lance and leadership, have inged in. unrestrained loquacity, I lengthened every debate to an rmous and indefinite extent. Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione rentes?" Who can tolerate h a complaint coming from Mr adstone, who, in the course of s very speech, practically avows complicity in obstruction, and responsibility for the abuse of e liberty of the House of Comons which must of necessity lead, the final result, either to the ridgment of that liberty or the ownfall of Parliamentary governSent? For what does the leader f the Opposition tell us? After lluding to the length of the deates upon the Crimes Bill, he goes n to say:

"I will supply you with a method of shortening the discussion. Let the Government do two things. I do not say withdraw the Bill; let them keep their unnecessary and therefore wanton Coercion Bill against crime if they will, but first say frankly, We will make it a Bill against crime, and crime -only, and not against combination and exclusive dealing.' Let them go further, and say, 'We will make it what every other Coercion Bill has been, for one, or two, or three years, or for a limited time. Let it last so long as there is an exceptional state of things.' Then, if they do that, I will answer that the debates upon it will be short

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 to say, that Mr Gladstone protect? It is combination to hing in the same breath the der men from paying their just al state debts, even when they are willing many to do so-combination to prevent will men whose sole desire is to obey the the law and discharge the ordinary and duties of citizenship, from any such they peaceful and harmless action; comais, of bination to debar honest and loyal having men from buying and selling, if respon- they have dared to hold aloof from of the the unlawful "combination" which isgraceful calls itself the "National League ";

ce of "an
tell

ngs"

that if the his comm

sin is light and venial compared that Nonconformity which he finds
with that of his great Parliament- so congenial to his soul." That for
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 re-
ticence difficult, when we read
speeches characterised by the
matchless effrontery and unblush-
ing 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 luncheon-
party 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 Churchman-
ship 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, he had
been able to do-namely, "in
meeting a large body of Non-
conformists, and in contact with
the powerful Nonconformist ele-
ment which permeates English
society, to draw strength, consola-
tion, and refreshment." We do
not, however, in the smallest de-
gree, grudge to Mr Gladstone the
invigorating delight of a bath in

which we blame him, and for
which we are satisfied that he will
be blamed by every right-thinking
Briton, is the untruthful and mis-
leading view of the present posi-
tion of public affairs which he
proceeded to place before his
credulous audience. The leader
of an Opposition which has pertin-
aciously and avowedly striven to
render legislation by a Unionist
Government impossible, and a
section of which at least has
steadily set itself to discredit our
Parliamentary system, has the un-
exampled temerity to complain
that the free voice of the House
of Commons has been reduced to
silence." By what adjective, then,
rather than "free," are we to de-
scribe that wearisome, blatant,
offensively obstructive
"voice
which has persistenly occupied
and disgusted the sensible and
patriotic portion of the House of
Commons, and lowered that as-
sembly in the eyes of the nation
ever since the meeting of Parlia-
ment in January? Has not the
incessant chatter of Mr Glad-
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 guilty, in
asserting the contrary?

Judging by the context of his speech, the complaint which he really intends to make is, that "independent members" have been unable to introduce their pet subjects on account of the absorption of the time of the House of Commons by the Government. But to whom must the blame of that absorption of time be attributed? Undoubtedly to the action, or rather to the speech, of the "independent members" themselves, who, under Mr Gladstone's own

their own minds that they are trivial-moved to any Bill before really fish of size and of import- the House. The same arguments ance, and have received the sup- have been reiterated usque ad port and countenance of those who nauseam, irrelevant matter has might have been expected to look been introduced, Mr Gladstone with displeasure upon the breach of himself has been called to order parliamentary etiquette involved by the chairman of committees in their absorption of time which twice in one night (May 13th), the general sense of the House and everything has been done to would desire to see occupied by tempt the Government into some its more useful and experienced action to curtail the debates and members. stay this waste of time, in the hope that thus another cry might be given to the faction which has so nearly worn out the patience of the public. It may be that the leaders of the Gladstonian section of the unholy alliance which constitutes the Opposition may recognise the unpopularity of their proceedings in sufficient time to prevent the necessity of such action. They may persuade the Parnellite section that, however desirable it may be, from their point of view, to damage the Government, discredit the House of Commons, and render legislation impossible, these advantages may be purchased at too high a price, if the result be to excite the public mind to a degree which would render their success at the next general election even less probable than it is at the present moment. On these grounds they may possibly prevail upon their allies to be somewhat less factious in their opposition, to moderate the prolixity of their speeches, and submit to the inevitable passing of

Unfortunately, at the present moment, the Opposition is led by an "old Parliamentary hand," for whom parliamentary traditions have no value if they clash with the course which seems most likely at the moment to forward his own interests and those of his adherents. Here is a Bill upon which her Majesty's Government set great value, and the principle of which is supported by a very large majority of the House of Commons. The fair and constitutional course for an Opposition to take would be to divide (as, indeed, was done after a protracted discussion) upon the second reading, to take divisions in committee upon substantial points of difference, and, if necessary, to enter a final protest by a decision upon the third reading. But because, forsooth, Mr Gladstone finds it necessary to cement his new political alliance with the Parnellites by denouncing as "coercive" a measure similar to those which he has himself passed in former years, although of less stringency the Crimes Bill into law. The in several respects, the opposition to this measure is to be conducted in a spirit and after a fashion which, if habitually adopted, would render it impossible to pass any measure without a suspension of the ordinary rights and privileges of members of the House of Commons. Never were so many amendments-most of them verbal and

country, however, will not forget what has already happened, nor will the machinery of Parliament readily work as well and easily as heretofore, after the strain put upon it by the unconstitutional action of Mr Gladstone and his allies.

Time and space forbid our dealing more fully with the speech