resigned; and when the appointed day arrived it was the original and larger measure which was produced.

The Reform

March 18.

As explained by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the 18th of March the object of the Bill was to strengthen the funcBill brought in. tions of the House, and to establish them on a broad and popular basis. It had no tendency, he said, towards democracy. A residence of two years, and the personal payment of rates, were to be the conditions of the borough franchise; 237,000 voters would thus be at once added to the borough constituencies. Upwards of 480,000 householders who did not pay their own rates would be left unenfranchised, but, as every facility would be given them to take their direct share in the public burdens, it was to be supposed that a very considerable number of these would also be added to the list of voters. The same four additional franchises as had been before mentioned were to be given, which it was expected would add more than 320,000 voters; and it was estimated that on the whole, what with householders and those possessing a vote under these fancy franchises, as they were called, the addition to the borough constituencies would amount to more than a million. Plurality of votes, that is to say, the right of any one possessing a vote under the fancy franchise as well as under the borough or county occupation franchise to register two votes, formed a part of the Bill. It was intended that the fancy franchises should serve as a counterpoise to the occupation franchises, and increase the number of voters without changing the balance of power. The Bill was of course at once assaulted as being intricate and confused. Mr. Gladstone (and Mr. Bright agreed with him) declared that there was a difference amongst householders, and that the true way of arriving at a principle on which to fix the lower limit of the franchise was to take a sum, £5, as the value of a house on which rate should be paid, both the liability to the payment of rates and the possession of the franchise ceasing at that point. The partisans of the Bill on the other hand urged that residence and rating, that is, the personal bearing of a portion of the public burdens, formed the real and constitutional limit. In opposition to this view, it was urged that as the assessment of the rates was in the hands of the vestries the right to vote would practically be controlled by the middle classes. On the second Gladstone's reading (March 25) Mr. Gladstone, stating the general agreement that the question should be settled in the course of the year, summed up the alterations which would be required to make the Bill acceptable. He demanded a

amendments

carried in Com

mittee.

18671

GLADSTONE'S AMENDMENTS CARRIED

427

lodger franchise; some means of preventing the traffic in votes of the lowest class of householders; the abolition of all distinction between the personal ratepayer and the compound ratepayer, of the taxpaying franchise, and of the double vote; the county franchise, he said, must be reduced, and the use of voting papers must be given up. The second of these demands meant the adoption of his favourite plan of limiting both rating and the franchise at £5. But with the exception of this, the list of requirements included the rejection of all those safeguards with which Mr. Disraeli had thought to hedge round the extended franchise. The confession of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that there were many things in the Bill which he did not regard as of vital importance led to the belief that he would yield everything upon the application of sufficient pressure, and encouraged the Opposition in their determination to alter the Bill very completely in Committee. Their first movement encountered a somewhat unexpected check. At a meeting of the Liberal party it had been arranged that Mr. Coleridge should introduce an amendment to give effect to Mr. Gladstone's favourite change as to rating. But to many of the stronger Liberals this somewhat arbitrary marking off of what Mr. Bright had spoken of as the residuum did not commend itself. A meeting held in the tea-room of the House of Commons determined that the amendment should not be supported. This split among the Liberals was fatal to Mr. Coleridge's amendment. But one by one Mr. Disraeli's securities disappeared. The principle of double voting was thrown over by the Government; the two years' residence as a qualification for the borough vote was reduced by an amendment to one year; the education and taxpaying franchises were after a little resistance struck out; a lodger franchise was introduced; and the discussion at last centred upon the sole remaining condition—the personal payment of rates— which stood between the proposition of the Bill and a simple household franchise. Over "the compound householder," as he was called, there was an apparently endless dispute. It was plain to one party that he practically paid his rates through his landlord, and that to insist upon his paying them again in order to obtain his vote was an injustice. But, on the other hand, personal payment of rates was regarded as the very principle of the Bill. The difficulty was solved by an unexpected amendment moved by Mr. Hodgkinson that the compound householder should be altogether destroyed, and that in Parliamentary boroughs composition should wholly disappear. The other parts of the Bill were handled nearly as roughly. The county

The Reform

franchise was lowered to £12; the minimum population allowing of two members was raised from 7000 to 10,000. The suggestion of the use of voting papers was dropped; three members were given to four large towns; and by a subsequent amendment in Bill completed, the House of Lords, an arrangement for the protection Aug. 15, 1867. of minorities was introduced, by which in towns having three members each elector was restricted to voting for two of them. When the Bill was finally passed the state of the franchise was this in boroughs all male householders rated to the poor-rate, all lodgers resident for one year and paying £10 of rent, possessed the vote, and in counties all persons owning property of £5 annual value, or occupiers paying £12 a year. In their determination to pass some Bill, the Conservatives had thus reduced the franchise in boroughs to the simple household franchise which had so long been their bugbear, and had taken a step towards democracy longer than their opponents had ever ventured to suggest, and more complete than even Mr. Bright or Mr. Gladstone would have desired. Though Lord Cranborne and Lord Derby himself spoke of the measure as a leap in the dark, and Mr. Lowe grumbled at the necessity it involved of educating the new masters of the country, the simplicity of the Bill as carried, and the definite character of the principle on which it rested, had at least the advantage of setting the question at rest for a considerable number of years. It cannot be denied however that it gave a very decisive proof of the direction in which the public mind was moving, and that it forms a real epoch in the constitutional development of the country. Whether for good or evil England had become a democracy. Nothing was wanting to the completion of the process of change but the equalisation of the county and borough franchises, and the rearrangement of the constituencies which naturally attended that measure.

Other important interests.

Though the Reform Bill was undoubtedly the chief work of the Ministry, there were other matters, mostly handed on to them by their predecessors in the Government, requiring their serious attention. They had indeed accepted office at a time of considerable gloom and difficulty. A commercial crisis, so severe that it had necessitated a tampering with the Bank Act, was not yet over; the year 1866 was marked throughout by many disastrous failures, although general trade and credit were not seriously injured; the cloud of Fenian insurrection still hung over Ireland, and compelled the continuation of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus; the cattle plague, though gradually yielding to the stringent

1866]

BISMARCK'S GERMAN POLICY

429

measures taken against it, was raging in many parts of England; the cholera was beginning to show itself; and abroad, the great war in which the leadership of the German nation was being decided called for the most careful conduct on the part of our Foreign Office. In respect of none of these questions was it possible for the Government to pursue a line of conduct which differed much from that of the late administration. With regard to foreign policy it is indeed to be observed that though the method in which it is conducted affords constant ground for party attack, the main objects sought by successive Governments have nearly always been the same; and not unfrequently a newly appointed Ministry has practically confessed that it could do nothing better than pursue the lines which as an Opposition it had found it convenient to attack. In the present case, though not without a jeering allusion to the meddlesome and ineffectual advice which Lord Russell had offered to foreign Courts, the Premier practically owned that non-intervention was as much the principle of a Tory as of a Liberal administration, and that in the fight of giants which was going on in Germany the best course for England was to stand aloof.

Success of Bis

Bismarck, who had long been preparing to assume for Prussia the leadership of the German nation, had seen in the Sleswig-Holstein disputes an opportunity at length afforded marck's Gerfor carrying out his views. He seized upon it with man policy. remarkable skill; few pieces of diplomacy have been so successful. It would be assuming too much perhaps to assert that Bismarck saw clearly from the first the line which he subsequently pursued, or that he pursued it throughout with the unscrupulous intention of producing a war with Austria. It is certain however that his main objects were the creation of a United Germany under the leadership of Prussia, and as a necessary step the destruction of the existing Federal Constitution and the exclusion (in all probability not without war) of Austria from the commanding position that country at present occupied. Every event as it occurred was turned with consummate ability towards the attainment of these ends. From the first Bismarck had refused to regard the Sleswig-Holstein question as one of Federal interest. It was as an international quarrel that he had treated it, and as such he had induced Austria to join in it. The close of the war by the Treaty of Vienna (Oct. 30, 1864) confirmed this view, and left Austria and Prussia the joint possessors of the conquered Duchies. The Convention of Gastein (Aug. 14, 1865), by which the joint occupation came to an end-Sleswig being

placed wholly in Prussian, Holstein wholly in Austrian hands,—was conceived in the same spirit. In both the Treaties Austria had been persuaded to take the false step of separating itself from the Federal action of the Diet. When almost immediately it began to resume its connection with the Federation, and to support the claims of the Duke of Augustenburg to the combined Duchies in pursuance of the policy of the Diet, Bismarck was at once able to complain of an infraction of the Gastein Convention. No secret had been made of the intention of Prussia to treat the Duchies as conquered Provinces, and to admit the Duke of Augustenburg only upon conditions suiting the Prussian views; in his refusal to accept those conditions the Duke was supported by the Diet and by Austria. In his quarrel with Austria Bismarck did not intend to stand alone. The dispute between the two great German Powers was watched with anxiety by the Italians. It appeared probable that an opportunity would occur for completing the unity for which they longed by the conquest of Venetia. It was their obvious policy to attach themselves to Prussia; and an alliance was contracted between them (March 27, 1866). Meanwhile both sides were arming and moving troops towards the frontier. Efforts were as usual made to prevent the threatened war, and an arrangement was arrived at for mutual disarmament. But, although Austria began to withdraw her troops from the Prussian frontier, while Italy threatened her on the south it was impossible for her to disarm. Bismarck had contrived to put her in the wrong, and to throw upon her Government the burden of refusing to put her troops upon a peace footing. A second effort at peacemaking led to a like result; France, England, and Russia attempted to bring the disputants to a Conference. Again Austria appeared as the objecting Power. In accepting the Conference Austria made it a condition that no territorial changes should be considered. It was indeed impossible for the Imperial Government to surrender without compensation either what it had won in the Sleswig-Holstein war, or the remnants of the Italian dominion, yet it was well known that such cessions would be required at the Conference. International intervention having thus failed, Austria attempted to treat the question as one of Federal interest, and had recourse to the Diet. No step could have been more entirely favourable to the objects of Bismarck. The majority of the Princes upheld the Austrian cause, and demanded of Prussia a declaration of pacific intentions. Regarding such an assumption of superiority as intolerable, Prussia at once withdrew from the Federation and occupied Holstein with its troops. Bismarck