moderate people, without distinction of party, had no conception of
the effect. They said it was "London nonsense" if you tried to
explain it to them. The nation indeed generally looks to the
discussions in Parliament to enlighten it as to the effect of Bills.
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