The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-12-25
Garfield in the House of Commons.

"Garteld in London" In the January
Century, consists of extracts from Gar
fields journal Of bis trip to Europe In 1867.
One of his visits to Parliament is described
as follows: "When a member read a petit
tion of four thousand citizens Of Bir-
mingham in favor of Lord Cairns
amendment for third vote in
tripartite constituencies, Bright followed
with monster petition on the other side.
Then followed volley of questions fred at
the Administration from all sides, and their
responses. Disraell sat passionless and mo-
tionless, except strong trotting of the foot,
indicative of high pitch of intellectual ac-
tivity and expectancy. His face reveals
nothing. The most pointed illusions, either
of logic, fact, or wit, fail to move muscle
or change line of the expression.
At 5, the Reform Bill is announced, and
all sounds subside in the crowded hall-so
full that several members sit in the gallery.
Disraeli, in very calm, somewhat halting
way, goes over the chief points in the Lords
amendments, puts them very adroitly, and
In very conciatory tone speaks about
twenty minutes. Meanwhile, Bright has
been sitting on the second row, and next the
gangway, taking note now and then, man
ifesting little nervousness in the hands
and fingers, and occasionally passing his
hand over his ample forehead. Mill Is set
tied down in his seat, with his chin resting
in the palm of his hand, and giving close at
tention as he does to everything that passes.
By the way, his face greatly disappoints me
in one respect; there is nothing of the Jo-
vine breadth and fullness of brow 1 expect
ed; but there is great depth from brow to
cerebellum, and strong, well-defined fea-
lures. There is nervous twitching of the
muscles Of his head and face. which proba-
bly, results from hard work. Gladstone rises
and opens the debate on the Opposition
side, in an adroit speech Of eight minutes,
evidently reserying himself for a fuller as
sault later in the evening. He is the most
un-English speaker have yet heard, and
the best. Dlsraeli shows great tact in de-
termining how far to persist and when to
yield. In that essential point of leadership,
Palmerston has probably never been excelled.
Dlsraeli is no mean disciple of his. Glad
stone, with more ability than either, is said
to be especially lacking in that respect.
Alter several more amendments have been
given up with apparent reluctance, but for
the sake OF harmony, the amendment of
Lord Cairns is reached, on which the minis
try intend to make stubborn fight Bright
opens the attack in speech of half an hour
or more. Though cordially dlsliked by the
Tories, he compels attention at once. With
form like that of Senator Wilson, of Mas
sachusetts, he has large, round, full, fine,
massiI e head, and straight, almost delicate
nose. He has a full, rotund voice, and, like
Gladstone, is un-English il his style-that
is, he speaks right on, with but little of that
distressful hobbling which marks the mass
OF Parliamentary speakers. With all my
sympathy with Bright and the Liberals,
am inclined to favor the amendment. / re-
member Mills discussion of it in his 'Rep-
resentative Government and his ap-
proving reference to the work of Hare
on the same subject. Bright put the
case very strongly on his side, and
pointed out the anomalies it would pro-
duce; but l thought they would result from
the limited application of the principle rath-
er than from the principle itself. l also
thought it little inconsistent in him, who
has been so bold an advocate for change, to
object to this as an innovation. But he put
his case very strongly, and made us sympa-
thize with his earnestness. Many speeches
were leveled at him; but, like all politicians
he seems to have become pachyderm, and
paid no attention to it. Howmuchsoever
they MAY affect to despise him, they cannot
blink the fact, which even THE Times ad-
mitted this morning in mean attack upon
him, that John Bright was the most skillful
speaker in England, and, in some kinds of
oratory, the first orasor'
l notice that many of the leaders were
high honor men at the universities. Glad
stone took 'double-irst'; Roundell Palmer
took first in classics, and many other clas-
sic honors and prizes. Mill Is not Univer-
sity man, but his Logic has been text
book at Oxford for twenty years. Tom
Hughes, who made Rugby and himself i'm
mortal, was not first-class scholar. Fors-
ter is good speaker and Radical, but do
not know what his scholarship was.
At 10, Gladstone rose and spoke for near
ly an hour, going into the whole question
with great clearness and incisive force. BE
spoke with much more feeling than any 9TH
er except Bright Gladstone was followed
by Lowe, who is considered the strongest
man of his school in the House He sits on
the Opposition side; but on this question of
suffrage is Conservative. He is nearly blind,
and spoke without notes and with his eyes
apparently shut. He combines sharpness
with remarkable toughness of intellectual
fiber, which makes him a powerful assail-
ant. 1t was exceedingly fine, the way he
sought out and javelined the exposed joints
of his antagonists harness. Gladstone
WINGED man1estly. ABOUT half-paSt IL
division was had, which resulted 206
against, and 25S in favor. This is a strong
example of the influence of the Ministry.
When the same principle was discussed in
the Commons few weeks ago, Disraeli
made strong speech against it, and it was
negatived by 140 majority. It has been very
curious to see what different and opposite
motives have moved men to favor this new
feature in representative government. Mill
votes for this only as an installment OF what
he has long advocated as a doctrinaire; that
minorities should be represented, ard he
hopes to see it prevail in all elections. He
thinks it will yitalize voters, and virtually
extend the suffrage. He votes for it as a
higher step toward democracy. Gladstone
opposes it for this very reason, and several
others because it will give them Tory MEM
Der. The Times favors it for this reason,
and because it thinks it will control the
Democratic tendencies of the bill.
The measure seems to me to be vulnera-
BILE: first, because of the practical difficult
ties in carrying it into operation; secondly,
because of its partial application.
The votlng-paper clause was taken up,
and the House of Commons refused to con
cur with the Lords
left the Commons little before mid
night, having witnessed the practical con-
summation of the greatest advance toward
political liberty made in England in a centu-