THE PREMIERSHIP OF MR. DISRAELI. 337

1868.1 Mr. Disraeli had attained the height of his ambition; he now stood the foremost man in that very assembly which had once covered him with shouts of derision. The alteration that had taken place in the personnel of the ministry brought with it little change in its policy. The infirmities of Lord Derby had for some time past prevented him from taking an active part in the direction of the government, and had caused him to devolve the whole guidance of affairs on his skilful lieutenant. The only real change, therefore, was, that Mr. Disraeli, who had all along been the real chief of his party, now became its recognised leader, no longer fettered by the necessity of consulting the nominal head of the government. If he felt elated by his elevation, he carefully concealed the feeling, and spoke with the air of a man who bore his honours meekly, and was heavily oppressed by the burden of the responsibility laid on him. When he addressed the House of Commons for the first time after his appointment, he said that he succeeded to the place and policy of the Earl of Derby. He might have said that he carried on the policy which he himself had inaugurated before he occupied his present position. He added, that he would pursue a liberal policy; and when the House laughed at the statement, he qualified it by saying emphatically, a truly liberal policy; a declaration at which the House laughed still more loudly. He then proceeded to explain that the policy he meant to describe by the term 'liberal' was one that would not shrink from any changes required by the wants of the age, but would never forget that it is our happy lot to dwell in an ancient and historic country, rich in traditionary influences that are the best security for order and liberty, and the most valuable element of our national character and strength. It can hardly be denied that these declarations were somewhat vague, and might have been made with at least equal truth by the leader of the opposition.

Mr. Bouverie moved an adjournment, in order to enable him to express his opinions on the state of parties in the House. He asked, 'Why are the conservatives now in power? Simply because the liberal party, though an undoubted majority in this House, and representing a vast preponderance of opinion in the country, does not deserve

VOL. III.

Z

than heretofore to remain at the service of the party to which they belong; and when any suitable occasion shall arise, if it shall be their wish, I shall be prepared again to attempt concerted action upon this or any other subject for the public good. But until then, desirous to avoid misleading the country and our friends, I feel that prudence requires me to withdraw from my attempts to assume the initiative in amending a measure which cannot perhaps be effectually amended except by a reversal, formal or virtual, of the vote of Friday the 11th; for such attempts, if made by me, would, I believe, at the present critical moment, not be the most likely means of advancing their own purpose. Accordingly I shall not proceed with the amendments now on the paper in my name, nor give notice of other amendments such as I had contemplated; but I shall gladly accompany others in voting against any attempt, from whatever quarter, to limit yet farther the scanty modicum of enfranchisement proposed by the government, or in improving, where it may be practicable, the provisions of the bill.'

Mr. Bright took the opportunity of a great reform demonstration at Birmingham to denounce the conduct by which the liberal party was for the moment reduced to this impotent condition. (Eulogising Mr. Gladstone, as having imported into this question of reform more conviction, earnestness, and zeal than any statesman since 1832, he asked: Who is there in the House of Commons who equals him in knowledge of all political questions? Who equals him in earnestness? Who equals him in eloquence? Who equals him in courage and fidelity to his convictions? If these gentlemen who say they will not follow him have any one who is equal, let them show him. If they can point out any statesman who can add dignity and grandeur to the stature of Mr. Gladstone, let them produce him. It is a deplorable thing that last year a small section of forty men, or thereabouts, of professing liberals, destroyed the honest and acceptable (I speak of the people) bill of the late government, and with it also destroyed the government that proposed it. About an equal number have this year to a great extent destroyed the power of the opposition, and may assist an anti-reforming government to pass a very bad measure on the greatest question of our time ;

1867.]

THE BILL IN COMMITTEE.

317

and having done all the mischief which they could, they begin to write silly letters to their constituents. What can be done in parliamentary parties if every man is to pursue his own little game? A costermonger and donkey would take a week to travel from here to London; and yet, by running athwart the London and North-Western line, they might bring to total destruction a great express train; and so, very small men, who during their whole political lives have not advanced the question of reform by one hair's-breadth or by one moment of time, can in a critical hour like this throw themselves athwart the objects of a great party, and mar, it may be, a great measure that sought to affect the interests of the country beneficially for all time.'

Few speeches that have ever been made have told with greater effect than this address. The downright truth and justice of Mr. Bright's censures carried with them a weight that made them to be felt by men who, professing to desire a real extension of the franchise, were yet adopting a course which was nullifying that object, and were placing at the disposal of the minority of the house a power which ought to be exercised by the majority. When we consider the manner in which this question had been dealt with over and over again, we are forced to the conclusion, that many of those who had obtained their seats in the House of Commons by professing zeal for reform were its worst enemies, and were secretly using all their influence to prevent a really efficient measure from being carried.

We must now return from this digression to follow the fortunes of the representation bill on its way through committee. The discussion of Mr. Gladstone's first resolution showed that a very great confusion of opinion existed in the ranks both of the ministerialists and of their opponents; for while Sir William Heathcote, Lord Cranbourne, and Mr. Beresford Hope, all stanch conservatives, strongly assailed the government and denounced its measure, that measure was supported by Mr. Roebuck and several advanced radicals, who hoped, and, as the result showed, not without reason, that they would be able to transform it into such a measure as they desired.

After the rejection of Mr. Gladstone's first resolution, the house adjourned for the Easter vacation; the supporters

was short. Since Friday last at half-past four o'clock, and since the few moments that he stood at the table, I regard it as shorter still. The issue is not in our hands. What we have had and have to do is to consider well and deeply before we take that first step in an engagement such as this; but having entered into the controversy, we must quit ourselves like men, and make every effort to remove the scandal and calamity of the relations between England and Ireland, and use our best exertions to build up with the cement of honour and concord the noble fabric of the British empire.'

Lord Stanley advocated the resolution of which he had given notice on the ground that it would leave the action of the parliament that was about to be elected by the new and enlarged constituencies perfectly free and unfettered.

On the other hand, the resolution, and the government that put it forward, were severely assailed by their former colleague, but now bitter opponent, Lord Cranbourne. He said that the leader of the opposition offered them a policy; the foreign secretary offered them a paltry excuse for delay. He maintained the principle of a state church, and would not desert that principle when applied to Ireland. He denounced the attitude assumed by ministers as being neither wise, firm, nor creditable; and as for the amendment of Lord Stanley, it was too clever by half. He said that he was prepared to meet the motion of Mr. Gladstone by a direct negative, but not to fight in the dark by supporting an amendment, which if carried would merely keep the cards in the hands of ministers to shuffle just as convenience or exigency might suggest. On the following evening Mr. Gathorne Hardy defended the Irish church in a speech powerfully effective, not only on account of its ability, but still more from the fervid and almost religious earnestness with which it was delivered. He said that the cry against it was a party cry, and that if it were abolished to-morrow, other grievances far more substantial would be put forward. Mr. Bright, in the course of the same evening, remarked that the impression left on the ministerial benches by the speech of Lord Stanley was far from comfortable, and that Mr. Hardy had endeavoured to neutralise it by a speech which at some future stage of the debate would probably be answered by the first minister of the

1867.]

CONCESSIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT.

$19

astonishment probably of every one present, Mr. Disraeli, acting entirely on his own responsibility, accepted the amendment-which had the effect of nearly quadrupling the number of electors on whom the franchise would be conferred and afterwards persuaded his colleagues that the adoption of this proposition was an improvement of the measure. When the committee again met, Mr. Ayrton moved a resolution reducing the period of residence required for the franchise from two years to one. The motion was resisted by the government, but on a division was carried by 278 to 197. Mr. Disraeli at once announced that he could not proceed with the bill without consultation with his colleagues; and another ministerial crisis seemed to be impending; but on the following night he announced that the government had decided to bow to the decision of the house, and persevere with their measure.

While these discussions were being carried on in the House of Commons, the government had placed itself in a somewhat ridiculous position out of doors. The council of the Reform League determined to hold a meeting in Hydepark. Mr. Walpole, the home secretary, with the concurrence of his colleagues, issued a notice forbidding the intended meeting, and warning all well-disposed persons to keep away from it. It was discovered, however, that the government had no legal right to prevent the meeting from being held, and that all it could do was to prosecute for trespass those who took part in it. The council of the League therefore persisted in their resolution; and the meeting, or rather meetings, for there were several of them, were watched by a large array of soldiers and police, and passed off very quietly. The government, however, brought in a bill intended to give them the power of dealing more effectively with such meetings, to which, in the interest of the public, it was clearly desirable that some limits should be put. Mr. Walpole, broken in health by the labours of his office and the mortifications which these occurrences caused, withdrew from the ministry, to the regret of all parties in the house, with whom his amiable disposition and courteous bearing had made him a favourite. He was succeeded by Mr. Gathorne Hardy, a man of much greater firmness and resolution.

Meanwhile the bill went steadily forward, the liberal