After the intolerably wearisome debate about the Ballot, the debate on Sir Wilfred Lawson's resolution affirming the impropriety of guarantees and treaties was refreshing. The House was tolerably well filled and was very attentive. Even Mr. Disraeli was constrained to stop and listen. The arguments too fairly met one another, and altogether both sides of this interesting question were ably presented. Mr. Bright was present during some portion of the evening, and occupied one of the cross benches below the gangway. Sir Wilfred Lawson is not much of an orator, and lacks one of the very necessities of successful public speaking, distinct utterance. At any rate, in the House of Commons it is difficult to understand him. There is, too, a general thinness and poverty about him, in fact just what might be expected from such a devout believer in pump water. Mr. Rylands, who seconded the resolution, ought to have moved it, for his speech was exhaustive and, in fact, the speech of the evening. It deserves to be noted in passing, that Mr. Rylands is gradually taking a well-defined position in the House, and now manages to hold the House well. I observed that not only his own friends but the Conservatives including Lord Elcho and Lord Eustace Cecil, felt compelled to attend seriously to what was being said. This is partly owing to his easy manner, which makes it pleasant to listen to him, but mainly to his strong common sense and coherency. Although the Government could not consent, and no Government could consent, to his resolution as it stood, bare and unqualified, he had the right on his side. Perhaps some day, when we can always be certain that we shall have a Government in prompt sympathy with the cause of freedom all the world over, treaties and guarantees may be very good things, but it is hardly a matter for wonderment that they should find but small favor amongst the Liberal party just now, seeing that out of the whole 800,000,000l of the National Debt, nineteen-twentieths of it has been spent for the sake of propping up stupid and effete dynasties and causes with which we had nothing to do.

Mr. Baillie-Cochrane is such a well-meaning good-natured gentleman that it is difficult to say a sharp thing about him, and yet duty is duty, and it must be protested that he did a very silly thing in dragging the International Society before the House. It was just what the International wanted, and they ought to pay Mr. Cochrane handsomely for advertising them so well. There was a curious contrast between his oration, for oration it was in the grand style, and the appearance of the House. The oration was distended immensely, and the House was depleted most curiously. Mr. Cochrane was emphatic to the last degree, prophesying against the society with enormous energy ; and a few listless gentlemen, who were going out to a late dinner, or, who being dyspeptic could not dine, were almost all his audience. It was a most alarming speech, picturing to us a "Juggernaut," hideous and horrible, sitting in some secret mysterious cave armed with almost immortal power, and exacting bloody sacrifice of human beings from the devotees. The impression sought to be conveyed was that the social system was undermined, that the powder was all ready, and that in one moment we might all be blown into the air. The speech in fact was a scream of terror. Mr. Auberon Herbert it was thought would say something, but although he was present he held his tongue. Nor did Sir Charles Dilke think it prudent to interfere. Mr. Fawcett, however, behaved like a man, and with no fear of the working-man or of any consequences or constituencies before his eyes, denounced the society with great force for its economical delusions and fallacies, pointing out that if the burden of doing everything for the people were cast upon the State in accordance with the society's programme, the latter end would be so much worse than the beginning; and the restrictions on improvidence being removed, pauperism would increase rather than diminish. Mr. Fawcett deserves very great credit for going out of his way to tell the working man these truths. It has promoted his reputation amongst truth-loving people considerably, and it is a great pity that he was not properly supported. Both those gentlemen just named, Sir Charles Dilke and Mr. Herbert, had a fine opportunity of proving that they are not mere demagogues, but that they have the true interests of the working-men at heart, but they thought it better not to avail themselves of it.

Mr. Bentinck and his friends, although they had not succeeded up to Monday night in achieving any important triumph, at last had their reward. It happened in this way. For some time in the past the disgust felt at the Ballot debates and at Mr. Bentinck's interminable longwindedness, has been so great that it has been with great difficulty that the Government has managed to keep its friends together. On Monday there was a very decent House to hear the ordinary questions and to listen to a purely metropolitan discussion on Epping Forest. But the moment that was over, and Mr. Bentinck appeared with his usual amendment, the House rose like a flock of rooks at the sight of a gun, and made for the door. None but the most ardent believers in the ballot remained in the House or within hail. Then there came a great defection from the party and the case to say the least of it, was very doubtful. Mr. Vernon Harcourt, in accordance with his usual custom this session, snatched at the opportunity for damaging the Government, and Mr. Fawcett supported him. They objected to the severity of the penalty for displaying a ballot paper, and were followed by several other members sitting below the gangway. I must confess that it was very difficult to know what course to take, and that perhaps it would have been better if Mr. Leatham's amendment had not been moved, and some mechanical arrangement had been adopted making the display of the ballot paper an impossibility. However, to say that this was a Liberal defeat is absurd. the Liberals were not all of one mind, and members who voted with the Government somewhat constrained their consciences in favor of their allegiance. A curious scene occurred when the tellers came to the table after the division. It is usual for the clerk at the table to give the paper containing the result of the division to the teller representing the successful side, and he then communicates it to the House. But when Lord Bury and Mr. Vernon Harcourt, who were the tellers for their side, presented themselves, no paper was given them, and it was evident that something had gone wrong. Lord Bury then stated that the tellers could not agree, and for the moment there was a good deal of confusion, Mr. Bonham Carter not knowing in the least what to do. The difficulty was not to know what ought to be done, but what was the proper precedent, for in everything precedent rules. At last, Mr. Bouverie, who has been Chairman of Committees, and is not quite so nervous as Mr. Carter, who is new to the work, cried out, "Tell again ;" and so the Committee was told again, and Mr. Vernon Harcourt was found to be victorious by one, but progress was reported before the words had been ordered to stand part of the bill.

That there was a crisis in the Ballot Bill debate was evident to-night from the crowded state of the benches, both in the gallery and downstairs, and from the universal and contagious excitement. Mr. Fawcett's announcement that the Government meant to stick to Mr. Leatham's amendment was received with immense and ironical cheering. But the cheers were reserved for Mr. Vernon Harcourt. He has been carefully watching his opportunity, and sprang up as soon as Mr. Forster had finished, to make a really very brilliant attack on the Government and on Mr. Leatham. Round after round of applause from the Conservative benches greeted every stroke, and there were many of them powerful and well directed. Especially was he severe on Mr. Leatham for having accepted a Bill last session which did not contain what he now regarded as essential. Mr. Leatham's reply was feeble and did not produce much effect. Then came Sir George Grey, Mr. Bouverie, and Mr. Childers, who contributed to the dramatic effect of the scene by declaring against the amendment. At one time it appeared as if the Government were going to yield and as if the speech of Mr. Childers was intended to enable them to do so. But a conference ensued between Mr. Glyn and Mr. Gladstone, and the result was that Mr. Gladstone adhered to Mr. Leatham. When the question was put there was a shout of "No" which made the roof ring again, but the Chairman declared that the ayes had it. Before the tellers came into the House it was telegraphed who had won, and when Mr. Vernon Harcourt took the paper the cheering from the Conservative side of the House was frantic. A scene of indescribable confusion followed but on the storm clearing up it was discovered that we were to go on with the Bill and the House separated. Mr. Gladstone announced the determination of the Government with much good temper, the only spice of acerbity being his reference to the cheers of the Tories at Mr. Vernon Harcourt's triumph. I fancy, from the looks of some of the mutineers, that they regretted their victory, and well they might. As for Mr. Vernon Harcourt, he has nothing to regret. He has proved how dangerous an enemy a neglected friend may be, and that probably was all he wanted.

Mr. Bright has been definitely offered the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, and at the moment I am writing it is not decided whether he will accept it. His wiser friends would like him to refuse, dreading the effect which the cares of office will have upon his health, and knowing that after all he is not yet what he used to be. But among his own family there is, I believe, a desire that he should again enter the Cabinet.

A SILENT MEMBER