THE of dives with a section of the Liberal

THE defeat of the late Ministry had been caused by a union of

party. The Conservatives were in a minority in the House, and the "Adullamite party" refused to join in the new arrangements. Thus, though Lord Derby found no

Lord Derby's

Ministry.

June 1866.

difficulty in

forming a satisfactory Ministry, with Mr. Disraeli as Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the Lower House, it remained to be seen how government could be carried on in the face of a hostile majority.

It was not till the 9th of July that any declaration of the principles of the Ministers could be made. It was therefore impossible that in the few remaining weeks of the session any legislation of importance should be undertaken. But short as the period was, it afforded opportunity for an exhibition of popular feeling, which was not without its effect upon the future conduct of the Ministry. Although the enthusiasm of the constituencies in favour of reform had not been sufficient to compel a firm cohesion among the Liberal members, the defeat of the Government measure, and the fear lest the object so nearly obtained should be snatched from them, had excited much angry feeling among the Radicals and the working class. It seemed to be taken for granted that the new Ministry, even should it try to handle the question at all, would treat the reform of the electorate in a Conservative spirit. Leagues and associations for the purpose of furthering the popular wish were created, the most impor

Reform demonstrations and processions.

tant of which was the Reform League. It was determined to hold a monster demonstration in Hyde Park, under the presidency of Mr. Beales, the head of the League. Mr. Walpole, the Home Secretary, determined to prevent the intended meeting. The people were forbidden to assemble in the Park, the gates were closed, and a large body of police placed on duty. Processions headed by bands moved towards the Marble Arch. Mr. Beales and his friends demanded admittance, which was refused on the authority of the police. The leaders withdrew to Trafalgar Square, and there held an orderly meeting. But expectation of disturbance had collected a large crowd round the Park, among which were naturally many disorderly persons. The sympathy of the crowd was entirely with the demonstrators, and there was a strong feeling that the exclusion of the people from the Park was a strained use of authority. While the leaders therefore quietly withdrew, the mob broke into disorder, threw down the railings of the Park, and rushed tumultuously into the inclosure. It was thought necessary to bring soldiers upon the scene, but they were not employed. Indeed, though the excitement was great, and many of the inhabitants of London fancied that the reign of anarchy had begun, there was little serious rioting. But the disturbance was enough to show the danger which might easily arise from any refusal to handle

1866]

AGITATION FOR REFORM

423

the matter of reform, or from any overstrained use of authority in opposing what the people regarded as their rights.

The agitation thus begun was continued during the year. Meetings, and demonstrations, and long-drawn processions, in which the Trades Unions took a marked part, were of constant recurrence. The effect produced on the mind of Mr. Disraeli, who was employed during the recess in preparing his reform scheme, was very visible when his plan saw the light. Very early in the session of 1867, having caused those passages of the Queen's Speech to be read which Disraeli's views had reference to reform, and which urged that it should on Reform. be undertaken in a spirit of moderation, he proceeded to explain what the meaning of the passages was. Conscious of the necessity of settling a question which had caused the overthrow of more than one Ministry, and was constantly interfering with the course of business, the Government intended to lift it if possible above the level of party discussion, and to call upon all parties of the House to. join in settling it. For that purpose it was proposed that a series of resolutions should be introduced and passed, and a Bill founded upon them. It is easy to attack Mr. Disraeli for adopting this form of procedure, to point out that Government was in fact shirking its responsibilities, and refusing to stake its existence upon a Bill of primary importance on which it was very probable that it would be defeated. And such were the charges heaped upon him at the time. His action was regarded as that of merely a skilful party leader. Beginning his Parliamentary career without any of the advantages which birth or connection give, Mr. Disraeli had undoubtedly fought his way to the front by attachment to party, and by a somewhat unscrupulous use of great talents and of an unusually sharp and bitter tongue. But it may well be doubted whether his views were not upon the whole broader and more statesmanlike than those of any other Parliamentary leader of the time. He had a clear conception of the Constitution of England, which he regarded as depending upon the co-ordinate power of various classes and the absence of the predominance of any one class. He was full of dislike, a dislike which he had expressed even in his youngest days, for the Whig party, whose liberal professions he regarded as hollow and resting on selfinterested motives; nor did he feel stronger attachment for the Manchester Radicals, whose aspirations appeared to be limited to the middle class. The Reform Bill of 1832 had in his eyes the great flaw that it had disfranchised by many of its provisions the labouring class, while the attempts to improve upon that measure had all been

in one direction, tending merely by a lowered franchise to enforce the principle that the will of the numerical majority should be the true source of power, and leading as he believed to the overthrow of the balance of the Constitution. It was with the hope of redressing the grievance of the lower classes which he acknowledged, but of restraining the domination of numbers which he abhorred, that he now attempted to settle upon broad grounds the great question at issue. As he himself subsequently stated, he had passed the last few years in educating his party, or, as he explained in a letter, "his party had been educated by events." But it was not to be expected that the process should have been absolutely successful, or that all those who habitually regarded the lowering of the franchise as an evil, or a step towards democracy, should be able to distinguish any vital difference between the elaborate method in which the extension was now to be carried out, and the simpler and more direct plan upheld by the Radical party. However, he succeeded apparently in Resolutions on persuading the Cabinet to allow him to produce the resolutions, on which, if carried, the Government Bill was to be founded. They contained the propositions that the number of electors in counties and boroughs should be increased; that this should be effected by reducing the qualification both in counties and boroughs, and adding other franchises; that while more direct representation of the labouring classes was wanted, the predominating power of any one class or interest was contrary to the Constitution; that the occupation franchise should be based on rating; that the principle of plurality of votes was desirable; that the distribution of seats should be revised without the complete disfranchisement of any borough; that provision should be made to prevent bribery and corruption; and that the use of polling papers should be allowed.

Reform brought

in. Feb. 11, 1867.

Disraeli's

the measure.

Feb. 25.

These resolutions were brought in on the 11th of February. On the 25th Mr. Disraeli proceeded to explain them, and to indicate the use to which he intended to put them. A £6 rating franchise explanation of in the boroughs, a £20 rating franchise in the counties, and four fancy franchises-based on education, on the possession of £50 in the public funds, or £30 in the savings-bank, and the payment of 20s. direct taxes,-producing, it was calculated, an addition of 400,000 new voters, were the essential parts of his proposition. It was very coldly received. Procedure by resolution was objected to; the figures were questioned; the fancy franchises laughed at. It became so evident that strong and probably success

1867]

DISRAELI's reform BILL

425

ful opposition would be encountered that on the following day the Government yielded, and promised to bring in a complete Bill on the 18th of March. Before that day arrived the Cabinet was for a while broken up. The probability of dissensions among the Ministers had been foreseen; and the public were not much surprised when they heard upon the 4th that Lord Cranborne, Lord Carnarvon, and General Peel, had resigned. Their places were speedily filled. Sir Stafford Northcote became Secretary of State for India, the Duke of Buckingham Colonial Minister; Sir John Pakington was transferred from the Admiralty to the War Department, and Mr. Corry took his place as First Lord of the Admiralty. The story of ministerial difficulty was explained, and a good deal of ridicule thrown upon the Government, by the speech of Sir John Pakington at Droitwich when seeking re-election. At the same time the reason of the weakness and unsatisfactory character of the measures indicated on the 25th of February was brought to light. From the first, a certain number of the Cabinet had shrunk from the step to which Mr. Disraeli was leading them. General Peel had openly declared his disapproval. Their objections had been for a while silenced, and Sir John Pakington at all events believed on leaving the Cabinet on Saturday the 23d of February that there was a unanimous opinion with regard to the Bill which was to be explained on the following Monday. But suddenly, at about halfpast one on the Monday, the Cabinet was hastily got together, and informed that General Peel, Lord Cranborne, and Lord Carnarvon, had withdrawn their adhesion to the determination which had been arrived at; it would appear that during the Sunday a close examination of the figures had proved that in some boroughs household suffrage would have resulted. What was the Government to do? In less than half an hour the Prime Minister was pledged to address his party; at half-past four the statement in the House of Commons was to be made. Disraeli was ready for the emergency. Uncertain apparently from the first of the success of his educational process, and determined at all hazards to have the credit of settling the question, he had drawn up an alternative measure to be produced "in the event of the rejection of the large and liberal scheme of the Ministry." That smaller plan being ready at hand was the one explained by him on the 25th of February. Its cold reception had proved to him that its success was more than doubtful, and he therefore determined to risk the disapprobation of his colleagues and to fall back upon his first and wider plan. The knowledge of this determination produced its natural results, the dissentients in the Cabinet