allow their opponents to try their rected Opposition might have proalternative scheme for the good tested against the Crimes Bill as government of Ireland? At the that which they believed would beginning of this session, or rather have been rendered unnecessary by before the session had commenced, the adoption of their own policy, Mr Gladstone was loud in his de- but would never have delayed or claration of opinion that the Gov- obstructed its progress when it had ernment should be pressed to been declared by the Government declare the whole of their Irish to be necessary for the preservation policy, and to produce those "re- of life and property. But, having medial" measures which they were joined with those who, by their perstated to have promised. It must sistent obstruction and unconstitube patent to every unprejudiced tional action, had prevented the observer that, in order that this declaration and development of the might be done, the state of Ireland whole Government policy, Lord must be tranquil, and the business Rosebery turns round and asks in of Parliament must be transacted supercilious tone-"What is the in a normal manner. But the first policy of the Government which condition did not suit the Irish proposes to compete with ours and section of the Gladstonian follow- eclipse us? It is founded on dising, and the second was not palat- content and misery and crime. It is able to any section of the Separat- meant to burke that discontent, to ists, smarting from their defeat veil that misery, to try and repress at the general election. It would for a moment that crime." What never have done to allow Ireland a melancholy perversion of intellecto be tranquil under a Tory Gov- tual power by party bias is that ernment, and therefore it was which can induce a man of Lord necessary to create a state of Rosebery's position and abilities things which should drive that thus to describe the "policy" of Government to apply to Parlia- his opponents! Discontent, misery, ment for additional powers to re- and crime are indeed three evils press crime, and thus give a pre- which honest men of every political text for the needed cry of "coer- creed must deplore and regret, but cion" which might enable the the question is not to be put in Gladstonian-Parnellites to delude the manner in which Lord Roseand excite the country. Lord bery elects to put it. The problem Rosebery surely must see that, to be solved is rather whether disin acknowledging his party to have content is caused by bad laws or been defeated in the country by the evil counsels of those to upon the principle of Home Rule, whom just laws are abhorrent, he practically acknowledges at the whether misery has not been in same time that the country desired too many instances created and that fair-play should be given to intensified by the same false guides, the policy of those who had defeated and whether either misery or disthat principle, and had conse- content can be removed by allowquently become responsible for the ing that immunity to crime which government of the country. We would be followed by the successful say distinctly that such fair-play opposition of Lord Rosebery and has not been given, and that Lord his colleagues to the demands of Rosebery is uncandid and unfair the Government. in his description of the position. of affairs. À constitutionally di It is no doubt a legitimate outcome of a representative system that an appeal should be made to the electorate whenever an essential difference of opinion prevails between two great political parties, or when large constitutional changes have been proposed by the Government of the day. But it is equally part and parcel of such a system that, when the opinion of the electorate has been pronounced, it should be recognised and accepted alike by victors and vanquished, and that the machine of Government should be allowed to work as before. This, however, is not the Gladstonian theory, nor is it the lesson which Lord Roseberry teaches his fellow countrymen. On the contrary, his efforts appear to be entirely directed to deride and to condemn the measures of the Government, and to misrepresent their conduct and the actual position of political affairs. We find him again reverting to the absurd and unsustainable charge of a coalition between "the Tory leaders" and the Parnellites in 1885, founded solely upon the fact that the Gladstone Government of that date, having succeeded in wearying and disgusting all parties, Tories and Parnellites were found in the same lobby upon that occasion, when a not unwelcome minority allowed Mr Gladstone to resign, in the full belief that no one would be found bold enough to take office in his place. That minority has been a god-send to the Gladstonians ever since it was registered in the votes of the House of Commons, but the story is somewhat stale now-as stale and unprofitable as the unworthy hints as to Lord Carnarvon's views about Home Rule, of which Mr. Gladstone made use during the elections, but with which Lord Rosebery did not condescend to supplement his statement concerning the "coalition." We regret to observe, however, that he did not scruple to make use of the unfair argument with respect to the attempt of Lord Salisbury's Government to govern Ireland by the ordinary law. When the Parliament of Great Britain had consented to establish household suffrage in Ireland, there was some ground for hoping that this extension of popular rights would have induced Irishmen to believe in the goodwill towards them entertained by their Scotch and English fellowsubjects, and that an increased desire would have been evinced to obey the law, and to maintain the Queen's authority. It seemed therefore worth the experiment to try whether this was the case; and even had it not been so, the time at which Mr Gladstone resigned in 1885 rendered it impossible for the new Government to have passed the renewal of the Crimes Bill through Parliament, in the teeth of the opposition which would certainly have been offered by the Parnellites and their ultra-Radical allies. But to try to govern by the ordinary law at a time when all politicians worthy of the name were supposed to be in favour of the union between Great Britain and Ireland, was a totally different thing to attempting the same thing after the extraordinary change of front executed by a large political party who, having proposed measures which directly threatened that Union, had excited Irish feeling, and encouraged an agitation which the ordinary law had proved unable to check. It is Lord Rosebery's own friends who are really responsible for the inability of any Government to govern Ireland, or to preserve peace and order without exceptional powers. But if Lord Rosebery's recent speeches have been open to censure, we readily admit that his blata sin is light and venal compared that Nonconformity which be with that of his great Parliament- so congenial to his soul To sty leader, Differing as we do which we blame him, 2. from Mr Gladstone upon points which we are satisfied that of vital and essential importance be blamed by every right-th in political controversy, we have Briton, is the untruthful and always endeavoured to speak of leading view of the present him with the respect due to his tion of public affairs whit age and position in the State. proceeded to place before Hot respect is impossible, and re- credulous audience. The le ticence difficult, when we read of an Opposition which has pe apeeches characterised by the aciously and avowedly strive matchless effiontery and unblush- render legislation by a Un ing insolence which have pervaded Government impossible, an some of his recent utterances. section of which at least We do not remember to have steadily set itself to discredit read any speech, delivered by any Parliamentary system, has the Both statesman or politician exampled temerity to com worthy of the name, which has that "the free voice of the H dested more discredit upon the of Commons has been reduce speaker than that with which silence." By what adjective, t My cabine, on the 11th May, rather than "free," are we to ative regaled and electrified a scribe that wearisome, Nossetomist audience which had offensively obstructive hed together at the residence which has persistenly Rev Joseph Parker, D.D., and disgusted the sensible On Temple." If any one patriotic portion of the House this strange luncheon Commons, and lowered that bad been able to remember sembly in the eyes of the natio Years of Mr Gladstone's ever since the meeting of Parla hite, when he posed as the ment in January? Has not the of the young Tories and incessant chatter of Mr Glac Church Party, and when stone's friends been "free" to the orthodoxy of his Churchman- extent of extravagant licence, and was even less doubtful than is it not an utter and palpable the vigour of his Toryism, such a misstatement of fact, of which Reisen must have experienced a Mr Gladstone has been guilty, in Stage sensation as he listened to asserting the contrary? the emphatic declaration of the Judging by the context of his peaker that he had come to that speech, the complaint which he place in order to do that which, really intends to make is, tha: eight or ten years ago, he had "independent members" have been en ace to do- namely, unable to introduce their pet submeeting a large body of Non jects on account of the absorption Conformists, and in contact with of the time of the House of Com in De powerful Nonconformist cle wee which permeates English ex, to draw strength, comola We do per, and refreshment.' not. Sowever, in the smalled de de gedge to Mt Glad to avgerating delight of a bath the in "void оссир But mous by the Government. nce and leadership, have ind in. unrestrained loquacity, engthened every debate to an nous and indefinite extent. is tulerit Gracchos de seditione -ntes?" Who can tolerate a complaint coming from Mr stone, who, in the course of very speech, practically avows complicity in obstruction, and responsibility for the abuse of liberty of the House of Coms which must of necessity lead, he final result, either to the 1gment of that liberty or the nfall of Parliamentary governt? For what does the leader he Opposition tell us? After ing to the length of the de's upon the Crimes Bill, he goes uo say: -e. - I will supply you with a method shortening the discussion. Let the vernment do two things. I do not y withdraw the Bill; let them keep eir unnecessary and therefore wann Coercion Bill against crime if they 11, but first say frankly, We will ake it a Bill against crime, and crime ly, and not against combination and xclusive dealing.' Let them go furier, and say, 'We will make it what very other Coercion Bill has been, or one, or two, or three years, or for limited time. Let it last so long as here is an exceptional state of things.' Then, if they do that, I will answer that the debates upon it will be short enough." That is to say, that Mr Gladstone (owning in the same breath the existence of "an exceptional state of things") tells us in so many words that if the Government will obey his commands, he has the power to shorten the debates, and s ready to undertake that " they shall be shortened." This, of course, is a confession that, having he power to shorten, he is responible for the prolongation of the lebates, and for the disgraceful waste of the public time under which we have recently suffered. The confession was scarcely needed, for Mr Gladstone has not concealed his approval of the tactics of his unscrupulous allies, without which approval it is difficult to believe that even the Gladstonian Liberals on this side of the Channel would have made themselves parties to the degradation of our Parliamentary system which those tactics involve, and which, ere long, will have to be put down with a strong hand. The spirited speech of Lord Salisbury at the Merchant Taylor's Hall on the 20th May shows us that the Government are alive to the exigencies of the moment, and in whatever action they may take to relieve Parliament from the tyranny of Mr Gladstone and his allies, they may be assured of the support of the public opinion of Great Britain. But it is worth while to examine the conditions upon which Mr Gladstone may be graciously willing to allow a further trial to Parliamentary Government, and permit the House of Commons to transact its business. In the first place, Government is to restrict its Bill to "crime," and to omit from its provisions any restraint upon "combination and exclusive dealing." What is the "combination" which Government desires to prevent, and which Mr Gladstone seeks to protect? It is combination to hinder men from paying their just debts, even when they are willing to do so-combination to prevent men whose sole desire is to obey the law and discharge the ordinary duties of citizenship, from any such peaceful and harmless action; combination to debar honest and loyal men from buying and selling, if they have dared to hold aloof from the unlawful "combination" which calls itself the "National League "; which we Th which we are satisfied that h blame him, an be blamed by every right-thi Briton, is the untruthful and leading view of the present tion of public affairs which proceeded to place before credulous audience. The l of an Opposition which has pe aciously and avowedly strive render legislation by a Uni Government impossible, section of which at steadily set itself to discredit Parliamentary system, has the exampled and least sin is light and venial compared that Nonconformity which h with that of his great Parliament- so congenial to his soul. ary leader. Differing as we do from Mr Gladstone upon points of vital and essential importance in political controversy, we have always endeavoured to speak of him with the respect due to his age and position in the State. But respect is impossible, and reticence difficult, when we read speeches characterised by the matchless effrontery and unblushing insolence which have pervaded some of his recent utterances. We do not remember to have read any speech, delivered by any British statesman or politician worthy of the name, which has reflected more discredit upon the speaker than that with which Mr Gladstone, on the 11th May, at once regaled and electrified a Nonconformist audience which had gathered together at the residence of the Rev. Joseph Parker, D.D., of the City Temple." If any one present at this strange luncheonparty had been able to remember the first years of Mr Gladstone's public life, when he posed as the hope of the young Tories and High - Church Party, and when the orthodoxy of his Churchmanship was even less doubtful than the vigour of his Toryism, such a person must have experienced a strange sensation as he listened to the emphatic declaration of the speaker that he had come to that place in order to do that which, eight or ten years ago, h been able to do—nam meeting a large body conformists, and in the powerful Nonce ment which perme society, to draw stro tion, and refresh: not, however, in t gree, grudge to Mr invigorating delig that "the free voice of the Ho temerity to comp of Commons has been reduced silence." By what adjective, th rather than "free," are we to scribe that wearisome, blata offensively obstructive which has persistenly occupi "voice and disgusted the sensible a patriotic portion of the House Commons, and lowered that a sembly in the eyes of the natio ever since the meeting of Parlia ment in January? incessant chatter of Mr Glad Has not th stone's friends been "free" to the extent of extravagant licence, and is it not an utter and palpable misstatement of fact, of which Mr Gladstone has been g asserting the contrary? speech, th Judging really int “indeper e conf plaint ma aber able t ce t is on of t the t le H whe nd in |