the admission of Jews. The compromise was accepted, the bill passed, and on the 26th of July Baron Rothschild took his seat.

Another warning on the subject of religious liberty, which, although effective, was not so immediately accepted, was given by the progress of the bill for the abolition of church rates. This was introduced by Sir John Trelawney; was read a second time on the 17th of February by 214 to 160; and on the 8th of June was read a third time, and passed in the Commons by 266 to 203. The Peers, however, had done as much in this line as they could bear in one session, and on the 2nd of July the second reading was, on the motion of Lord Derby, defeated by 187 to 36. Yet it was seen in the next session that the Government, at least, were convinced that some concession must be made even here. Altogether they were having a far from happy time.

Ministers had said that they were prepared to give the question of Parliamentary reform a fair consideration, and the Radicals were determined to give them materials to consider. To begin with, there was in this business also a small practical success. A bill, introduced by Locke King, to abolish property qualification for members of Parliament was accepted by Government, and passed rapidly through both Houses. Thus one of the points of the People's Charter was quietly adopted: quite safely so far as the propertied classes were concerned, for until its natural complement-the payment of members-is accepted, it will be of little practical value. Still, the passing of such an Act was indicative of a change in feeling, and Lord Grey saw in it the inevitable thin end of the wedge. The House of Commons was as decided about the lowering of the county franchise, but not as successful. On the 10th of June the bill for that purpose was read a second time by 226 to 168, but there was neither time nor opportunity to proceed with it further. Milner Gibson, on the 21st of June, proposed a resolution, declaring that the paper duty was not a proper permanent source of

revenue, and that such financial arrangements should be made as would enable Parliament to dispense with it. The first part of the resolution was accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and carried. The session-not a pleasant one for either Whigs or Tories-was closed on the 3rd of August.

Parliament met on the 3rd of February, 1859, the Queen's speech saying, "Your attention will be called to the state of the laws which regulate the representation of the people in Parliament." The Radicals opened the campaign early. On the 7th of February Mr. Dillwyn obtained leave to bring in a bill on endowed schools; on the 8th Trelawney reintroduced his Church Rates Bill; and on the 17th of the same month Locke King took a similar step with regard to the abolition of the law of primogeniture. Of these questions that which related to church rates led to the most important discussions and divisions. On the 21st of February Walpole brought in and explained a Government scheme for dealing with the subject. The plan might have been called a provision for making church rates perpetual. It proposed to make the rate a landlords' rate; to enable owners to make existing rates a charge on land; to allow tenants to recover the rate from landlords; and to exempt from payment those who sign a written paper claiming exemption on the ground of being dissenters. Such a compromise was evidently impracticable. On the 9th of March the Government bill was defeated, on the motion for its second reading, by 254 to 171; and on the 15th of March Trelawney's abolition bill was read a second time by 242 to 168. The ministerial crisis and dissolution prevented further progress with the measure.

The catastrophe was brought about by the attempt of the Government to deal with the reform question. The proposal was an almost unmitigated piece of what is sometimes called Parliamentary strategy, but what plain people call political trickery. It had but one redeeming feature in it-the reduction of the county franchise, and that was accompanied by provisions for alteration of boundaries, the disfranchise

ment of freeholders living in boroughs, and other conditions which rendered its action uncertain. The most amazing thing about it was the method of dealing with the borough franchise. The whole reason why a Reform Bill had been found to be necessary was the demand, which all parties had admitted to be irresistible, of the populations of towns for some direct voice in the choice of representatives, and this was the one thing which was practically refused. The household franchise in boroughs was to be left at £10. Every imaginary claim was to be acknowledged, but the real and solid one was rejected. Stockholders, savings-bank depositors, graduates of universities, ministers of religion, and certificated schoolmasters were all to have votes; but the mass of the working classes were still to be excluded. There was also a little tinkering with redistribution. Fifteen small boroughs were to be deprived of one member each, and the number was to be distributed over three counties and six new boroughs.

The plan was condemned the moment it was known. Russell declared at once that it would be opposed at every stage; and Mr. Bright objected to the total exclusion of the working classes, and to the "fancy franchises," which were absurd and delusive. Leave was given to bring in the bill, but there was little doubt as to its fate. Its first effect, however, was to cause a split in the Ministry itself. Walpole and Henley both resigned-the former because of the reduction of the county franchise-and the latter partly because he also objected to the identity of franchise, but also because he wanted a real bill which would admit more of the working people. On the 21st of March the second reading was moved, and a long discussion took place, lasting altogether for eight nights. Nearly every Liberal speaker condemned the bill; but Roebuck was one of the few who thought that, instead of its being summarily rejected, it might be served as the India Bill had been-taken possession of by the House and altered to suit the wishes of the majority. This was evidently a method impossible with such a measure, and on the 31st of March the division took place, and the Govern

ment were defeated by 330 to 291. They decided not to resign, and on the 4th of April announced their intention to appeal to the country. Some formal business was done, the only party question raised being that of the ballot, introduced by Berkeley on the 12th of April, when he was defeated by 102 to 99; and on the 19th of that month Parliament was prorogued and dissolved.

CHAPTER XVIII

PALMERSTON'S LAST ADMINISTRATION (1859-1865).

THE dissolution of Parliament was a desperate venture-the Prime Minister's only chance, as it appeared, of saving his position, his party, and his principles. If the old Parliament were kept in existence two things would happen, both disastrous to the Conservatives. A Liberal Ministry would be called to power, and an effective Reform Bill must be passed. The former danger might be only temporary, to be overcome as it had been before, if the second one could be avoided. But a constitutional change which would alter the character of many of the constituencies, and give to the people a real share in the representation, might prove a more lasting evil, and mean not only the relinquishment of office for a time, but the loss of political and social power for the governing class. Clearly, then, the risk attending a general election was worth running.

The experiment was not entirely unsuccessful, although it did not secure its primary purpose of saving the Ministry. The Liberal majority was seriously diminished, but it was not destroyed. When the elections were over, the newspapers of the time calculated that the returns showed-Liberals, 353; Conservatives, 302, giving a Liberal majority of fifty-one, including a double return for Aylesbury, which did not materially affect the issue.* This showed a Liberal loss of twenty-three as compared with the numbers in the previous

Times, May 20, 1859. McCalmont's "Poll Book," published in 1879, gives the numbers as-. -Liberals, 348; Conservatives, 305: Liberal majority, 43.