But in this case neither party, as a party, could speak out.  Many, perhaps most of the intelligent Conservatives, were fearful of the consequences of the proposal; but as it was made by the heads of their own party, they did not like to oppose it, and the discipline of party carried them with it.  On the other side, many, probably most of the intelligent Liberals, were in consternation at the Bill; they had been in the habit for years of proposing Reform Bills; they knew the points of difference between each Bill, and perceived that this was by far the most sweeping which had ever been proposed by any Ministry.  But they were almost all unwilling to say so.  They would have offended a large section in their constituencies if they had resisted a Tory Bill because it was too democratic; the extreme partisans of democracy would have said, “The enemies of the people have confidence enough in the people to entrust them with this power, but you, a ‘Liberal,’ and a professed friend of the people, have not that confidence; if that is so, we will never vote for you again”.  Many Radical members who had been asking for years for household suffrage were much more surprised than pleased at the near chance of obtaining it; they had asked for it as bargainers ask for the highest possible price, but they never expected to get it.  Altogether the Liberals, or at least the extreme Liberals, were much like a man who has been pushing hard against an opposing door, till, on a sudden, the door opens, the resistance ceases, and he is thrown violently forward.  Persons in such an unpleasant predicament can scarcely criticise effectually, and certainly the Liberals did not so criticise.  We have had no such previous discussions as should guide our expectations from the Reform Bill, nor such as under ordinary circumstances we should have had.

Nor does the experience of the last election much help us.  The circumstances were too exceptional.  In the first place, Mr. Gladstone’s personal popularity was such as has not been seen since the time of Mr. Pitt, and such as may never be seen again.  Certainly it will very rarely be seen.  A bad speaker is said to have been asked how he got on as a candidate.  “Oh,” he answered, “when I do not know what to say, I say ‘Gladstone,’ and then they are sure to cheer, and I have time to think.”  In fact, that popularity acted as a guide both to constituencies and to members.  The candidates only said they would vote with Mr. Gladstone, and the constituencies only chose those who said so.  Even the minority could only be described as anti-Gladstone, just as the majority could only be described as pro-Gladstone.  The remains, too, of the old electoral organisation were exceedingly powerful; the old voters voted as they had been told, and the new voters mostly voted with them.  In extremely few cases was there any new and contrary organisation.  At the last election, the trial of the new system hardly began, and, as far as it did begin, it was favoured by a peculiar guidance.