COMING events cast their shadows before. And a very disagreeable shadow it is which now rests upon the occupants of the Treasury Bench. They feel the "cold shade" of the Opposition benches already stealing over them. The reign of the once great Whig party is virtually at an end. The Ministry is doomed; and in full view of its coming demise, the Cabinet is breaking up. The present leaders of the Liberal party are passing from the scene. The retirement of Lord Palmerston cannot now be long postponed. Earl Russell, grown somewhat sick of office owing to his recent deplorable failures, no longer aspires to lead a Ministry. The field is opening for new men. A General Election is approaching, which will decide the fate of parties and politicians for several years to come. And with an eye to the coming downfall of the Ministry, and to a fresh appeal to the constituencies, one of the chiefs of the present Cabinet has separated himself from his colleagues, announces a policy of his own, and bids for popularity on an entirely new basis.

There have been many memorable Wednesdays since the present Ministry took office. Black days for them, but days ever-memorable in the history of what is usually, though not very correctly, styled the Conservative reaction,-days signalised by successive defeats of the various Bills directed against the Constitution alike in State and Church. One by one, on these "black Wednesdays," the Ministry have seen the revolutionary measures which they supported knocked on the head. But Wednesday the 11th of May 1864 witnessed a disaster for the Ministry worse than any which had gone before. Then, for the first time, the knell of the Whigs was rung by a member of their own Cabinet.

It must be allowed that the pre

sent Ministry dies hard. Its members have been willing to do everything but submit to an extinction of their official existence. They have turned their backs upon their former selves; they have borrowed the sentiments of the Opposition; they have played fast and loose with their own principles, and apparently glory in having none. They have become callous to the sneers and contempt which they have incurred by the abandonment of all the pledges by which they succeeded in getting into office. When Lord Russell, in his farewell speech in the House of Commons, praised the foreign policy of his predecessor, Lord Malmesbury, his colleagues and party submitted with good face to the condemnation which the noble Lord pronounced alike upon himself and upon them. And they chuckled, rather than fumed, when the same noble Lordthe parent of so many Reform Billsfinally gave a quietus to the Reform mania by earnestly counselling the country to "Rest and be thankful.” In these two speeches, Lord Russell, with a candour which it would be difficult to parallel, virtually proclaimed that the grounds upon which the Conservative Ministry was overthrown, and upon which the Liberals succeeded to power, were either monstrous shams or grand errors. But the Whigs stood all this, and more. They thought it a capital stroke to adopt the Conservative principle, seeing that Conservatism was becoming popular. It was an adroit though shameless manœuvre, which enabled them to retain office after their old programme of policy had been exploded; and for this great object, they were not over-sensitive as to what people said of their previous conduct. "Let the dead bury the dead," they said. "The country is Conservative now, so therefore are we. Nothing suc

ceeds like success: and so that we keep in office, all else may be disregarded."

This is a comfortable creed. And, protected by the great tact and prestige of Lord Palmerston, the Whigs have been enabled to practise it alike profitably and pleasantly. But on the 11th ultimo they were roughly awakened from their sleep on the rotten roses. A traitor resolved to spoil their game, and cut out a new one for himself. They had found swimming with the tide alike easy and profitable, they had been intent only to chime in with the opinions of the majority. But lo! up rose Mr Gladstone, and down fell all their hopes. To their dismay, he branded their conduct as a base sham and as a political iniquity. He reopened the long-smothered feud between Whiggery and Radicalism, he hoisted the Radical flag, outdid Mr Bright in the revolutionary character of his opinions, and of fered himself as leader to the Liberal party of the future.

All parties in the House have sincerely regretted the too frequent absences of the veteran Premier, owing to indisposition; and on more than one occasion before, the Ministry have had ample reason to deplore the temporary want of his sagacious leadership. His has been the tact that has so often saved the Ministry from fatal defeat. His have been the vigorous sense and thorough knowledge of public feeling that frequently rallied to the side of the Government even the support of the Opposition. His absence is all that is needed to demonstrate his importance. He has been the Ministry. His name has given it prestige; his popularity has been thrown as a shield over many a delinquent colleague or subordinate; and often has his wary sagacity extricated the Ministry from ruin by means of prompt and adroit concessions. There is not another man on the Ministerial benches in the Commons that can lead the House. It is now mani

fest also, that without him the Ministry itself cannot keep together. Ten days of indisposition on his part sufficed to breed rivalry and antagonism among his colleagues, and to tempt his Chancellor of the Exchequer to bid for the leadership of the Liberal party, which, to his prophetic eye, seemed already as good as vacant.

It transpired the night before that Mr Gladstone was to speak for the Government in support of the second reading of Mr Baines's Bill; but it was not suspected that he was about to proclaim for himself a new political programme. Shortly before, on the discussion of Mr Locke King's Bill for lowering the county franchise, Lord Palmerston, while recording his vote for the second reading, took care to demonstrate that the effects of the measure would be pernicious, and, moreover, that it was inexpedient to deal with the question in such a manner, and at the present time. It was generally expected that Mr Gladstone would follow a similar course in regard to Mr Baines's Bill-not, indeed, with the trenchant sense and happy levity of the Premier, but with an ample display of adroit and plausible rhetoric. But both the Ministry and the House were mistaken. Mr Gladstone saw his opportunity for making a coup-and he made it. His colleagues listened in dismay, but were helpless. He was up-he was bent on his work-there was no stopping him. They quickly saw that it was no mistake, no mere drifting by accident into a wrong groove. They realised the position. He was throwing them overboard. He was repudiating the policy by which they had so long maintained themselves in office. More suo, the most unstable of living politicians began by lamenting the political immorality of the age. He "deprecated and deplored" the existing facts and opinions in regard to the question of Reform. "I will not go the whole length of my honourable friend (Mr Baines) in respect to

what he said as to the pledges of Governments and parties; but I will not scruple to admit that so much of our Parliamentary history during the last thirteen years-that is, since the vote on Mr Locke King's Bill in 1851-as touches Parliamentary Reform, is a most unsatisfactory chapter. (Loud cheers from the Liberals below the gangway.) We have not been so keenly alive to our duties in this matter as we ought to have been, and I am convinced that it is for the interests of the country that this matter should be speedily entertained and settled. (Renewed cheering below the gangway.)" He denied that the political quiet, the total absence of agitation, and even the almost total absence of petitions,* was a proof that the people were contented with the present system; but he gave no reasons for his denial. He then drew the picture of a model workman, and read an extract from an address by some body of workingmen, in which they spoke gratefully and kindly of Parliament and the upper classes. "I consider these statements," he said, “as representing not only the sentiments of a particular body at the particular place from which they emanate, but the general sentiments of the enlightened working - men of the country.' Here he was getting into a difficulty. If the enlightened portion of the working-classes were so grateful to Parliament and the upper classes, surely they should be the best judges of what is good for them and why, then, revolutionise a system with which they are so amply content? Mr Gladstone saw the dilemma in a moment; and his solution of it introduced the most extraordinary part of his speech" It may, however, be said that such statements prove the existing state of things to be satisfactory (hear, hear!) - but what I would say in reply to that

argument is this, that every man who is not presumably incapacitated by some consideration of personal unfitness or political danger is morally entitled to come within the pale of the Constitution." Vehement cheering from the Radicals, counter cheers from the Opposition, and a thrill of perturbation and anger on the part of the Whigs, greeted this startling declaration. The principle of universal suffrage could not be proclaimed more broadly or emphatically. It does not matter, says Mr Gladstone, whether the existing system be acceptable to the people or not, for no system is defensible which does not acknowledge the moral right of every man to exercise the franchise. That is the grand principle which Mr Gladstone now upholds. Maintaining this sweeping principle, he considers it unnecessary for him to show that there would be any advantage or no danger, in admitting the whole body of the working-classes to the possession of the franchise. "Every man is morally entitled to it," he says; and he maintains that it devolves upon those who oppose his project to show that any harm would result from it. "If fortynine fiftieths of the working-classes are to be excluded from the franchise, it is upon those who maintain that exclusion that it rests to show its necessity." Do not argue by idle inferences, he said; you must establish disqualification or political danger by actual proof; then only, and not till then, shall I listen to you. He might as well have said at once, "All are entitled to the franchise and not until they have got the franchise, and have shown that they are unfit to use it, ought any man to say they ought not to have it." Reasoning a priori, like the old upholders of the "Rights of Man" in the French Convention, Mr Gladstone would land us in universal suffrage before he would allow us

;

to discuss its merits. He would have us at the bottom of the pit before he permits us to examine whether it is a pit that we are walking into. "Is it a dagger that I see before me?" "By no means," replies Mr Gladstone; "or at all events you have no business to inquire."

The House was remarkably full - crowded in every part. The Radicals always muster stanchly in support of their favourite measures; and the Conservatives, who have grown enthusiastic in consequence of their successive triumphs on all constitutional questions, now attend these Wednesday debates in overwhelming numbers. But though the rank and file on either side mustered in great force, comparatively few of their chiefs were present; they had gone to her Majesty's reception. Mr Whiteside, Lord John Manners, and Sir John Pakington were alone on the front bench of the Opposition. Mr Disraeli was at the reception. In all probability Mr Gladstone had reckoned upon the absence of that formidable adversary, and, with ignoble prudence, had taken advantage of that accident to appear for the first time in the political arena as the avowed champion of democracy; but his caution availed him little. He was not allowed to escape without just punishment and exposure; and, on this occasion, Mr Whiteside, who appeared as spokesman for the Conservatives, did not fail to unmask the hypocrisy and refute the fallacies of the Cleon of the British Parliament.

It is no part of the political programme of the Conservatives to exclude the working-classes from a fair share of the franchise, as was shown by the provision which was made in the Reform Bill of Lord Derby's Government, for conferring the franchise upon a select portion of that class. Accordingly Mr Cave, who in an excellent speech had led off the opposition to Mr Baines's Bill by moving "the previous question," stated that he "had

chosen this form as evincing no hostility to the honourable member's doctrine that the working-classes ought to have a share in the representation." Mr Whiteside, in like manner, said "So little inclination have I to speak disrespectfully of any class of people, that when a Bill was introduced conferring a lodger and educational franchise, I thought it was wise." At the very outset of his speech, by a happy quotation, he turned the tables upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr Gladstone is always fond of denouncing "political immorality.” It is one of his pet rhetorical expedients. Like Joseph Surface, he is never so impressive as when in his "moral vein;" and the noble sentiments which he utters on such occasions might draw tears from the eyes of the most obdurate Sir Peter Teazle. Unfortunately for the success of this trick of debate, he has somewhat staled its effect by over-repetition. His antecedents are by this time tolerably notorious; so that, while listening to his highflown ethical homilies, we are irresistibly reminded of that passage in The Fortunes of Nigel,' in which King James protests, that "it was grand to hear Baby Charles laying down the guilt of dissimulation, and Steenie lecturing on the turpitude of incontinence!" No elaborate study of the columns of Hansard' was needful to convict Mr Gladstone of having been at least as great a sinner in this matter of Reform as any of his colleagues whose conduct he had so freely condemned. When the present Ministry were counselled, in the course of debate, to withdraw their Reform Bill in 1861, Mr Gladstone, in supporting the Bill, said that it was impossible for the Government to adopt such a course, and added-"I may, at all events, venture to say for myself, that in my opinion any Ministry which should have introduced a measure such as this with so little caution, and in a shape so unfitted to undergo discussion, as to render it expedient