rom "the cave of Adullam," "to which every one was invited
who was distressed, and every one who was discontented," are still [62]
remembered as among the most eloquent ever delivered in the House of
Commons. The second reading passed by so narrow a majority that the
Government thought it prudent to rally their reliable supporters, and meet
just criticisms upon the inadequacy of their Bill, by bringing forward a
redistribution measure and incorporating it with their franchise proposals.
For a time this served to help them. By declaring that they would also
stand or fall by the redistribution clauses of their Bill, they at any rate
showed a better front to the Opposition. Towards the end of June, however,
they were beaten in committee by eleven; their defeat being principally due
to the attacks and manoeuvres of Mr. Lowe and Mr. Horsman, who had been
Irish Secretary in Palmerston's first Ministry.

[61] Spencer Walpole, "The History of Twenty-five Years."

[62] John Bright's speech.

_Lady Russell to her two sons at Harrow_

_March_ 15, 1866

...Horsman and Lowe are both Liberals; Horsman used, I think, to be
reckoned Radical. But both have taken a violent dislike to
Parliamentary Reform, and certainly one would not guess by their
speeches that they were liberal in anything. Mr. Lowe's was a very
clever speech; Bright's very clever too, and very good. Of course
the Bill does not satisfy him; but his honest support of it, being
all in the right direction, is creditable to him and very useful to
the measure. Your Papa is much pleased with the whole debate,
thinking it a very good one (excellent speeches for and against the
measure), and the result probably favourable to it. As to the
likelihood of its passing, opinions vary. I hear that Lord Eversley
(the late Speaker) says he would take a good big bet that it won't
pass. Your Papa says he is ready to bet against him that it will.
Will Ministers dissolve Parliament if beaten? To that I must answer
I don't know. I heard Mr. Gladstone's speech. As Willy says, the
latter part was very eloquent. It was all good; but the details of
a Suffrage Act are tiresome, and the apparent indifference, or even
apathy, of our side of the House allowed even the striking passages
with which the speech was interspersed to fall dead. The passages
were striking, but nobody seemed to be struck. I don't b