On May 10th Gladstone, in moving the second reading of his 'Home Rule' Bill, seemed to accept the truth of the maxim that 'Speech is given to man to conceal his thoughts,' and led someone--commonly believed to be Mr. Labouchere, who made no attempt to hide his own opinions--to say, 'How is it possible to play with an old sinner who has got an ace up each sleeve, and says God Almighty put them there?' What Gladstone wanted to do was, in fact, never exactly known; all that could be made out was that he was prepared to grant whatever the Irish Nationalist party demanded. It was for Mr. Parnell to speak; for him to obey. Such an attitude was revolting to a very great many of the Liberal party. They maintained--they rightly maintained--that the name 'Liberal' belonged to principles, not to men; and that those who sacrificed their principles to follow the lead of one man, even of Gladstone's eminence, ceased to be Liberals, and could only be called Gladstonians. The Bill was discussed for many days, and on June 7th it was negatived by the House of Commons in the fullest division ever known; the numbers being: _Against the Bill. For the Bill._ Conservatives. . . . 250 Gladstonians. . . . 230 Liberals. . . . . . 93 Nationalists. . . . 83 ___ ___ 343 313 Majority against the Bill, 30. Reeve was triumphant, and wrote to Mr. T. Norton Longman the next day, 'What a triumphant division! What a defeat for the G. O. M.! Even he must believe this. I think his colleagues will hardly agree to dissolve. If they do, they will be annihilated.' They did, and they were. The General Election held in July fully ratified the vote of the House on June 7th, and left the Gladstonians and Parnellites combined in a minority of 115. _To Mr. T. Norton Longman_ _C. O., June 23rd_.--Sir Francis Doyle's Epilogue [Footnote: The last chapter of Doyle's _Reminiscences and Opinions_ (8vo. 1886). It is more than 'invective;' it contains much sound argument and admirable illustration.] is a powerful piece of invective; but it is essentially addressed to Gladstone's public career and conduct, and if he likes to publish it, I see no objection. Doyle was at Eton with Gladstone, and is one of his oldest and most intimate friends--or rather, _was so_. What he has written is not stronger than what George Anthony Denison has published on Gladstone, he too being a friend of forty years. I do not remember another instance in which a man's best and earliest friends have turned upon him, to unmask him, and that without any motive of personal resentment. It is the noble motive which led Brutus to strike Caesar. If this is to appear, it should be published _immediately_, as it relates to the affairs of the day.