worded with ingenious obscurity, skilfully evaded the important aspect
of the controversy, and two of them, the second and third, gave equal
consolation to the Liberals and the Conservatives. So that, in fact, it
is reserved for some future Parliament, in which it cannot be doubted
that the Radical element will be more numerous and more powerful, to
determine what should have been decided on this very evening. It was
cleverly done, certainly, and extorted from all parties and members of
every shade of political opinion that admiration which the successful
performance of a difficult and critical task must always elicit. But was
it statesmanlike, or in any high sense patriotic or manly?

The Premier was followed by R.P. Collier, representing Plymouth. He had
been on the committee to search for precedents, and he devoted an hour
to showing that there was not, in all Parliamentary history, a single
precedent justifying the action of the Lords. His argument was clear and
convincing, and the result of it was, that no bill simply imposing or
remitting a tax had ever in a single instance been rejected by the Upper
House. In all the thirty-six cases relied on by the Opposition there
was always some other principle involved, which furnished plausible
justification for the course adopted by the Lords.

To this speech I observed that Mr. Gladstone paid strict attention,
occasionally indicating his assent by an approving nod, or by an
encouraging "Hear! Hear!" It is rare, indeed, that any speaker in the
House secures the marked attention or catches the eye of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer.

To Collier succeeded Coningham, member for Brighton. Now as this
honorable member was prosy and commonplace, not to say stupid, I
should not detain my readers with any allusion to his speech, but as