property. It was impossible for the Governinent to accede to the three latter of these propositions; and to the former Mr. Disraeli objected, because the data on which it rested were erroneous. He showed, indeed, by quotations from public documents and private correspondence, that the ballot afforded no protection in the State of New York against bribery and intimidation, and proved to demonstration that, except where universal suffrage prevails, the ballot can only create an oligarchy of the most obnoxious kind. "But I will not," he continued," do them (Mr. Hume and his supporters) the injustice of believing that they sincerely desire to invest what they style the present limited constituencies of the kingdom with the irresponsibility conferred by voting by ballot. They bave always argued that the extension of the franchise is a preliminary to the adoption of the ballot, and I am sure they do not intend to gainsay that opinion now. But the line must be drawn somewhere, unless that extension of the franchi-e be universal. Whore shall it be drawn? If you say I do not want to draw a line anywhere; if you tell us, as my honourable friend the member for Montrose told the House he did last session, namely, submitted to modify his own views in deference to those of other persons, with the purpose of obtaining their assistance; if you adopt what is called in common parlance universal suffrage, without which, so far as political justice is concerned, I do not see how you can establish the ballot, because, if you have the ballot with a limited constituency, you commit a greater injustice upon the unenfranchised classes; but if you have universal suffrage you come to a new constitution a constitution commonly called the sovereignty of the people; you come to that constitution, in short, so much spoken of, so often panegyrised by the reforming and Liberal members of this House-the

But the

constitution of America. sovereignty of the people is not the constitution of England; for, wisely modified as that monarchy may be, the constitution of England is the sovereignty of Queen Victoria."

Again the speaker guarded himself, as on all similar occasions he took care to do, against being supposed to be hostile, either as an individual or party leader, to change of every kind. "I will tell the honourable gentleman what we are opposed to. We are adverse to all crude and unnecessary proposals, founded on such erroneous calculations as the present. What

we are opposed to is, tampering with the depository of political power- - constant changing and shifting of the depository of political power-as the most injurious thing to a country that can be conceived. You may talk of tampering with the currency, and there are few worse things; but that which is worse is, tampering with the constituency of England. If there is to be a change, let it be a change called for by clear necessity, and one which is calculated to give general-I will not say final, but general and permanent satisfaction."

Still more explicit were his declarations in resisting Mr. Locke King's renewed effort to bring down the franchise in counties to the same level with the franchise in boroughs.

Sir, I think that the question must be viewed on a much larger scale than that which is suggested by the proposition of the honourable gentleman the member for East Surrey. But I have also another objection to this bill. I have often said to this House-I repeat it now, as it is the expression of a deep and sincere conviction on my part that I think in the construction of that memorable law, the Reform Act of 1882, there was a very great deficiency, which consisted in a want of due consideration of the rights of the working-classes to the

franchise; and I own that I was very glad, on a recent occasion, to hear the noble Lord, the author of that same Reform Act, acknowledge that my observations had induced him to hold the same opinion an opinion which he certainly did not at the time consider with much favour. And if there be that great deficiency in our system of representation, I assuredly cannot understand how this measure, or the other measures on the same subject which have been so frequently proposed, are at all to meet the deficiencies. Under our old system - by the suffrages of the freemen-the political rights of the labourer were acknowledged by the constitution. We virtually destroyed those rights." Successful on the subject of parliamentary reform, Mr. Disraeli, in bringing forward his Budget, exposed himself to an attack from Mr. Milner Gibson, which, however, he found no great difficulty in repelling. The Budget was, indeed, of the most unpretending kind. It could not well be otherwise; because he who had never before served the Crown, even in a subordinate capacity, found himself all at once overladen with the responsibilities of finance minister. He took office, too, in the very height of the parliamentary session, when time and leisure carefully to consider both the wants of the country and the best means of supplying them were wanting. What could he do? Only that which he did. He adopted as his own the general policy of his predecessor, and as a temporary arrangement renewed the incometax for the year. He became at

once,

as might be expected, the object of vituperation and affected scorn to the Liberals. Among others, Mr. Milner Gibson assailed him for not proposing a reduction of the paper duty, and, making the proposition himself, put the new Chancellor of the Exchequer on his defence. The defence was candid and able. He had voted on a former occasion for the reduction now demanded, but for reasons which no longer operated. The Whig Government, though making reference in the Speech from the Throne to the distress which prevailed among agriculturists, had refused, when called upon, to inquire into the causes of such distress. He had pressed them to apply a portion of the surplus revenue to its relief, and been defeated. He therefore joined Mr. Milner Gibson in his attack upon the paper duty, because he was unwilling to leave so large a sum to be disposed of at their own pleasure by an Administration in which he had no confidence. But circumstances were changed; and with a change of circumstances he claimed the right to change his mode of action. Mr. Disraeli retained the paper duty by a majority of 88, Mr. Gladstone speaking in favour of the Government, but absenting himself from the division.

It is not worth while to pursue any further the details of the session. The Government passed a militia law-the same which still continues in force obtained the necessary supplies, and in due time dissolved. What followed upon the dissolution will be given in a future paper.