their rivals? Besides, two obstacles -both of them insurmountablestood in their way the moment they approached the subject. They could not propose a measure of Reform more liberal than that of last session without breaking up their own party. They could not propose one less liberal which would not be defeated by the Opposition. It was clear, therefore, that their policy would be one of resistance to all change, and that unless the people took the matter into their own hands, their policy might be successful. Hence the processions, the riots, the outrages, which disgraced London during the latter weeks of the late session. Hence the progresses of Mr Bright and Mr Beales and the O'Donoghue during the recess; all of which had at first the one object of bringing back the Whigs to office, though they resulted in the avowed determination of a knot of nameless demagogues to accept neither from Lord Russell nor from Lord Derby any measure which should fall short of manhood suffrage and election by ballot. Observe, we do not say that the country-using that term in its true sense-was ever hostile to the present Administration, or disposed to make common cause with their rivals. The quiet, orderly, lawrespecting people might be indifferent between the two partiesperhaps they were. Quiet, orderly, law-loving men and women, who constitute the vast majority in this country, hate agitation so much, that we doubt whether it would be possible to rouse them into active resistance to the most grinding tyranny, so long as it could be borne. But their supineness served only to bring into more prominent notice the vehemence of the minority, who assumed an attitude, offensive, indeed, to good taste, yet a great deal too menacing to be treated with contempt by any, whether members of the Government or private persons, who shrank from the shedding of

blood, except in the last emergency.

The Tory Cabinet thus came together in the presence of an opposition from without more formidable perhaps than had threatened any Government since the days when Lord John Russell and Sir Robert Peel confronted one another. Formidable as it was, however, this opposition from without presented only the least of the difficulties with which they saw that they must contend. They were by no means sure of their own party. That the more thoughtful among the party were beginning to comprehend the true nature of their own position, as well as the position of the State-of that they could entertain no doubt. But as little was it doubtful that over the minds of many old tradition still cast its shadow, rendering them incapable of perceiving that a policy which might have been judicious a quarter of a century ago, or even less, must, if persevered in now, bring only public misfortune in its train. With reasoners of this class the first point to be considered was, Would it become the great Tory party to take up the question of Parliamentary Reform at all? and the next, assuming that the question must be taken up, Within what limits would it be possible to confine the extension of the franchise? We believe that among the Tories, especially in high quarters, there were some who contended last year, as they contended in 1859, that Parliamentary Reform was not a subject to be touched by them or their leaders under any circumstances. True, this abstention from active interest in a subject more than all others engrossing public attention, must keep the party, so long as they adhered to it, in the cold shade of Opposition. In an age of rapid movement like the present, statesmen who desire only to stand still must inevitably_be left to stand by themselves. But the advocates of quiescence affected to hold considerations of this sort very cheap; they persuaded them

selves that their motives were lofty and pure-that on the altar of the country they were sacrificing their selfish interests-and that it was infinitely better to keep down the ambition of individuals, however honourable, than to jeopardise, in order to give it free scope, the timehonoured institutions of England. They forgot to take into account the fact, that though by acting thus they might restrain the ambition of the ablest men of their party, the great institutions of the country were not one whit the safer for that achievement. Mr Disraeli might be held down for lack of supporters, but Mr Gladstone would, nevertheless, clear away the Church in Ireland, set aside the right of the Church in England to have its fabrics kept up by rates levied in parishes at the will of the parishioners, and throw open the endowments in Oxford and Cambridge to men of all religious opinions, and to men of none. Mr Mill and Mr Bright might be ready first to curtail and by-and-by to abolish the highest privileges of the Peerage; and Mr Bright and Mr Forster between them call in question the wisdom, perhaps the necessity, of keeping up, in an age so advanced as the present, the barbaric pomp which was suitable enough for Royalty five centuries ago.

The section of the Tory party which argued, both in society and through the press, for a policy of absolute abstention, had, however, lost a good deal of its influence even in 1859; and has dwindled down considerably since that date. But the case was believed to be otherwise, and probably was otherwise, twelve months ago. There were then many who, though not opposed to Reform, were Tory Reformers to the least practicable extent. In their minds the connection between rental and the franchise was a sort of stereotyped idea. It had come to them in their youth, when the great Whig measure of 1832 was in the ascend

ant, and they had never been able to get rid of it since. If we must meddle with the settlement then agreed to, let us do it with as delicate a touch as possible. Rather let us create new qualifications, additional to those recognised in the measure of 1832, than interfere with the old, especially in the boroughs; and if forced to go farther, let us content ourselves with placing town and county, in this respect, on the same footing. It was under the pressure of this special influence, we suspect, that in 1859 Mr Disraeli proposed his uniform rental qualification, and fixed it at ten pounds. Let us not forget, however, that in every proposition of his some reference, more or less distinct, was made to the obligation under which the voter came to contribute to the necessities of the State. Neither in town nor in county was it intended by him that any one should exercise the suffrage who, being a householder or occupier of land, was either incapable of paying his rates or was backward in paying them. And if the connection was not so apparent between this principle and the political status of others, when what were called "the fancy franchises" were about to be bestowed, still the franchises themselves had a good deal to recommend them, if it were only by reintroducing into our electoral system that healthful variety which the Whig measure had taken away from it.

The Tory Reform Bill of 1859 did not command the hearty assent of the party. Even in the Cabinet itself, as our readers cannot have forgotten, there were those who dissented from it; and beyond the Cabinet it was generally received with something more than coldness. The whole of the Liberals, Radicals equally with Whigs, combined to disparage it; and Mr Lowe himself, if he did not propose, certainly supported the resolution which hindered it from getting into Committee. Mr Lowe's opinions in

regard to the fatal consequences of lowering the borough franchise below the ten-pound line had not then matured themselves; they might be floating loosely through his brain, but they had taken no definite shape. At all events, he was willing to accept a six-pound rental qualification in boroughs, with a fourteen-pound rental franchise in counties, rather than have the Tories in office;-even though undertaking to preserve for the ten-pounders that monopoly of political influence which they had heretofore enjoyed. Mr Lowe and his ex-colleagues carried their point, and the Liberals returned to Downing Street. Were the Tories, as a party, satisfied with this arrangement? At first, perhaps, yes; but as time passed on, and the weight of official authority was brought to bear against principles and institutions which they held in respect, the helplessness of their position became gradually manifest to them. It might be satisfactory to be as sured that they could render greater service to the State out of office than in it. It was flattering to find the people in power checked, as they said that they were-in reality, weighted in the right direction-by the votes of an independent Opposition. And so long as Lord Palmerston lived, this really was to a certain extent the case. But the advantages gained by these negative tactics even during Lord Palmerston's life amounted to this and no more, that they staved off a Reform measure which he was by no means anxious to pass, and helped him to put a drag upon the wheel of the coach which his more eager colleagues might have upset by driving too fast.

The truth is, that the question of a further reform of Parliament has been palpably used by the Liberals for the last six or eight years as a means of keeping themselves in office, and for no other earthly purpose. If they be the authors of Free-trade, as

VOL. CII.-NO. DCXXI.

they assure us that they are, did they not accomplish that end to the fullest possible extent under a Parliament which had undergone no further reforms since 1832 ? If to them we owe the flourishing state of the public finances-which we deny as stoutly as we do that they inaugurated Freetrade-are not the finances flourishing already? and have they not been brought to the state in which we find them under that Parliamentary system which was arranged four-and thirty-years ago? If it be part of their policy to repeal Church-rates and to throw open the colleges and universities of Oxford and Cambridge to all unbelievers, has not the House of Commons, unreformed though it be, gone as far as a reformed House could have gone towards the accomplishment of these purposes? Why then should the Whigs have threatened us from year to year with an extension of the franchise, unless it were to coerce us into acquiescence in their monopoly of office, by working upon our fears? Does anybody believe that Lord Palmerston was in earnest when he allowed Lord John Russell to propose one scheme after another for lowering the franchise? Nothing of the sort. Lord Palmerston permitted his coadjutor to act as he did, because no man knew better than he of what stuff the old Tories were made. From the shock sustained by their system in 1832 they had never recovered; and every threat of moving further in the direction of Parliamentary Reform operated upon their nerves very much as a reference to the black bogie operates on the nerves of a child. Of what the black bogie is, or what it can do, or how it shall do it, the child entertains no conception whatever. But the very vagueness of the fear adds to its magnitude, and the little creature cowers and lies silent in bed, while the nurse-maid receives her sweetheart wherever it may be most

H

convenient to meet him. So it has been with the Tories heretofore, and the cry of Parliamentary Reform. The bare utterance of the magical phrase filled all who heard it with dismay; and rather than grapple with the danger, they were contented to do whatever the charlatans who abused their credulity thought fit to require of them. How often have we read in newspapers, and listened in private society, to remonstrances like this"It is useless and worse than useless to plot and scheme for office. We are of far greater use to the country out of office. If we beat the Whigs on any question, and they resign, they will at once get up a cry for further lowering the franchise; and we shall be ousted in order that some sweeping measure may be brought forward and carried, just as much against the convictions of the more moderate of the Liberals as against our

This wretched argument prevailed as long as Lord Palmerston sat at the helm. It prevailed because there seemed to be reason in it, though there really was none. But his death entirely changed the condition of affairs. The first act of the new Liberal Minister was to propound a scheme, in comparison with which the most objectionable of all that had preceded it was felt to be both moderate and reasonable. Naturally the first impulse on the Tory side was to resist the Ministerial project face to face; and the resistance which they were enabled to present succeeded. All that followed came as a matter of course. They had no alternative. They were compelled to undertake the responsibilities of Government; and they did undertake them. But on what conditions? Could they hope to retain the Government, keeping the electoral system exactly as the measure of 1832 had settled it? That was out of the question. Public feeling had been expressed too openly and too clear

ly to admit of the adoption, by any set of Ministers, of a mere donothing policy. Would it be just towards the Sovereign, or fair to the people, at once on the reassembling of Parliament to say, "Our principles will not allow us to touch the Reform question; we must, therefore, make way for Ministers who can deal with it, warning them while we do so, that to the utmost of our power we will oppose their policy, and defeat it, if we can.' Just consider the inevitable consequences of child's-play like this! Lord Russell and Mr Gladstone, resuming their old places, would have resumed with them their old schemes; and if again thwarted, they would have done what the Constitution authorises the Crown to do under such circumstances. Parliament would have been dissolved, and a general election, carried on under the bludgeons of the Reform League, would have given us such a House of Commons as has not been seen in England since the time of the great Civil War. No, no it may be very well in quiet times for Tories to curb their natural ambition, and to content themselves with the rôle which their rivals are civil enough to assign to them; but when matters come to such a pass as that honest men must choose between themselves letting out a pent-up flood, and permitting others, whom they cannot trust, to tamper with the sluices, surely common-sense, as well as the principles of honour, direct that honest men should put their own hands to the work, and do it.

To this conclusion the Cabinet arrived, very soon, we believe, after its first formation; but then came the question as to how the work should be done. And on that question, to the great regret of all concerned, the Cabinet fell asunder. Three Ministers, neither the least able nor the least respected of the band, saw the subject in one point of view; all the other members of the Administra