operate with
anything like its present force when the means of tracing
the action of the man bribed are taken away, because men will
not pay for that they do not know they will ever receive."
"I think it is too late for the honorable gentleman to say,
'We are passing through an experiment; wait for more experiment.'"
"We have already been debating this subject for forty years;
we have plenty of time on our hands; it is a Godsend to have
anything to fill up our vacant hours; and therefore let us
postpone the subject in order that it may be dealt with in
future years."
The great quality of Gladstone, as of Sumner, is his profound
seriousness. He makes the impression on his hearers, an impression
made, but not so strongly, upon his readers, that the matter
he is discussing is that upon which the foundations of heaven
and earth rest.
It would be a great mistake to hold Disraeli cheap. He turned
the tables upon Osborne, who had gone into several, what Disraeli
called, archaeological details, with respect to the antiquity
of the ballot, and had cited a proclamation of Charles I.
prohibiting the ballot in all corporations, either in the
city of London or elsewhere, which Disraeli said "was done
with the admirable view of identifying the opinions of those
who sit on this side of the House with the political sentiments
of that monarch. But there was another assertion of the principle
that the ballot should be open that the gentleman has not
cited. That occurred in the most memorable Parliament that
ever sat in England--the Long Parliament . . . . They wished
it therefore to be exercised, not to satisfy the self-complacency
of the individual, but with due respect for common-sense and
the public opinion of the country, and influenced by all those
doctrines and all that discipline of party which they believed
to be one of the best securities for public liberty."
Gladstone showed in his speech the profounder reflection
on the general subject, the more philosophy, and the intenser
earnestness; Disraeli showed quickness of wit, a ready command
of his resources, ability for subtle distinctions, and glimpses
of his almost Satanic capacity for mocking and jeering. He
describes Mr. Gladstone most felicitously as "inspired by
a mixture of genius and vexation." He speaks of his majority
as a "mechanical majority, a majority the result of heedlessness
of thought on the part of members who were so full of other
questions th
|