Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/459

 1865.] Palmerstoris Last Administration. 445 other Whigs, did the same in a less direct" manner. The second reading was carried without a division ; but the com- mittee stage was interrupted by another long debate, in the course of which, on one division on the /th of June, the Government only obtained a majority of twenty-one, the num- bers being 269 to 248. Some of the arguments made use of were curious, looked at in the light gained from subsequent events. Disraeli * thought that a measure which founded the constituency upon the principle of numbers, not fitness, and which added 200,000 electors, composing one homogeneous class, having the same interest, who would neutralize the voices of the present borough constituency, was not wise and well considered. Rolt and other members declared that the bill would lead to household suffrage, and then to universal suffrage. The speakers did not see, what is obvious now, that the refusal of a moderate measure did not prevent, but hastened the adoption of a more Radical policy. The delay and the weakness of ministers made ultimate success impossible, and on the nth of June Russell withdrew the bill. On this occa- sion Mr. Bright explained and denounced the policy of the seceders. He said the opposition had been emboldened by members on the Liberal side of the House, who wanted a pure Whig Government, which would never be seen again which was just as much extinct as the dodo. This language was justified not only by the strength of the Radicals in the country, but by their numbers in the House, as again shown in a division on Berkeley's proposal, made on the 20th of March, to introduce a bill for the adoption of the ballot, for which 107 members voted. Two other Radical measures obtained considerable support, but did not become law. On the 2ist of March Dillwyn moved the second reading of his Endowed Schools Bill, but was defeated by 190 to 120. Better fortune attended Trelawney's Church Rate Abolition Bill, which was read a second time on the 8th of February by 263 to 234, and read a third time on the I9th of April by 235 to 226. It was, of
 * On the 1 9th of March, on the second reading.