It was three o’clock in the morning (June 19) before the close of a fine debate—fine not merely from the eloquence of the speakers and cogency of argument on either side, but because there was a deep and real issue, and because the practical conclusion was not foregone.
Morley reflects on the significance of a late-night debate, highlighting its eloquence and the real issues at stake.
Share
More from John Morley
Gladstone protested against the bill as “inequitable, unusual, and unwise,” and it was largely modified in committee.
They might learn how the true gentleman speaks of one whom he cannot but admit to have devoted a long life to the search of truth, and allow to have sacrificed every personal prospect to the promulgation of that which appeared to him as…
It is a case so to speak of “limited liability.” We are bound in honour—you cannot put a legal construction upon it—to see in concert with others that these arrangements are maintained.
Individuals may recover from even serious sickness; it does not appear to be the way with governments.”—Mr.
Other voices in this conversation
