and I must at
once say with deep regret. We had done our best to keep the Bright
celebration in harmony with the general tone of opinion by the
mission which Granville kindly undertook. I am the more sorry
about this speech, because Chamberlain has this year in parliament
shown both tact and talent in the management of questions not
polemical, such as the bankruptcy bill. The speech is open to
exception from three points of view, as I think--first in relation
to Bright, secondly in relation to the cabinet, thirdly and most
especially in relation to the crown, to which the speech did not
indicate the consciousness of his holding any special relation.

_June. 26._--It appeared to me in considering the case of Mr.
Chamberlain's speech that by far the best correction would be
found, if a natural opportunity should offer, in a speech
differently coloured from himself. I found also that he was
engaged to preside on Saturday next at the dinner of the Cobden
Club. I addressed myself therefore to this point, and Mr.
Chamberlain will revert, on that occasion, to the same line of
thought.... But, like Granville, I consider that the offence does
not consist in holding certain opinions, of which in my judgment
the political force and effect are greatly exaggerated, but in the
attitude assumed, and the tone and colour given to the speech.

_To Lord Granville._

_July 1, 1883._--I have read with care Chamberlain's speech of last
night [at the Cobden Club dinner].... Am I right or wrong in
understanding the speech as follows? He admits without stint that
in a cabinet concessions may be made as to action, but he seems to
claim an unlimited liberty of speech. Now I should be as far as
possible from asserting that under all circumstances speech must
be confined within the exact limits to which action is tied down.
But I think the dignity and authority, not to say the honour and
integrity, of government require that the liberty of speaking
beyond those limits should be exercised sparingly, reluctantly,
and with much modesty and reserve. Whereas Chamberlain's
Birmingham speech exceeded it largely, gratuitously, and with a
total absence of recognition of the fact that he was not an
individual but a member of a body. And the claim made last night
to liberty of speech must be read with the prac