In .1854 a new reform bill was introduced by lord John Russell for a further exten sion of the suffrage; but it was unaccompanied with anything like popular excitement, and was withdrawn in consequence of the breaking out of the Crimean war. A reform bill brought in by Mr. Disraeli in 1859 was rejected in the commons by a majority of 39. and the consequence was a dissolution and change of ministry. The ministry of lord Palmerston and lord John Russell, which succeeded follower, introduced and afterward withdrew a reform bill.
No one, remembering amid what apathy that took place, would have expected, within so few years, to see the subject revive, and assume such large dimensions. Mr. Gladstone's speech of 1864 first gave new life, and his declaration, that it lay with those who refused the elective franchise to justify the refusal, sounded the commencement of the new agitation. At the general election of 1865, reform was necessarily nosh dis cussed. The death of lord Palmerston gave the country a ministry in which lord Russell led the house of lords, and Mr. Gladstone led the house of commons. This ministry was not long in attacking the subject, and the reform discussions of 1866. so valuable as preparing for the final settlement of the question, commenced. The ministry adopted a suggestion which Mr. Bright Fad made, and tabled first a bill dealing with time fran chise alone. Its proposals were of a moderate enough description. its leading provisions being to give the franchise to occupiers of premises of the annual value of 27 in boroughs. and of 214 in counties. At the desire of the opposition, led by Mr Disraeli and lord Stanley, government introduced its redistribution of seals bill, and the two bills weme combined and sent to committee together. In committee, parliament proved unmanage able. Several clauses were carried by the narrowest majorities, till at length, on the comparatively small question, whether "clear" or "ratable" annual value should be taken as the basis of the franchise, government was left in a minority of seven. The leaders, true to the traditions of party, resigned, and left the question of reform to the conservatives.
The resignation was beneficial to progress. In the autumn following it. numerous mass meetings, conducted in general with perfect order, were held ; and some unlucky speeches of the opponents of any reduction of the franchise were employed more or less unfairly in order Fo get a starting-point for the kind of eloquence that such meetings require. It now became plain that the main drawback to reform, the alleged indifference of the working classes, had ceased to exist. Reform therefore became inevitable; and it was equally clear that if reform was to be carried by the conservatives, the country would, not accept from them a measure of the moderate character which it would have gladly taken from the liberals shortly before.
The meeting of parliament in 1867, it is said, found the ministry of lord Derby andi Mr. Disraeli still undecided. But it was necessary to do something. The queen's speech accordingly broached the matter; and in the beginning of the session, ?fir Disraeli pro posed to deal with the subject by way of resolution. Ilis resolutions, however, were vague, and had to be withdrawn. Mr. Disraeli then (Feb. 25, 1867) made a speech, in which lie proposed to bring in a bill, with a £6 rating franchise in boroughs, a £20 rating, in counties, and with some of what were called "fancy" franchises. With the redistri bution question he proposed to deal !Duch as his actand bill afterward dealt. This pro posed bill was understood to be a coinpromise with a section of the cabinet not favorably disposed to reform. However, as it did not succeed in making matters smooth, the leaders of the government are said to have, reverted to what was their original policy. The dissentients, lord Carnarvon, lord Cranborne, and gen. Peel, then resigned, and (on of Mm'. 18) the reform bill of 1867 was introduced.
The bill surprised the country. Mr. Disraeli lies since said that, so far back as 1859, he and lord Derby came to the conclusion, that if the £10 line, at which the reform act of 1833 had fixed the borough franchise, were disturbed, there was no other fixed line tenable; and he has made the further revelation, that be spent the interval between 1839 and 1867 in educating his party to the belief that, if the borough franchise was Lobe dealt with at all, it must be dealt with in the boldest manner. llis bill, therefore, carrying out this policy, proposed that all householders within boroughs who were rated for the payment of poor-rates should be entitled to vote. There were certain "securities" attached to this proposal. The householder must have resided two years in the borough, and must have personally paid his rates. Further, the " fancy franchises," which again made their appearance, had coupled with them what was called the " dual vote," the *root of which was to give to every householder who possessed one of them a second vote --. addition to the first, which his house would give him. In counties, the bill proposed a £15 rating franchise, and all existing franchises were permitted to remain. In redis tribution of seats, the bill proposed to take the second member from each borough of less than 7,000 inhabitants, and to divide these scats, together with the seats taken from the .orrupt boroughs, in nearly equal proportions between the larger counties and boroughs, giving one also to London university.