istry to office, he might have succeeded to the very important and onerous office of Secretary of State for India. The soundness of some of his views upon India has already been proved, and it is possible that conviction may follow with regard to others. England still holds her vast Indian Empire by a more direct sovereignty than was once the case; and by excellent government she may possibly hold it for a long time to come; but he must be a bold man who would venture to predict the perpetual and undivided sway of Great Britain over a territory so immense, with its ever-increasing myriads of population.

CHAPTER XVI.

THE REFORM QUESTION IN 1858-9.

Parliamentary Reform in 1858.-Mr. Locke King's County Franchise Bill.The Ballot.-Reform Campaign in the Provinces.-Mr. Bright at Birmingham.—Points of his proposed Reform scheme.-Our Foreign Policy.Reception of Mr Gibson and Mr. Bright at Manchester.-What a Reform Bill should include.-Mr. Bright at Edinburgh and Glasgow.-The DerbyDisraeli Reform Bill of 1859. Debate on the Second Reading.-Speech by Mr. Bright.-Defeat of the Government.-Dissolution of Parliament. -Election at Birmingham.-Opposition to Mr. Bright.-Scene of the Nomination.-Animated Speech by Mr. Bright.-Great Liberal Victory. -Meeting of Parliament.-Spirited Debate.-Motion carried against the Government. Their Resignation.-A Palmerston Ministry formed.-Important Debate on Financial Policy.-Miscellaneous Questions.—Mr. Cobden at Rochdale.-Reform Conference in London.

FROM India we now pass to a subject of great interest in domestic politics, and one in which for many years Mr. Bright played a very prominent part, viz., Parliamentary Reform. For a considerable period before Mr. Bright's winter campaign of 1858, it had been generally conceded that the great Act of 1832 required to be supplemented by another and still larger measure of political enfranchisement. Hitherto, however, the question had either been trifled with, or matters of greater moment had been allowed to damp the reforming zeal of Governments.

But in the session of 1858, several measures were introduced into the House of Commons bearing collaterally upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform. Mr. Locke King brought in a bill for the abolition of the property qualification heretofore required for the representatives of English and Irish constituencies. The Conservative Government supported the proposition, and Mr. King's bill was carried. It also passed the House of Lords, and became law. No such happy fate, however, awaited its author's further proposition for the extension of the franchise for counties in England and Wales to occupiers at £10 per annum-a measure which had been brought forward in several previous sessions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now said that as the Government intended to give their consideration to the whole subject of Parliamentary Reform, he felt it his duty to move the previous question. Leave was nevertheless given to bring in the bill, and its second reading was

afterwards carried by a large majority; but in consequence of the lateness of the period, and the pressure of other matters, Mr. Locke King was compelled to abandon his measure for that session. Mr. Caird also made an unsuccessful attempt to carry a bill for the assimilation of the county franchise of Scotland with that of England. Lastly, on the 8th of June, Mr. Berkeley brought on his annual resolution in favour of vote by ballot. The motion was opposed by Sir G. C. Lewis and Lord Palmerston, who made a good deal of the alleged failure of the ballot in the United States. Mr. Bright, premising that he should not go either to the United States or to Australia, demanded that the measure should be considered with reference to the conditions of our own society; and insisted that this countrywhere there were so many incentives to undue influence, and so little power of resisting it-was of all countries that in which this question should be fairly considered. And if the remedy was good it ought to be applied. Describing the secret operation of influence in our electoral system, he cited cases proving the intolerable working of the screw spoken of by Mr. Berkeley. We must have a Reform Bill, and no measure of that kind would be complete without the great principle of the ballot. He asked whether it was not a fact that, in every petition for Parliamentary Reform, the House was asked to include the ballot, and that at almost every public meeting held for years past, the establishment of secret voting by the ballot was made a cardinal point? Was the House prepared to disregard this? Observing that the ballot was no sacred principle, but a mere matter of electoral machinery, no member, he said, could be charged with inconsistency in consenting to try this great experiment. Mr. Bright appealed to both sides of the House to lay aside their fears, to have a little faith, and not to be misled by the flimsy arguments of Lord Palmerston, but for the sake of morality, and the tranquillity of the country, to give a candid and favourable consideration to Mr. Berkeley's proposition. The motion, however, was lost by 294 votes to 197.

In the ensuing October, Mr. Bright began his earnest and vigorous Reform campaign in the provinces. Disappointed with the lukewarmness which had crept over our public men in regard to this question, his language was of an unusually vehement character. Those who were opposed to Reform altogether alleged that he damaged his cause by the violence of his advocacy; but there are moments in the history of nations when even stronger language than Mr. Bright's would be justifiable. Every great benefactor and reformer is liable to the charge of

excessive zeal, yet without such zeal many of the greatest boons ever conferred upon the human race would still be wanting. However, in this matter let not us, his contemporaries, but posterity, judge Mr. Bright.

The first great meeting was held at Birmingham, under peculiar and memorable circumstances, on the 27th of October, 1858. Mr. Bright had just recovered from his serious illness, and nearly three years had elapsed since he was able to appear upon a public platform for the purpose of addressing any large body of his countrymen. This was, in addition, the first time upon which Mr. Bright had met his new constituents at Birmingham. In opening his speech he made some touching references to this fact, and expressed his gratitude to the Supreme for the signal favour which had been extended to him. Here the warm cheering which had greeted the speaker on first appearing before the vast audience in the Town Hall was renewed. After a graceful allusion to the sympathy which had been shown him in his affliction, and to the atonement which Birmingham had made for the passionate and ungenerous treatment of Manchester, the hon. member referred to the prevalent misrepresentation of his attitude in regard to the Crimean War. 'Now,' said Mr. Bright, after all is over except the tax-gatherer, and the sorrows of those who have lost their friends in the war, I will just in one sentence say that I am still unable to discover what compensation England has for the hundred millions of money she expended, or what compensation Europe has for the three. hundred millions squandered by all the parties engaged in that frightful contest. Turning next to the question of Parliamentary Reform, he pointed out that within the last few years they had had four Governments pledged to Parliamentary Reform. All parties now pretended to be in love with it, but their speeches on the question reminded him of the condition of that deplorable Atlantic Cable, of which he read that the currents were visible, but the signals were wholly indistinct.' Mr. Bright next proceeded to show, by the aid of facts and statistics, that the Parliament, as then constituted, did not fairly represent the nation. The whole system of representation was unequal and dishonest; there were in the House of Commons 330 members (more than half the House) whose whole number of constituents did not amount to more than 180,000; while there were at the same time 24 members only whose constituents were upwards of 200,000 in number. There was, besides, the great significant fact that in Great Britain and Ireland five out of every six men you met had no vote. Mr. Bright then referred

at some length to the House of Lords, and drew a very unflattering picture of the typical peer. The House of Peers did not travel very fast, even what was called a Parliamentary train was too fast for its nerves; in fact, it never travelled at all unless somebody shoved it. He would not attack the House of Lords, but the question between the Peers and the people was one which could not be evaded. The Peer too often gave his vote against those great measures on which the country had set its heart. Then too there was another kind of Peer which he was afraid to touch upon-' that creature of what shall I say? —of monstrous, nay, even of adulterous birth—the Spiritual Peer.' They were always told that Peers were necessary as a check, and if that was so they answered their purpose admirably.

Discussing the question of the suffrage, Mr. Bright spoke in favor of a Rating Franchise, and he added that he knew no good reason why the franchise should not be as extensive in the counties as in the boroughs. He also advocated a more equal division of electoral power, the existing system being but a disgraceful fraud. Without redistribution of seats, representation would remain for the future very little better than a farce. The third great point which he insisted on was that any Reform Bill which pretended to be generally satisfactory to reformers must concede the shelter and protection of the ballot. Let us,' said Mr. Bright, 'have a real bill, a good bill, or no bill at all.' But the question at the moment was in the hands of the enemy, and he had his fears. As to the bugbear of 'Americanising' our institutions, if we were at liberty to draw science, products for our manufactures, and literature from every country in the world, why should we not, if we saw anything good in the politics of another country, be equally at liberty to take a lesson in that also? Those persons who affirmed that the franchise, the distribution, and the ballot, which operated so well in America, would be perilous in England, libelled the people of this country, and libelled our institutions.

Mr. Bright urged upon his hearers and the country the necessity of public meetings, of petitions, and when the proper time came, attendance at the polling-booths. Finally, he said, ( Shall we, even for a moment, be hopeless of our great cause ? I feel almost ashamed even to argue it to such a meeting as this. I call to mind where I am, and who are those whom I see before me. Am I not in the town of Birmingham-England's central capital; and do not these eyes look upon the sons