who, I think, during the campaign of reform | that the representation of the people was a last year, behaved with great temper and forbearance, and gave every fair opportunity to the government to carry their bill if they could. But I can say something of the feelings of hon. gentlemen opposite, because month after month I watched their countenances, and saw men representing capital cities and large constituencies whose teeth were chattering in their heads when the order of the day was read. Their pallid visages could not be concealed from the commonest observers; you found them in the lobbies shaking in their shoes at the threatening invasion of a £6 constituency. Why, sir, these are traits which convince me that the hon. gentleman and his friends will obtain no popularity among their co-mates and colleagues in this House by the course they propose to pursue. Well, then, what can be their motive? Is it the honourable object of proving that, though they are taking an unpopular course so far as the country is concerned-though they are taking an odious course so far as their intimate friends are concerned-that they are still consistent, they have not changed their minds, and that, though changes may have occurred in other quarters, they are the same as when they presented themselves upon the hustings? If that be the result which they desire, then I say it is one which they can obtain without wasting the time of parliament, and without still further injuring that cause of parliamentary reform to which they are devoted." Mr. Disraeli then concluded by recommending these "independent members" to hold a public meeting to prove to the country that their opinions were unchanged, and suggested that their friends should take the opportunity to present them with a testimonial. He would subscribe.

The motion of Mr. Locke-King was agreed to without a division, and on the second reading of the bill (March 13, 1861) Mr. Disraeli again addressed the House on the subject. Lord John Russell had said, that he fully agreed with the leader of the Opposition

subject which could only be dealt with in a
complete and comprehensive manner, but
that he thought an exception ought to be
made in regard to the county franchise.
"Now, why make an exception in regard to
the county franchise?" asked Mr. Disraeli.
"Is the county franchise that portion of
the franchise for which we find the largest
number of applicants? Is it in the counties
where you find persons most eager to claim
the possession of the franchise? Is the
county constituency in point of number
inferior to the borough constituency? Is
it not a notorious fact that the constituency
represented by 150 county members of this
House is more numerous than the con-
stituency represented by more than 300
borough members? Then I want to know,
if the noble lord admits the principle that
we ought to deal only in a complete and
comprehensive manner with the subject of
parliamentary reform, on what grounds
can the noble lord justify the exception he
is now making?
With regard to
the bill before us, I object to dealing with
this question of the extension of the suff-
rage but in a complete and comprehensive
measure. I deny that we can consider the
due and legitimate incidence of the county
franchise unless we take into consideration,
at the same time, the franchise in the
boroughs; and not merely that subject, but
unless we take into consideration all which
affects the representation of the people in
parliament. That would be with me a
sufficient reason for not entering into this
discussion. But I will not say, as others
have said, that if a large measure were
brought before us, and this were portion of
it, I could approve it. I entirely disapprove
of this measure. I state, without equivoca-
tion, that this is not in any degree, either
in its form or spirit, the measure which
we proposed with respect to the county
franchise in our bill."

Mr. Disraeli then defended the reform bill which the Conservative party had introduced, and showed how it differed

church-rates and the established church | principle upon which our social system is went hand in hand together, and could established. If the majority is overwhelmnot be abolished without danger to the ing, he yields without a murmur; if it be religious interests of the country. The slight he can exercise his influence if he result of this agitation was soon apparent chooses, so that next year the majority when Sir John Trelawny again brought may change into a minority." No one, his motion before the House. maintained Mr. Disraeli, could fairly say that on the ground of grievance the abolition of the law should be urged by dissenters.

It is

The second reading of the bill was strenuously opposed by Mr. Disraeli. If that bill were carried, he said (February 27, 1861), the first effect would be Mr. Disraeli then denied that his to deprive the parishioners in vestry opposition to the measure was for party assembled of the privilege they then purposes. "The Church of England,” he possessed of self-taxation. The abolition said in conclusion, "is not a mere deposiof church-rates would be an assault upon tory of doctrine. The Church of England the independence of the parish and upon the is a part of England-it is a part of integrity of the church. There were no our strength and a part of our liberties, just grounds of complaint against the tax. a part of our national character. When the House came practically to con- a chief security for that local government sider the question, it was impossible to say which a radical reformer (Mr. Bright) has that there was any class which experienced thought fit to-day to designate as an a grievance from the exercise of a law 'archæological curiosity.' It is a principal ancient in its character, popular in its barrier against that centralizing supremacy principle, and which all must admit was, which has been in all other countries so if not for a general, for a public purpose. fatal to liberty. And it is because the bill He did not forget the dissenter. "We have of the hon. baronet is opposed to these heard," proceeded Mr. Disraeli, “a great deal great influences—it is because the parishes of dissenters in this and previous debates on which now are spoken of with contempt, this subject; and one would almost suppose and the church with feelings of a more from the manner in which the dissenter vindictive character, are assailed by this was mentioned that he was some stranger bill-that I shall give it my uncompromising in the country or some wild animal. Why, opposition." a dissenter is our friend, our neighbour, our tenant, our tradesman; he is an Englishman animated by all the feelings and principles of Englishmen. What is the position of a dissenter with respect to this? If he finds himself in a majority in any parish where a rate is proposed, he has a victorious power of self-defence in that majority, and he can by the votes of himself and friends shield himself from these grievances of which you say that he complains. What is the position of a dissenter in parishes in which he is in the minority? In that case, if he be animated by the same feelings of any other Englishman-and I know by experience he is so he yields to the opinion of the majority, for such he knows is the

VOL. I.

On a division the second reading of the bill was carried by 281 to 266, being a considerable falling off from the previous majority in its favour. Thus encouraged, the Conservatives and the other defenders. of church-rates, both in and out of the House, redoubled their exertions to defeat the measure; and with such success that on the third reading of the bill the Ayes and Noes were exactly equal, there being 274 on each side. The Speaker was consequently called upon to give a casting vote, and amid much cheering from the Opposition he supported the "Noes," stating as his reason that as the numbers were so large on both sides at this stage. of the proceedings it was advisable to give 60