occasional duel. Peel was attacked by
Disraeli in a fashion and in language that would not be tolerated in the
House of Commons now, even though the target were Mr. Gladstone.

It is not necessary to go back as far as the days of Peel or
Parliamentary Reform to sustain the bold assertion that, so far from
having degenerated, the manners of the House of Commons have improved.
In the Parliament elected in 1874 there sat on the Conservative side a
gentleman named Smollet, who early distinguished himself by bringing
Parliamentary debate down to the level of conversation in "Roderick
Random." In those days Mr. Gladstone was down after the General
Election, and Mr. Smollet, to the uproarious delight of gentlemen near
him, savagely kicked him.

[Illustration: "MOBBING HIM."]

It was in the second year of this same Parliament, less than twenty
years ago, that Mr. Gladstone, issuing from a division lobby, was
suddenly pounced upon by some fifty or sixty Conservative members, and
howled at for the space of several moments. It is, happily, possible for
Mr. Gladstone to forget, or at least to forgive, personal attacks made
upon him through his long career. In this very month of the new Session
he may be nightly seen working in cordial fashion with ancient
adversaries from Ireland, describing as "my honourable friends"
gentlemen who, ten years ago and for some time subsequently, heaped on
his head the coarsest vituperation permitted by practised manipulation
of Parliamentary forms. But this scene in the division lobby on the 12th
of April, 1875, is burned into his recollection. I have heard him,
within the last few months, refer to it in those tones of profound
indignation and with that flashing fire in his eyes only seen when he is
deeply moved. He mentioned, what I think was not known, that Lord
Hartington happened to be walking with him at the time. But there was no
mistake for whom the angry cries were meant. Mr. Gladstone spoke with
the profounder indignation because, as he said, he had on this occasion
gone out to vote on behalf of a man whose character he detested, because
he saw in the action taken against him an attack upon one of the
privileges of Parliament.

That scene was an outburst of political animosity; and the movements of
political animosity, like the dicta of taste, are not to be disputed.
But on the question of good manners, the only one here under
consideration, it may be affirmed that the present House of