Mackintosh failed; where Erskine and Scarlett were dinner-bells; where Lawrence and Jekyll, the two wittiest men, or nearly so, of their time, were thought bores, is surely a very strange place. And yet I feel the whole character of the place growing upon me. I begin to like what others about me like, and to disapprove what they disapprove. Canning used to say that the House, as a body, had better taste than the man of best taste in it, and I am very much inclined to think that Canning was right."

Parliamentary Government.-Lord Macaulay's remarks on this subject, in his review of Pitt's career, are as follows: "Parliamentary government, like every other contrivance of man, has its advantages and its disadvantages. On the advantages there is no need to dilate. The history of England during the 170 years which have elapsed since the House of Commons became the most powerful body in the State, her immense and still growing prosperity, her freedom, her tranquillity, her greatness in arts, in sciences, and in arms; her maritime ascendancy, the marvels of her public credit, her American, her African, her Australian, her Asiatic empires, sufficiently prove the excellence of her institutions. But those institutions, though excellent, are assuredly not perfect. Parlia mentary government is government by speaking. In such a government, the power of speaking is the most highly prized of all the qualities which a politician can possess; and that power may exist in the highest degree without judgment, without fortitude, without skill in reading the characters of men or the signs of the times, without any knowledge of the principles of legislation or of political economy, and without any skill in diplomacy or in the administration of war. Nay, it may well happen that those very intellectual qualities which give a peculiar charm to the speeches of a public man may be incompatible with the qualities which would fit him to meet a pressing emergency with promptitude and firmness. It was thus with Charles Townshend. It was thus with Windham. It was a privilege to listen to those accomplished and ingenious orators. But in a perilous crisis they would be found far inferior in all the qualities of rulers to such a man as Oliver Cromwell, who talked nonsense, or as William the Silent, who did not talk at all."

EDWARD BULWER, LORD LYTTON.

(1805-1873.)

Early Appearance as a Reformer.-Mr. E. Bulwer (afterwards Lord Lytton) first sat in Parliament as the representative of St. Ives, for which constituency he was returned in 1831; and he addressed the House on the 5th of July, on the second reading of the Reform Bill. On that occasion he thus expressed himself on behalf of a popular representation : “At a time when authority can no longer support itself by the solemn plausibilities and the ceremonial hypocrisies of old, it was well that a government should be placed upon a solid and sure foundation. In no age of the world, but least of all in the present, could any system of government long exist which was menaced both by the moral intelligence and the physical force of a country."

X

Democracy.-Speaking on the Reform Bill introduced by Lord Palmerston's Government in 1860, Sir E. Bulwer Lytton said: "Pure democracy, in the classic sense of the word, has conferred on the civilised world too many benefits, as well as warnings, not to have its full share of enthusiastic admirers among men of cultivated minds and generous hearts. But for pure democracy you must have the elements that preserve its honesty and ensure its duration. Those elements are not to be found in old societies, with vast disparities of wealth, of influence, of education; they belong to the youth of nations, such as colonies; and when any gentleman cites to us the example of a colony for some democratic change that he would recommend to the ancient monarchy of England, I can only say that he has not studied the horn-book of legislation. The acute democrats of that sublime republic by which we are all unconsciously instructed whenever we discuss the problems of government-the acute democrats of Athens-were well aware of the truth I endeavour, before it is yet too late, to impress upon you; they were well aware that democracy cannot long co-exist with great inequalities of wealth and power; they therefore began by ostracising the powerful, to end by persecuting the wealthy." Another remark by the same speaker will be remembered: "Democracy is like the grave-it perpetually cries 'Give, give,' and, like the grave, it never gives back what it receives."

A Defence of the Crimean War.-In a speech in favour of the continued prosecution of war with Russia, in June, 1855, Sir E. B. Lytton said: "Let me suppose that when the future philanthropist shall ask what service on the human race did we in our generation signally confer, some one trained perhaps in the schools of Oxford or the Institute of Manchester shall answer: A Power that commanded myriads-as many as those that under Xerxes exhausted rivers in their march-embodied all the forces of barbarism on the outskirts of civilisation. Left there to develop its own natural resources, no State molested, though all apprehended, its growth. But, long pent by merciful Nature in its own legitimate domains, this Power schemed for the outlet to its instinctive ambition; to that outlet it crept by dissimulating guile-by successive treaties that, promising peace, graduated spoliation to the opportunities of fraud. At length, under pretexts too gross to deceive the common sense of mankind, it proposed to seize that outlet-to storm the feeble gates between itself and the world beyond.' Then the historian shall say that we in our generation-the united families of England and France-made ourselves the vanguard of alarmed and shrinking Europe, and did not sheathe the sword until we had redeemed the pledge to humanity, made on the faith of two Christian sovereigns, and ratified at those distant graves which liberty and justice shall revere for ever."

Ministerial Coalitions.—In a speech on Mr. Roebuck's celebrated motion in January, 1855, for a select committee to inquire into the conduct of the Crimean War, Sir E. B. Lytton made a very effective remark on this subject. He said: "Looking through our modern history, I find that most of our powerful, even popular Administrations, have been coalitions. Both the Administrations of Mr. Pitt were coalitions; and the

last was very remarkable, for he first turned out the Addington Government, and then coalesced with six of its members. Nay, he was not contented till he had netted the expelled Prime Minister himself, and made him Lord President of the Council. But then there is one indisputable element of a coalition, and that is, that its members should coalesce. Now, sir, it is that element which seems to me wanting in the present Cabinet (Lord Aberdeen's). It has been a union of party interests, but not a coalition of party sentiment and feeling.”

EDWARD GEOFFREY, EARL OF DERBY.

(1799-1869.)

His Manner.-"Gladstone's manner," says Professor Pryme, "I never saw excelled except by Lord Derby's, when he was in the House of Commons. The speaking of these two was like a stream pouring forth; or it might be described as if they were reading from a book. I have heard Pitt, Fox, and other great speakers, but never any to equal Lord Derby, when Mr. Stanley, for elegance and sweetness of expression."

His First Speech.-Mr. Stanley was three years in the House of Commons before he took part in its debates. His first speech was made in 1824, upon a bill for lighting Manchester with gas. Sir James Mackintosh, who spoke after him, very highly complimented the young member on his performance, and said, "No man could have witnessed with greater satisfaction than himself an accession to the talents of the House which was calculated to give lustre to its character and strengthen its influence; and this was more particularly a subject of satisfaction to him when he reflected that these talents were likely to be employed in supporting principles which he conscientiously believed to be most beneficial to the country." Mr. Stanley in the earlier portion of his career was identified with the Whig party.

Parliamentary Instinct.-Macaulay, in his essay on Chatham, thus alludes to the readiness in debate which Mr. Stanley manifested from the first: Scarcely any person has ever become a great debater without long practice and many failures. It was by slow degrees, as Burke said, that Charles Fox became the most brilliant and powerful debater that ever lived. Charles Fox himself attributed his own success to the resolution which he formed when very young, of speaking, well or ill, at least once every night. During five whole sessions,' he used to say, 'I spoke every night but one, and I regret only that I did not speak on that night too.' Indeed, with the exception of Mr. Stanley, whose knowledge of the science of parliamentary defence resembles an instinct, it would be difficult to name any eminent debater who has not made himself a master of his art at the expense of his audience."

Raising a Storm.-The Coercion Bill, introduced when Mr. Stanley was Secretary for Ireland, gave occasion for one of the most effective displays of his eloquence. The incident is thus narrated by Earl Russell: "It was thought right that Lord Althorp, as the leader of the Government in the House of Commons, should bring in the bill. He did so in a manner tame and ineffective. His detail of the outrages committed in

Ireland was like reading a few of the blackest pages of the Newgate Calendar.' The Liberal majority were disappointed, sullen, and ready to break out into mutiny against their chief. Mr. Stanley, who was sitting next to me, greatly annoyed at the aspect of the House, said to me, 'I meant not to have spoken till to-morrow night, but I find I must speak to-night.' He took Lord Althorp's box of official papers, and went upstairs to a room where he could look over them quietly. After the debate had proceeded for two or three hours longer, with no change of temper in the House, Mr. Stanley rose. He explained, with admirable clearness, the insecure and alarming state of Ireland. He then went over, case by case, the more dreadful of the outrages which had been committed. He detailed, with striking effect, the circumstances attending the murder of a clergyman and the agony of his widow, who, after seeing her husband murdered, had to bear in terror running knocks at the door, kept on all night by the miscreants who had committed the crime. The House became appalled and agitated at the dreadful picture which he placed before their eyes; they felt for the sorrows of the innocent; they were shocked at the dominion of assassins and robbers. When he had produced a thrilling effect by these descriptions, he turned upon O'Connell, who led the opposition to the measure, and who seemed a short time before about to achieve a triumph in favour of sedition and anarchy. He recalled to the recollection of the House of Commons that, at a recent public meeting, O'Connell had spoken of the House of Commons as 658 scoundrels. In a tempest of scorn and indignation, he excited the anger of the men thus designated against the author of the calumny. The House, which two hours before seemed about to yield to the great agitator, was now almost ready to tear him to pieces. In the midst of the storm which his eloquence had raised, Stanley sat down, having achieved one of the greatest triumphs of eloquence ever won in a popular assembly by the powers of oratory."

An Effective Quotation.-The powers of elocution which Mr. Stanley exercised in the Commons, before he was transplanted to the Lords as Lord Stanley (his father's second title), are shown by an incident which occurred in connection with O'Connell, a few years later than the scene just mentioned. For any speaker to give the House of Commons twenty lines of Shakespeare, not only without exciting its murmurs or contempt, but with great effect, was an achievement possible only to such a speaker as Stanley himself. The circumstances under which the incident occurred are thus described by Mr. Lecky: "When Lord Melbourne came into power, O'Connell gave his Ministry the whole weight of his support. His opponents Lord Grey and Mr. Stanley were no longer in the Ministry. The Melbourne Ministry exhibited the rare spectacle of a government opposed by the majority of the English members in the House of Commons, and by the great majority of the House of Lords, and at the same time unpopular with the country, but kept in power by the votes of the Irish members. O'Connell supported it very loyally, and, although in his position there was perhaps no great merit in not being a place-hunter, it is worthy of notice how cheerfully he acquiesced in his exclusion from

a Ministry of which he was for some time the mainstay. On questions of persons and offices the Ministers found him uniformly moderate and conciliatory, and in this respect his attitude formed a marked contrast to that of Lord Brougham. In 1838 he refused one of the highest legal positions

in Ireland-that of Chief Baron. The Repeal cry at this time was suffered to sink, and in Ireland as in England O'Connell steadily and powerfully supported the Ministry. There can, however, be no question that his support was ultimately a source of weakness. . . It would have been impossible to give O'Connell a place in it without shattering it, and there was no taunt against Ministers more applauded than their alleged subserviency to the agitator. The House of Commons seldom rang with more enthusiastic plaudits than when Mr. Stanley, in one of his attacks upon the Government, quoted these lines from Shakespeare :'But shall it be that you, that set the crown

Upon the head of this forgetful man,

And for his sake wear the detested blot

Of murderous subornation-shall it be

That you a world of curses undergo,
Being the agents, or base second means,
The cords, the ladder, or the hangman rather?
O, pardon me that I descend so low

To show the line and the predicament
Wherein you range under this subtle king.
Shall it for shame be spoken in these days,
Or fill up chronicles in time to come,
That men of your nobility and power
Did 'gage them both in an unjust behalf,

As both of you-God pardon it!—have done?
And shall it be, in more shame, further spoken,
That you are fooled, discarded, and shook off

By him for whom these shames ye underwent ?'"

A Slip.-We remember (says the writer of a biographical notice of Lord Derby) to have heard Lord Macaulay say that no one ever attempted to catch Lord Stanley tripping, and to interrupt him in his speech, without coming by the worst in the encounter. He might well say so, for he was himself an example of the truth of his words. On one occasion, in the full rush and torrent of his eloquence, Lord Stanley used the expression "mutually suicidal." It was, perhaps, not strictly defensible, and the slip was too much for the book in breeches," who was then sitting on the front bench in opposition, to pass over. Half rising from his seat, and removing his hat with well-affected courtesy, he repeated the words in an inquiring tone, "Mutually suicidal?" Lord Stanley checked himself for an instant, looked his antagonist full in the face, and, without attempting to justify the expression, contemptuously replied, "The right honourable gentleman is a great verbal critic." The cheers of the House showed the retort had told.

"The Rupert of Debate."-This well-known epithet was applied