Page:The Siege of London - Posteritas - 1885.djvu/19



T was at this time that Mr. Gladstone,—in order, as it has since been said, to turn the eyes of his country from broader political issues,—brought in a new Reform Bill, whereby it was sought to add two million voters to the electorate. This Bill was passed in the House of Commons by a large majority, but was thrown out by the Upper Chamber, which refused to read it unless it was coupled with a Redistribution Bill. The result was, Parliament adjourned, and an autumn session was announced, in order that the Franchise Bill might again be sent up to the House of Lords. In the meantime, leaders of both parties commenced to stump the country, and the Premier once more went to Midlothian on a "Pilgrimage of Passion." He was quickly followed by the Opposition leaders in both Houses, and it soon became evident that the country was pretty equally divided in its opinion. This campaign was marked by two things: the absence of disorder with one or two notable exceptions, and the extraordinary violence and disreputable character of the language used by the Radicals to assail the House of Lords. The most notable offenders in this respect, because the most conspicuous, were John Bright and a Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who was President of the Board of Trade, and the Republican baronet, Sir Charles Dilke. The father of Sir Charles had been a retainer of the Prince Consort, and was distinguished for his loyalty. The son, however, after a Cambridge career and extensive travelling all over the world, developed such strong anti-monarchal tendencies as to render himself notorious. The Royal Family, to whom his father was deeply indebted, was an object of special antipathy to him,