Page:History of the Radical Party in Parliament.djvu/480

 466 History of the Radical Party in Parliament. [1865- Commons ; of a statesman for a political manager ; of a man who " made a conscience of his work " for one who was content to take what came, and to change his opinions with a change of fortune. Parliament met on the ist of February, 1866, and the preliminary business having been gone through, the Queen's speech was delivered on the 6th of the same month. When that speech was read, it was known that the reform contest had really begun. It said that information as to the right of voting was being prepared, and that when it was complete the attention of Parliament would be called to it, " with a view to such improvements in the laws which regulate the rights of voting in the election of members of the House of Commons as may tend to strengthen our free institutions and conduce to the public welfare." As much as this had been said before ; but now it was known that the matter must go beyond speak- ing, and it was soon announced that ministers meant to stake their existence on the success of their proposal. They would fulfil their promise to the country or resign. The history of this short Parliament is mainly the record of the struggle of privilege and prejudice against popular rights successful for a time, but inevitably doomed to ultimate defeat. There was a difference not only in the spirit shown by ministers, but in the tone of the House of Commons. In nothing was this more marked than in the position- taken by, and the attention paid to, the Radical leaders. In the case of Mr. Bright this took the shape of constant attacks by the Whig and Conservative allies. For some time past the member for Birmingham had been arousing and directing a popular agitation in favour of reform. At first he was sneered at for attempting an impossible task he was whip- ping a dead horse ; he was piping with no one to dance. Now there was a change in the accusation, and he was charged with exciting the passions of the people and leading them on to a violent onslaught upon the Constitution. He was setting class against class ; he was Americanizing our institutions ; he was endangering the throne ; he was doing all kinds of