And the cause of his anger was that he had found all the dining-tables ordered for two weeks ahead.
[Sidenote: A wild scene.] Speaking on the Freemasons, on June 22nd, Mr.Gladstone related the interesting autobiographical fact that he himself was not a Freemason, and never had been; and, indeed, having been fully occupied otherwise--this delicate allusion to that vast life of never-ending work--of gigantic enterprises--of solemn and sublime responsibilities, was much relished--he never had had sufficient curiosity to make any particular inquiries as to what Freemasonry really was.

I don't know what came over Mr.Balfour--some people thought it was because he expected to detach some Freemason votes from the Liberal side; but he was guilty of what I admit is an unusual thing with him--an intentional, a gross, an almost shameful misrepresentation of Mr.Gladstone's words.
Making the same interesting personal statement as Mr.Gladstone, that he was not himself a Freemason, he went on to suggest that Mr.Gladstone had made a comparison between a fraudulent Liberator Society and the Freemasons.

At this thrust there was a terrible hubbub in the House, and that fanaticism with which the Mason holds to his institution was aroused; indeed, for a little while, the scene was Bedlam-like in its passion and anarchy.

In the midst of it all, facing the violent howls of the excited Tories, pale, disturbed, hotly angry underneath all the composure of language and tone, Mr.Gladstone exposed the shameful and entirely groundless misrepresentation.

Mr.Balfour's better angel intervened; he got ashamed of himself, and at once apologized.