This historic book may have numerous typos, missing text or index. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. 1885. Not illustrated. Excerpt: ... little or nothing for the working classes, while Mr. Walpole and Mr. Henley retired from the Ministry because the new principle, of a like qualification for counties and boroughs, established in the bill, was utterly at variance with the traditions of the Conservative party. Mr. Bright held that a Government representing a party which had always opposed the extension of political power to the people ought not to have undertaken to settle this question. There were many points in the bill to which he took exception, but chiefly to the total exclusion of the working classes from power. The new franchises were, he said, absurd; they seemed intended merely to make it appear that something was given. Mr. Bright also insisted upon the dissatisfaction that would be created by the withdrawal of their county vote from freeholders in towns. It would have been better if Mr. Disraeli had adhered to the ancient maxims of his party, or had adopted a measure of his opponents, than had introduced a bill which must create anger and disgust throughout the country, --a bill which would disturb everything, irritate vast masses of the people, and settle nothing. The measure was read a first time, but it was doomed to be wrecked on the second reading. The debate on this stage began on the 20th of March, and was sustained through seven nights. Lord John Russell moved an adverse amendment in a very vigorous speech, concluding with these words: 'With regard to this great question of Reform, I may say that I defended it when I was young, and I will not desert it now that I am old.' Mr. Horsman and others thought the bill could be altered in Committee; and Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton, with much eloquence, pleaded on behalf of the measure, contending that in refusing the compromise offered, the opp...