Stanley. Henry Rogers, in the same pages, from a somewhat Puritanical standpoint, frequently discussed matters of theological or ecclesiastical interest, whilst Sir James Stephen, Permanent Under-Secretary of the Colonial Office (whom his colleague Henry Taylor used to nickname 'Over Secretary' and 'King Stephen '), out of a very large number of articles, contributed over a long series of years, had in many papers lent his weight to the same side. The names of the articles contributed by the late Dean of Westminster recall the fierce controversies of the latter half of last century. Essays and Reviews,' 1861; 'Ritualism,' 1867; The Pope and the Council,' 1871; The Bennett Judge'ment,' 1872; Religious Movements in Germany,' 1881, are a few of these. With Dean Stanley's wide spirit of toleration, and his dislike to ecclesiastical pretensions, Reeve was entirely in accord. The latter's article of July, 1868, on The National Church,' is a noble plea for

enlarging the boundaries of the Church of England, so far as is consistent with the maintenance of the essential truths of Christianity; for endeavouring to make her more and more the Church of the people; for surrendering those trifling grounds of difference which, however inconsiderable in themselves, and in no degree essential to our own faith, are stumbling blocks to the faith of others, where they are unconditionally enforced; and thus rendering the Church more comprehensive, more tolerant, and therefore more national.'

Mr. Gladstone in 1867, leading, like Lord John Russell in 1846, the Liberal Opposition on the eve of its return to power, like him contributed a noteworthy article to the Review. In 'The Session and its Sequel'* Mr. Gladstone reviews the remarkable events of the session just concluded. Mr. Disraeli had induced the Tory party, which two years before had triumphantly thrown out the moderate Reform Bill of Lord Russell's Government as being far too democratic, itself to pass a measure far more extreme than any statesman had advocated-conduct which, though it bought a few months' success in the House of Commons, destroyed for a time the credit of his party with the country. Authority, urged Mr. Gladstone, can never long be severed from public esteem and confidence, and of these the session of 1867 had, he asserted, robbed the Tory party. The day of retribution was near, and the moral of the session lay in fresh proofs that parties, like individuals, can only enjoy a solid

* Edinburgh Review, October, 1867. VOL. CXCVI. NO. CCCCII.

Y

prosperity by building on the rock of honour, truth, and the confidence which they alone engender.'

Two months later the country had pronounced against Mr. Disraeli, and Mr. Gladstone's ministry was in power. The great Government of 1868 opened its first session with a majority of 120 at its back in the House of Commons. It used well the power it had won, and it has left a record of work done which certainly no later ministry has surpassed. The disestablishment of the Church of Ireland, the Irish Land Act, the Abolition of Purchase, and Army Reform, the Education Act, the Judicature Act, and the Ballot Act were measures of the very first importance. Many other minor but useful measures became law, before the sudden dissolution of 1874 brought about the fall of the Liberal ministry. The Review, which had rejoiced at the wide composition of the ministry of 1868 and at the introduction of Mr. Bright and other' new men' into the Cabinet, and had heartily supported all its great measures, in an article in April, 1874, sounded a first note of warning. The wide experience and cautious spirit of the Editor had taken alarm. In the past the Whig party, said the Review, had been in alliance at one time with Irish Roman Catholics to put down Protestant bigotry and religious intolerance in Ireland, at another time with Protestant nonconformity in fighting the battle of the Test Act. But the Whig party did not on that account become either Roman Catholic or nonconformist, and in each case the alliance was formed in order to bring about an event which Whig statesmanship held dear-the triumph of civil and religious liberty. For certain great purposes Whig statesmanship and the Manchester School' had worked together, but for all that Whig statesmen and Whig principles had never been identified with the Manchester School, any more than Whigs had become Repealers after having been for a time allied with Daniel O'Connell. 'We hold, and have ever held,' wrote the Review, 'that in 'the Whig party lies the centre of gravity of Liberal politics in England.' To alter materially the centre of gravity would upset the ship. The spirit of English politics was moderation, and the recent elections had shown that, let candidates label themselves as they would, what the country wanted was government on lines of steady progress, not Radical changes on the one side, or Tory opposition to all advance on the other. In Mr. Gladstone's conduct there was reason to fear that the direction of the Liberal party was about for the first time to fall into the hands of

extremists, and, if so, that party would very soon lose the public confidence which since 1832 it had so preponderantly enjoyed.

These views implied a distrust of Mr. Gladstone which was certainly not at that time shared by the younger and more energetic members of the Liberal party. Mr. Disraeli's government proved unfortunate. Small wars which brought little of honour or advantage had been entered upon, and though the nation had kept out of the Russo-Turkish war, it was by no means clear that its thanks for that great service were due to its ministers, who at times of trial and difficulty had shown themselves hopelessly vacillating and divided amongst themselves. On the eve of the General Election the Review returned to the charge (Plain 'Whig Principles,' January, 1880), quoting, with approval, a private letter from Earl Russell, written after the Liberal débâcle of 1874, expressing the conviction that whenever the Liberal party was reconstituted it would be on a Whig basis. In that party there must, of course, always be individuals who hold extreme and eccentric views. Men of 'patriotic and benevolent minds may think it desirable to ask the sanction of Parliament to the Permissive Liquor 'Bill, the female franchise, or even the propagation of smallpox and other diseases.' But the Liberals, as a party, can only be strong by union, and this can only take place if the cardinal principles common to the whole party are upheld. Could Mr. Gladstone be trusted to refuse firmly to yield to demagogues and fanatics the guidance that should belong to statesmen, backed as they were sure to be in the long run by the solid opinion of moderate Englishmen of all classes of the community? This was the question, implied rather than expressed, which ran through the whole article. Even then Home Rule was a cry not without effect in English constituencies where Irish voters were numerous.

'On a question of vital importance to the existence of the State, it is a mean and treacherous action to disguise an opinion, or to court popularity by supporting a measure because it cannot be carried. A seat is purchased too dearly at such a sacrifice of honour and of truth. The people of England and Scotland will never consent to abandon Ireland to the revolutionary passions of a separate legislature, and whatever may be the equivocal language of the timid and weak in the Liberal camp, this is a principle on which we are convinced that the leaders of the Whig party immovably stand.'

The great mass of Liberals, however, placed implicit trust in Mr. Gladstone, and the majority by which, in the spring