parallel in our parliamentary annals, which strikes at the root of all mutual confidence, which is the very soul of our party government, and on which only the strength and freedom of our representative institutions can be sustained.' The language of Mr. Lowe was, if possible, still more caustic. 'If I was not deceived,' he said, 'I must have been a prophet-a character to which I have no claims; for how was it possible that I, who was daily in confidential communication with the honourable gentlemen opposite when they held widely different opinions, could ever have believed that, after their declarations last year, and after condescending to accept from us help they could not have done without, they would have done what they have done? Was it in human foresight to have imagined such a thing? Let us look a little farther. Was it to be conceived that right honourable gentlemen who had given no indications of the extreme facility of changing their opinions and lending themselves to the arts of treachery, would, for the sake of keeping a few of them in office for a short time, and giving some small patronage to half-adozen lawyers, have been prepared to sacrifice all the principles, all the convictions, and all the traditions of their lives?' Mr. Disraeli was not a man to let these invectives pass unchallenged. 'If,' said he, 'we from the bottom of our hearts believe that the measure which we are now requesting you to pass is not, on the whole, the wisest and best that could be passed under the circumstances, I would even admit that our conduct was infamous. But I want to know what the right honourable gentleman thinks of his own conduct, when, having assisted in turning out the government of Lord Derby in 1859, because they would not reduce the borough franchise, he, if I am not much mistaken, having been one of the most active managers in that intrigue, accepted office in 1860 under the govern ment of Lord Palmerston, who brought forward a measure of parliamentary reform which he disapproved, and more than disapproved, because he invited his political opponents to defeat it? And yet the right honourable gentleman talks to us of infamy. Sir, the prognostications of evil uttered by the noble Lord (Cranbourne) I can respect, because I know they are sincere; the warnings and the prophecies of the right honourable gentleman I treat in 1867.] THE BILL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 323 another spirit,' &c. The house, however, was little disposed to trouble itself about the vehement denunciations of Lord Cranbourne, the predictions and lamentations of Mr. Lowe, or the apologies of the chancellor of the exchequer. The dominant feeling was an impatience to have done with the measure which had occupied so large a share of attention, and caused so much anxiety during two successive sessions. When, therefore, the speaker put the question, that this bill be now read a third time, there was a loud and general shout of 'Ay!' One solitary voice from below the gangway on the ministerial side of the house cried 'No! And the farther question being put, that the bill do pass, it was carried amid loud cheering from all parts of the house. On the following day the measure was introduced into the House of Lords, and read a first time. The question of the second reading was brought forward on Monday, July 21st, when, after a debate extending over two evenings, an amendment moved by Earl Grey was negatived, and the bill read a second time without a division. The lords, however, showed that they were resolved not merely to register the bill sent up to them by the commons, but to give its details a full, if not altogether unfettered consideration. Unfortunately Lord Derby was seized with illness at this critical moment, and obliged to leave the conduct of the measure in the hands of Lord Malmesbury. During his absence, Lord Cairns proposed and carried two important amendments, one of which raised the lodger franchise from 10l. to 157.; and the other enacted that in any contested election in which three members were to be chosen, no elector should be allowed to vote for more than two. This cumulative vote,' as it was called, had already been supported in the House of Commons by a large minority. On the 6th of August Lord Derby again made his appearance in the house, in spite of the strong advice of his medical attendants. His pale and haggard countenance, and his arm in a sling, showed that he was yet suffering; but, ill as he was, he was still the first man in the house. He met an amendment moved by Earl Grey by declaring that its probable effect, if carried, would be to cause the loss of the bill; and thus procured its defeat, though by a narrow majority. He procured a reversal of the decision to which the house had come during his absence with regard to the lodger franchise. Then came the passing of the bill. The last remarks made on it by Earl Russell were listened to with the attention and respect that his character and antecedents secured for him. He must have been somewhat mortified to see a measure for which he had all along laboured so zealously, and to which he claimed a peculiar right, taken out of his hands by a rival who had been for a long time the foremost opponent of all his schemes of reform. Still, whatever disappointment he may have felt on this score, he did not display it. He said that he thought the bill ought to be passed, and he hoped that it would settle the question for some time to come. He predicted that it would cause more corruption, bribery, and treating than ever, because the franchise was extended by it to a great number of ignorant persons, without any settled political opinion, and open to temptations; but he did not believe that this would produce any serious mischief, because vital points depended on the temper of the people. He expressed an opinion that the redistribution part of the scheme had not been carried far enough; and he strongly censured Lord Derby's declaration that he had introduced such a bill for the sake of his party. Lord Russell somewhat indignantly declared that such a course was incompatible with a belief in the sincerity of those who adopted it. Such tactics had never been heard of before, and he hoped that they would never be heard of again. Lord Derby closed the debates on the measure by thanking the peers for the temper and candour with which they had treated the bill. He acknowledged that it was a great experiment, and that they had taken a leap in the dark; but expressed confidence in the sound sense of his countrymen. And so it passed the House of Lords. The same evening it was carried down to the House of Commons, and presented there precisely at seven o'clock. The following Thursday was fixed for the consideration of the lords' amendments; and from all parts of the kingdom members flocked up to London, and the benches on both sides of the house were again crowded. There were only three of the lords' amendments on which a struggle took place. The first proposed to enact that the electors in 1867.] BILL RECEIVES THE ROYAL ASSENT. 325 large constituencies which were to send three members to parliament should have only two votes, thus providing for the representation of minorities; it was maintained by a majority of 49. The next restricted the number of votes of the electors of the city of London to three; it was carried by a majority of 64. The third authorised the using of voting-papers; it was rejected by a majority of 52. The upper house acquiesced; and so the bill was at last finally adopted, and received the royal assent. This act was in fact the work of the session, monopolising the attention of the legislature almost exclusively. The budget was brought forward, and passed almost without notice; the chancellor of the exchequer explained it to a large audience. His statement was brief, and was listened to with respectful attention; but his plans excited little enthusiasm, and encountered no opposition. With the passing of the reform bill the interest of the session expired. The only feeling that existed in the legislature was a desire to finish as rapidly as possible the work that remained to be done, in order that parliament might be prorogued without delay. The war declared against the king of Abyssinia in consequence of his obstinate detention of several Englishmen, some of whom were accredited to him by our government, rendered necessary an autumn session. There was a general feeling that the war could not be avoided. All intention of making conquests was distinctly disavowed, and parliament had only to vote the means necessary to defray the expenses of the operations, which the climate of Abyssinia would probably cause to be very great. These expenses were provided for by the grant of an additional penny on the income tax and by the balances in the exchequer. As Mr. Disraeli was suffering from illness and a domestic bereavement, the opposition exercised a degree of forbearance that was highly creditable. In the prosecution of the war all that could be done was to trust to the bravery of our troops and the skill and intelligence of their officers. The necessary measures having been discussed and adopted, the autumnal session was brought to a close. In the course of this year some very serious disturbances were created by an itinerant lecturer named Murphy. He ( that having regard to The budget of this: all the more gratifying face of the distress 1. still existed in the mai expenditure for the 1 66,139,000l.; while th to 70,170,000l.; so that : of no less than 4,031, balance, there was roo taxation. Passing by s proposed to make, we c portant. The duty on t the pound; the incomefourpence in the pound :: with a resolution which on the 21st of March, w at a uniform rate of onshilling duty on all pol stamp, and a penny rec |