for his daily bread, it is only because then, in railway language, the danger-signal is turned on, and because he feels a strong necessity for action, and a distrust in the rulers who have driven him to that necessity. The present state of things, I rejoice to say, does not indicate that distrust; but if we admit that, we must not allege the absence of agitation on the part of the working classes as a reason why the Parliament of England and the public mind of England should be indisposed to entertain the discussion of this question." The argument was unanswerable, but it failed to convince the House, and the bill was defeated by a majority of 272 against 216.

But these are not the only reform bills that were sacrificed to what is called public opinion. Mr. Gladstone next tried his hand at reform, and was served in the same way as previous reformers had been. His bill, which was introduced on the 13th March, 1866, proposed to reduce the county franchise from £50 to £14; to place copyholders and leaseholders on the same footing as forty-shilling freeholders; to enable a man having £50 in a bank to claim a vote for a county or borough; to confer the franchise on compound householders in boroughs, and tenants of separate parts of a house, and lodgers paying £10 a year for their lodgings; and to lower the borough franchise from £10 to £7. These were the only changes pro

posed by the bill, which was evidently a compromise, and therefore not likely to rouse any enthusiasm in the country in its favour. In the House it was not only received with coldness by the Liberals, but, which was somewhat significant, it also met with the most uncompromising opposition from the Conservatives and from a certain section of the Liberal party. The old stock arguments were reproduced which had done good service against previous reform bills; the House was again informed that the question was inopportune, that the country did not want reform, and that, at all events, there was no agitation in favour of it out of doors, which was true enough at that time, but, as we shall see further on, that argument may be used once too often. It was determined that the measure should be got rid of in a very summary fashion, and without any discussion on its merits. Earl Grosvenor, a steady supporter of the ministry, gave notice that on the question of the second reading he would move that it would be inexpedient to discuss any bill for the reduction of the franchise until the House should have before it the entire scheme of the government for the amendment of the representation of the people. The government thereupon became alarmed, and, on the night before the commencement of the Easter recess, in moving that at its rising the House should adjourn to the

9th of April, Mr. Gladstone entered into certain explanations, showing, among other advantages, that the bill would confer the franchise on no less than 400,000 persons, and concluded by calling upon his supporters to stand by it. The appeal was responded to by the friends of reform out of doors in a somewhat lukewarm manner. The only noteworthy circumstance connected with the discussion of the measure, was a remark made by Mr. Bright at a reform meeting in Birmingham, when he told his audience that their representation in the house was a sham and a farce; and that if the people wanted an effective Reform Bill, they must take the matter into their own hands, and bring a strong pressure to bear on the Legislature. But the strong pressure was not forthcoming, and after a protracted discussion extending to the 18th of June, the bill was shelved like the others before it.

II. The House of Commons has rejected measures which the constituencies were in favour of because public opinion was supposed to be adverse to them. Probably one illustration will suffice under this head. The question of church rates has been under discussion for a long period, and more than one motion for their abolition has been carried in Parliament. As far back as 1832 Lord Althorpe carried a resolution in favour of abolition by 256 to 140, but nothing

came of it. Since then various proposals for their modification or entire abolition have been made from time to time, and were always received with favour by the House. In 1861 Sir John Trelawney, thinking the time had at length arrived for the settlement of the question, brought in a bill for their entire abolition. It was no sooner apparent that the measure was likely to be carried, however, than a determined set was made against it. Mr. Disraeli took a prominent part in the movement, and organized a strong opposition to it both inside and outside the House. At a combined meeting of the clergy and laity of the rural deanery of Amersham, Bucks, he stated that, in his opinion, the question of the maintenance of church rates involved the very existence of a State Church. This was made the key-note to the agitation which immediately commenced. The old cry was raised that the Church was in danger; meetings were convened in all parts of the country, at which resolutions against the bill were carried, petitions got up for presentation to Parliament, and true churchmen were everywhere recommended to communicate with their representatives and urge them to oppose the Bill, or, at all events, not to vote in favour of it. The agitation was a complete success. The second reading was carried, it is true, but by a majority of only 281 to 266, which was a great falling

off compared with previous divisions in favour of the principle of the measure. This result greatly encouraged the opposition, and more strenuous efforts were made to defeat the bill on the third reading. When the division on the third reading took place it was found that the numbers for and against the measure were exactly equal, and on the speaker giving his casting vote against it the bill was lost. It was again brought up the following session, when the result was, for the bill 286, against, 287, or a majority of one against it. One more attempt was made the next session (1863) to carry the bill, when the majority against it rose to 10, a result which settled the question from that day to this.

III. Not only has the House of Commons rejected measures which the constituent body approved of because their approval had not been subsequently endorsed by public opinion, and rejected measures which the country was in favour of because public opinion was supposed to be adverse to them, but it has also passed measures to which it was itself opposed when sufficient outside pressure was brought to bear in their favour. We have already referred to the extraordinary agitation which prevailed in this country in 1832, when the Reform Bill was under discussion, and to the effect which this agitation had in securing its passage through Parliament. In 1867