He was not fond of giving advice to foreign Powers, though cases might arise in which the interference of a friendly and disinterested Power might be of service; but he assured the House that up to the present time the Government was entirely unpledged to any policy whatever. The sole diplomatic action we had taken was to support in general terms-as a matter of humanity and common sense-the proposition of the French Government for a temporary cessation of hostilities. That opportunity had passed away, and since then our advice had neither been asked nor offered. Replying to Mr. Horsman, Lord Stanley stated that he had every reason to believe that an armed intervention was not meditated by France. Austria had asked France to mediate, and the matter rested with her; and if we were asked to join, we must first of all ascertain on what terms she proposed to mediate. With regard to the terms said to have been offered by Prussia, Venetia, there was no doubt, was already practically ceded to Italy; and as to the exclusion of Austria from Germany, it had never been stated that it was the sole condition on which Prussia would make peace. The Government could be no parties to pressing terms upon Austria until they knew the whole extent of the terms. Speaking of the future policy of the Government, Lord Stanley said there never was a great European war in which England had less direct interest. The Italian question was not far from a settlement, and he could not see that the establishment of a strong, compact Power in North Germany would be either a detriment or a menace to us, whatever it might be deemed to be by other Powers. So far as human foresight could go, there were no complications in the situation which would involve us in war; and if we did not mean to take part in it we ought equally to avoid empty threats and holding out illusory hopes. If our advice were asked, and it seemed likely to be of use, we ought not to refuse to give it; but at the same time we ought carefully to avoid any responsibility for the consequences of its being followed. In conclusion Lord Stanley said that, as far as was consistent with his duty, he should take care to keep the House cognizant of all that was done.

Lord Stanley's statement appeared to be received on both sides of the House with much satisfaction.

The latest Parliamentary utterance on the subject of the war before the close of the Session, was made by the Earl of Derby in the House of Lords, on the 23rd of July, when that noble lord gave an explanation of the communications with the French Government, which commenced immediately upon the present Ministry assuming office, and stated that they acceded to the request of the Emperor by instructing the British Ambassadors at Berlin and Florence to co-operate with the French Government, in order, if possible, to obtain an armistice and to ascertain if any terms of peace could be agreed upon. They had expressed no opinion upon the mode in which the cession of Venetia had been

effected, but their sole desire was to assist, if possible, in preventing further bloodshed. The armistice was not agreed to, and the British Government had taken no further step, nor had they tendered any advice, nor proposed any terms. They had, however, recently learnt that a five days' armistice had been agreed upon and preliminaries of peace accepted by Austria and Prussia; and more recently they had been informed that Baron Ricasoli was willing on the part of Italy to accept the conditions proposed.

CHAPTER V.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM the great question of the Session-Declarations of Earl Russell's Government on that subject-Reference to the same topic in the Queen's Speech. Mr. Clay's Educational Franchise Bill-Fate of that measure-The Chancellor of the Exchequer introduces the Franchise Bill of the Government on the 12th of March-Reception of the Bill in the House of Commons-Formation of a third party in the House opposed to the Bill, commonly known as the " Adullamites "Notice given by Earl Grosvenor of a Resolution disapproving the introduction of a Franchise Bill apart from the entire scheme of Reform-Public meetings in favour of the Government measure-The Chancellor of the Exchequer addresses, in the Easter recess, large assemblies at Liverpool, and declares the resolution of the Government to stand or fall by their Reform measures-Great debate, continued for eight nights, on Earl Grosvenor's resolution-Summary of the arguments of the leading speakers-Prominent part taken against the Bill by Mr. Lowe-Powerful and eloquent reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer-A division results in the rejection of the resolution by a majority of five only, and the Bill is read a second time- Shortly afterwards the Government announce their consent to lay their whole scheme before the House, and bring in a Redistribution of Seats Bill-Statement of that measure by the Chancellor of the Exchequer-The Irish and Scotch Reform Bills are also brought in-The Ministers, on the suggestion of Mr. Bouverie, agree to refer both the Franchise and Redistribution Bills to the same Committee-Captain Hayter, M.P. for Wells, gives notice of moving an amendment on going into Committee condemnatory of the Redistribution schemes-That Bill is read a second time without opposition-Sir R. Knightley interposes an instruction to the Committee to make provision against bribery-The motion is carried against the Government by a majority of ten-Captain Hayter's amendment is moved and is debated for four nights, after which it is withdrawn by the mover-The Bills are committed and discussed clause by clause-Controversy as to the rental or rating test of franchise— Rejection of amendments moved by Lord Stanley, Mr. Walpole, and Mr. HuntImportant amendment proposed by Lord Dunkellin to make rating the basis of the franchise in boroughs--Debate on that motion-It is carried against the Government by a majority of eleven-Extraordinary scene of excitement on this division.

THE political history of the year 1866 turns upon the question of Parliamentary Reform. This one subject absorbed a very large portion of the time and almost the whole energies of the House of Commons-it brought about a change of Administration, it unsettled the relations of parties, it affected many political reputations, it engendered no small amount of popular excitement; and although it terminated for the present in no practical result, it yet produced a conviction in the minds of all thoughtful politicians, that some

alteration of our representative system was an inevitable necessity, and was only a question of time. Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session had announced the intention of laying a measure of this nature before Parliament, and the chiefs of the Administration had made no secret of their intention not only to introduce a Bill, but to stake their official existence on its success. The majority of the House of Commons which the constituencies had lately returned as representatives of the Liberal party, appeared strong enough to carry through a well-considered measure of Reform, even in the face of a Conservative Opposition; but it was not till the actual trial was made that the difficulty of passing a Bill which might greatly alter the existing distribution of political power in the country was fully appreciated.

It devolved upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as leader of the House of Commons, to introduce and conduct through that House, the measure of which notice had been given soon after the commencement of the Session. In the meantime, however, a Bill for extending the elective franchise on a novel basis was introduced by a member on the Liberal side of the House, Mr. Clay, one of the representatives of Hull. It was proposed by this Bill to create an educational qualification, and it provided that every man of full age should have the right of submitting himself to be examined before the Civil Service Commissioners, and upon such examination (if satisfactory) should receive a certificate which would entitle him to the exercise of the franchise. The subjects of examination would be reading, writing, spelling, and the four rules of arithmetic.

Mr. Gregory seconded the motion, contending that the Bill, if passed into law, would have the effect of admitting the élite of the working classes to the possession of the franchise, whilst at the same time it would not let in an overwhelming majority to counterbalance the superior claims of education and property.

Lord Elcho supported the Bill.

Mr. Horsman hoped that some one on the Treasury Bench would state the views of Government on the subject of Reform. He taunted the leaders of the Radical party, with Mr. Bright at their head, for the antipathy and indifference which they had exhibited after all the pro-Reform clamour with which their names were associated out of doors. In fact, it seemed as if the Reformers in the House were either afraid or ashamed of the question.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer denied that Government were responsible for delay. The death of Lord Palmerston and the necessity for collecting trustworthy statistics had raised unforeseen difficulties; but he could assure the House that the Bill would be introduced at the earliest possible moment. With regard to the invitations addressed to him to give some utterance on the part of the Government in reference to the proposal of the hon. member for Hull, he flattered himself that on that subject neither his admiration for his hon. friend's abilities, the curiosity of the House,

nor any other consideration, would be sufficiently potent to extract from him a single particle of information.

Leave was given to bring in the Bill.

Upon the motion for the second reading, which did not take place till the Ministerial measure of Reform had been for some time before the House, a full and rather important debate took place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer then declared himself opposed to the scheme, as impracticable; Mr. Göschen and the Attorney-General also spoke against it. On the other hand it was supported by several leading members of the Opposition-Viset. Cranborne, Mr. Adderley, Sir J. Pakington, Mr. Whiteside, and others. The debate was adjourned but never resumed, and at a late period of the Session the Bill was withdrawn by Mr. Clay.

On the 12th of March the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward the Bill of the Government. The House of Commons was much crowded both with members and strangers, and great curiosity was manifested to hear what was the nature of the scheme which the Ministers had to propose. The portion of the Queen's Speech which referred to the subject of the improved representation of the people having been read by the Clerk at the table, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose, and after referring to the difficulties attending his present task, said that the paragraphs now read were not the only paragraphs in which, under the most solemn forms known to the Constitution, the subject of the representation of the people had been brought before Parliament. By no less than five Administrations, in no less than six Queen's speeches before that of the present year, the Sovereign, advised by her Ministers, had informed the Commons that in their judgment the time had come when the representation of the people ought to undergo revision. The right hon. gentleman referred to the length of time occupied in preparing the statistical returns as to the present state of the constituencies. He said that no time had been lost in preparing these returns. At the very first Cabinet meeting after the funeral of the late Lord Palmerston the Ministers framed the heads upon which they required information; and if members on each side of the House would examine the volume of information now laid on the table, they would admit that no time had been mis-spent, and they would admit the advantage of approaching the consideration of this important question with such a knowledge and such a mass of facts as were never before collected. There had been a disposition to murmur at the delay in producing these papers, and to ascribe it to vacillation on the part of the Government; but that had not been the case. The question of time was a matter of importance. It was now the 12th of March, and it would not be possible, considering the approach of the Easter recess, to ask the House to read the Bill a second time until the second week in April. Therefore the Government felt that as prudent and practical men they had to measure what their powers might be in regard to legislating during the present Session; and

hence arose the question whether they were to have a complete measure or an incomplete measure. Now, what would be a complete revision of our representative system? He must omit from the definition thereof many matters, such as the questions of secret voting or the shortening of Parliaments, which did not strictly belong to the revising of the elective franchise. The revision of our representative system was the matter now to be dealt with. It would be of immense advantage if they could deal with the whole range of that question at one stroke. But for that purpose they must consider the franchise of England and Wales, and also the franchise in Scotland and in Ireland; also the whole group of questions included in the common phrase of the redistribution of seats. The question between the three kingdoms-the question between town and country-the question between total extinction by the capital punishment such as was inflicted in Schedule A, between the milder method of amputation administered in Schedule B, or that mildest method of all, which was that adopted by Earl Russell in 1852-the method of grouping towns together all these were matters that must undergo careful consideration. Then there came another question that could never be avoided when you review the electoral system, namely, the consideration of whether in all cases the present boundaries of boroughs are such as the exigencies of those boroughs naturally require. Another matter connected with the subject would be the consideration of the state of the law as to corrupt practices-a subject as difficult as it was important. But all these subjects, great in themselves and complex in themselves, could not come under the review or criticism of this House without careful searching and jealous examination; and it was impossible to expect that Parliament could give itself to that complete view of the electoral system during the present Session. It was conformable to our habits to entertain a high idea of what was called the omnipotence of Parliament, but time and space could not be annihilated, even to make lovers happy, or for any other purpose whatever. If this Bill were now read a first time, the second reading would be proposed on the 12th of April, or between that and the middle of July, the latest period at which such a Bill could be sent to the House of Lords. The Government nights would only amount to twenty-four, one half of which at least must be occupied by finance and supply, and beyond these twenty-four nights they would have nothing to depend upon but the charity of private members. Now what had they found in former years? In 1860 they spent months in trying to do nothing; and on the occasion of the great Reform Act one single Bill of the three forming the great Reform occupied in one of its three forms fifty-three nights. in the House of Commons, and at least one hundred nights were occupied in the complete review of the electoral system which was then achieved; but in order to do so the members turned day into night, summer into winter, and sacrificed, unjustly sacrificed, for two years all other legislation which re