27 APRIL 1867, Page 2

Mr. Stansfeld, while in general supporting Mr. Forstees view% commented

on the recent indignant denial of the Times that Ler& Grosvenor was in collusion with the Tory Government, or the

Tory Government with Lord Grosvenor, and that there could be fear of their contriving to combine Lord Grosvenor's "hard and fast" 5/. line with Mr. Disraeli's personal ratepaying clauses, so as to produce the minimum of Reform. Mr. Stansfeld accepted the Times' denial as proceeding officially from Mr. Disraeli, but maintained that Lord Grosvenor at least must have hoped for some such combination, or he would not have voted against Mr. Gladstone, whose hard and fast line was the same as his own, but who proposed to abolish all the restrictions of personal ratepaying. Two distinct parties, two or three advanced Radicals, and a score or more of semi-Conservatives, deserted the Liberals to vote with Mr. Disraeli, both in the hope of bringing him over to their view. Mr. Disraeli may disappoint both these distinct sets of Liberal supporters, but he must disappoint one of them, and the most numerous may be supposed to have had the best hopes of success. Undoubtedly, a circular from the Tory election agent, Mr. Spofforth, did go out to the Conservative agents, asking whether Lord Grosvenor's scheme or the Government Bill would best serve,—not the country, not Reform,—but "the Conservative party in your constituency." Mr. Stansfeld justly thought that this looked very like substantial ground for hope on Earl Grosvenor's part. Doubtless it did. It expressed, if not a collusive intention, a taste for collusion with Earl Grosvenor, in Mr. Disraeli.