parties have tossed this question from one to the other, reminds me of nothing so much as a young lady and young gentleman playing at battledore and shuttlecock. After tossing the shuttlecock from one to the other a few times, they let it drop and begin to flirt." In a speech in May, 1866, on the Reform Bill of Earl Russell's Administration, he thus noticed the objection raised by the Government to a postponement of the measure, that their honour would not permit them to take that course: "I think we have heard too much about the honour of the Government. The honour of the Government obliged them to bring in a Reform Bill in 1860. It was withdrawn under circumstances which I need not allude to, and, as soon as it was withdrawn, the honour of the Government went to sleep. It slept for five years. Session after session it never so much as winked. So long as Lord Palmerston lived, honour slept soundly; but when Lord Palmerston died, and Lord Russell succeeded by seniority to his place, the 'sleeping beauty' woke up. . . I think there was no great accession of honour gained last Monday in the division, when the House really by their vote took the management of the committee out of the hands of the Executive. All these things do not matter much to ordinary mortals, but to people of a Castilian turn of mind they are very serious. Sir, I have come to the conclusion that there must be two kinds of honour, and the only consolation I can administer to the Government is in the words of Hudibras— 'If he that's in the battle slain

Be on the bed of honour lain,
Then he that's beaten may be said

To lie on honour's truckle-bed.'''

To this Mr. Gladstone retorted, "All that portion of the right honourable gentleman's speech was one gross and continued error both of taste and judgment. Because, Sir, in these matters we must look, not only at the merits of the sermon, but at the individuality of the preacher; and I want to know what charge is to be made against the Government on this score, which cannot be made at the very least as easily against my right honourable friend? In that truckle-bed' there may be a bed-fellow."

Household Suffrage and Education. "Our Future Masters."-On the third reading of the Reform Bill in 1867, Mr. Lowe again denounced the extension that had been made in the franchise, and thus referred to Mr. Bright: "The honourable member for Birmingham had been agitating the country for household suffrage-not meaning, as we see by his conduct this session, to get household suffrage. He has got it now, and I ask, is he of opinion that it is easy to stop when you like in the path of concession? The honourable member is something like Don Giovanni-which, by the way, is Italian for John. The Don asked the Commendatore to supper because he thought he could not come; but the Commendatore did come. He said, 'Don Giovanni, ycu have invited me, and I am here!' That is very much the position of the honourable member for Birmingham. He invited household suffrage and it has come; you can never stop when once you set the ball rolling." Mr. Lowe went on to say: "I believe it will be absolutely necessary to compel

our future masters to learn their letters. It will not be unworthy of a Conservative Government, at any rate, to do what can be done in that direction. I was opposed to centralisation-I am ready to accept centralisation. I was opposed to an education rate-I am now ready to accept it. The question is no longer a religious question; it is a political one. From the moment that you entrust the masses with power, their education becomes an absolute necessity; and I believe that the existing system is one which is much superior to the much-vaunted continental system. But we shall have to destroy it; it is not quality but quantity we shall require." The Supreme Power in the State.-"Tremendous Simplicity."-In March, 1879, a motion in favour of the extension of the principle of household suffrage to counties was made in the House of Commons, and opposed by Mr. Lowe. In the course of his remarks he said: "Most of us have been brought up in the doctrines of De Lolme and Blackstone. We have been told that the English Constitution is one above all that have existed, that it is nicely and carefully balanced, that it is made up of different bodies, each of which has proper functions assigned to it, to which it confines itself, and that by the proper discharge of its duty it controls and prevents excess in any of the others. We have Blackstone's theory that the King represents power, the Lords represent wisdom, and the House of Commons represent good intentions (laughter), and that each of them discharges its functions without in the slightest degree trenching upon the functions of the other. We have indulged in these dreams long enough; let us awake from them and see what is the reality. No doubt the time was when the King had predominant power in England; but who can say that is the case now? Without going into details, it is sufficient to say that the regal power is of such a nature now that it really affords no strong or sufficient check or balance at all in our Constitution. I am old enough to remember when the House of Lords measured itself with the House of Commons and challenged or overthrew its decisions. Who can say it is so now? That check also has departed. The fact is the whole power of executive administration is vested in the Government of the day, and that depends for its existence upon the House of Commons; and the whole power of this country—all that we have read of as divided among the different estates of the realm-has really now entirely centred itself in the House of Commons, and everything turns upon its will... Our Constitution has been reduced to a state of what I can only call tremendous simplicity. We have simply an elective Assembly, and in that elective Assembly all the powers of the State are really gathered up, and in it they are centred. If that be so, and if that elective Assembly misconduct itself, the only remedy is to go back to the constituencies from which it is elected and to refer the matter to them, and from their decision there is no appeal, however momentous it may be. Having a body to which we have given the whole power over the State in this country, which really has the single supreme power, which everything bows before, we should take care that it is fit for the discharge of that duty. That is the point of view from which I would suggest that honourable gentlemen should look at this question, and they should con

sider whether, in the circumstances which must necessarily arise, if we enter upon this downward course we are invited to follow, we can answer for the safety of our institutions."

"A Practical Man."-In 1880 Mr. Lowe abandoned his former position with regard to the extension of the franchise, and thus gave his reasons, in a speech on his re-election for London University: "You took me as your representative at a time when you knew that I differed from the mass of the Liberal party on the subject of the franchise. That was a kindness I shall never forget. What has happened with regard to that question of the franchise? Why, this. One half of the subject has been settled by those with whom I acted at that time, the Tories themselves. You see that Sir Stafford Northcote has been complaining of the masses of people who have sprung up everywhere, as if they were the dragon's teeth. But who sowed the dragon's teeth? This has to be said, to the credit or discredit of the Tory Government-that this greater number of people have the franchise because the Tory Government, out-trumping the Whigs, gave it to them. Well, gentlemen, now comes the question of the county franchise. I am a practical man. You know that I fought as long as there was a possibility of success; but I am now in this dilemma— if I go on any further I must unite with the Tories, who have already deceived and betrayed me (laughter and cheers), or else I must confess myself, as I humbly do, utterly beaten in this matter. I must confess that public opinion is entirely against me, and give up all opposition whatever. Gentlemen, I prefer the latter course. (Cheers.) Politics are a practical science, and, as I have said from the first, what I desired was that the subject should be fairly brought before the country, and that we should have its decision upon the question. Well, it has been brought before the country in this election, and the decision of the Liberal party has been, so far as I know, absolutely unanimous. I, therefore, have nothing to do but to bow to that decision, and to hope that it may turn out better than I, for some time certainly, was in the habit of apprehending."

"Ex Luce Lucellum."-Presenting Public Petitions.-On the 24th of April, 1871, a large procession of match-makers resident in the East-end of London was dispersed by the police while on its way to Westminster Hall. The object of the assemblage was to present a petition to the House of Commons against the tax of one halfpenny upon each box of lucifer matches, proposed by Mr. Lowe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in submitting his budget for the year. Several questions were, in consequence, put to the Home Secretary (Mr. Bruce) by various members on the 28th, relative to the grounds on which the purpose of the petitioners had been interfered with and prevented by the police authorities. The Home Secretary, in reply, stated "that such a procession was contrary to law-the law being that no large bodies of persons should go either to the Sovereign or to Parliament for the purpose of presenting a petition. The number permitted by law does not exceed ten persons. The Act of George III., known as the One Mile Act, applies to meetings, and provides that such meetings as that of Monday last shall not be held within one mile of Westminster." The tax referred to was to

have been collected by means of a stamp affixed to each box of matches. Ex luce lucellum—“out of light a little profit -was the motto devised by Mr. Lowe for the labels connected with this new impost. The Committee, however, refused its sanction to that mode of increasing the revenue. The Chancellor had imported the idea from the United States, where a similar tax produces a considerable amount annually.

Introduction of the Sovereign's Name in Debate.-An Apology.-An important discussion arose in the House of Commons on the 2nd of May, 1876. Mr. Lowe, at a Liberal banquet at East Retford, had spoken against the Royal Titles Bill, enabling the Queen to assume the title of Empress of India, and said: "I strongly suspect that this is not now brought forward for the first time. I violate no confidence, because I have received none; but I am under a conviction that at least two previous Ministers have entirely refused to have anything to do with such a change. More pliant persons have now been found, and I have no doubt the thing will be done." Mr. C. E. Lewis brought the subject before the House of Commons, moving for a copy of the oath taken by Privy Councillors, and said that, if Mr. Lowe's statement were true, two Prime Ministers must have broken their oath "to keep secret the Queen's counsel." Mr. Lowe in reply denied the right of any member to call him to account for anything said at a meeting in the country, unless the privileges of the House were infringed, or a personal attack were made on an individual member. Thereupon Mr. Disraeli, as the head of the Government, said Mr. Lowe had attempted to hold up to public infamy the chief Minister by asserting that, after the Sovereign had been balked and baffled in her appeals to previous Ministers, she had found a pliant and a servile instrument who was now ready to do her will. If the statement as to the proposals to previous Ministers were true, it ought not to have been made by a Privy Councillor, and one who had been a Cabinet Minister; but was it true? Mr. Gladstone had immediately denied it, so far as he was concerned, in a letter to the press; and Mr. Disraeli said he had lived on such terms of political confidence with Lord Derby, especially at the time when the Queen assumed the government of India, that he was able to say that no such proposal had ever been made to him. As to Lord Russell and Lord Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli went on to say he was authorised by her Majesty to make a statement to the House. Some objections were urged on the Opposition side to this statement being received; but the Speaker ruled that, as the name of the Sovereign was not to be introduced to influence the opinion of the House, the communication Mr. Disraeli proposed to make was not out of order. The Prime Minister then said there was not the slightest foundation for Mr. Lowe's story, and that the Queen had authorised him to state that at no time had any proposal to introduce such a measure been made to any Minister. The story, therefore, was a piece of calumnious gossip of the kind which would always be circulated, but which no one would expect from the mouth of a Privy Councillor and an ex-Cabinet Minister.-Mr. Lewis's motion was carried by 91 to 37, and two nights afterwards Mr. Lowe asked permission of the House to make a personal statement. He said he

had employed the interval in considering the matter, and, although he had believed the statement made at Retford to be true at the time, he must acknowledge he ought not to have made it. "It was wrong," said he, "because no one has a right to drag the name of the Sovereign, even indirectly, into our disputes in this House. (Cheers.) I sincerely regret that I did not remember the fact that in the whole of the Queen's dominions her Majesty is, by reason of her sovereign dignity, the only person upon whom is imposed the disability of not being able to say anything in personal defence. That alone, if there was no other reason, ought to have closed my mouth, and I hope the House will consider my acknowledgment both full and ample. (Cheers.) But, Sir, that is not all. After the communication which her Majesty has been pleased to make, I cannot doubt for a moment that I was entirely mistaken in what I asserted; and nothing remains for me except to express my most sincere and extreme regret, as one who is wholly and heartily a dutiful and loyal subject of her Majesty, that I have caused her Majesty to have been put to what she will have felt the disagreeable necessity of making a communication on such a subject to the House-a necessity that ought never to have been imposed upon her. I retract everything that I said, and, if such a thing be proper from a subject to his Sovereign, I humbly offer my most sincere apologies to her Majesty for the error that I have committed." (Loud cheers.)

The Golden Age of a Government.—In the course of a speech returning thanks for his re-election by the University of London in April, 1880, Mr. Lowe said: "What I want to point out to you is what I think it extremely important should be always remembered by Governments, I having now had the honour of serving in a good many. The first moments of a Government are golden. Napoleon said that people grow old quickly on fields of battle; but Governments grow old more quickly still in the battle-fields of Parliament. The first year of a Government is golden, the second silvern, and it soon arrives at the iron age. Wisdom lies in seizing as far as possible upon these golden moments. Things may be done and questions may be settled between this time and next August, which if delayed it might afterwards be impossible to do or settle for ten years. There is every stimulus to activity and boldness. Now is the time when we can really strike with effect, whereas nobody can tell what tomorrow may bring forth. The very strength of a Government is sure to engender combats and weakness within, and gradually to eat into its power and essence. Therefore I hope no time will be lost in bringing forward measures of secondary importance, but that the opportunity will be used to deal with matters of the first and greatest importance."

JOHN ARTHUR ROEBUCK.
(1801-1879.)

“Tear 'em.”—In a speech delivered at the Cutlers' Feast, Sheffield, September 2nd, 1858, Mr. Roebuck referred to the visit he had just paid to Cherbourg with other members of the House of Commons. After