reformers. I fear they can hardly hope to have their measure, but there has been some magic in the name. Under that standard, at least, those have enlisted who, I have no doubt, will contribute to the greatness of the country and the glory of parliament. They, at least, have been led by that phrase to form a coalition government, and their supporters must be satisfied that, though the large measure' which they looked forward to with so much eagerness cannot be passed, still if the phrase had not been circulated, the ministers who have disappointed them would not now be sitting on those benches." ་ On the withdrawal of the measure the leader of the Opposition spoke at greater length. Lord John Russell, who addressed the House under strong emotion, said that the statement he was about to make might, in some minds, lay himself open to suspicion; but the government had come to the conclusion not to press the measure in the present state of the country. He had pledged his honour to bring forward the measure, and he had felt bound to act according to his engagements. He knew he would lay himself open to the sarcasms of Mr. Disraeli, but he trusted he would meet with support. of his friends, and to resist any measures which he thought obnoxious to the public welfare, if such measures were brought forward by the noble lord, he could assure him he was little disposed, after the address he had made, to view with any spirit of acerbity the course he had adopted. Although it had been his fate to be always seated opposite to the noble lord, he could say most sincerely, there was no one in that House who had a more heartfelt respect for the noble lord than he. He thought his character and career were precious possessions of the House of Commons, and he was sure that the members of the House of Commons would always cherish them. Wherever the noble lord sat, he was sure he would be accompanied by the respect of every member of that House; and he thought the manner in which what was evidently a painful communication had been made was in every way worthy of the noble lord's character. "But," continued Mr. Disraeli, "although I am satisfied with the course which Her Majesty's ministers have proposed to take with respect to this bill for parliamentary reform, and although the feelings which I have endeavoured imperfectly to express with regard to the noble lord are sincere, I still feel it my duty to express my conviction that all that the noble lord has said to-night has not met the real difficulty of his position. All the influences which he has placed before us to-night, and which have induced him to take a course so opposite to that which he originally contemplated, have been in operation during the whole of the session; and, therefore, I am obliged to ask the noble lord how it was that, yielding now to these influences, the noble lord and his colleagues felt themselves justified in bringing forward this bill for parliamentary reform at the commencement of the session? In criticising the course the government had pursued, Mr. Disraeli said he thought ministers had arrived at a sound conclusion in that which they had communicated to the House, and that the country was to be congratulated upon their decision. He was not, therefore, disposed to indulge in those sarcasms which the noble lord anticipated on that occasion; and if the conduct of the government with respect to other measures which he might also feel it to be his duty to oppose were influenced by the same feelings and regulated by the same policy, he could promise the noble lord that he would experience from him an opposition as "The noble lord has stated, to-night, a mitigated as he would now. Although variety of causes which have induced him he should never shrink from exercising to adopt this final course. Did they not his best efforts to vindicate the opinions exist when parliament met? Did they VOL. I. 35 not exist on the 13th of February, when to destroy or to abrogate that new power the noble lord in detail, in spite of every or influence which, in his opinion, will warning, notwithstanding every remon- more beneficially operate upon the governstrance, determined to place that measure before parliament and the country? Why, on the very first night we assembled, the noble lord was met from this side of the House by appeals to him not to pursue the course he then contemplated. He was told that the state of war that then virtually existed was one that rendered the period most inopportune for the discussion of a proposal for organic changes in the constitution of the country. The noble lord would not listen to the appeals then made to him. The noble lord, with great ingenuity, maintained by instances and by arguments that a period of war was particularly qualified and adapted for the discussion of such business as this; that, the public mind being distracted from the measure of parliamentary reform, it was possible to devise a measure, without being so much influenced by popular feeling and popular passion as in ordinary circumstances they might be. The noble lord attempted to lay down the principle that the fact of being in a state of war was in favour of this change. The noble lord afterwards showed us that war with Russia was a condition of things peculiarly favourable to the prosecution of a measure of this kind. "The noble lord has, to-night, observed that there is some force in the remark that there is inconvenience in laying a measure upon the table and not proceeding with it, which brands, I may say, almost a sixth of the members of the House of Commons. In a country like this, where so much depends upon prescription, the noble lord must feel that at any time for a minister of the crown to bring forward a measure that shakes the influence of prescription is a hazardous enterprise. It is certainly one that should not be risked, unless that minister has every prospect of succeeding with his measure, and of substituting for the power or influence which he is going ment of the country. Now, what is par- -as persons who, when they have the present government been four months in opportunity, would deprive them of their office before they formed a project-which rights and franchises which they so much they subsequently executed-of having a value. Therefore, it is clear that when a military camp at Chobham. It was well minister makes a proposition of this nature known that the government then believed and does not proceed with it, he is creating that, not merely war, but invasion was imdisaffection amongst some classes and dislike minent. amongst others. He is, in fact, weakening the constituted authorities of the country, and enfeebling the established institutions of the land. Such I think a most unwise course, and it only proves that no minister should embark in an undertaking of such a nature as parliamentary reform without the necessity for the change being clear, and his ability to accomplish his purpose being evident and palpable." Mr. Disraeli then denied that the Conservatives had evinced any opposition to the measure, but that the indisposition to parliamentary reform in the present House of Commons was confined entirely to the noble lord's own side of the House. Now, I want to know," he continued, pressing his arguments home, "what were the circumstances under which the government of Lord Aberdeen made that pledge? What were the circumstances under which the right hon. baronet the first lord of the admiralty made the concession of a large measure of parliamentary reform a condition of his adhesion to the government of Lord Aberdeen? Were they circumstances of less peril than the present? Were they less serious? Was the conjuncture less menacing? Why, we really seem to have forgotten the circumstances under which Lord Aberdeen acceded to power. After an interval of between thirty and forty years, what had the House of Commons just done? They had armed the people; they had absolutely called out the militia, and were training and disciplining 100,000 men. A few months before Lord Aberdeen entered office, the late government had considerably increased the naval estimates; but no sooner had the first lord of the admiralty come into office than he doubled those estimates. Nor had the 'Now, no one will pretend that a war with France is not a much more awful affair than a war with Russia; and yet with a war with France in their opinion impending, they formed their government on the principle of a large measure of parliamentary reform. And did the adoption of that statement not serve them? Could they have formed their cabinet unless they had formed the principle upon which that cabinet was established? Could they have carried on their government for six months unless that had been the principle upon which the government of Lord Aberdeen had been established? Could they have possessed, not merely the great administrative abilities of the first lord of the admiralty, but the profound statesmanlike attributes even of the first commissioner of works? Could he have given to the government the fruits of those studies which Bentham had inspired and Grote had guided? "How did they carry on the administration? Why, only a very few months after its formation we had the financial measures of the chancellor of the exchequer brought forward, which, according to the noble lord's statement to-night, was the excuse for not proceeding with parliamentary reform in the first year that the government held office. A tax extremely odious in the mode in which it is levied was introduced to this House, it being known that there was an absolute majority against the imposition of that tax, and that the most powerful assailants of this tax-the income tax-were to be found on the benches where the supporters of the present government mostly congregate. Did not these gentlemen say that they disapproved of the unmodified income tax, and only voted for it in con sequence of this promise of a large measure | requisite, still it is not now absolutely of parliamentary reform? And, therefore, necessary; it would involve a great I say that parliamentary reform was the principle upon which the government was founded, and without it the present cabinet would never have existed, and that without it the administration of affairs could not have been carried on. I say also at the same time, that the pledge to give a large measure of parliamentary reform was made at a time when the state of public affairs, so far as our external relations were concerned, was not less menacing, nay, I think, more perilous and threatening, than it is at the present time." Opposed to the measure of Lord John Russell, Mr. Disraeli said he was glad that the government had relinquished it. But what was the moral they should draw from all these circumstances? Though no one could question the honour and sincerity of Lord John Russell - still he must say, remarked Mr. Disraeli, that there appeared to him that there had been too much levity, for party purposes, in dealing with questions of organic change in the constitution of the country. He hoped, therefore, that Lord John would not proceed in the course of which he had given an indication, of postponing for a short though indefinite time his plans of parliamentary reform. He thought it would be much better for the noble lord to allow the question altogether to drop, and not to embarrass himself by another pledge. Instead of embarrassing himself, suggested Mr. Disraeli, by a promise to take as early an opportunity as possible to introduce the measure again, it would have been better for the noble lord to have said, "I have made a considerable attempt. The cabinet have stood by me. This measure is the result of our united deliberations. But the country does not require it, the times are perilous, and although I think that a time of war is no good cause why a measure of parliamentary reform should not be carried if struggle, and, therefore, for the present, I will say farewell to parliamentary reform." "Honourable gentlemen opposite," concluded Mr. Disraeli, "would then have had just as good a chance of getting parliamentary reform when the time arrived as they have now by retaining the vain pledges of a minister. Surely the experience of the last two years must have taught you, that you are not one whit the nearer a measure of parliamentary reform because you have the pledges of statesmen that they will give it to you. Here you have statesmen who have pledged themselves, and who were most sincerely anxious to fulfil their pledges, but you did not obtain your object. You never can obtain a change such as you desire until the great preponderance of public opinion demands it. Well, then, why embarrass the government with a standing pledge of this kind? The noble lord will pardon me for saying that it would have been more statesmanlike if, after all he has done, and I will say, after all he has suffered, he had asked the House to-night to place confidence in his sincerity, and to show by the manner in which they received his words to-night, that they thought his honour was intact; and had then told them that it was much better not to embarrass the government any longer with pledges on this subject, but that they might be confident that when the time was ripe, the measures that were demanded by necessity would be brought forward by any ministry which happened then to be in possession of power. I hope that the noble lord will at least draw this lesson from the past-not to embarrass himself with pledges which he knows not when he can fulfil, merely for party purposes, and in order to animate followers who must feel that, after all, measures of national importance depend upon something more solid than the word of any individual, however sincere or however gifted.' CHAPTER XII. "A COALITION WAR." IN the present grave condition of affairs, when at any moment England might be called upon to engage herself in hostilities, the end of which no one could clearly see, it became the duty of the cabinet to make ample provision so that the naval and military resources of the country should be in full readiness for any emergency that might arise. Early in March the budget of the chancellor of the exchequer was laid before the House. Into the details of this financial statement we need not enter, beyond touching upon those proposals which served the purpose of Mr. Disraeli for delivering a scathing attack upon the vacillating and short-sighted conduct of the coalition administration. It was evident to all who had studied the diplomatic negotiations during the past few months, that ministers were divided into two parties upon the question of a warlike policy. Lord Aberdeen represented the section which placed faith in the honour of the Czar, and which did not feel itself called upon to uphold the Ottoman empire by the active interference of English arms. Lord Palmerston, on the other hand, represented the ministerial minority which declined to trust the aggressive policy of Russia, which believed in the loyalty and courage of the Turk, and which fully realized the danger to our Eastern possessions by the establishment of the Muscovite power on the shores of the Bosphorus. In the eyes of the leader of the Opposition, to this division of opinion the country was now indebted for her present position. Had England spoken at the outset of the complications between St. Petersburg and Constantinople in no uncertain voice; had the Czar been fully assured that Lord Aberdeen would declare war rather than give any encouragement to Muscovite designs upon the Porte; had the coalition cabinet been firm, united, and straightforward-Russia would have withdrawn her pretensions, and the necessity for hostilities have been evaded. So thought Mr. Disraeli; and he did not hesitate to give utterance to his opinions. In the supplemental budget brought forward by Mr. Gladstone, the total extra expenditure was estimated at nearly £7,000,000; this increase the chancellor proposed to meet by doubling the income tax, by adding to the excise duty on Scotch and Irish spirits, by a re-adjustment of the sugar duties, and increasing the malt tax. Exchequer bonds to the amount of £6,000,000 were also to be issued in three series, one for each of the three ensuing years. In criticising these proposals, Mr. Disraeli strongly condemned the financial policy of the past year, which, by reducing the rate of interest upon exchequer bills, and by the conversion of certain "patriarchal stocks," had exhausted the balances in the exchequer to such a degree, that the government had to depend upon deficiency bills for carrying on to a great extent the business of the country. Was that, he asked, a desirable state of things when they were on the eve, he would not say of disaster and distress, but of those contingencies which portended disaster and distress? When the last government quitted office, the balances in the exchequer amounted to nearly £9,000,000; and now, owing to the mistaken views. of Mr. Gladstone, instead of enjoying any balance at all, they had an enormous deficiency. "The great balance |