registered in respect of such double qualification, he should be entitled to give two votes for the member (or, if there be more than one, for each member) to be returned to serve in parliament for the borough. The provisions for the redistribution of seats were, that Totness, Reigate, Great Yarmouth, and Lancaster should cease to return any member; that Honiton, Thetford, Wells, Evesham, Marlborough, Norwich, Richmond, Lymington, Knaresborough, Andover, Leominster, Tewkesbury, Ludlow, Ripon, Huntingdon, Maldon, Cirencester, Bodmin, Great Marlow, Devizes, Hertford, Dorchester, and Lichfield, should henceforward only return one; that Tower Hamlets should be divided into two boroughs, each returning two members; that the following counties, or divisions of counties, should be divided into two parts, each returning two members to parliament: South Devon, West Kent, North Lancashire, South Lancashire, Lincoln (parts of Lindsay), Middlesex, South Staffordshire, and East Surrey; that Torquay, Darlington, Hartlepool, Gravesend, St. Helen's, Burnley, Staley bridge, Wednesbury, Croydon, Middlesborough, Dewsbury, and Bursley, and the University of London, should each return one member to parliament. This bill was based on the principle embodied in Lord Dunkellin's motion. Thus, instead of drawing a 51., 6., or 77. line to cut off what was called the residuum, that is to say, the class whose extreme poverty rendered them most liable to be bribed or improperly influenced, the government boldly adopted household suffrage, with the qualification of the payment of rates; thus excluding from the franchise compound householders, who did not pay their rates personally, and those whose rates, under various acts, were compounded for by their landlords, and all lodgers. Mr. Disraeli calculated that his bill would admit 237,000 additional voters, but would leave 486,000 still excluded from the borough franchise, and that the result of his whole plan would be that one quarter of the voting power would belong to the aristocracy, another quarter to the working classes, and the remaining half to the middle classes. Such was his proposed balance of political power.' It was, however, afterwards shown that his house * See p. 285. 1867.] THE REFORM BILL OF 1867. 318 hold suffrage, specious as it was, would really have enfranchised a smaller number of borough voters than the bill of 1866. Mr. Disraeli's exposition of the ministerial measure was followed by a discussion in which many of its features were strongly assailed by speakers on both sides of the house, and especially that part of it which conferred the dual vote, which was almost universally condemned, and to which Mr. Gladstone in particular proclaimed implacable hostility. In the interval between the first and second reading a deputation representing the Reform League waited on Mr. Disraeli and supported the views embodied in the resolutions we have already cited. If this interview did not bring about an agreement of opinion, it at least promoted a kindlier feeling. Mr. Disraeli dealt very frankly with his visitors. He told them that they were men of 'extreme views;' and the observation was received with a good-humoured laugh. He reminded them that there were others who also entertained extreme opinions of an opposite kind, and that as the framer of the reform bill he was bound to consider both extremes. Some members of the deputation rather warmly dissented from this statement, and were called to order by their more reasonable companions, who felt that Mr. Disraeli ought to be listened to with the same patience and courtesy that he had displayed in hearing the opinions of members of the deputation. who had uttered sentiments from which he doubtless differed very strongly. Standing almost alone among a crowd of opponents, he discussed the question with spirit and frankness, and sent them away in good temper, and with a promise that their statements should receive the best attention of the government. When the question of the second reading was brought forward, Mr. Gladstone, who had conferred with a meeting of his parliamentary followers at his own house, consented, against his own opinion, but in deference to the views and wishes of a large portion of them, and to avoid disunion in the liberal camp, to allow that stage of the bill to pass without a division. But he expressed the strongest objections to it, and enumerated the following features in it which he regarded as highly objectionable: 1. Omission of the lodger franchise. 2. Omission of provisions against traffic in votes of householders of the lowest class by corrupt payment of the rates. 3. Disqualifications of compound householders under the existing law. 4. Additional disqualifications of compound householders under the proposed law. 5. The franchise founded on direct taxation. 6. The dual vote. 7. The inadequate redistribution of seats. 8. The inadequate reduction of the franchise in counties. 9. Voting-papers. 10. Collateral or special franchises. The dual vote, almost universally condemned, was withdrawn. After a good deal of party manoeuvring, which excited intense feeling at the time, but the interest of which is now altogether gone dead, the government succeeded in getting their bill into committee; and the formal clauses, containing the title, and excluding from its operation Ireland, Scotland, and the two universities, were passed. We now come to a curious episode in the history of the conservative reform bill, which shows the inconveniences that attend the system of government by party, and to a certain extent counterbalance the advantages which it indisputably possesses. On the 5th of April about 140 members of the liberal party met at Mr. Gladstone's residence to determine on the course which the party, under the circumstances in which they were placed, should adopt with regard to the government bill. It was decided at this meeting that Mr. Coleridge should propose the following resolution before the house went into committee on the reform bill: That it be an instruction to the committee that they have power to alter the law of rating, and to provide that in every parliamentary borough the occupiers of tenements below a given rateable value be relieved from liability to personal rating, with a view to fix a line for the borough franchise at which all occupiers shall be entered on the rate-book, and shall have equal facilities for the enjoyment of such franchise as a residential franchise.' Much discussion took place with regard to this proposal, and some difference of opinion was expressed; but it was un 1867.] THE TEA-ROOM PARTY. 315 derstood to be decided that the motion should be brought forward on the 8th of April, the day on which the house was to go into committee on the bill. However, on that very evening a meeting, consisting of between forty and fifty members of the liberal party, was held in the tearoom of the House of Commons. At this meeting it was agreed that the persons composing it should unite for the purpose of limiting the instructions to be proposed by Mr. Coleridge to the first clause of his resolution, which applied to the law of rating. They then appointed a deputation to Mr. Gladstone to convey to him the feeling of the meeting, and to assure him that the members composing it would continue to give him a loyal support in committee. Mr. Gladstone, finding that by the defection of so many of his supporters he was almost certain to incur a defeat, yielded to their demands, and the resolution was altered accordingly. Mr. Disraeli accepted the altered resolu tion, and the house then went into committee on the bill. Thereupon Mr. Gladstone gave notice of several important amendments, which Mr. Disraeli declared to be the relinquished instructions in another form, and distinctly announced that if they should be carried, the government would not proceed with the bill. As most of the members who composed the meeting at the tea-room still held together, forming a party known as the tea-room party, government triumphed by a majority of twenty-one in the division on the first of Mr. Gladstone's resolutions. After this he could not hope to carry his remaining resolutions; he therefore announced his intentions in a letter to Mr. Crawford, one of the members for the City, who had asked him whether he intended to persevere in moving the amendments of which he had given notice. In reply to this question Mr. Gladstone wrote: The country can hardly now fail to be aware that those gentlemen of the liberal party whose convictions allow them to act unitedly on the question are not a majority, but a minority, in the existing House of Commons; and they have not the power they were supposed to possess of limiting or directing the action of the administration, or shaping the provisions of the reform bill. Still, having regard to the support which my proposal with respect to personal rating secured from so large a number of liberal members, I am not less willing than heretofore to remain at the service of the party to which they belong; and when any suitable occasion shall arise, if it shall be their wish, I shall be prepared again to attempt concerted action upon this or any other subject for the public good. But until then, desirous to avoid misleading the country and our friends, I feel that prudence requires me to withdraw from my attempts to assume the initiative in amending a measure which cannot perhaps be effectually amended except by a reversal, formal or virtual, of the vote of Friday the 11th; for such attempts, if made by me, would, I believe, at the present critical moment, not be the most likely means of advancing their own purpose. Accordingly I shall not proceed with the amendments now on the paper in my name, nor give notice of other amendments such as I had contemplated; but I shall gladly accompany others in voting against any attempt, from whatever quarter, to limit yet farther the scanty modicum of enfranchisement proposed by the government, or in improving, where it may be practicable, the provisions of the bill.' Mr. Bright took the opportunity of a great reform demonstration at Birmingham to denounce the conduct by which the liberal party was for the moment reduced to this impotent condition. Eulogising Mr. Gladstone, as having imported into this question of reform more conviction, earnestness, and zeal than any statesman since 1832, he asked: 'Who is there in the House of Commons who equals him in knowledge of all political questions? Who equals him in earnestness? Who equals him in eloquence? Who equals him in courage and fidelity to his convictions? If these gentlemen who say they will not follow him have any one who is equal, let them show him. If they can point out any statesman who can add dignity and grandeur to the stature of Mr. Gladstone, let them produce him. It is a deplorable thing that last year a small section of forty men, or thereabouts, of professing liberals, destroyed the honest and acceptable (I speak of the people) bill of the late government, and with it also destroyed the government that proposed it. About an equal number have this year to a great extent destroyed the power of the opposition, and may assist an anti-reforming government to pass a very bad measure on the greatest question of our time; |