r^ ^OFOOIFOff^ ^OFCAUFOff^ <^5J\EUNIVER% 
 
 '^<?AavHan# ^(?Aavaan# 
 
 ^JJ^'WSOl' 
 
 ^lOSANCnfi"^ .4 
 
 %J13.MNfimV^ 
 
 ^5MEUNIVER% 
 
 A\U)SANCEl% 
 
 ^lUBRARYOc^ 
 
 ^^3iivs(n^ ^aMwnatf^ '^^^ojnvDJO'^ 
 
 ^^MEUNIVER% 
 
 
 <i^DNVS01^ 
 
 "^yjHAINrtlWV^ 
 
 ^OFCAUFOff/^ 
 
 ^lllBKARYO^ 
 
 
 ^OFCAUFOR^ 
 
 
 
 
 ^^^lUBRARYOc 
 
 ^^OJITVJJO'^ 
 
 ^OF-CAUFOM^ ^OFCAUFORi^ 
 
 .^WEUNIVERS/^ 
 
 
 ^5ji\EUNIVERS/^ 
 
 ^^AHvaan^- ^^Aavnan-iN^ ^j^3nvsoi=^ 
 
 A^lOSANCEier^ 
 
 ^lOSANCE^r^ 
 
 6 
 
 c? 
 
 <^5»EUNIVER%. 
 
 ^lOSANCEia^ 
 
 
 ^lOSANCEl£r^ 
 
 -^UBRARYOc. 
 
 -^iUBRARYO^. 
 3 
 
 ^<yOJIlV3iO'^ 
 
 ^OFCAUFOfti^ 
 
 ^•OFCAlIFORj^ 
 
 i 
 
 ^JJBDNVSOl'^ "^AJiaAINrtlW^ 
 
 t?Aavjiani^ 
 
 ... 5= 
 >&AMvaan-^^
 
 I I* 
 
 I f 
 
 JS\EUNIVER%. 
 
 ^10SANCEI% 
 o 
 
 
 ^ ^(^AHVMni^ '<<5UDNVS(n'^ '%3MNa-3\^ %Aavaan# ^^: 
 
 55L ^IKANCfl^^ 
 
 
 -^lUBRARY^^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^lUBRARYi?^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^nvDio'^ 
 
 .5J\EUNIVERS/A ^1 
 
 
 {j^ ^lflSANCn%^ ^OF-CAllFO/?' 
 
 -71 O 
 
 I I 
 
 ^ %fflAiNnmv^ 
 
 
 ^FCAUFORj^ 
 
 ^<?Aavaan# 
 
 CIB 
 
 
 
 
 -^lUBRARY^A 
 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 ^(JAHvaani^ 
 
 
 ^5MEUNIVER% 
 ^^33NVS(n- 
 
 c ^ 
 
 ^10SANCEI% 
 
 ;a3AiNft-3v^^ 
 
 ^IOSANCEUTa 
 
 miNn-iftv 
 
 -< 
 
 <^^UBRARYQc^ -<Al 
 I (J 
 
 
 I 
 
 '— Z3 
 
 :OFC 
 
 1 
 
 ^01 
 
 
 ^lOSANCEl^^ 
 
 CO 
 
 ^ - - ;l 
 
 ^tUBRARYO^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^tUBRARYO^ 
 
 S 
 
 «^5MEUNIVER%. 
 >- 
 
 rs oc 
 
 -Tl Q 
 
 r 
 
 i 3V 
 
 5> c? 
 
 '*5'/Sa3AINIl-3VN^ ■^t^OJIlVDJO'^ ^<»0JnV3JO^ '^i^ONVSOl'^ "^o 
 
 ^lOSANCE^r^ 
 
 o 
 
 I -n LJ 
 
 
 ^OFCAllFOff^ 
 
 t 
 
 ^(^AHvaaniJ^ 
 
 ^OFtAUTOff^ 
 
 ^t?Aavaani^'^ 
 
 4^\E•UNl^TO^ ^i 
 
 
 ^^ ^lUBRARYOc^ ^^JAEUNIVERS/A ^10SANCEI^;>. ^„_„ ^^ ^ 
 
 ami i\^itCiit 91"^* 9 
 
 ^lUBRARYO^ 
 
 iU(7' 
 
 '?5^^ 
 
 s ^.
 
 ^ 
 
 ^, 
 
 THE HlS'loin Ol- 
 
 CONSTITUTION Al, l'K()(,Ri:SS 
 
 DURINf". THH KKH.N oF (JCKKN VKToKIA 
 
 1837-I887 
 
 G H^ K L L H W K S and \V H I ) K V 1-. N I S H 
 
 OF THK MIDIILK TKMPI.K, BARRISTKKS-AT-I.AW 
 
 HKLIA^l / h'Olib <:-- CO . 
 
 1 KICESTKK IVM PENS COX. 
 " ADVEliTlSEIi Ol-FICE 
 
 \NCHKSTKK 
 
 THOS SOWLEH ^ SONS. 
 
 -COUKIER- OFFICE 
 
 OXFORD 
 S ROW BOTTOM <S- SON. 
 
 NK\VCASTLi:-U I'ON-TYNF 
 
 •DAILY JOURNAL- OFFICE. 
 
 NORWICH 
 
 •• CHRONICLE • OFFICh 
 
 FORTSMOUTH 
 
 IlOLBROOh i^ 
 
 . '.\ 
 
 I 
 
 1887.
 
 
 >- 
 
 DC 
 
 •< 
 
 PRE FA C E 
 
 1^ 
 
 Ul 
 
 a 
 
 Tlie following pages are intended to supply those who have 
 no time for elaborate study with a concise and simple account of 
 the achievements of the Tory party, of the continuit}' of its 
 principles, and the uprightness of its motives. 
 
 JuNi:, i8(S7. 
 
 C9 
 
 o 
 
 ■a: 
 
 :iHH^>95
 
 The lolhnvinf,' arc; the chief books consulted : — 
 Ashley, Evhlvn, ... Life of Lord Palmcrsion. 
 Barnett-Smith, ... Life of Gladstone. 
 Beaconseield, Lord, Life of Lord George Bentinck. 
 
 ,, ,, Political Novels. 
 
 „ ,, Speeches, edited by T. E. Ki-;iuu-;i.. 
 
 ,, ,, Letters to his Sister, edited by 
 
 Ralph Disraeli. 
 Brandes, ... Lord Beaconsfield, a Study. 
 
 Bright, John, ... Speeches, edited by T. Rogi-:rs. 
 CoBDEN, Richard, ... Speeches, edited by John Bright. 
 Croker, ... Correspondence and Diaries, edited 
 
 by L. J. Jennings. 
 Dalling, Lord, ... Life of Lord Palmerston. 
 
 ,, ,, ... Peel, a Study. 
 
 Erskine-May, Sir P. Constitutional History of England. 
 Gladstone, W. E. Gleanings of Past Years. 
 
 ,, ,, Speeches. 
 
 Greville, ... Journal of the Reign of Queen Victoria, 
 
 1st and 2nd Series. 
 Hayward, Abraham, Letters, edited by H. E, Carlisli:. 
 Hansard's Debates (passim). 
 
 Hitch MAN, ... Public Life of Lord Beaconsfield. 
 
 HoDDER, ... Life and Works of Lord Shaftesbury. 
 
 Irving, ... Annals of our oimi Time. 
 
 Jennings, ... Mr. Gladstone, a Study. 
 
 Kebbel, ... History of Toryism. 
 
 KiNGLAKE, ... History of the Crimean War. 
 
 Lucy, ... Diary of Tzvo Parliaments. 
 
 Macartiiy, Justin,... History of our own Times. 
 Macarthy, Justin II. England under Gladstone. 
 Malmicsbury, Lord, Memoirs of an Ex-Cabinet Minister. 
 Martin, Sir T. ... Life of Lord Lyndhurst. 
 
 ,, ,, ■■■ Life of the Prince Consort. 
 
 Molesvvorth, ... History of England. 
 
 O'Connor, T. P. ... The Pamell Movement. 
 Peel, Sir Lawrence Life and Character of Sir Robert Peel. 
 Pulling, ... Life and Speeches of Lord Salisbury. 
 
 The Quarterly Revietv (passim). 
 Russell, Earl, ... Recollections and Suggestions. 
 Stratford de Rrdcliffe, Lord, The Eastern Question. 
 Trevelyan, Sir G. Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay. 
 Walpole, Spencer, History of England from 1815.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Part I. — Middle-Class Government, 
 
 1837-41. — The Whigs in Office. 
 
 historical retrospect. supremacy of the commercial 
 
 classes under the reform bill. the political importance 
 
 OF THE VICTORIAN ERA. POSITION OF PARTIES AT THE QUEEN's 
 
 ACCESSION. REGISTER ! REGISTER ! ! REGISTER ! ! ! DISRAELl's 
 
 PROPHECY. THE " DO-NOTHING '" GOVERNMENT. THE BED-CHAMBER 
 
 PLOT. SPIRITED INSTRUCTIONS. A DISCREDITABLE INTRIGUE. 
 
 WHIG JOBBERY AND DEFEAT ... ... ... ... pp. 1-8 
 
 1841-45. — Sir Robert Peel in Power. 
 
 the character of peel. his efforts to stem the 
 
 current of radical revolution. his influence in the house. 
 
 THE COMPOSITION OF HIS CABINET. — PEEL'S FINANCIAL POLICY. — 
 
 THE PROTECTION OF BRITISH LABOUR. DEFEAT OF THE GOVERN- 
 MENT EDUCATION PROPOSALS. PEEL AND REPEAL. REMEDIAL 
 
 MEASURES. FOREIGN POLICY. RISE OF THE "YOUNG ENGLAND" 
 
 PARTY. "YOUNG ENGLAND's" CREED. SIR JAMES GRAHAM'S OPINION 
 
 THE REVIVAL OF TORYISM ... ... ... ... pp. 8-I5 
 
 1846. — The Repeal of the Corn Laws. 
 
 peel's POSITION. THE ANTI-CORN LAW LEAGUE. NOT A 
 
 DEMOCRATIC MOVEMENT. LOGICAL RESULTS OF FREE TRADE. 
 
 peel's REASONS FOR ABOLISHING THE CORN LAWS. CABINET 
 
 OPPOSITION. RUSSELL'S EDINBURGH LETTER. FREE TRADERS IN 
 
 POWER. DISRAELl's OPPORTUNITY. THE GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS. 
 
 LORD GEORGE BENTINCK. AN IRISH COMPLICATION. MOVE AND 
 
 COUNTER-MOVE. ATTACKS ON THE PRIME MINISTER. COMBINATIONS 
 
 AND CONSPIRACIES. — THE CANNING INCIDENT: RETRIBUTION OR 
 MISTAKE. "nemesis" ... ... ... ... pp. ij-27
 
 1846-52. — CONSF.RVATIVE Re-ORGANISATION. 
 
 THF. RIJSSELI, MINISTRY AND THE PEELITES. IRISH POLICY OF 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT. SOCIAL LEGISLATION. POSITION OF PARTIES 
 
 AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1847. — LIBERAL OPPOSITION 
 
 TO REFORM. CHARTISTS AND SPECIAL CONSTABLES. "YOUNG 
 
 IRELAND." THE DURHAM LETTER. A MINISTERIAL CRISIS. LORD 
 
 PALMERSTON AS FOREIGN SECRETARY. FALL OF THE RUSSELL 
 
 MINISTRY. YOUNG AND UNTRIED MINISTERS. THE GENERAL ELEC- 
 TION OF 1852. DEATH OF THE DUKE. DISRAELl'S BUDGET: DEFEAT 
 
 OF THE GOVERNMENT pp. 27-37 
 
 1852-55. — A Patriotic Opposition. 
 
 THE coalition. — ITS WANT OF PRINCIPLE. — PALMERSTON AS 
 
 HOME SECRETARY. RUSSELL's FAILURE AS A REFORMER. THE 
 
 EASTERN QUESTION. DISPUTE ABOUT THE HOLY PLACES. THE 
 
 czar's PROPOSALS. — 'VACILLATION OF THE CABINET: FIRMNESS OF 
 
 lord palmerston. russia occupies the principalities. 
 
 Aberdeen's timidity the cause of war. — resignation of lord 
 
 PALMERSTON, AND DECISION OF THE CABINET. — THE CZAR's 
 
 manifesto: the Quakers' mission. — war declared: Aberdeen's 
 
 SCRUPLES. bad administration. RUSSELL RESIGNS. DEFEAT 
 
 OF THE GOVERNMENT ... ... ... ... ... pp. 37-45 
 
 1855-59. — Lord Derby and Lord Palmerston. 
 
 LORD DFRBY's mistake. LORD DERBY's CHARACTER. UN- 
 PATRIOTIC CONDUCT OF THE PEELITES. LORD PALMERSTON'S 
 
 character and principles. violence of the manchester 
 
 school. result and cost of the war. the opium war. 
 
 appeal to the country. the orsini plot. french animosity. 
 
 ministers defeated. second derby-disraeli administration. 
 
 diskaell's reform bill. unprincipled opposition. — mr. 
 
 Gladstone's defence of small boroughs. — "a down-right 
 
 TORY." — a false charge. — ITALIAN UNITY: A LIBERAL CRY 
 
 PP- 45-54
 
 1859-65- — Liberal Men and Tory Measures, 
 ministerial negotiations. i'almerston and reform. 
 
 DRFICIENCIRS OF HIS DILL. THE BILL UNOPPOSED, BUT WITH- 
 DRAWN. AN UNFAIR MANCEUVRE. THE PAPER DUTIES. PALMER- 
 
 STON's INTRIGUES. MR. GLADSTONE'S NEGLECT OF THE COLONIES. 
 
 —DEFECTS IN HIS FINANCE. COBDEN AS A DIPLOMATIST. CIVIL 
 
 WAR IN AMERICA. FORCIBLE SEIZURE OF S.S. "TRENT." THE 
 
 " ALABAMA." THE FRENCH ALLIANCE AND NATIONAL DEFENCE. 
 
 THE DANISH QUESTION. THE DISSOLUTION: PALMERSTON AND 
 
 I'.RIGHT. — • MR. GLADSTONE " UNMUZZLEIX" DEATH OF LORD 
 
 TALMEKSTON pp. 54-62 
 
 PART II. — Popular Government. 
 1.865-68. — Reform: Disraeli succeeds where Gladstone fails. 
 
 parliament WITHOUT PALMERSTON. LIBERAL PROPOSALS FOR 
 
 reform DICTATED BY EXPEDIENCY RATHER THAN PRINCIPLE. THE 
 
 reform bill. defeat of the government. third derby- 
 disraeli ministry. the conservative party and reform. 
 
 Disraeli's resolutions. — disraeli's reform bill. — the reform 
 
 BILL in committee. HOUSEHOLD SUFFRAGE AT LAST. THE 
 
 REFORM DILL IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. DISRAELI ON POPULAR 
 
 TORYISM. DISRAELI PREMIER. MR. GLADSTONE'S IRISH CHURCH 
 
 RESOLUTIONS; FALL OF THE GOVERNMENT ... ... pp. 63-72 
 
 1868-74. — Plundering and Blundering. 
 
 mr. gladstone premier : composition of his cabinet. 
 
 MR. Gladstone's reasons for disestablishment. — the case 
 
 FOR the defence. THE IRISH CHURCH ACT. THE IRISH LAND 
 
 ACT. THE HOME RULE MOVEMENT. THE EDUCATION ACT. 
 
 ABOLITION OF PURCHASE: MR. GLADSTONE STRAINS THE ROYAL 
 
 PREROGATIVE. THE BALLOT ACT. RUSSIA AND THE BLACK SI-A. 
 
 THE "ALABAMA" CLAIMS. THE IRISH UNIVERSITY BILL: PIFKAT 
 
 OF THE GOVERNMENT. FALL OF THE GOVERNMENT ... pp. 72-bl
 
 T^y.\-^o. — Lord Df.acomsfield. 
 
 THR TORY PARTY TRIUMPHANT. WORKING-CLASS LEGISLATION. 
 
 — SANITARY MEASURES. OTHER SOCIAL LEGISLATION. — THE RE- 
 DRESS OF AGRICULTURAL GRIEVANCES. DISRAKLl's FOREIGN POLICY. 
 
 THE EASTERN QUESTION RE-OPENED. THE RUSSO-TURKISH WAR. 
 
 THE BERLIN CONGRESS. "PEACE WITH HONOUR." THE AFGHAN 
 
 WAR. THE ZULU WAR. CONSERVATIVE FINANCE. THE PILGRIMAGE 
 
 OF PASSION. LORD BEACONSFIELD's IRISH POLICY. — THE GENERAL 
 
 ELECTION OF 1880 ... ... ... ... ... ... pp. 81-9I 
 
 1880-85. — The Reign of Confusion. 
 
 mr. gladstone again premier. — his apology to austria. 
 
 mr. bradlaugh and the oath. the transvaal and afghanistan. 
 
 DEATH OF LORD BEACONSFIELD. LORD BEACONSFIELD's PROPHECY 
 
 FULFILLED IN IRELAND. IRISH LEGISLATION IN 1S81. THE CRIMES 
 
 AND ARREARS ACT. THE KILMAINHAM TREATY. THE "FOURTH 
 
 party" AND THE CLOSURE. THE EGYPTIAN IMBROGLIO. — SNUBBING 
 
 the colonies. the county franchise. the betrayal of 
 
 gordon. — resignation of the ministry ... ... pp. 9i-ioi 
 
 1885-87. — The Battle of the Union. 
 LORD Salisbury's foreign policy. — the "unauthorised" 
 
 LIBERAL programme. THE "LIBERATION" SOCIETY AND THE 
 
 CHURCH. — MR. Gladstone's manifesto. — mr. Gladstone in 
 
 MIDLOTHIAN. MR. PARNELl's MANIFESTO. THE GENERAL ELECTION 
 
 OF 18S5. A DISHONEST POLICY. DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
 
 THE NEW CABINET. MR. GLADSTONE'S HOME RULE BILL. THE 
 
 LAND PURCHASE BILL. FINAL DEFEAT OF MR. GLADSTONE. THE 
 
 VICTORY OF 1886. LORD SALISBURY AGAIN PREMIER. PROSPECTS 
 
 OF THE TQKY PARTY ... ... ... ... pp. I02-III
 
 PART I. — MIDDLE-CLASS GOVERNMENT. 
 
 1837-41. 
 The Whigs in Office. 
 
 Ilistoyical Retrospect. 
 
 IT is obvious that no one can 
 properly appreciate the na- 
 ture and antecedents of the 
 two great parties in this 
 country without some acquaintance 
 with tne liistory of the iSth cen- 
 tury. History docs not, as Radi- 
 cals so readily assume, begin with 
 the Reform Bill of 1832. The 
 
 essential weaknesses of Liberalism 
 arc distinctly traceable in the Whig 
 part)' under Fox. 
 
 In 17 17, the Whigs had comfort- 
 ably settled into office for 25 years. 
 Although the language of Hampden 
 and Pym was ever in their mouths, 
 at heart they were an aristocratic 
 and oligarchical party. The Han- 
 overian line was not yet acclima- 
 tised, so to speak, in England, and 
 in consequence of the weakness and 
 unpopularity of the Monarch, the 
 great Wliig families engrossed all 
 })ower. By the easy method of 
 representing their opponents as 
 Jacobites, they kept in their own 
 hands all the power of the Sove- 
 reign. The ideal government of 
 the Wliigs was, as Lord Beacons- 
 I'lELD said, a "Venetian Oligarchy." 
 
 The Tories, though they did not 
 j)retend to be democratic, were yet 
 largely drawn from a class more in 
 touch with the people, the well-to- 
 do country scjuires and middle-class 
 landed proj^rietors. Their ideal 
 was that of a popular monarch 
 who should be the leader of his 
 ptcjplc, and this ideal was em- 
 botliud in lk)i.iNGHKOKi-;'s plirase 
 " a patriot king." Walpole's 
 
 Ministry reformed no grievance, 
 passed no beneficial Measures, did 
 nothing to carry into effect what few 
 democratic principles the Whigs 
 might once have held. Bribery 
 in the House of Commons, mis- 
 government in Ireland and in 
 Scotland, and discontented apathy 
 in England were the distinguishing 
 features of Whig supremacy. 
 
 The elder Pitt, the "great 
 commoner," aroused National en- 
 thusiasm, and attracted towards 
 the Tories the sympathy and con- 
 fidence of the people. George 
 III., with all his faults, was a popu- 
 lar monarch in the main, and the 
 Whig oligarchs, with some few 
 exceptions, remained out in the 
 cold until 1783, when Fox, by an 
 unprincipled coalition with Lord 
 North, secured what he anti- 
 cipated would be a permanent 
 majority. 
 
 In 1784, the younger Pitt smote 
 the Whigs liip and thigh, 160 of 
 them lost tlieir seats, and the 
 theory of an Oligarchy with a 
 nominal Sovereign at the head 
 disappeared once and for all from 
 English politics. Pitt may be 
 considered as the first progressive 
 Statesman of the last century. A 
 follower of Adam Smith lie to some 
 extent anticipated tl>e theories of 
 Villiers. He was in favour both 
 of electoral Reform and of Catholic 
 emancipation — the two rocks on 
 which the Tory party was subse- 
 quently to suffer shipwreck, — and 
 he brought an enlightenetl ami 
 original intellect to bear on the 
 financial allairs ol the cuuulry.
 
 THE LIB EH A LS SECEDE FROM THE TORIES, 
 
 By means of tlie Act of Union, 
 which was associated in his mind 
 with CathoHc emancipation and 
 cfiuahty of commercial privileges, 
 Ik; hoped to destroy the effects of 
 \Vhi{; misgovernment in Ireland ; 
 but the French Revolution came 
 upon him in the midst of his la- 
 bour, and he had to turn from 
 internal reform to the task of re- 
 sisting a foreign foe. The Whigs, 
 showing a truly 'liberal' preference 
 for philanthropy rather than pa- 
 triotism, and considering the ' rights 
 of man ' more important than the 
 privileges of Englishmen, utterly 
 discredited themselves by a fac- 
 tious opposition. 
 
 The firm and patriotic conduct 
 of the Tories during the Napoleonic 
 wars gave them a large and legiti- 
 mate influence in the countr3', but 
 they suffered from a serious disad- 
 vantage. Canning, it is true, still 
 retained many popular ideas, but 
 such was not the case with Castle- 
 REAGH, Wellington, or Liver- 
 pool. They were honest, upright, 
 practical men, able administrators, 
 acquainted with affairs, and very 
 jealous of the honour of England 
 abroad, but their minds were so 
 warped by long opposition to revo- 
 lution that they disliked even mode- 
 rate reform. 
 
 On the death of Canning, his 
 friends, who really represented the 
 more democratic views of Pitt 
 himself, were driven out of the 
 Duke of Wellington's Govern- 
 ment, and gravitated towards the 
 Whig Opposition. The Tory Ad- 
 ministration lost the popular favour 
 by dealing prematurely with the 
 Catholic question in 1829, and at 
 the same time destroyed their 
 reputation for consistency ; for the 
 ministers, especially Peel, who had 
 obtained the nick-name of " Orange 
 Peel," were strongly pledged 
 against any concession. Thus, 
 whilst the Whigs were increased 
 by Tory seceders and Radical re- 
 cruits, and aided by the Irish 
 
 members, the Tories were discon- 
 tented with their leaders, divided 
 in opinion, and weakened in 
 numbers. 
 
 Even under these circumstances 
 they might have escaped the fate 
 which was awaiting them if they 
 had only been prepared with some 
 moderate measure of Reform, but 
 the Duke of Wellington, with a 
 want of the judgment he sometimes 
 displayed in politics, committed 
 them to a hopeless opposition. 
 The Whigs came in and gained 
 the ear of the King, who dissolved 
 tlic Parliament which had rejected 
 the Reform Bill, expressing his 
 willingness to go down to West- 
 minster in a hackney coach if 
 necessary. The Whigs, or rather 
 the Reformers, came back with a 
 majority and the Bill was carried 
 after a sharp struggle. 
 
 We must, however, remember 
 that the party which carried the 
 Reform Bill cannot strictly be 
 called Liberal, for it contained such 
 staunch Conservatives as the late 
 Lord Derby and Lord George 
 Bentinck. There can be no doubt 
 that popular feeling was in favour 
 of the Bill, but at the same time a 
 reasonable case can, as Mr. Glad- 
 stone has admitted, be made out 
 for the old Constitution. It was 
 not hopelessly corrupt and rotten, 
 as is so often reiterated ; it con- 
 tained anomalies, but rested on 
 sound general principles. The 
 idea of the defenders of the unre- 
 formed Parliament was that all 
 classes should be represented in 
 the House of Commons ; the 
 aristocracy were represented by 
 nominated members ; the scot and 
 lot voters were a democratic ele- 
 ment, and the middle class re- 
 turned most of the members. 
 
 Supremacy of the Commercial Classes 
 
 under tlie Reform Bill. 
 
 Now, it is often forgotten that 
 
 while the Reform Bill struck at 
 
 the aristocracy above, it also
 
 A MIDDLE-CLA5S FAHLIAMENT. 
 
 struck at the democracy below. 
 Whilst it disenfranchised the rotten 
 boroughs it also disenfranchised 
 the scot and lot voters. At Preston 
 and other places the franchise was 
 nearly universal. This franchise 
 the Reformers would have swept 
 away, proposing to limit the right 
 of voting to /"lo householders and 
 upwards. That this wholesale 
 disfranchisement of the working- 
 classes was not effected was due to 
 the Tories under Sir Robert Pi-:kl, 
 but even in its modified provisions 
 the Reform Bill was adverse to the 
 interests of labour, and centred the 
 power in the hands of the commer- 
 cial classes. 
 
 Nor was this Middle-class Par- 
 liament friendl}' to the poor. One 
 of its first Acts was to produce 
 the New Poor Law of 1834, an Act 
 which was intended to abolish out- 
 door relief entirely, and failed of its 
 purpose only owing to the Tory 
 opposition. This law destroyed 
 the kindly and inexpensive allow- 
 ances to the destitute, which en- 
 abled them to tide over bad times, 
 and set up the union in place of 
 the parish, the poor law guardians 
 in place of the justices of the peace. 
 No Act has done so much to 
 estrange and embitter the agricul- 
 tural labourer as this Liberal Mea- 
 sure, based on the heartless views 
 of political economy which have 
 been the Liberal's creed and the 
 poor man's curse. 
 
 The new electors returned an 
 overwhelming majority of Reform- 
 ers to the new Parliament, and 
 the Conservatives barely numbered 
 150; but the}' gained a hundred 
 seats at the General Election of 
 December 30th, 1834, and they also 
 enjoyed the support of some 50 
 moderate Liberals. At the Elec- 
 tion of 1837 the numbers were 336 
 Whigs to 322 Tories ; the change 
 being due to the incapacity of the 
 Whig Ministers who were quite 
 inexperienced in affairs. The great 
 Reform Ministry, led by Lord Al- 
 
 THORPE, barely lasted two years 
 before Lord Althorpe, remarking 
 " the pig's killed," resigned and, 
 on his father's death, went to the 
 Upper House. Without him, the 
 Whigs, supported by 400 members, 
 were literally unable to patch up a 
 Ministry. 
 
 The Political Importance of the 
 Victorian Era. 
 
 At the Queen's accession, there- 
 fore, we find that the Tories had 
 nearly recovered from the defeat 
 of 1832, while the Wliigs had lost 
 prestige in the nation at large ; but 
 though on the one hand everything 
 pointed to a Tory reaction, on the 
 other there was every prospect of 
 a severe conflict of class interests 
 in the immediate future, nor were 
 the working classes content to ac- 
 cept the powerless position to which 
 they had been politically reduced 
 by the Reform Bill. The Chartist 
 agitation was rapidly growing in 
 power, but the political dangers 
 were lessened from the fact that 
 the industries of the country were 
 showing signs of reviving activity. 
 The political importance of the 
 Victorian Era lies, indeed, not less 
 in the vast changes that have taken 
 place in the conditions of labour 
 and commerce, aided by the mar- 
 vellous developments of practical 
 science, than in the steady advance 
 of the nation on the lines of "Con- 
 stitutional Progress." So far from 
 this happy result being due to the 
 triumph of Liberal principles, it is 
 rather the reward of the mutual 
 forbearance of all classes, ami of 
 that sound common sense of the 
 people which led them to trust in 
 the wisdom of experience rather 
 than in the philosophy of theorists. 
 
 Looking back from the close of 
 the 50th year of Her Majesty's 
 reign, events are seen in their true 
 proportions, no longer distorted 
 by selfish interests and unworthy 
 motives, and it is a fitting moment 
 to pass in review the principal
 
 CHARACTERS OF THE WHIG MINISTERS. 
 
 scenes and the chief actors on the 
 stage of poHtical life during the 
 last half-century. 
 
 Position of Parties at the Queen's 
 Accession. 
 
 On June 20th, 1837, William IV. 
 died and Victoria succeeded to 
 the throne. Her youth, her beauty, 
 and her intelligence created every- 
 where a generous and national en- 
 thusiasm. She found a Whig 
 Ministry in office, but scarcely in 
 power. Sir Robert Peel had 
 been defeated by a resolution on the 
 Irish tithe, moved by Lord John 
 Russell on April 6th, 1835. The 
 resolution was to the effect "that 
 the surplus revenue of the Irish 
 Church should be applied for the 
 education of all classes of Chris- 
 tians." It was carried by 262 
 votes to 237. In order to give 
 effect to the vote of the House, the 
 Whig Government had spent their 
 time in introducing badly-drawn 
 Irish Tithe Bills, each containing 
 a clause appropriating the estima- 
 ted surplus, but as Sir Robert 
 Peel showed conclusively that, 
 under the Ministerial scheme, there 
 would be no surplus but on the con- 
 trary a deficit, the Bills were all of 
 them still-born. The Whig Minis- 
 try contained only three men of 
 eminence. Lord John Russell — 
 nicknamed by Sydney Smith " the 
 Lycurgus of the Lower House," 
 and by Lord Lytton " dawdling 
 Johnny" — was leader of the House 
 of Commons. He had acquired a 
 great reputation by the Reform 
 Bill, but had scarcely sufficient 
 ability to support it. His presence 
 was small and insignificant, his 
 manners cold and repulsive, whilst 
 his voice was so weak and his de- 
 livery so bad that it was barely 
 possible to hear him. On the 
 other hand, he was a good debater 
 and a fair man of letters — qualifi- 
 cations which justified the Duke of 
 Wellington in saying " Lord John 
 is a host in himself." His charac- 
 
 ter is cleverly sketched in the fol- 
 lowing lines from Lord Lytton's 
 New Timon : — 
 
 Next cool, and all unconscious of reproach, 
 Comes the calm "Johnny who upset the 
 
 coach." * 
 How formed to lead, if not too proud to 
 
 please — 
 His fame would fire you but his manners 
 
 freeze. 
 Like or dislike, he does not care a jot ; 
 He wants your vote but your affection not. 
 Yet human hearts need sun as well as oats, 
 So cold a climate plays the deuce with 
 
 votes. 
 And while his doctrines ripen day by day. 
 His frost-nipp'd party pines itself away ; — 
 From the starved wretch it's own loved 
 
 child we steal ! 
 And " Free Trade " chirrups on the lap of 
 
 Peel! 
 
 He was supported in the House 
 by Lord Palmerston. Palmer- 
 ston's character and abilities were 
 not yet mature, but his foreign 
 policy was the one creditable per- 
 formance in the gloomy annals of 
 the Melbourne Ministry. He 
 had, however, made one serious 
 mistake. By furthering the sever- 
 ance of Belgium from Holland he 
 prevented the formation of a strong 
 peaceful kingdom, and exposed two 
 tempting prizes to the greed of 
 Germany and France. His easy 
 self-confidence and reckless gaiety 
 at this period of his career called 
 from Disraeli the sarcastic remark 
 that he was like " a footman on 
 easy terms with his mistress." 
 
 Lord Melbourne "is a mild, 
 middle-aged, lounging man — gifted 
 with no ordinary abilities, culti- 
 vated with no ordinary care, but 
 the victim of sauntering" so writes 
 Disraeli. To this description we 
 may add that he was a man so 
 good natured that he conveyed 
 with his own hand the King's 
 commission to the Duke of Well- 
 ington to form a ministry in 1834. 
 There were however limits to his 
 good nature, and his reply to one 
 of Brougham's slashing speeches 
 is terribly cutting, — "You have 
 
 * Lord Grey's Ministry in 1S34.
 
 STRENGTH OF THE TORY OPPOSITION. 
 
 heard the eloquent speech of the 
 noble lord and I leave your lord- 
 ships to consider Avhat must be the 
 natureandstrength of the objections 
 which prevent any Government 
 from availing themselves of the 
 services of such a man." Sydney 
 Smith is probably right in describ- 
 ing him as a sensible man who liked 
 to pose as a frivolous and indifferent 
 political roue. His manner to the 
 Queen was perfect, a happy mix- 
 ture of the affection of a father, 
 and the deference of a courtier. 
 
 The opposition the Whigs had to 
 face at this time was tremendous. 
 In the Lower House there were 
 Stanley, the "Rupert of debate," 
 Peel, the master of Parliamentary 
 tactics, and Sir James Gkaham, a 
 first-rate administrator; not to speak 
 of Gladstone and Sidney Her- 
 bert. Sir James Graham is an 
 instance of the boy being father to 
 the man. He used to play at being 
 a statesman when at school. The 
 stone used to be on view in his 
 native village from which he haran- 
 gued his playmates. In the Upper 
 House they had to deal with 
 a candid friend in Brougham, and 
 a persistent critic in Lyndhurst. 
 
 Eloquent and sarcastic, Lord 
 Lyndhurst shook the Whigs 
 seriously by his reviews of the 
 session delivered in 36 and '37. 
 Perhaps no man has ever so 
 swayed the House of Lords. How 
 the Whigs hated him and how bad 
 were their manners, the following 
 description taken from the Moyning 
 Herald, February 23rd, 1837, will 
 show — " Mr. Shicl worked himself 
 up to his full fury, gesticulating, 
 foaming, screeching in his loudest 
 tones. He denounced the man — 
 ]')ointing full at Lyndhurst sitting 
 at the bar of the House — who had 
 dared to call the Irish aliens. A 
 universal howl of execration rose 
 from ministerial benches as all eyes 
 turned in the direction of Shiel's 
 finger; the more excitable members 
 started to their feet, and for a 
 
 moment it seemed as if they would 
 precipitate themselves on the 
 object of their fury. He, in the 
 meantime, sat through the storm 
 unmoved. With steady eye and 
 unaltered mien, he gazed on the 
 howling mob in front of him." 
 
 Lyndhurst was also a man of 
 independent judgment. Remons- 
 trated with once for opposing a 
 measure to which Peel had offered 
 no objections, he replied, "Peel, 
 what's Peel to me? damn Peel." 
 
 The Whigs took every possible 
 advantage of their official position 
 towards the Queen. They sur- 
 rounded her with their wives, sis- 
 ters, daughters, and aunts, they 
 abused her inexperience in order 
 to drag her into party politics, and, 
 no other cry being available, they 
 went to the country, in 1837, as 
 "the Queen's friends." The 
 meanness of this act and the want 
 of principle it showed has been the 
 subject of denunciation by Liberals 
 ever since, from George Trevel- 
 YAN to Harriet INIartineau. 
 
 Register ! Register ! ! Register ! ! ! 
 
 Peel delivered his last election 
 speech in August. He recognisetl 
 how futile for immediate purposes 
 was any mere popular clamour. 
 Voices without votes affected him 
 little, and his new reading of the 
 Reformers' maxim, "Agitate, agi- 
 tate, agitate," well marks the pass- 
 ing of political power into the hands 
 of a well-defined and comparatively 
 limited class. Now began that 
 "battle of the polls" to which 
 Disraeli afterwards so sarcastic- 
 ally referred, and Peel turned the 
 energy of his followers to the 
 creation of voters, closing his 
 speech with these words of aclvice, 
 " Register, register, register." It 
 was not very magnanimous advice, 
 nor does it show much forethought, 
 this preference given to organisa- 
 tion over principles, this creation 
 of votes rather than opinions, Imt 
 probably no great Statesman was
 
 WHIG DEPENDENCE ON COURT FAVOUR. 
 
 ever so wantinf:^ in foresight as 
 Peel. The facts before him he 
 saw clear and exact, but he ap- 
 peared to have httle grasp of future 
 possibihties. On the other hand 
 it was safe, practical, and suited to 
 the needs of the moment. 
 
 Disraeli s Prophecy. 
 The Queen's name and popular- 
 ity just pulled the Whigs through ; 
 their 332 members were composed 
 of 152 Whigs, 100 Liberals, and cSo 
 Radicals. Amongst the new mem- 
 bers was Disraeli, who was re- 
 turned for Maidstone, and made 
 his first speech in December, 1837. 
 He had previously quarrelled with 
 O'Connell, who taunted him with 
 being descended from the impeni- 
 tent thief, and was therefore shouted 
 down by the Liberator's henchmen. 
 Peel expressed a high opinion of 
 the speech to Disraeli, and it is 
 very hard to say why it was con- 
 sidered a failure. Some of the 
 phrases, such as " a political duel in 
 which recourse was had to the safe 
 arbitrament of blank cartridge," 
 are very good. He sat down with 
 the well-known prophecy — " I am 
 not at all surprised at the recep- 
 tion I have experienced. I will sit 
 down now, but the time will come 
 when you shall hear me." 
 
 The ^Do-Nothing' Government. 
 
 In 1838 the Whigs sent to the 
 Upper House their usual Irish Tithe 
 and Irish Corporation Bills, but, as 
 usual, the Measures crumbled away 
 on the touch of criticism. They 
 also allowed Lord Durham, the 
 Governor-General of Canada, a 
 man of resource and ability, to be 
 censured in a small House by 54 
 to 36. He was so mortified that 
 he came home to die of a broken 
 heart. It is to Lord Durham that 
 we owe the present wise and satis- 
 factory settlement in Canada. He 
 was a strong Liberal and an ardent 
 reformer, but he was sacrificed to 
 Brougham's vengeance by a Go- 
 
 vernment which could not even 
 protect it's own servants. The 
 miserable state of the Government 
 in 1839 is well described in the fol- 
 lowing verses by Praed : — 
 
 Sure none should better know how sweet 
 
 The tenure of official seat 
 
 Than one who every Session buys 
 
 At such hif^h rate the gaudy prize; 
 
 One who for this so long has borne 
 
 The scowl of universal scorn. 
 
 And truth to say it must be pleasant 
 
 To be a Minister at present : 
 
 To make believe to guide the realm 
 
 Without a hand upon the helm. 
 
 To save the Church and save the Crown 
 
 By letting others pull them down ; 
 
 In short, to earn the people's pay 
 
 By doing nothing every day. 
 
 The Bed-chnmber Plot. 
 
 The fact was that in "doing 
 nothing" lay their only way of 
 safety. They could command just 
 enough votes to be safe from a vote 
 of censure, but as soon as they 
 went outside the beaten track of 
 tithes and corporations, they were 
 liable to defeat. This at last 
 occurred in Ma}'; the Government 
 brought in a Bill to suspend the 
 Constitution of Jamaica, a colony 
 at that time containing 400,000 
 white inhabitants with a revenue 
 of about half a million. The 
 island was to be governed by a 
 despotic governor for five years 
 because the House of Assembly 
 declined to abolish negro appren- 
 ticeship. Peel made an able 
 speech consisting chiefly of an 
 argunicnium ad homincm. How, he 
 asked, would the English Parlia- 
 ment like to be judged as strictly? 
 The Bill was only carried by 284 — 
 279, and the ]\Iinistry resigned. 
 The Queen sent for Peel, telling 
 him that she was sorry to part with 
 her late advisers but begging him 
 to form a new Administration, Ob- 
 serving that the Queen was entirely 
 surrounded by Whig ladies. Peel 
 proposed to charge nine ladies of 
 the bed chamber, amongst them 
 being Lady Normaxby, and a 
 sister of Lord Morpeth, both in-
 
 THE CABINET DIVIDED 0\' FOREIGN POLICY. 
 
 triguing political women. That 
 Peel was constitutionally right is 
 undoubted, but the young Queen 
 could hardly be expected to know 
 this, nor did Lord John Kussem. 
 enlighten her on the question. The 
 result was that she forwarded to 
 Peel the following note. "The 
 Queen, having considered the pro- 
 posal made to her by Sir Robert 
 l^eel cannot consent to adopt a 
 course contrary to usage and 
 repugnant to herself." Peel there- 
 upon declined to proceed further in 
 the matter, and the Whigs returned 
 to office amidst roars of laughter. 
 They had taken shelter, it was said, 
 behind the petticoats of their wives, 
 they had returned to power holding 
 on to their sisters' apron strings. 
 Weak enough before, the Whigs 
 were now considered unprincipled 
 and ridiculous. Brougham's criti- 
 cism, though strong, is just. " I 
 little thought to have heard it said 
 by W^higs of 1839, 'let us rally 
 round the Queen ; never mind the 
 Commons, never mind measures ; 
 throw principles to the dogs ; leave 
 pledges unredeemed ; but, for God's 
 sake, rally round the Throne.' " It 
 has been suggested that Peel was 
 hardly sincere in taking up this 
 point, and that he did not really 
 wish for office at this date, but it 
 must be remembered that in private 
 life he was stiff, awkward, and con- 
 strained. The Duke of Welling- 
 ton truly said, " I have no small 
 talk, and Peel has no manners." 
 Probably, Peel did not wish to ex- 
 pose himself to the sharp tongues 
 of Whig ladies at Court. 
 
 spirited Instructions. 
 
 In 1840 the energy of Lord Pal- 
 merston put a little life into the 
 dying Government. By his able 
 diplomacy he check-mated France, 
 drove back Meiiemet Ali, and 
 saved the Turkish Empire, taking 
 Acre by force. His pluck and 
 courage excited general admiration, 
 and his dispatches are good read- 
 
 ing for Englishmen at a time of 
 timid diplomacy like the present. 
 Here are his bold instructions to 
 the Ambassador at Paris, Sept. 22, 
 1840, " If Thiers again threatens 
 you, tell him that if France throws 
 down the gauntlet we shall not re- 
 fuse to pick it up, and if she begins 
 a war she will to a certainty lose 
 her ships, her commerce, and her 
 colonies before she sees the end of 
 it ; that her army of Algiers will 
 cease to cause any anxiety, and 
 t'nat Mehemet Ali will just be 
 chucked into the Nile." 
 
 A Discreditable Intrigue, 
 
 But the Government derived no 
 credit from this policy, and, in fact, 
 looked upon it with disfavour. Sir 
 Henry Bulwer, afterwards Lord 
 Dalling, was charge d'offaiies at 
 Paris in 1840, and he accidentally 
 learned that Lord Palmerston 
 would be severely attacked at the 
 next Cabinet, and that, in fact, he 
 would be compelled to resign. Tiie 
 information came from a French- 
 man who obviously got it in Lon- 
 don, and Sir Henry Bulwer wrote 
 to Lord Palmerston telling him 
 what he had to expect. At the 
 next Cabinet Council a savage 
 attack was made on his foreign 
 policy, quite in accordance with the 
 information. Lord Palmerston 
 got up, read out Sir Henry liuL- 
 wer's letter, and pointed out that 
 it was disgraceful that an unfriend- 
 ly Court like France should be 
 informed of what would take place 
 in the Cabinet resjiecting I'orcign 
 Affairs before he, tiie Secretary tor 
 Foreign Aff^iiirs, was actjuaiutcd 
 with it. His opponents, covered 
 with shame at the detection of their 
 intrigues, gave way, and the matter 
 dropped. 
 
 Whig Jobbery and Defeat. 
 
 Lord John Russell, who, at any 
 emergency, was wanting neither in 
 energy nor in ability, determined 
 on a bold stroke for power. Tiie
 
 FALL OF THE MELBOURNE MINISTRY. 
 
 AiUi-Corn Law Leapue, formed in 
 1S38, liad already made so iniicli 
 way by 1839 that Macau lay re- 
 marked, " The cry for Free Trade 
 in corn seems very formidable. If 
 the Ministers play their f^ame well, 
 they may now either triumph com- 
 l^letcl}'^, or retire with honour." 
 The strenuous labours of Cobden 
 and Bright had created and fos- 
 tered a perceptible feehng on the 
 subject. Of this feeling Russell 
 determined to take advantage, and, 
 in the Session of 1841, he an- 
 nounced his intention of moving a 
 resolution relating to the trade in 
 corn. But the Government had 
 opposed the Free Trade motion of 
 Mr. ViLLiERS, the father of Free 
 Trade, in 1839, Lord Melbourne 
 describing Repeal of the Corn Laws 
 as the maddest scheme he had ever 
 heard of, and the country saw in 
 Lord John Russell's resolution 
 a mere dodge to save a tottering 
 Cabinet. Moreover, Sir Robert 
 Peel was too astute a politician 
 to allow the Ministry to go to the 
 country on the cry of cheap bread. 
 
 In May, 1841, Russell brought 
 forward a budget showing a dchcit 
 of ^2,101,370, and was beaten by 
 317 — 281. The House, however, 
 observed with mingled amusement 
 and indignation that Russell, 
 taking no notice of his defeat, pro- 
 posed to take the question of the 
 Corn Laws on the 4th of June, but 
 Sir Robert Peel, seeing that his 
 time was come, anticipated him by 
 moving a direct vote of censure. In 
 a calm and dispassionate speech he 
 reviewed the Government policy, 
 rebuking them for ignoring the re- 
 cent vote of the House, and the 
 motion was carried on May 31st by 
 312 to 311. Ministers elected to ap- 
 peal to the Country, but before the 
 election the Whigs further injured 
 their chances by a gross job. They 
 ejected Lord Plunket, a man uni- 
 versally respected, from the Chan- 
 cellorship of Ireland, and put in 
 his f5lace Sir John Campbell, the 
 Attorney-General, merely in order 
 that the latter might get a pension 
 and a peerage by holding the office 
 for a few weeks. 
 
 1841-45. 
 Sir Robert Peel in Power. 
 
 The Character of Peel. 
 
 THE success of the Tory party 
 at the polls was signal and 
 complete, and the eyes of 
 all men were turned to- 
 wards Sir Robert Peel. He had 
 already firmly established his claims 
 to confidence both as a practical 
 reformer and as a constructive 
 Statesman, and he could boast that 
 he was not only the "leader of the 
 country gentlemen of. England," 
 but a trusted friend of the com- 
 
 mercial classes. He belonged by 
 birth to the new aristocracy of 
 wealth which sprang from the pro- 
 gress of manufactures, hits grand- 
 father having been a cotton spinner 
 who had risen to affluence b}' the 
 use of the " jenny." \\'hen Peel 
 was summoned home by King 
 William IV. in 1S35, it was said 
 that " the King had sent for the 
 son of a cotton spinner to Rome, in 
 order to make him Prime INIinister 
 of England." " Did I feel that," 
 asked Peel in his speech at Mer-
 
 THE CHARACTER OF PEEL. 
 
 chant Tailors' Hall, " by any means 
 a rciiection on me ? Did that make 
 me at all discontented with the 
 state of the laws and institutions 
 of the country ? No ; but does it 
 not make me, and does it not make 
 you, gentlemen, do all you can to 
 preserve to other sons of other 
 cotton spinners the same oppor- 
 tunities, by the same system of laws 
 under which the country has so 
 long flourished, of arriving by the 
 same honourable means at the like 
 distinction ? " Throughout his life 
 he was remarkable for unfailing in- 
 dustry and perseverance. He had 
 barely attained his majority when, 
 in 1809, his father procured for him 
 a seat at Cashel, and he gained ex- 
 ceptional opportunities of studying 
 political questions by his admission 
 at so early an age to an assembly 
 in which sat Canning, Wilber- 
 
 FORCE, HUSKISSON, RoMILLY, GrAT- 
 
 TAN, Castlereagh, and Brougham. 
 He made his way first to respect, 
 and then to influence, by the wealth 
 of his information and his power of 
 clear exposition. 
 
 The career of no great politician, 
 with the obvious exception of Mr. 
 Gladstone, presents more seeming 
 inconsistencies than Peel's. Of 
 some of his greatest measures it 
 must be admitted that they repre- 
 sented the triumph of the principles 
 which he was pledged to oppose. 
 Yet it is unjust to call him a Liberal 
 in Tory clothing. No man was 
 more attached in principle to the 
 established institutions of the coun- 
 try. He wished to maintain what 
 lie foimd in existence, and in ap- 
 proacliing any great subject he was 
 slow and cautious, IJut he readily 
 surrendered what he thought it im- 
 possible to defend. " The one re- 
 form associated witli the name of 
 Grey," writes Mr. Spencer Wal- 
 roLE, "was exceeded in importance 
 by the six great reforms which this 
 country owes to Peel. In 18 19 
 Peel reformed tlie currenc)' ; in 
 1823 he rclormed the Criminal 
 
 Code; in 1829 he emancipated the 
 Roman Catholics; in 1842 here- 
 formed the Tariff; in 1843 he re- 
 formed the Banking system ; in 
 1846 he repealed the Corn Laws. 
 Who is that Minister whose ad- 
 mirers can boast that his name 
 can be associated with six reforms 
 so beneficial and so enduring as 
 these ? " Mr. Abraham Havward 
 aptly compared the mind of Peel 
 to a clock, which is silent until it 
 strikes at the hour. Peel cannot 
 fairly be placed in the first rank of 
 British Statesmen. He had not 
 the original genius or the lofty 
 patriotism of a Pitt or a Beacons- 
 field ; but in the "Reform" 
 period he played a necessary part. 
 " How," asked the Duke of \\'ell- 
 ington, "is the King's Government 
 to be carried on in a Reformed 
 Parliament ? " The answer was 
 supplied by Peel. 
 
 His efforts to stem the current of 
 Radical Revolution. 
 
 The new era of middle-class go- 
 vernment was not the time for the 
 development of the spirit of popular 
 enthusiasm which enabled Disraeli 
 to win his triumphs of later years. 
 The true mission of the Tory leader 
 in the first decade of the reign was 
 to aid reform by frustrating revo- 
 lution, to construct, on the founda- 
 tion of the Constitutional fecHng 
 and commercial interests of the 
 middle-classes, a moderate party 
 which should be Conservative in 
 the best sense of the word. In this 
 work Peel completely succeeded. 
 The country had to thank him, as 
 Lord John Russell admitted, for 
 the spirit of moderation which he 
 infused into the legislation of the 
 Reformed Parliament ; his party 
 had to thank him for the guidance 
 which made the Conservatives as 
 strong as they had been before the 
 Reform Bilh 
 
 For the display of Peel's talents 
 the House of Commons was the 
 proper sphere. " One cannot say
 
 PEELS EINANCIAL POLICY. 
 
 of Sir Robert Peel," says Diskaiu.i, 
 " notwithstanding his unrivalled 
 powers of despatchin<^ affairs, that 
 he was the greatest Minister that 
 this country ever produced ; be- 
 cause, twice placed at the helm, 
 and on the second occasion with the 
 Court and the Parliament etjually 
 devoted to him, he never could 
 maintain himself in power. Nor, 
 notwithstanding his consummate 
 parliamentary tactics, can he be 
 described as the greatest party 
 leader that ever flourished among 
 us, for he contrived to destroy the 
 most compact, powerful, and de- 
 voted party that ever followed a 
 British Statesman. Certainly, not- 
 withstanding his great sway in de- 
 bate, we cannot recognise him as 
 our greatest orator, for in many of 
 the supreme requisites of oratory 
 he Avas singularly deficient. But 
 what he really was, and what pos- 
 terity will acknowledge him to have 
 been, is the greatest member of 
 Parliament that ever lived." 
 
 His Influence in the House. 
 
 In private, Peel's stiff and arti- 
 ficial manners were a hindrance to 
 the exercise of the qualities which 
 gain the affections of a party ; but 
 in the House of Commons, where 
 hauteur takes the form of dignity 
 and a ponderous style is often im- 
 pressive, he was at his best. In 
 spite of what Disraeli called the 
 "awkward habit" of looking 
 askance, and the " fatid defect" 
 of a long upper lip and a com- 
 pressed mouth, his comely presence 
 and frank expression lent a charm 
 to his speeches. " The oftener you 
 heard him speak," writes Lord 
 Dalling, "the more his speaking 
 gained upon you. Addressing the 
 House several times in the night 
 upon various subjects, he always 
 seemed to know more than anyone 
 else about each of them, and to 
 convey to you the idea that he 
 thought he did so. His language 
 was not usually striking, but it 
 
 was always singularly correct, and 
 gathered force with the develop- 
 ment of his argument. He never 
 seemed occujjied with himself. His 
 effort was evidently directed to 
 convince you, not that he was elo- 
 quent, but that he was right." 
 
 The composition of his Cabinet. 
 
 On the assembling of the new 
 Parliament, a vote ot want of con- 
 fidence in the already discredited 
 Whig Ministry was carried in both 
 Houses, and Sir Robert Peel was 
 called upon to form a Cabinet. 
 Lord Lyndhurst, then at the zen- 
 ith of his fame as a lawyer and a 
 statesman, became Chancellor. 
 Lord Stanley was Colonial Secre- 
 tary, and Sir James Graham — 
 whom Mr. Gladstone has lately 
 called " a true genius of adminis- 
 tration" — Home Secretary. They, 
 with Lord Ripon, were seceders 
 from Lord Grey's party. The 
 Duke of Buckingham, a strong 
 representative of the agricultural 
 party, at first took office, but re- 
 signed in a few months. Lord 
 Aberdeen was Foreign Secretary, 
 and the Duke of Wellington had 
 a seat in the Cabinet without office. 
 Among the Ministers outside the 
 Cabinet were Lord Lincoln, Mr. 
 Sidney Herbert, and Mr. Glad- 
 stone. The new Ministers enjoy- 
 ed a reputation for administrative 
 ability which their tenure of office 
 entirely justified. 
 
 Peel's Financial Policy. 
 
 The financial condition of the 
 countr}- demanded early attention. 
 Under the Whigs the national reve- 
 nue had for several years shown a 
 deficiency, and Sir Robert Peel 
 was not inaccurately described as 
 " Official Assignee in Bankruptc}^" 
 of his country's resources. 
 
 Commercial depression had 
 affected almost every class in the 
 kingdom. In 1842 the number 
 of paupers had risen to 1,429,000, 
 that is to say, nearly double the
 
 REGULATION OF THE HOURS OF LABOUR. 
 
 present proportion. The ranks of 
 the Chartists were swelled by the 
 universal discontent. The country 
 was distracted by fierce quarrels 
 between the agriculturists and the 
 Anti-Corn Law League. Neither 
 the Tory nor the \\'hig leaders 
 were as vet prepared to advocate 
 the absolute repeal of the Corn 
 Laws. Sir Robkrt Peel went on 
 the principle of retaining a duty 
 on corn varying inversely with the 
 price of corn in the home market ; 
 and Lord John Russell went no 
 further than an attack upon the 
 Sliding-Scale. The Anti-Corn 
 Law party, under Mr. Villi eus, 
 were defeated by an overwhelming 
 majority in the House of Commons, 
 and Sir Robert Peel's proposals 
 were adopted. The Government 
 Measures were, Mr. Gladstone 
 maintained in the course of the de- 
 bate, " a fair medium between the 
 opposite extremes," and calculated 
 to give " relief to consumers, steadi- 
 ness to prices, an increase to foreign 
 trade, and a general improvement 
 of the condition of the country." 
 
 In his budget. Peel adopted a 
 bolder course. He refused either 
 to persevere in the system of the 
 precedmg five years, which involv- 
 ed permanent additions to the 
 National Debt, or to increase taxes 
 on the necessaries of life. He 
 therefore imposed an income tux 
 calculated to yield ^"4, 380,000 an- 
 nually, and accompametl the new 
 tax by a reform of the tariff, which 
 removed duties on the raw ma- 
 terials of manufacture and on some 
 of the chief articles of food. To 
 prove that this financial policy was 
 successful, it is enough to mention 
 that within three years the budget 
 showed, instead of a deficiency, a 
 surplus of ;^5,ooo,ooo, and that 
 exports had risen in value from 
 ;^47,ooo,ooo to ^60,000,000. 
 
 The Protection of British Labour, 
 
 The Parliament of 1841 rendered 
 services of inestimable value to 
 
 ti;e working classes by extending 
 the social legislation which had 
 been begun in 1833 by Lord 
 Ashley's "Act for the Regulation of 
 the Hours of Labour ol Children 
 and Young Persons in Mills and 
 Factories." Lord Ashley, after- 
 wards Lord Shaftesbury, one of 
 Peel's Tory supporters, had suc- 
 ceeded to the position formerly 
 occupied by Mr. Sadler, as leader 
 of the movement for the protection 
 of the factory operatives. In 1842 
 he determined to endeavour to ex- 
 tend legal protection to women and 
 girls employed in mines and collier- 
 ies. The investigations of a Com- 
 mission that had inquired into the 
 employment of children not only 
 confirmed current accounts of the 
 sufferings of the children in the 
 mines, but proved that the con- 
 dition of the women was equally 
 pitiable. Children were employed 
 at the earliest ages, at six or even 
 at five 3'ears, and were compelled 
 to draw loads by means of the girdle 
 and chain. The Commissioners 
 reported cases in which children of 
 six years old, with burdens of at 
 least half-a-hundredweight, went 
 fourteen times a day a journey 
 equal in distance to the height 
 of St. Paul's Cathedral. The 
 treatment to which women were 
 subjected was altogether beyond 
 description, but everyone could 
 understand the physical and moral 
 results of a SA'stem under which 
 hall-naked women were employed 
 as mere beasts of burden for from 
 eleven to SLxteen hours in the day. 
 Lord Ashley's ]»ill proposed the 
 total prohibition ot the emplovment 
 of girls antl women in mines and 
 collieries. Tlie Hill was accepted 
 by tlie (lovernment, and supportetl 
 by the Whig leaders, but it luul ia 
 encounter the opposition of some 
 of tlie Radical members, notabl)' 
 Mr, Stansfeld and Mr. Ains- 
 worth. Neither branch of the 
 legislature, however, was willing" 
 to prefer the theories of Radical
 
 OPPOSITION TO THE EDUCATION CLAUSES. 
 
 politlclannto arf^nmcnts based upon 
 facts, and the Bill rapidly became 
 law. 
 
 Defeat of the Government Education 
 Proposals. 
 
 In 1843, the Government intro- 
 duced a Bill to limit the employ- 
 ment of children in factories, and 
 to secure their education with the 
 assistance of National funds. Re- 
 ligious instruction was to be given 
 in accordance with the doctrines 
 of the Church of England, but 
 provision was made for the con- 
 scientious scruples of Dissenters. 
 Unfortunately, the jealousy of the 
 sects was aroused, and large meet- 
 ings were held at Manchester and 
 elsewhere to strengthen the hands 
 of the Radical members in opposing 
 the Bill. In vain did Sir James 
 Graham ask them to lay aside "all 
 party feelings, all religious differ- 
 ences," and to find some neutral 
 ground in which they might build 
 "something approaching to a 
 scheme of national education, with 
 a due regard to the just wishes of 
 the Established Church on the one 
 hand, and studious attention to the 
 honest scruples of the Dissenters 
 on the other." The education 
 clauses were abandoned in conse- 
 quence of the bigoted and resolute 
 opposition which they met in the 
 Lower House, and the cause of 
 national education was retarded for 
 many years to come. 
 
 In the next year, 1844, the 
 Government proposed another Bill 
 dealing with the labour question. 
 The Bill provided that no children 
 under five should be employed in 
 factories ; that no children under 
 thirteen should be employed more 
 than six-and-a-half hours in one 
 da}^, except under specified circum- 
 stances, and that women over 
 eighteen should not be employed 
 for more than twelve hours in 
 one da)', or sixt)'-nine hours in 
 one week. Lord Ashley moved 
 an amendment in fa\-our of a 
 
 ten hours' limit, but was defeated 
 by 188 to 181. There can be no 
 doubt that most men believed that 
 Lord Ashley was right, and he 
 was enthusiastically supported by 
 the working population ; but a few 
 years were to pass before he could 
 finally overcome the champions of 
 the capitalists and their friends, to 
 whom Mr. Bright, himself a mill- 
 owner, lent the aid of his elo- 
 quence. 
 
 Peel and Repeal. 
 
 In Ireland, Ministers had to deal 
 with O'Conn'ell's agitation for 
 Repeal. O'Connell, though his 
 speeches were usually disfigured by 
 wild abuse of his opponents — he de- 
 scribed the Duke of Wellington 
 as a " stunted corporal," and the 
 Times newspaper as an "obscure 
 rag," — was one of the greatest 
 orators of the time. He alwa3's 
 professed a desire to keep within 
 Constitutional limits. " No po- 
 litical reform," he said, " is worth 
 the shedding of a drop of blood," 
 and "the man who commits a crime 
 gives strength to the enem3\" But 
 his practice was to collect huge 
 meetings of Irishmen, with the 
 avowed intention of impressing the 
 Government with the danger of re- 
 fusing his demands. At Mullingar 
 he brought together a hundred 
 thousand persons, and on the Hill 
 of Tara more than twice that num- 
 ber. The prohibition of a meeting 
 at Clontarf proved that the Go- 
 vernment intended to be firm. An 
 "Arms Bill" was carried, and legal 
 proceedings were instituted against 
 O'Connell. The conviction of 
 the " uncrowned King " was upset 
 by the House of Lords on tech- 
 nical grounds, but Ministers had 
 achieved their purpose — they had 
 proved that illegal agitation would 
 be suppressed.* They had defeated 
 
 * In defending the Union with Ireland, 
 Sir Robert Peel received the patriotic 
 support of his political opponents. Lord 
 John Russell's letter to the Duke of
 
 DISCONTENT OF THE TORY PARTY. 
 
 13 
 
 tlic Repealers, and henceforth 
 O'CoNNKi.L " ceased to be danger- 
 ous." 
 
 Remedial Measures. 
 The Irish poHcy of Sir Robert 
 also embraced important remedial 
 measures. He carried the Charit- 
 able Bequests Act. In spite of 
 what Macaulay called "the bray 
 of Exeter Hall," he increased the 
 endowment of Maynooth, and he 
 established the Queen's Colleges. 
 He laid the foundation of agrarian 
 legislation by the appointment of 
 the Devon Commission. Lord 
 Beaconsfield believed that these 
 Measures formed only a small part 
 of the legislative schemes which 
 Peel hoped to carry out for the 
 benefit of Ireland. 
 
 Foreign Policy. 
 The foreign policy of the Go- 
 vernment showed a vigilant care 
 for British interests. The Afghan 
 war, though chequered with disas- 
 ters, was ended with honour. The 
 invasion of the Sikhs was resolutely 
 repelled. Disputes with France 
 and the United States were 
 happily adjusted. The respect 
 with which the Government in- 
 spired the minds of the continental 
 Statesmen is shown by M. Guizot's 
 remark that the real as well as the 
 
 Leinster, of September, 1844, which has 
 lately appeared in the Edinbitygh Review, 
 shows the decision with which the Liberal 
 party of that time rejected all thought of 
 party gain at the expense of the Onion. 
 "As you are the head of the Whigs in 
 Ireland," wrote Lord John Russkli,, " I 
 wish you would write to Lord Charlemont 
 and others to beware of countenancing 
 any approach to what is called Federal 
 Union. The Union is a fundamental part 
 of our political system. It cannot be com- 
 promised or cut into fragments to make 
 Repeal more easy to swallow. No man 
 abhors more than I do the breach of faith 
 that has been committed in defrauding 
 Ireland of the participation of equal rights. 
 But, while I am ready to sacrifice any 
 chance of power or popularity to obtain 
 for Ireland that fair participation, I am 
 determined that, so far as I am concerned, 
 I will stand by the Legislative Union." 
 
 ostensible objects of Peel's policy 
 were "peace and justice among 
 nations." 
 
 Rise of the " Young England'' Party. 
 In truth, the success of the Tory 
 Ministers in every direction, during 
 their first four years of government, 
 exceeded the expectations or the 
 hopes which they could entertain 
 when they took office in 1841. 
 Nevertheless, Peel occupied an 
 untenable position. While the 
 country gentlemen formed the 
 backbone of his party, he was 
 disposed to give the first place in 
 liis thoughts to the demands of the 
 commercial classes. While he 
 wished to unite "the landed, 
 commercial, and manufacturing in- 
 terests," it became more and more 
 certain, as time went on, that 
 Land and Commerce were at that 
 day hostile forces. Peel's Tory 
 followers knew that the motives of 
 the Anti-Corn Law leaguers were 
 not single; that in the name of the 
 people they were striving to exalt 
 the manufacturers at the expense 
 of the landlords; that they looked 
 forward to the day when "Squire 
 Cotton' should supersede "Squire 
 Corn. ' To the discontent of the 
 rising Tories, which may be dated 
 from the establishment of the 
 Ecclesiastical Commission in 1835, 
 the "Young England ' party owed 
 its birth. It was an attempt to 
 maintain the "territorial constitu- 
 tion of England" as "the only 
 basis and security for local govern- 
 ment," and to substitute for middle- 
 class government under the Whig 
 oligarchy, or "a great Parliamentary 
 middleman like Peel, ' a political 
 system under which the Tory Peers 
 and gentlemen should lead the 
 people and undertake great social 
 duties. Of the views of the new 
 party — the party in which Disraeli 
 was associated with Lord George 
 Bentinck, and George Smythe, 
 and Lord John Manners, and 
 Henry Hope — we have a full
 
 X4 
 
 DISRAELI AND - YOUNG ENGLAND/' 
 
 account in Disraeli's trilo^'y of 
 political novels, in "Coningsby," 
 "Sybil," and "Tancred." 
 
 " Young England's " Creed. 
 
 They regarded the Tamworth 
 manifesto of 1834 as "an attempt 
 to construct a party without prin- 
 ciple," of which the inevitable 
 consequence was "Political Infidel- 
 ity." The party as led by Peel 
 appeared to them to be destitute of 
 "knowledge, genius, thought, truth, 
 or faith." "In the selfish strife of 
 factions," we are told in " Sybil," 
 "two great existences have been 
 blotted out of the history of Eng- 
 land, the Monarch and the Multi- 
 tude; as the power of the Crown 
 has diminished, the privileges of 
 the people have disappeared, till 
 at length the sceptre has become a 
 pageant and its subject has 
 degenerated into a serf." 
 
 In the preface to " Lothair," the 
 author sums up the objects of him- 
 self and his friends. " To change 
 back the oligarchy into a gene- 
 rous aristocracy round a real 
 throne ; to infuse life and vigour 
 into the Church as the trainer of 
 the nation, by the revival of its 
 Convocation, then dumb, on a wide 
 basis, and not, as has since been 
 done, in the shape of a priestly 
 section ; to establish a Commercial 
 Code on the principles successfully 
 negociated by Lord Bolingbroke at 
 Utrecht, and which, though baffled 
 at the time by a ^^'hig Parliament, 
 were subsequently and triumphant- 
 ly vindicated by his political pupil 
 and heir, Mr. Pitt ; to govern Ire- 
 land according to the policy of 
 Charles I., and not of Oliver Crom- 
 ■well ; to emancipate the political 
 constituency of 1832 from its secta- 
 rian bondage and contracted sym- 
 pathies ; to elevate the physical as 
 -well as the moral condition of the 
 people, by establishing that labour 
 required regulation as much as pro- 
 perty ; and all this rather by the 
 use of ancient forms and the resto- 
 
 ration of the past, than by political 
 revolutions founded on abstract 
 ideas, appeared to be the course 
 which the circumstances of this 
 country required, and which, prac- 
 tically speaking, could only, with 
 all their faults and backslidings, be 
 undertaken l)y a reconstructed Tory 
 party." The " Young England " 
 men " recognised imagination in 
 the government of the nations as a 
 quality not less important than 
 reason. They trusted much to a 
 popular sentiment, which rested on 
 an heroic tradition, and was sus- 
 tained by the high spirit of a free 
 aristocracy. Their economic doc- 
 trines were not unsound, but they 
 looked upon the health and know- 
 ledge of the multitude as not the 
 least precious part of the wealth of 
 nations. In asserting the doctrine 
 of race they were entirely opposed 
 to the equality of man, and similar 
 abstract dogmas, which have de- 
 stroyed ancient society without 
 creating a satisfactory substitute. 
 Resting on popular sympathies and 
 popular privileges, they held that 
 no society could be durable unless 
 it was built upon the principles of 
 loyalty and religious reverence." 
 
 Sir James Graham's Opinion. 
 
 Peel's friends regarded " Young 
 England " with dislike. Sir James 
 Graham wrote to Mr. Croker, in 
 1843, " With regard to ' Young Eng- 
 land,' the puppets are moved by 
 Disraeli, who is the ablest man 
 among them. I consider him un- 
 principled and disappointed ; and 
 in despair he has tried the effect of 
 bullying. I think, with you, that 
 they will return to the crib after 
 prancing, capering, and snorting ; 
 but a crack or two of the whip well 
 applied may hasten and ensure 
 their return. Disraeli alone is mis- 
 chievous ; and with him I have no 
 desire to keep terms. It would be 
 better for the party if he were 
 driven into the ranks of our open 
 enemies."
 
 THE REVIVAL OF TORYISM. 
 
 15 
 
 The. Revival of Torjism. 
 What Peel's friends treated as 
 rebellion was really fidelity to the 
 principles which Peel, as he him- 
 self admits, was already deserting. 
 " I had adopted at an early period 
 of my public life, without, I fear, 
 much serious reflection, the opin- 
 ions generally prevalent at this 
 time among men of all parties as 
 to the justice and necessity of pro- 
 tection to British agriculture • • • 
 Between the passing of the Corn 
 Bill in 1842 and the close of the 
 Session in 1845, the opinions I had 
 previously entertained had under- 
 gone a great change." The 
 "Young England" men, on the 
 other hand, were resolved to sup- 
 port the agricultural classes — " I 
 take the only broad and safe line," 
 said Disraeli in 1843, "viz., that 
 what we ought to uphold is the 
 preponderance of the landed in- 
 terest ; that the preponderance of 
 the landed interest has made Eng- 
 land ; that it is an immense element 
 
 of political power and stability; 
 that we should never have been 
 able to undertake the great war on 
 which we embarked in the memory 
 of many present, that we should 
 never have been able to conquer 
 the greatest military genius which 
 the world ever saw, with the great- 
 est means at his disposal, and to hurl 
 him from the throne, if we had not 
 had a territorial aristocracy to give 
 stability to our Constitution." 
 
 Lord Shaftesbury's expressions 
 in his Diary at this period show 
 that in his judgment there was good 
 ground for dreading the supremacy 
 of a selfish plutocracy. "All Peel's 
 affinities," wrote the great philan- 
 thropist, in 1843, "are towards 
 wealth and capital. What has he 
 ever done or proposed for the work- 
 ing-classes ? Cotton is everything, 
 man is nothing." Peel's policy of 
 compromise could not last long, 
 and in 1845 the hour was at hand 
 in which he must choose whom he 
 would serve. 
 
 1846. 
 The Repeal of i- h e Corn Laws 
 
 Peel's Position. 
 
 TO all outward appearances 
 the Conservative party was 
 never so strong as in the 
 summer of 1845. Their 
 majority was triumphant and over- 
 whelming ; the \Vhigs were so 
 feeble that they scarcely deserved 
 to be called an Opposition, and the 
 Ministers were, in oratorical power 
 and administrative ability, without 
 competitors in the country. To an 
 outside observer it might seem that 
 Sir Robert Peel, like Walpole, 
 
 would remain in office for twenty 
 years, jet the writing was already 
 on the wall, and the shadow of a 
 crushing defeat hung over the great 
 Statesman. The disintegrating 
 forces, though unseen, were both 
 numerous and strong. The two 
 leaders of the Conservative party, 
 Sir Robert Peel and Lord Stan- 
 ley, could not act harmoniously 
 together. Lord Stanley, with 
 his bold and outspoken manner, 
 ofTcndcd the shy and constrained 
 Commoner by his unseasonable 
 jokes and want of caution, and
 
 l6 
 
 PEEL'S ADOPTION OF FUIIE TRADE. 
 
 Peel had already resolved to get 
 rid of him. Moreover, although 
 the party seemed united, there was 
 a dangerous feeling of sullen dis- 
 content in the rank and file, for 
 Peel possessed the votes rather 
 than the hearts of his followers. 
 This feeling had found expression 
 in the cutting diatribes of Disraeli, 
 whom Peel considered an obnox- 
 ious and eccentric free lance. 
 
 " A Conservative Government," 
 said Disraeli, "is an organised 
 hypocrisy." "The Right Hon. 
 Baronet has caught the Whigs 
 out bathing, and has walked off 
 with their clothes. He has left 
 them in full enjoyment of their 
 Liberal position, and he is himself 
 a strict Conservative of their gar- 
 ments." "He always rests great 
 measures on small precedents, he al- 
 ways traces the steam engine back 
 to the tea-kettle." These senti- 
 ments were received with sincere, 
 though subdued, applause from the 
 benches below the gangway, and 
 the Tories were not at all in the 
 temper to follow their leader if it 
 involved the abandonment of any 
 fundamental principle. Yet this is 
 exactly the course that leader con- 
 templated. In 1S45 Pr-EL was 
 already a Free Trader, the convert 
 of the Anti-Corn Law League. 
 
 The Anti-Corn Law League. 
 
 The Anti-Corn Law League was 
 founded on December 20th, 1838, 
 at a meeting held in King Street, 
 Manchester. Funds came in liber- 
 ally at first, and were expended in 
 sending lecturers about the country 
 and in getting up petitions. By 
 February, 1840, 2,141 petitions 
 with 980,352 signatures had been 
 presented against the Corn Laws, 
 as compared with 2,886 petitions 
 with 138,051 signatures in favour of 
 them. Charles Villi ers by his 
 Parliamentar}' pertinacity and Cob- 
 den and Bright by their platform 
 speeches brought the question for- 
 cibly before public notice with the 
 
 result that, as we have seen. Lord 
 John Russell thought it a i)opular 
 move to go to the country on the 
 cry of Free Trade in 1841. But 
 the Free Traders at that time suf- 
 fered from the general disfavour 
 incurred by the Whigs, and lost 
 their two aristocratic leaders, Lords 
 HowicK and Morpeth, at the 
 General Election. From that date 
 the agitation began to dwindle, and 
 the League was seriously damaged 
 by the conduct of some Free Trade 
 delegates, who forced their way 
 into the lobby of the House of 
 Commons and had to be expelled 
 by the police. 
 
 In November, 1842, the League 
 fund was ;^5o,ooo, but for the same 
 month in 1843 only ^12,000 was 
 collected. 
 
 The prospects of Free Trade 
 never looked so dark as in July, 
 1845, when plentiful harvests and 
 cheap corn had driven the Corn 
 Tax out of men's minds. But in 
 August down came the rain and, 
 in the expressive words of Cob- 
 den's biographer, " rained away 
 the Corn Laws." The harvest was 
 ruined, and a fatal blight settled on 
 the potato, which failed in every 
 county in Ireland, so that famine 
 stared the Irish in the face. 
 
 Not a Democratic Movement. 
 
 The nature of the Anti-Corn 
 Law League has been much mis- 
 represented. It was essentially a 
 Middle-Class and not a democratic 
 movement, and the object of the 
 League was rather to exalt the 
 the manufacturing capitalist than 
 to relieve the working-man. A 
 proof of this lies in the fact that 
 they were violently opposed by the 
 Chartists, who, with all their faults 
 and violence, certainly represented 
 a large section of the working- 
 classes. So unpopular were the 
 Leaguers with the lower classes, 
 that they were obliged to hold their 
 meetings by ticket. The only two 
 important open meetings of which
 
 LOGICAL RESULTS OF FREE TRADE. 
 
 17 
 
 we have been able to find any 
 notice, were both broken up by 
 the Chartists. 
 
 At this date the manufacturers 
 felt that they were in no danger 
 from continental competition, while 
 the Corn Tax, by raising the price 
 of food, raised wages and was 
 practically a tax upon themselves. 
 
 Regarding agriculture as being 
 conducted at their expense, they 
 anticipated, with satisfaction, the 
 migration of labourers from the 
 country to the manufacturing 
 towns, thus making labour plenti- 
 ful and cheap. The Free Traders 
 had, in short, over-looked the fact, 
 now only too well-known, that the 
 prosperity of the manufacturer 
 largely depends on the purchasing 
 power of the agricultural classes, 
 and that it is impossible to harass 
 the landed interest without injuring 
 trade. 
 
 Logical Results of Free Trade. 
 
 Free Trade has logically two 
 necessary corollaries. In the first 
 place, labour must be free. Tlie 
 working-man must be left exposed 
 to the effects of competition. Fac- 
 tory Acts, by artificially altering 
 the duration and incidence of 
 labour, and Trades' Unions, by 
 artificially raising wages, render 
 the country which adopts them 
 liable to be under-sold by less 
 scrupulous neighbours. This fact 
 was frankly admitted by Mr. 
 Bright, who opposed vigorously 
 both the Acts and the trade organi- 
 sations. 
 
 Secondly, both imports and ex- 
 ports must be free. At present we 
 have free imports only. Peel and 
 CoBDEN, and the Leaguers gene- 
 rally, prophesied that Free Trade 
 would be enthusiastically welcomed 
 by all the nations in P2urope if 
 England set the example. We 
 have now been setting that ex- 
 ample for forty years absolutely 
 without results, so tliat the original 
 Free Traders stand convicted not 
 
 only of false prophecy, but also of 
 a false ideal. They believed that 
 the one object of a nation was the 
 accumulation of wealth. Free 
 Trade, undoubtedly, does accumu- 
 late wealth, for in proportion as 
 commodities can be readily ex- 
 changed between difTerent coun- 
 tries, capitalists can increase the 
 scope and profits of their under- 
 takings. But the nation has dis- 
 covered that the true prosperity of 
 a country lies in the distribution 
 of wealth and in the conditions of 
 labour. 
 
 Free Trade, by admitting foreign 
 competition, tends to depress wages 
 and to injure the working-man ; it 
 substitutes international exchange 
 for national labour, cosmopolitan 
 sentiment for patriotic enthusiasm. 
 We must balance one tendency 
 against another. . We must look 
 upon Free Trade not as a creed or 
 a gospel, but merely as a fiscal 
 arrangement, which may be modi- 
 fied in accordance with particular 
 circumstances. 
 
 Peel's Reasons for abolishing the 
 Corn Laws. 
 
 In 1846, the Corn Laws had 
 ceased to secure the main purpose 
 of their existence. The trade and 
 population of England were under- 
 going great expansion, and thus it 
 was necessary to encourage the im- 
 portation of food. Peel's motives 
 were various. His sympathies 
 were with the millowner rather 
 tlian with the landlord. His sen- 
 sitive mind could not endure the 
 responsibility of possibly increasing 
 crime and penury by keeping the 
 price of food artificially high, and, 
 being essentially a watcher of the 
 seasons, he was much impressed 
 by the power and ability of the 
 League. That his conversion was 
 perfectly honest there can be no 
 doubt, but his methods do not de- 
 serve the same praise. He had pro- 
 bably adoj^ted Free Trade in his 
 own mind for some time. Ckukeu,
 
 i8 
 
 LOUD JOHN IWSSKLL'S MANII-ESIO. 
 
 who had been his intimate friend, 
 writes to the Duke of Wellington 
 in December, 1846, "Recollect that 
 I told you, lonjf before there was 
 any suspicion of a potato famine, 
 that he was veering to Free Trade. 
 I have suspected it these two 
 years." The potato famine gave 
 him a fresh impulse, and deter- 
 mined him to put his theory into 
 practice. The difficulties in his 
 way were great, for he was pledged 
 to every single man of his party. 
 Before repealing the Corn Laws, 
 he must break all his pledges and 
 betray his followers, liut he had 
 already changed front on the 
 Emancipation question and re-con- 
 structed his party afterwards, and 
 his belief in his imrivalled powers 
 as a Parliamentar}' tactician pro- 
 bably convinced him that what 
 he had done before he might do 
 again. 
 
 Cabinet Opposition. 
 
 On September 13th, Peel opened 
 his mind to his faithful follower, 
 Sir James Graham. " The ac- 
 counts of the potato crop in Ireland 
 are becoming very alarming. I 
 have no confidence in such reme- 
 dies as the proliibition of exports. 
 The removal of impediments to 
 imports will alone be efrectual." 
 
 On November ist, he called a 
 Cabinet Council to consider the 
 following memorandum : — " Shall 
 we maintain unaltered ? — Shall we 
 modify ? — Shall we suspend the 
 operation of the Corn Laws ? — Can 
 we vote public money to sustain 
 any considerable portion of the 
 people and maintain in full opera- 
 tion the existing restrictions on the 
 free importation of grain ? I am 
 bound to sa}' my impression is we 
 cannot," Lord Stanley led the 
 opposition to this suggestion, re- 
 marking that he could not support 
 the repeal of the Corn Laws, and 
 that Repeal, if persisted in, must 
 break up the Government even if 
 the Cabinet agreed, because it was 
 the business of the W'hiirs and not 
 
 of the Conservatives. After some 
 discussion, Pekl on the 6th moved 
 " to issue forthwith an order in 
 Council remitting the duty on grain 
 in bond to is., and opening the 
 ports until a day named," but, as 
 he was only supported by Lord 
 Aberdeen, Sir James Graham, and 
 Mr. Sidney Herbert, the proposal 
 fell to the ground. 
 
 RnsselVs Edinburgh Letter. 
 
 The next move came from Lord 
 John Russell, who had received 
 private information as to Peel's 
 st,;te of mind. He determined to 
 strike in on his own behalf, in order 
 tliat he might force the hand of the 
 Ministry, and, if possible, obtain 
 for himself the settlement of the 
 question. On November 22nd, 
 he published the celebrated Edin- 
 burgh letter — " The duties are so 
 contrived that the worse the quali- 
 ties of the corn the higher the 
 duty. Thus, the corn barometer 
 points to fair whilst the ship is 
 bending under the storm. • • • 
 Let us unite to put an end to a 
 system which has proved the blight 
 of commerce, the bane of agricul- 
 ture, the source of bitter division 
 among classes, the cause of penury, 
 fever, mortality, and crime among 
 the people. • • • It is not to 
 be denied that man}' elections in 
 1 84 1 and some in 1845 appear to 
 favour the assertion that Free 
 Trade is not popular with the mass 
 of the community. The Govern- 
 ment appear to be waiting for some 
 excuse to give up the Corn Laws. 
 Let the people by petition, by 
 address, by remonstrance, afford 
 them the excuse they seek." 
 
 Never did a manifesto have so 
 sudden and tremendous an effect. 
 A Cabinet Council was called, at 
 which Peel proposed to "suspend 
 the Corn Laws with a view to their 
 not being re-enacted." Lord John 
 Russell's arguments had con- 
 vinced in three days men who had 
 been undisturbed by seven years of
 
 PEEL'S RE-CONSTRUCTED MINISTRY. 
 
 19 
 
 Corn Law agitation. Lord Stax- 
 LEY, instead of being in a majority 
 of eight, found himself in a minority 
 of two, the Duke of Buccleugh 
 being his only supporter in the 
 Cabinet. Seven Ministers had 
 changed their opinions with a 
 readiness and speed that were per- 
 haps unprecedented. The Duke 
 of Wellington drew up a state- 
 ment of his views. " I think tlie 
 continuance of the Corn Laws," 
 he said, " essential to agriculture 
 in its present state, and a benefit 
 to the community. • • • But a 
 good Government for the country is 
 more important than Corn Laws." 
 On this principle he acted through- 
 out the controversy. He regarded 
 himself as the servant of the 
 Crown, and he was prepared to 
 support Sir Robert Peel at any 
 sacrifice of opinion sooner than 
 allow CoBDEN to form a Ministry. 
 
 It was urged, however, not with- 
 out force, that if the country was 
 to be governed on Free Trade prin- 
 ciples it should be governed by 
 Free Traders not by ex-Protection- 
 ists. Peel was prepared to pro- 
 pose the repeal at once without 
 resigning, and his memory was 
 apparently deficient when he sub- 
 sequently observed, "It is asserted 
 that I wished to interfere in the 
 settlement of the question by the 
 noble lord opposite, that is the 
 foulest calumny which the vindic- 
 tive imagination of a political oppo- 
 nent ever dictated." 
 
 Free Traders in Pou'er. 
 
 But Lord Stanley and the Duke 
 of Buccleugh finally determined 
 not to support him, and he re- 
 signed his office on December 5th. 
 The Queen sent for Lord John 
 Russell, who failed to form a 
 Government. His ostensible 
 reason was that Lord Grey de- 
 clined to seive with Lord Pai.mer- 
 ston, but his probable motive was 
 a desire not to spare Peel the 
 necessity of breaking up his pai ty. 
 
 Peel resumed office, remarking 
 in a letter of this date " I leel like 
 a man restored to life after iiis 
 funeral sermon has been preached." 
 These proceedings put fresh life 
 into the declining League. A meet- 
 ing was held at Manchester, and 
 ;r6o,ooo was raised amidst great 
 enthusiasm. So disordered were 
 the Protectionists that the Govern- 
 ment was considered safe. "There 
 will be a fat cattle opposition," 
 wrote a foreign critic. 
 
 On January 22nd, 1846, Parlia- 
 ment was opened by the Queen, 
 who said in the speech from the 
 throne, "I have had great satis- 
 faction in giving my assent to the 
 ]\Ieasures to stimulate domestic 
 skill and industry by the repeal of 
 prohibitive and the relaxation of 
 protective duties. I recommend 
 you to take into your early con- 
 sideration whether the principle 
 may not be yet more extensively 
 applied." 
 
 Amidst breathless excitement 
 Peel rose to make his explanation. 
 He admitted that his opinions on 
 Protection were changed, but he 
 felt no humiliation because his mo- 
 tives were pine, and because there 
 were sufficient facts to account for 
 the change. Then, as he felt his 
 power over the House, his pride 
 broke out. Turning towards his 
 discontented followers, he told them 
 in half-menacing tones " It is no 
 easy matter to ensure the united 
 action of an ancient monarchy, a 
 proud aristocracy, and a reformed 
 House of Commons." " I do not 
 shrink from oflice but I will not re- 
 tain it with nuitilated power and 
 shackled authority. I will not 
 stand at the helm on a tempestuous 
 night if that helm is not allowed 
 freely to traverse. I will not under- 
 take to direct the vessel by obser- 
 vations taken in the year 1S42." 
 "I do not desire to bo the Minister 
 of luigland ; but while I am I will 
 hold oflice shackled by no servile 
 tenure."
 
 711 E rnOTECTIONIST LEADERS. 
 
 Disraeli's OpporUtnity. 
 
 The speech was well received. 
 The Protectionists, deserted by 
 their leaders and without hope, sat 
 in silent despair, and the great tac- 
 tician seemed about to triumph 
 over Parliamentary consistency 
 when, late in the evening, Disraeli, 
 the " Young England" leader, got 
 up. He said, " Protectionist opin- 
 ions sent me to this House, and if 
 I had relinquished them I should 
 have relinquished my seat also." 
 He compared Peel to the Turkish 
 Admiral who, being appointed to 
 the command, " steered at once 
 into the enemy's port," and vindi- 
 cated himself when attacked by 
 saying " I have an objection to 
 war. I see no use in prolonging the 
 struggle. I only accepted the com- 
 mand that I might terminate the 
 contest by betraying my master." 
 He also called him " a watcher of 
 the atmosphere." "A great orator 
 before a green table beating a red 
 box, with no idea but that of Par- 
 liamentary success," "governing 
 not by argument but by the state 
 of the registration and the acci- 
 dent of the polls." "His Cabinet 
 had resigned office because it could 
 not support a Measure and ac- 
 cepted it for the same reason." 
 
 The speech was received with 
 wild cheers by the country party, 
 in whose ranks angry cries took the 
 place of sullen silence. The oppo- 
 sition was going to be dangerous. 
 
 The Government Proposals. 
 
 The Government INIeasures were 
 expounded in detail on January 27. 
 The}'^ involved (i) A total repeal of 
 the Corn Laws at the end of three 
 years, leaving only a nominal duty; 
 (2) During those three years a 
 maximum duty of los., and a 
 minimum duty of 4s. The maxi- 
 mum duty was to come into effect 
 when the price of corn sank below 
 48s. per quarter, and was to be de- 
 creased by a shilling for every shil- 
 ling's rise in price until 53s. was 
 
 reached, when the minimum duty 
 of 4s. operated. All foreign cattle 
 were to be admitted duty free. To 
 conceal in some measure the sweep- 
 ing nature of these proposals. Peel 
 combined with them the abolition 
 of some unimportant duties on 
 manufactures. Some compensa- 
 tion had been promised to the 
 landed interest, so he proposed a 
 remission of taxes to the amount 
 of about ;^25o,ooo per annum, and 
 a system of loans on conditions too 
 hard for the system to be practical. 
 Some other trifling measures of 
 compensation there were, which 
 never came into effect. 
 
 Lord George Bcntinch. 
 
 The Protectionists, who formed 
 over two-thirds of the Conservative 
 party, began to organise for serious 
 fight under the auspices of the 
 Protection Society, presided over 
 by the Duke of Richmond. Hav- 
 ing finally formed themselves into 
 a distinct party, they offered the 
 leadership in the House of Com- 
 mons to Lord George Bentinck, 
 the member for King's Lynn. Lord 
 George may be entitled the Mar- 
 CELLUS of English politics, for the 
 whole sphere of his political emi- 
 nence is contained in the short 
 space of two years. He had spoken 
 for the first time in the House on 
 January 27th, 1846, and he died on 
 September 21st, 1848. He had, 
 however, sat in eight Parliaments, 
 had been Canning's secretary, and 
 was not without considerable know- 
 ledge of politics. He rose in an 
 instant from the position of a pri- 
 vate individual to that of the trusted 
 guide of a large party through a 
 bitter and dangerous struggle. He 
 declined the name of leader, al- 
 though his energy and commanding 
 personality gave him the practical 
 leadership. His close ally and 
 admirer was Disraeli, and these 
 two men really fought the battle of 
 Protection. It should be remem- 
 bered that they did not limit their
 
 A COERCION DILL FOR IRELAND. 
 
 opposition to the Corn Laws as did 
 some of the party, but, as the Duke 
 of Rutland remarked in a letter 
 to the Times, March 2gth, 18^3, 
 " They opposed Free Trade for the 
 sake of trade and manufacture as 
 well as agriculture. Lord George 
 often said that the manufacturers 
 would be the first to want Pro- 
 tection back again." The history 
 of the Fair Trade movement shows 
 the accuracy of this forecast. 
 
 Whilst Peel's old supporters 
 were hostile, the Whigs were any- 
 thing but friendly. Lord John 
 Russell and Cobden, who calcu- 
 lated that Peel, when out of oflice, 
 could only command 20 votes, were 
 inclined to turn out the Govern- 
 ment by proposing total abolition, 
 but the plan broke down owing 
 to a want of popular support. 
 Charles Greville, himself a 
 Whig, observes, " In this affair 
 John Russell does not shine. He 
 IS very clever and ingenious, but a 
 little man, full of personal feelings 
 and antipathies, something, too, of 
 envy." 
 
 An Irish Complication. 
 
 Whilst thus burdened with the 
 Repeal question. Peel began to 
 be troubled about Ireland as well. 
 During 1845, there had been 5,607 
 outrages and 136 murders in that 
 unhappy country. Accordingly, 
 on February 24th, he was com- 
 pelled to introduce a Coercion Bill 
 containing a curfew clause. Dis- 
 raeli, foreseeing that opposition 
 to Coercion might prove a useful 
 ground of union between Protec- 
 tionists, Whigs, and " O'Connell's 
 tail," was in favour of opposing 
 the Bill, but Bentinck preferred 
 supporting it if he found that the 
 Ministry were in earnest about it, 
 and the birth of the Bill was calm 
 and peacelul. 
 
 Move cud Coiintey-viove. 
 The first reading of the Repeal 
 Bill was carried on February 27th 
 by 337 to 240 votes. Lord George 
 
 Bentinck rose at midnight to make 
 his first important speech. He 
 was unpractised in debating, his 
 voice was weak, and his gestures 
 excessive, but his command of de- 
 tails and able exposition got him a 
 hearing. Bentinck's invective was 
 terrible, direct and crushing ; he 
 struck with a club where Disraeli 
 stabbed with a rapier. Bentinck 
 showed that, so far from there bei jg 
 increased scarcity, the stocks of 
 wheat in bond had doubled since 
 1S45; that v.-hereas the papulation 
 of England had increased only 32 
 per cent, since 1821, the amount of 
 wheat grown had increased 64 per 
 cent. Hence he argued that the 
 capacity of the land had increased 
 twice as fast as the population. 
 On March 26th he spoke again, 
 ending with these words, " I cannot 
 say you (the jMinisters) have stood 
 by your craft as long as she kept 
 afloat. • • No, you have brought 
 her on a lee shore and left her 
 among the breakers. You have 
 placed her under the guns of the 
 enemy while your faithful crew 
 were asleep in their hammocks. 
 You have scuttled the ship, stolen 
 the compass, sneaked away in the 
 long boat, and deserted to the 
 enemy." 
 
 At the end of tiie evening Pal- 
 MERSTON created some surprise and 
 much disgusted Couden by declar- 
 ing for a permanent fixed duty. 
 The idea of a coalition between 
 Whigs and Protectionists was 
 forming in his ingenious mind. 
 However, the Bill passed its second 
 reading by a majority of 88. 
 
 Then occurred a most remark- 
 able series of manoeuvres. The 
 O'Connellites, with many Whigs 
 and a few Protectionists, opposed 
 the Coercion Bill, whilst I^jentinck 
 and Disraeli blocked the Corn 
 l>ill. The result was a deadlock. 
 Bentinck, however, continued to 
 supjiort the Coercion Bill, and on 
 April 4th he defined his position in 
 a vcr)- statesmanlike speech. He
 
 DISRAELI'S ATTACKS ON PEEL. 
 
 had always felt mucli sympatliy 
 towards Ireland, as is shown by 
 this passage from one of his letters 
 to Croker — " The famine had come 
 on so suddenly. • • The Irish 
 people were like the Israelites in 
 the wilderness, only the God of 
 Israel was not a ' Whig or a Free 
 Trader.' " Free Trade in corn he 
 was sure would only do harm to an 
 agricultural country like Ireland. 
 There were 500,000 small farmers 
 whose crop largely consisted of 
 oats, these must be ruined if the 
 Corn Laws were abolished. In this 
 speech he proved that ;^io,ooo,ooo 
 worth of corn was being exported 
 from Ireland beyond what would 
 suffice to feed the people. Wheat 
 in Cork was at 4gs. 6d., whilst 
 foreign corn in bond was at 54s., 
 so that a suspension of the Corn 
 Tax could not attract corn to Ire- 
 land, where it was cheap, from 
 other places, where it was dear. 
 The cause of distress was a want 
 not of food but of money, not the 
 duties but an insufficient poor rate 
 of ;^i 66,000, and the only remedies 
 were immediate relief and an order 
 against the exportation of corn. 
 Curiously enough, these conclu- 
 sions are practically endorsed by 
 Mr. T. P. O'Connor in his " Par- 
 nellite Movement," published in 
 1885. 
 
 Attacks on the Prime Minister. 
 
 As regards the Coercion Bill, 
 Bentinck would support it if — 
 an important proviso — Ministers 
 showed they were in earnest by 
 being prompt. The deadlock lasted 
 until May 2nd, when the Coercion 
 Bill passed its second reading, and 
 liberated the Corn Bill, which, on 
 May 15th, passed its third reading 
 by a majority of gS in a House of 
 556. Disraeli concluded a bitter 
 but brilliant speech witk the follow- 
 ing scathing criticism — "The right 
 hon. baronet had been a trader on 
 other people's intelligence. His 
 life was, in fact, one great principle 
 
 of appropriation — he was the 
 political burglar of other men's 
 ideas — deserting his friends and 
 acting as if they had deserted him. 
 The occupants of the Treasury 
 bench were political pedlars who 
 had bought their party in the 
 dearest market and sold it in the 
 cheapest. • • The first day after 
 the exposition in the House a 
 gentleman learned in political 
 secrets met me and said, ' What do 
 you think of your Chief's plan ? ' 
 I did not exactly know what to 
 say about it, but supposed, to 
 use the phrase of the hour, it 
 was a great and comprehensive 
 scheme. ' Oh,' he replied, ' it's 
 not his plan at all. It's ' Popkin's 
 plan.' And, sir, is England to 
 be governed and convulsed on 
 'Popkin's plan?' Will he appeal 
 to England on a fantastic scheme 
 of some pedant ? " 
 
 Peel was so disturbed by this 
 attack that the Speaker expected 
 him to burst into tears. He said 
 in reply — "I foresaw, as the inevit- 
 able result of my course, that 1 
 must interrupt political relations in 
 which I took a sincere pride ; but 
 the smallest penalty I contem- 
 plated was the continued venomous 
 attacks of the Member for Shrews- 
 bury. • • If he, after reviewing 
 my political life of 30 years, enter- 
 tained (in 1841) that opinion of me 
 which he now professes, it is sur- 
 prising that he should have been 
 ready to unite his fortunes with 
 mine in office, thus implying the 
 strongest proof a man can give of 
 confidence in the honour and in- 
 tegrity of a Minister of the Crown." 
 
 These two extracts forcibly pre- 
 sent the spirit in which this politi- 
 cal quarrel was maintained on both 
 sides. That Peel felt most acutely 
 the breach with his old adherents 
 is certain, and this doubtless un- 
 duly embittered him against both 
 Disraeli and Bentinck, for the 
 same charge of office-seeking was 
 afterwards preferred against Lord
 
 ATTITUDE OF THE WHIGS. 
 
 George. But while Peel's 
 speeclies bear evidence of strong 
 personal feeling against his oppo- 
 nents, the same cannot be said of 
 Disraeli's. His were but the 
 brilliant and severe criticisms of 
 the advocate. He spoke simply as 
 the leader of a part}^ whose busi- 
 ness it was to present his oppo- 
 nent's case in the worst light. 
 That he bore no malice against 
 Peel is proved not only by his 
 private letters of this date, but also 
 by the regret he afterwards ex- 
 pressed for many things he would 
 rather have left unsaid, and it is 
 fair to conclude that he took no 
 pleasure in wounding Peel so 
 deeply. Peel, in fact, claimed for 
 himself what he refused to others. 
 He expected even his opponents to 
 recognise the honesty of his mo- 
 tives, however inconsistent his 
 actions might be. His capacity to 
 persuade himself of the rectitude 
 of his own course — though not equal 
 to the later developments of his 
 pupil, Mr. Gladstone — blinded 
 him to the fact that anyone could 
 with justice question the sincerity 
 of motives which approved them- 
 selves to his own conscience. 
 
 Combinations and Conspiracies. 
 
 An important debate took place 
 in the Lords on the second reading. 
 Lord Stanley making a very fine 
 speech, described by Brougham 
 as '* the finest possible." The 
 Whig Lords, too, especially Lord 
 Melbourne, showed some distaste 
 for the Measure. Lord Palmer- 
 STON was desirous of profiting by 
 this feeling. He knew that a coal- 
 ition between Peelites and Whigs 
 would result in a wretchedly weak 
 Ministry, whereas, if the Whigs 
 combined with the Protectionists, 
 they would form a solid majority in 
 the House of Commons, and Lord 
 George, who had Whig sympa- 
 thies, might easily join a Wliig 
 Cabinet. Such a union was pos- 
 sible on the basis he had indicated 
 
 on INIarch 26th — a low fixed duty, 
 better terms than the Protectionists 
 would get out of Peel. The only 
 difficulty was "the Edinburgh 
 Manifesto." These negotiations 
 reached Lord John Russell's ears, 
 and he acted with promptitude. 
 The second reading passed on May 
 2Sth, and he called a meeting of 60 
 Wliig peers the same afternoon at 
 Lansdowne House. Lord Mel- 
 bourne grumbled, for he had dis- 
 liked the Bill throughout, and 
 had even called Peel's conduct 
 " damned dishonest " when dining 
 with the Queen. But at last he 
 gave way with the remark, " If you 
 are going to eat all the dirt Peel 
 chooses to make I don't mind tak- 
 ing my mouthful." In this manner 
 Palmerston's scheme was irus- 
 trated. 
 
 On tliis same day another im- 
 portant consultation took place 
 between Disraeli and Bentinck 
 in the library of the House of 
 Commons. The Ministers only 
 controlled 116 members, about one- 
 sixth of the House, yet only on the 
 Coercion Bill could Whigs and 
 Protectionists unite against them. 
 Bentinck determined to oppose 
 the third reading. His objection 
 was that lie had voted, as had most 
 of his followers except Disraeli, 
 both for the first and second read- 
 ing. It was true that his support 
 had been conditional on the Minis- 
 ters showing promj^titude. There 
 had been a delay of six weeks, and 
 of that delay he might take advan- 
 tage. It must be admitted tliat the 
 excuse is rather transparent, it just 
 hides the nakedness of inconsis- 
 tency and no more. But the Pro- 
 tectionists were resolved to turn 
 out the Ministry because they 
 honestly had no confidence in tiicm. 
 In the "game of politics" a man 
 must play according to his hand ; 
 he is sometimes in a position when 
 his play must be guided by the 
 evident weakness of his opponent's 
 cards.
 
 24 
 
 PEEL'S CONDUCT ON CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. 
 
 The Canning Incident — Retrihtiiion 
 
 or Mistake. 
 The Coercion Bill came up for 
 second reading on June 8th. Lord 
 George Bentinck premised by 
 saying that he opposed the Bill on 
 the grounds above mentioned, but 
 this part of his speech was obviously 
 a mere means of getting a fair field. 
 Then he turned and aimed his 
 blows directly at Sir Robert Peel. 
 "The right lion, baronet says that 
 he will not be a minister on suffer- 
 ance. Why, sir, he must be deaf 
 to all arovmd him if he does not 
 find out very soon that he is in 
 that position. Is he not supported 
 sometimes by gentlemen opposite, 
 sometimes by gentlemen around 
 h,im. His main supporters are his 
 paid Janissaries, who, while they 
 support him, express disgust at his 
 conduct. When we remember his 
 conduct in 1825, 1827, and 1829, 
 though by long sitting on the stool 
 of repentance we might forgive him, 
 the country will not twice pardon 
 such crimes in the same man. It 
 is time that atonement should be 
 made to an insulted country and 
 an insulted parliament, and to the 
 betrayed constituency of the Em- 
 pire." He then referred to Peel's 
 conduct towards Canning. "I 
 have lived long enough to remember 
 with deep and heart-felt sorrow the 
 time when he hunted an illustrious 
 relative of mine to death, and when 
 he stated that he could not support 
 the Ministry because a leading 
 member of it was likely to bring 
 forward the question of Catholic 
 Emancipation. That was the con- 
 duct of the right hon. baronet in 
 1827. But in 1829 he tells the 
 House that he had changed his 
 opinions on that subject in 1825, 
 and had communicated the change 
 to Lord Liverpool. • • • If, there- 
 fore, the right hon. baronet says it 
 is base and dishonest, and incon- 
 sistent with his duty to continue to 
 maintain opinions after he has 
 changed them, does he not stand 
 
 convicted, on his own verdict, of 
 base and dishonest conduct, con- 
 duct inconsistent with his duty to 
 his Sovereign ?" 
 
 The attack was vigorous and 
 well-timed. Peel's Government 
 was being killed by general mis- 
 trust, and anything calculated to 
 increase that mistrust thrust the 
 tottering Government from its last 
 foothold. Lord George Bentinck 
 had relied for his statements, not 
 on any printed reports, but on his 
 own memory, for he was in the 
 House in 1829, and on the general 
 belief, as to the prevalence of which 
 Charles Greville speaks, that 
 Peel had made such a speech in 
 1829. Peel answered him on June 
 12th. The Prime Minister was 
 in excellent spirits. He began 
 with a joke about the housemaid 
 referred to by a member who was 
 afraid to go to Ireland. "iVe sit 
 ancill^ amor tibi pndori." He denied 
 that he had changed his opinions 
 0:1 Catholic Emancipation in 1825, 
 or that he had communicated the 
 change to Lord Liverpool. He 
 said that he had never admitted 
 any change in 1829, and solemnly 
 declared that he was in fact op- 
 posed to Catholic Emancipation 
 up to 1829. He concluded with 
 an argument like that which he 
 had already used concerning Dis- 
 RAELi. "Since 1835, I have 
 been honoured with his pure and 
 disinterested support. He called 
 me his right hon. friend ; he per- 
 mitted me to be the leader of the 
 part)^ to which he belonged. Never, 
 until Monda}^ last, did I harbour 
 the suspicion that the noble lord 
 believed me to be a man who had 
 hunted his relation to death." 
 
 The speech was very effective in 
 the House, but Disraeli found on 
 enquiry that there was consider- 
 able documentary evidence to 
 support Bentinck's charge, and 
 brought the subject forward once 
 more on the 15th. He showed that 
 in the report called the JMirror of
 
 RETRIBUTION OR MISTAKE. 
 
 25 
 
 Parliament there occurred in a 
 speech of Feel's, deHvered on 
 March 8th, 1829, the following sen- 
 tence — " I stated to the Earl of 
 Liverpool (in 1825) that in conse- 
 (juence of the decision against me 
 by the voices of the representa- 
 tives of Ireland something respect- 
 ing the Catholics ought, in my 
 opinion, to be done." The Parlia- 
 mentary report of the Times, printed 
 on March 6th, agreed with the 
 Mirror of Parliament. Hansard, it 
 was true, did not contain the con- 
 fession, the same sentence in that 
 report ending, "It was my anxious 
 wish to be relieved from office." 
 But a note to the speech in Hansard 
 ran " By permission of Mr. Secre- 
 tary Peel." It was a corrected, not 
 to say garbled, report. 
 
 One of Peel's opponents in 1829 
 was Sir E. Knatchbull, who, when 
 replying to Peel in the same de- 
 bate, observed, " If at that period 
 (1825-27) the policy of conceding 
 the Catholic question was clear to 
 the right hon. gentleman, I say that 
 in justice to himself, in justice to 
 his friends, in justice to his country, 
 in justice to Mr. Canning, he ought 
 not to have concealed it. If, as he 
 says now, he had discov'ered in 
 1825 the necessity of passing this 
 Measure, I ask why he did not say 
 so in 1827, and give his support to 
 Mr. Canning then." This passage 
 also was omitted from Hansard, 
 though reported in the Times and 
 the Mirror of Parliament. Peel had 
 never complained of misrepresenta- 
 tion, had never corrected the report 
 in the Times, or in the Mirror of 
 Parliament. Sir E. Knatchuull 
 was so prominent a man, and his 
 speech so famous, that Peel could 
 hardly plead ignorance of his accu- 
 sation. 
 
 Lastly, Disraeli quoted the fol- 
 lowing passage from the Edinburgh 
 Revieiu as proof, not of the fact, but 
 of the prevailing impression — " At 
 the same time (as his retirement 
 from Canning's Government) he 
 
 had in his writing desk a letter in 
 which, two years before, he told 
 Lord Liverpool that the Catholic 
 claims ouglit to be granted." Dis- 
 raeli concluded with a comparison 
 between Canning and Peel. 
 "The vulture," he exclaimed, 
 *' rules where once the eagle reign- 
 ed." "Nemesis inspires this 
 debate and dictates this division 
 and seals with the stigma of 
 Parliamentary reprobation tlie 
 catastrophe of a sinister career." 
 Probably no speech ever delivered 
 had such an enormous effect. The 
 Plouse considered for the time that 
 the case was made out, and that 
 Peel had been guilty not only of 
 the basest treachery to Canning 
 but of deliberate falsehood. The 
 Minister, his Parliamentary man- 
 ner for once broken through, rose, 
 pale, agitated, and suffering. The 
 House in which he had once been 
 supreme would barely listen. He 
 uttered some broken disconnected 
 sentences, which seem, as reported 
 in Hansard, absolutely unlike liis 
 usual fluent style, begged them to 
 suspend their judgment and then 
 retired, discomfited and depressed. 
 On June igth. Peel delivered his 
 defence, having spent tlie inter- 
 vening time in searching through 
 old documents. He declared tliat 
 he only possessed four letters from 
 Lord Liverpool, which he pro- 
 ceeded to read, showing that they 
 were inconsistent with the theory 
 that he had confessed any change 
 of opinions to that Statesman. He 
 tlien proceeded to deal with the in- 
 criminating passage. It was not 
 contained in any other report, news- 
 paper, or otlierwise, except the 
 Times and the Mirror of Parliament. 
 He stated, on the authority of 
 reporters, whom lie had consulted, 
 that the Mirror was not an inde- 
 pendent report, but a compilation 
 from the newspaper reports edited 
 by a Mr. Burrows, since dead, who 
 was not a reporter, and could not 
 write shorthand. There had been,
 
 26 
 
 FALL OF PEEL'S LAST MINISTRY. 
 
 lie urged, some mistake on the part 
 of the Times' rc]iortcr, which had 
 been copied into the Miryor. As to 
 Sir E. Knatchdull, probably he 
 had not been present, and had 
 based his speech on the Times' 
 report. 
 
 Peel was considered to have 
 cleared himself, and Lord John 
 Russell expressed himself satis- 
 fied with the explanation, adding, 
 " But at the same time I cannot 
 express surprise or wonder at any 
 wrath or vindictive feeling being 
 directed against him, because in 
 his career he has done that which 
 perhaps has never happened to so 
 eminent a man before. He has 
 twice changed his opinion on the 
 greatest political questions of the 
 day." 
 
 At the same time the discussion 
 did the Ministry enormous harm, 
 as it enabled men distinctly to 
 realise Peel's double change of 
 opinion. Some remarks seem 
 called for as to the real facts in the 
 controversy. Peel, in the first 
 place, was in error about Mr. Bur- 
 rows and the Mirror. He was a 
 reporter, and he could write short- 
 hand. The Mirror was not a com- 
 pilation, and Mr. Burrows was not 
 dead in June, 1846, but absent in 
 India. Moreover, Sir E. Knatch- 
 BULL was present on March 8th, 
 1829, and his name is down in the 
 division list. What is still more 
 remarkable is that he was alive in 
 1846, and that Peel was person- 
 ally acquainted and yet did not 
 get a letter from him. At the 
 same time Disraeli himself came 
 to the conclusion that Peel did not 
 alter his opinions about Catholic 
 Emancipation before 1829, and con- 
 sequently did not communicate, or 
 say that he had communicated, 
 such a change to Lord Liverpool. 
 Yet the circumstantial evidence is 
 very strong in favour of that 
 damaging sentence. Possibly 
 Peel made some slip of the tongue 
 which only the MzVror and the Times 
 
 reported. Peel's whole career is 
 dead against the accusation, which 
 was, however, brought forward in 
 perfect good faith. 
 
 " Nemesis." 
 
 On June 25th, the Corn Law 
 Bill came down from the House of 
 Lords. Peel had triumphed, the 
 Protectionists were beaten, the 
 Bill had become law, but, in his 
 hour of victory, he was in their 
 power. The Whigs were solid 
 against Coercion. Even Cobden 
 deserted Peel. He expressed con- 
 fidence, indeed, in him, eulogising 
 him, passing panegyrics and en- 
 comiums upon him, thanking him 
 " for the unwearied perseverance, 
 unswerving firmness and great 
 ability with which he had conduct- 
 ed through the House of Commons 
 one of the most munificent reforms 
 ever carried through any country." 
 
 But what advantage is there in 
 eulogiums, or in confidence, to a 
 man who wants votes ? " About 
 half-past one," says Disraeli, "the 
 galleries were cleared, the division 
 was called, and the question put. 
 • • • One hundred Protectionist 
 members followed the Minister ; 
 more than 80 avoided the division ; 
 about the same follov.ed Lord 
 George Bentinck. • • • It was 
 impossible he (Peel) could have 
 marked them w^ithout emotion — the 
 flower of that great party w^hich 
 had been so proud to follow one 
 who had been so proud to lead 
 them. • • • They had stood by 
 him in the darkest hour, and had 
 borne him from the depths of politi- 
 cal despair to the proudest of living 
 positions. ' The}^ say we are beaten 
 by 73)' Avhispered the most im- 
 portant member of the Cabinet 
 (Sir James Graham), in a tone of 
 surprise, to Sir Robert Peel. Sir 
 Robert did not reply, or even turn 
 his head. He looked very grave, 
 and extended his chin, as was his 
 habit when he was annoyed and 
 cared not to speak."
 
 LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S GOVERNMENT. 
 
 27 
 
 The great Minister, whose ten- 
 ure of office was to exceed that of 
 Pitt and rival Walpole's, had 
 fallen never to rise again. We may- 
 admire his sterling abilities and his 
 sound Conservative instincts, we 
 may appreciate his disinterested 
 and patriotic motives, but we can- 
 not but confess that his fall was 
 just. With the best intentions 
 and in perfect honesty, he had 
 not only practised but formulated 
 into a maxim the immoral and 
 xuiconstitutional theory that the 
 leader of a party has no duties 
 towards that party, that he may 
 use the influence they have given 
 him to ruin his own followers. 
 On this theory, if the leader 
 
 changes his principles while his 
 followers do not change tlieirs, he 
 is not bound to relinquish his seat, 
 or to vacate the leadership to which 
 he has been elected, but may use 
 his position to force measures' they 
 detest down the throats of the 
 men he represents. Peel's two 
 great tergiversations, though both 
 beneficial at the moment to the 
 country, shook confidence in public 
 men, and set a bad precedent from 
 which we still suffer. Palmerston 
 and Greville, Russell and Ers- 
 KiNE May, all of them Free Traders, 
 agree in condemning his treatment 
 of the Protectionists. Posterity, 
 which sees the effect of his theory, 
 does not approve it. 
 
 1846-52. 
 Conservative Re-organisation. 
 
 The Russell Ministry and the Peditcs, 
 
 ON June 2gth, 1846, Sir 
 Robert Peel informed 
 the House that his Go- 
 vernment had resigned in 
 consequence of the adverse vote on 
 the Irish Pill, and that the Queen 
 had entrusted Lord John Russell 
 with the formation of a new Min- 
 istry. The new Cabinet was re- 
 markable rather for the advantages 
 of its position than for the talents 
 of its members. Although Lord 
 John Russell had in Lord Pal- 
 merston a foreign secretary of bril- 
 liant, though as yet unappreciated, 
 abilities ; in Sir Charles Wood a 
 chancellor of the exchequer con- 
 temptible as an orator, but respect- 
 able as an administrator; in Lord 
 
 Grey a vigorous, if independent, 
 colonial secretary ; in Macau lay a 
 first-class man of letters, if an in- 
 efficient paymaster-general; never- 
 theless the Ministry, as a whole, 
 was strong neither in statesman- 
 ship nor in administrative capacity. 
 They owed their official position 
 not to the merits of themselves or 
 of their party, but to division in the 
 ranks of their opponents. Peel 
 could not hope to form a Govern- 
 ment himself for years to come, and 
 did not wish to see a Conservative 
 Ministry in which he had no part 
 seated on the Government benches. 
 The " Peelites," in fact, having 
 begun by causing a secession from 
 the Tory party, had themselves 
 become secedcrs. The Ministers 
 were masters of the situation, not
 
 28 
 
 HOME AND IRISH POLICY. 
 
 on account of their own popularity, 
 but, as Lord Palmkrston said, 
 " by virtue of tlie absence of any 
 efficient competitors." * 
 
 On taking office. Lord John 
 Russell held out hopes of a pro- 
 gressive line of policy, and stated 
 that great social improvements 
 were required. He did not suc- 
 ceed during his tenure of office in 
 justifying his promises. The Go- 
 vernment were called upon to deal 
 with the alleviation of the famine 
 in Ireland, and to find some sort 
 of remedies for commercial diffi- 
 culties. But beyond such measures 
 of immediate urgency, Lord John 
 Russell had no legislative pro- 
 gramme worthy of the name. He 
 
 * Lord Stanley thus described the 
 state of parties shortly before the General 
 Election of 1S47 : — "Not only is there no 
 subject at this moment prominently 
 occupying the public mind, but there seems 
 to be a general confusion of parties, 
 persons, and principles. Thus we find 
 Lord John Russell, at the head of a 
 Whig Government and supported by 
 Radical followers, adopting for the present 
 a strictly Conservative line of policy, 
 courting the alliance and support of the 
 Church, and braving the hostility of the 
 Dissenters ; Sir Robert Peel, the apostle 
 of Expediency, professing entire abstinence 
 from party, yet perpetually closeted with 
 his under-strappers, interfering with every 
 borough in the kingdom through his agents, 
 and bent on keeping together a party 
 whose bond of union shall be personal 
 subservience to Sir Robert Peel. Lastly, 
 I find myself in the position of watching, 
 rather than opposing, a Government which 
 I cannot trust, yet aware that on some 
 points in which they are most likely to be 
 attacked by those with whom I am acting, 
 as for example on the question of education, 
 I am unable to go the lengths of my 
 supporters ; and to add to all this personal 
 confusion, we have the effects of the Free 
 Trade policy completely obscured by the 
 deficiencies of last year's harvest, and the 
 consequent high price of grain, the result 
 of which is that the farmers, who never 
 look a yard beyond their noses, are com- 
 pletely apathetic and begin to think there 
 is not so much harm in Free Trade after 
 all. That they will ultimately find out 
 their mistake, I do not doubt; but for the 
 purpose of the present Election, it is vain 
 to shut our eyes to the fact that Protection 
 as a cry is dead." 
 
 could only turn his thoughts to the 
 develoi)ment of the Free Trade 
 system. "I considered myself 
 bound," he said, " to carry on the 
 march of the Free Trade Army 
 against monopolies in favour of 
 Colonial sugar, of Canadian timber, 
 and of English ships." Many com- 
 petent judges held that to allow 
 Knglish merchants to send their 
 cargoes by foreign ships would ruin 
 the shipping interests, but the 
 Navigation Laws were repealed in 
 1849 after a long Parliamentary 
 struggle. The shipowners had 
 supported Peel in establishing 
 Free Trade in corn, but turned to 
 Peel's opponents when their own 
 monopoly was assailed. Bentinck 
 and DiSR.\ELi assisted them w^ith a 
 zeal which proved that the Tories 
 cared more for principles than for 
 men or for classes. 
 
 The reduction of the sugar 
 duties was proposed by Lord John 
 Russell on July 20th, 1846. 
 The policy of the English Go- 
 vernment had hitherto been to 
 maintain a prohibitive duty upon 
 slave-grown sugar, and a protect- 
 ing duty upon other kinds. Lord 
 John Russell's proposal to sub- 
 stitute a small uniform duty was 
 opposed by Lord George Ben- 
 tinck on the ground that it would 
 both check the advance of produc- 
 tion by free Englishmen and give a 
 great additional stimulus to slave- 
 labour. Sir Robert Peel stated 
 clearly his objections to the reduc- 
 tion of the duty, but supported 
 Lord John Russell because he 
 could not trust a Government 
 formed by Lord George Bentinck. 
 In the result, the ISIinistr)'- carried 
 their point by 265 votes to 135. 
 
 Irish Policy of the Goveynment. 
 
 Lord John Russell, though he 
 had come into power by defeating 
 Sir Robert Peel on his Coercion 
 Bill, had scarcely been in office a 
 month before the Government in- 
 troduced an Irish Arms Bill. The
 
 CONDITION OF ICELAND. 
 
 29 
 
 Measure naturally aroused con- 
 siderable opposition, and was 
 speedily withdrawn. The difficulty 
 of dealing with Ireland was increas- 
 ed by the influence of the "physical 
 force" party. O'Connell en- 
 treated the Repealers not to be led 
 away by violent enthusiasts, and 
 to give the Government a fair trial, 
 but the only effect was a split 
 in " the tail." " Young Ireland " 
 seceded under the leadership of 
 Smith O'Brien, while the older 
 section remained true to O'Con- 
 nell. O'Connell himself gave no 
 further trouble of any sort to the 
 Government. He died on his way 
 to Rome, on May 15th, 1847, sad- 
 dened by the failure of his plans, 
 but comforted by the reflection that 
 he had been the champion of what 
 he believed to be " the cause of 
 religion and liberty." 
 
 In their relief measures, the Min- 
 isters showed a conspicuous want 
 of statesmanship. They "pottered 
 with the difficulty," says Mr. 
 M'Carthy, " rather than encoun- 
 tered it." They closed the works 
 set on foot by Peel, in an attempt 
 to combine the employment of the 
 destitute on public works with the 
 repayment of money advanced by 
 the Treasury. Such was the inten- 
 tion of the Labour Rate Bill of 
 1 846. The result was what Mr. T. 
 P. O'Connor is justified in calling 
 the "hideous demoralisation of 
 Ireland," and Ministers met Parlia- 
 ment in the following year with the 
 confession that the IJill had failed.* 
 
 The new IMeasure of the Govern- 
 ment — commonly called the "Soup 
 Kitchen Act " — aimed at enabling 
 the labourers to work on their own 
 holdings by supplying them with 
 
 • The state of Ireland at the beginninq 
 of 1847 may be gathered from the 
 following quotation from the Dublin 
 Evening Post of February 17th : — "Day by 
 day the accounts that reach us are becom- 
 ing more horrifying. There is scarcely a 
 county in Ireland — unless Kildare may be 
 an exception — in which the peojile are not 
 dying of starvation. A correspondent from 
 
 food through local relief connnit- 
 tees acting in conjunction with the 
 Guardians of the Poor. Lord 
 George Bentinck put forward 
 a scheme for advancing sixteen 
 millions to Irish railway enter- 
 prise. But it was as hopeless a 
 task in 1847 as it has been ever 
 since to convince the Liberal party 
 that the welfare of Ireland is pro- 
 moted rather by attracting capital 
 into the sister island than by up- 
 setting economical arrangements, 
 or granting subsidies from the 
 Imperial Exchequer. The House 
 of Commons rejected Bentinck's 
 scheme by a majority of 214. 
 
 The hatred of England wliicli 
 characterises so many of the Irish 
 race wherever they may be found, 
 is derived from traditions of the 
 famine. Private benefactions, how- 
 ever generous, were not able to 
 blot out the incompetence of the 
 Government and the heartlessness 
 of Free Trade theorists. 
 
 Social Legislation. 
 
 More credit is due to Lord John 
 Russell for his Education scheme, 
 which, like its predecessor, liad to 
 encounter the opposition of the 
 Dissenting Radicals, to whom the 
 Premier administered the follow- 
 ing dignified rebuke — "Be the 
 opposition which we meet with 
 what it may, however formidable 
 it may be at this moment (and I 
 lament to see it in such a cause 
 withdrawing from us the aid and 
 support of many who, through 
 good report and through evil re- 
 port, have supported our political 
 course), yet be this disadvantage 
 what it may, it will nevertheless be 
 a consolation to me that I have 
 
 Drogheda writes that wretched women 
 and children were to be seen on the decks 
 of steamers striving to appease their 
 hunger with the turnips half eaten by the 
 cattle on board. So far as can be ascer- 
 tained, the workhouse mortality in Ireland 
 for the first week of [anuary was 1,405 out 
 of 108,500 receiving relief, and in the 
 second week 1.493 out of 110,501."
 
 30 
 
 THE TEN HOURS BILL. 
 
 made an attempt to diminish the 
 empire of ignorance, and to raise 
 tlie pcoi)le of this country in the 
 scale of rehgion and virtue among 
 the nations of the globe." 
 
 The most important measure 
 passed by the Parliament of 1841 
 in its last Session was Lord Ash- 
 ley's "Ten Hours" Bill. He had 
 failed to carry his new Factory Act 
 in 1844 and in 1846, owing to the 
 violent opposition of a Radical 
 section. In 1847 he had not a seat 
 in Parliament, and Mr. Fielden 
 took charge of the Measure. The 
 second reading was supported by 
 the Government and by the Tory 
 leaders, but the Radical opposition 
 was renewed. Mr. Bright warned 
 tlie House that, "if they armed the 
 workmen against the capitalists by 
 giving the law of ten hours, or any 
 other number of hours, for the 
 duration of labour," he believed 
 " it would be impossible that the 
 feeling which hitherto had existed 
 on the part of the manufacturers 
 towards their workmen would con- 
 tinue, should the workmen think 
 that by coming to that House they 
 could fix the time of work and 
 the amount of wages. He thought 
 if such a result took place it would 
 be the duty of the manufacturers — 
 nay, that it would be absolutely 
 necessary for them — to take such 
 steps as would prevent the ruin 
 from coming upon them which 
 must result from the passing of 
 this Measure." Mr. Bright was 
 a teller for the Noes on the second 
 reading, and was supported by Mr. 
 Cardwell, Mr. Hume, and other 
 Radical members, but the general 
 feeling of the House was too strong 
 for him, and the Bill was carried 
 by 195 to 87. In Committee, Mr. 
 Bright and Mr. Hume fulfilled 
 their threat to oppose the Bill " at 
 every step," and it will always be 
 remembered to the discredit of 
 Lord John Russell that he voted 
 with them for the omission of the 
 "Ten Hours Clause." But public 
 
 opinion, both in Parliament and in 
 the country, was loud in its ex- 
 pression of sympathy with the 
 operatives, and in June the Bill 
 became law. 
 
 Position of Parties after the General 
 Election of 1847. 
 
 The General Election of 1847 
 made no substantial change in tlie 
 strength of parties. The new House 
 consisted of 226 Protectionists, 105 
 Peelites, and 325 Members, of mis- 
 cellaneous opinions, who supported 
 the Government under the name of 
 the "Liberal" party. Sir Robert 
 Peel continued till the day of his 
 death in 1850 to make it his object 
 to keep the Protectionists out of 
 power. His friends maintained 
 their existence as a separate party, 
 though the Protectionists still 
 hoped that many of them would 
 return to the Tory fold as soon as 
 they saw that Peel would never 
 again be Prime Minister. 
 
 The Protectionists remained un- 
 der the leadership of Lord George 
 Bentinck, who commanded the 
 attention of the House by his mas- 
 terly treatment of argument and 
 of details. His brilliant lieutenant, 
 Disraeli, had not yet won the full 
 confidence of the older Tories, to 
 whom his originality was a puzzle." 
 In 1847, Lord George Bentinck 
 supported the removal of Jewish 
 Disabilities. This action caused 
 great dissatisfaction, as Disraeli 
 says, "among a very respectable 
 though limited section " of the Pro- 
 tectionists, and at the end of the 
 
 * The admiration with which he was 
 regarded by Bentinck is illustrated by a 
 letter from the latter to Croker. "You ask 
 me of Disraeli's manner of speaking and 
 eftectiveness in debate. I will answer you 
 by giving you my brother Henry's 
 observations on the various speakers in 
 the House. Henry is rather a cynical 
 critic. He expressed himself greatly 
 disappointed with Sir Robert Peel and 
 Lord John Russell, and concluded by 
 saying that Disraeli was the only man he 
 had heard who at all came up to his ideas 
 of an orator."
 
 RETIREMENT OF LORD GEORGE DENTINCK. 
 
 31 
 
 year he ceased to be their leader. 
 Lord Granby was asked to take 
 his place, but declined. " It appears 
 strange," writes Lord Malmesuury 
 in his Diary, "that in these pro- 
 ceedings Disraeli's name was not 
 put forward, but, whoever may in 
 future take the lead in the House 
 of Commons by election, he must 
 virtually and practicall};- hold that 
 office. There can be no doubt that 
 there is a very strong feeling among 
 Conservatives in the House of 
 Commons against him. They are 
 puzzled and alarmed by his myste- 
 rious manner, which has much of 
 the foreigner about it, and are in- 
 capable of understanding and ap- 
 preciating the great abilities which 
 certainly underlie, and, as it were, 
 are concealed by this mask." 
 
 Accordingly, when Bentinck 
 retired to the second bench below 
 the gangway on the Opposition 
 side, Disraeli was lei't to occupy 
 the leader's seat. Disraeli says 
 he wished to abandon the place in 
 which he had been "unwillingly 
 and fortuitously" placed, but "by 
 the advice, or rather, at the earnest 
 request, of Lord George Bentinck, 
 this course was relinquished as in- 
 dicative of schism." On September 
 2ist, Lord George Bentinck died. 
 His death left Disraeli and Lord 
 Stanley to carry out the work of 
 Conservative re-organisation. The 
 agriculturists soon discovered that 
 the apathy of 1847 was a mistake. 
 When high prices fell, they were 
 loud in denunciation of Peel as 
 their "arch-enemy," and clamoured 
 for the removal of the excessive 
 charges on land. Disraeli argued 
 in each Session that, as Parliament 
 had caused the distress of the land- 
 owners and farmers by fiscal 
 changes, it was bound to remove 
 some of the burdens on tiie land. 
 All, he said, that the owners and 
 occupiers of the land asked for was 
 justice. They did not shrink from 
 competition, but asked not to be 
 forced into it manacled. The Go- 
 
 vernment, while admitting the diffi- 
 culties in which the agriculturists 
 were placed, steadily refused to 
 agree to any of Disraeli's resolu- 
 tions, though, in 1851, he was only 
 defeated by a majority of 14. 
 
 Libci'al Opposition to Reform. 
 While the Conservative leaders 
 were pleading the cause of agricul- 
 ture, the Ministers directed their 
 efforts to curbing the impatience of 
 their followers. With the Russell 
 Government began the internecine 
 conflict between the ofiicial Whigs 
 and the Radicals below the gang- 
 way. Lord John Russell had 
 few principles in common with a 
 Hume, a Cobden, or a Bright. 
 In 1848, Hume represented cheese- 
 paring and no income tax, Cobden 
 the reduction of armaments. In 
 1849, Cobden moved to reduce 
 expenditure from ;^54, 185,000 to 
 ;^44,422,ooo, the amount of tlic 
 estimates in 1835, but the Govern- 
 ment defeated him by 275 to 78. 
 In the following year Cobden re- 
 newed his attack, selecting for 
 special condemnation " successive 
 augmentations of our warlike 
 establishments and outlays for de- 
 fensive armaments," with a similar 
 result. Lord John Russell 
 showed equally small favour to 
 " Reform." In 1848 he declared 
 that neither the middle nor the 
 working-classes were favourable to 
 household suffrage. In 1851 Mr. 
 Locke-King obtained leave to 
 bring in a Bill to reduce the fran- 
 chise in counties to £10, and Mr. 
 Berkeley carried a motion in 
 favour of the ballot, in both cases 
 in the teeth of Government oj>po- 
 sition. The House rejected a 
 resolution moved by Mr. Tki;i.aw- 
 ney in 1849 for abolishing Church 
 rates by 183 to 20. 
 
 Chartists and Special Constables. 
 
 In 1848 considerable alarm was 
 caused by the proceedings of the 
 Chartists. The Chartist leaders 
 said that their petition to Parlia-
 
 32 
 
 THE CHARTIST AGITATION. 
 
 nicnt had received more than five 
 million sij^naturcs, and in order 
 to convince the House of their 
 strength they convened a mass 
 meeting of tlieir supporters on 
 Kennington Common. They pro- 
 posed to form the meeting into a 
 procession, and to make their way 
 in marching order to the door of 
 tlie House of Commons. Accord- 
 ing to Feargus O'Connor and the 
 other leaders, their intention was 
 to make a great display of their 
 " physical force." On the day of 
 the meeting, extraordinary pre- 
 cautions were taken to prevent a 
 disturbance. The Duke of Well- 
 ington took charge of the military 
 defence of London. Guards were 
 stationed round the public build- 
 ings, and more than 4,000 soldiers 
 were sent to Kennington Common. 
 A quarter of a million of special 
 constables were enrolled. Prince 
 Louis Napoleon among the num- 
 ber. The event falsified both the 
 predictions of the Chartists and the 
 fears of the Government. 
 
 Greville remarks "The in- 
 tended tragedy was rapidly changed 
 to a ludicrous farce. The Chartists, 
 20,000 in number, assembled on 
 Kennington Common. Presently 
 Mr. Mayne appeared on the ground, 
 and sent one of his inspectors to 
 say he wanted to speak to Feargus 
 O'Connor. Feargus thought he 
 was going to be arrested, and was 
 in a terrible fright ; but he went to 
 Mayne, who merely said he was 
 desired to inform him that the 
 meeting would not be interfered 
 with, but the procession would not 
 be allowed. Feargus insisted on 
 shaking hands with Mayne, swore 
 he was his best of friends, and 
 instantly harangued his rabble, ad- 
 vising them not to provoke a col- 
 lision, and to go away quietly — 
 advice they instantly obeyed with 
 great alacrity and good humour. 
 Thus all evaporated in smoke. 
 Feargus himself then repaired to 
 the Home Ofiice, saw Sir George 
 
 Grey, and told him it was all over, 
 and thanked the Government for 
 their leniency, assuring him the 
 Convention would not have been 
 so lenient if they had got the upper 
 hand. Grey asked him if he was 
 going back to this meeting. He 
 said. No ; that he had had his toes 
 trodden on till he was lame, and his 
 pocket picked, and he would have 
 no more to do with it." 
 
 The petition was presented to 
 the House of Commons in the 
 ordinary way. Instead of 5,706,000 
 there were only 1,975,472 signa- 
 tures, mostly fictitious names. 
 The Chartists were thoroughly dis- 
 credited by these results of all 
 their boasting. Many of the ob- 
 jects they had at heart were sound, 
 but they failed to understand that 
 great political changes are the 
 work of time, and their impatience 
 caused them to adopt methods 
 which alienated the sympathy of 
 all moderate men. 
 
 " Young Ireland.''^ 
 
 In Ireland, Smith O'Brien and 
 his colleagues grew more and more 
 turbulent. At first, they contented 
 themselves with revolutionary talk, 
 but in the spring of 1848 they 
 caused serious anxiety by giving 
 definite advice about the means 
 and methods of warfare. On July 
 22nd, Lord John Russell carried 
 the suspension of the Habeas Cor- 
 pus Act, and the "Young Ireland" 
 party saw that the hour had come 
 when, if ever, they must make good 
 their threats. But their attempts 
 to create a rebellion were fruitless, 
 if we except the ludicrous combat 
 between a thousand men, armed 
 with pikes and firearms, under the 
 command of Smith O'Brien, and 
 a small body of constabulary, at 
 Ballingarry. Not one of the police 
 was injured, and O'Brien's party 
 ran away in great confusion. The 
 conviction of the ringleaders gave 
 a death-blow to the " Young Ire- 
 land " movement, but the excite-
 
 RUSSELL'S -NO POPERY " CRY. 
 
 33 
 
 ment in Ireland continued, and the 
 suspension of the Habeas Corpus 
 Act was renewed in the following 
 year. 
 
 The Durham Letter. 
 
 Towards the close of 1847, the 
 Roman Catholic bishops were 
 authorised by the Pope to adopt 
 English titles. This act of "Papal 
 Aggression," as it was called, 
 gave rise to much indignation 
 in ultra-Protestant circles, and 
 for several years Protestant orators 
 strove to rouse the country to resist 
 the "encroachments of Romanism." 
 In 1850, the country was startled by 
 the letter addressed by Lord John 
 Russell to the Bishop of Durham, 
 in which he attacked the Roman 
 Catholics, and said he was " still 
 more alarmed" by the Tractarians. 
 This letter was condemned by 
 reasonable men of both parties.* 
 When Parliament met, in 1851, 
 Mr. Roebuck censured the P'iu.me 
 Minister for raising needless ex- 
 citement. "Was it wise or worthy 
 of the noble lord, so long the advo- 
 cate of civil and religious liberty, to 
 lend the sanction of his great name 
 
 * Croker wrote to Lord Brougham — 
 " I hardly know what to think or say 
 about this 'No Popery' paroxysm. I do 
 not believe that there is much religious 
 feeling at the bottom of it, for there is not, 
 I think, much fear of any religious danger, 
 and the most forward in the agitation have 
 been your worthy friends, the Dissenters, 
 who would have rather liked, as they did 
 in James II's time, the encroachments of 
 Popery on the Church ; but who, on this 
 occasion, come forward as partisans to 
 support Lord John, and who are glad of 
 the plausible (and with many the real) 
 ground of their old aversion to Popery, 
 'ihe Anglican clergy join more reservedly. 
 The most zealous are the Anti-Puseyites, 
 who are glad of an occasion to snub the Trac- 
 tarians, and the latter are willing (or, at 
 least, most of them) to retreat back into a 
 truer position. But I am, like you, unable to 
 account for Lord John's letter, which seems 
 to me to be at once rash and insidious — 
 rash as against his friends the Romanists, 
 insidious as against us; and the attempt 
 to lay the blame of the Popish attempt on 
 the Tractarians is really the old story of 
 the wolf and the lamb." 
 
 to the puritanical bigotry of Eng- 
 land ? " Disraeli followed on the 
 same side, but Lord John Russell 
 was forced to take some action to 
 prove his sincerity, and on Febru- 
 ary 7th he introduced the Ecclesi- 
 astical Titles Bill, by which he 
 hoped to hiunble the Roman Catho- 
 lic hierarchy. 
 
 A Ministerial Crisis. 
 The progress of the Bill was in- 
 terrupted by a Ministerial crisis. 
 The moral victory of Disraeli on 
 the question of agricultural distress, 
 and the success of Mr. Locke- 
 King's motion led to the resigna- 
 tion of the Government. The fall 
 of Lord John Russell was almost 
 as acceptable to the Radicals as 
 to the Tories. Mr. Bright said to 
 Roebuck, " We will never stand 
 Lord John as Prime Minister 
 again." The Queen sent for Lord 
 Stanley, who at once set about 
 the construction of a Cabinet. At 
 Lord Stanley's house there were 
 present Mr. Disraeli, Sir J. Pak- 
 iNGTON, Lord Malmesbury, Mr. 
 Walpole, Lord Hardwicke, Mr. 
 Henley, Mr. Herries, Lord John 
 Manners, and Lord Eglinton. 
 Lord Stanley suggested the posts 
 to which he thought each should 
 be appointed, and his views were 
 opposed by none except Mr. Hen- 
 ley, who " made such difficulties 
 about himself, and submitted so 
 many upon various subjects, that 
 Lord Stanley threw up the game." 
 Lord Stanley announced his fail- 
 ure to form a Cabinet in the House 
 of Lords, attributing it to want of 
 experience in public business on 
 the ])art of his supporters. He 
 described his party as "numerous 
 no doubt, but still uniloubtcdly in 
 a minority in the House of Com- 
 mons on several occasions; number- 
 ing in its ranks men of talent and 
 intellect, but hardly one individual 
 of political experience and versed 
 in official business." "A great 
 disailvantage for any party to
 
 34 
 
 LORD PALMERSTON AT THE FOREIGN OFFICE. 
 
 labour under ; but there is a third 
 party in the House of Commons, 
 not indeed very extensive numeri- 
 cally, but most important as re- 
 gards oflicial experience and talents 
 — I mean that small party which 
 has adhered to the policy of the 
 late Sir Robert Peel." So the 
 former Ministers returned to their 
 places and to their Ecclesiastical 
 Titles Bill. In their hearts they 
 Avere ashamed of the cry their Chief 
 had raised, and they tried to strike 
 out the effective clauses of the Bill. 
 The Measure passed into law, with 
 several amendments, and remained 
 on the Statute Book for twenty 
 years as a monument of the bigotry 
 and incapacity which disgraced 
 the Parliament of 1847-52. 
 
 Lord Palmer st on as Foreign Secretary, 
 
 The foreign policy of Lord Pal- 
 MERSTON affords a pleasant contrast 
 to the domestic legislation of his 
 colleagues. He was popular with 
 neither section of the party to which 
 he nominally belonged. Cobden 
 and his friends were spoilt by the 
 flattery they had received, and, 
 when the Free Trade agitation was 
 over, they devoted their efforts to 
 spreading the principles of non- 
 intervention, and "scouting" the 
 national defences. Witli men of 
 this school Palmerston had, of 
 course, no sympathy at all. On the 
 other hand, he was never in touch 
 with his colleagues in the Ministry. 
 They complained that he never 
 consulted them, and that when 
 they came to any decision on 
 foreign affairs he quietly took his 
 own course without the slightest 
 regard to their wishes. But Pal- 
 merston knew his hold on the 
 minds and affections of his country- 
 men. At few periods in her history 
 had England greater need of a 
 strong Foreign Secretary, for the 
 years 1848 to 185 1 witnessed revolu- 
 tionary movements in almost all the 
 countries of Europe. Palmerston 
 was influenced by two main motives 
 
 — the protection of British interests 
 and the encouragement of' liberty 
 abroad. The pressure which he 
 brought to bear on the Greek Go- 
 vernment to redress the injuries of 
 British subjects gave rise to the 
 memorable debate on June 24th, 
 1850, in which he delivered a five 
 hours' defence of his policy. He 
 said he deemed the doctrine ad- 
 vanced by the other side — that 
 British subjects in foreign lands 
 were entitled to no protection but 
 that of the laws and tribunals of 
 the country in which they might 
 happen to be, — a doctrine on which 
 no English IMinister had acted, 
 and which the people of England 
 would never suffer. He " chal- 
 lenged the verdict of the House, 
 whether the principles which had 
 guided the foreign policy of the 
 Government had been proper and 
 fitting, and whether, as a subject 
 of ancient Rome could hold himself 
 free from indignity by saying Civis 
 Romanus sum, a. British subject in a 
 foreign country should not be pro- 
 tected b}^ the vigilant e3'e and the 
 strong arm of his Government 
 against injustice and wTong." 
 
 Though Palmerston's policy en- 
 tirely deserved the admiration of 
 the country, it must be admitted 
 that his method of transacting 
 business at the Foreign Office Avas 
 wanting in respect to the Throne. 
 The Queen had constantly to com- 
 plain that the country was com- 
 mitted to measures about which 
 she knew nothing, and that papers 
 to which she had given her sanc- 
 tion were altered or modified 
 by the Foreign Secretary. In 
 December, 1851, when conversing 
 with the French Ambassador, 
 Lord Palmerston expressed his 
 approval of the coup d'etat of 
 Louis Napoleon, without consult- 
 ing the wishes of the Queen or his 
 coUe-agues. Lord John Russell 
 thereupon advised his dismissal 
 from the Foreign Office. Palmer- 
 ston, though treated without much
 
 LORD DERBY'S ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 35 
 
 consideration or courtesy, accepted 
 his dismissal with characteristic 
 good humour. A quarrel with the 
 Sovereign was, as he had said on 
 a previous occasion, "a step which 
 no subject ought to take if he can 
 possibly avoid it;" and he was 
 content to wait for " his tit-for-tat 
 with John Russell." 
 
 Fall of the Ritsscll Ministry. 
 
 After his return to power. Lord 
 John Russell found it necessary 
 to pledge himself to a Reform Bill. 
 In a letter to Croker, dated 
 September 22, 185 1, Lord Derby* 
 said " I have not the least idea 
 what John Russell's Reform Bill 
 may be, and I doubt whether he 
 knows himself; the pledge to bring 
 it forward, one of his most unjusti- 
 fiable acts, was, I believe, given 
 without the knowledge of the Queen 
 or of his colleagues, for the mere 
 purpose of escaping an adverse 
 tlivision, in which, after all, he did 
 not succeed. And now he is in 
 the condition of a man in one of 
 the old stories, who, having sold 
 himself to the devil, is anxious to 
 cheat the devil, and get out of his 
 bargain." Lord Derby, however, 
 wished the Conservative leaders to 
 be cautious of committing them- 
 selves to resist a change, which 
 might have " a really Conservative 
 tendency." 
 
 Soon after the opening of Parlia- 
 ment in 1852, Lord John Russell 
 introduced his Bill. He denied 
 that every man had a riglit to the 
 suffrage, " seeing that the only ob- 
 ject in view ought to be the good 
 government of the country," and 
 he wished to preserve the balance 
 of county and borough representa- 
 tion, and small boroughs, "without 
 which many able men would be 
 excluded from Parliament." He 
 proposed to lower tlie franchise, in 
 boroughs to householders rated at 
 
 • Lord Stanley became Earl of Dekuv 
 
 in j tine, 1S31. 
 
 £^ instead of £10, and in counties 
 to occupiers of houses rated at ^20, 
 and to give a vote to persons in 
 counties or boroughs paying as- 
 sessed or income tax to the amount 
 of 40S. per annum. The Bill was 
 coldly received, and before the 
 second reading the Government 
 was defeated on the Militia Bill. 
 The Government proposed to es- 
 tablish the militia on a local plan, 
 and Palmerston carried an amend- 
 ment by 135 to 128 in favour of 
 the old system of a regular militia. 
 The Ministers tendered their resig- 
 nation, and the Queen again sent 
 for Lord Derby. 
 
 Young and Untried Ministers. 
 
 Lord Derby, as we have seen, 
 could scarcely find one experienced 
 colleague in the Conservative 
 party, but a coalition was impos- 
 sible. Even Lord Palmerston 
 declined to join him, on the ground 
 that he feared a return to Protec- 
 tion, while the leading Peelitcs were 
 drifting into Liberalism. Disraeli, 
 who had never held office before, 
 became Chancellor of the Ex- 
 chequer and leader of the House 
 of Commons. Lord St. Leonards, 
 the greatest equity lawyer of the 
 reign, was Chancellor. Lord Mal- 
 mesbury. Sir J. Pakington, and 
 Mr. Walpole were respectively 
 Foreign, Colonial, and Home Secre- 
 taries. Lord Derby told Lady 
 Malmesbury that he was "driving 
 a team of young horses ; not one 
 had ever been in harness before, 
 and they went beautifully; not one 
 kicked amongst them." 
 
 The General Election of 1852. 
 
 The great difficulty which con- 
 fronted the new Prime Minister 
 was the question of Protection. 
 Lord Derby and most of his 
 lieutenants held that a revision of 
 the policy of 1846 was desirable, 
 but they promised that no propo- 
 sition should bo made until the 
 verdict of the counlrv had been
 
 3'5 
 
 RESULT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION. 
 
 obtained. *' Tlic next election," 
 said Lord Dkruy, " must finally 
 decide, at once and for ever, the 
 great question of our commercial 
 policy." During the few months 
 that intervened before the General 
 Election, the Ministers acquitted 
 themselves with credit. The Militia 
 Bill, over which Lord John Rus- 
 sell had fallen, was carried in a 
 satisfactory form, and Disraeli 
 established his capacity for leader- 
 ship. The Conservatives hoped 
 against hope that they would carry 
 the General Election in the sum- 
 mer, but it was plain that their 
 uncertain position in regard to 
 Protection must be fatal. Disraeli 
 saw clearly that it was too late to 
 reverse the Measure which he had 
 condemned six years before. " The 
 time has gone by" — so ran his 
 election address — "when the in- 
 juries which the great producing 
 interests endure can be alleviated 
 or removed by a recurrence to the 
 laws which, previously to 1846, 
 protected them from such calami- 
 ties. • • • But every principle of 
 abstract justice and every con- 
 sideration of high policy counsel 
 that the producer should be treated 
 as fairly as the consumer ; and 
 intimate that, when the native 
 producer is thrown into unre- 
 stricted competition with external 
 rivals, it is the duty of the Legis- 
 lature in every way to diminish, 
 certainly not to increase, the cost 
 of production. • • • One of the 
 soundest means by which this re- 
 sult ma3' be accomplished is a 
 revision of our taxation." The 
 General Election returned a slightly 
 increased number of MinisteriaHsts. 
 Lord IvIalmesbury divided the new 
 House into 292 Derb3'ites, 30 Peel- 
 ites, 130 Whigs, 160 Radicals, and 
 50 members of the " Irish Brigade." 
 
 Death of the Duke. 
 
 On September i6th, before Par- 
 liament met, the great Duke of 
 \\'ellington died. The national 
 
 sentiment found expression in the 
 words of the Queen. " Britain's 
 pride, her glory, her hero, the 
 greatest man she ever had pro- 
 duced, is no more. • • • One can- 
 not think of this country without 
 the Duke. In him centred every 
 earthly honour. Above party, re- 
 vered by the whole nation, the 
 friend of the Sovereign. The 
 Crown never found, and never will, 
 so devoted, so lo3^al, and so faithful 
 a subject." 
 
 DisvacWs Budget — Defeat of the 
 
 Government. 
 
 On tlie opening of Parliament in 
 November, Lord Derby and Dis- 
 raeli stated that the Government 
 bowed to the decision of the coun- 
 try, and had not the slightest in- 
 tention of proposing a return to 
 artificial prices. Mr. Villi ers 
 proposed a resolution in praise of 
 the Act of 1846, and condemning 
 by implication those who had op- 
 posed it ; but an amendment by 
 Lord Palmerston, in favour of " a 
 policy of unrestricted competition, 
 firml}^ maintained and prudently 
 extended," against which the Pro- 
 tectionists could muster only 53 
 votes, was accepted by the Govern- 
 ment and carried. 
 
 The Government was, however, 
 resolved to attempt a revision of 
 taxation in the interests of agricul- 
 ture, and Disraeli's financial 
 statement of December 3rd was 
 constructed on this basis. Its 
 main features were the reduction 
 of the Malt Tax, and of the Excise 
 Duty on hops, and a corresponding 
 increase in the Inhabited House 
 Duty. Disraeli displayed a skill 
 in dealing with figures that won the 
 admiration even of his opponents, 
 but no section of the Free Trade 
 party was inclined to entertain the 
 redress of agricultural grievances. 
 " I know what I have to face," said 
 Disraeli at the close of the debate, 
 " I liave to face a coalition. The 
 combination ma}- be successful. A
 
 LORD ABERDEEN'S GOVERNMENT. 
 
 37 
 
 combination has been before this 
 successful ; but coaHtions, though 
 they may be successful, have always 
 found that their triumphs have 
 been but brief. This I know, that 
 England does not love coalitions. 
 And I appeal from the coalition to 
 that public opinion whose wise and 
 irresistible influence can control 
 even the decrees of Parliament, 
 and without whose support even. 
 
 the most august and ancient insti- 
 tutions are but as the baseless 
 fabric of a vision." The Govern- 
 ment was defeated by a majority 
 of 19, and DiSKAELi accepted the 
 result with his usual dignity and 
 composure. As he left the House, 
 he remarked to one of his friends, 
 " It will be an unpleasant day for 
 going to Osborne." 
 
 1852-55. 
 A Patriotic Opposition 
 
 The Coalition. 
 
 WHEN Disraeli said that 
 an unprincipled coalition 
 was forming against him 
 he was complaining of no 
 new thing, for the history of party 
 warfare since the accession of the 
 Queen recorded the coalition of 
 three distinct bodies against the 
 Tories who, though always stronger 
 than any one of the three, were 
 sometimes inferior to the collective 
 mass. 
 
 Now, however, a fourth party 
 enters into the arena. The Irish 
 j)arty, which was led by two of the 
 most unprincipled men who have 
 ever sat in the House of Commons 
 (Sadleir and Keogh), was pledged 
 not to accept office, but to press for 
 tenant right. These pledges they 
 promptly broke, and they were 
 bought up without difficulty. 
 Keogh became solicitor-general for 
 Ireland; Sadleir, who subsequent- 
 ly committed forgery and suicide, a 
 lord of the treasury. This was the 
 method adopted by the Whigs for 
 tlealing with Ireland; they granted 
 no reforms but secured Home Rule 
 
 support by giving the 
 
 t \ 
 
 r;c 
 
 lucrative places."' The Peelites 
 accordingly held the balance, and 
 they determined to make the best 
 of their position. Although they 
 did not constitute one-twentieth 
 part of the House, the Ministry 
 was theirs in name and they hat! 
 four places in the Cabinet. Lord 
 Aberdeen was Premier; Lord John 
 Russell, at first, and subsequently 
 Lord Clarendon, took the Foreign 
 Office; Gladstone was Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer; Graham was at 
 the Admiralty; Newcastle was 
 Secretary for the Colonies and for 
 War. Palmerston, as Home 
 Secretary, was the most interesting 
 feature in the Cabinet ; he had 
 been offered the Foreign Office, 
 but he declined for two reasons, of 
 whicli the first is probably the 
 
 • The Irish appointments were received 
 with a shower of pasquinades. One of the 
 best, which has a refrain of "Lord Aber- 
 deen's 'listed the Irish Brigade," sums up 
 the situation as follows : — 
 "'Here's the list of appointments;' all 
 
 silent they Rrow — 
 For the Treasury Sadleir ; Solicitor, Keogh ; 
 O'llaherty's booked for a berth on Cork- 
 hill 
 All the rest will be paid from the Govern- 
 ^ r— ment till."
 
 3S 
 
 OriNIONS OF MINISTERS. 
 
 more important. "Aberdeen and 
 I," he writes, "had (hffered so 
 widely for 25 years on all questions 
 of foreign policy." • • • "It does 
 not do for a man to spend the 
 whole of his time in one depart- 
 ment, and the Home Office brings 
 one in contact with one's country- 
 men." 
 
 Its ivant of Principle. 
 What principles the CoaHtion 
 Cabinet held in common it would, 
 indeed, be difficult to say. Lord 
 Aberdeen, so far as he formed any 
 political theories at all, sympa- 
 thised with the Manchester School, 
 had a strong objection to the mili- 
 tary spirit, and looked upon a 
 pitched battle as an obsolete relic 
 of barbarism. But, like all Peelites, 
 he had a loose hold on his opinions, 
 and was quite competent to com- 
 promise "peace at any price" into 
 war. Palmerston, on the other 
 hand, was a statesman of Imperial 
 instincts, of the type of Pitt or 
 Canning; he regarded Aberdeen 
 with good-natured contempt. Rus- 
 sell professed to be a reformer, 
 although Palmerston disliked any 
 extension of the Franchise; he view- 
 ed with suspicion the machinations 
 of the Pope, but courted the support 
 of the " Irish Brigade." What Mr. 
 Gladstone's opinions were at this 
 date it would be hard to say, nor 
 would the enquiry lead to any 
 important result, as they have 
 been frequently and persistently 
 changed. The result of these differ- 
 ences of opinion was that the Cabi- 
 net could not take up a strong line 
 of policy either in home or foreign 
 affairs without hopeless division 
 and consequent compromise; but 
 the strength of the coalition lay 
 elsewhere. The greatest care had 
 been taken to include all the men 
 with any official experience, all the 
 routinists, the red tape and sealing 
 wax politicians. If the Government 
 could not legislate, at least it could 
 administer. The Peelites settled 
 comfortably into the great spending 
 
 departments, convinced that - an 
 ()pp(n"timity had arrived for show- 
 ing the country what practical men 
 of business could do. 
 
 Palmerston as Home Secretary. 
 Contrary to the general expecta- 
 tion, Palmerston was very suc- 
 cessful as Home Secretary. He 
 inaugurated many of those prac- 
 tical reforms in matters of detail 
 which have a greater influence 
 for good than many more showy 
 measures. He first introduced 
 the ticket-of-leave system to re- 
 place transportation, and he ex- 
 tended the operation of the Factory 
 Acts. In such matters his personal 
 benevolence supplied the place 
 of professional philanthropy. 
 Lord Shaftesbury leaves it on re- 
 cord that if the cause of poverty and 
 affliction was at stake he could 
 depend on the support of the man 
 whom Radicals agreed to consider 
 an air}^ trifler, when the professed 
 friends of the working-classes left 
 him in the lurch. He also under- 
 took another very necessary reform 
 by stopping intra-mural interments. 
 W'hen he went outside the confines 
 of commonsense he was less happy. 
 His answer to Lord Stanley of 
 Alderley's application for special 
 leave in the case of a church 
 dignitary is in doubtful taste, and 
 calculated to wound feelings that 
 are deserving of respect. " Why 
 should bishops and deans be buried 
 under churches if other persons are 
 not to be so ? What special con- 
 nection is there between church 
 dignities and the privilege of being 
 decomposed under the feet of sur- 
 vivors?" His winter assizes and 
 Abatement of Smoke Bills all form 
 part of a scheme of practical legis- 
 lation not unlike Lord Cross's 
 policy from 1874 ^^ 1880. 
 
 RusseWs Failure as a Reformer. 
 
 Lord John Russell was still 
 
 desirous of distinguishing himself 
 
 as a Reformer, and resolved to 
 
 introduce yet another Reform
 
 CONSTANTINOPLE— THE EASTERN QUESTION. 
 
 20 
 
 Bill. The Measure was read a 
 first time on February I3tli, 1854. 
 It proposed to disfranchise 65 
 seats, and to distribute them in 
 the proportion of three to Scotland 
 and 63 to England. Boroughs con- 
 taining less than 300 electors and 
 3,000 inhabitants were to be dis- 
 franchised, and those with less than 
 500 electors and 10,000 inhabitants 
 were to lose one member. The fran- 
 chise was to be a;^6 rating qualifi- 
 cation in the boroughs, and ;^io 
 in the counties. The Bill, in 
 some of the proposed fancy fran- 
 chises, and in the gift of a seat 
 to the University of London, re- 
 sembled just those points in Dis- 
 raeli's Bill which were afterwards 
 attacked by the Liberals. There 
 were essential objections to any 
 attempt to deal with reform in 1S54 
 which practically made the Bill 
 hopeless. In the first place, there 
 was no popular desire for Reform, 
 and public opinion would not have 
 approved of a thorough-going 
 measure like household suffrage. 
 Anything else was mere tinkering. 
 In the second place, the beginning 
 of a great war is not the proper 
 time for a Reform Bill, with its 
 attendant differences. On March 
 loththc Bill was withdrawn. Lord 
 JOHN was so mortified that he 
 nearly broke down in the House. 
 Such were the principal features 
 of the home legislation of the Coal- 
 ition Ministry; in foreign affairs it 
 had to deal with a serious crisis. 
 
 The Eastern Question. 
 
 At the present time our difTer- 
 ences with Russia are wide-spread 
 and complicated. She is our 
 rival for the sovereignty of Asia ; 
 she desires to be the political head 
 of the Greek Church on the one 
 hand, and of Mahomedanism on 
 the other; she covets and threatens 
 India ; her armed cruisers and 
 privateers are a menace to our 
 Colonies. But in 1853 the Eastern 
 (Question centred in Constanti- 
 
 nople. Was Russia to be the 
 Turk's assignee, was she to liokl 
 Constantinople? The question 
 was put to the nation in this simple 
 form, and was answered by an 
 emphatic negative. Was that 
 answer right ? 
 
 The entrance to the Bosphorus 
 is the point through which the land 
 trade between Europe and Asia 
 must pass, and therefore it always 
 has been, and always will be, the 
 site of a large and prosperous city. 
 That city must control the Bos- 
 phorus and the Dardanelles, and 
 consequently is the key to the 
 Black Sea. Two-thirds of the trade 
 which passes through those two 
 narrow channels — they only aver- 
 age about three miles in breadth — 
 is English. If Russia seized Con- 
 stantinople, that trade would be 
 destroyed. 
 
 The political importance of Con- 
 stantinople is even greater than 
 the commercial. In the first place, 
 it is an almost impregnable strate- 
 gic position, for it can only be ap- 
 proached on the land side by way 
 of the lines of Tchekmedje, which 
 are 22 miles long, and could be 
 defended against the world by a 
 small force; and by sea through 
 a narrow channel, 47 miles long 
 by three broad. The possession 
 of Constantinople carries with it 
 a preponderance in Asia Minor 
 and in Southern Europe, countries 
 which contain 500,000 of the best 
 soldiers in the world. The cele- 
 brated Golden Horn is a harbour 
 which will hold 1,200 ships, and 
 cannot be assailed with any 
 prospect of success. The conse- 
 quence is that Constantinople, in 
 the hands of Russia, would domi- 
 nate tiie Mediterranean. From 
 these advantages Constantinople 
 would seem to be marked out by 
 its position for the capital of the 
 world. Napolkon the First said 
 that a first-class power in posses- 
 sion of Constantinople would be 
 mistress of the world.
 
 40 
 
 ORIGIN OF THE CRIMEAN WAR. 
 
 Russia, at present, is only vulner- 
 able through tlic Black Sea. if 
 she once gets command of the Dar- 
 danelles she could not be attacked 
 at all. The possession of Constan- 
 tinople would therefore give Russia 
 enormous increase of power and 
 absolute safety from foreign attack. 
 Such were the issues then at stake. 
 
 Dispute about the Holy Places. 
 
 But the immediate cause of the 
 Crimean war arose not at Con- 
 stantinople but at Jerusalem. 
 Tliere had long been a dispute 
 between the Latin and Greek 
 Churches as to the guardianship 
 of the Holy Places. France, by 
 a treaty of the time of Francis 
 the First, was in some sense pro- 
 tector of the Latin Church at 
 Jerusalem. Napoleon IH. wished 
 to surround with the lustre of an- 
 tiquity his very recent assumption 
 of power, and wished also to appear 
 as the Catholic prince in Europe. 
 Accordingly, the French Ambassa- 
 dor at Constantinople, partly by 
 diplomacy, partly by threats, ob- 
 tained for the Latin Patriarch the 
 keys of the Church at Bethlehem, 
 and the right to place a silver star, 
 adorned with the arms of France, 
 in the sanctuary of the Nativity. 
 This French interference roused 
 Russia. Nicholas considered him- 
 self the head of the Greek Church. 
 He claimed the right to intervene 
 between the Porte and its Chris- 
 tian subjects on the ground of a 
 formal treaty granting that power. 
 The interpretation of the treaty of 
 Kutchuk-Kainardji, 1774, decides 
 the case for or against Russia. 
 The clauses on which the Czar 
 based his right to protect the Greek 
 Church in Turkey are clause g and 
 clause 14. In clause g the Porte 
 promised " to protect constantly 
 the Christian religion and its 
 churches, and to allow the Russian 
 Ambassador to make on all occa- 
 sions representations in favour of 
 the new church in Constantinople 
 
 and those who officiated in it, such 
 representations to be considered 
 as made by a sincerely friendly 
 power." Clause 14 declares that 
 the new church to be built at Galata 
 " shall always be under the protec- 
 tion of the Ministers of the Russian 
 Empire." On the face of it the 
 treaty is perfectly plain. Russia has 
 the right to make friendly represen- 
 tations on behalf of, and to protect 
 a particular church and its priests. 
 Mr. Gladstone is the only states- 
 man of eminence outside Russia 
 who has considered that the right 
 to protect a single church in a 
 given country carries with it the 
 right to protect all the subjects of 
 that country who hold the same 
 religion, but, in 1854, he was of the 
 opposite opinion, and perhaps in 
 this, as in other cases, his first 
 thoughts were best. The question 
 is one of paramount importance. 
 If Russia was right, then a dual 
 authority existed in Turkey, and 
 the Christians were subjects of two 
 masters — a titular Sovereign in the 
 Sultan, and a real Sovereign in 
 the Czar. The Porte realised 
 that its existence depended on this 
 question. The Czar, relying on 
 his pretended rights, also threat- 
 ened intervention on behalf of the 
 Greek Church. 
 
 The Cza/s Proposals. 
 
 The fact was the Czar conceived 
 that the time had come for a 
 partition of Turkey after the 
 manner of the partition of Poland. 
 France and England were his only 
 possible opponents. If he could 
 secure England his scheme would 
 be easy and practicable. In 1S44 
 he had visited England, and had 
 many interviews with Lord Aber- 
 deen, at that time Foreign Secre- 
 tary. ]\Iisled by his lordship's 
 timid, indefinite language, he 
 thought he had a workable under- 
 standing with England. Lord 
 Aberdeen was his personal friend, 
 and was now Prime Minister.
 
 LORD PALMERSTON'S DESCRIPTION OF RUSSIAN POLICY. 41 
 
 Nicholas accordingly sounded Sir 
 Hamilton Seymour, the British 
 Ambassador: — "If your Govern- 
 ment has been led to believe that 
 Turkey retains any element of ex- 
 istence, your Government must 
 have received incorrect information. 
 I repeat to you that the sick man 
 is dying, and we can never allow 
 such an event to take us by sur- 
 prise. We must come to an under- 
 standing, and this we should do, I 
 am convinced, if I could hold but 
 ten minutes' conversation with your 
 Ministers. I do not ask for a treaty 
 or a protocol, a general understand- 
 ing is all I want — that between 
 gentlemen is sufficient." His con- 
 ditions were three in number: — (i) 
 Constantinople to be held neither by 
 France or England, nor by Russia; 
 (2) No powerful Greek Empire to 
 be set up ; (3) The Turkish Empire 
 not to be broken up into little Re- 
 publics. *' Rather than submit to 
 any of these arrangements I would 
 go to war as long as I have a man 
 and a musket left." ** The Princi- 
 palities, are, in fact, an independent 
 state under my protection. Servia 
 and Bulgaria might receive the 
 same government. You can take 
 possession of Egypt and Candia." 
 
 Vacillation of tlie Cabinet — Fivmncss 
 of Lord Pabnerston. 
 
 The Cabinet was both startled 
 and shocked by these proposals, 
 but Nicholas, though disappointed, 
 calculated that he might safely go 
 on with his policy alone. On the 
 question of tlie Holy Places, Eng- 
 land was committed in his favour, 
 for Lord John Russell, as Foreign 
 Minister, had declared, on January 
 28th, with about as much sense as 
 granunar, "Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment cannot avoid perceiving that 
 France was the first to disturb the 
 status quo, in which (sic) the matter 
 rested. Not that the disputes of 
 the Latin and Greek Churches 
 were not very active, but without 
 the action of France those troubles 
 
 would never have troubled the re- 
 lations of the Powers." The Pro- 
 tectorate over the Greek Church 
 could be used as a lever to break 
 up the Turkish Empire, and so 
 Prince Menschikoff was sent to 
 Constantinople to enforce it. But 
 he carried out an unpleasant task 
 in an unpleasant manner, and, after 
 an ultimatum, which was not ac- 
 cepted, on May 5th, he left Con- 
 stantinople on May 15th, covering 
 his retreat with vague but formid- 
 able menaces. Meanwhile, the 
 force of public opinion in England 
 drove the Government to take up 
 an attitude of opposition to Russia. 
 
 Russia Occupies the Principalities, 
 
 Lord Palmerston alone saw his 
 way clear. He was on good terms 
 with the Emperor of the P'^rench, 
 and aimed at opposing an Anglo- 
 French alliance to Russian am- 
 bition. In a Cabinet minute of 
 May 22nd, he described the unvary- 
 ing Russian method accurately and 
 concisely. " The policy and prac- 
 tice of the Russian Government 
 has always been to push forward its 
 encroachments as far as the apathy 
 of other Governments would allow 
 it to go, but always to stop and 
 retire when it met with decided 
 resistance." It "has two strings to 
 its bow — moderate language at 
 Petersburg and London ; active 
 aggression by agents on the scene 
 of ojierations." " If the local agents 
 fail, the}' are recalled and disavowed. 
 If the aggressions succeed, they arc 
 accepted as a fait accompli, unin- 
 tentional indeed, from which the 
 Czar cannot in honour retire." 
 
 Russia, however, was convinced 
 that under no circumstances would 
 Aberdeen go to war, and therefore 
 the Czar announced and carried 
 out in June the occupation of the 
 Danubian Principalities, a part of 
 the Turkish Empire, not, as he 
 declared, in order to begin a 
 war, but to have in his hands a 
 pledge to guarantee his just rights.
 
 42 
 
 THE MASSACRE AT SI NOPE. 
 
 Declaration or no declaration, it 
 was an act of war against Turkey, 
 but that Power was induced to offer 
 no opposition on grounds of expe- 
 diency. The English and French 
 ileets were sent to Besika Bay; 
 then the diplomatists set to work 
 and produced, at Vienna, the Note 
 of the Four Powers. This Note 
 passed unobserved before the not 
 very keen eyes of Lord Clarendon, 
 but Lord Stratford, British Am- 
 bassador at Constantinople, pointed 
 out to the Porte that the Note im- - 
 plied the Protectorate. The Sul- 
 tan, therefore, declined to accept 
 it; the Cabinet's eyes were opened 
 to the trap, and they backed up 
 Turkey in her refusal. Palmer- 
 STON now desired to send the fleets 
 np the Bosphorus. " Were Eng- 
 land and P'rance to be precluded 
 from entering the back door as 
 friends, whilst the Russians have 
 taken possession of the front hall 
 as enemies?" Aberdeen declined, 
 admitting the step to be popular, 
 but adding, with a Peelite's distrust 
 of the people, " In such a case I 
 doubt popular support." 
 
 Aberdeen'' s Timidity the Cause 
 of War. 
 
 Palmerston returned to the at- 
 tack. " The Russian Government 
 has been led on, step by step, by 
 the apparent timidity of the Engish 
 Government, and by reports that 
 the British Cabinet had declared 
 that it would have peace at any 
 price," which were not "sufficiently 
 contradicted by overt acts." "It is 
 the burglar who declares that he 
 will not leave the house until the 
 policeman has retired from the 
 courtyard." The last sentence re- 
 fers to a statement that Russian 
 troops would not evacuate Turkish 
 territory until the allied fleets left 
 Besika Bay. "The fact was," says 
 Palmerston's biographer, Mr. Ash- 
 ley, "he knew that private commu- 
 nications, tinctured by the personal 
 bias of the Premier, were doing 
 
 irreparable mischief, being inter- 
 preted by Baron Brunnow to mean 
 • • • an insuperable dislike on the 
 part of England to take any active 
 measures against Russia." 
 
 On November ist Russia de- 
 clared war against Turkey, and 
 Palmerston, still hoping against 
 hope, made another appeal to 
 Aberdeen to send the fleet into 
 the Black Sea. He felt and said 
 that a firm demeanour might still 
 prevent a collision between Turkey 
 and Russia, and might avert war. 
 Aberdeen again declined. With a 
 feeble ingenuity peculiarly his own, 
 he had authorised Lord Stratford 
 to send for the fleet if necessary, 
 but privately instructed him not to 
 do so. The result was that Russia 
 had complete control of the Black 
 Sea, and took advantage of that 
 position to surprise the Turkish 
 fleet at Sinope, on November 30th. 
 3,000 Turks were massacred, and 
 the fleet was destroyed. This event 
 made war inevitable. A fierce ex- 
 citement, an uncontrollable indig- 
 nation spread throughout the length 
 and breadth of England. The mas- 
 sacre of Sinope decided the English 
 people in favour of war. The res- 
 ponsibility for that massacre rests 
 on Lord Aberdeen's shoulders. If 
 the British fleet had entered the 
 Black Sea, the Turks would have 
 been saved, and, humanly speak- 
 ing, the war might have been 
 avoided. 
 
 Resignation of Lord Palmerston, and 
 decision of the Cabinet. 
 
 Aberdeen seemed perfectly 
 dazed by the difficulties he had to 
 deal with, and still proposed to do 
 nothing ; but Lord Palmerston 
 would wait no longer, and tendered 
 his resignation on December i6th, 
 nominally on Russell's Reform 
 Bill, but really because the nation 
 would never forgive a vacillating 
 policy at such a crisis. He writes, on 
 Dec. 19, to his friend I\Ir. Sulivan 
 explaining his position — "The
 
 WAR DECLARED AGAINST RUSSIA. 
 
 43 
 
 Times says there has been no differ- 
 ence in the Cabinet about Eastern 
 affairs. This is an untruth ; but 
 I felt that it would be silly to go 
 out because I could not have my 
 own way about Turkey." This 
 resignation was an argument 
 which Aberdeen could under- 
 stand. Api)eals to patriotism and 
 national honour he regarded with 
 a calm and complacent cynicism, 
 but any immediate danger to his 
 G overnment aroused him to an 
 unwonted energy. By the 25th 
 Palmerston had returned to ofiice, 
 and could write informing Suli- 
 VAN that " Their (the Ministers') 
 earnest representations and the 
 knowledge that the Cabinet had, 
 on Thursday, taken a decision on 
 Turkish affairs entirely in accord- 
 ance with opinions which I had 
 long unsuccessfully pressed upon 
 them, decided me to withdraw my 
 resignation." " Of course what I 
 say to you about the Cabinet de- 
 cision on Turkish affairs is entirely 
 for 3'ourself, but it is very important 
 and will give the allied squadrons 
 command of the Black Sea." 
 
 The Czars Manifesto. — The Qnahcrs^ 
 Mission. 
 
 Some hopeless and hollow nego- 
 tiations were still to follow, such 
 as the Second Note of the Four 
 Powers, and the letter of the 
 Emperor of the French. But on 
 February 8th, Baron Brunnow, 
 the Russian Ambassador, asked 
 for his passports and left London. 
 Throughout the controversy Cob- 
 ijEN, Bright, and the Peace party 
 had been resisting hostilities, but, 
 as they objected to war on prin- 
 ciple, the country paid little atten- 
 tion to them when they went about 
 objecting to this war in particular. 
 The most strange device that ever 
 entered the head of man was 
 invented by them for the further- 
 ance of their objects. It was deter- 
 mined to send a deputation to the 
 Czar begging for peace. It never 
 
 occurred to them that they had no 
 right to make England a laughing 
 stock throughout Europe. They 
 did not see that, with a Power like 
 Russia, any signs of hesitation or 
 pusillanimity were calculated to 
 precipitate hostilities. According- 
 ly, on February loth, three respect- 
 able Quakers — named respectively 
 Sterge, Pease, and Charlton — 
 had an interview with Nicholas, to 
 do what no Englishman had ever 
 done before, to beg for peace from 
 an arrogant foe. The effect of the 
 deputation was just what might 
 have been anticipated. Convinced 
 that he had to do with a divided 
 nation, the Czar issued his Mani- 
 festo on February 21st. "England 
 and France have ranged them- 
 selves by the side of the enemies of 
 Christianity against Russia fighting 
 for the orthodox faith. But Russia 
 will not alter her divine mission." 
 
 War declared. — Aberdeen's Scruples. 
 
 On February 27th, England, by 
 way of answer to the manifesto, 
 sent her ultimatum, demanding 
 the evacuation of the Principalities 
 before April 30th, but the Czar 
 thought it unbecoming to give any 
 answer, and so, on March nth, the 
 English iieet left Spithead for the 
 Baltic. Bright exerted himself to 
 the utmost. He opposed the de- 
 claration of war in the Commons, 
 telling the taxpayer that he was 
 taking a Turk upon his back. On 
 March 13th lie attacked Lord Pal- 
 merston for the " reckless levity" 
 with which he welcomed the war. 
 Palmerston, losing his temper for 
 the first time in his life, made a 
 bitter reply. *' I am convinced," 
 he said, " that the opinion of the 
 country in regard to me will in no 
 way be influenced by anything the 
 hon. member may say. I therefore 
 treat his censure with the most per- 
 fect indilference and contempt." 
 
 On March 22nd war was solemnly 
 declared in the city of London. 
 Tlie barriers were down and the
 
 44 
 
 THE SUFFERINGS OF THE BRITISH ARMY. 
 
 lists were set. Meantime, Lord 
 AiJHRDEEN was in a pitiable condi- 
 tion of mind. Contrary to his own 
 wish, and without any impulse of 
 liis own, he had drifted, as Lord 
 Clarendon admitted, into war. He 
 said he could only conduct it with a 
 view to a speedy peace, and he was 
 so doubtful as to the justice of his 
 cause that he could not conscien- 
 tiously order public prayers for the 
 success of the British arms. Lord 
 Shaftesbury attempted to remove 
 his scruples in vain, " What }^ou 
 said to me yesterday terrified me, 
 for it implied that the country had 
 entered on a war which you could 
 so httle justify to your conscience 
 as to be almost unable to advise 
 pubhc prayers for success. • • • 
 You asked whether the English 
 nation would be brought to pray 
 for the Turks ? Surely, if they are 
 brought to fight for them, they 
 would be induced to pray for them 
 in a just quarrel." Concerning the 
 charge of direct responsibility for 
 an avoidable war laid against Lord 
 Aberdeen, Cobden afterwards said 
 — '* I look back with regret on the 
 vote which changed Lord Derby's 
 Government. I regret the result 
 of that motion, for it has cost the 
 country loo millions of treasure, 
 and between thirty and forty thou- 
 sand good lives." Disraeli said — 
 " I speak of what I know, not what 
 I believe, but of what I have evi- 
 dence to prove — the Crimean war 
 would never have happened if Lord 
 Derby had remained in office." 
 
 The Conservative Opposition, 
 although they could not approve of 
 the Ministerial proceedings, were 
 yet prepared, in such a crisis, to 
 give the Government a frank and 
 patriotic support. Their policy 
 was formally stated in the House 
 of Commons by Disraeli. " I can 
 answer for myself and my friends, 
 that no future Wellesley on the 
 banks of the Danube will have to 
 make a bitter record of the exertions 
 of an English Opposition, that de- 
 
 preciated his efforts and ridiculed 
 his talents." 
 
 Bad Administration. 
 The events of the war, however 
 important and honourable, do not 
 fall within our province, but it re- 
 mains to be told how the Ministers 
 made good their boasted claims to 
 be good Administrators. Would 
 they conduct with energy and ability 
 a war that was unnecessary in its 
 inception? The troops were 
 landed in the Crimea without any 
 preparation for a lengthy cam- 
 paign. As the winter, which was 
 terribly severe, drew on, the suffer- 
 ings ot the unhappy men became 
 intense. Florence Nightingale 
 writes, ** Eleven men died in the 
 night simply from exhaustion from 
 want of nourishment." Sick and 
 wounded perished wholesale. 
 Totally unsupplied with tools they 
 were unable to make a road from 
 Balaklava to Sebastopol, and conse- 
 quently supplies ran short. Medi- 
 cal stores, which would have saved 
 many a brave man's life, were left 
 rotting at home, or were openly 
 sold in the bazaars at Constanti- 
 nople. The privates were exposed, 
 half-starved and thinly clad, to the 
 bitter cold, and many were found 
 frozen to death in the trenches and 
 on the heights. The finest army 
 in Europe was rotting away in 
 Crimean swamps. \\'hen this state 
 of things was revealed in the Times, 
 the whole country was moved with 
 grief and indignation. 
 
 Russell Resigns. 
 
 Lord John Russell, on Novem- 
 17th, addressed a protest to Lord 
 Aberdeen, his intention being to 
 get rid of the Secretary of State 
 for War, the Duke of Newcastle. 
 •'A man," he said, "was needed 
 w^ho, from experience of military 
 details and inherent vigour of mind, 
 can be expected to guide the great 
 operations of war with success." 
 That man was Lord Palmerston.
 
 FALL OF THE ABERDEEN GOVERNMENT. 
 
 45 
 
 So far, Lord John Russell liad 
 acted well and reasonably. He 
 was not a friend of Palmerston, 
 and could have been actuated by 
 no selfish motives. He received an 
 answer worthy of Lord Aberdeen. 
 It would be unfair to the Duke, 
 and would weaken the Government. 
 When Parliament met, the storm 
 broke. Mr. Roebuck, a Liberal 
 member, both energetic and elo- 
 quent, gave notice of a motion for 
 inquiry into the conduct of the 
 war. Russell therefore resigned, 
 giving as his reason, " I do not see 
 how it is to be resisted, but, as it 
 involves a censure upon some of 
 my colleagues, ' my only course is 
 to tender my resignation.'" This 
 resignation has been generally and 
 justly impugned. Lord Shaftes- 
 bury describes it as selfish. 
 " Russell has chosen this time to 
 send in his resignation and break 
 up the Government ! Can anyone 
 who knows the man and his ante- 
 cedents doubt that self-seeking, 
 place-loving ambition aims at the 
 Premiership, and jeopardises 
 everything for his own particular." 
 And Palmerston himself, notwith- 
 standing the move in his favour, 
 and his own dissatisfaction with the 
 conduct of the war, wrote to Lord 
 John expressing his disapproval. 
 " 1 think your decision ill-timed. • • 
 
 If you had determined not to face 
 such a motion, an announcement a 
 fortnight ago would have rendered 
 it more easy for your colleagues to 
 take the necessary steps." " There 
 are Constitutional and practical 
 grounds on which the motion miglit 
 be resisted." 
 
 Defeat of the Government. 
 
 Deserted by Russell, the Cabi- 
 net was in a bad way. Palmer- 
 ston could only meet Roebuck in- 
 directly, by saying that his motion 
 was inopportune ; he did not, and 
 could not, deny the alleged misman- 
 agement. In the temper the House 
 was in, such a defence carried little 
 weight, and, when the division was 
 taken, a majority of 157 appeared 
 against the Government, tlie num- 
 bers being, for the motion 305, 
 against it 148, When the numbers 
 were announced, for a few seconds 
 the House sat in amazed silence 
 at a defeat so crushing, and then 
 burst into shouts of derisive laugh- 
 ter. The Ministry of All the 
 Talents was dead. As the Times 
 said the next morning, "It would 
 tax the best -read historical stu- 
 dent to produce a more complete 
 case of political collapse than that 
 which it is England's ill-fate, sore 
 cost, we had almost said foul dis- 
 honour, to witness this day." 
 
 1855-59- 
 Lord Derby and Lord Palmerston. 
 
 o 
 
 Lord Dei by s Mistake. 
 
 N the fall of the Cabinet, 
 the Queen sent for Lord 
 Derby. In undertaking 
 to form a Government, he 
 
 at first full of hope. He 
 
 thought he would be sujiportcd 
 botli by Lord Palmerston and 
 by Gladstone and Graham. His 
 negotiations with Palmerston 
 broke down, not on any question 
 of principle, but because Palmer- 
 ston insisted on retaining Lord
 
 4f> 
 
 LORD PALMERSTON BECOMES PRIME MINISTER. 
 
 Clarendon at the Foreign Office. 
 Thereupon, on February 4th, with- 
 out consuhing any of his party, he 
 abandoned tlie nndertaking. This 
 was the fatal mistake of liis career. 
 If the Conservatives had taken 
 office in 1855, and brought the war 
 to a successful conclusion, Lord 
 Derby would have occupied a po- 
 sition in the eyes of the country 
 similar to that of Lord Palmer- 
 STON, and a Conservative Ministry 
 might, without difficulty, have been 
 in power from 1855 to 1865. Dur- 
 ing the whole of that period the 
 country was governed by Palmer- 
 STON, not merely on Conservative, 
 but almost on re-actionary prin- 
 ciples. He lived on the prestige 
 he had acquired in the Crimean 
 war, and did not even pretend to 
 apply Liberal principles to home 
 legislation. 
 
 Lord Derby's Character . 
 
 Lord Derby, in many respects, 
 was a brilliant and dashing leader. 
 As an orator, he must be classed 
 with Bright, Gladstone, and 
 Bishop Wilberforce, as one of 
 the four most eloquent men of the 
 reign. Severe critics considered 
 him the best of the four. His in- 
 tellect was rapid, accurate, and 
 piercing, obscured by no prejudices 
 and biassed by no partialities. He 
 was a good classic, a man of much 
 culture and literary taste; like Mr. 
 Gladstone, he spent his idle hours 
 in the society of Homer. In pure 
 ability Palmerston could not com- 
 pare with him. But with these 
 great qualities he combined serious 
 faults. His wit was keen, but 
 bitter and ill-advised ; he was im- 
 patient to recklessness, and deficient 
 in the qualities of party manage- 
 ment. The stirring debate, the 
 resounding speech, the sharp con- 
 flict of parties, in all these he de- 
 lighted, bat the cares of office he 
 neither envied nor prized. As 
 Earl of Derby and leader of the 
 House of Lords, he occupied a 
 
 position to which even the premier- 
 ship of England could add little 
 lustre. Two reasons have been 
 given for his refusal. He was un- 
 willing to face a great administra- 
 tive crisis with a party imperfectly 
 trained in the routine of office, and 
 he expected that Palmerston 
 would fail and that he would be 
 able to make his own terms. 
 
 Unpatriotic Conduct of the Peelites. 
 
 The Queen next sent for Lord 
 John, but, in Palmerston's own 
 words, "John Russell, by the way 
 in which he suddenly abandoned 
 the Government, had so lost caste 
 for the moment, that I was the only 
 one of his political friends who 
 would serve under him." Palmer- 
 ston accordingly held the field, 
 though he found it difficult to deal 
 with the Peelites, who were sore at 
 the downfall of Aberdeen and 
 Newcastle. " I see," he writes, 
 " that the Peelite section still con- 
 tinues to endeavour to make itself 
 a little separate section." They, in 
 fact, were trying, as of old, to hold 
 the balance between the two par- 
 ties. Graham and Glad STONE 
 joined the Ministry, but only to re- 
 sign when Palmerston found it 
 necessary to accept Mr. Roebuck's 
 enquiry. The behaviour of the 
 Peelites has been severely criti- 
 cised. They had mismanaged the 
 war themselves, and, when Lord 
 Derby was trying to form a pat- 
 riotic ministry of all parties, they 
 refused to join. Yet, after they had 
 made Palmerston the only possi- 
 ble Premier, they did their best to 
 break up his Government on 
 grounds of mere personal pique, 
 thus throwing a serious obstacle in 
 the way of the vigorous prosecution 
 of the war. Conduct so unpatriotic 
 does not admit of palliation, much 
 less of defence. The result was 
 that Palmerston had to prosecute 
 the war with a weakened Cabinet, 
 attacked by the "peace at anv 
 price" party and harassed by the
 
 LORD PALMEKSTONS POLICY. 
 
 47 
 
 vacillation of Napoleon III. That 
 he could not, under such circum- 
 stances, inflict a crushing defeat on 
 Russia is obvious, and it is wonder- 
 ful that he was able to obtain an 
 advantageous peace. But he had 
 a just confidence in his own inex- 
 haustible energy and determina- 
 tion, which entitled him as a War 
 Minister to rank second only to 
 William Pitt. 
 
 Lord Palmeyston'' s Character and 
 Principles. 
 
 Lord Palmerston is the paradox 
 of politics. The friend of Democ- 
 racy abroad, its opponent at home, 
 hated alike by absolute monarchs 
 and theoretic Radicals, a lover of 
 liberty, who disliked reform, he 
 seems at first sight an insoluble 
 riddle, so that the historian who 
 finds Palmerston amongst the 
 Liberals, like a fly in amber, may 
 well wonder how he got there. 
 The truth is that Palmerston, in 
 foreign affairs, represented the most 
 enlightened Tory policy. He had 
 sat at the feet of Canning, and had, 
 from his lips, learnt the principles 
 of the great Pitt. His policy 
 rested on three axioms: — (i) That 
 a British Minister should go to 
 war only on behalf of British in- 
 terests ; (2) That where British 
 interests are concerned his motto 
 should be " my country right or 
 wrong;" (3) That where the cause 
 of freedom is at stake, as against 
 reactionary despotism, England 
 should use all the influence in her 
 power, short of war, in the cause 
 of freedom. Pitt's opposition to 
 the partition of Poland, Canning's 
 intervention in Spain and Greece, 
 the assistance given by Palmer- 
 ston to the cause of Italian Unity, 
 are all instances of the application 
 of the last principle. In home 
 affairs he was a cheerful optimist. 
 The English, he thought, were the 
 freest and best nation upon earth, 
 with a perfect Constitution. So 
 convinced was he of the excellence 
 
 of British institutions, that he was 
 constantly trying to set up imita- 
 tions of them in every European 
 country with whose affairs he could 
 conveniently interfere. It never 
 occurred to him that there could 
 be either a political situaticwi or a 
 national temperament to which they 
 were unsuited. He thought, with 
 the Duke of Wellington, that a 
 Government so admirable ought 
 not to be altered. Palmerston 
 joined the Whigs because he was 
 disgusted at the treatment that 
 Canning received from Peel and 
 Wellington. He continued, to 
 the day of his death, an old-fash- 
 ioned Tory at heart, looking upon 
 an extension of the franchise as an 
 unpleasant, awkward, and doubtful 
 enterprise, which should be put olT 
 as long as possible. His patriotism, 
 his good humour and his jokes made 
 him the hero of his fellow-country- 
 men, even while he was refusing 
 them a vote. lie could not, as 
 leader of the Liberals, put in force 
 his real opinions ; and his home 
 policy was throughout a mere pre- 
 tence and sham. Even in 1831, in 
 the Grey Ministry, Graham found 
 him " not very much disposed for 
 the work we were engaged in." 
 
 Violence of the Manchester School. 
 
 Difficulties arose at the outset. 
 Lord John Russell had been sent 
 to Vienna, and there agreed to 
 terms of which the Cabinet could 
 not approve. The attacks of Sir 
 Edward Lytton on the one side, 
 and of CoBDEN and Bright on the 
 other, at last compelled him to 
 resign. Thereupon he became 
 unfavourable to the war. The vio- 
 lence of the Manchester men was 
 Palmerston's chief difiiculty at 
 home. Mr. Bright may be passed 
 over as a man always prone to 
 ill-considered and indiscriminate 
 remarks; but on June 5th, 1S55, 
 Cohden made an attack upon tlu> 
 war which deserves to be recorded. 
 The war was in full swing, but very
 
 48 
 
 THE CHINESE WAR. 
 
 delicate negotiations were pending 
 at Vienna. Cohden declared : — 
 " I have said from the first 'do not 
 send a man to the Continent or 
 Turkey in the capacity of a land 
 force.' " " There seems to be no 
 other object in taking Sebastopol 
 tlian knocking about the ears of 
 brave men a certain amount of 
 bricks and mortar and rubbish, 
 sacrificing an immense amount of 
 human life in order that we may 
 ]:)oint to those mounds and say 'we 
 did it.'" He had heard that the 
 war was regarded with increasing 
 dislike by the people of France. 
 "It is whispered," he said, "that 
 the French dynasty has so much at 
 stake that it dare not withdraw the 
 army from Sebastopol on account 
 of the moral effect it would produce 
 on the French people." He jeered 
 at his country's " infatuation in 
 invading Russia with a land force." 
 " If you send an army to invade 
 Russia, you must prepare your- 
 selves for inevitable disaster." He 
 blamed "the Government for be- 
 having falsely and treacherously to 
 the people." " I have seen a spirit 
 out of doors which is preparing for 
 sudden and strange freaks of re- 
 venge, under a sense of bitter mor- 
 tification." The whole speech was 
 a foolish and indecent display, 
 eminently calculated to encourage 
 Russia, to disgust France, and 
 to embarrass the Government. 
 Though embarrassed, Palmerston 
 was not turned from his purpose. 
 " The British nation," he whites, 
 " is unanimous. I say unanimous, 
 for I cannot reckon Cobden, Bright, 
 and Co. for anything." 
 
 Result and Cost of the War. 
 
 On March 30th, 1856, the treaty 
 of peace with Russia was signed. 
 Russia had to cede Bessarabia, to 
 declare the Black Sea neutral and 
 interdicted to war ships, and to 
 remove her claim to protect the 
 Christian subjects of Turkey. 
 England had lost 24,000 men by the 
 
 war, of whom about one-sixth fell 
 in battle or died of their wounds. 
 The incompetence of Lord Aber- 
 deen cost England some 16,000 
 gallant soldiers. The Committee 
 of Inquiry is decisive as to the 
 responsible parties, for the report 
 declares that "The Administration 
 which ordered the expedition had 
 no adequate information as to the 
 forces in the Crimea," and " were 
 not acquainted with the strength 
 of the fortresses or the resources of 
 the country." " They made no 
 provision for a winter campaign." 
 
 The opium War. 
 
 The Ministers needed whatever 
 prestige they had derived from an 
 energetic prosecution of the war, for 
 they were soon brought face to face 
 with the Chinese question. That 
 a Cabinet which had weathered 
 a violent storm, should be nearly 
 overturned by a puff of wind is an 
 interesting, but not uncommon 
 event. For some years there had 
 been a smuggling trade in opium 
 between China and India, largely 
 in English hands. This trade, 
 though ostensibly forbidden by the 
 Chinese Government, was usually 
 connived at by the Chinese officials, 
 but its illegal character led to oc- 
 casional difficulties. The English 
 Government had to consider 
 whether they could suppress, or 
 whether they could legalise it, for 
 it could hardly go on in its present 
 questionable form. The seizure of 
 a Chinese vessel, the notorious 
 lorcha Arrow, which, by a special 
 licence, sailed under the English 
 flag ; and the insolent proclamation 
 of the Chinese Commissioner Yeh, 
 who offered a reward for every 
 Englishman's head, increased the 
 difficulties of the situation, though 
 the Chinese Government was quite 
 ready to make some amends for 
 these grievances. The opium traf- 
 fic has long been a sore point to the 
 British conscience, for it has always 
 seemed immoral to force on an un-
 
 THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1857. 
 
 49 
 
 willing people a drug which the 
 rulers declare to be a scourge. On 
 the other hand, it is not easy to see 
 how the British Government could 
 put down the traffic unless the 
 Chinese Executive gave a hearty 
 co-operation. It has been urged, 
 too, with much truth, that to the 
 Chinaman opium is a medical 
 necessity, on account of his malari- 
 ous climate and his vegetarian diet. 
 It is also clear that the real object 
 of the Chinese Government was not 
 to stop the use of opium, but to ex- 
 clude foreign competition. These 
 arguments afford good ground for 
 defending the trade when legally 
 established by treaty rights, but 
 cannot justify war in order to obtain 
 the concession of such commercial 
 rights. It appeared to the Conser- 
 vative Opposition that to compel 
 China, by force of arms, to admit a 
 drug, which was to some extent nox- 
 ious, was a policy hard to support 
 and harder to defend. The Man- 
 chester men, who hated Palmer- 
 STON, and the Peelites who envied 
 him, were against the Government 
 on this question. On March 2nd, 
 Palmerston was beaten, on Cob- 
 uen's motion condemning his 
 Chinese policy, by 263 to 249. 
 
 Appeal to the Country. 
 
 He instantly dissolved Parlia- 
 ment, and the elections went in 
 favour of the Government. The 
 Conservatives lost slightly, as they 
 returned with 284 members, but 
 the Manchester men were utterly 
 routed, Cobden and Bright losing 
 their seats at Manchester. The 
 Conservatives were damaged by 
 their supposed alliance with the 
 Peelites, who, as Sidney Herbert 
 admitted, were weak and dis- 
 credited. Gladstone, who had 
 spoken in favour of Cobden's mo- 
 tion, inclined to the Conservative 
 ranks. Ccbden deserved his defeat, 
 if only on account of the virulence 
 with which he had attacked the 
 Premier. He had even raked up 
 
 the old collision between the mob 
 and the yeomanry at Peterloo in 
 i8ig, in order to argue that Pal- 
 merston was directly responsible 
 for the lives then lost, because he 
 was a subordinate member of the 
 Ministry at the time. The real 
 cause of Palmerston's success was 
 his personal popularity, for the 
 election turned on his name. After 
 the failure of this attack, his power 
 seemed permanent and unassail- 
 able. Scarcely had the new Par- 
 liament met when tidings of the 
 outbreak of the Mutiny in India 
 reached this country. That tragedy, 
 so replete with pathetic and heroic 
 incidents, must ever be a matter of 
 sorrowful interest to Englishmen ; 
 but, as neither party was deserving 
 either of blame for the outbreak of 
 the revolt or of praise for its sup- 
 pression, it is not strictly within 
 the limits of our subject, and the 
 points in which the rebellion comes 
 in contact with English Constitu- 
 tional history will be dealt with 
 more conveniently later on. 
 
 The Oi'siiii Plot. 
 
 In January, 1858, Palmerston 
 seemed as strong as ever, but on the 
 14th an event occurred in Paris 
 which was to have a serious effect 
 on his fortunes. On the evening of 
 that day, Orsini, an Italian, at- 
 tempted to assassinate Napoleon 
 III., by means of an explosive 
 bomb. The attempt failed, but 10 
 bystanders were killed, and 156 
 were wounded. The shell whicli 
 blew up the Emperor's carriage 
 shattered the English Ministry. 
 Orsini had procured the bombs in 
 Birmingham, having but recently 
 left England, where he had been 
 well received in society. The 
 French Foreign Minister wrote a 
 dispatch suggesting some change 
 in the English law with regard to 
 foreign conspirators. *' Ouj,dit 
 Englisli legislation," he asked, " to 
 continue to shelter persons who b)' 
 their flagrant acts put themselves
 
 THE CONSPIRACY TO MURDER BILL. 
 
 ontsldo tlie pale of common rif,^hts?" 
 y\t this period the ri^dits of asylum 
 were held peculiarly sacred in Eng- 
 land. All the political scoundrels 
 in Europe were free to plot against 
 their native Governments from 
 London, not only without obstruc- 
 tion but even with sympathy. Re- 
 cent events have shown us that our 
 doctrine of asylum can be turned 
 against ourselves in a highly incon- 
 venient manner, and we doubt 
 whether, after the dynamite out- 
 rages. Englishmen are quite as 
 enthusiastic as they were about the 
 sacred rights of conspiracy. 
 
 French Animosity. 
 
 On the main question, France 
 was quite right, but a proud and 
 powerful nation will not tolerate 
 threats even when they are em- 
 ployed to support reasonable de- 
 mands. " France," said the French 
 Ambassador, "ma)' cease to believe 
 in England's sincerity." Certain 
 French colonels, in addresses to the 
 Emperor which were printed in 
 the official Monitcuv, were even more 
 out-spoken. England was des- 
 cribed as " the land of impurity 
 which contains the haunts of mon- 
 sters who are sheltered by its laws." 
 Another gallant colonel proposed 
 that " the infamous haunt in which 
 machinations so infernal are plan- 
 ned" (London, to wit) "should be 
 destroyed for ever." These utter- 
 ances produced great, and natural 
 exasperation in the minds of the 
 English people. 
 
 Ministers Defeated. 
 
 Palmerston, according to his 
 habit when in difficulties at home, 
 introduced a Conspiracy to INIurder 
 Bill, which was really useless for 
 the matter in hand, but gave an 
 appearance of zeal for the 
 Emperor, making conspiracy to 
 murder a felony instead of a mis- 
 demeanour. The only practical 
 measure would have been either an 
 extradition treaty, or a power of 
 
 expelling suspicious foreigners. 
 Palmerston's Bill was both use- 
 less and unpopular. A prominent 
 member of the Manchester party, 
 MiLNER Gibson, who had been 
 beaten in the General Election but 
 had since returned to Parliament, 
 full of zeal to avenge the defeat of 
 1857, moved a hostile amendment 
 on the second reading. Disraeli 
 and Gladstone, again fighting side 
 by side, spoke for the amendment. 
 The division was taken on February 
 19th, and showed for the second 
 reading 218 votes against 234, the 
 majority being composed of 146 
 Conservatives and 84 Liberals. 
 Only eleven months had elapsed 
 since the crushing defeat inflicted 
 on the Manchester men, yet they 
 had succeeded in overthrowing 
 their conquerers. The Ministry at 
 once resigned. 
 
 Second Derby -Disraeli Administration. 
 
 Lord Derby took office, and Dis- 
 raeli again led the House of Com- 
 mons. Two useful measures were 
 passed, one abolishing the property 
 qualification for members of Par- 
 liament, the other removing Jewish 
 disabilities. The Indian Mutiny 
 had shaken the East India Com- 
 pany. It was seen that so large an 
 Empire as India ought to be under 
 the direct rule of the Crown. Pal- 
 merston had introduced a Bill 
 dissolving the Company, and the 
 abolition was carried by the Con- 
 servative Ministry. The dual con- 
 trol of Directors and Government 
 had not worked well, and it was 
 obviously to our advantage to make 
 the connection between India and 
 the British Crown as close as pos- 
 sible, in order to consolidate the 
 British Empire. The voice of John 
 Stuart Mill was raised against 
 the change, and it must be admitted 
 that his argument carries much 
 weight. He feared that if India 
 were brought under the direct rule 
 of the Crown, the interests of that 
 country might be sucked into the
 
 CONSERVATIVE PROPOSALS OF REFORM. 
 
 51 
 
 whirlpool of party politics. A long 
 time passed beiore his forebodings 
 were verified by facts, but those 
 who observed the dangerous vaga- 
 ries of Lord RiPON will be disposed 
 to attach considerable importance 
 to Mill's objection. Old "John 
 Company" is at least entitled to the 
 credit of having discovered for us 
 the proper method of dealing with 
 the Asiatic subject. On another 
 Indian question the Government 
 was, for a moment, in some dan- 
 ger. Lord Canning, the Governor- 
 General, had issued a proclamation 
 on March 3rd, confiscating all the 
 soil of Oude. His intention was to 
 re-grant the land to all the Talook- 
 dars, or native landowners, who 
 submitted, in order that they might 
 hold it under the English Crown. 
 Lord Ellenborough, Secretary of 
 State for India, an able but im- 
 petuous Minister, who had before 
 him only the proclamation without 
 explanation, wrote a strong con- 
 demnatory letter to Lord Canning. 
 Mr. Cardwell moved a vote of 
 censure founded upon this incident. 
 Lord Ellenborough, who had not 
 consulted his colleagues, and was 
 undoubtedly in the wrong, resigned, 
 and the vote of censure fell through. 
 The victory of the Manchester 
 party on the Conspiracy Bill had 
 weakened the hands of Lord Pal- 
 merston, and so brought the ques- 
 tion of extension of the franchise to 
 the front. Disraeli held that the 
 Conservative party had a prescrip- 
 tive right to deal with Reform, inas- 
 much as Pitt, to some extent the 
 father of Conservatism, was also 
 the father of Reform ; while the 
 Liberals had made two very feeble 
 attempts to deal with the question, 
 and were led by Palmerston, the 
 strongest anti-reformer in the 
 House. He saw that Liberal Re- 
 form Bills rested on no principle 
 and had no logical basis. There 
 was nothing final about the Reform 
 Bill of 1832. The question was now 
 re-opened, and required a sellle- 
 
 ment, which should l)c logical and 
 based on some general principle. 
 
 Disraeli's Reform Bill. 
 
 The Cabinet, therefore, deter- 
 mined to introduce a Reform Bill. 
 Disraeli described the scope of 
 the Measure in the House of Com- 
 mons on February 28th. It had 
 three main objects — to equalise 
 borough and county representation, 
 to introduce personal property as a 
 qualiiication for a vote, and to es- 
 tablish an educational franchise. 
 The electoral limit for the boroughs 
 was ^10, and it was proposed to ex- 
 tend it to the counties. All persons 
 possessing property invested in the 
 funds, in bonds, or in bank stock, 
 producing £10 a year, were also to 
 have a vote. The same privilege 
 was to be extended to any man who 
 had £60 in a savings bank for one 
 year. The educational franchise 
 included ministers of religion, 
 graduates, doctors, the legal pro- 
 fession, and certificated school- 
 masters. The last two franchises 
 were the object of vigorous attack 
 from Mr. Bright, who called them 
 * fancy franchises'; but it should be 
 remembered that they were the in- 
 vention not of Disraeli but of Lord 
 John Russell. Lord John, in his 
 Reform Bill of 1854, ^^'^^ proposed 
 to extend the ;^io franchise to the 
 three kinds of personal property 
 mentioned above, and to give a 
 vote to any man who had £^0 in 
 the savings bank for three years, 
 instead of £(jo for one year. In his 
 educational franchise he only in- 
 cluded graduates, and in this re- 
 spect Disraeli's Bill was a distinct 
 improvement. The principal iliffcr- 
 ence between the two Bills lay in 
 the fact that Lord John proposed a 
 £() rating franchise for the boroughs 
 and a ;^io franchise for the coun- 
 ties, while Disraeli proposed a ;^io 
 franchise for both. The practical 
 distinction is not great, since the £b 
 rating does not dilfcr very widely 
 from the ^10 occupation franchise,
 
 52 
 
 NATURE OF THE OPPOSITION. 
 
 l)ut a question of principle is in- 
 volved. Disraeli's Bill asserts the 
 principle that l:)orough and county 
 franchise should be the same, and 
 that, when we had given the vote 
 to the ;£io householder in the 
 boroughs, we were bound, logically, 
 to extend it to the county voter. 
 Disraeli, however, had contented 
 himself with taking the conclusive 
 objection to Lord John Russell's 
 Bill that a time of war is not oppor- 
 tune for Parliamentary Reform. 
 He had waited four years to see 
 Avhether the Whigs would deal with 
 the question, and, after their fail- 
 ures, he considered himself justified 
 in taking it up. We may admit at 
 once that the Bill was not entirely 
 satisfactory. The /"lo franchise, 
 although it had existed for 27 years, 
 being an artificial and not a natural 
 limit, formed an unsuitable basis 
 for our representative system. 
 There is a broad difference between 
 a man who occupies a house and a 
 man who does not, but it is hard to 
 draw a line between the ;^io and 
 the £g householders. 
 
 The real difficulty in the way of 
 Reform was the existence, on both 
 sides of the House, of a large party 
 Avho disliked an extension of the 
 franchise ; the consequence being 
 that both Lord John Russell and 
 Disraeli had to bring forward 
 compromises, which invited criti- 
 cism and discouraged defence. 
 Disraeli personally had made up 
 liis mind in favour of Household 
 Suffrage at this time. The remark- 
 able feature about his Bill is that it 
 was based on value, not on rating, 
 wherein it differs both from Lord 
 John Russell's Bill of 1852 and 
 Irom Disraeli's Bill of 1S67. This 
 apparent inconsistency is easily 
 explained. Disraeli liked the 
 principle of rating, but practical 
 difficulties prevented him from em- 
 bodying it in this Bill. When in- 
 troducing it he said, " I confess, 
 myself, that I was always much 
 biassed in favour of that idea. It 
 
 appears to me if you could make 
 the rate-book the register, you 
 would very much simplify the busi- 
 ness of election ; but, when you 
 come to examine this matter in 
 detail, • • • you will find that it is 
 involved in difficulties." The diffi- 
 culties were that, as long as a ;^io 
 householder had a vote whilst a £g 
 householder had not, the irregulari- 
 ties of rating, varying from two- 
 thirds to one-half, and the possible 
 partizanship of the overseer would 
 subject the borough voter to in- 
 tolerable grievances. As soon as 
 we have Household Suffrage, these 
 difficulties begin to disappear. 
 Once establish the principle of 
 Household Suffrage, and it carries 
 with it the rating basis. 
 
 Unprincipled Opposition. 
 
 At the same time, it cannot be 
 denied that the opposition to the 
 Government was extremely unprin- 
 cipled. The Opposition consisted 
 of three parties. The Manchester 
 school, headed by John Bright, 
 were in favour of Household Suf- 
 frage, of voting by ballot, and of 
 charging election expenses on the 
 rates. Lord John Russell and 
 his allies wished to keep the ques- 
 tion of Reform in their own hands, 
 and hankered after a rating qualifi- 
 cation. Lord Palmerston did not 
 intend to carry any Reform Bill at 
 all ; if he objected to the Govern- 
 ment scheme, he must positively 
 have loathed any more extensive 
 proposals. Yet Bright, Palmer- 
 ston, and Russell united on a 
 resolution declaring "that no re- 
 adjustment of the franchise will 
 satisfy the House or the country 
 which does not provide for a greater 
 extension of the suffrage." Lord 
 Palmerston made a speech, mostly 
 composed of good-natured chaff, 
 the argument being that a Govern- 
 ment ought not to dissolve on a 
 Reform Bih. " Is it right, I ask, 
 that the Government should throw 
 the British Constitution to be
 
 THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1S59. 
 
 53 
 
 scrambled for and discussed upon 
 every hustings ? " The Govern- 
 ment was defeated on the second 
 reading by 330 to 291, and imme- 
 diately decided to appeal to the 
 country. 
 
 My. Gladstone's Defence of Small 
 Boroughs. 
 
 Amongst those who voted in tlie 
 minority was Mr. Gladstone. He 
 argued during the debate against 
 redistribution, and in favour of the 
 retention of small boroughs, point- 
 ing out that no less than six prime 
 ministers had been introduced into 
 Parliament through their means. 
 Such an argument would have been 
 both just and reasonable if urged 
 in 1832, in favour of the old Con- 
 stitution, but in 1859, when the 
 principle had been established for 
 27 years that representation and 
 population were necessarily con- 
 nected, it seems almost ante-dilu- 
 vian in its antiquity. The speech 
 might well have been delivered by 
 Sir Charles Wetherall or one of 
 the stout old Tories who fought the 
 Reform Bill of 1832 step by step, 
 but such views are strange in a man 
 who was to be the Liberal leader 
 in the House of Commons in six 
 years' time. Exploded Toryism is 
 a curious preparation for a senti- 
 mental Radical, unless we can sup- 
 pose that Mr. Gladstone has been 
 able to fertilise his mind with a 
 compost of defunct opinions. 
 
 'M Down-right Tory." 
 
 Any one but Lord Palmerston 
 would have been placed in an awk- 
 ward position by the dissolution of 
 Parliament. He was going to the 
 country on the question of extend- 
 ing the franchise, and he made no 
 attempt to conceal his dislike for 
 Reform. But Palmekston was a 
 privileged man, and in home affairs 
 he was not expected to be serious. 
 He had to undergo some mild heck- 
 ling at Tiverton at the hands of a 
 Radical butcher. He was asked 
 
 whether he was in favour of the 
 ballot, of manhood suffrage, of £6 
 franchise, and so forth. The butcher 
 believed that "the noble lord was a 
 downright Tory, and the best repre- 
 sentative the Tories could possibly 
 have." The answer his lordshij) 
 vouchsafed amid laughter and cries 
 of " no chaff," certainly does not 
 give much information. " His friend 
 had asked him what he thought on 
 many points. In the first place, 
 he was opposed to the ballot. He 
 was against manhood suffrage. 
 (Butcher, " How far will you go 
 with the franchise ? ") He would 
 give him a straightforward answer. 
 He would not tell him. (Laughter.) 
 He held it was his duty, alter the 
 confidence they had reposed in him, 
 to act according to his judgment in 
 Reform." All this is excellent fool- 
 ing, but has no claim to be con- 
 sidered serious politics. 
 
 A False Charge. 
 
 The Conservatives througliout 
 this election laboured under a sus- 
 picion which afterwards proved to 
 be absolutely unfounded. Sardinia 
 and France were engaged in a seri- 
 ous struggle with Austria for tiie 
 Unity of Italy, and the Italian 
 cause had excited considerable en- 
 thusiasm in England. The Con- 
 servatives were suspected of having 
 favoured Austria, and this un- 
 founded surmise turned the balance 
 against them in many constitu- 
 encies. They had, however, made 
 some advance in popular favour, 
 the numbers being 305 to 348. 
 
 Italian Unity — A Liberal Cry. 
 
 The Liberal party held a meeting 
 in Willis's rooms, and, amidst gene- 
 ral surprise, Mr. Bright, the re- 
 former and man of jieacc, was found 
 sitting side by side with the re- 
 actionary ancl bellicose Pai.mkr- 
 ston, who had so thoroughly beaten 
 him in 1857. A union was patched 
 u]i, and Lord Hartington was jnit 
 up to move a tlirect vote of no con-
 
 5\ 
 
 RESIGNATION OF EARL DERBY. 
 
 lidence. The cause of Italian free- 
 dom was the real bond of union. 
 Bright and Palmekston, Cobdhn 
 and Russell, could find common 
 f^round in the cause which they 
 believed the Conservatives to have 
 betrayed. As a matter of fact, Lord 
 ]\lALMESBURY,the Foreign Minister, 
 had pursued a policy that was both 
 wise and safe. He had laboured 
 as long as possible to stop the out- 
 l)reak of hostilities, because he 
 doubted, with reason, the good faith 
 of Napoleon. When war was once 
 declared, he strove to localise it 
 as much as possible, and he put 
 successful pressure on the German 
 States to prevent them from inter- 
 vening on behalf of Austria. This 
 had, indeed, favoured France. A 
 Blue Book bearing out these facts 
 was ready for publication, but Dis- 
 raeli, by some inexplicable error 
 of judgment, caused it to be with- 
 held. The mistake was fatal, and 
 
 on June loth Lord Derby's Min- 
 istry was beaten by 323 to 310. 
 After the defeat, the Blue Book 
 appeared, and produced a most 
 favourable impression. No less 
 than 14 members, including Cob- 
 den, who had supported Lord 
 Hartington's motion, assured 
 Lord Malmesbury that they would 
 not have voted against the Govern- 
 ment if they had known the facts. 
 The editor of the Times wrote, " I 
 sincerely believe that if you had 
 published your dispatches a fort- 
 night earlier, they would have had 
 a very important influence on the 
 division." If Lord Derby could 
 have tided over the vote of censure, 
 he might reasonably have expected, 
 in the divided condition of the 
 Opposition, a lengthened tenure of 
 office. He fell, the victim of an 
 unscrupulous coalition and of an 
 unfortunate mistake. 
 
 1859-65. 
 
 Liberal Men and Tory INIeasures, 
 
 Ministerial Negotiations. 
 
 ON the resignation of Lord 
 Derby, the Queen sent 
 for Lord Granville, feel- 
 ing very properly that, as 
 she expressed it, " to make so 
 marked a distinction as is implied 
 in the choice between two states- 
 men so full of years and honour as 
 Lord Palmerston and Lord John 
 Russell, would be a very invidious 
 and unwelcome task." Lord Pal- 
 merston was willing to serve under 
 Lord Granville, but Lord John 
 Russell, with characteristic ego- 
 
 tism, refused. Lord Granville 
 thus failed to form a Government, 
 and Palmerston, in his 75th year, 
 again became Prime Alinister. 
 Lord John took the Foreign Office, 
 and ]\Ir. Gladstone the Exchequer, 
 and Cobden was offered the Board 
 of Trade. Cobden, who was on his 
 return vo3'age from America, re- 
 ceived tidings from his friends, 
 when he arrived at Liverpool, of 
 three notable events — the defeat of 
 the Tories, his election as member 
 for Rochdale, and Palmerston's 
 offer. He refused a seat in the 
 Cabinet, and, when pressed by
 
 THE REFORM BILL OF ISGO. 
 
 55 
 
 Palmerston for his reasons, re- 
 plied, "How can I serve under you 
 when I have called you the worst 
 Minister that England has ever 
 had?" "Many men," said the 
 good-natured Premier, "have 
 called me that, who have not your 
 scruples." " Yes. But I meant 
 what I said." The impartial in- 
 quirer might reasonably ask why, 
 if such was the opinion of the 
 Manchester men, they were found 
 supporting " the worst possible 
 Minister " against the Derby Go- 
 vernment, especially in regard to 
 the extension of the franchise, on 
 which Palmerston was notoriously 
 unsound. 
 
 Palmerston and Reform. 
 
 The only result of their action 
 was to postpone all Reform for six 
 years. As the Derby ]\Iinistry had 
 been beaten and forced to dissolve 
 on the Franchise question, the Go- 
 vernment was bound not only to 
 introduce a Reform Bill, but to 
 propose more extensive measures 
 than the Bill of 1859. This task 
 Lord Palmerston entrusted to 
 Lord John Russell, who, unde- 
 terred by the fate which had hither- 
 to attended his efforts, introduced 
 the Government proposals on 
 March ist. He adopted the £10 
 occupation franchise proposed by 
 Disraeli, and, again following 
 Disraeli and abandoning the posi- 
 tion he had taken up in 1852, gave 
 up rating as the basis for the fran- 
 chise. The arguments he used to 
 justify the change were borrowed 
 from the Conservative leader, and, 
 as they have already been men- 
 tioned in detail, need not be re- 
 capitulated here. He did, however, 
 introduce one argument of his own. 
 The Courts, he said, had decided 
 that Parliament had intended to 
 give the franchise to the man who 
 paid rent up to the amount of ;^io. 
 It made no diflcrence how that rent 
 was expended by the landlord, 
 whether the whole rent went into 
 
 his pocket, or whether a portion 
 was consumed by repairs. The 
 rating value, on the other hand, 
 was the net value, after deducting 
 repairs and other outgoings, i.e., it 
 represented not the rent paid, but 
 the profit received by the landlord. 
 But, as payment of rent was the 
 qualification for the vote, it natur- 
 ally follows that the total receipts, 
 and not the ratable profit, was the 
 proper basis for the franchise. 
 
 Deficiencies of his Bill. 
 
 So far, the Bill of i860 was identi- 
 cal with the Bill of 1859, which 
 Lord John had bitterly opposed 
 and solemnly denounced in the 
 name of the people of England. 
 To justify his opposition and his 
 maledictions, he was compelled to 
 introduce some difference. He 
 therefore omitted the "fancy fran- 
 chises," originally his own inven- 
 tion, and reduced the borough 
 franchise from ;^io to £6 occupa- 
 tion. The objections to the Go- 
 vernment Bill lie near the surface. 
 Every Reform Bill, if it is to com- 
 mend itself to the country, must rest 
 on some general principles and form 
 a logical and self-consistent whole. 
 Disraeli's Bill asserted the prin- 
 ciple of the identity of borough and 
 county franchise, and vindicated 
 the claims of personal property and 
 education to the vote. It was based 
 on the ;^io franchise wliich, though 
 not logically defensible, had ob- 
 tained some acceptance by pre- 
 scription. Lord John Russell had 
 no logical basis when he proposed 
 to substitute the £6 for the ^10 
 qualification in the boroughs. The 
 effect of the two Bills would have 
 been much the same. Russell's 
 Bill, according to his own calcula- 
 tions, would have added 194,000 vo- 
 ters to the register in the boroughs. 
 What increase would have been 
 produced by the " fancy franchises" 
 of 1S59 we cannot say with cer- 
 tainty, but prolvably it would not 
 have fallen much short of the
 
 5i 
 
 THE SHELVING OE REEORM. 
 
 "fancy franchises" of 1867. Those 
 francliiscs, had they been carried, 
 would have produced an increase, 
 we may safely say, on the whole 
 rc,f,dster of 164,500, so that the 
 difference between the Reform Ijills 
 of 1859 and i860, in point of in- 
 crease in voters, was not more than 
 30,000 or 40,000. This comparison 
 of the two Bills sufficiently proves 
 the factious nature of the dispute 
 which shipwrecked Disraeli's Re- 
 form Bill. We have shown that the 
 Government Measure did not bear 
 out or justify the strong declara- 
 tions of Lord John's resolution. 
 Although Disraeli coiUd not but 
 resent bitterly the hollow pretence 
 upon which his Government had 
 been overthrown, he offered no 
 opposition to the second reading of 
 the Bill on May 3rd. Such ob- 
 jections as he took were to the 
 redistribution scheme, which, he 
 declared, tended to "the destruc- 
 tion of spirit and energy in our 
 public life." 
 
 The Bill Unopposed, but WitJidraivn. 
 
 The Bill was practically un- 
 opposed, yet it was plainly doomed. 
 The Ministers did not even take the 
 trouble to keep a House, and the de- 
 bate was once counted out. On June 
 I ith the Bill was withdrawn. Dis- 
 raeli censured the Government for 
 the delay and waste of public time 
 caused by languid debates which 
 ended in nothing, but Lord John, 
 without grief or shame, strangled 
 his own offspring. The withdrawal 
 of the Bill was, undoubtedly, the 
 fault of the Ministry. Mr. Bright 
 declared, with truth, " there is not 
 a man in the House of Commons 
 • • • and there is not a man in the 
 Cabinet who does not know per- 
 fectly well that if Lord Palmerston 
 had said on some one evening in 
 the 3'ear i860 that his Government 
 W'Ould stand or fall by the Reform 
 ]5ill, the Bill would have passed 
 through the House without one 
 eflective, hostile division." Then 
 
 the word was passed rotmd that so 
 long as Palmerston lived there 
 would be no Reform. "Why," he 
 said subsequently, at an election 
 meeting, " Why do we not intro- 
 duce a Reform Bill ? Because we 
 are not such geese." 
 
 An Unfair Manauvre. 
 
 Palmerston, in private, was a 
 straightforward and honourable 
 man, but this application of the 
 methods of diplomacy to home 
 affairs reflects no credit on his repu- 
 tation. The facts speak for them- 
 selves. He went to the country in 
 1859 with the plea that Disraeli's 
 Franchise Bill did not go far 
 enough. He beat the Conservatives 
 on these lines, and then introduced 
 a Bill which was practically no 
 more extensive. Then he promptly 
 dropped his Bill, and quietly smoth- 
 ered Reform. All that Liberal action 
 in this matter did for the working 
 classes was to deprive them of some 
 300,000 votes for six years. The 
 history of Reform during this period 
 is neither long nor important. Mr. 
 Locke-King and Mr. Baines intro- 
 duced resolutions on the subject, 
 but obtained little attention and no 
 support. 
 
 The Paper Duties, 
 The financial measures of the 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 raised an important Constitutional 
 question. He proposed the Repeal 
 of the Excise Duty on Paper. 
 There was, at this date, a deficit of 
 ;^9,5oo,ooo, Avhich would necessi- 
 tate, among other measures, an in- 
 crease of 4d. in the Income Tax. 
 It was argued, with some force, 
 that the finances of the country 
 would not allow any remission of 
 taxation. The case was very clearly 
 put by Lord Robert Cecil — now 
 Lord Salisbury, — " The question 
 the House had to decide was a 
 question of the balance of taxation 
 — not whether or no there should 
 be a paper tax, but whether at this
 
 THE LORDS AND TAXATION. 
 
 57 
 
 time it was preferable to pay the 
 paper duty or another penny of 
 income tax." This feehng was so 
 strong that the proposal was only 
 carried by a majority of nine in a 
 House of 427. The opposition was 
 still more formidable in the House 
 of Lords, which is by custom de- 
 barred from altering a money bill, 
 as was admitted on all sides ; nor 
 can it constitutionally originate 
 one. But Lord Lyndhurst argued, 
 and his legal erudition gives great 
 weight to the argument, that al- 
 though the House was not in the 
 liabit of originating taxation, yet it 
 loth possessed and exercised the 
 riglit of vetoing Bills which proposed 
 the repeal of taxes. He proved his 
 contention by citing instances vary- 
 ing from 1689 to 1808, in which the 
 House of Lords had rejected bills 
 repealing taxation, without any 
 question being raised as to their 
 constitutional right. He urged 
 that the existing deficit, the threat- 
 ening attitude of France, and the 
 necessity for national defence made 
 it unvv'ise to sacrifice taxes pro- 
 ducing^i, 500, 000 per annum. "^^ The 
 Repeal of the Paper Duties was 
 rejected by 193 to 104 votes. The 
 division led to an active and viru- 
 lent, but rather hollow agitation 
 against the House of Lords, but its 
 technical right to reject a bill for 
 the repeal of taxation was expressly 
 admitted by the Privilege Com- 
 mittee of the House of Commons. 
 
 Palmersion's Inin'gues, 
 
 Pali\tf.rston intervened, on July 
 5th, with three resolutions, whicli 
 were intended to take the wind out 
 of the sails of the agitators, with- 
 out attacking the Peers. The sub- 
 stance of them was that the power 
 of taxation rested with the Com- 
 mons alone ; that the right of the 
 Lords to reject had been exercised 
 but not frequently, and was justly 
 
 * This estimate of Lyndiiukst proved to 
 bo excessive. 
 
 regarded with jealousy by the Cc m- 
 mons; and that the Commons 
 possessed the right of controlling 
 taxation. The resolutions were 
 passed by 177 to 138, largely owing 
 to Conservative support. Palmer- 
 STON, when asked in private what 
 the resolutions meant, is reported 
 to have said, " We thought it a 
 very good joke for once, but the 
 Lords mustn't do it again." The 
 subject is complicated by a curious 
 passage in Lord Malmesbury's 
 memoirs. He says there had been 
 a rumour of a Conservative coalition 
 with Palmerston, and the truth 
 was "I was deputed by Lord 
 Derby and Disraeli to tell Lady 
 Palmerston that we meant to throw 
 out the Duty on Paper Bill, for 
 which she thanked us." The pro- 
 bability is that we have here one of 
 those subterranean intrigues of 
 which the astute Premier, perhaps 
 in consequence of his experience 
 at the Foreign Ofiice, was so fond. 
 He may have thought a gentle snub 
 to Mr. Gladstone would do no 
 harm, for no great love was lost 
 between Palmerston and his 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone s Neglect of the 
 Colonies. 
 
 ]\Ir. Gladstone's financial ca- 
 pacity, which was admittedly great, 
 was of the same nature as his abili- 
 ties in other fields. It was a power 
 of exposition rather than action. 
 He could make a persuasive, lucid, 
 and interesting statement about 
 figures, ju^t as he could on any 
 other topic. But he did not imdcr- 
 stand foreign policy, and he was 
 devoid of Imperial ideas. His neg- 
 lect of the Colonics was astound- 
 ing. One instance is his treatment 
 of Sir E. Stafford, first Minister 
 of New Zealand, who came to Eng- 
 land in 1859 ^" establish steam 
 communication between New Zea- 
 land, England, and Australia. He 
 was well-received by the Derby 
 Government, which met him more
 
 5^ 
 
 THE FRENCH COMMERCIAL TREATY. 
 
 than ]ialf-way, but after its fall he 
 had to negotiate witli the new Min- 
 isters witliout effect. At last he 
 interviewed Lord Palmerston, who 
 told him, " Well, the fact is we 
 cannot do anytliing without Mr- 
 Gladstone ; it is a money question, 
 and must be settled with him." 
 He had an interview with Mr. 
 Gladstone, who stated, in his 
 peculiar style, that until the Dover 
 and Galway Committee reported 
 on a matter absolutely unconnected 
 with Australia, he was not pre- 
 pared to say he would ask the 
 House of Commons to consider the 
 propriety of entering into the ques- 
 tion whether it should or should 
 not establish very large and hither- 
 to unparalleled ocean postal com- 
 munication. The answer overcame 
 the Colonist, who went straight 
 home to see what he could do for 
 himself. It is conduct like this 
 which has interposed difficulties in 
 the way of Imperial Federation. 
 
 Defects in his Finance. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's finance has 
 received much uncritical praise. 
 The immediate effect of his influ- 
 ence on the Budget was to produce 
 in 1860-61 a deficit of no less than 
 ;^2,558,ooo. The deficit from 1S61 
 to 1S62 was ;^ 1, 1 64, 000, which 
 showed an entire disregard of his 
 theory that the expenses of a year 
 should be paid out of that year's 
 income, though it should, of course, 
 be remembered that ^^i, 700, 000 of 
 the first deficit represents the loss 
 to the revenue incurred under Cob- 
 den's treat}^ whilst ;^i,ooo,ooo of 
 the second deficit was due to the 
 repeal of the Paper Tax. But this 
 is not the only proof of question- 
 able finance. In iS6o-6i there 
 Avas an error in the estimates of 
 ^2,642,000, and in 1861-62 one of 
 ;^g63,ooo, making a total error on 
 two years of the enormous sum of 
 ^3,605,000 on the part of a man 
 who claims to be the greatest 
 financier in England. The fact is 
 
 that Mr. Gladstone was en- 
 deavouring to yoke the large mili- 
 tary expenditure of Palmerston to 
 the retrenchment of Bright, and 
 the attempt to drive such an in- 
 congruous pair failed, as all such 
 attempts must fail. 
 
 Cohden as a Diplomatist. 
 
 Cob den's Commercial Treaty 
 with France was certainly a benefit, 
 on the whole, to the country. At 
 first sight Cobden and a commer- 
 cial treaty seem a strange conjunc- 
 tion, because, strictly speaking, 
 such treaties are contrary to the 
 principles of Free Trade. On the 
 Free Trade theory indirect taxes 
 are to be imposed solely for the 
 purpose of revenue, and not in 
 order to encourage or protect home 
 industries. We should treat all 
 nations alike, without favour and 
 without hindrance. On the other 
 hand, a commercial treaty with a 
 given power means that one par- 
 ticular power is favoured above all 
 other nations, and that taxes are 
 remitted or imposed, not for the 
 purposes of revenue, but in order 
 to encourage trade. IMoreover, 
 Free Traders teach that Free 
 Trade is a benefit in itself, whilst 
 Protection is a disadvantage, 
 and that England is placed in a 
 very advantageous position as com- 
 pared with her continental rivals 
 because she has adopted the sys- 
 tem, so that she would lose if con- 
 tinental nations were converted to it. 
 It follows that an English Govern- 
 ment injures British interests if it 
 attempts to extend among foreign 
 nations the practice of Free Trade. 
 Yet such was the object of Cobden's 
 Treaty. The truth probably is that 
 commercial treaties are a subtle 
 form of Protection, and that, so far 
 as they are right. Free Trade is 
 wrong. But there can be no doubt 
 that our trade with France was 
 improved by the Treaty, and the 
 House of Commons was fully justi- 
 iicd in carrying an address to the
 
 THE SEIZURE OF SEIDELL AND MASON. 
 
 59 
 
 Crown expressing satisfaction by 
 282 to 56. Yet it cannot be called 
 the best bargain that might have 
 been made. England had to take 
 more duties off French goods than 
 the Emperor would take off Eng- 
 lish goods, and the answer that was 
 made to this objection — that it is a 
 positive advantage to a country to 
 take duties off imports — only goes 
 to prove that commercial treaties 
 are inconsistent with the Free 
 Trade theory. The Treaty was 
 badly drawn, and Clause 11, re- 
 lating to the importation of English 
 coal, was extremely unsatisfactory. 
 Cob DEN might have got better 
 terms if he had pressed the Em- 
 peror more closely, for, in 1852, 
 Napoleon was ready to admit 
 English silks into France under a 
 duty of 15 per cent., while Cobden 
 could only obtain a duty of 30 per 
 cent. Of course, as he was not a 
 diplomatist, and as he made no use 
 of the English Embassy in Paris, 
 it could not be expected that he 
 would obtain the best possible 
 terms, but, in the main, the nego- 
 tiations were not discreditable to 
 him. 
 
 Civil Way in America. 
 Foreign affairs present topics of 
 considerable interest. They fall 
 naturally under three heads — the 
 Civil War in America, the French 
 Alliance, and the Danish Question. 
 The war between North and South 
 broke out in May, 1861. The pre- 
 ponderance of public opinion in 
 England, though rightly hostile to 
 slavery, sided with the South. Mr. 
 Bright's theory that this feeling 
 arose from a love of slavery on the 
 part of the Conservative party and 
 the upper classes is worthy neither 
 of his reputation nor of serious 
 argument. Tlie real motives of 
 English sympathy can be easily ex- 
 plained. There was the natural 
 tendency among Englishmen to 
 take the part of the weaker but 
 bolder side, and tlie South had 
 distinctly better soldiers than the 
 
 North. The cotton famine, too, 
 made the North, which began hos- 
 tilities, unpopular in Lancashire 
 and the manufacturing districts. If 
 we add to this the contempt and 
 ridicule it was fashionable to pour 
 on the Yankee at that date, we have 
 sufficiently accounted for the drift 
 of English opinion. There was also 
 a set of theorists, represented by 
 Mr. Gladstone, who preferred the 
 disintegrating principle of separate 
 nationalities to the loftier and more 
 elaborate problems of a great em- 
 pire — " Jefferson Davis," said Mr. 
 Gladstone, " has made a nation." 
 Such men, accordingl}^, denounced 
 the North for declining to submit 
 to separation. Disraeli, following 
 his Imperial instincts, supported 
 the Northern States throughout, 
 though their arbitrary behaviour 
 greatly increased the unpopularity 
 of their cause. 
 
 Forcible Seizure of S.S. " Trent." 
 
 On November 8th, 1861, the 
 Federal steamer, San Jacinto, stop- 
 ped the British mail ship Trent, and 
 forcibly removed from her Messrs. 
 Mason and Seidell, two Confede- 
 rate Commissioners. E irl Russell 
 promptly demanded their liberation 
 and a suitable apology for the act 
 of aggression. The Guards were 
 sent to Canada, and the British 
 Ambassador was instructed to 
 leave Washington if he did not 
 obtain redress. Mr. Seward, the 
 Federal Secretary of State, in a 
 long and ambiguous dispatch of 
 December 26th, gave waj'. He ex- 
 plained that although it was pos- 
 sible to consider the Commissioners 
 as contraband of war and therefore 
 liable to seizure, and although lie 
 would have taken this course if the 
 interests of his country demanded 
 it, yet, under the circumstances, he 
 was not prepared to dispute the 
 point. Earl Russell summed up 
 the situation by suggesting that the 
 United States commanders should 
 be instructed " not to repeat acts
 
 Go 
 
 DOUBTS AS TO FRENCH POLICY. 
 
 wliicli their Government cannot 
 undertake to justify." 
 
 The ''Alahamar 
 
 Hardly was the Trent question 
 settled when the Alabama difficulty 
 arose. The vessel was built on the 
 banks of the Mersey, and was prin- 
 cipally manned by Englishmen. 
 Owing to the dilatory behaviour 
 of the Government, and the sus- 
 picious conduct of an official, it 
 was allowed to sail out of an Eng- 
 lish port, although every one knew 
 that it had been built for the pur- 
 pose of destroying Federal com- 
 merce. After an exciting career, 
 the Alabama was sunk by the Kear- 
 sage off Cherbourg, in June, 1864, 
 but it had already destroyed some 
 70 merchant vessels. 
 
 The French Alliance and National 
 Dcfeme. 
 
 Hostile feeling towards France 
 arose out of the cession by Sardinia 
 of Nice and Savoy. An overwhelm- 
 ing majority of the population voted 
 in favour of union with France, 
 but it created universal dissatisfac- 
 tion throughout Europe. England 
 had always favoured the cause of 
 Italian freedom, and the English 
 Government had been the first to 
 recognise Victor Emmanuel as 
 King of Italy, so the event gave 
 especial offence to England. Pal- 
 MERSTON had formerly been the 
 promoter of the Anglo-French 
 Alliance, but after 1859 his sus- 
 picions of France were strength- 
 ened year by year. The Emperor, 
 he said, " was as full of ideas as a 
 warren is full of rabbits." The in- 
 triguing and underhand policy of 
 France filled him with apprehen- 
 sion and alarm. " Latterly," he 
 writes, "great pains have been 
 taken to raise throughout France, 
 and especially among the army and 
 navy, hatred of England." "It 
 Avould be unwise for the Govern- 
 ment to shut its eyes to these 
 symptoms." " They (the French) 
 
 are eminently vain. They cannot 
 forget or forgive Trafalgar, the 
 Peninsula, or Waterloo." Conse- 
 quently, he thought it his duty to 
 be on his guard against French 
 hostility. He determined to in- 
 crease the fleet and to strengthen 
 the fortifications. He also drew 
 up a plan of National defence in- 
 volving ;/^g,ooo,ooo expenditure in 
 all. Elaborate fortifications were 
 at once begun at Portsmouth as 
 part of the scheme. In fact, he 
 was beginning more and more 
 clearly to see that Germany and 
 not France was the proper ally 
 of England on the continent, for 
 our interests can never seriously 
 clash with those of Germany, whilst 
 we encounter the agents of France 
 all over the world. His schemes 
 met with a good deal of veiled 
 opposition in the Cabinet. He 
 wrote to Mr. Gladstone : — "The 
 main question is whether our naval 
 arsenals and some other important 
 points should be defended by fortifi- 
 cations or not, I can hardly imagine 
 two opinions on that question." 
 And, again, " There was for a long 
 time an apathetic blindness on the 
 part of governed and governors as 
 to the defensive means of the coun- 
 try compared with the offensive 
 means of other powers." Sir 
 George Lewis, in writing to him, 
 used the following astounding argu- 
 ment : — " It seems to me that our 
 foreign relations are on too vast a 
 scale to render it wise for us to 
 insure systematically against all 
 sides ; and, if we do not insure 
 systematically, we do nothing." 
 This opinion, it has been asserted, 
 was shared by Peel. Of course, 
 any argument against increased ex- 
 penditure and exertion has at its 
 back human laziness and love of 
 money, but wdiat, we may ask, 
 would be said of a man of business 
 who laid it down as a principle 
 that unless he could insure against 
 all risks, he would insure against 
 none ?
 
 J HE SCIILESWIG-HOLSTEIN QUESTION. 
 
 6i 
 
 The Danish Question. 
 
 In liis treatment of the Danish 
 question, Palmerston was not suc- 
 cessful. Denmark had attached to 
 itself, by marriage, the two pro- 
 vinces of Schleswig and Holstein, 
 which were occupied by a German 
 population. On these two pro- 
 vinces, Austria and Prussia, moved 
 partly by a desire for territorial 
 aggrandisement, but still more by 
 the idea of German unity which 
 was growing up amongst the scat- 
 tered German States, had cast 
 greedy eyes. Palmerston, by 
 threatening intervention, and by 
 expressing sympathy with Den- 
 mark, encouraged the Danes to re- 
 sist the demands of Austria and 
 Prussia, but, when those Powers 
 invaded Denmark in February, 
 
 1864, he left the Danes in the lurch. 
 The following extract from a speech 
 delivered in June, exactly typifies 
 liis policy in the matter, violent and 
 impetuous at the outset, feeble 
 and impotent in its conclusion : — 
 " If the Government had reason to 
 expect to see at Copenhagen the 
 horrors of a town taken by assault, 
 the destruction of property, the 
 sacrifice of the lives of peaceful in- 
 habitants, the confiscations which 
 would ensue, and the capture of the 
 Sovereign as a prisoner of war • • • 
 I do not mean to say that • • • the 
 position of this country might not 
 be subject to reconsideration." In 
 the result, the Danes were crushed 
 and the provinces lost, on the whole 
 to the advantage of Europe. As 
 Palmerston subsequently admit- 
 ted, it was most desirable at this 
 period to strengthen Prussia as 
 against Russia. His policy did no 
 good to the Danes and offended 
 the Germans. 
 
 The Dissolution. — Palmerston and 
 Bright. 
 
 Parliament was dissolved in July, 
 
 1865. Mr. P^RiGHT bitterly attacked 
 Palmerston in his address to his 
 
 constituents. *' Down with the 
 Whigs" was, in fact, his election cry, 
 although, when the elections were 
 over, he was quite ready to support 
 a Government composed of Pal- 
 merston's colleagues. "The Ad- 
 ministration, which in 1S59 climbed 
 into office under the pretence of its 
 devotion to Parliamentary Reform, 
 has violated its solemn pledges. Its 
 chiefs have purposely betrayed the 
 cause they undertook to defend, and 
 the less eminent members have 
 acquiesced in that betrayal. The 
 Ministry have for six years held 
 office, which, but for promises they 
 made and have broken, they could 
 not have obtained possession of 
 even for a day." The charge is, in 
 substance, true, but it was the Con- 
 servatives who had real cause to be 
 aggrieved. They had done their 
 best to introduce a working Reform 
 Bill, and had been ejected from 
 office on a false pretence, and kept 
 out for six years. Yet, in spite of 
 these injuries, they had forgiven 
 Palmerston, because they consid- 
 ered he had, on the whole, main- 
 tained the prestige of the country 
 abroad. The Liberals, who were 
 able to appeal both to reformers 
 and anti-reformers, gained a few 
 seats, the numbers being — Liberals 
 361, and Conservatives 294. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone ^^ Unmuzzled." 
 
 The defeat of Mr. Gladstone for 
 Oxford University, by 180 votes, 
 proved the turning point in his 
 career. Up to 1865, no action and 
 no recorded opinion of Mr. Glad- 
 stone separated him in essential 
 principle from the Conservative 
 party. Oxford is and has always 
 been in favour of those principles 
 which are, to use tlie older and 
 nobler word, distinctively Tory, yet 
 Mr. Gladstone could say, on July 
 i8th, "I am aware of no cause for 
 the votes which have given a ma- 
 jority against me in the University 
 of Oxford." Thus, Mr. Gladstone 
 conceived that he could at this time
 
 END OF WHIG ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 claim the support of those who 
 held to Tory princijilcs without 
 being bound by party claims. Now, 
 however, to use his own not very 
 creditable phrase, he stood before 
 the country " unmuzzled." The 
 recreant University has been taught 
 by Commissions and parliamentary 
 interference to regret the day when 
 it rejected the Liberal leader. At 
 the time, Mr. Gladstone said " I 
 have loved the University of Oxford 
 with deep and passionate love, and 
 as long as I breathe that attach- 
 ment will continue." Where are 
 the signs of that deep, abiding affec- 
 tion ? It has been shown only in 
 chastisement. 
 
 Death of Lord Palmersfon. 
 
 Palmerston had triumphed, but 
 he was not long to enjoy his victory. 
 Up to 1864, he maintained a gay 
 and jaunty demeanour, apparently 
 unaffected by the approach of years, 
 but in 1865 severe attacks of the 
 gout had greatly enfeebled him, and 
 he had performed his duties as 
 leader of the House with evident 
 and painful exertion. Immediately 
 after the election, he went to his 
 country house in Hertfordshire. 
 On September 13th he wrote a 
 most important letter to Lord John 
 Russell, which may be looked 
 
 upon as his last legacy to the Eng- 
 lish nation. " It is desirable that 
 Germany should be strong in order 
 to control those two ambitious and 
 aggressive Powers, France and 
 Russia. • • • As to Russia, she 
 will, in due time, become a Power 
 almost as great as the Roman Em- 
 pire. She can become mistress of 
 all Asia, except British India, 
 whenever she chooses to take it." 
 Such were the prophetic words of 
 the great English Statesman. He 
 felt that his life was drawing to its 
 close, but, as he said to his doctor, 
 " when a man's time is up, there 
 is no use repining." His gaiety, 
 assumed for the purpose of reassur- 
 ing his wife, and his little devices 
 for testing a failing strength were 
 the pathetic incidents of the last 
 weeks of his life. His last extant 
 dispatch was written in the second 
 week of October, concerning the 
 armaments of Canada. On October 
 1 8th, he was found dead in his 
 room, an opened Cabinet box on 
 the table and an unfinished dispatch 
 on the desk before him. He was 
 buried in Westminster Abbey on 
 October 27th, and his bitterest 
 political opponents were mourners 
 at his funeral. It may truly be 
 said of him that he never made an 
 enemy and never forgot a friend.
 
 [63] 
 
 PART II.— POPULAR GOVERNMENT. 
 
 1865-68. 
 
 Reform: Disraeli succeeds where 
 Gladstone fails. 
 
 Parliament without Pahncrston. 
 
 LORD PALMERSTON'S 
 death led to very few 
 changes in the Ministry. 
 Earl Russell naturally 
 succeeded him as Premier, and 
 Lord Clarendon as naturally took 
 Lord Russell's place at the 
 Foreign Office, while the appoint- 
 ment of Mr. FoRSTER and Mr. 
 GoscHEN to minor posts was sup- 
 posed to mark an advance towards 
 a more decided Liberalism. Put, 
 though much the same men were 
 in office, an enormous change had 
 taken place in the political situa- 
 tion. England no longer owned 
 a dictator. The good-humoured 
 rule of Palmerston was succeeded 
 by long and bitter strife between 
 I\Ir. Gladstone, who now became 
 leader of the House of Commons, 
 and his great Conservative op- 
 ponent. The question of Reform 
 could no longer be ignored. The 
 constituencies were clearly in 
 favour of a settlement, and tlie 
 hour seemed to have arrived in 
 wliich Liberal Ministers might at 
 last fulfil their pledges. 
 
 Liberal Proposals for Reform Dictated 
 by Expediency rather than Principle. 
 
 There can be little doubt that 
 the majority of members, Liberals 
 as well as Conservatives, in their 
 hearts disliked the idea of Reform. 
 Had there been a strong feeling 
 in its favour on the part of the 
 main body of his followers. Lord 
 Palmerston could not have played 
 
 with tlie sulijcct with so little pre- 
 tence of sincerity. As we have seen, 
 the Liberal leaders had, for nearly 
 a quarter of a century, evaded the 
 problem instead of solving it. At 
 the same time thej' had contrived to 
 give the impression that they were 
 friendly to Reform. Some of their 
 Bills could not even be considered 
 sincere proposals, and those which 
 seemed to show a serious purpose 
 were constructed on no logical 
 principle. Household Suffrage 
 seemed to be altogether beyond the 
 range of practical politics. Mr. 
 FoRSTER said at a Reform meeting 
 at Leeds, in 1S63, that not fifteen 
 men in the House would vote for it. 
 In the Parliament of 1865, ©"^Y 
 a small section was really anxious 
 to obtain a thorough-going measure, 
 and even the Radical leaders were 
 afraid of Household Suffrage pure 
 and simple. Many Liberal mem- 
 bers regarded a Reform Bill as a 
 painful necessity, and some wished 
 to have none at all. The question 
 of Household Suffrage was brouglit 
 into the field of practical politics by 
 Disraeli, not by Liberal leaders. 
 His private convictions were in 
 favour of that principle, as far back 
 as 1859. ^" this point he was con- 
 siderably in advance of Mr. Glad- 
 stone, who wrote to Mr, Horsfall, 
 of Manchester, on August 8th, 1866. 
 "I do not agree with the demand 
 citlier for Manhood or for House- 
 hold Suffrage." It follows that 
 Disraeli, of the two, had the 
 better answer to tlie charge of 
 inconsistenc}'.
 
 64 
 
 "THE CAVE OF ADULLAM." 
 
 The Reform Bill. 
 
 The Reform Bill introduced by 
 Mr. Gladstone in 1866 proposed 
 tlie reduction of the franchise from 
 ^"50 to £1^ in the counties, and 
 Irom £10 to ^y in the boroughs. 
 It is surprising that such meagre 
 proposals* should have excited 
 either enthusiasm or hostility, for 
 they would have involved, on Mr. 
 Gladstone's own calculation, no 
 more sweeping change than the 
 enfranchisement of some 200,000 
 from the middle-classes, and an 
 equal number of working-men. 
 "Changes," said ]\Ir. Gladstone, 
 " that effect sudden and extensive 
 transfer of power, are attended by 
 great temptations to the weakness 
 of human nature ; and, however 
 high our opinion may be of the 
 labouring classes, or of any other 
 classes of the community, I do not 
 believe that it would be right to 
 place such a temptation within the 
 reach of any one among them." He 
 decided to deal with the Redistri- 
 bution of Seats in a separate Bill, 
 introduced in the same session. He 
 admitted the close connexion of the 
 two subjects. "Nothing," he said, 
 " could be more contemptible 
 and base than the conduct of a 
 Government which could give out, 
 with a view of enlisting the generous 
 confidence of its supporters, that it 
 would deal with the subject of 
 Reform, and would stand or fall by 
 its propositions, and which all the 
 while could silently exclude from 
 the scope of their declaration all 
 portions of that question, except 
 only the reduction of the franchise, 
 though among such portions we 
 find one, I mean the distribution 
 of seats, only second in importance 
 to that of the franchise itself." 
 
 The opposition to the Bill was very 
 
 *LoRD Russell, in his " Recollections," 
 avows his own attachment to " the Whig 
 principle" that "the persons endowed with 
 the right of voting for the members of the 
 House of Commons, by whom the whole 
 
 formidable. The anti-reforrhers 
 resisted it as strenuously as they 
 would have resisted an extreme 
 measure. Some of the moderate 
 Liberals formed themselves for 
 the purpose of opposition into 
 a party of their own, and came 
 to be called "the Adullamites," 
 from Mr. Bright's comparison of 
 the new combination to the discon- 
 tented in the cave of Adullam. 
 The leading spirits in "the cave" 
 were Lord Grosvenor, Lord 
 Elcho, and Colonel Anson. Mr. 
 Lowe, too, solemnly denounced 
 the Bill from the Liberal benches. 
 " Uncoerced," he exclaimed, " by 
 any external force, not borne down 
 by any internal calamity, but in 
 the full plethora of our wealth, and 
 the rash surfeit of our too exube- 
 rant prosperity, with our own rash 
 and inconsiderate hands we are 
 about to pluck down on our heads 
 the venerable temple of our liberty 
 and our glory. History may tell 
 of other acts as signally disastrous, 
 but of none more wanton, none 
 more disgraceful." 
 
 The Conservatives attacked the 
 Bill on several sides. Some of 
 them wished to shelve the whole 
 question. Others, including Dis- 
 raeli, based their opposition pri- 
 maril}'' on the ground that it was 
 a piecemeal reform, and that the 
 extension of the franchise and the 
 redistribution of seats should be 
 dealt with not only in the same 
 session, but in the same Act. 
 Many urged that the Bill was 
 unfair to the counties, both because 
 without an equitable redistribution 
 it would aggravate the grievance 
 of inadequate representation, and 
 because Mr. Gladstone, although 
 he proposed £1^ as the county 
 qualification, while Disraeli had 
 proposed ;^io, left the county 
 
 state of the country is guided and directed, 
 ought to be persons qualified by property 
 and education for the discharge of so 
 important a trust."
 
 THE CONSERVATIVES RETURN TO OFFICE. 
 
 65 
 
 electors to be swamped by the 40s. 
 freeholders in towns, and even 
 granted county votes to borough 
 copyholders and leaseholders. 
 " The Chancellor of the Exche- 
 quer," argued Lord Salisbury, 
 then Lord Cranbohne, "has pro- 
 duced a measure which we should 
 have expected from him. Through- 
 out the whole of his political career 
 — and he has passed through many 
 phases of opinion, and shown great 
 varieties of character — there is one, 
 if I may so call it, golden link 
 which connects them, and that is 
 his persistent, undying hatred of 
 the rural interest." 
 
 Defeat of the Government. — Thiid 
 Devby-Disraeli Ministry. 
 
 On the second reading, the 
 Government could only obtain a 
 majority of five in a House of 658. 
 Everyone saw that the fate of the 
 Bill was sealed. In Committee, 
 several amendments were moved 
 on both sides of the House. For 
 a time the Government held its 
 own by narrow majorities. Lord 
 Stanley, in a speech which has 
 always been regarded as unanswer- 
 able, moved to postpone the clause 
 relating to the county franchise 
 until the redistribution scheme was 
 settled, but he was defeated by 2S7 
 to 260. The Government fell at 
 last on Lord Dun'kellin's motion 
 to substitute rating for rental as 
 the basis of the borough qualifica- 
 tion, which was carried b}' 315 to 
 304. The Bill was abandoned, and 
 the Ministry resigned. Lord 
 Derby was natural!}' reluctant to 
 accept office, for his health was 
 failing, and he was tired of attempt- 
 ing to govern with a minority. But 
 no other course was open to him, 
 since he was the only Statesman 
 whom the Queen could summon. 
 He was able to form a fairly strong 
 Administration, Disraeli being 
 again Chancellor of the Exchequer 
 and leader of the Lower House, 
 Lord Chelmsi-ord Chancellor, 
 
 Lord Stanley at the Foreign 
 Office, Lord Carnarvon Colonial 
 Secretary, and Lord Cran borne 
 Secretary for India. General 
 Peel, Sir Stafford Northcote, 
 Mr. Gathorne-Hardy, and Sir 
 John Pakington were also in the 
 Ministry. 
 
 The Conservative Party and Reform. 
 
 Lord Derby, on taking office, 
 said that he and his colleagues 
 were entirely unpledged in regard 
 to Reform. " Nothing would give 
 me greater pleasure than to see a 
 very considerable portion of the 
 class now excluded admitted to the 
 franchise." " I reserve to myself the 
 most entire liberty as to whether 
 the present Government should or 
 should not undertake in a future 
 Session to bring in a measure for 
 the amendment of the representa- 
 tion of the people." The Conser- 
 vative leaders themselves were 
 fully convinced that there was 
 urgent need of a final settlement. 
 Disraeli had, as he said in 1852, 
 " always been an advocate for an 
 industrial suffrage." It had long 
 been his ambition to restore to the 
 working-classes the political power 
 which they had lost in 1832 — "an 
 omission," as he afterwards ob- 
 served, "perhaps naturally made 
 by a party which, generally speak- 
 ing, had built up their policy rather 
 upon Liberal opinions than upon 
 popular rigiits." But many of the 
 Tory members were afraid of a 
 really extensive measure, and no 
 other could bring the controversy 
 to a close. " Seven memorable 
 years," said Disraeli, when des- 
 cribing the history of his Reform 
 Bill, "elapsed from 1859 to 1866, 
 when Lord Derby was called again 
 to power, and during these seven 
 years the question of Parliament- 
 ary Reform was before the public 
 mind and under the examination of 
 Parliament. During that period of 
 seven years, with the advice — I 
 may say under the instructions —
 
 66 
 
 PROCEEDING BY RESOLUTION. 
 
 of my colleac^nes, I expressed tlie 
 principles upon which any measure 
 of Parhamentary Reform ouf^lit to 
 be estabhshcd. • • • I liad to pre- 
 pare the mind of the country, and 
 to ethicate — if it be not arrogant to 
 use such a phrase — to educate our 
 jiarty. I had to prepare the mind 
 of ParHament and of the country 
 on this question of Reform." 
 
 Disraelis Resolutions. 
 
 In the autumn of 1866, Lord 
 Derby wrote to Disraeli that 
 "after grave deliberation" he 
 thought it absolutely necessary to 
 deal with the question of Reform, 
 and to deal with it in no niggard 
 spirit. The Cabinet discussed the 
 matter at several meetings, and 
 eventually determined to ask the 
 House to proceed by way of resolu- 
 tion. If was hoped that, if the 
 House could be induced to define 
 the principles on which Reform 
 should be based, something like 
 general assent might be given to a 
 Government measure. The thir- 
 teen resolutions, introduced by 
 Disraeli on February nth, 1867, 
 declared, in substance, (i) that the 
 electorate should be increased, (2) 
 by reducing the qualification in 
 both counties and boroughs ; (3) 
 that no one class ought to have a 
 predominance ; (4) that the occu- 
 pation franchise should be based on 
 rating; (5) that plurality of votes 
 should be alloAved; (6, 7, and 8) 
 that seats should be redistributed, 
 but that no borough should be 
 wholly disfranchised, except for 
 corruption ; (g) that a Reform Bill 
 should deal with corruption; (10) 
 that registration in counties and 
 boroughs should be assimilated ; 
 (11 and 12) that provision should 
 be made for polling papers and for 
 diminishing the distance between 
 polling stations; and (13) that a 
 Boundary Commission should be 
 appointed. On these resolutions 
 Lord Derby and Disraeli wished 
 to base an extensive Reform Bill, 
 
 but in deference to the scruples of 
 some of their colleagues they were 
 at first forced to propose a smaller 
 measure, which would have re- 
 duced the franchise to £6 rating in 
 boroughs, and to ;^2o in counties, 
 besides educational and property 
 qualifications. Four corrupt towns 
 were to be disfranchised, and 
 twenty more, with a population 
 under 7,000, were to retain only 
 one member. Fourteen seats were 
 to be given to new boroughs in the 
 Northern and Midland districts, 
 fifteen to the counties, and one 
 to the University of London. 
 Disraeli calculated that the Bill 
 w^ould add 418,500 electors to the 
 register, and it would, as he said, 
 have "restored the labouring- 
 classes to that place in our Par- 
 liamentary system which they 
 forfeited by the Act of 1832." 
 But it satisfied neither the Conser- 
 vative party nor the country. At a 
 meeting of Conservative members 
 at the Carlton, a general opinion 
 was expressed in favour of a nearer 
 approach to Household Suffrage, 
 and Lord Derby reverted to his 
 original intentions. The Bill, so 
 hastily introduced, was as speedily 
 withdrawn, and came to be known 
 as " The Ten Minutes Bill." Its 
 withdrawal caused the resignation 
 of three Cabinet Ministers — Lord 
 Carnarvon, Lord Cranborne, and 
 General Peel. The Government 
 abandoned the idea of proceeding 
 by way of resolution, and on 
 March i8th Disraeli brought in 
 his second Bill. 
 
 Disraeli's Reform Bill. 
 
 The new Bill was based on the 
 principle of household suffrage, i.e. 
 that every man who rented a house 
 should have a vote, whatever the 
 amount of his rent might be. It 
 granted the borough franchise to 
 all who paid either rates for two 
 years, or 20s. in direct taxation. It 
 contained franchises founded upon 
 education, and upon the possession
 
 OPPOSITION OF GLADSTONE AND BRIGHT. 
 
 67 
 
 of money in the Funds or in savings 
 banks, and it allowed dual voting. 
 For the counties it proposed a ^15 
 rating franchise, and its redistribu- 
 tion clauses followed the lines of 
 the "Ten Minutes Bill." The 
 Liberal leaders severely condemned 
 the *' checks and balances " in the 
 Bill, and did not conceal their 
 objections to the enfranchisement 
 of the " very poor." " I wish to 
 know," said Mr. Gladstone, 
 " what the Government propose to 
 do with respect to the votes of the 
 very poor and dependent persons 
 Avho are, indeed, householders, and 
 who are nominally ratepaj'ing 
 householders, but who are on the 
 line or fringe between those who 
 pay rates and those who are excused 
 from payment of rates. I wish to 
 know how, practically, the traffic 
 in these votes by the registration 
 agents is to be prevented, for I 
 confess I do not see how that is 
 to be done unless some limit be 
 introduced, similar to that which 
 I myself recently suggested and 
 explained to the House." Mr. 
 Bright declared that he was ready 
 to repeat the speech which he had 
 made in January, 1859 : — " I put it 
 to every man — I don't care what 
 liis theoretical notions are — whether 
 he believes that throughout the 
 boroughs of the United Kingdom 
 it would be advantageous or bene- 
 ficial to the constituency as a whole 
 to include some scores in some con- 
 stituencies, some hundreds in others, 
 a few thousands perhaps in the 
 largest, of a class of which there 
 are, unfortunately, too many among 
 us — namely, the excessively poor, 
 many of them intemperate, some of 
 them profligate, some of them, it 
 may be, only unfortunate, some 
 of them naturally incapable, but all 
 of them in a condition of depen- 
 dence, such as to give no reasonable 
 expectation that they would be able 
 to resist the many temptations 
 which rich and unscrupulous men 
 would oircr them at periods of 
 
 election, to give their votes in a 
 manner not only not consistent 
 with their own opinions and con- 
 sciences, if they have any, but not 
 consistent with the representation 
 of the town or city in which they 
 live." " At this moment," he said, 
 " in all, or nearly all, our boroughs, 
 as many of us know, sometimes to 
 our sorrow, there is a small class 
 which it would be much better 
 for themselves if they were not 
 enfranchised, because they have 
 no independence whatsoever, and 
 it would be much better for the 
 constituenc)' also that they should 
 be excluded, and there is no class 
 so much interested in having that 
 small class excluded as the intelli- 
 gent and honest working-man. I 
 call this class the residuum, which 
 there is in almost every consti- 
 tuency." 
 
 In replying upon the whole 
 debate, Disraeli appealed to his 
 opponents to forget the struggle of 
 parties in order to arrive at an 
 honourable solution of the Reform 
 question : — " All I can say on the 
 part of my colleagues and myself is 
 that we have no other wish "at the 
 present moment than, with the co- 
 operation of the House, to bring 
 the question of Parliamentary 
 Reform to a settlement. I know 
 the Parliamentary incredulity with 
 which many will receive avowals 
 that we are only influenced in the 
 course we are taking by a sense of 
 duty; but I do assure the House, 
 if they need such as' urances after 
 what we have gone through, after 
 the sacrifices we have made, after 
 having surrendered our political 
 connection with men whom we 
 more than regarded — I can assure 
 them that no other principle ani- 
 mates us but a conviction that 
 we ought not to desert our posts 
 until this question is settled. Rest 
 assured that it is not for the weal 
 of England that this settlement 
 should be delayed. You may think 
 that the horizon is not disturbed at
 
 63 
 
 DISRAELI'S DEFENCE OF THE GOVERNMENT. 
 
 the present juncture — you may 
 think that surrounchng circum- 
 stances may be favourable to 
 (hhitory action, some of you may 
 think, in the excitement of the 
 moment, that ambition may be 
 f^ratified, and tliat the country may 
 look favourably upon those who 
 prevent the passing of this Bill. 
 Do not believe it. There is a deep 
 responsibility with regard to this 
 question, resting not upon the 
 Ciovernment merely, but upon the 
 whole House of Commons. We 
 are prepared, as I think I have 
 shown, to act in all sincerity in this 
 matter. Act with us cordially and 
 candidly ; assist us to carry this 
 measure. We will not shrink from 
 deferring to your suggestions so 
 long as they are consistent with 
 the main object of this Bill, which 
 we have never concealed from you, 
 and which is to preserve the repre- 
 sentative character of the House of 
 Commons. Act with us, I say, 
 cordially and candidly ; you will 
 find on our side complete reciprocit}'' 
 of feeling. Pass the Bill, and then 
 change the Ministry if you like." 
 The second reading was carried 
 without a division. 
 
 The Reform Bill in Committee. 
 
 In Committee, Disraeli resolved 
 to accept, as a rule, such amend- 
 ments as were approved by the 
 majority of the House. It was no 
 easy task for him to conduct a Bill 
 of primary importance through all 
 its stages without a party majority 
 at his back. His tact was marvel- 
 lous, and it is surprising that he 
 should so rarely have been betrayed 
 into impatience. On one occasion 
 Air. Gladstone charged the Go- 
 vernment with "fraud and dissimu- 
 lation." He withdrew the words, 
 but remarked that while the Bill 
 appeared to give an extension of 
 the franchise, care was taken that 
 it should not be real. " I must 
 say," answered Disraeli, "I prefer 
 the original invective of the right 
 
 hon. gentleman — the denunciations 
 of Torcpiemada to the interpreta- 
 tion of Loyola. I prefer to meet a 
 clear charge of fraud and dissimu- 
 lation rather than be told that we 
 have been guilty of conduct un- 
 worthy, in my opinion, of all public 
 men." Mr. J. S. Mill said, at a 
 public meeting, that, if Disraeli 
 had not deceived the House of 
 Commons, he had at least "en- 
 couraged members to deceive 
 themselves," but in the House of 
 Commons he afterwards made the 
 admission — as honourable to him- 
 self as to his opponent — that Dis- 
 raeli had "completely" acquitted 
 himself of the charge. 
 
 The Government agreed to 
 abandon the clauses dealing with 
 educational and property fran- 
 chises, with voting papers, and with 
 dual voting, and to substitute one 
 for two years' possession. It was 
 also resolved to grant the franchise 
 to lodgers paying ;^io rent — a 
 measure which Disraeli had long 
 favoured, and of which he claimed 
 to be the father. The most im- 
 portant discussion related to the 
 " compound householder." Under 
 Acts of Parliament then in force, 
 small householders were allowed to 
 compound for their rates, and the 
 liability w^as transferred to the 
 landlord, who was allowed a reduc- 
 tion for the trouble of collection. 
 These householders were said to 
 be considerably more than half the 
 whole number of tenants who paid 
 less than ;^io rent. Under the Bill 
 as it stood, they would not obtain 
 votes, though Disraeli wished to 
 give them facilities to arrange for 
 the direct pa3-ment of their rates. 
 Mr. Gladstone proposed, as 
 an amendment, to reli-eve tenants 
 below a given ratable value from 
 all liabilit3^to rating, and so to "fix 
 a line for the borough franchise." 
 He and Mr. Bright were both, as 
 Mr. M'Carthy tells us, "haunted 
 by the fear of carr3-ing the vote too 
 low down in the social scale," but
 
 HOUSEHOLD SUFFRAGE AT LAST. 
 
 Co 
 
 some of the Liberal members re- 
 fused to follow them. The dissen- 
 tients held a meeting in the Tea 
 Room of the House of Commons, 
 and resolved to vote against the 
 amendment. On April loth Mr. 
 Gladstone was defeated by 310 
 to 289, and soon afterwards he sent 
 a letter to one of his supporters, 
 which was understood to indicate 
 liis withdrawal from the leadership 
 of the Liberal party. He declared 
 that the party had not the supposed 
 power "of limiting or directing the 
 action of the Administration," and 
 that, though he still remained at 
 its service, he could not " assume 
 the initiative of amending a 
 measure which could not perhaps 
 be effectually amended except by a 
 reversal of the vote of Friday, the 
 nth." The "Tea Room party" 
 was violently attacked by ]\Ir. 
 Bright, who said the dissentients 
 were " very small men," and com- 
 pared them to "a costermonger 
 and a donkey," who would take a 
 week to travel from Birmingham to 
 London, and yet might "bring an 
 express train to total destruction " 
 by running athwart the London 
 and North Western railway. But 
 it is certain that the " Tea Room " 
 members were right, and, in defer- 
 ence to their views, Disraeli 
 agreed to abolish the compounding 
 system. 
 
 Household Suffrage at Last. 
 
 The cause of Household Suffrage 
 was now victorious all along the 
 line. On July 15th, when the Bill 
 })assed the third reading, Mr. Lowe 
 denounced the conduct of the 
 Ministry, declaring that the Bill 
 was viewed with " despair " by 
 every Englishman who was not 
 " a slave to the trammels of party." 
 His invective called forth a vigorous 
 rejoinder from Disraeli — " If we 
 disapprove the Bill which we are 
 recommending the House to acccjjt 
 and sanction to-night, our conduct 
 certainly is objectionable. If we, 
 
 from the bottom of our hearts, 
 believe that the measure which we 
 are now requesting you to pass 
 is not, on the whole, the wisest 
 or best that could be passed under 
 the circumstances, I would even 
 admit that our conduct was in- 
 famous. • • • I, for my part, do 
 not believe that the country is in 
 danger. I think England is safe 
 in the race of men who inliabit her, 
 that she is safe in something much 
 more precious than her accumu- 
 lated capita] — her accumulated 
 experience. She is safe in her 
 national character, in her fame, in 
 the tradition of a thousand years, 
 and in that glorious future which 
 I believe awaits her." 
 
 The Reform Bill in the House of Lords. 
 
 In the House of Lords, where 
 the Conservatives had a working 
 majority, the Bill encountered very 
 little opposition. Lord Derby said 
 it was at once " large, extensive, 
 and Conservative," and that it 
 would satisfactorily settle a question 
 which would otherwise be a per- 
 petual source of agitation, and an 
 obstruction to all legislation. The 
 second reading was carried without 
 a division. In Committee, the 
 Lords proposed some amendments, 
 e.g., provisions for voting papers, 
 and the extension of the franchise 
 to University residents at Oxford 
 and Cambridge. Both these pro- 
 posals, together with one limiting 
 the votes of copyholders, were 
 rejected by the House of Commons. 
 The Upper House succeeded, how- 
 ever, in obtaining a " minority 
 member" in constituencies return- 
 ing more than two representatives, 
 in spite of Mr. Bright's extra- 
 ordinary statement that "anyone 
 who adopts the principle of the 
 representation of minorities must 
 shake the faith, and lose the confi- 
 dence of every true friend of reform 
 and of freedom." In the debate on 
 tlie third reading. Lord Derby 
 again explained the position of the
 
 70 
 
 THE NATIONAL CHARACTER OF TORYISM. 
 
 Government. "No doubt," he said, 
 •'we are making a great experi- 
 ment, and taking a leap in the 
 dark, but I have the greatest confi- 
 dence in the sound sense of my 
 fellow-countrymen, and I entertain 
 a strong hope that the extended 
 franchise which we are now con- 
 ferring upon them will be the means 
 of placing the institutions of this 
 country upon a firmer basis, and 
 that the passing of the measure 
 will tend to increase the loyalt}' and 
 contentment of a great portion of 
 Her Majesty's subjects." 
 
 Disraeli on Popular Toryism. 
 
 At the Lord Mayor's Banquet 
 on August 13th — two days before 
 the Bill received the Ro3'al assent 
 — Disraeli vindicated the claims 
 of the Tory party to popular sym- 
 pathy. " I have seen, in my time, 
 man}^ monopolies terminated ; and 
 recently I have seen the termina- 
 tion of the monopoly of Liberalism. 
 Nor are we to be surprised that, 
 when certain persons believed that 
 they had an hereditary right, when- 
 ever it w^as necessary, to renovate 
 the institutions of their country, 
 they should be somewhat dis- 
 pleased that any other persons 
 should presume to interfere with 
 those changes which, I hope in 
 the spirit of true patriotism, they 
 believed the requirements of the 
 State rendered necessary. But I 
 am sure when the hubbub has 
 subsided — when the shrieks and 
 screams which were heard some 
 time ago, and which have already 
 subsided into sobs and sighs, shall 
 be entirely appeased — nothing 
 more terrible will be discovered to 
 have occurred than that the Tory 
 party has resumed its natural 
 iunctions in the government of the 
 country. For what is the Tory 
 party unless it represents national 
 feeling ? If it do not represent 
 national feeling, Toryism is noth- 
 ing. It does not depend upon 
 hereditary coteries of exclusive 
 
 nobles. It does not attempt power 
 by attracting to itself the spurious 
 force which may accidentally arise 
 from advocating cosmopolitan 
 principles or talking cosmopolitan 
 jargon. The Tory party is nothing 
 unless it represent and uphold the 
 institutions of the country. For 
 w'hat are the institutions of the 
 country? They are entirely in 
 theory, and ought to be entirely, 
 as I am glad to see they are likely 
 to be, in practice, the embodiment 
 of the national necessities and the 
 only security for popular privileges. 
 Well, then, I cannot help believing 
 that because my Lord Derby and 
 his colleagues have taken a happy 
 opportunity to enlarge the privi- 
 leges of the people of England, 
 we have not done anything but 
 strengthen the institutions of this 
 country, the essence of whose force 
 is that they represent the interests 
 and guard the rights of the people." 
 
 Disraeli Premier. 
 
 In February, 1868, the precarious 
 condition of Lord Derby's health 
 compelled him to resign the 
 Premiership, and the Queen sent 
 for Disraeli. Disraeli's place at 
 the Exchequer was taken by Mr. 
 Ward Hunt, and Lord Chelms- 
 ford retired from the Chancellor- 
 ship, at Disraeli's request, in 
 order that the party in the Upper 
 House might be strengthened by 
 the debating power of Lord Cairns. 
 On ]\Iarch 5th, the new Premier 
 made a statement of his policy. 
 In domestic affairs, he said, "the 
 present Administi'ation will pursue 
 a liberal policy. I mean a truly 
 liberal polic}- — a polic}' that will 
 not shrink from any changes which 
 are required by the wants of the 
 age we live in, but will never forget 
 that it is our happ)'^ lot to dwell in 
 an ancient and historic countr}', 
 rich in traditionary influences tliat 
 are the best security for order and 
 libert)', and the most valuable ele- 
 ment of our national character and
 
 GLADSTONE'S IRISH CHURCH RESOLUTIONS. 
 
 71 
 
 our national strength." The foreign 
 pohcy of the Government he cahed 
 " a pohcy of peace," not of peace 
 at any price for the mere interests 
 of England, hut a policy of peace, 
 from a conviction that such a policy 
 is for the general interests of the 
 world. We do not believe that 
 policy is likely to be secured by 
 selfish isolation, but, on the con- 
 trary, we believe it may be secured 
 by sympathy with other countries, 
 not merely in their prosperous for- 
 tunes, but even in their anxieties 
 and troubles. If such a policy be 
 continued, I have no doubt, when 
 the occasion may arise — and peri- 
 odical occasions will arise when the 
 influence of England is necessary 
 to maintain the peace of the world 
 — that influence will not be found 
 inefficient, because it is founded in 
 respect and regard." 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's Irish Church Resolu- 
 tions. — Fall of the Government. 
 
 Disraeli might fairly hope to 
 enjoy a long lease of power, for, 
 while the great body of Conser- 
 vatives was devotedly attached to 
 him, his opponents were divided 
 into several antagonistic and ap- 
 ])arently irreconcilable factions. 
 But the question which was to turn 
 the Liberal crowd into an organized 
 l)arty soon presented itself. On 
 March loth, in a debate on the 
 state of Ireland, Mr. Gladstone 
 declared that the hour for the dis- 
 establishment of the Irish Churcli 
 was come. This announcement 
 took everyone by surprise, for in 
 1865 Mr. Gladstone said the 
 question was " remote, and ap- 
 jiarently out of all bearing upon 
 the practical politics of the day." 
 His sudden conversion can be 
 understood only by reference to the 
 state of Ireland, and to the peculiar 
 position of English parties. For 
 some years peace and order had 
 been seriously endangered by tiie 
 Fenian conspiracy, and in 1S66 
 Ireland seemed to be on the brink 
 
 of civil war. Lord Russell sus- 
 pended the Habeas Corpus Act/-' and 
 the suspension was renewed by 
 Lord Derby's Government. But 
 outrages continued, and in 1S67 the 
 country was startled by the daring 
 proceedings of the Fenians at j\Ian- 
 chester and at Clerkenwell. Mr. 
 Gladstone seems to have per- 
 suaded himself that the " Church 
 grievance" was the chief cause of 
 Irish difficulties. " When it came 
 to this," he says, " that a great 
 jail in the heart of the metropolis 
 was broken open under circum- 
 stances which drew the attention of 
 the Englisli people to the state of 
 Ireland, and when in Manchester 
 policemen were murdered in the 
 execution of their dut}', at once 
 the whole country became alive to 
 Irish questions, and the question 
 of the Irish Church revived. It 
 came within the range of practical 
 politics." 
 
 All sections of Liberals could 
 unite against the Irish Church. 
 The Roman Catholics demanded 
 disestablishment as an act of justice 
 to themselves. The Protestant 
 Dissenters hoped to create a pre- 
 cedent for English legislation. The 
 extreme Radicals were as ready as 
 ever to join an attack on a great 
 and historical institution. Even 
 the Whigs remembered Lord 
 Melbourne's policy, and regarded 
 Irish Church property as legiti- 
 mate plunder. Mr. Gladstone 
 himself was drifting further and 
 fuither in the direction of Radi- 
 calism.} He had lost most of 
 
 * In the debate on the Suspensory Bill, 
 Mr. Bright implored the " two great and 
 trusted leaders," Mr. Disraeli and Mr. 
 Gladston'k, to find some other remedy, 
 but Mr. Gladstone answereil that, while 
 the Government would consider at the 
 proper time any measures for the benefit 
 of Ireland, it was " the single duty of the 
 House that day to strengthen the hands of 
 the Executive in the preservation of law 
 and order." 
 
 \ A speech by Mr. Grant Duff, in 
 October, i.Sf)6. contains a curious analysis, 
 froiii a Liberal standpoint, of Mr. Glau-
 
 72 
 
 RESULT OF THE GENERAL ELECTION'. 
 
 liis Tory ideas, and he never had 
 any real sympathy with the Whigs. 
 The RatHcals were, therefore, the 
 only section to whom he could 
 turn for personal support. On 
 May 23rd, I.S68, he gave notice 
 of three resolutions, declaring (i) 
 that the Irish Church should be dis- 
 established; (2) that new interests 
 should not be created in the mean- 
 time ; and (3) that the Queen 
 should be asked to place her in- 
 terest in the Church temporalities 
 at the disposal of Parliament. The 
 first resolution was carried by 331 
 to 270, and the Ministry offered to 
 resign. The Queen, however, pre- 
 ferred that Disraeli should hold 
 on until the opinion of the country 
 could be tested at a General Elec- 
 tion, and on July 21st Parliament 
 Avas dissolved. Disraeli could 
 state a strong case in favour of his 
 Government. Abroad he could 
 point to greater cordiality and con- 
 fidence between England and 
 
 Foreign Powers, and at home he 
 could claim credit for the final 
 settlement of the question of 
 Reform. In the last Session of 
 Parliament, he had succeeded in 
 carrying several useful measures, 
 including Scotch and Irish Reform 
 Acts, a Registration Act, a Corrup- 
 tion and Bribery Act, the Acqui- 
 sition of Telegraphs by the Post 
 Office, an Artisans' Dwellings 
 Act, the Abolition of Public Exe- 
 cutions, a Poor Relief Amendment 
 Act, and an Act for the Regulation 
 of Railways. But the Liberal party 
 preferred to fight the elections on 
 the single question of the Irish 
 Church, and upon that question, if 
 on no other, they could command 
 a majority. Only 285 Conservatives 
 were returned against 392 Liberals. 
 One of the most interesting features 
 in the General Election was Mr. 
 Gladstone's defeat for South- 
 West Lancashire. He was com- 
 pelled to take refuge in Greenwich. 
 
 1868-74. 
 Plundering and Blundering. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone Premier. — Composition 
 of his Cabinet. 
 
 WHEN the results of the 
 elections were known, 
 Mr. Disraeli resigned 
 without meeting Par- 
 liament, and Mr. Gladstone was 
 asked by the Queen to form a 
 
 stone's position at this period: — "Just 
 at this stage of his career, the neophyte 
 leader of the Liberals, he is, indeed, a 
 most curious study. • ■ • • What he 
 hates most, hates with that concentrated 
 malignity which a great living poet has 
 described in his soliloquy in a Spanish 
 cloister, is that thorough-going Liberalism 
 which extends to every department of 
 thought, and in which every part hts into 
 every other. And why does he hate it ? 
 Because he has a suspicion that the line 
 
 Ministry. He was able to com- 
 mand the services of a remarkably 
 strong body of colleagues, but his 
 distribution of offices was not ju- 
 dicious. No one has ever under- 
 stood why Mr. Lowe was selected 
 as Chancellor of the Exchequer, 
 or Mr. Cardwell as Secretary for 
 War, or Mr. Bruce as Home 
 
 on which he has been moving tends to 
 that end. He has a horrible foreboding 
 that — to use his own words — time is on 
 the side of those very politicians who, 
 when he started in public life, were at 
 the opposite pole of the political sphere, 
 against whom all the strength of his youth 
 and of his manhood was difected. • • • 
 He may well murmur at that destiny 
 which may lead him, before he dies, to 
 burn what he adored, and to adore what 
 he burnt."
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S CABINET. 
 
 73 
 
 Secretary. Sir Roundell Palmer 
 at first refused to join the Cabinet 
 because he was unable to support 
 the spohation of the Irish Church. 
 Sir W. Page Wood therefore be- 
 came Chancellor, with the title of 
 Lord Hatherley. Lord Claren- 
 don was Foreign Secretary, Lord 
 Granville Secretary for the Colo- 
 nies, and the Duke of Argyll 
 Secretary for India. The appoint- 
 ment which excited most interest 
 was that of Mr. Bright to the 
 I'residency of the Board of Trade. 
 Mr. FoRSTER, as Vice-President of 
 the Council, became responsible 
 for the all-important subject of 
 Education. Places were also 
 assigned to Mr. Goschen, Lord 
 Hartington, Mr, Childers, and 
 ]\Ir. Layard. Mr. Gladstone's 
 power was at its highest pitch. 
 He had gone far enough to secure 
 Radical support, and he had not 
 yet alienated the Whigs. Lord 
 Russell, in his " Recollections," 
 apologises for the confidence which 
 the veteran Liberals at this time 
 reposed in Mr. Gladstone : — " I 
 had no reason to suppose that he 
 was less attached than I was to our 
 national honour ; that he was less 
 proud than I was of the achieve- 
 ments of our nation by sea and 
 land; that he disliked the exten- 
 sion of our Colonies ; or that his 
 measures would tend to reduce 
 the great and glorious Empire, of 
 which he was put in charge, to a 
 manufactory of cotton and cloth, 
 and a market for cheap goods, 
 with an army and navy reduced 
 by paltry savings to a standard 
 of inefficiency." But in 1868 and 
 1869 people were not thinking of 
 foreign policy. The question of 
 the Irish Church, on which the 
 Election had been fought, absorbed 
 everyone's thouglits. No subject 
 had excited so much angry con- 
 troversy since the Repeal of the 
 Corn Laws, and the case was 
 argued on both sides with striking 
 ability. 
 
 My. Gladstone's Reasons joy 
 Disestablishment. 
 Mr. Gladstone maintained that 
 the question of the Church lay at 
 the root of all Irish questions. He 
 did not pretend that the Irish 
 Church, in its post- Reformation 
 form, was solely responsible for the 
 " national estrangement," but held 
 it to be a "dark fatality" that 
 religious establishments in Ireland 
 had all along been associated with 
 British power, and had therefore 
 been a cause of disunion. He 
 thought it might truly be said that 
 the Establishment was " Papal, 
 but Anti-Irish from 1172 to 1560," 
 and " from 1560 to 1868 it was 
 Anti-Papal and Anti-Irish too." 
 The spirit of the Irish Church had 
 improved, but it remained the 
 token of ascendancy, and, so long 
 as it lived, painful and bitter 
 memories could never die. The 
 Church Establishment, which, 
 " regarded in its theory and in its 
 aim," was "so beautiful and so 
 attractive," was but "an appropri- 
 ation of public property to certain 
 purposes," which could not be 
 justified unless those purposes were 
 fulfilled. He found in the Appro- 
 priation Clause a precedent for 
 Parliamentary interference with 
 Irish Church endowments, and on 
 Pitt's leanings towards the general 
 endowment of religious bodies in 
 Ireland he based an ingenious de- 
 fence of the violation of the Act of 
 Union by the disendowment of all 
 alike. He denied that the removal 
 of the Established Church in Ire- 
 land would endanger the sister 
 Church of England. " Those," he 
 said, " who wish to preserve the 
 Church of England in the position 
 of dignity, of stability, antl of ability 
 which she now hokls, will do well 
 to found her claims upon the la- 
 bours she performs, uyion the ser- 
 vices she renders, antl upon the 
 affection she attracts from the 
 masses of the people, including 
 that vast numlxjr within her com-
 
 74 
 
 DISRAELI'S DEFENCE OF THE IRISH CHURCH. 
 
 iiiunion, and the no small number 
 of those who are beyond her pale, 
 and those will not do wisely who 
 venture her fortunes on such a 
 crazy argument as that what ap- 
 plies to the Established Church of 
 Ireland, with its handful of ad- 
 herents, applies with equal force to 
 the Church of England, with its 
 millions upon millions of support- 
 ers." He claimed for himself liberty 
 to hold an entirely opposite opinion 
 — " that to relieve the Church from 
 a position which, politically, was 
 odious and dangerous, and which 
 socially was unjust, would be to 
 strengthen her foundations, and 
 give her fair play in the exercise of 
 her great mission." Finally, he 
 insisted that vested interests must 
 be liberally compensated. *' The 
 cessation of the Established Church 
 must, in ni}' judgment — I will not 
 merely say might, nor ought, — but 
 in my judgment absolutely must be, 
 subject to the condition, in order to 
 make it an honourable and worthy 
 measure, that every proprietary 
 and every vested right shall receive 
 absolute compensation and satis- 
 faction. And beyond that • • • • 
 every disposition should exist to in- 
 dulge and to conciliate feeling when 
 it can be done, and in ever}^ doubtful 
 case to adopt that mode of proceed- 
 ing which may be most consistent 
 with principles of the largest equity.' 
 
 The Case for the Defence. 
 
 Disraeli denied that Mr. Glad- 
 stone had furnished any justifica- 
 tion for so vast and violent a change 
 as Disestablishment. He admitted 
 that the condition of Ireland was 
 not entirely satisfactory, but con- 
 tended that the Irish people were 
 in a much better position than they 
 were at the beginning of the cen- 
 tur3\ All classes of the population 
 were wealthier and more prosper- 
 ous, and in the enjoyment of 
 political and social rights which 
 their ancestors had not enjoyed 
 fifty years before. He would not 
 
 make light of sentimental griev- 
 ances, but held that, when in con- 
 sequence of sentimental grievances 
 we are asked to make very material 
 changes, we ouglit to proceed with 
 caution. The Church of Ireland 
 was no more a badge of conquest to 
 the Roman Catholics of that coun- 
 try than the Church of England to 
 the Dissenters. The true policy 
 for Ireland was to create and not 
 to destroy, to do justice to the 
 Roman Catholics without attacking 
 the Protestants. All great States- 
 men had striven to produce politi- 
 cal tranquillity in Ireland, but Mr. 
 Gladstone's measure would ren- 
 der it the scene of every hostile 
 passion. Anglicans, as well as 
 Roman Catholics, had feelings 
 w'hich must be regarded, and by 
 ignoring their interest Parliament 
 would call into existence all those 
 inveterate and rancorous feelings 
 which it had sought to eradicate. 
 Disendowment would endanger the 
 principle of property, and the plun- 
 der of a Church should be regarded 
 with great jealousy. So far as 
 history could guide him, although 
 it might be a very " liberal " move- 
 ment to attack an ecclesiastical 
 institution, the consequences had 
 never been favourable to liberty or 
 enlightenment — " the plunder of 
 Churches, which are the property 
 of the people, has never yet pro- 
 duced anything for the people." 
 Church property was given for a 
 specific purpose — the spiritual in- 
 struction of the people, and he 
 could not under any circumstances 
 agree that it should be appropriated 
 to a secular purpose. The Liberal 
 leaders should remember that the 
 Irish Church Question involved 
 the great principle that govern- 
 ment should not be merely an aftair 
 of force, but should recognise its 
 responsibility to the Divine Power. 
 He wished to maintain the Union 
 between Church and State because 
 he considered it a great security for 
 civilisation and religious liberty.
 
 DISESTABLISHMENT AND ITS RESULTS. 
 
 75 
 
 The Irish Chuych Act. 
 Mr. Gladstone's Irish Church 
 Act dissolved all ecclesiastical cor- 
 porations in Ireland, and abolished 
 all ecclesiastical jurisdictions and 
 laws. The clergy and laity were 
 empowered to meet in synod to 
 make laws for the future govern- 
 ment of the Church, including the 
 constitution of a Representative 
 Church Body, in which property 
 retained or subsequently acquired 
 by the Church might be vested. 
 Cathedrals and churches, and 
 school-buildings used with them, 
 were left to the Church, and the 
 Representative Body was given an 
 option of purchasing glebe houses, 
 and a limited quantity of glebe 
 lands, on fairly favourable terms. 
 Incumbents retained their life- 
 interests in the emoluments of their 
 benefices, and obtained facilities for 
 commuting such life-interests by 
 arrangement with the Representa- 
 tive Body. Assistant-curates re- 
 ceived a moderate compensation. 
 Private endowments acquired since 
 1660 were also retained by the 
 Church. The balance was to be 
 at the disposal of Parliament, for 
 the relief, according to the pre- 
 amble of the Bill, of " unavoidable 
 calamity and suffering " in Ireland. 
 Tlie progress of the Bill through 
 the House of Commons resembled 
 a triumph. The second and third 
 readings were carried by majori- 
 ties of 118 and 114. Even in the 
 House of Lords the Opposition 
 fought a hopeless battle, and the 
 second reading was carried by 33 
 votes. Lord Salisbury voted in 
 the majority, on the ground that 
 popular opinion had unmistakably 
 declared itself on the side of Dis- 
 establishment at the General Elec- 
 tion. Lord DiiKBY made his last 
 speech in opposing the second 
 reading. As " an old man, whose 
 official life was entirely closed, 
 whose political life was nearly so, 
 and whose natural life in the course 
 of nature could nut be long," he 
 
 upheld the principles of national 
 religion and the sacredness of re- 
 ligious endowments, for which he 
 had fought steadfastly and faith- 
 fully throughout his public career. 
 The Upper House introduced a 
 number of amendments, but most 
 of them were disagreed to b}' the 
 Commons, and the Bill became law 
 in substantially the same shape in 
 which it was introduced by Mr. 
 Gladstone. History has falsified 
 Mr. Gladstone's predictions as to 
 its effects. From year to year we 
 have seen more and more clearly 
 how little Ireland could afford to 
 lose the strongest bulwark of 
 national morality and social order ; 
 while to the Irish Church, Dises- 
 tablishment has been, as Arch- 
 bishop Beresford remarked in 
 1885, " only an evil, with no com- 
 pensating effect whatever." The 
 Established Church occupied an 
 intermediate position between 
 Orangemen and Romanists. Its 
 clergy, from their official position, 
 had intercourse with both of the 
 camps into which Ireland is 
 divided ; they were not, as a matter 
 of fact, unpopular amongst the 
 Roman Catholics, and they exer- 
 cised a soothing and conciliatory 
 influence. Mr. Gladstone's Act 
 cut away that middle ground of 
 official status, and widened the dis- 
 tinction between Protestants and 
 Catholics. Although the estab- 
 lished clergy were not ministers of 
 religion to their Catholic parish- 
 ioners, yet they undertook many 
 social and cliaritable duties. On 
 the estates of absentee landlords, 
 they occupied the position, and 
 discharged the functions of a 
 squire who lives amongst his ten- 
 ants. They were not much given 
 to proselytism or religious disputa- 
 tion, but they visited those en- 
 trusted to their care in poverty and 
 sickness, and gave them assistance 
 in secular afiairs. The Disestab- 
 lislunent of the Irish Church pro- 
 duced much the same cflect upon
 
 76 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S LAND POLICY. 
 
 the poor of Ireland tliat the des- 
 truction of monasteries produced 
 in England. The destitute were, 
 in both cases, suddenly deprived 
 of charitable relief and received 
 no compensation in return.* 
 
 The Irish Land Act. 
 Mr. Gladstone next turned his 
 attention to the land system of Ire- 
 land. The principal provisions of 
 the Land Act of 1870 gave rights 
 to tenants of compensation both 
 for disturbance and for improve- 
 ments, recognised the customary 
 tenant-right of Ulster, and granted 
 Government loans of two-thirds of 
 the purchase money to tenants who 
 wished to buy their holdings, Mr. 
 Gladstone denounced the demand 
 for " fair rents : " — " I own I have 
 not heard, I do not know, and I 
 cannot conceive what is to be said 
 for the prospective power to reduce 
 excessive rents. In whose interest 
 is it asked ? Certainly not in the 
 interest of the landlord. Is it 
 asked in the interest of the tenant ? 
 Shall I really be told that it is for 
 the interest of the Irish tenant bid- 
 ding for a farm, that the law should 
 say to him — ' Cast aside all provi- 
 dence and forethought, go into the 
 market and bid what you like, drive 
 out of the field the prudent man 
 who means to fulfil his engage- 
 ments ; bid right above him, and 
 induce the landlord to give you the 
 farm, and, the moment you have 
 got it, come forward, go to the pub- 
 lic authority, show that the rent is 
 excessive, and that you cannot pay 
 it, and get it reduced ? ' " He was 
 no less emphatic in regard to 
 " fixity of tenure : " — " I ask the 
 House whether any argument 
 
 • In the ten years from 1S60 to 1S70, 
 before Mr. Gladstone inaugurated his 
 Irish policy, there was in Ireland only one 
 faupey in every 100. This was before the 
 attacks on the Church and the Land, and 
 when the population was fully half-a- 
 million more than it is now. In the year 
 18S0 there were in Ireland 549,874 /rtH/tvs, 
 or more than one in every ten. 
 
 wliatever has been made by any 
 English, Scotch, or Irish repre- 
 sentative, to show that fixity of 
 tenure, to be applied as a means 
 of securing justice and peace in 
 Ireland, can for a moment abide 
 its trial at the bar of reason. We 
 must endeavour to make reason 
 reach the ears and the minds of 
 the Irish people. Perpetuity of 
 tenure is a phrase that, I flatter 
 myself, is a little going out of the 
 fashion. If I have contributed any- 
 thing towards disparaging it, I am 
 not sorry." He intended his Bill, 
 as it stood, to be a final settlement 
 of the Land question. " What I 
 hope," he said, " is, that having 
 witnessed the disaster and difticult}' 
 which have arisen from long pro- 
 crastination, we shall resolve in 
 mind and heart by a manful effort 
 to close and seal up for ever, if it 
 may be, this great question which 
 so intimately concerns the welfare 
 and happiness of the people of Ire- 
 land. Our desire is, that when it 
 has received the sanction of the 
 Legislature it may become a great 
 gift to Ireland, and may put an end 
 to the grievances and sufferings 
 which have so long accompanied 
 the tenure of land in that country. 
 We found it necessary to propose 
 a Bill which in our judgment 
 should be adequate. And if again 
 I am asked what I hope to effect 
 by this Bill, I certainly hope we 
 shall effect a great change in Ire- 
 land ; but I hope also — and confi- 
 dently believe — that this change 
 will be accomplished by gentle 
 means." Mr. Gladstone's OAvn 
 measures in later years are a signi- 
 ficant commentar}' on his speeches 
 in 1870. 
 
 The Home Rule Movement. 
 Contemporaneous events showed 
 that neither Mr. Gladstone's pro- 
 mises nor his performances were 
 calculated to allay Irish disaffec- 
 tion. The Government was 
 compelled to pass the Peace Pre- 
 servation Act in 1870, and a further
 
 MR. GLADSTONE DENOUNCES HOME RULE. 
 
 "Coercion Act" in 1871. In May, 
 1870, the Home Rule Association 
 was formed at Dublin, "for the 
 purpose of obtaining for Ireland 
 the right of self-government by- 
 means of a National Parliament," 
 The Irish Church Act, while it had 
 failed to appease the turbulent ele- 
 ment, had exasperated the Protes- 
 tant minority, and most of those 
 who were present at the meeting 
 were Protestants and Conserva- 
 tives. The leader of the new party 
 was Mr. Isaac Butt, an able law- 
 yer, against whom no charge of 
 violence could be brought, and his 
 lieutenants were moderate men 
 like Mr. P. J. Smythe and Mr. 
 Mitchell-Henry. In spite of 
 their moderation, "Home Rule" 
 was treated with scant favour by 
 Mr. Gladstone at this period. In 
 his speech at Aberdeen, in 1871, 
 he said — "We are told that it is 
 necessary for Ireland to close her re- 
 lations with the Parliament of this 
 country, and to have a Parliament 
 of her own. Why is Parliament 
 to be broken up ? Has Ireland 
 any great grievances? What 
 is it that Ireland has demanded 
 from the Imperial Parliament, 
 and that the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment has refused ? It will not 
 do to deal with this matter in 
 vague and shadowy assertions. I 
 have looked in vain for the setting 
 forth of any practical scheme of 
 policy which the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment is not equal to deal with, 
 or which it refuses to deal with, 
 and which is to be brought about 
 by Home Rule. • • • What are the 
 inequalities of England and Ire- 
 land ? I declare that I know none, 
 except that there are certain taxes 
 still remaining, which are levied 
 over Englishmen and Scotchmen, 
 and which are not levied over Irish- 
 men ; and likewise that there are 
 certain purposes for which public 
 money is freely and lart^cly given 
 in Ireland, and for which it is not 
 given in England or Scotland. 
 
 That seems to me to be a very 
 feeble case indeed for the argument 
 which has been used, by means of 
 which, as we are told, the fabric 
 of the united Parliament of this 
 country is to be broken. • • • Can 
 any sensible man, can any rational 
 man, suppose at this timeof day^ 
 in this condition of the world — we 
 are going to disintegrate the great 
 capital institutions of this country 
 for the purpose of making our- 
 selves ridiculous in the sight of all 
 mankind, and crippling any power 
 we possess for bestowing benefits 
 through legislation on the country 
 to which we belong ? " 
 
 The Education Act. 
 
 The most creditable achievement 
 of the Government of 1868 to 
 1874 ^^'^s undoubtedly the system 
 of National Education established 
 by Mr, Forster. The Act of 1870 
 provided for the formation of 
 School Boards, elected by cumula- 
 tive voting, in places where Volun- 
 tary Schools did not exist. It 
 was enacted in Committee that the 
 School Boards might arrange for 
 religious instruction, provided no 
 catechisms or other distinctive for- 
 mularies were taught. In Volun- 
 tary Schools full religious teaching 
 might be given, but the continu- 
 ance of the Government grant was 
 to be dependent on the " con- 
 science clause." The Dissenting 
 Radicals were full of reproaches 
 against the Bill and its author. 
 They had themselves done little or 
 nothing for the education of the 
 people, for most of the Voluntary 
 Schools had been established by 
 the liberality of Churchmen, though 
 the Roman Catholics had taken 
 their full share of the work, and 
 in some cases Protestant Non- 
 conformists, chiefly Wcsleyans, 
 had schools of their own. It is 
 hard to understand their grievance, 
 since Government grants are made 
 as freely to Nonconformist schools, 
 where they exist, as to those of
 
 THE rURCIIASE SYSTEM IN THE ARMY ABOLISHED. 
 
 llic Church, and the " conscience 
 clause" is an effectual guarantee 
 against oppression. ]3ut, as the 
 Dissenters were not prepared to 
 undertake tlie cost and trouble of 
 fcnmding schools of their own, they 
 wished Church schools to be 
 crushed by the erection, at the 
 national expense, of rival build- 
 ings, in which no religious teaching 
 should be allowed. This demand 
 they dignified with the name of 
 " religious liberty." They could 
 not understand that purely secular 
 education would not be " liberty," 
 but a cruel wrong to those who 
 hold that all education should be 
 based upon the precepts of religion. 
 But Mr. FoRSTER took a broader 
 view of the case, and Radical 
 bigotry was outvoted by a combi- 
 nation of Moderate Liberals and 
 Conservatives. Mr. Forster after- 
 wards admitted that he could not 
 have succeeded without Conserva- 
 tive aid. In 1875 he said, " I will 
 give my Conservative friends — my 
 foes who sit opposite to me — I will 
 give them thanks, hearty thanks, 
 for having used no party tactics 
 in opposition to the Education Act 
 of 1870, for if they had done so 
 I do not believe that it would have 
 been possible to pass it." 
 
 Abolition of Purchase — Mr. Gladstone 
 strains the Royal Prerogative. 
 
 In 1871, Mr. Cardwell intro- 
 duced a Bill for the Reform and 
 Re-organisation of the Ami}', but 
 its provisions were condemned on 
 so many sides that he was com- 
 pelled to confine its scope to the 
 abolition of purchase. The measure 
 was attractive in name and theory, 
 but the practical objections were 
 strong. It was admitted that the 
 change would be costl3\ Mr. 
 Cardwell himself estimated the 
 loss to the country at ;^8,ooo,ooo. 
 Few military critics believed that 
 it would improve the condition of 
 the army. It must be remembered 
 that, under the purchase system. 
 
 no one could obtain a commission 
 without passing an examination, 
 and, as the examination was under 
 tlie control of the Government, it 
 could be made as strict as any 
 Minister could desire. After a man 
 w^as gazetted as an ensign, his pro- 
 motion to be lieutenant and cap- 
 tain was regulated by priority on 
 the list, and another examination 
 was required for each grade. Nor 
 could anyone holding a commission 
 be promoted without the recom- 
 mendation of his commanding 
 officer. The safeguards against 
 the abuse of the system were 
 therefore fairly adequate, and the 
 power of selling commissions made 
 it easier for unfit and incompe- 
 tent officers to leave the service. 
 The Bill was passed by the House 
 of Commons, though only by a 
 majority of 58 ; but the House of 
 Lords declined to accept it until 
 Parliament was in possession of 
 the whole plan of the Government. 
 Mr. Gladstone then declared that 
 the sanction of Parliament was un- 
 necessary, and obtained a Royal 
 Warrant by which purchase was 
 abolished. This proceeding was 
 condemned .by most independent 
 Liberals — notably by Mr. Bou- 
 verie, Mr. AuBERON Herbert, 
 and Mr. Fawcett. Mr. Fawcett 
 said, "if things had been changed 
 in this House, if the great parties 
 had crossed over, and the right 
 hon. member for Buckinghamshire 
 (j\Ir. Disraeli) had appealed to 
 ro3'al prerogative, we should have 
 heard — from a quarter which I 
 need not more particularize — 
 eloquent and passionate denuncia- 
 tions about this high-handed act 
 of a Tor}'' IMinister ; and that de- 
 nunciation would certainly have 
 been deserved by some who have 
 approved of the Royal Warrant." 
 In order to secure an equitable 
 settlement and a fair compensation 
 of vested rights, the House of 
 Lords subsequently passed the 
 Bill, but accompanied it with a
 
 THE LONDON CONFERENCE. 1S70. 
 
 vote of censure on the Government 
 that had thus strained the Royal 
 Prerogative. 
 
 The Ballot Act. 
 
 The Ballot Act was another of 
 the "heroic" reforms carried by 
 this Administration after a fierce 
 controversy. Its opponents argued, 
 on moral grounds which appealed 
 no less to John Stuart Mill than 
 to Lord Shaftesbury, that secret 
 voting would diminish the respon- 
 sibility of the individual elector, 
 and that it would serve the pur- 
 poses of only the least trustworthy 
 class of persons — those who wished 
 to be protected by law in breaking 
 their promises. On the otlier hand, 
 it was argued that workmen and 
 others should be protected from the 
 possible t}Tanny of employers, and 
 that electoral purity would be pro- 
 moted, because secrecy would 
 make corruption futile. In 1871 
 the Ballot 13ill was carried by the 
 House of Commons, but the Lords, 
 to whom the Bill was sent up at 
 the close of the Session, declined 
 to proceed with it. The Upper 
 House was violently attacked on 
 Radical platforms and in the Radi- 
 cal press, but it could hardly be 
 denied that the Lords were entitled 
 to pause before adopting a measure 
 which the House of Commons had 
 been debating for forty years, and 
 had rejected twenty-eight times. 
 In tlie following year, the House 
 of Lords recognised that public 
 opinion was on the side of the 
 (iovernment, and accepted the 
 i;ill. The Ballot falfiihed both the 
 hopes of its friends and the fears 
 of its enemies. It did not lower 
 the tone of national morality, as 
 Lord Shaftesbury predicted; nor 
 did it restrain corruption. The 
 facts brought to light at the trial 
 of election petitions proved that 
 secrecy left the electors as open to 
 temptation as ever, and in 1883 
 Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues 
 admitted the failure of the Ballot 
 
 in this direction by carrying their 
 " Corrupt and Illegal Practices 
 Act." 
 
 Russia and the Black Sea. 
 
 The foreign policy of the Govern- 
 ment was eminently disastrous. In 
 October, 1870, Prince Gortscha- 
 KOFF, taking advantage of the 
 Franco-Prussian war, informed 
 Sir A. Buchanan, the English Am- 
 bassador at St. Petersburg, that 
 the Czar intended to abrogate the 
 paragraph of the Treaty of Paris 
 which provided for the neutrali- 
 sation of the Black Sea. This 
 paragraph was the essence of the 
 Treaty. The Vienna Conference 
 had been broken off, and the Cri- 
 mean war prolonged for another 
 year, for its sake alone. Sir A. 
 Buchanan did not imagine for a 
 moment that the Government 
 would countenance the Russian 
 demand, and expected at once to 
 receive orders to ask for his pass- 
 ports and to leave St. Petersburg. 
 But the Cabinet, instead of taking 
 some decided step, sent Mr. Ouo 
 Russell as a special envoy to ask 
 the advice of Count Bismarck. 
 Mr. Russell told Count Bismarck 
 that Russia, if she did not abandon 
 the attitude she had taken up, 
 would compel England to go to 
 war, with or without allies. When, 
 however, Bismarck advised a Con- 
 ference, Mr. Gladstone threw 
 over our envoy and adopted the 
 proposal. The result of the Con- 
 ference was hardly doubtful, for 
 Mr. Gladstone had already con- 
 vinced himself that Russia was 
 right, and that his own country 
 was wrong. The Conference, when 
 it assembled, could do nothing but 
 yield to Russia. " If," said Dis- 
 raeli, *' the Conference had been 
 called to vindicate the honour and 
 the rights of England and of 
 Europe, I should have thought it, 
 though a hazardous, at least a 
 bold and loyal course. But why 
 a Conference should be called • • •
 
 So 
 
 THE IRISH UNIVERSITIES BILL. 
 
 merely to rc<:;^lster the humiliation 
 of our country passes my under- 
 standing." 
 
 The ^'Alabama" Claims. 
 Public indignation was even 
 more strongly aroused by the nego- 
 tiations of Mr. Gladstone and 
 Lord Granville* with the United 
 St ites. In April, 1869, the Ameri- 
 can Senate rejected the settlement 
 arranged by Lord Clarendon and 
 Mr. Keverdy Johnson, It is im- 
 possible to say how far this action 
 was due to the notorious timidity 
 of English Ministers, but any 
 hopes that the Americans may 
 have built upon their weakness 
 were abundantly justified by sub- 
 sequent events. The Government 
 agreed to the formal appointment 
 of a " Joint High Commission." 
 A Commission sent out with so 
 much pomp was bound, as Lord 
 Derby pointed out, to conclude a 
 treaty of some sort " under the 
 penalty of making itself ridicu- 
 lous." Our Commissioners, thus 
 handicapped by the manner of their 
 appointment, were next prevented 
 from displaying any vigour in the 
 course of the discussion, for Lord 
 Granville was always ready with 
 a telegram advising submission. 
 He directed them to insert at the 
 outset an apology for the escape of 
 the Alabama, although, under the 
 Treaty which they were negoti- 
 ating, arbitration was to decide 
 whether or not England deserved 
 blame. The terms of the refer- 
 ence to the Geneva Tribunal con- 
 tained ex post facto definitions of 
 international duties which were 
 carefully adapted to suit the 
 American case. The claims of 
 Great Britain against the United 
 States, arising out of the Fenian 
 invasion of Canada, were dropped. 
 In short, the limit of English con- 
 cession was not reached till the 
 
 * Lord Granville went to the Foreign 
 Office on the death of Lord Clarendon 
 ill 1S70. 
 
 American Government sent in a 
 claim for "indirect damages," 
 which might have involved half 
 tlie cost of the American war. 
 This preposterous demand was 
 abandoned, and the Geneva arbi- 
 trators declared, of their own 
 motion, that it was justified by no 
 principle of international law. 
 Lut, when the arbitrators awarded 
 ;^3, 250,000 in damages to the 
 United States, the cup of Eng- 
 land's humiliation was full. " Mr. 
 Gladstone and Lord Granville," 
 wrote Lord Russell, " seem to 
 have been quite unaware that the 
 United Kingdom is a great coun- 
 try, and that its reputation ought 
 to be dear to every British heart." 
 He believed that Mr. Gladstone's 
 foreign policy had " tarnished the 
 national honour, injured the na- 
 tional interests, and lowered the 
 national character." 
 
 The Irish University Bill — Defeat of 
 the Government. 
 
 In 1873, Mr. Gladstone at- 
 tempted another Irish Reform. 
 His Irish University Bill proposed 
 to incorporate the rival colleges 
 of Ireland into a new Dublin Uni- 
 versity. The different colleges 
 might make provision for any or 
 no religious teaching within their 
 walls, but from the University 
 itself all theological subjects were 
 to be banished. In order to pre- 
 vent controversy, moral philosophy 
 and history were also to be ex- 
 cluded from its curriculum. Every- 
 one was pleased with some part or 
 other of the Bill, but no one could 
 admire it as a whole. Educational 
 authorities could not approve of 
 a University which would be pro- 
 hibited from dealing with the most 
 important departments of human 
 thought. The Protestants feared 
 that it would increase the power of 
 the Roman Catholic priesthood. 
 The Roman Catholics would be 
 satisfied with nothing short of a 
 State-endowed University exclu-
 
 THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 187 L 
 
 8i 
 
 s'vely under their own control. 
 'I~he English Dissenters objected 
 to every form of denominational 
 education. The Conservatives saw 
 that the Bill would settle nothing, 
 and unsettle everything, in connec- 
 tion with the Irish Universities. 
 The Bill was rejected by 287 to 
 284, and the Government resigned. 
 But Disraeli was tired of govern- 
 ing with a minority, and Mr. Glad- 
 stone and his colleagues returned 
 to their posts. 
 
 Fall of the Government. 
 
 Rarely has a Prime Minister 
 been placed in a more trying posi- 
 tion than that occupied by Mr. 
 (iLADSTONE during the last year of 
 this Administration. By his des- 
 tructive legislation he had ofl'ended 
 almost every class in the country. 
 He had frightened the Whigs, yet 
 he had not satisfied the Radicals, 
 who thought, as Mr. Chamberlain 
 put it, that the Ministers only 
 talked the cant of Liberalism and 
 would not do its work. Even the 
 financial policy of the Government 
 
 had been unsuccessful. Tlie tax- 
 payers, who remembered Mr. Glad- 
 stone's strictures on the Income 
 Tax, wondered why it had aver- 
 aged nearly 4^d., and they were 
 irritated by Mr. Lowe's duplicate 
 budgets and miserable match-tax 
 proposals. Churchmen were in- 
 dignant at the spoliation of the 
 Church, while the Radical Dis- 
 senters thought the process had 
 not been carried far enough. 
 Most men were weary of the hurry 
 and worry of Mr. Gladstone's 
 domestic reforms, and all who re- 
 membered the rule of Palmerston 
 resented the degradation of tlie 
 country by the failures of the 
 Government abroad. At the be- 
 ginning of 1874, ^•^' Gladstone 
 suddenly appealed to the country, 
 lie promised to remit the Income 
 Tax, but the constituencies re- 
 jected the bribe with scorn. The 
 General Election gave Disraeli 
 350 followers in the Lower House, 
 as against 244 Liberals and 58 
 Home Rulers. 
 
 1874-80. 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield, 
 
 The Tory Party Triumphant. 
 
 THE Reform Bill of 1867 had 
 at last justified the expec- 
 tations of its author, and 
 popular Toryism had be- 
 come a fact instead of a phrase. 
 The Tories had not occupied an 
 equally satisfactory position since 
 the days of Pitt and Grenville. 
 They were now, what their history 
 entitled them to be, " the popular 
 political confederation of this 
 
 country." The Liberals, on the 
 other hand, seemed hopelessly 
 demoralised, and ^Ir. Gladstone 
 added to their confusion by sud- 
 denly announcing that he could not 
 " contemplate any unlimited ex- 
 tension of active service," and 
 might find it necessary to " divest 
 himself of all the responsibilities of 
 leadership at no distant time." In 
 January, 1875, he formally retired, 
 and Lord Hartington took his 
 place at the head of the party.
 
 82 
 
 LEGISLATION FOR THE rEOI'LE. 
 
 At first, Disraeli encountered no 
 serious opposition at all. His 
 measures throughout his Adminis- 
 tration were the concrete embodi- 
 ment of the principles for which 
 he had been fij^liting during the 
 whole of his political career. In 
 " the fiscal period " he could never 
 liave stood as high as Peel, but 
 Peel could never have revived, as 
 did Disraeli, the sympathy which 
 properly exists between the upper 
 and lower classes of English 
 society. Disraeli had, in truth, 
 always felt more sympathy with 
 the operatives than with the 
 middle-classes. He believed 
 that the great national institutions 
 might safely rely upon popular 
 support, and that the working- 
 classes might look to the Tory 
 party for popular legislation. 
 
 Worhing-Class Legislation. 
 
 His Government will always be 
 memorable for the measures which 
 it carried for the immediate bene- 
 fit of the working-classes. Some 
 of them are, on the admission of 
 leading Radicals, among the great- 
 est benefits that the people have 
 ever received. In 1874 ^^^^ Fac- 
 tories (Women and Children) Act, 
 which Mr. Mundella called a 
 "noble measure," while Mr. 
 Baxter said it would "confer 
 incalculable benefits on the opera- 
 tive class," imposed new limita- 
 tions on the hours of employment, 
 and made further provision for 
 education. Four years afterwards, 
 the Home Secretary consolidated 
 and amended the Factory Acts in a 
 Bill which caused Lord Shaftes- 
 bury to remark that " two millions 
 of the people of this country would 
 bless the day when Mr. Cross was 
 invited to become Secretary of 
 State for the Home Department." 
 The " Conspiracy and Protection 
 ' of Property Act " secured libert}'^ 
 to working-men by placing their 
 combinations beyond the reach of 
 the law of conspiracy, unless their 
 
 action would amount to a crime if 
 committed by an individual. One 
 Radical working-man, Mr. George 
 HowKLL, lias called this Act " the 
 charter of their social and indus- 
 trial freedom," while another, Mr. 
 George Odger, said it was " the 
 greatest boon ever granted to the 
 sons of toil." The " Employers 
 and Workmen Act," by abolishing 
 imprisonment for breach of 
 contract, placed labour in a 
 position of legal equality with 
 capital. The savings of the poor 
 were protected by two Friendly 
 Societies Acts for the suppression 
 of fraud, and the Building Societies 
 Acts of 1874 ^^'^ 1877 aimed at a 
 similar object. 
 
 Sanitary Measures. 
 
 Disraeli had said, in 1872, that 
 the health of the people was the 
 most important question for a 
 Statesman, and, when his views 
 were derided as a " policy of sew- 
 age," he replied : — " Well, it may 
 be the ' policy of sewage ' to a 
 Liberal member of Parliament. 
 But to one of the labouring multi- 
 tude of England, who has found 
 fever always to be one of the in- 
 mates of his household — who has, 
 year after year, seen stricken down 
 the children of his loins, on whose 
 sympathy and material support he 
 has looked with hope and confi- 
 dence, it is not a 'policy of sewage,' 
 but a question of life and death." 
 When he came into power, he 
 resolved to put these views into 
 practice. The Artisans' Dwellings 
 Acts of 1875 and 1879 provided for 
 the destruction of houses that were 
 unfit for habitation, and for the 
 erection of suitable buildings in 
 their place. The Sale of Food and 
 Drugs Act imposed heavier penal- 
 ties for adulteration. The Public 
 Health Act of 1875 increased the 
 efiiciency of sanitary authorities. 
 The Commons Act of 1876 estab- 
 lished for rural as well as suburban 
 commons a legal presumption in
 
 SOCIAL NOT POLITICAL CHANCES DESIRABLE. 
 
 83 
 
 favour of regulation rather than 
 inclosure, and made encroachments 
 on village greens a public nuisance. 
 The Open Spaces Act of 1877 pro- 
 vided places of recreation tor the 
 inhabitants of London. 
 
 OtJiey Social Legislation. 
 
 Among other Bills passed by the 
 Beacon'sfield Cabinet in the in- 
 terests of the working-classes may 
 be mentioned an Act to abolish the 
 hateful "truck system" in the 
 hosiery trade, the Elementary 
 Education Act, and the Poor Law 
 Amendment Act of 1876, and the 
 \\'eights and Measures Act of 
 1878. In 1879, Mr. Macdonald, 
 the Radical miners' member, said : 
 — "As to the policy of the Govern- 
 ment, I am not one with strongly 
 hostile views to them. I thought 
 we had had enough of Whig rule 
 when I entered Parliament, and I 
 thought we ought to give a fair 
 trial to the new party in power. 
 We have gained more from Con- 
 servatives in matters affecting the 
 working men than the Liberals 
 would ever dare have granted." 
 
 The Redress of AgyicuUural Grievances. 
 
 The domestic policy of the Go- 
 vernment included, as might have 
 been expected, the redress of some 
 of the grievances of agriculturists. 
 The burden of local taxation was 
 relieved to the extent of £^2,000,000 
 a year, by the transfer to the Im- 
 perial Exchequer of the cost of 
 County Prisons, and of half the 
 cost of the County Police and 
 Lunatic Asylums. Lord Sandon 
 carried, in spite of violent oppo- 
 sition from the Liberals, an Act for 
 the suppression of Cattle Disease. 
 The Agricultural Holdings Act of 
 1875 first recognised tenants' 
 claims to compensation for im- 
 provement, and Disraeli declared 
 himself ready to accept a compul- 
 sory clause if it should prove to 
 be necessary. Tiic ipiestion of the 
 County Franchise was raised by 
 
 Mr. Trevelyan in May, 1874. 
 Disraeli did not object to the 
 principle of the equalisation of 
 borough and county qualifications. 
 " As regards the classes," he said, 
 " which the hon. gentleman by his 
 Bill seeks to invest with the fran- 
 chise, I have no hesitation in giving 
 my opinion. I have no doubt that 
 the rated householder in the county 
 is just as competent to exercise 
 the franchise with advantage to 
 the country as the rated house- 
 holder in the towns. I have not 
 the sliglitest doubt whatever that 
 he possesses all those virtues which 
 generally characterise the British 
 people, and I have as little doubt 
 that if he possessed the franchise 
 he would exercise it with the same 
 prudence and the same benefit to 
 the community as the rated house- 
 holder in the town." But so large 
 an increase in the electorate would 
 involve a general redistribution of 
 seats, and the country was not 
 ripe for a general reconstruction of 
 the electoral system. " We should 
 not now, in a most unnecessary 
 manner, disturb the political con- 
 science of the country, when, as I 
 tliink, the public mind is not intent 
 upon change, and when the very 
 class on whose position the right 
 hon. gentleman has most rested 
 his argument and his appeal — viz., 
 agricultural labourers — are only a 
 portion, and not the largest por- 
 tion, of those interested in this 
 great question. The mind of that 
 class is occupied, not with political 
 change, but rather with an eleva- 
 tion of their social condition ; and 
 when the disposition of tiie country 
 is favomable, beyond any preced- 
 ing time that I can recall, to a suc- 
 cessful consideration of tlie social 
 wants of the great body of the 
 people, I think it would be most 
 unwise to encourage this fever for 
 organic change." From the divi- 
 sion on Mr. Tkevelyan's motion, 
 most of the leading Liberals, 
 including Mr. Gladstone, Lord
 
 84 
 
 THE TRIPLE ALLIANCE BROKEN UP. 
 
 IIartington, and Sir William 
 Hakcoukt, were absent. Hitherto, 
 Mr. Gladstone had voted and 
 spoken against the extension of 
 the franchise, and it was not until 
 i<S77 that the Liberal party, as a 
 whole, declared in its favour. 
 
 Disraeli's Foreign Policy. 
 
 In foreign affairs Disraeli made 
 it his object to recover the thread 
 of British policy which Mr. Glad- 
 stone's Government had lost. 
 He felt that it was his duty to 
 restore England to her rightful 
 position among the nations of the 
 world, and he welcomed any 
 opportunity of asserting the Im- 
 perial claims of his country. One 
 remarkable proof of his sagacity 
 was his purchase of the Khedive's 
 shares in the Suez Canal. Mr. 
 Gladstone condemned the pur- 
 chase at the time as "a financial 
 operation of a most ridiculous 
 description," yet in ten years the 
 shares had risen in value from 
 ^4,076,000 to over ;^io,ooo,ooo. 
 But Disraeli did not regard the 
 transaction merely as an invest- 
 ment, for it was intended to assert 
 the determination of England to 
 maintain the route to India. The 
 Royal Titles Act, which gave the 
 Queen the title of "Empress of 
 India," was also due to his imagina- 
 tive genius. It was an appropriate 
 compliment to the Indian subjects 
 of the Queen, and an emphatic 
 declaration of England's interest 
 in India. It is hard to understand 
 how it aroused vehement opposi- 
 tion, or how Liberal critics, in face 
 of the contrar}' wording of the Act, 
 could describe it as substituting the 
 title of Empress for that of Queen. 
 Disraeli showed that the natives 
 of India regarded the Bill with the 
 utmost favour. "Let the people 
 of India" he said, "feel that there 
 is a S3'mpathetic chord between us 
 and them, and do not let Europe 
 suppose for a moment that there 
 are an}^ in this House who are 
 
 not deeply conscious of tlie import- 
 ance of our Indian Empire." 
 
 The Eastern Question Re-opened. 
 
 Little more than a year after 
 the accession of the Government 
 to power, trouble in Eastern 
 Europe began. In the summer of 
 1875, an insurrection broke out in 
 Herzegovina, and soon spread 
 into Bosnia. The discontent of the 
 Christian inhabitants of Turkey 
 caused several remonstrances to be 
 addressed to the Porte by Euro- 
 pean Powers. The " Andrassy 
 Note," for which the Chancellors 
 of Austria, Germany, and Russia 
 were responsible, received the 
 "general support" of England, 
 although the Government com- 
 plained, with reason, that our ad- 
 vice had not been asked before the 
 Note was drawn up. The Porte 
 accepted most of the Reforms 
 which it suggested, but had neither 
 the will nor the power to carry 
 them into effect. The three Im- 
 perial Chancellors next proposed 
 to present the Berlin ]\Iemoran- 
 dum, which insisted on an armis- 
 tice of two months between the 
 Porte and the rebels, in order 
 that terms of peace might be 
 negotiated on stated conditions. 
 It was impossible for Lord Derby 
 to sanction this IMemorandum; for 
 England, in spite of her achieve- 
 ments in the Crimea, would have 
 been placed in subordination to 
 the other Powers, and our Govern- 
 ment knew that, as Turkey was 
 unable to execute sudden and 
 sweeping Reforms, there was great 
 danger of creating a pretext for 
 Russian aggression. 
 
 ]\leanwhile, an insurrection had 
 taken place in Bulgaria, and the 
 vigour and severit}' with which it 
 was suppressed by the irregular 
 troops of Turkey furnished the 
 Radicals with a plausible cr3% For 
 several months Radical orators 
 devoted their energies to violent 
 attacks upon the Government.
 
 THE CONSTANTINOPLE CONFERENCE. 
 
 85 
 
 Ever}' sensational story of murder 
 or outrage that appeared in a news- 
 paper was greedily swallowed. It 
 was said that more than 30,000 
 Bulgarians had been killed, and 
 that 10,000 had been imprisoned. 
 Accounts were circulated of the 
 sale of hundreds of Christian 
 girls; of cart-loads of heads being 
 paraded through the streets; and 
 of the infliction of all sorts of 
 horrible tortures. Sometimes Dis- 
 raeli was charged with culpable 
 ignorance of what occurred; some- 
 times it was said that, although 
 he had known everything, he had 
 done nothing. Mr. Gladstone 
 ]>ublished a pamphlet under the 
 title " Bulgarian Horrors, and the 
 Question of the East," in which 
 he urged that the Turkish officials 
 must be turned out of the Christian 
 provinces " bag and baggage." In 
 speech after speech he assailed the 
 Government with a blind disregard 
 of national interests, and without 
 a thought of our delicate negotia- 
 tions with foreign Powers. As a 
 matter of fact, from the moment 
 w'hen the transactions in Bulgaria 
 occurred, the Government had 
 been in constant communication 
 with Sir H. Elliott, our Am- 
 bassador at Constantinople, who 
 reported that the stories of tor- 
 tures and of the sale of women 
 were fabrications, although, un- 
 doubtedly, many Bulgarians had 
 been imprisoned and still more had 
 been killed. But there had, also, 
 certainly been many offences on the 
 part of the irregular troops, such 
 as commonly accompany oriental 
 warfare. Our Ambassador had 
 done all he could, by repeated pro- 
 tests to the Turkish Government, 
 to stay the cruelty of the troops, but, 
 as Lord Salisbury said, "It has 
 always been the case, where any 
 Government has been compelled 
 to employ other than their own 
 drilled forces in suppressing a re- 
 bellion, that such acts as tliese have 
 unfortunately been conunitted." 
 
 The Russo-Turkish War. 
 
 Servia and Montenegro next 
 declared war against Turkey, and 
 the Servians, who Avere speedily 
 crushed, asked for the mediation 
 of the great Powers. Accordingly, 
 a Conference was held at Con- 
 stantinople, at which Lord Salis- 
 bury, then Secretary for India, 
 represented England. He sug- 
 gested, as a basis for peace (i) 
 that in Servia and Montenegro 
 the status quo should be restored, 
 (2) that local self-government 
 should be conceded to Bosnia and 
 Herzegovina, (3) that guarantees 
 should be given for the good 
 government of Bulgaria. Several 
 other scliemes were discussed, but 
 eventually the English proposals 
 Avere adopted by the plenipoten- 
 tiaries. The Turks, however, de- 
 clined to agree to them. The 
 atrocity-mongers had done their 
 work only too well. "We were told," 
 said Lord Salisbury, "that we 
 were a Government which no 
 longer represented the people of 
 England; that those who did 
 represent the people of England 
 had declared that the Turks must 
 be turned out bag and baggage, 
 and that it was of no use for the 
 Turks to follow our advice be- 
 cause they were already fore- 
 doomed. That was the efTect of 
 the Bulgarian agitation upon our 
 power over their counsels." One 
 of the Turkish diplomatists is said 
 to have defended their obstinacy 
 with the remark, " Europe desires 
 to smother us. Wo came by the 
 sword, and may as well die by it." 
 
 The Conference was dissolved, 
 and more fruitless negotiations 
 took place. Lord Beaconsfield* 
 had to play an extremely difficult 
 part. He wished to press neces- 
 sary reforms on Turkey, but he 
 knew the danger of resorting to 
 
 • Disraeli had been created Earl of 
 Beaconskield in August, 1876, and Sir 
 Stakkord Northcotk then assumed the 
 leadersliip of the House of Commons.
 
 86 
 
 rilK SAN STEPIIANO TREATY. 
 
 force. "Every employment of 
 force in the East," says M. GuizoT, 
 " turns to the profit of Russia ; 
 first, because Russia always ap- 
 pears on that scene with the great- 
 est amount of strength, and next, 
 because every employment of force, 
 every great shock, opens chances 
 impossible to foresee, and which 
 Russia more than any other Power 
 is in condition to take advantage 
 of." Russia was eager to find a pre- 
 text for war, and Lord Beacons- 
 field was as eager to frustrate her 
 ambitious designs. But, in face 
 of dissensions in the Cabinet and 
 of the impatriotic attitude of Mr. 
 Gladstone and his followers, it 
 was impossible to preserve peace. 
 On April 24th, 1877, Russia de- 
 clared war against Turkey, in spite 
 of the protest of our Government. 
 Lord Derby pointed out that the 
 action of Russia was in direct con- 
 travention of the Treaty of Paris, 
 as confirmed in 1871, by which 
 Russia and the other Powers en- 
 gaged, each on its own part, to 
 respect the independence and the 
 territorial integrity of the Ottoman 
 Empire. The unjustifiable char- 
 acter of the war was the key-note 
 of Lord Beaconsfield's policy, 
 and our Ambassador told Prince 
 GoRTSCHAKOFF that any Treaty 
 concluded between Russia and the 
 Porte affecting the Treaties of 
 1856 and 1 87 1 would not be valid 
 without the assent of the other 
 Powers. 
 
 By the close of the year the 
 Turkish armies were crushed, and 
 the Russians were advancing 
 through Bulgaria towards Con- 
 stantinople. Lord Beaconsfield 
 saw the necessity for strong meas- 
 ures. On January 24th, 1878, the 
 British fleet was ordered to Con- 
 stantinople, but Lord Carnarvon 
 resigned, and Lord Derby threat- 
 ened to follow his example, and 
 the order was countermanded. 
 The Government next asked for 
 a Vote of Credit for ^6,000,000, 
 
 which was strenuously resisted by 
 Mr. Gladstone, but carried on 
 February 7th by 295 to g6. On 
 the same day, the fleet was again 
 ordered to Constantinople. On 
 March 3rd the famous Treaty of 
 San Stephano was signed by 
 the representatives of Russia 
 and Turkey. Its clauses were 
 framed almost entirely in the in- 
 terests of Russia, without regard 
 to the wishes and policy of the 
 rest of the European Powers. The 
 navigation of the Bosphorus was 
 declared to be free to all merchant 
 vessels, alike in peace and in 
 war. Batoum, Ardahan, Kars, 
 and the adjoining districts were to 
 remain in the possession of Russia. 
 A war indemnity of ^"47, 500,000 
 was to be paid by Turkey, and 
 Russia Avas to receive the Dobrudja 
 in order to exchange it for Bessa- 
 rabia. An increase of territory 
 and complete independence was to 
 be granted to Servia and Monte- 
 negro. The Bulgarians were to 
 form a Principality^ under an elected 
 Prince, and their territory was to 
 receive a large extension, includ- 
 ing a sea-port on the ^gean, but 
 Russia was to occupy Bulgaria 
 for two years with 50,000 troops. 
 Roumania was left to make a 
 separate Treaty with Turkey, 
 including a demand for another 
 indemnity. The Treaty, said 
 Lord Stratford de Redcliffe, 
 was " Muscovite not European, 
 excessive not considerate, ruinous 
 not corrective, surer to gall than 
 to heal, inconsistent with previous 
 bearings, in short, rather an am- 
 bitious spoliation in the guise of 
 peace than a peaceful rescue from 
 evils pressing, in fact and in 
 prospect, on national welfare in 
 earth's most civilised quarters. 
 The preliminaries of San Stephano, 
 to be tolerated at all, must, of 
 necessity, undergo a close inspec- 
 tion and a remedial curtailment." 
 
 The Treaty Avas, in short, a com- 
 plete exposure of the hvpocrisy
 
 THE BERLIN CONGRESS. 
 
 ^ 
 
 of the Czar, who had " pledged 
 his sacred word of honour" that 
 Russia had " no ambitious pur- 
 pose," and of the Anti-EngHsh 
 poHcy of Mr. Gladstone and the 
 other friends of Russia in this 
 country. The Great Powers re- 
 solved to summon a European 
 Congress, and the English Govern- 
 ment insisted that the whole 
 Treaty should be submitted to that 
 Congress. To this course Russia 
 raised a series of objections. Lord 
 Beaconsfield then called out the 
 Reserves. Lord Derby resigned, 
 but his resignation was more than 
 compensated for by the appomt- 
 ment of Lord Salisbury to the 
 Foreign Office. On April 17th, 
 the Government ordered Indian 
 troops to Malta. The Liberals, 
 although they knew that the issues 
 of peace and war were hanging in 
 the balance, saw fit to propose a 
 vote of censure on the Government 
 for employing Indian troops away 
 from India, but the motion was 
 rejected by 347 to 226. Eventually, 
 Lord Beaconsfield's statesman- 
 ship achieved its object. The 
 German Government invited repre- 
 sentatives of the Powers to a 
 Congress at Berlin to discuss the 
 whole of the Treaty, and this in- 
 vitation was accepted both by 
 Russia and by England. 
 
 The Berlin Cougt-ess. 
 
 On June 13th the Congress met 
 at Berlin under the presidency of 
 Prince Bismarck, Lord Beacons- 
 field and Lord Salisbury re- 
 presenting England. Before it 
 assembled, the Government made 
 an arrangement with Russia agree- 
 ing to the annexation of Batoum 
 and Kars, and of Bessarabia, and 
 stipulating for the division of Bul- 
 garia into two provinces. As a 
 counter-poise to the agrandiscment 
 of Russia, a Convention was con- 
 cluded with Turkey, under which 
 Great Britain was to acquire 
 Cyprus, and the Porte was to 
 
 carry out needful reforms. In re- 
 turn for these concessions. Great 
 Britain was to guarantee the in- 
 tegrity of the Asiatic dominions of 
 Turkey. The Congress effected 
 many material alterations in the 
 provisions of the Treaty of San 
 Stephano. Bulgaria was confined 
 to the North of the Balkans, and 
 Eastern Roumelia was given a 
 separate constitution. The Eng- 
 lish Government full}' recognised 
 the importance of establishing a 
 large autonomous Principality in 
 Turkey, but that course was im- 
 practicable while Bulgaria was in 
 the hands of Russia. The union 
 of Bulgaria and Eastern Roumelia 
 under Russian auspices would vir- 
 tually have placed the European 
 dominions of Turkey under Rus- 
 sian control, and Lord Beacons- 
 field insisted that the power of 
 Turkey should not be destroyed 
 before some other bulwark against 
 Russian aggression could be found. 
 " Turkey in Europe," said Prince 
 Bismarck, "once more exists." 
 Thrace, Macedonia, and the littoral 
 of the ^gean were restored to the 
 Sultan, and the proposed conces- 
 sions to Servia and Montenegro 
 were limited. As an additional 
 barrier against Russia, Bosnia and 
 Herzegovina were placed under 
 the administration of Austria. 
 The Congress recommended, but 
 did not enforce, concessions to 
 Greece. Lord Beaconsfield did 
 not believe that the time had come 
 for a great extension of Greek 
 power, and advised Greece to 
 " learn to be patient." In Asia, 
 Russia surrendered Bayazid and 
 the Valley of Alaskerd. On July 
 13th, the Treaty of Berlin was 
 signed. 
 
 "Peace linth Honour." 
 
 The return of Lord Beacons- 
 field and Lord Salisbury from 
 Berlin was a popular ovation. On 
 landing at Dover, antl when ad- 
 dressing the crowd from the win-
 
 83 
 
 THE DEFENCE OF INDIA. 
 
 (lows of the Foreign Office, the 
 Prime Minister used the same 
 memorable phrase — "We have 
 brought you back peace, but a 
 peace, I hope, with honour, 
 which may satisfy our Sovereign, 
 and tend to the welfare of the 
 country." At the banquet given 
 in honour of himself and his col- 
 league on July 27th, he vindicated 
 the Anglo-Turkish Convention 
 against the diatribes of the Oppo- 
 sition leaders. He showed that, 
 far from increasing our responsi- 
 bilities, it really diminished them. 
 Our interests required that we 
 should ultimately prevent the occu- 
 pation of Asia Minor by Russia, 
 and, if we wished to prevent war, 
 it was w^ell to take a step before- 
 hand which indicated what the 
 policy of England would be. " One 
 of the results," he remarked, " of 
 my attending the Congress of Ber- 
 lin has been to prove — what I 
 always suspected — to be an abso- 
 lute fact, that neither the Crimean 
 war nor this horrible devastating 
 war which has just terminated 
 would have taken place if England 
 had spoken with the necessary 
 firmness." " We thought the time 
 had come when we should take 
 steps which would produce some 
 order out 01 the anarchy and chaos 
 that had so long prevailed. • • • 
 I hold we have laid the foundation 
 of a state of affairs which may 
 open a new continent to the civi- 
 lisation of Europe, and that the 
 welfare of the world and the wealth 
 of the world may be increased by 
 availing ourselves of that tran- 
 quility and order which the more 
 intimate connection of England 
 with that country will now pro- 
 duce." In answer to those who 
 described the Convention as an 
 "insane Convtntion," he "would 
 put this question to an English 
 jury : — Which do you believe more 
 likely to enter into an 'insane 
 Convention,' — a body of English 
 gentlemen honoured by the favour 
 
 of their Sovereign and the con- 
 fidence of their fellow-subjects, 
 managing your affairs for five 
 years, I hope with prudence and 
 not altogether without success, or 
 a sophistical rhetorician inebriated 
 with the exuberance of his own 
 verbosity, and gifted with an ego- 
 tistical imagination that can, at all 
 times, command an interminable 
 and inconsistent series of argu- 
 ments to malign an opponent and 
 to glorif}^ himself ? " 
 
 The Afghan War. 
 
 The Afghan difficulty was a 
 legacy of woe from the Gladstone 
 Government. Afghanistan, which 
 Von Moltke calls the '^glacis of the 
 lortress of Hindostan," has long 
 been the battle-ground of English 
 and Russian diplomatists. The 
 Ameer is forced by the necessities 
 of his position to side with one or 
 other of the rival Powers, and the 
 weakness of the Gladstone Go- 
 vernment, after the Conquest of 
 Khiva by Russia in 1873, had 
 caused Shere Ali to renounce 
 the alliance of England. In 1878, 
 while war between England and 
 Russia might have been proclaimed 
 at any moment, he received the 
 Russian envo)'^ with marked cordi- 
 ality, and allowed him to stay at 
 his court. In December, Lord 
 Napier of Magdala telegraphed : 
 — " Afghanistan, if in the hands of 
 a hostile Power, may at any time 
 deal a fatal blow to our Empire. 
 • • • • Our frontier is weak : an 
 advanced position is necessary for 
 our safety." The English Govern- 
 ment demanded that the Ameer 
 should also receive an English 
 envoy, and informed him that a 
 refusal would be interpreted as an 
 act of hostility. Lord Salisbury 
 said " It was not the military in- 
 vasion of India, but the diplomatic 
 invasion of Afghanistan that we 
 had to guard against. We had to 
 take measures to prevent Russia 
 working in the East with Afghan-
 
 TAXATION UNDER CONSERVATIVE ADMINISTRATION. 
 
 89 
 
 istan as her base, as she had 
 worked in Europe with Bulgaria 
 and Bosnia. To prevent such an 
 evil, remonstrances to St. Peters- 
 burg were useless. It could only 
 be done by English agents on the 
 spot, who might watch the un- 
 authorised diplomacy of Russia." 
 
 The Ameer returned no answer 
 to the communication of our Go- 
 vernment, and directed his officers 
 to forbid our Envo}^ Sir Nevile 
 Chamberlain, to proceed. War 
 followed, and in six months our 
 troops occupied Afghanistan. In 
 May, 1879, by the Treaty of Gan- 
 damak, Yakoob Khan, the son and 
 successor of Shere Ali, agreed to 
 receive an envo}' in Cabul, and to 
 surrender the Kuram, Pishin and 
 Sibi valle3's, in return for ^60,000 
 a year, while England undertook 
 the guidance of his foreign policy 
 and the defence of his country 
 against agression. Sir Louis 
 Cavignari was sent as envoy to 
 Cabul, but his murder in Septem- 
 ber forced England to again invade 
 Afghanistan. 
 
 The Zulu War. 
 
 The Ministers fully accepted 
 their responsibility for the Afghan 
 war, and were content to base 
 their defence on the interests of 
 our Indian Empire, and the ap- 
 proval of the great majority of 
 Anglo-Indian authorities. For the 
 war with the Zulus in 1879, which 
 was due to the hasty action of Sir 
 Bartle Frere, the Government 
 was clearly not responsible. The 
 Opposition, however, held that the 
 Government was to blame for not 
 recalling Sir Bartle Frere from 
 South Africa, and Sir C. Dilke 
 moved a vote of censure, which 
 was rejected by 306 to 246. Sir 
 Bartle Frere had been selected 
 by the Government mainly in 
 order tu carry out a Confederation 
 of the South African Colonies 
 similar to that which Lord Car- 
 narvon had already carried out in 
 
 North America, and he could not 
 have been recalled without detri- 
 ment to our Colonial interests. 
 But the Opposition did not scruple 
 to make party capital out of both 
 the Afghan and the Zulu wars. 
 Lord Beaconsfield was repre- 
 sented as an inhuman monster who 
 loved war partly for its own sake, 
 and partly as a means of diverting 
 public attention from domestic 
 affairs. Such arguments could not 
 carry conviction to the minds of 
 those who had followed the history 
 of his foreign policy, but with 
 man}' of the less-informed electors 
 they undoubtedly had some weight. 
 
 Conservative Finance. 
 The financial polic}' of the Go- 
 vernment was assailed with equal 
 pertinacity and equal injustice. 
 Liberal speakers pointed to the 
 tact that the average expenditure 
 Oi 1874-80 had exceeded that of 
 1868-74 t)y nearly ^8,000,000, and 
 omitted to explain that consider- 
 ably more than half of the ap- 
 parent excess imposed no new 
 burden upon the country. Besides 
 devoting ;^2,ooo,ooo, as we have 
 seen, to the relief of county rates, 
 the Government had spent 
 £"2,000,000 in converting the Na- 
 tional Debt into terminable annu- 
 ities, and nearly ^650,000 in loans 
 to local bodies upon profitable 
 terms. The neglect of the National 
 Defences by the Gladstone Ad- 
 ministration had also rendered 
 necessary an extra expenditure of 
 ;^3,ooo,ooo upon the Army and 
 Navy. The taxes imposed by Lord 
 Beaconsfi eld's Government were, 
 after all, a very moderate insur- 
 ance against the dangers which 
 England had been forced to face. 
 " Alter a period of almost unex- 
 ampled commercial depression," 
 said Sir Stafford Northcote in 
 1880, " and 01 grave agricultural 
 losses, during which we have had 
 to incur the expense of defending 
 our interests in three different
 
 go 
 
 DISRAELI'S LETTER TO THE DUKE OF MARLDOROVGH. 
 
 quarters of tlie globe, tlie taxation 
 of tliis country is lighter than in 
 almost any year previous to the 
 accession of the present Govern- 
 ment to power, while the real 
 amount of the National Debt 
 stands now at ;^i 8,000,000 below 
 the sum at which we found it. The 
 Crimean war added upwards of 
 ;^40,ooo,ooo to the Debt and left 
 the tax-payer subject to an income 
 tax of IS. 4d. in the pound, besides 
 lieavy imposts on the necessaries 
 of life. The war into which, but 
 for a decided policy, we should 
 have been drawn, would have been 
 even more burdensome both to the 
 taxpayer of the day and to our 
 posterity." 
 
 The Pilgrimage of Passion. 
 Mr. Gladstone made his fa- 
 mous "pilgrimage of passion " to 
 Midlothian in the winter of 1879, 
 and both then and in the spring of 
 1880 he delivered a series of 
 philippics against the whole policy 
 of Lord Beaconsfield. Not con- 
 tent with attacking Sir Stafford 
 Northcote's management of 
 finance, he declared that the 
 Government had " prolonged and 
 aggravated the public distress." 
 The Afghan war he described as 
 *' full of mischief, if not of positive 
 danger, to India." His fiercest 
 invective was reserved for Lord 
 Beaconsfield's policy in the East, 
 which, he said, "had gravely com- 
 promised the faith and honour of 
 the country." He even argued that 
 it had " augmented the power and 
 influence of the Russian Empire." 
 He included the Austrian Empire 
 in his sweeping condemnation, 
 " There is not a spot upon the 
 map of the whole world," he ex- 
 claimed, " where you can lay your 
 finger and say, ' There Austria did 
 good.' " 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield' s Irish Policy. 
 
 The dissolution of Parliament 
 was announced on March 8th, 1880, 
 and Lord Beaconsfield's Election 
 
 Manifesto took the form of a letter 
 t(j the Duke of MAKLiiOKOUGH, the 
 I^ord Lieutenant of Ireland. The 
 Ministers had been able, while 
 mitigating the severity of Mr. 
 Gladstone's Coercion Acts, to 
 maintain peace and order in Ire- 
 land. There was at the close of 
 their administration, as Mr. Glad- 
 stone subsequently admitted, " an 
 absence of crime and outrage, and 
 a general sense of comfort and 
 satisfaction, such as was unknown 
 in the previous history of the 
 country." Nevertheless, Lord 
 Beaconsfield saw that Ireland 
 was distracted by " a danger, in 
 its ultimate results scarcely less 
 disastrous than pestilence and 
 famine. • • • A portion of its popu- 
 lation is attempting to sever the 
 Constitutional tie which unites it 
 to Great Britain in that bond 
 which has favoured the power and 
 prosperity of both." He warned 
 the electors, in prophetic words, 
 against trusting the Liberal leaders 
 to deal with the Home Rule move- 
 ment. 
 
 The General Election of 1880. 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield's Manifesto 
 went on to say : — " The immediate 
 dissolution of Parliament will 
 afford an opportunity to the nation 
 to decide upon a course which will 
 materially influence its future for- 
 tunes and shape its destiny. • • • 
 Rarely in this century has there 
 been an occasion more critical. 
 The power of England and the 
 peace of Europe w^ill largely de- 
 pend on the verdict of the country. 
 Her INIajesty's present IMinisters 
 have hitherto been enabled to 
 secure that peace, so necessary to 
 the welfare of all civilised coun- 
 tries, and so peculiarly the interest 
 of our own. But this ineffable 
 blessing cannot be obtained by 
 the passive principle of non-inter- 
 ference. Peace rests on the pres- 
 ence, not to say on the ascendancy, 
 of England in the Councils of
 
 MR. GLADSTONE RETURNS TO POWER. 
 
 Ql 
 
 Europe. Even at this moment, 
 the doubt, supposed to be in- 
 separable from popular election, 
 if it does not diminish, certainly 
 arrests her influence, and is a main 
 reason for not delaying an appeal 
 to the national voice. Whatever 
 may be its consequences to Her 
 Majesty's present advisers, may it 
 return to Westminster a Parlia- 
 ment not unworthy of the power of 
 England, and resolved to maintain 
 it ! " 
 
 It is no exaggeration to say that 
 the allies and friends of England 
 throughout the civilised world ex- 
 pected and desired the continuance 
 of Lord Beaconsfield in power. 
 But, although less than two years 
 had passed since he brought back 
 "peace with honour" from the 
 Congress of Berlin, the tide of 
 pubhc opinion had already turned. 
 The General Election of 1880 sent 
 only 237 Conservatives to West- 
 
 minster, as against 353 Liberals 
 and 62 Home Rulers. Several 
 explanations of the disaster were 
 given. Some alleged the improved 
 organisation of the Radicals, others 
 the skill with which Mr. Glad- 
 stone had attracted to himself all 
 the discontented sections of the 
 communit}'. Probably, the suc- 
 cession of bad seasons, which the 
 Liberals, with more skill than 
 logic, pressed into their service as 
 an argument, operated as strongly 
 against the Government as any 
 other cause. It must also be con- 
 fessed that many of the electors 
 were influenced by the declama- 
 tions of Mr. Gladstone. But, 
 while the historian will admit that 
 in 1880 the electors were deluded, 
 he will also add that the penalties 
 they paid during the years that 
 followed more than sufiiced to ex- 
 piate their error. 
 
 1880-85. 
 
 The Reign of Confusion. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone again Pycniicr. — II is 
 Apology to Austria. 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE re- 
 turned to office at the 
 head of overwhelming 
 forces, yet the dis- 
 jiassionate observer might have 
 marked sources of weakness in his 
 position. He undoubtedly entered 
 political life with the resolve to 
 maintain a high moral standard, 
 but he had for so many years been 
 describing the not over creditable 
 manoeuvres of partisan strife in 
 language which would be hypo- 
 critical if applied to the achieve- 
 ments of a Pitt or a Bismarck, 
 
 that his moral sense had lost all 
 keenness of perception and his 
 political conscience had become 
 deadened. Pie was for ever prov- 
 ing that, as the present editor of 
 the Daily News remarked, " what 
 looked imcommonly like expedi- 
 ency was really due to deference 
 to the noblest and most generous 
 sentiment." He had worked day 
 by day and week by week to 
 countermine the policy of Lord 
 Beaconsfield. He had passed 
 upon it a condemnation as sweeping 
 and as minute as an ecclesiastical 
 coinmination, and had come into 
 office as the antithesis or negation of 
 the Conservative leader. That Lord
 
 92 
 
 HIE BRADLAUGH DIFFICULTY. 
 
 I>EACONS FIELD invariably erred 
 morally and politically, he took as 
 his rule of life. As his predecessor 
 had generally been right in his 
 })olicy and accurate in his forecasts, 
 Mr. Gladstone, in adopting this 
 course, l:iid up for his Government 
 a store of adversity. Whatever the 
 cause, it iscertain that, though other 
 administrations may have been 
 more disastrous, none has ever been 
 so persistently and monotonously 
 unsuccessful. We may justly say of 
 it, to paraphrase Mr. Gladstone's 
 own language, " There is not a spot 
 on the map of the world to which 
 you can point and say ' here the 
 Government of 1880 did good.'" 
 The new Ministers failed in South 
 Africa, failed in Ireland, failed in 
 India. They insulted and offended 
 the Colonies. They found Ireland 
 peaceful and contented, and left it 
 in misery and disorder. In Egypt, 
 to failure they added indelible dis- 
 grace. The historian can lend but 
 httle interest to the gloomy and 
 unbroken catalogue of their misfor- 
 tunes. He can trace no principles 
 in their policy, for they had none. 
 He can see no plan in their opera- 
 tions, for they never knew one day 
 what they would do the next. In 
 the new Cabinet Mr. Gladstone 
 was Premier and Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer. Lord Hartington, 
 Mr. Childers, Sir W. Harcourt, 
 Lord Granville, and Lord Kim- 
 berley were Secretaries respec- 
 tively for India, war, home affairs, 
 foreign affairs, and the colonies. 
 Mr. Gladstone began with an 
 apology to Austria for language 
 used when in a position "of greater 
 freedom and less responsibility." 
 *' I will at once express my serious 
 concern- • • that I should have 
 been led • • • to use terms of cen- 
 sure which I can now wholly banish 
 from my mind." 
 
 Mr. Bradlaugh and the Oath. 
 
 He was next troubled by the 
 Bradlaugh difficulty, a matter of 
 
 considerable, if mainly temporarj', 
 interest. The Member for North- 
 ampton asked to be allowed to 
 affirm on the ground that the words 
 of the oath, " So help me God," 
 were a meaningless form to him. 
 He was referred to the Courts of 
 Law, which decided that he did 
 not possess the right of affirma- 
 tion. Thereupon, Mr. Bradlaugh, 
 somewhat indecently, expressed his 
 readiness to take the oath, but the 
 House declined to allow him to do 
 so. He continued to be a thorn in 
 the side of Ministers throughout 
 their term of office, and brought 
 upon them several humiliating 
 defeats, culminating in the division 
 by which the " Affirmation " — 
 popularly called the "Bradlaugh 
 Relief" — Bill was rejected in 1883. 
 
 The Transvaal and Afghanistan. 
 
 The Government soon found that 
 it had created trouble for England 
 in the Transvaal. As the Trans- 
 vaal had been annexed by the 
 Conservatives, Mr. Gladstone had 
 of course denounced the annexation 
 as "insane," and the Boers sup- 
 posed that he would give them 
 back their independence when he 
 came into power. As soon as they 
 found he had no such intention, 
 they broke out into open revolt. 
 The Premier, in bold words, said 
 that he would not treat with them 
 whilst they had arms in their hands, 
 but the Boers defeated the British 
 troops in several engagements, cul- 
 minating in the battle of Laing's 
 Nek, in January, 1881, and Majuba 
 Hill in February. Thereupon, Mr. 
 Gladstone discovered that to con- 
 tinue the struggle would involve 
 blood-guiltiness, and conceded their 
 independence on the condition that 
 they recognised the Queen as their 
 suzerain. Had he only made the dis- 
 covery two months earlier, British 
 prestige would not have been dam- 
 aged by an unavenged defeat, and 
 the lives of several hundred British 
 soldiers might have been saved.
 
 LORD BEACONSFIELD'S LAST SPEECH. 
 
 93 
 
 The Government next deter- 
 mined to reverse Lord Beacons- 
 field's policy in Afghanistan. As 
 the result of the war in that country 
 Candahar was in the hands of the 
 British troops. Situated in a broad 
 and fertile plain, it commands the 
 route from Central Asia into 
 India, and is a town of great com- 
 mercial and military importance. 
 It is the point where an invad- 
 ing army would concentrate before 
 entering the passes which lead 
 to India. Lord Beaconsfield in- 
 tended to have annexed the town 
 and to have connected it by rail- 
 way with India, in order to enable 
 English troops to be rapidly des- 
 patched into Afghanistan on an 
 emergency. The Liberal Ministry 
 pulled up several miles of the 
 railway which had been already 
 constructed, and "scuttled" out of 
 Candahar. Military opinion was 
 practically unanimous against the 
 evacuation. In the case of Can- 
 dahar, punishment did not follow 
 so quickly on the blunder as in the 
 Transvaal. But in 1884-5, when 
 difficulties arose between England 
 and Russia about the Afghan 
 frontier, Mr. Gladstone found 
 himself absolutely helpless. The 
 Russians might have seized Herat 
 long before any troops could have 
 been despatched to oppose them. 
 The Liberal Government was ac- 
 tually driven to relay, in 1884, the 
 railway it had pulled up in 1881. 
 
 Death of Lord Beaconsfield. 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield took part 
 in the debate, in the House of 
 Lords, on a resolution condemning 
 the evacuation. He ended his 
 speech with the words "The key of 
 India is not in Candahar or Herat; 
 the key of India is London." 
 It was his last speech. For some 
 time past his health had been very 
 feeble, and at the end of March, 
 1881, he suffered from an attack of 
 bronchitis. He sank gradually and 
 died at 4 o'clock in the morning of 
 
 the igth of April. There is much 
 in his last days to attract a melan- 
 choly interest. Had he lived a few 
 years longer he would have seen 
 the turn of the tide, and would 
 have died with the knowledge that 
 the triumph of his principles must 
 be speedy and complete. After 
 having spent the best years of his 
 life in the weary strife of parties, 
 when power came to him he had at 
 once taken his place amongst the 
 great statesmen of Europe, the re- 
 cognised equal of a Bismarck, or 
 a GoRTSCHAKOFF. In the national 
 crisis he had been the national 
 leader, yet when the danger had 
 passed he had been dethroned by 
 rhetoricians who had neither his 
 foresight nor his ability. But a 
 just nemesis awaited his opponents. 
 The inexorable logic of facts was 
 to prove the accuracy of his judg- 
 ment, and the falsehood of their 
 criticisms. 
 
 Lord Beaconsfield'' s Prophecy fulfilled 
 in Ireland. 
 
 In Ireland, Mr. Gladstone, 
 refused to renew the Peace Pre- 
 servation Act, and the causes of 
 disorder foreseen by Lord Beacons- 
 field were allowed to work. The 
 Land League began to establish 
 its authority by the sanctions of 
 crime and outrage. All that the 
 Government would do was to 
 introduce a Compensation for 
 Disturbance Bill to place tenants 
 evicted for non-payment of rent, in 
 the same position as those leav- 
 ing their holdings for other causes. 
 The sums awarded as compensation 
 for disturbance alone often amount 
 to three or four years' rent. A 
 bill temporarily suspending evic- 
 tion where the tenant, through no 
 fault of his own, is unable to pay, 
 may be justified on the grounds 
 of necessity, but a proposal to fine 
 all landlords for exercising their 
 rights, whether justly or unjustly, 
 can scarcely be equitable. The Bill 
 was thrown out in the House of
 
 91 
 
 THE SECOND IRISH LAND ACT. 
 
 Lords. As the winter drew on, a 
 reign of terror began in Ireland. 
 Farmers and labourers, who dis- 
 obej^ed the orders of the League, 
 were the principal victims. The 
 landlords, as a class, being better 
 able to take care of themselves, did 
 not suffer so largely. In '79 agra- 
 rian outrages numbered only 863 ; 
 in 'So they had increased to the ter- 
 rible number of 2,590. Mr. FORSTER 
 came to the conclusion that the 
 Land League was responsible for 
 this increase in crime, and in 
 October he put Mr. Parnell on his 
 trial for seditious conspiracy. The 
 evidence before him was strong. 
 On January 6th, 1S80, Mr. Par- 
 nell had stated at Newark (New 
 Jersey), "I think those people 
 murdered yesterday will help us 
 forward now." Again, on the 15th, 
 at Brooklyn, he said, " It is im- 
 possible to suppose that the great 
 cause can be won without shedding 
 a drop of blood." Mr. M. Harris, 
 M.P., declared at Galway on Octo- 
 ber 24th, " If the tenant farmers 
 of Ireland shot down landlords as 
 partridges are shot in the month of 
 September, Matthew Harris would 
 never say a word against them." 
 It was, however, useless to expect 
 an Irish jury to convict, and the 
 prosecution failed. 
 
 Irish Legislation in 1881. 
 
 At last, Parliament was specially 
 summoned (Jan. 6th) to consider 
 a "Coercion" and Arms Bill, which 
 gave the Lord Lieutenant three 
 special powers. He could (i) pro- 
 claim disaffected districts ; (2) arrest 
 persons reasonably suspected of 
 treason, violence, and intimidation; 
 (3) take certain steps to prevent the 
 importation, possession, and carry- 
 ing of arms. The power of arrest 
 was aimed, so Mr. Forster said in 
 the House, at the "village ruffians" 
 who formed the Land League 
 police. There were obvious objec- 
 tions to the Bill, although its object 
 was good. Any criminal enact- 
 
 ment for Ireland, to be successful, 
 must make it easier to collect 
 evidence and to secure convic- 
 tion. Mere power of arrest was no 
 terror to evil-doers, and bore tlie 
 appearance of political coercion. 
 The Bill was passed, after a bitter 
 conflict, on March 2nd. 
 
 On April 7th, Mr. Gladstone 
 introduced his Land Bill as a 
 remedial measure to succeed the 
 "Coercion" Bill. This Bill at- 
 tached the tenant firmly to the 
 soil. He could be evicted only for 
 non-payment of rent. He could go 
 to the Land Court and have his 
 rent fixed for a term of 15 years. 
 Lastly, he could sell his tenant- 
 right in all cases, the landlord 
 having a right of qualified veto 
 on the new tenant. There were 
 two fundamental objections to the 
 Government proposals. In the first 
 place, the Bill set up a system 
 of dual ownership in land, i.e., 
 the tenant-right and the freehold, 
 which is in itself most undesirable. 
 Secondly, it reduced the landlord to 
 the position of a rent-charger, and 
 deprived him of all other interest 
 in his estate. Thus its tendency 
 was both to increase absenteeism, 
 and to prevent any further reduc- 
 tions of rents in the event of a 
 further fall in prices. If a tenant 
 takes his landlord into Court and 
 gets the rent judicially fixed, he 
 cannot afterwards throw himself 
 upon the generosity of his land- 
 lord. It was further urged, with 
 justice, that as the tenant-right 
 was carved out of the landlord's 
 interest, confiscation of property 
 took place without compensation. 
 Leaseholders were excluded from 
 the benefit of the Bill. It was 
 intended as a message of peace 
 to Ireland, but as such it sig- 
 nally failed. The idleness of the 
 Government during the winter 
 months of 18S0 had enabled the 
 League to establish itself firmly 
 in Ireland, and the power gainetl 
 by outrage was used to stop the
 
 ARREST OF THE IRISH LEADERS. 
 
 95 
 
 tenants from going into the Land 
 Court. 
 
 The Crimes and Arrears Act. 
 The conviction was growing in 
 tlie mind of the Ministers that they 
 must strike at the Land League 
 if their remedial efforts were to be 
 successful. On January 28th, Mr. 
 Gladstone had said, "With fatal 
 and painful precision the steps of 
 crime dogged the steps of the Land 
 League." In the same month he 
 declared that law had broken down 
 in Ireland, with the consequence of 
 " the servitude of good men, the 
 impunity and supremacy of bad 
 men." The Land Bill became law 
 on August i6th. On October 8th, 
 Mr. Gladstone, in a speech at 
 Leeds, complained — " Mr. Parnell 
 is very copious in his references to 
 America. Hq has said America is 
 the only friend of Ireland ; but, in 
 all his references to America, he 
 has never found time to utter one 
 word of disapproval of, or mis- 
 giving about, what is known as 
 the assassination literature of that 
 country." Mr. Parnell, in reply, 
 compared Mr. Gladstone to a 
 small boy whistling as he goes 
 tlirough a churchyard, in order to 
 keep up his spirits, and foretold 
 that the time would come when 
 Mr. Gladstone would eat all liis 
 l)ig words, as he had about the 
 Transvaal. On October the 14th, 
 while Mr. Gladstone was speaking 
 at the Lord Mayor's Banquet, a 
 telegram was placed in his hands, 
 "Our enemies," he cried in joyous 
 tones, "have fallen, have fallen." 
 ]\Ir. Parnell — "The man wlio has 
 unhappily made himself beyond all 
 others prominent in the attempt 
 to destroy the authority of the law, 
 to substitute what would end in 
 being nothing more or less than an- 
 archical oppression exercised upon 
 the people of Ireland" — had been 
 arrested as a suspect and shut up 
 in Kilmainham, whither he was 
 lollowed by several Land Leaguers. 
 
 The League responded with the 
 " No Rent " manifesto. " Pay No 
 Rent" says this ferocious docu- 
 ment — " Pay No Rent, avoid the 
 Land Court • • • Pa}^ No Rent ; the 
 person who does should be visited 
 with the severest sentence of social 
 ostracism. Avoid the Land Court; 
 cast out the person who enters it 
 as a renegade to his country and 
 the cause of his fellow men." In 
 the first nine months of 1881, 2,700 
 outrages had taken place. One 
 thousand five hundred outrages in 
 the last three monthswerenecessary 
 to enforce the "No Rent" manifesto. 
 This was too much for tlie patience 
 of the Ministers. Tliey proclaimed 
 the Land League and locked up 
 all its officials upon whom they 
 could lay hands. Yet, in spite of 
 these efforts, the Protection Act 
 of 1 88 1 was not very successful 
 in checking crime. This partial 
 failure of the Act was used by the 
 Pall Mall Gazette and other papers 
 as evidence that " coercion " was 
 useless to stop crime, but we have 
 seen that the real cause of ill suc- 
 cess was the absence of necessary 
 provisions. The whole plan of 
 locking up suspects was bad. The 
 law ought to have been modified 
 in order to reach criminals, whilst 
 the politicians might have been 
 disregarded. Mr. Forster's Act 
 was really a "Coercion" Act in 
 so far as it was directed against 
 political agitation. Nevertheless, 
 although outrages had increased in 
 1881 by nearly 2,000, the "No Rent" 
 agitation and the attempt to keep 
 the tenants out of the Land Court 
 generally failed. In the first three 
 months of 1882, outrages numbered 
 1,200. Mr. FoRSTER stootl firm as a 
 rock, but the Government began to 
 waver. 
 
 The Kilmainham Treaty. 
 
 In April, Captain O'Shea had 
 an interview with Mr. Parnell in 
 Kilmainham. He forwarded to the 
 Prime Minister a memurauduin
 
 or, 
 
 THE PIICENIX PARK MURDER. 
 
 of the conversation which, in 
 its corrected form, ran as fol- 
 lows : — " What has been obtained 
 is that the 'organisation,' which 
 has been used to get up boycotting 
 and outrages will now be used to 
 put tliem down, and that there will 
 be a union in the Liberal party. 
 • • Parnell hoped to make use of a 
 certain person (Sheridan) and get 
 him back from abroad, as he would 
 be able to help him to put down 
 ' agitation,' as he knows all its 
 details in the West." With the 
 memorandum was a letter from Mr. 
 Parnell containing the following 
 passage — " If the arrears question 
 be settled upon the lines indicated 
 by us, I have every confidence 
 that the exertions which we should 
 be able to make strenuously and 
 unremittingly would be effective 
 in stopping outrages and intimida- 
 tions of all kinds." This " would 
 enable us to co-operate cordially for 
 the future with the Liberal party 
 in forwarding Liberal principles." 
 The last paragraph was suppressed 
 by Captain O'Shea, but produced 
 by Mr. Forster. The Ministers 
 took under their charge an Arrears 
 Bill, every clause of which had 
 been drafted by Mr. Parnell 
 in Kilmainham, and released the 
 principal suspects. ]\Ir. Forster 
 resigned, because he declined to 
 pay " black mail to law-breakers." 
 This conduct of the Government, 
 from the point of view both of 
 morality and expediency, is utterly 
 indefensible. Mr. Parnell prac- 
 tically said to the Government, " If 
 you will accept my Arrears Bill, I 
 will assist in putting down outrages 
 and will give you my support." 
 The Government accepted the 
 Bill and released its author, and 
 yet Mr. Gladstone was bold 
 enough to declare in the House of 
 Commons that the release of the 
 three members was *' an act done 
 without any negotiation, promise, 
 or engagement whatsoever." The 
 whole proceeding illustrates the 
 
 Liberal tactics which made go- 
 vernment impossible in Ireland. 
 Mr. Gladstone imprisoned Mr. 
 Parnell as a suspected criminal 
 in October, 1881, and in April, 
 1882, we find the "suspected 
 criminal" admitted to the Prime 
 Minister's counsels and allowed 
 to draft a Government measure. 
 On May 6th, the country was 
 deeply shocked by the murder of 
 Lord Frederick Cavendish and 
 Mr. Burke in Phoenix Park. The 
 Government then introduced the 
 Crimes Act, which had been 
 drafted some time before. The 
 difficulty of securing convictions 
 was met by change of venue and 
 by special juries, and, if necessary, 
 three judges might try certain 
 criminal cases. INIagistrates were 
 empowered to examine witnesses 
 when no one was in custody. 
 Intimidation, boycotting, and riot- 
 ing were made punishable by six 
 months' imprisonment. Meetings 
 could be prohibited and newspapers 
 seized. The Act was effective. 
 Outrages in 1882, as compared 
 with 1 88 1, showed a decrease of 
 1,000, and in 1883 a decrease of 
 3,569. The Crimes Act was fol- 
 lowed by an Arrears Bill, and the 
 sharpness of the crisis passed 
 awa}'. 
 
 The ^^ Fourth Party" and the Closure. 
 
 The obstruction of the Irish 
 members compelled the Govern- 
 ment to deal with the Rules of 
 Procedure. On February 20, 1882, 
 Mr. Gladstone introduced his pro- 
 posals, which embodied Closure by 
 a bare majority, but, after the first 
 stage, the}- were dela3'ed until the 
 Autumn Session. The Conserva- 
 tives received the Closure with 
 suspicion, partly because they be- 
 lieved it would endanger freedom 
 of speech, but still more because 
 they feared that the Government, 
 which had alread}^ falsely accused 
 them of obstruction, would make 
 an oppressive use of its powers.
 
 THE BOMBARDMENT OF ALEXANDRIA. 
 
 97 
 
 Sir Stafford Northcote preferred 
 a proportional Closure. Lord 
 Randolph Churchill argued that, 
 if they were to have Closure at all, 
 the bare majority was the fairest. 
 On the whole, Sir Stafford 
 Northcote seems to have been 
 right. When new procedure is 
 introduced into the House of Com- 
 mons it should be surrounded by 
 reasonable conditions and safe- 
 guards until experience has shown 
 how it will work. At any rate, he 
 practically carried his point. Lord 
 Randolph has, however, always 
 been perfectly consistent in his 
 preference for the Closure by a bare 
 majority. Few Statesmen have 
 ever risen to eminence so rapidly 
 as Lord Randolph Churchill. 
 He made his first great speech on 
 the Bradlaugh question. He com- 
 monly acted with Sir Drummond 
 Wolff, Mr. (subsequently Sir 
 John) Gorst, and Mr. Arthur 
 J^alfour. The allies were nick- 
 named, half in jest, the " fourth 
 party," but the Government found 
 them energetic and formidable 
 opponents. They gave to the Oppo- 
 sition that fire which was wanting 
 in the amiable courtesy of Sir 
 Stafford Northcote, and the 
 Closure debates found them occu- 
 pying a recognised and established 
 position below the gangway. 
 
 The Egyptian Imhvoglio. 
 
 The Government liad been 
 warned that Ahmed Arabi, a 
 secret agent of Ismail Pasha, was 
 likely to prove dangerous in Egypt. 
 They paid no attention to the in- 
 formation, and, in September 1881, 
 Arabi made a pronunciamcnto, and 
 changed the Ministry. In Febru- 
 ary, 1882, he became Minister of 
 War. The army became insubor- 
 dinate, and life and property were 
 insecure. An Anglo-French squad- 
 ron was despatched early in May 
 with a most salutarj' eflect. But 
 disorder again broke out after Lord 
 Granville stated, on May 23rd, 
 
 tliat " it had never been intended 
 to land troops or to resort to a 
 military occupation," and another 
 military rising replaced Arabi in 
 power. On the 30th, Consul 
 CooKSON telegraphed that " The 
 small squadron actually in port can 
 only silence the forts, and when 
 they are disabled there will com- 
 mence a period of great danger to 
 Europeans, who will be at the 
 mercy of soldiers exasperated by 
 defeat, while the British Admiral 
 cannot risk his men ashore, as the 
 whole available force • • • does not 
 exceed 300 men." The Govern- 
 ment took no notice of this appeal. 
 In June, riots broke out in Alex- 
 andria and many Europeans were 
 massacred. At length, on July 
 loth, the English fleet, which was 
 left in the lurch by the French, 
 bombarded Alexandria. The 
 Consul's prophecy was carried 
 out to the letter. The forts were 
 destroyed, but tlic Admiral had 
 no troops to land. As a result, 
 Alexandria for two days was given 
 over to the plunder and rapine of 
 Arabi's defeated soldiers, and 
 suffered all the horrors of a sack. 
 Half the town was reduced to 
 ashes, and several millions com- 
 pensation had afterwards to be 
 paid, in consequence of the obsti- 
 nate refusal of Lord Granville to 
 take reasonable precautions. After 
 bombarding Alexandria, the Eng- 
 lish Government was compelled to 
 occupy it, and, after occupying the 
 town, it was compelled to occupy 
 the country. Blind and undecided, 
 Ministers went on with stumbling 
 steps, without a policy and without 
 purpose. The dual control was 
 abolished, 7,000 men were left as a 
 garrison, and, for the time being, 
 the country was pacified. 
 
 Snubbing the Colonics. 
 
 In order to complete the gloom 
 of the outlook abroad, it was only 
 necessary to offend the Colonies. 
 This dut}' Lord Derby, both by his
 
 t,S 
 
 THE COUNTY FRANCHISE AND REDISTRIBUTION. 
 
 temperament and by his manners, 
 was eminently fitted to perform. 
 Though a late member of Lord 
 ]>raconsfield's Cabinet, his con- 
 science had allowed him to join the 
 Gladstone Administration, and he 
 was now Colonial Secretary. A 
 modification of the Munroe doc- 
 trine had spread to Australia and 
 New Zealand, and the colonists 
 were not unreasonably desirous of 
 excluding foreign Governments 
 from their neighbourhood. This 
 feeling was much strengthened by 
 the conduct of the French Govern- 
 ment, which turned New Caledonia 
 into a convict establishment, and 
 flooded Australia with escaped 
 criminals of the worst class. In 
 18S3, great anxiety was felt by the 
 colonists about the large and im- 
 portant island of New Guinea, and, 
 on March 4th, 1883, the Queens- 
 land Government took possession. 
 In April, the Premier of Queensland 
 telegraphed, "All colonies heartily 
 endorse our action. Assure Lord 
 Derby — no expense — Imperial ex- 
 chequer." Lord Derby himself 
 stated in the House of Lords, "I 
 have no doubt there is a strong 
 feeling in Australia generally in 
 favour of the annexation." But he 
 could not make up his mind, though 
 in June he thought that no other 
 power wished to annex New Guinea. 
 At last, on the 19th Jul}-, he wrote, 
 " I am unable to approve of the 
 proceedings of your Government," 
 and quashed the annexation. In 
 INI ay, 1884, he was still confident 
 that no foreign power contemplated 
 interference, but in August the 
 German Government expressed its 
 intention of annexing the North 
 coast, and carried out the annexa- 
 tion in December. The Queensland 
 Government telegraphed, on hear- 
 ing the news, " The relations of the 
 Australasian colonies with Great 
 Britain are likely to be seriously 
 affected by a feeling of mistrust." 
 The Times correspondent at Sxdney 
 ■wrote, " Lord Derby was of course 
 
 the first and chief object of tlie 
 popular wrath. In infinitely varied 
 phrase he was denounced as weak, 
 shifty, imbecile, treacherous, and 
 even a palpable promise-breaker." 
 
 The County Franchise. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone saw that some- 
 thing must be done to restore liis 
 dwindling popularity, and that 
 he might take up the question of 
 County Suffrage. The new elec- 
 tors would probably give their votes 
 at the next General Election for 
 the man who claimed to have 
 enfranchised them, and it might be 
 possible to conceal political incom- 
 petence behind the voting papers. 
 Disraeli, as we have seen, had 
 admitted the principle of House- 
 hold Suffrage for the Counties in 
 1874, and both parties were agreed 
 in regard to it. On February 28th, 
 1884, Mr. Gladstone introduced 
 his Franchise Bill. To the general 
 surprise, it contained no redistribu- 
 tion scheme — an omission the more 
 extraordinary owing to the special 
 circumstances of the case. The 
 Bill reall}' enfranchised two classes 
 of electors, agricultural labourers, 
 and artisans living outside the 
 old border line of their boroughs. 
 Thus, unless the borough bound- 
 aries w^ere extended in order to 
 include the whole town population, 
 the rural districts were in danger 
 of being swamped by the urban 
 vote. ]\Ir. Gladstone admitted, 
 as he was bound to do, that the 
 Bill was incomplete, but argued 
 that a complete Bill could not pass. 
 His action was entirely opposed to 
 ever)' constitutional precedent. Mr. 
 Gibson, now Lord Ashbourne, 
 remarked, "All history is against 
 the Prime Minister on this ques- 
 tion ; in 1832, 1854, 1^58) 1^59, and 
 in i860 the two questions were 
 combined, and in 1866 the House 
 compelled the Premier to combine 
 them." The reason for the practice 
 is obvious. If the franchise be 
 conferred before redistribution is
 
 THE REBELLION IN THE SOUDAN. 
 
 99 
 
 considered, the Government is in a 
 position to say, " If you do not 
 accept our Redistribution scheme 
 we shall abandon it, and go to the 
 country with the new voters in the 
 old constituencies." In this case, the 
 Opposition could not prevent the 
 party in power from "jerrymander- 
 ing" the constituencies by unfair 
 redistribution of seats. Liberal 
 leaders were themselves committed 
 by their previous speeches to 
 the doctrine that the two halves 
 of a Reform Bill must be taken 
 together. Lord Hartington had 
 said, on February 22nd, 1878, 
 *' I think my hon. friend (Mr. 
 Trevelyan) has done well to bring 
 these two subjects together before 
 the House ; because I believe • • • 
 the House will insist, as it has done 
 before, that the question shall not 
 be dealt with partially but as a 
 whole." Mr, Bright had spoken 
 still more strongly on January 
 17th, 1859, "The question of redis- 
 tribution is the very soul of the 
 question, and unless you get that 
 you will be deceived." Sir Charles 
 DiLKE, on April 12th, 1877, had 
 been equally plain — ** The wise 
 and honest course for those of us 
 who desire both reforms is to con- 
 nect them in our movement from 
 the first." We must, therefore, 
 conclude that the Government was 
 despising constitutional precedent, 
 was guilty of palpable and unblush- 
 ing inconsistency, was deaf to the 
 voices of expediency and justice, 
 when it attempted to divide the 
 Siamese twins, franchise and redis- 
 tribution. Such was the ground 
 the Conservatives took up. Lord 
 John Manners moved, as an 
 amendment to the second reading, 
 that the House would not proceed 
 further with the Bill, "until it had 
 beiore it the entire scheme," but 
 was defeated. On July 7th, a simi- 
 lar amendment was carried in the 
 House of Lords by Lord Cairns. 
 In the course of the debate. Lord 
 Carnarvon said, "Tlie Bill extends 
 
 the suffrage largel}', and I have no 
 quarrel with it on that point, I am 
 prepared to accept the basis of 
 Household Suffrage." Lord Salis- 
 bury was equally emphatic, " We 
 shall be accused of desiring to keep 
 these electors off the franchise. • • 
 I repudiate all such charges." A 
 feeble, and now half-forgotten, agi- 
 tation followed. Mr. Gladstone 
 firmly refused either to dissolve or 
 to produce his bill, but on Novem- 
 ber 17th he surrendered. The 
 Redistribution Bill was settled by 
 a Committee consisting of Lords 
 Salisbury and Hartington, Mr. 
 Gladstone, Sir S. Northcote, 
 and Sir C. Dilke. The Bills, at 
 length produced in proper form, 
 became law in December. But 
 the measure had already ceased to 
 attract public interest. The Go- 
 vernment had, practically, no other 
 legislative proposals to make for 
 the benefit of England. Sir W. 
 Harcourt had produced a London 
 Government Bill in April, which 
 met with such universal condemna- 
 tion that it was withdrawn in June. 
 
 The Betrayal of Gordon. 
 
 The clash of arms was calling 
 men's thoughts away from the 
 wrangles at St. Stephen's. A re- 
 ligious pretender had appeared in 
 the Soudan, and the wliole province 
 was ablaze; the Khedive's autho- 
 rity being only maintained in the 
 fortified towns dotted about the 
 country. The British Government, 
 through Lord Duffkrin, advised 
 the Khedive to abandon the equa- 
 torial provinces and to acquiesce 
 in the revolt, but this lie declined 
 to do. As the English were tin* 
 real governors of Egypt, the moral 
 responsibility for the Khedive's 
 action rested on them. They might 
 either insist on the abandonment or 
 aid in the conquest of the Soudan. 
 The Government did neither, but 
 simply washed its hands of the 
 whole affair. Hicks Pasha, an 
 English officer, was sent to his
 
 Tin: FALL OF KlIAiaOUM. 
 
 fate in November, 18S3, with some 
 10,000 Egyptians, not a man of 
 wliom ever returned. The Govern- 
 ment having sacrificed all these 
 lives in order to preserve a nominal 
 freedom from responsibility, did 
 not interfere to prevent another 
 expedition being sent under Baker 
 Pasiia, in December, which met a 
 similar fate on February 4th, 1884. 
 In January, 1884, Lord Granville, 
 liaving at length screwed up suf- 
 ficient determination, had insisted 
 that the Soudan should be aban- 
 doned by Egypt. But here a further 
 question arose. The Soudan was 
 occupied by Egyptian garrisons, 
 were these also to be abandoned ? 
 The Government determined to 
 make some effort to get the 
 unhappy Egj^ptian troops out of 
 the country. On January i8th, 
 they sent General Gordon, late 
 Governor-General of the Soudan, 
 to arrange for the evacuation, and 
 to hand over the government to 
 the Mahdi. On the career of that 
 remarkable man it is not necessary 
 to dwell here. To a sceptical and 
 indifferent age his character pre- 
 sented all the qualities of a simpler 
 and nobler type. Deeply versed 
 in the theory and practice of scien- 
 tific warfare, he yet possessed the 
 simple piety and religious zeal of 
 an old crusader. On February 
 8th, he reached Khartoum, the 
 capital of the Soudan, and was 
 enthusiastically received. He first 
 suggested that he should have a 
 personal interview with the INIahdi. 
 Upon this being refused, he begged 
 the Government to send up Zebehr 
 Pasha, an influential Soudanese. 
 The Government not only declined 
 to despatch Zebehr, but marched 
 a force out of Suakim to relieve 
 Tokar and Sinkat. These towns 
 had been taken some ten da3's pre- 
 viously, but several thousand Arabs 
 were killed, and consequently all 
 hopes of a peaceful settlement dis- 
 appeared. Accordingly, Gordon 
 begged Sir E. Baring to send 200 
 
 men to Wady-IIalfa, or a small 
 advance guard to Berber, saying, 
 " It is not the number I want, but 
 the prestige." This, too, the Go- 
 vernment refused, giving Gordon 
 free leave either to stay in Khar- 
 toum or to leave it. He stated in 
 reply, that he would leave to the 
 Government the indelible disgrace 
 of abandoning the garrisons of the 
 Soudan. Whatever happened, at 
 least he would never "be taken 
 alive." After the receipt of these 
 telegrams, Mr. Gladstone said, on 
 April 28th, " There is no military 
 danger at present besetting Khar- 
 toum." And, subsequently, that 
 General Gordon was "hemmed in, 
 but not surrounded." For five 
 months Gordon was left to his own 
 resources at Khartoum, driven to 
 rely on troops, 200 of whom were 
 put to flight by a single Arab horse- 
 man. At length, in August, "pre- 
 parations, as distinguished from 
 operations," were taken to relieve 
 him. With super-human efforts the 
 British troops struggled up the Nile. 
 At Gubat, after a forced march 
 over the desert, they met Gordon's 
 steamers waiting to convey them 
 to Khartoum. The news reached 
 England, and Gordon was looked 
 upon as saved. In the midst of 
 this exultation the reverse came 
 with a harder blow. Sir Charles 
 Wilson reached Khartoum on 
 January 28th, 1885, only to find 
 that the town had fallen two days 
 before, and that Gordon was dead. 
 He had been killed just outside the 
 Government House. His head 
 was struck off, and impaled on 
 a butcher's hook, to be exposed 
 to the insults of those who passed 
 by. What happened to his body 
 will never be known. He had held 
 out for nearly a 3'ear, deprived of 
 all external assistance and support. 
 The Liberal Government had re- 
 fused his every wish ; the Liberal 
 Government, %■ hair-splitting dis- 
 tinctions, had deluded the English 
 people into a disbelief in his
 
 WINDING-UP THE SESSION. 
 
 danger; the Liberal Government 
 had allowed six months to pass by 
 without an attempt to relieve 
 him, and, therefore, in the eyes 
 of the world, it was responsible for 
 Gordon's death. There are crimes, 
 like the massacre of Glencoe or 
 the execution of Admiral Byng, 
 which are readily pardoned by 
 co-temporar}' faction ; but posterity 
 is wiser, for it passes upon them a 
 stern, an unrelenting, and a just 
 condemnation. The desertion of 
 General Gordon is of the same 
 nature with them. His fate was 
 rendered even more pathetic by 
 the mean and despicable causes of 
 which it was the result. A great 
 man should fall by a great catas- 
 trophe. It is pitiful to see his life 
 muddled away by selfish incom- 
 petence. His genius wasted, his 
 career interrupted, Charles Gor- 
 don was only able to leave to his 
 countr^Tiien his name and his ex- 
 ample. The loss of his services this 
 nation may yet have to regret, 
 
 ResigiiaticH of the Ministry, 
 
 Popular feeling ran very strong 
 against the Ministry. They were 
 hooted when Parliament met in 
 February, and only avoided a vote 
 of censure by 302 to 288. But 
 when, on April 30th, Mr. Childers 
 introduced his budget, showing an 
 expenditure of ;^99, 872,000 and a 
 deficit of ^14,932,000, the patience, 
 even of Mr. Gladstone's House of 
 Commons, was exhausted, and the 
 Government was beaten by 264 to 
 252.* Mr. Gladstone resigned, and 
 Lord Salisbury became Premier. 
 Among Conservatives, there were 
 many who thought that the 
 
 • In the space at our command it is 
 not possible to go fully into the finance 
 of this period. It is marked by (i) gross 
 extravagance; (2) A refusal to deal with 
 local taxation ; (3) Rash and unsuccessful 
 experiments. During 1880-85 the Govern- 
 ment introduced 30 new financial pro- 
 posals, of which it had to withdraw 16. 
 Mr. Guilders, in his last and fatal budget, 
 proposed to cover his deficit by suspend 
 
 Liberals should have been forced 
 to appeal to the country witliout 
 having purged themselves of their 
 offences by a short period of 
 opposition. There were divisions 
 in the Liberal Cabinet which 
 were, to some extent, healed by 
 retirement from office. The Con- 
 servative Government, neverthe- 
 less, piloted many useful measures 
 through the House. They passed 
 bills creating a Secretary of State 
 for Scotland, improving the hous- 
 ing of the working-classes, and 
 extending the criminal law so as 
 to afford further protection to 
 young girls. Lord Ashbourne's 
 Act was intended to amend the 
 Land Act by giving the Irish 
 tenantry special facilities for buy- 
 ing the freehold. The Government 
 has been principally criticised lor 
 not renewing the Crimes Act of 
 1882. The answer is very simple. 
 No Government is called upon to 
 attempt an impossibility. The 
 Parnellites and a large body of 
 Radicals strongly objected to the 
 renewal of the Act. The Govern- 
 ment was in a minority ; the Session 
 was nearly over; and the existence 
 of Parliament was drawing to a 
 close ; under these circumstances 
 only business of a non-controversial 
 nature could be transacted. An 
 unsuccessful attempt to renew the 
 Crimes Act could only excite 
 public opinion in Ireland, whilst it 
 would not repress outrage. The 
 Government having accomplislied 
 many useful reforms, in accordance 
 with Parliamentary precedent, dis- 
 solved Parliament in the autumn 
 and appealed to the country. 
 
 ing the Sinking Fund to the extent of 
 ;^4,6oo,ooo, and by transferring ;f a.XjZ.ooo 
 to 1886, thus ignoring the two main prin- 
 ciples of Gladstonian finance: (i) That 
 the Sinking Fund is sacred ; (2) That the 
 expenses of a year should be provided (or 
 out of the year's income. He proposed to 
 leave wine alone, but to impose taxes of 
 ;^i, 650,000 on beer and spirits.
 
 [102] 
 1885-87. 
 
 The Battle of the Union. 
 
 Lord Salisbury's Foreign Policy. 
 
 WHILE the Government 
 was, as we have seen, 
 remarkably successful 
 in its domestic legisla- 
 tion, Lord Salisbury's Foreign 
 Policy won the approval of the 
 whole nation. He re-established 
 friendly relations with the German 
 Empire, which had been estranged 
 by Mr. Gladstone's policy. "The 
 Germans," wrote the Berlin corres- 
 pondent of The Times, " wanted 
 peace and repose, and the Liberal 
 Prime Minister of England was 
 constantly springing upon them 
 harrowing questions of interna- 
 tional moment, which threatened 
 to shake all Europe to its founda- 
 tions." Lord Salisbury also suc- 
 ceeded in arranging for a time 
 our differences with Russia on the 
 question of the Afghan frontier. 
 Nevertheless, he renewed our tradi- 
 tional friendship with the Ottoman 
 Empire. His policy in the East 
 was, as he said, "To uphold the 
 Turkish Empire whenever it can 
 be genuinely and healthily upheld ; 
 but whenever its rule is proved 
 by events to be inconsistent with 
 the welfare of populations, then to 
 strive to cherish and foster strong 
 self-sustaining nationalities, who 
 shall make a genuine and important 
 contribution to the future freedom 
 and independence of Europe." 
 Accordingly, he gave a ready ap- 
 proval to the movement in Eastern 
 Roumelia for the union of the 
 "two Bulgarias." In carrying out 
 the annexation of Burmah, on the 
 advice of the Indian Government, 
 Lord Salisbury was careful to 
 avoid a quarrel with China. In 
 view of the indisputable success of 
 
 the Conservative Ministers both at 
 home and abroad, it did not seem 
 improbable that they might obtain 
 a long lease of power, and in the 
 summer and autumn of 18S5 most 
 men were asking what alternative 
 policy the Liberals could set forth. 
 
 The " Unauthorised" Liberal 
 Programme. 
 
 The views of the extreme wing 
 of the Liberal party had already 
 been explained in detail in the no- 
 torious book entitled "The Radical 
 Programme," to which Mr. Cham- 
 berlain contributed a preface. The 
 book was remarkable not only for 
 its revolutionar}' tendency, but for 
 its sublime indifference to those 
 principles of Political Economy 
 that had been so dear to the old 
 Manchester School. All "realised 
 property" was to be "taxed ac- 
 cording to a graduated scale." "A 
 direct progressive tax," it was said, 
 "on income and property is the 
 lever to which we shall have to 
 look for the social reforms of the 
 future," and "taxation, on equit- 
 able principles, for objects which 
 the nation approves, cannot be on 
 too liberal a scale." The writer 
 "readily admitted" that his views 
 were "of a Socialistic tendenc}'," 
 but held that " the objections to 
 State undertakings and interference 
 become of diminished force when 
 the Government is by the Avhole 
 people." "Government b)^ the 
 whole people" was construed to 
 mean "manhood suffrage." INIem- 
 bers of Parliament were to be 
 paid by the State. The House 
 of Lords was to be abolished, ap- 
 parentl}' without substituting any 
 other Second Chamber. "The last 
 thing' ' — so ran the ' ' Programme' " —
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMME. 
 
 "which any Radical would desire, 
 or would dream of doing, is to 
 reform the House of Lords in any 
 way." As for the Monarchy, "so 
 long as the functions of royalty 
 are recognised as being ornamental 
 and consultative, the throne has 
 nothing to fear from Radicalism. 
 Radicals have something else to 
 do than to break butterflies on 
 wheels." 
 
 The "Liberation" Society and the 
 Chiii'ch. 
 
 But public attention was drawn 
 chiefly to the proposals of the 
 "Programme" in regard to the 
 Church of England, which were 
 based upon the infamous " Prac- 
 tical Suggestions" of the self-styled 
 " Liberation Society." The Libera- 
 tionists' scheme of Disestablish- 
 ment involved the total destruction 
 of the Church as an aggregate 
 institution, and by Disendowment 
 they proposed to take away most 
 of the buildings, as well as the 
 endowments, in the possession of 
 the Church. Episcopal palaces, 
 buildings appended to cathedrals, 
 parsonages, and glebes were to be 
 retained for public purposes or 
 " for disposal." Cathedrals and 
 abbeys were to be maintained for 
 such purposes as Parliament might 
 determine, and all churches exist- 
 ing before 1818 were to be vested 
 in parochial boards, with power 
 to deal with them for the benefit 
 of the parishioners, including a 
 l)ower of sale. Every corporation, 
 sole or aggregate, was to be dis- 
 solved, and no faculties were to 
 be granted which would create "a 
 privileged ecclesiastical body," as 
 in Ireland. Even churches erected 
 after 1818 were to become only 
 the property of their congregations 
 in trust. 
 
 71//. Gladstone's Manifesto, 
 
 The "authorised" programme 
 ot the Tvibcrals ]irovc(l to be of 
 an cxtrenicl\- mild and harmless 
 
 character. It was contained in Mr. 
 Gladstone's Election Manifesto of 
 September i8th. He gave the first 
 place to the reform of procedure 
 in the House of Commons, on the 
 ground that "this country will not 
 in the full sense of the word be 
 a self-governing country until the 
 machinery of the House of Com- 
 mons is amended." Next came 
 Local Government, which he hoped 
 to see " thoroughly representative 
 and free." He declared himself 
 in favour of Land Law reforms, 
 including the abolition of entail, 
 but would maintain "freedom of 
 bequest." He was also anxious 
 to see the balance of taxation 
 readjusted between movable and 
 immovable property, and still more 
 between property and labour. 
 
 On the above subjects Mr. Glad- 
 stone believed the Liberal party 
 to be "generally and firmly united," 
 and he seemed unwilling to commit 
 himself to the drastic "reforms" 
 which were advocated by many of 
 his supporters. If the House of 
 Lords were reformed, he hoped " a 
 reasonable share of power might 
 be allowed, under wise conditions, 
 to the principle of birth." With 
 regard to Disestablishment, he 
 said so vast a question could not 
 become practical until it had been 
 thoroughly discussed, nor could 
 " such a change arise in a country 
 such as ours except with a large ob- 
 servance of the principles of equity 
 and liberality." On the Irish ques- 
 tion, he remarked that " to maintain 
 the supremacy of the Crown, the 
 unity of the Empire, and all the 
 authority of Parliament necessary 
 for the conservation of that unity" 
 was " the first duty of every repre- 
 sentative of the people," though, 
 " subject to that governing prin- 
 ciple," " every grant to portions 
 of the count)' of enlarged powers 
 for tiie management of their own 
 affairs" was, in his view, "not a 
 source of danger, but a means of 
 averlintr it."
 
 lOI 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE AND THE HUSH VOTE. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone in Midlotliian. 
 For some months the battle in 
 the constituencies was fought on 
 the question of the Church. It 
 Avas found, in the autumn, that 
 the Liberationists had brought 
 such pressure to bear, througli 
 the caucus system, upon Liberal 
 candidates, that most of them were 
 pledged to Disestablishment. In 
 September, it was reported that in 
 England and Wales 374 Liberal 
 candidates had declared in favour 
 of Disestablishment, and only 31 
 against it. A vigorous defence of 
 the Church was set on foot. Some 
 candidates withdrew their pledges, 
 and many of those who had been 
 undecided came round to the side 
 of the Church, wdiile many others, 
 who were too deeply committed to 
 recede, discovered that their elec- 
 toral prospects w^ere destro3^ed. In 
 his Midlothian campaign in No- 
 vember, Mr. Gladstone gave little 
 encouragement to his Liberationist 
 supporters. " The case of the 
 English Church," he said, "instead 
 of being a case in which there is 
 nothing to say, is a case in which 
 there is a great deal to say. In- 
 stead of being the mockery of a 
 National Church, it is a Church 
 with regard to which its defenders 
 say that it has the adhesion and 
 support of a very large majority of 
 the people, and I confess I am very 
 doubtful whether the allegation 
 can be refuted. It is a Church 
 which works very hard. It is a 
 Church which is endeavouring to 
 do its business, a Church that has 
 infinite ramifications through the 
 Y.hole fabric and structure of so- 
 ciety — a Church which has laid a 
 deep hold upon many hearts as 
 well as many minds." " Many of 
 those who talk about Disestablish- 
 ment in England, I think, know 
 but little of the subject they are 
 writing about. They frame plans 
 of Disestablishment, plans utterly 
 impossible to be entertained either 
 at the present or at any other 
 
 time. I speak of a plan which 
 has appeared in a work called 'The 
 Radical Programme.' There is a 
 programme of Disestablishment 
 there which, even if the people of 
 England made up their minds 
 to disestablish, never could be 
 adopted. But they have not made 
 up their minds." 
 
 Mr. Gladstone also discussed at 
 some length the relations between 
 the Liberals and the Irish Home 
 Rulers. He said: — "From one 
 end of Great Britain to the other 
 I trust there will not be a single 
 representative returned to Parlia- 
 ment who for one moment would 
 listen to any proposition tending 
 to impair the visible and sensible 
 Empire — the unity of the Empire. 
 Whatever demands may be made 
 on the part of Ireland, if they are 
 to be entertained, they must be 
 subject to the condition that the 
 unity of the Empire shall be pre- 
 served, and that all the authority 
 of Parliament — of the Imperial 
 Parliament — which is necessary 
 for maintaining the unity of the 
 Empire, shall be steadfastly main- 
 tained. • • • Let me now suppose 
 that the Liberal party might be 
 returned to the coming Parlia- 
 ment — that is rather a staggering 
 supposition — but I beg you to in- 
 dulge me for an instant — might be 
 returned to the coming Parliament 
 in a minority, but in a minority 
 which might become a majority 
 by the aid of the Irish vote ; I 
 wull suppose that owing to some 
 cause the present Government has 
 disappeared, and a Liberal party 
 was called to deal with this great 
 constitutional question of the go- 
 vernment of Ireland, in a position 
 where it was a minority dependent 
 on the Irish vote for converting it 
 into a majority. Now, gentlemen, 
 I tell you seriously and solemnly, 
 that though I believe the Liberal 
 party to be honourable, patriotic, 
 and trustworth}-, in such a position 
 as that it would not be safe for it
 
 THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1883. 
 
 105 
 
 to enter on the consideration of a 
 measure in respect to which, at the 
 first step of its progress, it would 
 be in the power of a party coming 
 from Ireland to say, 'Unless you 
 do this and unless j^ou do that we 
 will turn 5'ou out to-morrow.' • • • 
 We believe it is essential for the 
 public welfare that the party which 
 may have to deal with ^Ir. Parnell, 
 or to check and virtually govern the 
 dealings with INIr. Parnell, should 
 be a party not dependent upon his 
 suffrages." 
 
 Mr. PayncWs Manifesto. 
 
 On November 23rd, Mr. Par- 
 nell and the leading Home Rulers 
 issued an address to their sup- 
 ])orters, in which they declared 
 that " the Liberal party bound 
 itself by most solemn pledges, and 
 these it most flagrantly violated. 
 It denounced coercion, and it prac- 
 tised a system of coercion more 
 l)rutal than that of any previous 
 Administration, Liberal or Tory. 
 Under this system juries were 
 packed with a shamelessness un- 
 precedented even in Liberal Ad- 
 ministrations, and innocent men 
 were hung or sent to the living 
 death of penal servitude; 1,200 
 men were imprisoned without trial, 
 ladies were convicted under an 
 obsolete Act directed against the 
 degraded of their sex, and, for 
 a period, every utterance of the 
 popular Press and of the popular 
 authority was as completely sup- 
 pressed as if Ireland was I'oland, 
 and the Administration of England 
 a Russian autocracy. The last 
 declaration of j\lr. Gladstone was 
 that he intended to renew the very 
 worst clauses of the Coercion Act 
 of 1882 ; and if our long-delayed 
 triumph had not turned the Liberal 
 ( J o V e r n m e n t from office Lord 
 Spencer would at this hour be in 
 Dublin Castle, coercion would be 
 triumphant in Ireland, and the 
 landlords, instead of making the 
 reasonable abatements demanded 
 
 by the depression of agriculture, 
 and conceded by every landlord in 
 England and Scotland, would be 
 evicting wholesale, with the encour- 
 agement of Lord Spencer, and the 
 backing of the police, soldiery, 
 coercion magistrates, and filled 
 gaols. • • • Under such circum- 
 stances, we feel bound to advise 
 our countrymen to place no con- 
 fidence in the Liberal or Radical 
 party, and so far as in them lies to 
 prevent the Government of the 
 Empire falling into the hands of 
 a party so perfidious, treacherous, 
 and incompetent. We earnestly 
 advise our countrymen to vote 
 against the men who coerced Ire- 
 land, deluged Egypt with blood, 
 menace religious liberty in the 
 school, freedom of speech in Par- 
 liament, and promise to the country 
 generally a repetition of the crimes 
 and follies of the last Liberal 
 Administration." 
 
 The General Election of 1S85. 
 
 The elections in November and 
 December showed great Conser- 
 vative gains in the boroughs, 
 especially in great centres of popu- 
 lation like Liverpool and Man- 
 chester, while in others where 
 Liberals retained their seats, as 
 at Glasgow and Birmingham, the 
 Conservative vote was greatly 
 increased. In the counties, how- 
 ever, the Conservatives sustained 
 heavy losses. The agricultural 
 labourers, having had no previous 
 experience in elections, were in 
 many parts of the country easily 
 duped by the less scrupulous of 
 the Radical agitators. Some of 
 the Radical leaders had proposed 
 to give power to popular represen- 
 tative authorities to obtain land at 
 a "fair" value, and to let it for 
 labourers' allotments and small 
 holdings. This proposal was set 
 forth in specious language on 
 Liberal platforms in order to catch 
 the labourers' vote, and many of 
 the labourers believed that the
 
 loG 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE'S CONVERSION TO HOME RULE. 
 
 Liberal party was pledged to 
 secure them free gifts of land. The 
 cr}'- of "three acres and a cow" 
 now appears an ancient joke, but 
 in the General Election of 1885 
 it was a powerful weapon in the 
 hands of the Radicals. The final 
 result of the elections was that 
 the Conservatives numbered 249, 
 the Liberals 333, and the Parnell- 
 ites 86. 
 
 A Dishonest Policy. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone was now in the 
 position which he had expressed 
 his anxiety to avoid. He could 
 return to power only by means of 
 the Parnellite vote in the House 
 of Commons, and an alliance be- 
 tween the Liberals and the Home 
 Rulers seemed impossible. In 
 December, Sir W. Harcourt said 
 at Lowestoft : — " The Tories pro- 
 pose to govern the country by an 
 intimate alliance with men who 
 openl}' avowed their object was the 
 dismemberment of Ireland from 
 England. Was it possible the 
 country was going to tolerate such 
 a transaction ? Liberals must not 
 be in a hurry to turn the Tories 
 out. He would let them for a few 
 months stew in their own Parnellite 
 juice, and when they stank in the 
 nostrils of the country, as they 
 would stink, then tlae countrj^ 
 would fling them, discredited and 
 disgraced, to the constituencies, 
 and the nation would pronounce its 
 final judgment upon them. They 
 would hear no more of Tory 
 reaction for many generations." 
 But as the 5-ear drew to a close, 
 rumours of ^Ir. Gladstone's con- 
 version to Home Rule were widely 
 circulated, though for a long time 
 few would believe that he was 
 capable of so sudden a change of 
 front. At length, however, the 
 rumours were confirmed by the 
 press agencies, and the diplomatic 
 form of j\Ir. Gladstone's disavowal 
 was an additional confirmation of 
 their truth. 
 
 Defeat of the Government. — The New 
 Cabinet. 
 In the meantime, the social 
 condition of Ireland and the organ- 
 ised coercion set on foot by the 
 National League engaged the anx- 
 ious attention of the Government. 
 On January 21st the Queen opened 
 Parliament in person for the des- 
 patch of business, and the speech 
 from the throne stated, " Although 
 there has been during the last year 
 no marked increase of serious 
 crime, there is in many places a 
 concerted resistance to the enforce- 
 ment of legal obligations ; and I 
 regret that the practice of organ- 
 ised intimidation continues to exist. 
 I have caused every exertion to be 
 used for the detection and punish- 
 ment of these crimes; and no effort 
 will be spared on the part of my 
 Government to protect my Irish 
 subjects in the exercise of their 
 legal rights and the enjoyment of 
 individual liberty. If, as my in- 
 formation leads me to apprehend, 
 the existing provisions of the law 
 should prove to be inadequate to 
 cope with these growing evils, I 
 look with confidence to your will- 
 ingness to invest my Government 
 with all necessary powers." On 
 January 26th, Sir ]\I. H. Beach 
 followed up these expressions in 
 the Queen's Speech by giving 
 notice of a Bill for the suppression 
 of the National League, but on the 
 same day the Government was 
 defeated on Mr. Jesse Collings' 
 amendment in favour of Agri- 
 cultural Allotments and Small 
 Holdings. Mr. Chaplin, while 
 arguing that foreign experience 
 told against small holdings, de- 
 clared that the Government was 
 fully alive to the importance of 
 allotments. But it was clear that 
 the amendment was a mere pretext 
 to bring Liberals and Parnellites 
 into the same lobby, and the device 
 was successful. The Government 
 resigned, and Mr. Gladstone was 
 called upon to form his third
 
 THE HOME RULE BILL. 
 
 107 
 
 Administration. From the first 
 several of his former colleagues, 
 including Lord Hartington, Mr. 
 GoscHEN, Mr. Bright, Lord Sel- 
 BORNE, the Duke of Argyll, Lord 
 Derby, Lord Northbrook, Sir H. 
 James, and Mr. Courtney held 
 aloof, and he was forced to admit 
 to the Cabinet inferior politicians 
 like Lord Ripon, Mr. Campbell- 
 Bannerman, and Mr. Mundella. 
 Lord Aberdeen became Lord 
 Lieutenant of Ireland, and Mr. 
 John Morley, an avowed Home 
 Ruler, became Chief Secretary. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill. 
 
 Before Mr. Gladstone's pro- 
 posals in reference to Ireland were 
 announced, the Cabinet was still 
 further weakened by the resigna- 
 tion of Mr. Trevelyan and Mr. 
 Chamberlain, and by the intro- 
 duction of Mr. Stansfeld. At 
 last, on April 8th, Mr. Gladstone 
 moved for leave to introduce his 
 "Government of Ireland Bill." 
 He said that law was discredited 
 in Ireland because it came to the 
 people with a foreign aspect and 
 in a foreign garb, and he proposed 
 his Bill as an alternative to 
 " coercion," in the hope that it 
 would establish harmonious rela- 
 tions between Great Britain and 
 Ireland. The essential conditions 
 of his plan were, he said, that the 
 xmity of the Empire must not be 
 disturbed, that Imperial burdens 
 should be equitably distributed, 
 and that there must be reasonable 
 safeguards for the minority in 
 Ireland. His Bill proposed the 
 establishment of an Irish legislative 
 body, with full powers to make 
 laws for Ireland except upon cer- 
 tain specified subjects, whilst Irish 
 Peers and Members were to cease 
 attendance at Westminster. The 
 chief excepted subjects were — the 
 Crown and the succession ; peace 
 and war ; the army and navy and 
 the defences; foreign affairs; tratle 
 and navigation ; and the cstablish- 
 
 ment or endowment of religion. 
 The Irish Parliament was to be 
 summoned and dissolved by the 
 Queen, and its maximum duration 
 was to be five years. The Execu- 
 tive Government was to be carried 
 on b}' the Lord Lieutenant and 
 Ministers appointed by the Crown. 
 The legislative body was to consist 
 of two orders — the first containing 
 103 members (of whom 75 were to 
 be elected, on a property qualifica- 
 tion of ;^2oo a year, by electors 
 owning or occupying property 
 worth £2^ a year, and 28 were to 
 be Peers), and the second contain- 
 ing 204 members chosen by the 
 existing constituencies. It might 
 impose taxes, except customs and 
 excise, in order to meet the cost of 
 the public service in Ireland. Ire- 
 land was to contribute ^"4, 200, 000 
 annually to the Imperial revenue, 
 and the Irish customs and excise 
 duties were to be applied towards 
 the Imperial charges. The Dublin 
 police were to remain under the 
 control of the Lord Lieutenant for 
 two years, and afterwards until the 
 Irish Legislature made some other 
 provision. The existing judges 
 were to be irremovable except 
 upon an address from the two 
 Houses of the Imperial Parliament, 
 and civil servants were also to con- 
 tinue to hold their offices. 
 
 In the debate on the first read- 
 ing, Mr. Trevelyan explained that 
 he had resigned because he could 
 not consent to a wholesale sur- 
 render of the control of law and 
 order to the representatives of the 
 National League. He saw no 
 finality in Mr. Gladstone's scheme, 
 and believed total separation would 
 be preferable to the long vista of 
 contention between England ami 
 Ireland which the Bill opened out. 
 Mr. Chamberlain justifieil his own 
 resignation on similar grounds, and 
 urged that by terminating Irish 
 representation in tlie Imperial Par- 
 liament the scheme placed Ireland 
 in a degrading position, which
 
 io8 
 
 LORD JIARTINGTON'S OPPOSITION. 
 
 must produce future ill-feeling and 
 ultimate separation. 
 
 The Land Purchase Bill. 
 
 On April i6th, Mr. Gladstone 
 moved the first reading of his Land 
 Purchase Bill. He proposed to 
 establish a "Statutory Authority" 
 with powers to buy land and to 
 sell it to the tenants. The measure 
 of the price was to be the net 
 rent after deducting out-goings, 
 payable in Three Per Cent. Annui- 
 ties. The tenant was to pay the 
 "Statutory Authority" twenty 
 times the amount of the gross rent, 
 either at once or in forty-nine 
 annual payments. The Land Com- 
 mission was given large powers 
 of varying the prices of land, and 
 might refuse to purchase. All taxes 
 levied by the Irish Parliament, 
 together with the Customs and 
 Excise and Land Revenues, were 
 to be paid to a " Receiver-General 
 of the Public Revenues of Ireland," 
 who was (i) to discharge the Irish 
 contribution to the Imperial Ex- 
 chequer, (2) to pay all charges on 
 the land revenues, and, lastly, (3) 
 to pay any balance to the Irish 
 Consolidated Fund. The purchase 
 money was to be provided by the 
 issue of ;^5o,ooo,ooo in Three Per 
 Cent. Annuities, and to be repay- 
 able by the "Receiver-General" 
 at 4 per cent. Mr. Gladstone at 
 first declared that the Land Bill 
 was "inseparable" from the Home 
 Rule Bill, but the purchase scheme 
 met with universal disapproval, 
 and Mr. Gladstone has since ad- 
 mitted that the 'Siamese twinship' 
 of the Bills is dissolved. It was 
 shown that ;^5o,ooo,ooo would not 
 suffice to buy out all the landlords 
 of Ireland, and that ;^i 50,000,000 
 or ;^2oo,ooo,ooo would be required 
 for the purpose. If, again, Mr. 
 Gladstone was right, and the 
 landlords would elect to sell only 
 to a limited extent, it was certain, 
 as ]\Ir. Chamberlain remarked, 
 that we should obtain only "the 
 
 worst bargains." The Bill would 
 have pledged the Imperial credit 
 for enormous sums, which the Irish 
 tenants perhaps would not have 
 been able, and certainly would not 
 have been willing, to repay. 
 
 Final Defeat of Mr. Gladstone. 
 
 On May loth, Mr. Gladstone 
 moved the second reading of the 
 Government of Ireland Bill. He 
 denied that he had ever declared 
 Home Rule to be incompatible 
 with the unity of the Empire. He 
 urged that, in spite of the legisla- 
 tive remedies of three generations, 
 the radical sentiment of the Irish 
 people was not in sympathy with 
 the law, and he hoped that his 
 scheme would have the same good 
 effect as the Canadian Constitution. 
 He promised to give fair consider- 
 ation to any proposal for the reten- 
 tion of Irish Representatives at 
 Westminster. Lord Hartington, 
 in moving the rejection of the Bill, 
 pointed out that the country had 
 been given no opportunit}- of form- 
 ing a judgment upon it, and that 
 until the formation of the Govern- 
 ment almost all Mr: Gladstone's 
 colleagues were diametrically op- 
 posed to it. He opposed the Bill 
 because it curtailed the authority 
 of Parliament ; because in regard 
 to all internal affairs it destroyed 
 the unity of the Empire; and 
 because it afforded no real protec- 
 tion to the lo3'al minority, whose 
 lives and property would be at 
 the mercy of those whom Mr. 
 Gladstone had denounced as the 
 advocates of public plunder. 
 
 Two months elapsed before the 
 division on the second reading, and 
 in the meantime a series of efforts 
 were made to overcome the objec- 
 tions of the Unionist Liberals. At 
 a meeting of the Liberal party, 
 on May 27th, Mr. Gladstone said 
 that in supporting the second read- 
 ing Members would onh' vote for 
 the " principle of a separate legis- 
 lature," that both Bills would be
 
 THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1886. 
 
 log 
 
 withdrawn, and that before re-intro- 
 ducing them the Government 
 W( uld welcome amendments. The 
 final debate took place on June 
 7th, when Mr. Gladstone and 
 Mr. Parnell attempted to answer 
 Mr. GoscHEN and Sir Michael 
 H'cks-Beach. IMr.GoscHEN called 
 attention to the confusion caused 
 b\ Mr. Gladstone's explanations, 
 and entered into a detailed examin- 
 ation of the provisions of the Bill. 
 He showed that the supremacy of 
 Parliament would be entirely de- 
 pendent on clauses and conditions 
 \v iiich could not be maintined. The 
 fiscal, as well as the legislative, ar- 
 rangements of the Bill were certain 
 to lead to friction, and executive 
 friction must lead to separation. 
 G rattan's Parliament was no pre- 
 cedent, inasmuch as the Executive 
 then constituted the link of union 
 between the two countries. He 
 made an earnest appeal to the new 
 democracy not to be hustled into 
 an irreparable breach of the founda- 
 tions of the Constitution. Mr. 
 Parnell, on the other hand, de- 
 clared that he was ready to accept 
 the Parliament proposed in the 
 Bill, and argued that, if the Nation- 
 alists abused their powers, the 
 Imperial Parliament would have 
 all the power of force to restrain 
 them. Sir M. ?Iicks-Beach con- 
 tended that the policy of the Go- 
 vernment was practically the policy 
 of a single man, and had only been 
 adopted because eighty-six Nation- 
 alists had been returned. The Irish 
 Parliament would only be subordi- 
 nate in theory, for the Imperial 
 I'arliament could not exercise a 
 control which it had deliberately 
 surrendered. The special enact- 
 ments in regard to judges and 
 others showed that the Government 
 had not that " confidence in the 
 Irish people" which it demanded 
 from others. The loyal minority 
 unanimously dreaded the unjust 
 administration which the Bill 
 would produce; and the Bill would 
 
 do away with all the advantages 
 of the Union without satisf3'ing 
 national sentiment. The aim of 
 the Conservatives was not party 
 advantage, but to save the country 
 from the greatest evil that had 
 ever threatened it in the present 
 generation. Mr. Gladstone, in 
 closing the debate, insisted that 
 the vote would be taken upon the 
 principle of the Bill as apart from 
 its particulars. That principle was 
 the establishment of a legislative 
 body for the management of Irish 
 affairs. He implored members to 
 " think well, think wisely, think, 
 not for a moment, but for the jears 
 that are to come" before they re- 
 jected his proposal. Amidst a 
 scene of breathless excitement the 
 Bill was rejected by 341 to 311, 
 the majority being composed of 
 247 Conservatives and 94 Liberals. 
 
 The Victory of 1886 — Lord Salisbury 
 again Premier. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone advised an im- 
 mediate dissolution. The business 
 of the Session was wound up with 
 extraordinary despatch, and on 
 June 25th the Queen dissolved 
 Parliament. The battle in the con- 
 stituencies was brief but decisive. 
 The Liberals who remained faithful 
 to their old traditions joined forces 
 with the Conservatives, and the 
 imited party confidently entrusted 
 their cause to the Imperial in- 
 stincts of the people, and made a 
 strong appeal to their sympathy 
 with the loyalists of Ireland. On 
 the other side, Mr. Gladstone, 
 careless of everything but the suc- 
 cess of the moment, appealed to 
 the poor against the rich, the 
 ignorant against the wise, " the 
 masses" against "the classes," the 
 Celt against the Saxon. He en- 
 tered then upon the policy he still 
 pursues, which consists in a delibe- 
 rate attempt to excite those inter- 
 racial jealousies which English 
 statesmen have for centuries con- 
 stantly endeavoured to allay. \\'e
 
 TRIUMI'II OF THE UNIONIST CAUSE. 
 
 cannot yet fully estimate the harm 
 (lone by this unscrupulous j;>rocecd- 
 ing, but the result showed that Mr. 
 (ji.adstone entirely mistook the 
 linglish character. The pride of 
 "the Southern English," as he has 
 since contemptuously called them, 
 took fire in a moment. London 
 sounded the note of defiance which 
 was caught up by the whole of Eng- 
 land, and echoed, though faintly, 
 beyond the Severn and the Tweed. 
 The elections ended in a signal 
 victory for the Unionists, whose 
 majority was increased from 30 to 
 113. Mr. Gladstone was left at the 
 head of 194 Separatist Liberals and 
 85 Parnellites, to face 318 Conser- 
 vatives and 73 Unionist Liberals. 
 Resignation, therefore, was the 
 only course open to him, and the 
 Queen sent for Lord Salisbury. 
 As the leader of by far the largest 
 party in the popular chamber, 
 Lord Salisbury might fairly have 
 accepted office at once, but, in 
 order to remove any difficulties the 
 Liberal Unionists might feel, he 
 suggested that Lord Hartington 
 should form a Government, and 
 offered to serve under him. The 
 offer was not accepted, as Lord 
 Hartington preferred to give an 
 independent support to a Conser- 
 vative Administration, and Lord 
 Salisbury returned to power at 
 the head of a Conservative Govern- 
 ment supported by the brightest 
 names in the Liberal party. The 
 Irish policy of the new Ministers 
 is now before the country. The 
 Crimes Bill will re-establish law 
 and order, and substitute the merci- 
 ful government of the Queen for 
 the cruel tyranny of the National 
 League. Side by side with the 
 protection of the law-abiding popu- 
 lation goes remedial legislation on 
 broad and generous lines. The 
 Land Bill introduced by Lord 
 Cadogan aims at the redress of all 
 the grievances of which honest ten- 
 ants can complain, and the Land 
 Purchase Scheme will deal w-ith 
 
 agrarian difficulties at their sourc'\ 
 liut the Queen's Government must 
 be carried on, and remedial mea- 
 sures cannot have full effect until 
 crime can be suppressed and con- 
 tracts can be enforced. 
 
 Prospects of the Tory Party. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's Irish policy 
 has for a time stopped the progress 
 of legislation, but when Ireland no 
 longer blocks the way, the Govern- 
 ment is pledged to carry out a 
 large and liberal domestic pro- 
 gramme. The amendment of 
 the procedure of the House of 
 Commons makes the voice of the 
 people through their representa- 
 tives free and operative, and the 
 questions which Parliament will be 
 called upon to discuss are numerous 
 and important. Lord Halsbury's 
 reforms in the Land Laws will 
 mark a great advance towards the 
 freedom of land by the assimilation 
 of the law of real and personal pro- 
 perty, and towards the security of 
 title by the extension of the system 
 of registration. Lord Salisbury's 
 Tithe Bill will settle, upon equit- 
 able terms, the controversy aroused 
 by agitators in North Wales and 
 elsewhere. The charges of Rail- 
 way Companies for the carriage of 
 goods are to be revised in the in- 
 terests of home producers. A large 
 and popular Local Government 
 Bill, including a readjustment of 
 local taxation, has been repeatedly 
 promised by Ministers. Legisla- 
 tion to facilitate the acquisition of 
 allotments by labourers is to be 
 undertaken, and Lord Cross' 
 Glebe Lands Bill will place in the 
 market a large number of suitable 
 plots of ground. The destructive 
 policy of the Radicals is well-nigh 
 exhausted, and the constructive 
 statesmanship of the Tories now 
 holds the field. Both parties are, 
 doubtless, equally anxious to secure 
 the prosperity of the people, but 
 while Radical politicians persist in 
 setting class against class, and
 
 THE FEDERATION OF THE EMPIRE. 
 
 race against race, they must leave 
 to their opponents tlie wliole pro- 
 vince of harmonious legislation for 
 the common good. 
 
 In foreign policy, Lord Salis- 
 bury is beyond all comparison the 
 greatest of English Statesmen. He 
 has received, through the hands of 
 Lord Beaconsfield, the traditional 
 policy of England, and, like Lord 
 Beaconsfield, he has proved no 
 unworthy successor of the long line 
 of illustrious Ministers who pre- 
 ceded them. In the distant future 
 there looms the question of Im- 
 perial Federation, with which only 
 a national and patriotic Ministry 
 can fitly deal. Lord Salisbury's 
 Government has already shown 
 its s3-mpathy with the Federation 
 Movement by convening the Colo- 
 nial Conference, and the deliber- 
 ations of the conference have 
 brought the defensive union of the 
 Empire within the range of prac- 
 tical politics. The development of 
 Imperial feeling may yet substitute 
 a British ZoUverein for our present 
 system of one-sided Free Trade, 
 and so realise the dream of Lord 
 
 Derby in 1846. The political 
 Federation of the Empire presents 
 problems which will tax the re- 
 sources of statesmanship to the 
 utmost, and can hardly be accom- 
 plished by politicians whose minds 
 are warped by the obsolete theories 
 and narrow prejudices of Radi- 
 calism. 
 
 IVIore than forty years have 
 passed since Lord Beaconsfield 
 predicted that Toryism would "rise 
 from the tomb over which Boling- 
 broke shed his last tear, to bring 
 back strength to the Crown, liberty 
 to the subject, and to announce 
 that power has only one duty — to 
 secure the social welfare of the 
 people." The prophecy has been 
 fulfilled. In whatever direction 
 we look — be it to the maintenance 
 and consolidation of British power, 
 or to the settlement of Irish diffi- 
 culties, or to the redress of social 
 grievances — the Radical party has 
 no constructive policy to offer, and 
 the Tory party must continue for 
 many years to be the chief instru- 
 ment of National and Imperial 
 Progress.

 
 ^ g 
 
 '^^AHvaani^ ^(^Auvnani^ 
 
 
 '^mmm 
 
 %aiMNft3V\V 
 
 -< 
 
 .^ 
 
 \WEUNIVER5/A 
 
 ^mmm^ 
 
 ^5j\EUNIVERy/^ 
 
 ^lOSANCEUr^ 
 
 ^lOSANCEl^^ 
 
 ^lUBRARYQ^ 
 
 ^lUBRARYOc. 
 
 5 1 ir^ S 
 
 _^OFCAUFOff^ 
 
 <; 
 ^OFCAIIFOR^ 
 
 <f^3Nvs(n'v^ "^aaAiNO-avw 
 
 
 ^ /—'I I' £? 
 
 ^lUBRARYOc 
 
 ^lUBRARYO^^ 
 
 ^OFCAUFO^^ 
 
 i 
 
 
 .^WEUNIVERS-ZA. 
 
 ^OF-CAUFOff^ <5WEUNIVER% 
 
 
 ^lOSANCElfx^ 
 
 v/ja3AINn3WV 
 
 ^lOSANCE^r^ 
 o 
 
 I 
 
 <\WEUNIVER% 
 I' 
 
 ^lOSANCEUf^ 
 
 ^J^lIWSOl^ 
 
 ,53AEUNIVER% 
 
 "^WDNVSOl^ 
 
 
 ^lOSANCEl£r^ 
 
 %aiAiNnmv^ 
 
 ^lUBRARYO^ 
 
 ^lUBRARYa<^ 
 
 ^OFCAUF0«to^ 
 
 ^^AHvagnii^ 
 
 ^OF-CAllFOff^^ 
 
 i 
 
 CI 
 
 ^tUBRARYO^ 4^^UBRARYQ^. 
 
 /vviiA irafit ><\N^ 
 
 < _ 
 
 5MEUNIVER% A>:lOSANCEl£r>
 
 1 1^J 
 
 )i I 
 
 % ^lOS|ANCE^r^ 
 
 
 <J5133NVS01^ 
 
 
 
 
 UC SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIRRAfiV FACILITY 
 
 ^OAHviian^ 
 
 ^^c 
 
 i I 
 
 O u. 
 
 ^ 
 
 AA 001 028 164 : ^, 
 
 
 Jf 1 
 
 AWEUNIVERS/a 
 
 ^lOSANCEl^^ 
 
 i^ ^OJnVDJO'^ %133NVS01'^ %a3MN(13V^^ 
 ?^ ^OFCAUFOi?^ 
 
 fJ^ M?Aavaani^ 
 
 ^5JAEUN1VER% 
 
 '^llDNVSOl^ 
 
 ^lOSANCE^r^ 
 
 •%3AlNfl-3WV 
 
 
 
 ^^AHvaan-^ "^^o 
 
 i/A. ^lOSANCElfj*;> 
 
 ^HIBRARYQ^ 
 
 ^immYo/-^ 
 
 %a3AiNn-3WV^ '^.yojnvjjo^ 
 
 
 ^OFCAllFOft^ 
 
 ^OFCAllFOMi^ 
 
 ■^/sa3AiNnmv^ 
 
 "^^AHvaaniv!^ 
 
 
 ^^WE•UNIVER% ^• 
 
 (AMEUNIVEI% 
 
 <r?130NVS01^ 
 
 ^/^ 
 ^ 
 
 
 ^AlllBRARYO^^ 
 
 /y4/il/\ I 111 M •n\j' 
 
 ^^WEUNIVER%. 
 
 x\tUBRARYQ<v^ 4,^^