have not come to any accord upon principles. To precipitate a decision in the case of a single human life would be cruel. It is more than cruel—it is parricide in the ease of the Constitution, which is the life and soul of this great nation. If it is to perish, as all human beings must perish, give it, at any rate, time to gather its robe about it, and to fall with decency and deliberation.
'To-morrow!
Oh, that's sudden! Spare it! Spare it!
It ought not so to die.' "
This was indeed eloquence, but the Attorney-General, notwithstanding, might well ask in bewilderment. What was it Mr. Lowe wanted to have done? what was his practical object? His argument resolved itself into this—that we should stand on things as they are, because they are, and without showing any reason why they are. Sir Hugh Cairns contended against the bill's going into committee. The House was not agreed upon any one of its fundamental principles; what, then, was the use of going into committee upon it—a process meant not to reconstruct, but only to amend a measure? The Lord-Advocate did his best to demolish Sir Hugh Cairns' arguments, and when he sat down. Lord Grosvenor, the nominal leader of the "Cave," upon whose support of the amendment the Opposition had counted, rose to make the important announcement, that, seeing the amendment seemed likely to be made a question of the maintenance or resignation of the Ministry, he should in this instance support the Government, as, though he had not much confidence in them in the matter of Reform, in the present state of European politics, and in the present condition of our finance, it would be a great misfortune to the country if they, particularly Lord Clarendon, were compelled to quit office. Mr. Gladstone's speech, which followed Lord Grosvenor's, was memorable for some sharp handling of Mr. Lowe's speeches contained in it. With regard to Mr. Lowe's charge of creating anomalies, instead of getting rid of them, Mr. Gladstone said: "I deny that it creates a single anomaly in the true and proper sense of the word. I ask of those who make the charge, did the Reform Act create anomalies, or not, by disfranchisement and redistribution of seats? If you choose to say that the man who destroys a gross anomaly, and substitutes a much milder form of the very same thing, creates an anomaly, to that charge we are open; and to that charge the Reform Act was open." With regard to the general tone of Mr. Lowe's speeches, Mr. Gladstone had several indignant remarks to make. One passage he called "one gross and continued error, both of trust and judgment." "And although," he continued, "it is a very great treat to listen to his speeches as intellectual exercises, yet no man must imagine that any practical good was to be got out of discussion with such a disputant. Now, let me ask, can we occupy common ground with my right honourable friend? How can we cherish the slightest hope of mitigating the differences which exist between us, or of arriving at a settlement with one who approaches a question of this gravity in such a spirit, and with such a degree of license, so fur as regards his own individual opinion?" Mr. Gladstone went on to argue against Mr. Lowe's objections to the bill in detail. He defended the system of grouping, and he defended the proposed extension of parliamentary boundaries. In fact, Mr. Gladstone's speech was an elaborate and eloquent elucidation of the Government bill from the many attacks that had been made upon it. "We have now to deal," he said in conclusion, "I will not say with an alteration so much as with a growth of circumstances, with a growth of numbers, a growth of wealth, a growth of intelligence, a growth of loyalty, and a growth of confidence in Parliament among all classes of the community. And our view is this—that under these circumstances, we are entitled to say that now again has the time come to apply with caution, yet with firmness, those principles from the operation of which we have already reaped such blessed fruits; "viz., the principles of the Reform Act of 1832. "It is in the prosecution of that work that we also confronted with the hostility which has met us in the various stages of this bill.—hostility that may be formidable; indeed, hostility of which I will not oven now presume to predict that it may not meet with a momentary success; but to which I will say, that any triumph which may he gained, will recoil with tenfold force upon the heads of those who may achieve it." In the earlier part of his speech, Mr. Gladstone had made an indignant protest against the mode of procedure of the Opposition. Captain Hayter's amendment was, he said, an indirect attempt to defeat the bill altogether, and, as such, a violation of Lord Derby's pledge that it should receive fair play. Mr. Disraeli, in the speech which concluded the debate, did his best to defend his party from the charge of factious opposition; but when one considers what a much more sweeping bill than the one they were at present opposing, on the ground of its Radical tendencies, was passed by him and his party in the following year, his arguments appear hardly convincing. When he resumed his seat, the amendment was negatived by 403 to 2, the greater part of the Opposition having left the House to avoid voting, seeing that Lord Grosvenor's defection from their ranks left them little or no chance of obtaining a majority against Government.
So far, and upon questions of general principles, the Government had in the man, though with great difficulty, and at least one hair-breadth escape, been successful. That is to say, the House as a whole, with the exception, perhaps, of Mr. Lowe, were agreed that Reform in some shape or other was inevitable But the Opposition were also agreed in the determination not to let the Russell Ministry settle the question. A successful Reform Bill would have continued the Liberals in power, as later on it kept the Conservatives in office, and Mr. Disraeli saw his opportunity and seized it. Reform, especially that side of it which is concerned with the redistribution of seats, rouses the most apathetic Conservative member, and Mr. Disraeli could therefore count upon the undivided support of his party. But Mr. Gladstone's majority would have baffled all their efforts, had it not
