Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/458

 444 History of the Radical Party in Parliament. [1859- was not introduced until the 1st of March, when Lord John Russell explained its provisions. The proposals were to reduce the county franchise to 10 occupiers, and the borough to 6, There was to be a little redistribution, one member being taken from each borough having less than 7000 inhabi- tants, which would give twenty-five seats for appropriation. Of these, two were to be given to West Riding, and one each to thirteen other counties or divisions, five to new boroughs, one each additional to Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, and Leeds, and one to London University. The bill was accepted, but without enthusiasm, by the Radicals; it was opposed, but without bitterness, by the Tories ; its fatal opponents were the Whigs. It was now that they showed the strength of their position, arising from the near balance of power between the two great parties, and the ease with which, by alliance with the Conservatives, they could check any active Liberalism of ministers. They were en- couraged in this policy of resistance by the absence of violent agitation outside. The quietness did not really arise from indifference on the part of the people, and those who assumed that it did had afterwards to pay in increased con- cession for the mistake they made. The fact was, that all parties in turn, Conservatives, Whigs, and Radicals, had admitted the necessity of reform, and had submitted pro- posals for its accomplishments ; and the English people, being practical politicians and not mere visionaries, accepted in good faith this universal profession, and did not see why they should make extraordinary efforts to obtain what was so generally offered. Lord Granville had declared, at the opening of the new Parliament, that the elections had turned on this question, but this constitutional expression of the national will the Whigs chose to forget, and they began at once to cabal for the defeat of the Government scheme. The second reading was moved on the ipth of March, and was continued by adjournment over six days, during which the secession was plainly manifested. Macaulay opposed the bill openly, and Ramsden, Walter, and