fashion. As Lord Russell quietly pocketed his dignity when the exigencies of the period required him to serve under Lord Granville, there seems no reason why Lord Granville should not do the same when their positions are reversed; and so long as Lord Ellenborough holds aloof, the President of the Council, with his conciliatory address, tact, knowledge, and readiness, may safely be matched against any secondary champion the Tory benches can supply.

If Lord Kingsdown were to rouse himself and enter the arena as an active combatant, Lord Cranworth would have a hard time of it. But the Lord Chancellor has little to fear from the desultory attacks of a partisan like Lord Chelmsford; and if Lord Westbury (as his friends earnestly wish and hope) should resolve on establishing new and lasting claims to public esteem, his great talents will be exerted in support of the ex-colleagues who stood by him to the last. Valuable aid may be confidently anticipated from the high character, sound judgment, and large experience of Lord Romilly, the real author of that excellent measure, the Irish Incumbered Estates Act. The Dukes of Somerset and Argyle, the Lords Clarendon, De Grey, and Stanley of Alderley, can surely hold their own against the Lords Malmesbury, Salisbury, Hardwicke, Carnarvon, and other Conservative assailants; so that, if the RussellGladstone ministry is destined to go down in the coming mélée, it must fall before the lances of some preus chevaliers of the Lower House. But here again a comparison of the antagonistic forces will prove rather reassuring to their wellwishers than the contrary.

We do no more than adopt the universal estimate when we say that Mr. Gladstone is unapproached and unapproachable in most of the essential qualifications for his post.

His vast and varied information, which he can increase at will on any given subject with almost unparalleled facility, is rendered available at a moment's notice, or any conceivable emergency, by dint of his wonderful gift of words. Critically speaking, they are too redun dant; but this very verbosity may be frequently an advantage to spokesman of a Government wher he wishes to gain time, or to appear to be saying something when he is really saying nothing. Mr. Glad stone is equally at home in detail: or principles-in foreign or domes tic policy. He can rise to grand occasions, or descend to every-day occurrences; take a comprehensive view of the relations of empires or discuss a question of order. is a perfect master of parliamentary fence, and his boldness borders of aggressiveness. Although open to the reproach brought against a dis tinguished French contemporary Montalembert, qu'il change trop sou vent d'idée fixe, Mr. Gladstone's faitl is, as firm in his temporary creed a if it were a revelation from on High and his earnestness, being genuine is quite as impressive as if he wer known and recognised as a mode of consistency,

H

The grand drawback is his wan of judgment a certain tortuou quality of mind which is perpetu ally luring him off the broad and beaten track of reason and commo sense. Under its influence he i fully capable of arriving at con clusions which, to an ordinar understanding, are tantamount t maintaining that two and tw make five. Then there is positively no holding him to any proposition whatever, if he wishes to ge loose from it; witness the state o uncertainty in which we are lef touching his doctrine of the primi facie title to a vote. During Gari baldi's visit to England, more than one widow of quality was reported as about to marry him, when i

was objected that he had a wife. Put up Gladstone to explain her away,' was the reply; and if Gladstone had once set about it, the unhappy wife would speedily have found herself in the position of Swift's victim, Partridge, who died of vexation because he could not convince people that he was alive.

No high order of eloquence can be attained without excitability; and Mr. Gladstone, although by no means what is commonly called an ill-tempered (i.e. ill-natured) man, cannot always command his temper he is excitable, nay irritable, to excess. It has sometimes redounded to his honour that he proved so; as when, pale with passion, he rose to reply to Mr. Disraeli's going-out speech on a memorable night of December 1852. He spoke with tenfold vigour and effect from being completely hurried away by scorn and indignation. But he must now learn self-restraint, or his physical strength will fail, be his moral courage what it may, and we believe it to be inexhaustible. If he suffers every insignificant member of the Opposition to get a rise out of him, he will be teased and worried, like the bull by the picadores and banderilleros, till he is sufficiently exhausted for Mr. Disraeli to attempt the part of matador. For this reason, if for no other, it becomes important to consider what assistance he is likely to receive from the Treasury benches; and ample support would be constantly at hand if his colleagues in the Cabinet could be roused to exertion, or if they would consent to modify the rule that colleagues not in the Cabinet are to remain mute except when their own departments are discussed. Mr. Charles Villiers is an admirable debater when he chooses, and his polished sarcasm will be the very weapon in request in the anticipated emergency. Mr. Milner Gibson is one of the most pleasing and

popular speakers in the House. It is absurd to undervalue the proved ability, whether for administration or discussion, of Sir George Grey. He must always command attention; as must Mr. Cardwell, so long as fairness and clearness of statement, combined with honesty of purpose, accurate knowledge, and the unexceptionable discharge of the most momentous official duties, carry weight. Sir Charles Wood is another valuable member of the ministerial phalanx, whom it has been the fashion to depreciate.

Mr. Layard, whose chief is in the House of Lords, has fortunately had full scope; and if he sometimes fails in catching the tone of the most fastidious assembly in the world, there is no denying his readiness and manliness, his comprehensiveness and liberality of view, his mastery of the varied and complicated affairs of his department, and the ease with which he beats off the captious assailants of its policy. The Board of Education, also, will be in little danger from attack whilst it remains under the sagacious direction of Mr. H. A. Bruce.

For some time past the Liberal side had been thought deficient in lawyers of mark, and the Conservatives continue to pride themselves on an assumed superiority in that respect. Yet Sir Roundell Palmer, besides being an excellent law officer, has occasionally proved eminently useful in debate; and the SolicitorGeneral is an advocate of more than average reputation and ability. The new professional member of most promise, Mr. Coleridge, is a Liberal.

It

Sir Robert Peel may prove a serious loss, even if he should not enact Coriolanus and carry over the prestige of his name and his undoubted talents to the enemy. is a mistake to suppose that he was displaced because he had not done well either in or out of parliament. The high estimate of his

services was shown by the offer of (first) a peerage, and (secondly) of the Duchy of Lancaster, which, from a becoming sense of selfrespect, he declined. The truth is, his continuance in the Irish Secretaryship was palpably incompatible with the modified line of Irish policy, which, whether right or wrong, the Government have determined to pursue. He had powerfully denounced the bigotry of the Roman Catholic Church in Spain; he had fearlessly encountered and discomfited one of the most turbulent and aggressive dignitaries of that Church in Ireland; and he was suspected of coquetting with Derbyism. Now, Lord Russell, to whom the Irish Liberal members of all shades, creeds, or complexions were indispensable, far from being able to make them tolerate or cooperate with Sir Robert Peel, had as much as he could do to get over their much more reasonable objection to himself as the author of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. He therefore judiciously selected the representative of an Irish constituency principally composed of Roman Catholics, who had voted against the obnoxious bill, who had uniformly acted as an enlightened Liberal in the best sense of the term, who thoroughly understood Ireland, who was clear from the semblance of a class prejudice, who would lend a favourable ear to the complaints of every denomination of his countrymen, and who from character, social relations, habits of business, cultivation, clearness of head, and strength of understanding, was able to compel the attention of the British Legislature to any well-considered measures of redress or relief.

The first appointment of a Secretary for Ireland to a seat in the Cabinet, whatever his individual claims, was a grave error, if not intended as the commencement of a practice to be regularly followed; for every successor not similarly

honoured lies under an obvious disadvantage. Considering the paramount importance attached to the nomination of Mr. Fortescue, with the large expectations founded on it considering also his long official experience, and the high estimate generally formed of his judgment, information, and ability, we think that it is hardly fair to diminish his influence by keeping him in a position of comparative inferiority to any (not excepting the best) of his predecessors.

The reiterated call on Lord Russell to strengthen the Treasury bench in the House of Commons from the materials at his disposal, was like telling him to make bricks without straw. He was, and is, nothing loth, although, we hope, not quite so ready as his prompters in the press to get rid of administrators like the Duke of Somerset and Lord de Grey, simply because they have the misfortune to be peers. But the want of qualified candidates may be inferred from the fact that the Chancellorship of the Duchy has been so long hung up, like the bow of Ulysses which no suitor was strong enough to bend. He might have had Mr. Lowe and Mr. Horsman by forswearing Reform altogether or pledging himself to a milk-and-water measure; or he might have engaged Mr. Bright at the risk of frightening half the Whig aristocracy from their propriety. Lord Stanley, it seems clear, was not to be had at any price; and it would have been strange indeed if, with a fair and not far-off prospect of the premiership, he had suddenly abandoned his father and his party at what is probably a transition period. If he were really anxious to get out of uncongenial company and a false position, he would naturally wait for the general break-up and fresh cast of parts which is anticipated.

Lord Russell, having no taste

for either extreme, had nothing for it but to fall back on Mr. Goschen and Mr. Forster, thereby virtually proclaiming that he had elected for a bold and honest measure of Reform -not necessarily a democratic or revolutionary one, capable of taking a respectable Whig's breath away, as Lord Grey's Bill took away Mr. Smith's breath in 1831. The value and quality of these two acquisitions were so finely analysed and carefully calculated by a candid and thoughtful writer in the Pall Mall Gazette, that we are tempted to reproduce the more graphic portions of his sketches.

High praise is bestowed on Mr. Goschen's essay on the Theory of Foreign Exchanges,' as a model of lucid exposition. He is complimented on the possession of a clear, reasonable, unsectarian intellect. 'His mind is in no sense starched by party creed;' 'he has the suppleness requisite for administrative success;' and two or three of his speeches are mentioned as particularly good. The summary stands thus :

As a speaker, Mr. Goschen will probably be less distinguished than as a thinker and administrator. We have said that he has the invaluable power of lucid exposition; and we may add that he can lay down a great principle with strength and dignity, and with that accurate fit between language and thought which has an eloquence of its own. But he wants play of mind for the highest success. He has none of that art of fetching an allusion from afar without any effort,-of indicating that his mind is ranging at ease among the topics most familiar to his audience, which rests the mind of a miscellaneous assembly without relaxing the speaker's control over it. Mr. Goschen's thought cuts a deep and narrow logical channel through his subject, instead of sparkling over it and around it with the grace of a playful imagination, or even striking sparks out of it by the shock of a strong imagination. He is nothing if not logical. But then his experience has as yet been small, and oratory of this higher kind requires a confidence which Mr. Goschen could hardly yet have obtained. At present we can speak only of his promise, and Mr. Goschen promises to be a lucid thinker, a judicious and diligent administrator, a

shrewd councillor, and a keen and convincing speaker, but scarcely, we should say, a To that character belongs a mind either parliamentary orator of any high order. versatile or intense to a degree of which Mr. Goschen has as yet shown no symptom. But ministers rise every day to the highest eminence without it, and the calibre of Mr. Goschen's speaking is much above the average of the House of Commons. Moreover, Mr. Geschen clearly has vis and an active

ambition. Should he continue to combine the wiry fibre of resolute principle with that suppleness of intellect which office tends too much to increase rather than to counteract, we may well hope that he has this week (November 23rd) begun a ministerial career which will steadily grow in honour as it lengthens.

If Mr. Goschen is worthy of so elaborate an analysis and merits such a character, we may well regret that he has not begun his ministerial career in a post better fitted for the development of his gifts; and the same remark applies, under the same qualification, to Mr. Forster, who has also (November 27th) an entire leading article to himself:

The new Under-Secretary for the Colonies is the best representative in the House of Commons of what we may call the rugged type of Liberalism-a type in many respects very different both from the smoothly logical and earnest intellectual Liberalism of such men as Mr. Stuart Mill or Mr. Goschen, and from the fiery democracy of Mr. Bright. . . . Both Mr. Bright and Mr. Forster are rugged politicians, and occasionally give formidable growls at their opponents. But the growl is a very different thing in the two men. With the former, it is scorn, warning you off; with the latter, the protest under cover of which you know that your view has gained its lodgment, and will be fairly considered. From Mr. Bright's growl, as the expression of his whole mind, you recoil. From Mr. Forster's you gain courage, as you do when a mastiff's voice sinks into a rumble of dissatisfaction, and you know at once that he sees cause, though reluctantly, to reconsider judgment.

Of course, in thus comparing the two men, we do not mean to imply that we rank Mr. Forster in importance at all near to Mr. Bright. Mr. Bright is perhaps the only speaker of this day whose speeches will be read for their mere greatness as speeches for generations yet to come; whilst Mr. Forster is only one of

the more promising among the score or so of able men who make the House listen and reflect, but never excite it. Yet on that very account it is worth noting, that of these two men who seem to be pillars among the small party of northern Radicals, the brilliant man is a man of sympathies and negative politics, while the other is a man of sympathies and positive politics: the truth probably being that Quakerism took a strong hold enough of Mr. Bright to inspire him with a belief that all the rest of the world is going wrong, without quite convincing him that his own principles are right; while in its effect on the mind of the

younger politician it was always combined

with certain social antidotes of larger culture and more catholic sympathies, which prevented him from borrowing more than a few of its nobler principles, and from being driven by it into reaction against the world.

It would be idle to say that the call for new blood has been satisfied by these two appointments; and before the end of the coming session it is to be hoped that claims will be established which even the exclusive spirit of Whiggery will not venture to pass over. The framers of Cabinets should take a hint from the popular constituencies, which look out for representatives like Mr. Stuart Mill, Mr. Fawcett, and Mr. T. Hughes.

With no wish to depreciate the occupants of the front Opposition benches, we must say that they do not present so very appalling an array after all; and the conscious inferiority of their chief, despite of his genius and energy, is obvious to the most superficial observer. He systematically avoids speaking before Mr. Gladstone, and when forced into a passage of arms with him, suggests the image of a rat compelled to face about and encounter a ferret. Assuming that the Conservatives may reckon on occasional aid from Mr. Lowe and Mr. Horsman, it should be remembered, on the other hand, that Mr. Bright may rush to the rescue like the Black Knight in Ivanhoe, and lay them prostrate in the lists like Front de Boeuf and Athelstane.

But the times we live in are not those which give the palm to oratory. Most questions of importance are thoroughly sifted and talked out before they come before the House; and it is a curious fact in our parliamentary history that the ministries which have lasted longest, or stood firmest, have been those which had the greatest amount of wit, eloquence, and debating power opposed to them. Walpole's, Lord North's, Pitt's, Lord Liverpool's, are examples; and Lord Palmerston fell in the Conspiracy Bill debate, not because he was simultaneously assailed by all the best speakers, but because he was emphatically wrong. Lord Russell and Mr. Gladstone will fall-if they fall-by misapprehending the feeling of the country, by miscalculating the exigencies of the situation, by the premature introduction of the Reform question, or by not hitting on the precise measure that will pass. The dilemma is one of the most embarrassing that ever was submitted to a statesman; and we own we do not see how Lord Russell, in particular, is to evade it without loss of place or character, without being guilty of imprudence or forfeiting a pledge.

The main difficulty results from the game of pretence and makebelieve that has been so persistently kept up on this subject; affording the best possible illustration of Mr. Carlyle's theory of Shams. A re-elected member, a consistent Reformer from the outset of his career, was leaving the hustings after making the conventional declaration of his principles, when he was addressed by a prominent supporter: 'Well, sir, I am glad to see you sticking to your colours; but most of us hope there will be no Reform Bill, for all that.' And such is almost everywhere the tone, especially in the large manufacturing towns, where the capitalists are beginning to be frightened by trades