will be no reaction.

The constituencies sent members to Parliament to support Mr. Gladstone, for no other object, and support him they will to the bitter end.

So long as the present Parliament lasts Mr. Gladstone, surrounded by flatterers, will,

'Like Cato, give his docile Senate laws

And sit attentive to his own applause.'

But the House of Commons is not England. The time will come when the members will have to give an account of their stewardship. Then the constituencies will say to them, 'It is true we sent you to Parliament to support Mr. Gladstone, because he told us, and you told us, that Lord Beaconsfield was ruining England, and that only Mr. Gladstone could save it. But we find now, after two years' trial, that it is Mr. Gladstone that is ruining England. We see Ireland in almost open revolt, our European influence gone, our Eastern Empire threatened, our officers insulted and killed in time of peace, &c. We sent you to Parliament in order to assist Mr. Gladstone to save the Empire, not to assist him to reduce it to a fifth-rate power.' The foreign policy of Lord Beaconsfield was the hereditary foreign policy of Great Britain. It was natural, and national, and straightforward. It was dictated by the requirements of the British Empire. Nobody objected to this policy. France, Germany, Austria, and Italy thought it reasonable, and approved of it. But the foreign policy of Mr. Gladstone is the very reverse of the hereditary foreign policy of England. It is not national in any sense. It is personal-personal to Mr. Gladstone, and to him alone. It is originated and directed by influences of which nobody can guess the sources. Mr. Gladstone hates the Austrians, and hates the Turks (and, it is whispered, is not over fond of Prince Bismarck); but why he hates the Austrians, and why he hates the Turks, nobody knows. What, alas! we do know is, that this hatred of his, outspoken and demonstrative, has converted two of our oldest and most trustworthy allies into scarcely covert

enemies. Every sense of national duty should have induced Mr. Gladstone to control his hatred to the Turk; to check any violence of language or action that could convert into an enemy the spiritual suzerain of 40,000,000 of our fellow-subjects. We have heard of great men sacrificing themselves for the good of their country; it really looks as if in his treatment of Austria and Turkey Mr. Gladstone has not hesitated to sacrifice the interests of his country for his own pleasure. Mr. Gladstone is a great humanitarian, but the humanity that is effusive about Italians and Bulgars, and draws a line at the sufferings of Turks and Jews, that passes over without notice the treacherous slaughter of British troops, and to avoid 'blood-guiltiness' hands over 900,000 natives to the tender mercies of the Boers-this is only electioneering' humanity after all, humanity snatched up as a rapier to pierce your enemy with.

Lucius.

Cato.

His enemies confess
The virtues of humanity are Cæsar's.

Curse on his virtues! They've undone his country,
Such popular humanity is treason.'

6

It

Do not let us deceive ourselves. The same national spirit, the same qualities of heart and hand that built up the British Empire are necessary to support it. It was built up by deeds, and deeds are the sons of Heaven.' can never be saved by words, however copious, which are the daughters of the earth.' 'Be bolde, be bolde, and everywhere be bolde,' was the motto of our Elizabethan ancestors, and it is that has made us what we are. If we cease to be bold, if we are no longer ready, even eager, to fight for our own hand,' our kingdom will not and cannot stand.

It is certain that England must, at all times, boldly and determinately maintain her own rights and interests, peaceably if she can, forcibly if she cannot. 'I give you a toast,' said Stephen Decatur, speaking in Norfolk, in 1816, 'Our country! in her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.'

VII.

THE BALLOT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

EVERY week appears to foreshadow more distinctly the block that threatens legislation in the House of Commons. Scarcely a week passes without one Minister or another alluding in more or less distinct terms to the Clôture, and to the necessity of adopting such measures as the urgency of public business may require.'

All this may be, and probably is, quite reasonable and necessary; it is quite possible that if one party, or section of a party, takes up the weapon of obstruction, the other party, the great majority, may be compelled, in self-defence, to take up the weapon of coercion; but it is none the less to be dreaded as an ominous danger to free institutions.

If it is necessary for the conduct of public business that the minority should be coerced, let it be done by all means; but, if possible, let it be done in such a manner that those who, in many cases, are offering a conscientious opposition may not be held up to censure they do not deserve, and that, on the other hand, the majority may not be able to claim a purity of principle they do not possess. I believe the humiliating effect of the Clôture—for, under any conditions, it must be humiliating to the minority— would be very much mitigated by secret voting, if, indeed, secret voting did not entirely remove the necessity for it. But there is another reason far more urgent and powerful than that of the Clôture why secret voting should be adopted by the House of Commons, and that is the 'Caucus.'

The Caucus' is terrorism in electoral matters; it is the organised tyranny of the majority; it is avowedly adopted to quash the free expression of the opinion of the minority in every constituency in the kingdom.

THE BALLOT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

33

It is not an organisation of English birth, or suited to the tastes and individuality of Englishmen, and although it may at the last election have assisted the temporary elevation of certain unscrupulous politicians, it has by no means added to their popularity. The logical antidote to the Caucus is secret voting in the House of Commons, and, indeed, why should not voting in the House of Commons be conducted under the ballot? As far as I can understand the question, every argument that applies to secret voting in constituencies applies to secret voting in Parliament. Of course it is very pleasant to suppose that every individual member of Parliament is determined honestly and courageously to do his duty in the face of day, and has no need for the protection of the ballot box; but, nevertheless, there is a very general belief that the ballot box would, on important questions, very often give us the true opinion of the House of Commons far more correctly than open voting.

And, after all, I suppose it is the true, independent opinion of its representatives in Parliament that the country desires on important questions, rather than the mere dictation (often interested) of party wire-pullers.

Of course, secret voting in the House of Commons would, to a certain extent, loosen the bonds of party discipline, but as each party believes that it would be the gainer, it does not seem as if there is any great danger to fear. Secret voting in the House of Commons would be unpopular with party whips and the promoters of the Caucus, but it has been adopted with surprising success by the French Senate, and I believe it would prove an equal success in the English House of Commons.

D

VIII.

THE HOUSE OF LORDS.

IN the startling attack made by Mr. Forster a few days ago on the House of Lords, he said: 'It cannot be forgotten that the power which the House of Lords possesses is entirely owing to the accident of birth.' A very short examination of the rolls of the peerage proves that this statement is not correct. In addition to twenty-six archbishops or bishops, who are peers by virtue of office, there are in the present House of Lords no less than sixty peers who have been created by the Sovereign, and who owe nothing whatever to the accident of birth; there are, besides, forty-four Scotch and Irish representative peers, sixteen of whom are elected each Parliament and twentyeight for life, so that of the 500, more or less, peers composing the House of Lords eighty-six owe absolutely nothing whatever to the accident of birth; and in the case of forty-four others the power they possess is only enjoyed for their lifetime or for the uncertain term of a Parliament. During the present reign 169 new peers have been created, scarcely half a dozen of whom owe their elevation to the accident of birth. Of course we all know that the House of Lords contains many frivolous peers, whose pretence at serious legislation might cause a smile; but it is also plain that it contains orators, statesmen, lawyers, men of business, more than sufficient to leaven the mass, and to raise its character as a deliberative assembly far above the level of the House of Commons. With the exception of Messrs. Gladstone and Bright as orators, there is not a single statesman, administrator, orator, or lawyer in the House of Commons who cannot be matched two or three times over in the House of Lords. In addition to many distinguished lawyers, diplomatists, soldiers, and colonial governors of this generation who