through this means. I think I am safe, and speak with moderation, when I say that the working man does not spend more than one-sixth of his income on his house. As well as we can gather, it is one-sixth, therefore his income must be 967.; or, in other words, without making any allowance whatever for sickness and interruption of work, he must receive 17. 178. a week, or, if we allow for necessary breaks, 27. a week wages. But it is a small proportion of the working class that get 21. a week wages; and I do not think therefore that the franchise can be said to be liberally and largely within the reach of the working man at 107. annual rental. The 77. franchise will certainly work in a different manner. The net 77., allowing 60 per cent. for rates and furniture, would give a gross sum of 117. 48. That would represent 671. 48. But instead of thirty odd shillings a week, the wages of a man occupying such a house would be a little under 26s. a week. That sum is undoubtedly unattainable by the peasantry, and by mere hand labour, except in very rare circumstances, but it is generally attainable by artisans and skilled labourers." The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to say that it was not intended to confer the franchise on persons occupying furnished lodgings, as the bases would be far too slippery and capricious to deal with. To give votes to 67. householders, and likewise to admit the classes to whom he had referred, would be to transfer the balance of political power in boroughs to the working classes. This, he apprehended, had never been contemplated by Parliament; for it was not well, on the general grounds of political prudence, to make changes of too sudden and extensive a character in the depositaries of power. What the Government, therefore, proposed to do was, to take the amount next above 67., namely, a 77. clear annual value, a figure not very far from that apparently fixed by the Small Tenements Voting Act; and it was calculated that the net number of persons enfranchised by this provision would be 144,000. The total number of new voters of all classes would be: :

Of this number one-half would belong to the working classes, and one-half to what might be termed a new middle class. The only remaining provision in the Bill had reference to the dockyards, and it was proposed to disfranchise the labourers in those places. Such was the scheme of the Government. "It is probable," said the right hon. gentleman, "that according to the various tempers. of men's minds, we shall be told that we have done too little, or that we have done too much. Our answer is, that we have done our best. We have endeavoured to take into account the state

and condition of the people, as well as the qualification which the people possess for the exercise of political rights. We are mindful that the limbo of abortive creations is peopled with the unfortunate skeletons of Reform Bills, and we do not wish to add to the number of those unfortunate measures. We may have erred, but we have endeavoured to see how much good we could effect. As to the completeness of the measure, I have given to the House what I think a clear and distinct statement of our honesty of purpose upon a careful examination of facts; not to attempt, by any measure that we could lay upon the table of the House at a given moment, what we knew to be impracticable, and in which, therefore, we must fail. If we are told that we ought to have done more, our answer is, that it was our duty to take into view the sentiments of the country-disposed to moderate change, sensible of the value of that which it possesses, and sensitive with regard to bringing what it possesses into hazard. Nor can I deny the opinions expressed of the intelligence of the working classes, and of their admirable performance of duties, at least of their duties towards their superiors; for it seems to me, that if they sin their sins are against themselves. Yet it is true of the working class, as it is of any other class, that it is a dangerous temptation to human nature to be suddenly invested with preponderating power, and that, I think, is the reason why we have not done too little; and, notwithstanding that we may be told that we have done too much, I hope that will not be said. I do not entirely abandon the expectation that even those who have almost protested on principle against any extension of the. franchise, may be disposed to accept the measure; and if they do not wholly approve, they will not be averse to settle this great, important, and difficult question. I would beg them to consider what immense value there is in an extension of the franchise for its own sake. Liberty is a thing which is good, not merely its fruits, but is good in itself. With regard to English legislation, when we are told that things are done more economically, more cleverly, and effectively in foreign countries, we answer, yes, but they are managed freely. And in freedom, in the free discharge of political duties, there is an immense power for the people, both for discipline and for education. If the issue is to be adverse to the Bill, I hope it will be taken in direct terms. I trust it will be taken on the question whether there is or is not to be an enfranchisement made. We have felt the course now proposed by us essential to character, to credit, and to usefulness; not merely of the Government, not merely of party, but of this House, committed as Parliament has been with respect to the question of the representation of the people. We cannot consent to look on this addition,-considerable though it be,-of the working classes, as if it were an addition fraught with nothing but danger; we cannot look upon it as a Trojan horse approaching the walls of the sacred city, and filled with armed men bent

on ruin, plunder, and conflagration. We cannot describe it as 'Monstrum infelix,' or say,

"Scandit fatalis machina muros,

Fæta armis mediæque minans illabitur urbi."

We believe that these persons whom we ask you to enfranchise ought rather to be welcomed as if they were recruits to your army. We ask you to give within what we consider a just limit of prudence and circumspection. Consider what you can safely and justly offer to do in admitting new subjects and citizens within the pale of the Parliamentary Constitution; and having so considered it, do not do it as if you were compounding with dangerous persons, but as if you were conferring a boon, which will be felt and reciprocated by a feeling of grateful attachment, by new interest in our Constitution, by a beneficent working of the law of nature and Providence, begetting new attachment to the Constitution-attachment of the people to the Throne and laws under which we live, which is, after all, more than your gold and silver, and more than your fleets and armies, at once the strength, the glory, and the safety of the land.” The reception which the measure met with at its first promulgation was somewhat ambiguous. By members of decidedly Liberal opinions, it was welcomed with much satisfaction as a fair and honest measure, which would open the door to a large number of the unenfranchised community, and would satisfy the reasonable demands of the people. Among those who offered a cordial support were Mr. Bright, Sir F. Crossley, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Baines, Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Acland, and Captain Grosvenor. On the other hand the Bill was vigorously denounced as a democratic and dangerous measure by some of the Conservative members, among whom were Mr. Whiteside, Lord Cranborne, Mr. J. Hardy, and Lord Robert Montagu. Occupying an intermediate position between the two was a section of the Liberal party comprising some very able and eloquent speakers, among whom Mr. Lowe and Mr. Horsman were conspicuous, who manifested at the outset a strong disapprobation of the Government measure, and regarded it as a step in the direction of Democracy, which was fraught with dangerous consequences. This section of the House became much distinguished in the debates which afterwards took place on the Bill; and the division in the Liberal party which arose from their opposition contributed more than any other cause to the ultimate defeat of the Government. On the evening of the introduction of the Bill, Mr. Laing declared himself a dissentient from the policy of the Government, of which he was usually a supporter. He said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had himself shown the impolicy of dealing in a hurried and precipitate manner with a measure which required the most grave and cautious consideration. He was indisposed to reopen a question which he thought had been satisfactorily settled many years since; and he objected to a Bill which, while professing to amend the representation of the people, gave as many members to Honiton as to Liverpool, Manchester, Edin

burgh, Glasgow, or Dublin. He admitted that he was elected to support Lord Palmerston's policy, but he contended that the present was a measure which that statesman would not have sanctioned.

Mr. Horsman followed on the same side. He complimented Mr. Laing on his speech, which he regarded as sound and constitutional. The address of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the contrary, when divested of its rhetorical embellishments and revealed in its incongruous proportions, was nothing more nor less than another bid for power, another promise made to be broken, another political fraud and parliamentary juggle; and, as a whole, a combination of weakness, incapacity, and failure. The Bill was brought forward to meet the exigencies of a single statesman. It contained no great principle, it would settle nothing, but unsettle much, for it was based upon the old and stale device of Government by numbers. The sound, strong, masculine, English common sense of Lord Palmerston would never have sanctioned a measure which had so little to recommend it and so much to which exception might be taken. It was the Bill of Lord Russell and Mr. Bright forced upon an unwilling Cabinet, and found no response in the country, because the people had no confidence in the sincerity of the member for Birmingham. He recommended the Liberal party to consider their position, and he exhorted the new House to show itself equal to its first duty-namely, to vindicate the supremacy of constitutional opinions, and spurn the dictation of a democratic minority.

But the most prominent of those who, on this occasion, seceded from the side of the Ministry, was Mr. Lowe, whose speeches, marked by uncommon vigour of argument and felicity of expression, made a forcible impression on the House, and were eagerly welcomed by the opponents of the Bill. On this occasion he contended that the proposal for increasing the county franchise by 172,000, and the voters in towns by 204,000 would increase the expense of elections, and make extensive changes in the distribution of political power. He complained that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not stated a single ground which justified the introduction of the Bill. He had not proved that the working classes were at present excluded from the franchise; for the returns just collected by the Government showed that a considerable percentage of them were already voters. For many years past, owing to the discovery of gold in Australia and California, and owing to the great emigration which had taken place, the condition of the working classes had gradually improved, and the result was that a process of spontaneous enfranchisement had grown up and was going steadily forward. He believed that process would continue, and that the tendency of the present system would eventually be to put the working classes in the majority. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to be of opinion that a constituency could not be too large, so long as improper people were not admitted to

it. Before bringing in a Bill to alter the constitution of the House, the Government ought to have instituted a minute and careful examination into its present state. If the character of constituencies out of doors was lowered, the members sent to the House would be of a lower class too, and the tone of public men would likewise be lowered. He warned the House, therefore, how it allowed constituencies to become too democratic. Having pointed out what he considered to be the shortcomings of the House of Commons, the right hon. gentleman said that in 1832 there was a practical grievance, but that in 1866 the grievance was altogether theoretical. There was now no pressure from without from the working classes.

Mr. Lowe, after some further observations, concluded by saying that he was prepared to consider any measure which might be brought forward for the improvement of the House of Commons, but he could not see in the present proposition any thing which would accomplish that object. On the contrary, he believed that the measure was of a dangerous and revolutionary character, and that although it might hereafter be the pride of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he had carried it through Parliament, he (Mr. Lowe) would always find gratification in the reflection that he had resisted it.

Mr. Villiers contended, in reply to the arguments of Mr. Lowe, that Parliament was pledged to deal with the question of Reform, and reminded that right hon. gentleman that he himself had declared that "no reform would be satisfactory that did not reduce the franchise." The present was not, he thought, a fortunate moment to cast a slur upon the working classes, after the fortitude and endurance which they had recently exhibited in the manufacturing districts. The Government had brought in a simple Bill to lower the franchise, because they were persuaded that under existing circumstances it would not be possible to carry a more extensive measure in the present Session.

Mr. Fawcett, in an able maiden speech, declared his warm approval of the Bill, as a wise and just concession to the claims. of the working classes. He deprecated the personal tone adopted by Mr. Horsman in his speech, and commented on the inconsistency between Mr. Lowe's present attitude and the political course he had up to this time pursued. He would put to him a simple question; and if he could not answer it satisfactorily, his reasoning, however profound, would not much influence the country. The question was, Did not Mr. Lowe join in that combination which declared that no Government was worthy of the confidence of the country, unless it reduced the borough franchise? Further, Had he not been a distinguished member of a Government which came into office expressly to carry an extension of the franchise? And did he not sit on the Treasury Bench when an extension of the suffrage was proposed much wider than the present Bill? But, so far as Mr. Lowe was concerned, he asked how it was that he had