Two portions of Lord Beaconsfield’s career were very violently criticised. The first was his course in regard to the reform of 1867. Immediately after Lord Palmerston’s death in 1865, and the accession of Earl Russell’s ministry, it became evident that the popular demand could only be satisfied with a reform of the franchise. A bill was accordingly introduced with the design of further extending the right of suffrage in the manner of the great measure of 1832. The bill was powerfully advocated by Mr. Gladstone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House, and was opposed with equal vigor by Mr. Disraeli. On a motion to amend, the government was defeated, and Russell and Gladstone going out of power, Derby and Disraeli came in. As to what would be done, the public were not long left in doubt. On the 18th of March, 1867. Mr. Disraeli came forward with a measure of reform far more sweeping in its nature than that which he had in the previous administration so vigorously and successfully opposed. The extension of suffrage was to be made on a new principle, or at least a principle which appeared to be new, though in fact it had been advocated in Disraeli’s early writings. In his speech introducing the measure he called attention to the fact that no less than five times since 1832 attempts had been made to place the right of suffrage on a firm basis, but that all of these had failed. He declared that they had failed because they were mere expedients, whereas the question could only be settled by the adoption of a clearly defined principle. Hitherto the right to vote had depended upon income; it ought to depend, he declared, upon permanency of interest. He therefore proposed the substitution of the principle of household suffrage in the place of suffrage founded upon the payment of a fixed rate. The measure was looked upon with consternation by the Liberals, and was most strenuously opposed by Gladstone and his followers; but it was advocated in a succession of speeches of so much power and skill by Disraeli that no opposition could prevent its final passage. But the author of the measure, always more or less distrusted, was henceforth regarded as a political adventurer who had stolen into the camp of his enemy and run off with the spoils.