strike his blows.  Russell, he said, had spread broadcast phylacteries, and used his most pharisaical language.  At this there were deafening shouts from the Tory benches of “Withdraw!  Withdraw!” Mr. Morley’s reply was to repeat the words “pharisaical language”—­at which there was another storm.  Then Mr. Morley quietly observed that if he were out of order, the Speaker was the proper person to call him to account; and as the Speaker made no sign, the Tories were reduced to silence.  In a few sentences, Mr. Morley made mince-meat of the whole attack:  showing that crime, instead of increasing, had actually diminished in Clare since he had come into office, and that Mr. Balfour and coercion had completely failed to do even as much as he had done.  Mr. Balfour made a somewhat feeble reply.  And finally, in spite of a strong whip, the Tories were beaten by forty-five—­the normal Liberal majority.

[Sidenote:  The loosing of the winds.]

But all this was but the preface to uglier and worse work which was to come later on.  Supply is the happy hunting-ground of obstructives.  The questions there are small, and so easily comprehended, that even the dullest man can talk about them, and it requires—­as I have said above—­not intellect, but temperament.  For nearly four hours there was a discussion on an item of L100, which had been spent on improving the accommodation of the House of Commons.  John Burns, disgusted at this palpable waste of time, four times moved the closure.  Jimmy Lowther—­who has come wonderfully to the front since obstruction and general rowdyism has become the order of the day with the Tories—­instantly turned to John with the observation that this was not the County Council; whereupon John promptly retorted, “Nor are you on Newmarket Heath.”  At last, after the waste of these four mortal hours, the closure was moved, was resisted by the majority of the Tory party, but, at the same time, was so necessary and proper, that several Tories voted in its favour, and some disgusted Unionists actually left the House.

[Sidenote:  A criminal combination.]

But even worse was still behind.  Mr. Bowles—­a new and clever Tory member—­was anxious to raise the whole question of Egyptian policy on a small vote for meeting the expense of building a new consular house at Cairo.  Thereupon, Mr. Mellor—­as he was plainly bound to do—­declared that a discussion of the entire Egyptian policy would not be in order on such a vote.  Pale, excited, looking his most evil self, Mr. Chamberlain got up to base an attack on Mr. Mellor for this judgment.  There was a delighted howl from the young Tory bloods who had been obstructing so shamelessly throughout the evening.  Mr. Chamberlain’s example was followed by Mr. Balfour, by Sir John Gorst—­in short, the whole Tory and Unionist pack were in full cry after the Chairman.  The inner meaning of all this, was the desire to discredit the new Chairman, and intimidate him, lest he should show a bold front