To me the difference between the two men is the difference between a scholar and a counter-jumper--I mean a counter-jumper of the Senate, and not of the shop.

But though that is my opinion, I cannot refrain from saying that Mr.Balfour contrasts very unfavourably with Mr.Gladstone in this struggle of giants.
[Sidenote: An ugly moment.] It was during the speech of Mr.Balfour that a little incident took place, the full significance of which would probably not be grasped by the non-Parliamentarian.

Mr.Balfour was arguing that it was impossible to properly discuss the amendment of Lord Wolmer until the House knew whether or not the Irish members were going to be retained in the Imperial Parliament.

I do not know whether it was because there was something provocative in the manner in which Mr.Balfour referred to this subject, but it had the effect of rousing the once vulnerable, but now admirably controlled temper, which has played such a part in Mr.
Gladstone's career.

Rising with a certain deepened pallor, and with that feverish rush in his voice which those who watch him know so well he said that the Ministry meant to stick by the ninth clause, and would do their very best to get it accepted by the House.