tical illustration
afforded by the Birmingham discourse, which evidently now stands
as an instance, a sort of moral instance, of the mode in which
liberty of speech is to be reconciled with limitation of
action.(71)

In order to test the question, must we not bear in mind that the
liberty claimed in one wing of a cabinet may also be claimed in
another, and that while one minister says I support this measure,
though it does not go far enough, another may just as lawfully say
I support this measure, though it goes too far? For example,
Argyll agreed to the Disturbance Compensation bill in 1880, mainly
out of regard to his colleagues and their authority. What if he
had used in the House of Lords language like that I have just
supposed? Every extravagance of this kind puts weapons into the
hands of opponents, and weakens the authority of government, which
is hardly ever too strong, and is often too weak already.

In a letter written some years before when he was leader of the House, Mr.
Gladstone on the subject of the internal discipline of a ministerial corps
told one, who was at that time and now his colleague, a little story:--

As the subject is one of interest, perhaps you will let me mention
the incident which first obliged me to reflect upon it. Nearly
thirty years ago, my leader, Sir R. Peel, agreed in the Irish
Tithes bills to give 25 per cent. of the tithe to the landlord in
return for that "Commutation." Thinking this too much (you see
that twist was then already in me), I happened to say so in a
private letter to an Irish clergyman. Very shortly after I had a
note from Peel, which inclosed one from Shaw, his head man in
Ireland, complaining of my letter as making his work impossible if
such things were allowed to go on. Sir R. Peel indorsed the
remonstrance, and I had to sing small. The discipline was very
tight in those days (and we were in opposition, not in
government). But it worked well on the whole, and I must say it
was accompanied on Sir R. Peel's part with a most rigid regard to
rights of all kinds within the official or quasi-official corps,
which has somewhat declined in more recent times.

A minister had made some reference in a public speech, to what happened in
the cabinet of which he was a member. "I am sure it cannot have occurred
to you," Mr. Gladstone wrote, "tha