which, for the first time, the Commons of England have surrendered a right which for five hundred years they had maintained unimpaired. I, at least, and those who act with me, will be clear from any participation in this; we shall be free from the shame which must indelibly attach to the chief actors in these proceedings. I protested against the order of reference which the noble lord proposed, though I sat and laboured on the Committee with earnest fidelity on behalf of the House of Commons. I have felt it an honour to sit in this House up to this time, and I hope that hereafter the character of this House will not be impaired by the course which is about to be taken. I have endeavoured to show to my countrymen what I consider to be almost the treason which is about to be Committed against them. I have refused to dishonour the memory of such members as Coke and Selden, and Glanville and Pym; and if defeated in this struggle, I shall have this consolation, that I have done all I can to maintain the honour of this House, and that I have not sacrificed the interests which my constituents committed to my care.'

The whole of Lord Palmerston's resolutions were agreed to without a division, but the question was not allowed to remain in this stage. Lord Fermoy subsequently moved a resolution protesting against the encroachments of the Lords, but it was rejected by 177 to 138. As the Excise duty on paper was thus continued, in consequence of the action of the Upper House, Mr. Gladstone met the difficulty by proposing an adjustment of the Customs duty on paper with reference to the French Treaty. The paper manufacturers exerted their utmost influence to defeat the measure, alleging special circumstances which exempted their case from the rule of Free Trade. The Conservatives warmly espoused the cause of the paper-makers, but Mr. Gladstone delivered a powerful and conclusive speech in favour of his new measure. Mr. Puller moved an amendment, and was supported by the Conservative leaders, but the propositions of

the Government were eventually adopted by 266 votes to 233.

The constitutional question was again adverted to by Mr. Bright on the 10th of August. After sketching the bolder policy which Lord Palmerston ought to have adopted on this question-and which he would have adopted if he had had the spirit of a Chatham or a Canning-he said, 'There is such a thing as treason. It is a crime which is probably known to the law of every country. We have it in our law. It is committed generally against a monarchy or against a state. It may have in it much that is evil, and it may have in it much that is good. Treason of that kind is a crime which may load a man with shame for ever, or it may cover him with lasting renown. But there is another kind of treason, which is treason against a people, which may be committed by a Minister of the Crown, by an assenting Cabinet, and by a compliant Legislative body; but that is a treason which is all evil, which has no good whatever in it; it covers no man or body of men with renown; but it covers them with contempt and infamy, decreed I believe by the just judgment of posterity. I hope and pray that when the impartial pen of history in after times shall tell the story of our doings in this session of the British Parliament, it may not have to say that the Prime Minister and his colleagues, and the House of Commons supporting them, let down the power of the House of Commons, and sacrificed and betrayed-as I fear we are in

danger of sacrificing and betraying-those most solemn and important rights which we are bound to maintain, I undertake to say, by sanctions and engagements stronger than any which oaths can give.'

Lord Fermoy, who had announced his intention of moving a resolution with regard to the conduct of the House of Lords, now said he had no alternative but to abandon the question during the present session; and this important matter dropped. The general feeling of the country, however, was with those who protested against the unconstitutional action of the House of Lords.

We now pass on to another important question. The Liberal Government pledged themselves to bring in a Reform Bill during the session of 1860, and on the 1st of March the scheme was introduced by that veteran reformer Lord John Russell. It was proposed to reduce the borough franchise to £6, a step which would have had the effect of increasing the number of voters from 440,000 to 634,000. Twenty-five seats were to be taken from small places returning two members, and divided among new constituencies. Leave was given to bring in the bill, and Mr. Cardwell, Secretary for Ireland, also obtained leave to bring in a bill for that country which reduced the qualification for voting for counties from £12 (required by the Act of 1850) to £10, and substituted a borough franchise of £6 for £8. The Lord Advocate further introduced a measure for Scotland, providing a £10 occupation 4

VOL. II.

franchise for counties, and a borough franchise of £6. The property qualification for counties to be reduced from £10 to £5.

The House generally exhibited little enthusiasm over these measures, but in the debate on the second reading, on the 19th of March, Mr. Bright delivered a vigorous speech. He said that in one respect he was in the same condition as Mr. Disraeli; he did not desire to reject this bill on the second reading, and he should not endeavour to persuade the House that it was a dangerous and fatal measure; on the contrary, though anxious for a good measure of Parliamentary Reform, he was ready to make due allowance for the difficulty of dealing with this question. It was evident that the bill met with two kinds of objectors-one who thought it went too far, another who wished it to go further. He did not oppose or advocate it upon either ground. He regarded the measure as the fulfilment of a pledge given by the Government. As to the redistribution of seats, he had thought it would be better that the reform should be by steps, and this was a bill for reducing the franchise in counties and boroughs; it did not settle the question of disfranchisement, or the transfer of seats; it rather unsettled it. If it passed, it would not add more than 160,000 to the borough constituency. And how many of these would be working men? Not more than 100,000; how, then, could it be said that they would swamp the other classes? The objection that the measure

did not go far enough, was more difficult to answer, and was a rational objection. He thought this parsimony on the part of the House was a mistake; that the character of the lower classes would justify a more liberal view of the matter. But if 300,000 or 400,000 were admitted to the franchise, he could not refuse the measure, because, in his opinion, those numbers ought to be doubled.

Mr. Bright said he considered the bill failed in certain points. He objected to the ratepaying and other clauses of the bill. As to the ballot, that question would be brought under consideration on a future occasion, and he was convinced that, under this bill, there would be a still greater necessity for that measure. He pointed out that circumstances in 1860 were very different from those under which the bill of 1832 was passed. There is no howling wind, no imminent convulsion; but there is the steady, the ever-growing, the irresistible tide of public opinion; there is the consciousness among millions of your countrymen that Parliament does not adequately represent them, and is not just to them; and silently, but surely and inevitably, this opinion is marching on to its triumph. The very footprints in which these gentlemen on the Treasury Bench trod not long ago, are now swept away, and the point which you occupied not long since on this question is submerged and gone. I ask you not to resist this growing and gathering opinion. By a concession even so small as that which it is the object of