of the durability of a purely democratic government by a single elective Assembly.

Mr. Leonard Courtney also opposed the resolution, in a speech of marked ability. At the close of the debate, after midnight, Sir Stafford Northcote, Chancellor of the Exchequer, referred with quiet but impressive sincerity to the grave, the solemn, the statesmanlike warning' of Robert Lowe; and, on behalf of the Government, opposed Trevelyan's resolution, which had been seconded by Sir Charles Dilke. The result was that Lord Claud Hamilton's amendment as to the inexpediency of re-opening the question of parliamentary reform was carried by 291 votes against 226.

This question of the extension of the franchise was also fought out by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe in the magazines. In the Fortnightly Review for October 1877, Lowe wrote a remarkably able article entitled, A New Reform Bill,' which, in less than fifteen pages of lucid English, contains the sum and substance of his views against the democratic theory of government. Shortly after its appearance Mr. Gladstone sent him the following friendly letter.

Mr. Gladstone to Robert Lowe

Hawarden: Oct. 15, 1877

My dear Lowe,-On reading with much interest your article in the Fortnightly on the franchise, I have been moved (from within, be it understood) to offer a reply, which I am sending off to the Nineteenth Century. I hope, and even think, that, apart from the wide difference of opinion between us on and about the franchise, you may not find anything in it to which you would object. I have endeavoured to give expression to the cordial respect with which I regard your motives, however much I may presume to lament your opinions. I have not kept in the shade that upon many questions of government, and I believe upon some touching the state of our parliamentary system, and more matters too of great importance, you and I are rather specially (as I think) agreed. I am going off to Ireland to-morrow to remain there, if I can, in the dark.

Yours sincerely,

W. E. GLADSTONE.

To Mr. Gladstone's article, 'The County Franchise and Mr. Lowe thereon,' in the Nineteenth Century, November 1877, Lowe replied in the December number of the Fortnightly by an article entitled, Mr. Gladstone on Manhood Suffrage.' Mr. Gladstone paid more than one personal tribute to his opponent's high character and rare disinterestedness, and used a fine phrase concerning Robert Lowe's intellect: Mr. Lowe's penetrating, almost piercing, power of mind.' While fully reciprocating Mr. Gladstone's good feeling and personal courtesy, Lowe's rejoinder is one of the most trenchant political controversial essays in the language. There is one brief passage for the counterpart of which one would have to search the powerful pages of Jonathan Swift. Lowe is dealing with what he always conceived to be the great fallacy of Mr. Gladstone; viz. the maintenance of the abstract right of every man to a voice in the government on what he was in the habit of styling the fathers-of-families, flesh-and-blood, and fellowChristian' theory:

Here, then, are the arguments in favour of manhood suffrage as revised and corrected by the Minister who proposed a 77. franchise in 1866. 1. Every man must, directly or indirectly, contribute to the revenue. The same thing may be said of every dog. A man satisfies the qualification by paying for a glass of beer. 2. Every man by his labour contributes to the public wealth. The same thing may be said of every cart horse. 3. Nine men out of ten are fathers of families. This qualification is the condition of the continuance of the species which we share with the lower animals. 4. Every man is possessed of the power of doing a great deal of mischief. So is almost every animal. We have known houses where everything that was broken was attributed to the agency of the cat. It will hardly be believed that these four arguments expounded, of course, and amplified, are the four Corinthian pillars which are destined to support the enormous fabric of universal suffrage. We shall not think it necessary to criticise them further, but content ourselves with the remark, that we seem, somehow or other, to have slipped down from the human into the animal kingdom, and that we sigh for some reason for submitting ourselves to the will of the many, which is drawn at least from qualities peculiar to the human

race, to which, after all, the poorest and most ignorant among us do belong.

A discussion of this kind between two minds so essentially diverse must always, so far as the combatants are concerned, prove fruitless. Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe intellectually had no points of contact, and the discussion, as Bismarck said of a war between Russia and England, was like a fight between a dog and a fish. Towards the close of this article, Lowe again pointed to the difference between a democratised England and the United States: The American Constitution is a monument of the distrust which the founders of the Republic felt for the institution which necessity obliged them to adopt; because Congress, elected by universal suffrage, cannot safely be trusted with the functions which we leave to the House of Commons, they are obliged to endure for four years a head of the Executive whom they may heartily wish to get rid of, and to endure a Congress which has ceased to reflect the opinion of the country. By fixed periods of time, and by the action of a Senate, they contrive to find a modus vivendi with universal suffrage. But with us, manhood suffrage would succeed, without fetter or restraint, to all the powers of government. It would be decked with a venerable name and invested with a power, all the limits of which have been successfully and completely broken down, in confidence that it would be wielded by knowledge, intelligence, and wealth.'

On December 22, Mr. Gladstone wrote again from Hawarden, evidently in acknowledgment of some kindly message from Lowe :

'I promptly and cordially thank you for your welcome letter. Somehow I felt sure than when we shook hands, as we now do, after our boxing match, it would be without any reserve; and I can entirely reciprocate as to you what you are good enough to say of me.'

6

It was in reference to the first of these articles, A New Reform Bill,' that Matthew Arnold observed, in a contri

bution to the Fortnightly for 1878 on Irish Catholicism and British Liberalism: Mr. Lowe has in this very Review, not many months ago, admirably set forth the ideal of the Liberal party. "The ideal of the Liberal party," says Mr. Lowe, "consists in a view of things undisturbed and undistorted by the promptings of interest or prejudice, in a complete independence of all class interests, and in relying for its success on the better feelings and higher intelligence of mankind." Happier words (added Mr. Arnold) could not well be found; such is, indeed, the ideal of the Liberal party.'

In the Nineteenth Century for July 1878, there appeared A Modern Symposium,' in which, as well as Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Lowe, the following well-known publicists took part : Mr. W. R. Greg, Lord Arthur Russell, Mr. R. H. Hutton, Mr. Grant Duff, and Mr. Frederic Harrison. The subject, Is the Popular Judgment in Politics more just than that of the Higher Orders?' was really a further discussion of the question of universal suffrage.

Robert Lowe during his closing years in the Commons had also a bout with Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in the magazines. Towards the end of 1876, Mr. Chamberlain was urging the experimental adoption in England of the Gothenburg licensing system. Lowe, who strongly dissented from the proposal, at once recognised the marked ability and business-like vigour with which it was advocated. Mr. Chamberlain was clearly a man worth crossing swords with; so he wrote the article, The Birmingham Plan of Publichouse Reform,' which appeared in the Fortnightly Review for January 1877.

This magazine article runs to less than nine pages in all, but the energetic Bishop of Chester, if he have not yet done so, should certainly read it before starting his episcopal tavern. It would be difficult to make out a stronger case against a municipality securing a monopoly in the liquor traffic.

Mr. Chamberlain promptly replied to Lowe's attack in an

article entitled 'Municipal Public-houses,' which appeared in the February number of the Fortnightly. He was, in his way, as downright and uncompromising as his assailant, and his clearness and vigour of statement greatly pleased Lowe, who marked him out as a man of distinct ability, with, in all probability, some special gift of administration which had made him the leading citizen of Birmingham, and might make him one of the future political leaders in England. When Mr. Chamberlain came up to London to attend Parliament for the first time, Lowe at once asked him to dinner at Lowndes Square, and the meeting, though it may not have harmonised their differences on public-house reform, certainly laid the foundation for a feeling of mutual regard and appreciation.

Shortly before these discussions with Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Chamberlain, Robert Lowe delivered a memorable address on a memorable occasion at the Political Economy Club (May 31, 1876). It was a dinner to commemorate the hundredth anniversary of the publication of The Wealth of Nations,' and Mr. Gladstone was in the chair, with M. Léon Say as the chief guest of the evening. Lowe's eulogy of Adam Smith was greatly admired by the late Professor Stanley Jevons and other economists. His literary activity and vigour were never greater. In the Nineteenth Century for November, 1878 appeared his reply to Mr. Ingram's address to the British Association in Dublin; it was entitled ' Recent Attacks on Political Economy.' This was followed, in June, 1879, by a reply to Mr. Wallace's economic theories under the heading 'Reciprocity and Free-Trade.' Among his other contributions to that periodical at this time may be mentionedan article on Owens College, Manchester, entitled Shall we create a new University ?'; a trenchant paper, 'Have we abolished Imprisonment for Debt?'; an extremely anti-Imperialistic article, The Value to the United Kingdom of the Foreign Dominions of the Crown;' and an essay, mainly dealing