, and also a measure
which promises by reasonably widening the basis of our
institutions to strengthen the structure above.

To the repeal of the paper duty the House of Commons, when led by
the Derby government, chose to commit itself unanimously, and this
at a time when the tea duty was at 17d. per lb. In 1860 and 1861
the cabinet considered the respective claims, and took the same
course which the Derby government had assisted the House of
Commons to take before. Upon this it was found that the measure
which they had approved had become in my hands a radical one; the
House of Lords was encouraged to rescue the finance of the country
from the hands of the House of Commons; and the claims of tea were
declared to be paramount to those of paper. In proposing the
repeal of the last remaining excise duty upon a simple article of
manufacture, I adopted a principle which had already received an
unanimous acceptance. In resisting to the uttermost of my power
the encroachment of the House of Lords, I acted, as I believe, on
the only principle which makes it practicable to defend the true,
legitimate, and constitutional powers of that House itself against
encroachment from other quarters.

Now let me look at the other side of the question. On church
rates, on university tests, on clerical subscription (the two last
being the only two questions really of principle which, as far as
I remember, have been raised), I have held my ground; and on the
two last the cabinet of which I form a part has in the main
adopted a course essentially (but with a little _c_) conservative.

The question of franchise was settled, the question of the powers of the
Lords in matters of taxation was settled. The Irish church held its
ground. In 1865 Mr. Gladstone voted against a radical member who had moved
that the case of the Irish church "called for the early attention of the
government." He agreed with the mover on the merits, but did not believe
that the time had come. In 1866, when he was leader of the House, he
concurred with Lord Russell, then first minister, in meeting a motion
against the Irish church with a direct negative. "In meeting a question
with a negative," he wrote to the Irish secretary (April 7), "we may
always put it on the ground of time, as well as on the merits. To meet a
motion of this kind with the previous question only, imp