
 Further, the campaign we have been surveying shows but 
 little indication of that prodigious ability with which it is cus- 
 tomary to credit Mr. Disraeli. He opened it with a huge 
 miscalculation in taking for granted that the House of Commons 
 would endure his angling Resolutions, and he gratuitously rendered 
 their chance of acceptance ho^^eless by prematurely unearthing the 
 details of what afterwards proved to be an unauthorised Bill. Then 
 came the scene of confusion which followed the rmcompliant action of 
 the House of Commons — withdrawal of undiscussed Kesolutions — 
 abandonment of abortive Bill — resignation of three principal Secre- 
 taries of State — and general exhibition of chaos in the Cabinet. Then, 
 when the new Bill had been brought in, the endless boggle about the 
 compound householder, and lastly, in committee, the long series of 
 breakdowns of one Conservative safeguard after another, which only 
 ended when there were no more safeguards left to break down. This 
 is, in brief, the history of the campaign, and it is a history of 
 Ministerial blundering from beginning to end". The upshot of the 
 whole matter, then, is this : — that in his conduct of the one great 
 measure which will be attached to Mr. Disraeli's name in English 
 history he exhibited political faitlilessness and Ministerial incapacity. 
 The leading members of the Cabinet which passed the Bill of 1867 
 can as little be acquitted of open tergiversation as can ^Ir. Disraeli 
 himself. You heard the words in which Lord Stanley, Sir Stafford 
 Northcote, and Mr. Gathorne Hardy pledged themselves not to assent 
 to a course which within less than a year they did assent to. Mr. 
 Disraeli is now Earl of Beaconsfield and Prime Minister. Those 
 whom I have just named occupy seats in the Cabinet of England. Was 
 his conduct — was their conduct — in 1867 such as to entitle him — to 
 entitle them— -to our confidence now ? 
 
 39i""^'
 
 *^ *'/ 
 
 UixJ V J^.:3ITY OF CALIS^O.RNIA 
 AT . 
 LOS ANGBLr^ 
 LTRR;
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 
 MAR ] 1CRP 
 
 10 
 
 JUN 1 1 
 
 w 
 
 UKI 
 
 1977 
 
 Form L9 — 15»i,-10,'48 (BlOciy )444 
 
 UNIVEKSITY OF CALIFORNU 
 
 AT 
 
 I^OS ANGELES 
 
 UBRARY
 
 UCLAYoung Research Library 
 
 JN548 1867 .T21 
 
 L 009 606 634 5 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 001353 010