\ 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF_gp.LINQ16 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 I. ■• 
 
Return this book on or before the 
 Latest Date stamped below. 
 
 Th«ft, mutilation, and undsriining of books 
 aro rootont for disciplinary action and may 
 rosult in dismissal from tho Univorsity. 
 University of Illinois Library 
 
 1 J I... t,' •! 
 
 1 ;1 ■ 
 
 mzi 
 
 i 1 m 
 
 «*•>«/ 
 
 Hfly 2 1985 
 
 NOV i i 
 
 AWaTi???""-' '" 
 
 2^" 
 
 \ 
 
 \33\ 
 
 331 
 
 APR 
 
 ^'M 5 t992 
 
 MAY 1 5 1975 
 
 L161 — O-1096 
 
GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 a 
 
GLADSTONE 
 ND IRELAND 
 
 HE IRISH POLICY OF PARLIAMENT 
 FROM 1850-1894 
 
 BY 
 
 LORD EVERSLEY 
 
 AUTHOR OF " PEEL AND O'COKNELL," " A6RAKIAN TEKTJRES," 
 AND " COMMONS AND FORESTS " 
 
 METHUEN & CO. LTD. 
 
 36 ESSEX STREET W.C. 
 
 LONDON 
 
First Published in igi2 
 

 PREFACE 
 
 IN 1887, after the rejection of the first Home Rule Bill, 
 at the suggestion of Mr. Gladstone, I published, under 
 the title of Peel and O'Connell, a review of the Irish 
 policy of Parliament, from the Act of Union, in 1800, to the 
 death of Sir Robert Peel, in 1850. I did not carry it further, 
 as most of the chief actors in the period which followed, includ- 
 ing Mr. Gladstone, were still alive, and it was not possible to 
 write with the same freedom as on the earlier period. There is 
 no longer this difficulty ; with a few exceptions the chief actors 
 have passed away. I have therefore continued the story for 
 nearly another half century, till the retirement of Mr. Gladstone 
 from political life, in 1894, which marked the close of an 
 epoch, of which he was the principal figure. 
 
 As in the earlier work, I have not attempted to write a 
 full history of Ireland during this period. My object has 
 been to explain the action of Parliament in respect of Irish ^ 
 affairs, to show its sequence and to point the conclusions 
 from it. I have adverted to events in Ireland only so far 
 as was necessary for this purpose. In the same view I 
 have referred to my personal visits to Ireland in 1877-8, 
 1881-2, and 1887-8, and have included some passages from 
 two journals of them which I pubUshed in 1887-8. 
 
 I need not add that I have made great use of Lord Morley's 
 
 [monumental work The Life of Mr. Gladstone, and of Mr. 
 
 Barry O'Brien's most interesting Life of Parnell. There are 
 
 lalso the works of Sir C. Gavan Duffy, Mr. A. M. SuUivan, 
 
 |Mr. T. P. O'Connor, Mr. Justin McCarthy, Mr. Wilham 
 
 36(J444 
 
vi GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 O'Brien, Mr. Michael Davitt, and Mr. F. H. O'Donnell, 
 which deal with the same period, largely from an auto- 
 biographical point of view. The Lives of Archbishop Tait, 
 Mr. W. E. Forster, and the Duke of Devonshire also throw much 
 light on parts of this period. The summaries of debates in 
 Parliament in the Annual Register are in many cases as 
 good as can be. After comparing them with the full records 
 of debates in Hansard, I have made more or less use of 
 them, 
 
 I must also express my grateful thanks to Lady Byles for 
 the assistance she has most kindly rendered to me. 
 
 Abbotsworthy House, Winchester 
 February 20, 191 2 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. Ireland after the Famine 
 
 II. 
 III. 
 IV. 
 
 V. 
 
 ^^ VI. 
 
 VII. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 lis. 
 
 XL 
 XII. 
 XIIJU 
 XIV. 
 < XV. 
 XVJ. 
 XVII. 
 XVIII. 
 XIX. 
 XX. 
 XXI. 
 XXII. 
 XXIII. 
 
 xxiy. 
 
 XXV, 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 XXIX, 
 
 XXX. 
 
 xxxu 
 
 XXXI L 
 
 The Fenian Movement 
 The Irish Church Act, 1869 
 The Land Act of 1870 
 The Irish University Bill 
 The Home Rule Movement— 1870-8 
 Obstruction in Parliament 
 The Supersession of Butt 
 Mr. Shaw's Interregnum . 
 The Birth of the Land League 
 The General Election, 1880 
 The Compensation for Disturbance Bill 
 The Winter of i 880-1 
 The Coercion Act, 1881 .. 
 The Land Act of 1881 
 The Arrest of Parnell . 
 Coercion in Mayo and Galway . 
 The Kilmainham Negotiations . 
 Forster's Resignation 
 The Phcenix Park Murders 
 The Crimes Act of 1882 . ^ , 
 The Arrears Act of 1882 . 
 Coercion, 1882-4 
 The Irish Franchise ' . 
 The Defeat of Mr. Gladstone's Government 
 Lord Salisbury's First Ministry 
 The General Election of 1885 . 
 The Fall of Lord Salisbury's Government 
 The First Home Rule Governmei*t 
 Lord Salisbury's Second Ministry 
 The Plan of Campaign 
 The Crimes Act, and the Land Act of 1887 
 
 vii \ 
 
 PAGE 
 I 
 
 12 
 26 
 41 
 51 
 58 
 69 
 
 88 
 
 97 
 106 
 
 114 
 123 
 
 134 
 146 
 164 
 
 175" 
 i8s 
 
 198 
 
 213 
 
 220 
 
 227 
 
 234 
 
 248 
 
 258 
 
 268 
 
 278 
 
 288 
 
 299 
 
 3" 
 
 320 
 326 
 
Vlll 
 
 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 XXXIII. Methods of Coercion, 1887-9 • 
 XXXI"Vir The Parnell Commission 
 XXXV. The Fall of Parnell 
 XXXVI. The Second Home Rule Bill . 
 XXXVII. The Retirement of Mr. Gladstone 
 
 Index .... 
 
 PACK 
 
 337 
 352 
 360 
 
 370 
 377 
 
 38s 
 
GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 CHAPTER I 
 
 IRELAND AFTER THE FAMINE 
 
 FOR nearly twenty years after the famine of 1846-7 
 there was little of interest in Irish affairs in the House 
 of Commons. The schism which had occurred after 
 the death of O'Connell between the main party of the Repeal 
 Association and the Young Irelanders caused the withdrawal 
 of popular support in Ireland from the former. The latter lost 
 many of their leaders by the conviction and transportation 
 of Smith O'Brien, Mitchel, Meagher, and Martin. Others 
 narrowly escaped the same fate by flight and expatriation. 
 Gavan Duffy, almost alone, remained of prominent leaders. 
 He was twice put on trial, but in spite of every effort to pack 
 juries for his conviction, some jurymen stood out for his 
 acquittal, and the prosecutions failed. Duffy was editor of 
 the Nation, and did his best, in that paper, to keep ahve the 
 spirit of the Young Irelanders. He was not a revolutionist, 
 like Mitchel; he was a statesman, and an ardent land 
 reformer. He protested against the practice of Irish Members 
 using their influence in the House of Commons to obtain 
 appointments for themselves, or for their friends and sup- 
 porters. He urged in his paper that they should give a 
 pledge not to accept office, and should hold themselves 
 independent of the two main political parties in Parhament. 
 This had been one of the main causes of difference between 
 O'Connell and Young Ireland. 
 
 In O'Connell's opinion, it was a grave cause of complaint to 
 Ireland that long after victory had been achieved for the cause 
 of Catholic emancipation, aU offices under the Government, 
 whether of the higher class such as Judges, Stipendiary 
 
2 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Magistrates and others, or of the lower class, consisting of 
 Postmasters, Excise and Customs Officers, and the hke, were 
 still conferred only on adherents of the old ascendancy party, 
 and that Cathohcs were practically excluded. He saw nothing 
 wrong, but rather the reverse, in his followers taking appoint- 
 ments, as the reward of Parhamentary support, or obtaining 
 them for their friends and constituents. What better could they 
 do ? On the other hand the Young Irelanders maintained that 
 such action, on the part of the representatives of Ireland, 
 made it impossible for them, by legitimate pressure, to obtain 
 any legislation which Ireland required. 
 
 At a meeting of the National Confederation Gavan Duffy 
 carried a resolution in favour of an independent opposition, 
 but it found no favour with the officers of the Repeal Associa- 
 tion, and was disregarded. It is certain that in the years 
 which followed the death of O'Connell, during the Govern- 
 ments of Russell, Aberdeen, and Palmerston, the Irish Members 
 lost caste and influence in the House of Commons by their 
 greed for appointments. The Whips of the Liberal Party, by 
 promises or expectations held out to them and their supporters, 
 could rely on most of them in party divisions. 
 
 Meanwhile in Ireland the process of clearing estates of their 
 tenants, by wholesale evictions, was in full swing. The recent 
 famine had made it impossible for vast numbers of these 
 tenants to pay any rent at all for two or three years. The 
 arrears of rent, thus accumulated, hung round their necks, 
 and put them completely at the mercy of their landlords. The 
 Encumbered Estates Act also gave an impetus to evictions in 
 two ways. It became the interest of the owners of properties, 
 hsted for sale under the Act, to clear the estates of tenants, 
 in order to increase their saleable value ; and the introduction, 
 after the sales, of a new class of owners, who came into pos- 
 session without any of the traditions of the estates, or know- 
 ledge of the tenants, and who were bent only on making the 
 best of their bargains, resulted in the same policy of clearance 
 being pursued. In the years which followed the famine 
 many wide districts in the west and elsewhere in Ireland 
 were turned into grazing farms by the wholesale eviction of 
 tenants. 
 
 This led to a great popular movement throughout Ireland 
 in favour of a legal recognition of tenant right and security of 
 
IRELAND AFTER THE FAMINE 8 
 
 tenure. In August, 1850, a Tenant Right Convention was 
 held in Dubhn, presided over by Dr. Gray (later Sir John 
 Gray), the owner and editor of The Freeman's Journal. It was 
 attended by a great array of delegates of tenant farmers from 
 every part of Ireland, including Ulster. Resolutions were 
 carried unanimously in favour of what were later known as the 
 " three Fs," Fair Rent, Fixity of Tenure, and Free Sale of the 
 tenants' interest — ^principles which were only conceded to 
 tenants in Ireland in 1881, after more than thirty years of 
 agitation, and of suffering from the harshness of the existing 
 law. 
 
 Gavan Duffy joined in the movement and became its 
 practical leader. Unfortunately for the success of the cause 
 another storm broke out in the pohtical world which roused 
 the passions of the Cathohcs in Ireland, and distracted the 
 attention of great numbers from the grievances of tenant 
 farmers. It afforded the excuse for many who did not really 
 sympathize with them, or whose personal interests were 
 adverse to them, to ride off on another question. 
 
 Very shortly after the Tenant Right Convention a Papal 
 rescript was issued, recognizing the Cathohc hierarchy in 
 Great Britain, and conferring territorial titles, drawn from 
 EngUsh and Scotch cities in the dioceses, on Archbishops and 
 Bishops, previously dignified only by foreign titles. The 
 pastoral letter of Cardinal Wiseman, in which this Papal 
 rescript was made pubhc, was imdoubtedly of a very conten- 
 tious character, and such as was certain to rouse opposition. 
 The scheme of the Papal Court was regarded in religious 
 circles in Great Britain as an aggressive action, on the part of 
 the head of the Church of Rome, full of menace to the Protes- 
 tant cause. It created a panic in the minds of vast numbers 
 of good people. Lord John Russell apparently S5mipathized 
 personally with this view. At all events he gave way to this 
 religious frenzy, and fanned it into a still stronger flame of 
 fury, by a violent letter to the Bishop of Durham, in which he 
 denounced the Papal rescript in the strongest terms. He did so 
 as the head of the Government, but without concert with his 
 colleagues in the Cabinet. This gave rise to a counter storm of 
 indignation on the part of Roman Cathohcs, especially those 
 in Ireland. 
 
 In the following year (1851) Lord John Russell introduced 
 
4 GLADSTONE AND ffiELAND 
 
 in the House of Commons a BiU making the assumption of 
 titles by Roman Cathohc Bishops illegal and punishable by 
 heavy penalties. This was supported by an overwhelming 
 majority of Members of both parties. In vain did some of the 
 ablest men in the House of Commons — such as Mr. Gladstone, 
 Mr. Bright, Sir James Graham, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Sidney 
 Herbert, and others, endeavour to stem the tide of intolerance. 
 In vain they pointed out the futility of the measure, and the 
 certainty that it would prove a dead letter. The Irish Catholic 
 Members did their utmost to oppose the Bill, and strained the 
 forms of the House by obstructing it in Committee. The whole 
 Session was wasted in passing the Bill through the House 
 of Commons. It passed the House of Lords with Httle 
 difficulty, not, however, without some dignified protests by 
 Lord Aberdeen and others. 
 
 Chief among the Irish opponents of the Bill in the House of 
 Commons was William Keogh, a lawyer of small repute in his 
 profession, but a most powerful and persuasive speaker on the 
 public platform, who had already gained the ear of the 
 Nationahst Party in Ireland by his eloquence and force. He 
 was supported by John Sadleir, a financier who had founded 
 the Tipperary Bank, and had induced thousands of farmers, in 
 the south of Ireland, to deposit their savings in it, and who was 
 believed at that time to be a man of great wealth and financial 
 credit . With his relatives, Scully and Keatinge, and a f ewother 
 adherents, a small band was formed in the House of Commons, 
 who, by the violence of their opposition to the Ecclesiastical 
 Titles Bill, acquired the name of the " Pope's brass band." 
 Their action gained for them great applause in Ireland. 
 Subsequent events showed that these men were pursuing only 
 their own interests. They were glad to have the opportunity 
 of dishing the movement in favour of the tenant farmers. 
 They felt that the obhgation imposed by the Tenants' League 
 of independent opposition in the House of Commons would 
 be fatal to their interests. They had no wish to commit them- 
 selves to a course, where they would be bound to refuse the 
 emoluments of office. The agitation against the Ecclesiastical 
 Titles Bill involved no such obhgation. They were hoping for 
 office, Keogh in order to retrieve his finances, which were at 
 a very low ebb, and Sadleir and his friends to strengthen 
 their position in the financial world. The leaders of the 
 
IRELAND AFTER THE FAMINE 6 
 
 Tenants' League already distrusted these men. Gavan Duffy 
 in The Nation^ and Dr. Gray in The Freeman's Journal, made 
 no secret of their hostility. They felt that the cause of the 
 tenants was endangered by this rival agitation against - the 
 Ecclesiastical Titles Bill. The Tenants' League was supported 
 by men of all rehgious opinions, by Protestants from Ulster, 
 equally with CathoHcs from other parts of Ireland. A new 
 great issue between Catholics and Protestants might drive a 
 dangerous wedge between them, which would have a serious 
 effect on the Tenant Right cause. 
 
 Early in 1852, the Government of Lord John RusseU was 
 unexpectedly defeated in the House of Commons on their 
 MiUtia Bill. Resignation followed, and Lord Derby formed 
 a new Government. Parhament was dissolved in July, and a 
 General Election took place. As the result of it, the two main 
 parties of Whigs and Tories were very evenly divided, so far 
 as Great Britain was concerned. In Ireland the elections 
 turned mainly on the Catholic and Tenant Right questions, 
 with the result that sixty-two representatives were returned 
 in the Catholic interest, and forty-three in favour of the 
 Government. The majority, therefore, of the Irish members 
 held the balance between the two main parties in the new 
 Parhament. They were masters of the political position, and 
 might make or mar a ministry. 
 
 The majority from Ireland consisted of three groups. There 
 was the "Wliig section, including not a few landowners, moneyed 
 men, and lawyers. There was the group of Keogh and Sadleir 
 and his relatives and friends, who had violently opposed the 
 Ecclesiastical Bill. Its numbers were increased by the result 
 of the elections. There was also the group of staunch Tenant 
 Righters, which had als^ added to its number. Gavan Duffy 
 was returned, for the first time, by New Ross, Lucas by the 
 County of Meath, and Maguire for Dungarvan — a great 
 accession of debating strength. Isaac Butt also was first 
 returned for an Irish constituency as a Protestant and Tory. 
 
 With rare exceptions all the sixty-two Members^ consisting 
 of the above three groups, had pledged themselves, in their 
 elections, to support the programme of the Tenants' League. 
 There was therefore a great opportunity for an Irish Party 
 to insist upon its land pohcy. A Liberal Government could 
 not be formed against their opposition. Nor could the 
 
6 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Tory Government have remained in office without their 
 support. 
 
 In repeated speeches before and during the election Keogh 
 had promised that he would maintain the independence of the 
 Irish Party and would not take office unless their demands 
 were acceded to 
 
 " I know," he said, " that the road I take does not lead to 
 preferment. I do not belong to the Whigs. I never will 
 belong to them. I do not belong to the Tories. I never will 
 have anything to do with them." 
 
 At one of the meetings held in Cork, on behalf of the candi- 
 dature of Mr. Scully, Keogh was attacked by Mr. McCarthy 
 Downing and accused of insincerity to the tenants' cause. 
 Keogh defended himself in a speech of great eloquence, which 
 completely carried away his audience. 
 
 In the course of it he said: 
 
 " I have declared myself in the presence of the Bishops of 
 Ireland and of my colleagues in Parliament, that the Minister of 
 the day, be he whom he may — let him be the Earl of Derby, let 
 him be Sir James Graham or Lord John Russell — it is all the 
 same to me, so help me God. No matter who the Minister 
 may, no matter who the party in power may be, I will neither 
 support the Ministry nor that party, unless they come into 
 power prepared to carry the popular measures which Ireland 
 demands." 
 
 Immediately after the General Election, on September 8th, 
 a Tenant Right Conference was held at Dublin, attended by 
 forty of the newly elected Irish Members. A resolution was 
 proposed at this meeting by Keogh, seconded by Mr. Roche 
 (afterwards Lord Fermoy), pledging the Irish Members to hold 
 themselves perfectly independent of, and in opposition to aU 
 Governments, which did not make it part of their poHcy to give 
 to the tenants of Ireland a measiure embodying the principles 
 of Tenant Right and security of tenure. 
 
 When Parhament met it was still imcertain what course the 
 Irish members would take. In the evenly balanced condition 
 of the two main parties, they were masters of the position. 
 The issue between the Whigs and the Tories was deferred, for 
 a short time, till the Budget of Mr. Disraeli was before the 
 House. In the meantime the leaders of the Liberals had time 
 to compose their differences, and to present a united front 
 
IRELAND AFTER THE FAMINE 7 
 
 to the enemy. The Irish vote was still trembhng in the 
 balance. 
 
 It has been asserted by Gavan Duffy that, at this juncture, 
 negotiations took place between him and Mr. Disraeh for the 
 support of the Irish members to Lord Derby's Government. 
 He demanded on their behalf, as the price of their support, 
 the adoption by the Government of a Tenants' Right Bill, 
 which would be satisfactory to them. He said that Mr. 
 Disraeli, who was Leader of the Government in the House of 
 Commons, and therefore almost equal in authority to the 
 Prime Minister, was willing to assent to this. But the secret 
 of the negotiations leaked out, and came to the knowledge of the 
 landlord party in Ireland. A question was put, on their behalf, 
 in the House of Lords, to the Prime Minister by Lord Roden. 
 Lord Derby, who was himself the owner of a great estate in the 
 south of Ireland, and doubtless sympathized with the land- 
 owning class, repUed in unmistakable terms that nothing would 
 induce him to support such a measure, which he agreed would 
 be inconsistent with the rights of property. 
 
 The Irish members no longer hesitated. They felt assured 
 that they had nothing to hope from Lord Derby's Ministry. 
 They voted against the Budget. Their votes turned the scale. 
 It was rejected by a majority of nineteen only, the exact 
 number by which the Irish Liberals exceeded the Tory 
 Members in that coimtry. Lord Derby's Ministry came to an 
 end. A new Government was formed by a combination of the 
 Liberals and PeeHtes, with Lord Aberdeen as Prime Minister, 
 and Lord John Russell' as Leader in the House of Commons, 
 without a portfoho, and Lord Palmerston as Home Secretary. 
 All Ireland was in suspense. What would their members do in 
 this crisis ? The new Government would be dependent on 
 them. What was to be the condition of the support of the 
 Irish members ? It soon transpired that the Irish Brigade had 
 sold itself to Lord Aberdeen. Its leading members took office. 
 Sadleir became Lord of the Treasury, William Keogh was 
 Irish SoUcitor-General, Edmond O'Flaherty was Commissioner 
 of Income Tax, and so on. 
 
 On taking office, these men made no condition whatever as 
 regards legislation for Ireland. The tenant farmers, and their 
 claim for Tenant Right, were flung overboard. Nothing in the 
 whole range of pohtical history of Ireland ever caused more 
 
8 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 supreme and lasting disgust and loathing than this treacherous 
 betrayal of its cause by Keogh and Sadleir, and their band of 
 adherents. It is now well known that Keogh was, at that time, 
 in the gravest financial difficulties. He was at the end of his 
 resources. He was encumbered with debt. His professional 
 income at the Bar was insignificant. The emoluments of ofi&ce 
 were essential to him. The position of Law Officer was the 
 certain stepping-stone to a judgeship, which was the goal 
 of his ambition. His election at Athlone had only been 
 secured by the grossest bribery of the few electors there, at 
 prices for votes which overcame every patriotic motive. His 
 re-election, on taking office, was opposed by the Tenants' 
 League, but in vain. The electors greedily swallowed again 
 the great sums paid for their votes. The cost of this re-election 
 added to Keogh's embarrassments. Sadleir was also at this 
 time on the down grade, as regards his great financial opera- 
 tions. While every one in Ireland believed that he was a 
 millionaire banker, of unimpeachable credit ; while thousands 
 of tenant farmers, in the south of Ireland, had entrusted him 
 with their little hoards of savings, he had misused their trust, 
 and had lost immense sums in wild speculations, and was 
 already in the gravest difficulties. Office in the new Govern- 
 ment might do much to restore his credit, though the salary 
 was not large enough to make much difference. The Tenants' 
 League successfully opposed him on re-election at Carlow. 
 Later he found a seat at Sligo, another of the small and 
 corrupt boroughs, which were the scandal of Irish Parlia- 
 mentary representation. It is said that he bribed even the 
 members of the Committee of his opponent to vote for him. 
 He was elected by a small majority. In an action at law, 
 arising out of a scandalous proceeding in this election, he 
 perjured himself in the witness-box, and the jury foimd a 
 verdict against him. As a result he was compelled, in January, 
 1854, to resign his office as Lord of the Treasury. Already 
 there were rumours that his bank was in financial peril. This 
 was averted for the time ; but two years later the crash came. 
 The bills of the Tipperary Bank were dishonoured by its 
 agents in London. It was discovered that Sadleir had been 
 raising money by forging bonds and other securities. He 
 anticipated the public announcement of his crime and his 
 arrest, by committing suicide. He was found dead early one 
 
IRELAND AFTER THE FAMINE 9 
 
 morning on Hampstead Heath, with a tankard beside him 
 smelling strongly of prussic acid. When the news reached 
 Tipperary Sadleir's Bank closed its doors. Mad scenes 
 occurred among its ruined depositors. Revelations were made 
 of fraud, forgery, and robbery. The total of these defalcations 
 reached to over a million. 
 
 O'Flaherty had already fled the country, leaving behind 
 him bills to the amount of £15,000, bearing the name of Keogh 
 among the rest, which were said to be forged. Later James 
 Sadleir, the brother of the dead banker, was expelled the 
 House of Commons for having fled the coimtry under charge 
 of fraud. 
 
 Keogh survived the ruin of his associates. In 1855, on the 
 accession of Palmerston to the position of Prime Minister, in 
 place of Aberdeen, he was promoted to the post of Attorney- 
 General. In the following year he was raised to the Bench, in 
 spite of the vehement and repeated protests of the Irish 
 National Press. 
 
 Gavan Duffy in despair, finding that there was no prospect 
 of Parhament doing anything for the cause he had at heart, 
 determined to emigrate. He gave up the editorship of The 
 Nation, and his seat in the House of Commons, in 1855. He 
 emigrated to AustraUa, where he carved out a new and dis- 
 tinguished career for himself, and eventually became Prime 
 Minister of the Colony of Victoria. Lucas, than whom the 
 tenants in Ireland had no better friend and supporter, though 
 he was not a native of that country, died about this time when 
 on a mission to Rome. The Irish Parliamentary Party — so far 
 as their leaders and men of influence and eloquence were 
 concerned — ^were almost extinguished. During the Ministries 
 of Aberdeen, Palmerston, and Russell, down to 1866, they gave 
 no trouble. They hardly counted as a Parhamentary force. 
 They were kept in order by the Liberal Whips — ^not without 
 suggestion of corruption in some quarters, and at all events by 
 the profuse distribution of patronage in the lower branches of 
 the Civil Service. The defection of the Irish Party caused by 
 the betrayal of their cause by the Keogh-Sadleir group had 
 its effect in three following General Elections. In 1857 the 
 Tories returned 48 out of the 103 Irish Members ; 55, or a 
 majority, in 1859 ; and 48 again in 1865. 
 
 It was during Palmerston's last Ministry that the story 
 
10 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 was told that some one pointed out to the Tory Whip that 
 an Irish Member was taking notes, with the intention of 
 speaking for the Government. " Are you sure it was not 
 gold ? " the Whip rephed. 
 
 During these twelve years no legislation of any value 
 whatever was obtained by the Irish tenants from Parliament. 
 Tenant Right Bills were introduced, in successive Sessions, by 
 Mr. Sharman Crawford and others, but they were invariably 
 rejected by overwhelming majorities. 
 
 In i860 Mr. Cardwell, when Irish Secretary, endeavoured 
 to deal with the question from a purely English point of view. 
 He carried two measures through Parliament — the one 
 enabling tenants for hfe of entailed estates to grant leases to 
 farm tenants, but on terms so strictly limited that no one ever 
 took advantage of it, and the measure was a total failure. 
 The other measure, known as the Deasy Act, named after his 
 Attorney-General, aimed at making, tenancies in Ireland the 
 subject of contract only, in destruction of any custom or 
 common law claim to compensation for improvements. It 
 declared that no tenant should be entitled to claim compensa- 
 tion for improvements, except under the terms of an express 
 contract with his landlord. By what process of reasoning 
 Mr. Cardwell could have persuaded himself that such a measure 
 could possibly content the Irish tenants, as a settlement of 
 their claims, it is difficult to conceive. 
 
 In 1865, when Mr. Maguire moved for a Committee to 
 inquire into the working of Mr. Cardwell's Act of i860, while 
 agreeing to the motion. Lord Palmerston said that ** for his 
 part he could not see the justice or advantage of giving to one 
 man the right of determining what should be done with 
 another man's property." The Government was represented 
 on the Committee by Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Lowe, and the then 
 Chief Secretary for Ireland, Sir Robert Peel. At their instance 
 the Committee, after hearing much evidence on behalf of the 
 tenants, reported that the principle that compensation should 
 only be secured upon improvements made with consent of the 
 landlord ought to be maintained. This negatived completely 
 any claim for retrospective improvements, and rejected the 
 contention that tenants had any permanent interest in their 
 holdings. From 1852 to 1866 the position of the Irish tenants 
 in the British Parhanient was absolutely hopeless. 
 
IRELAND AFTER THE FAMINE 11 
 
 Meanwhile, many landlords, in the south and west of 
 Ireland, proceeded to put in force the full powers, which the 
 English law, as interpreted byxlrish judges, and supported 
 by the Irish Executive, gave to them. They cleared their 
 estates wholesale of tenants, without any compensation for 
 their improvements, making cattle ranches of the land, or 
 converting it into large tillage farms, and compelling the 
 former tenants and their famihes to emigrate. 
 
 This process was commended to them by the rigid poUtical 
 economist of that period, as one which was justified by the 
 laws of progress. They contended that it was in the interests 
 of the Irish people that Ireland should be converted into a 
 purely pastoral country, by the clearance of small tenants, and 
 their forced emigration, and by the substitution of Scotch 
 farmers famihar with large tillage farms. 
 
 These wholesale clearances had their effect, not only on the 
 country districts immediately concerned, but on the neigh- 
 bouring small towns, which had supphed the wants of the 
 people thus dispossessed. Their trade was greatly reduced, 
 while the population of the towns was often increased by a 
 pauperized class of the evicted famihes, who were unable to 
 afford the cost of emigration. The returns of emigrants from 
 Ireland show that between 1849 and i860 they numbered 
 1,551,000 and between i860 and 1870 867,000. There were in 
 addition the number of Irishmen and their famihes, who trans- 
 ferred themselves to the slums of the great towns in England, 
 and those who crowded into the smaller towns of Ireland, or 
 became agricultural labourers, without any land out of 
 which to eke the miserable wages which the farmers could 
 afford to pay. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE FENIAN MOVEMENT 
 
 A BOUT the year 1858 a revolutionary movement com- 
 / \ menced in Ireland, and among the Irish, in the 
 X \. United States, mider the name of Fenianism. It 
 simmered minoticed for a few years, and burst into flames 
 in 1865-7. Historians concur with statesmen, such as 
 Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Bright, in attributing this movement 
 to the long neglect of Parhament to apply remedies for the 
 undoubted grievances of Ireland, and to the wholesale evictions, 
 and the clearance of estates, resulting in the enforced emigration 
 of such vast numbers of Irish famihes, carrying with them 
 the recollection of injustice and wrong. 
 
 The interior history of this Fenian conspiracy, and whence 
 came the funds which financed it, is still very obscure. We 
 know, however, that it had its origin in the United States, 
 among the Irish who had emigrated from their native country, 
 and that an Association was there formed which spread very 
 widely through the country. It was based on extreme 
 hostility to the British Government. The oath taken by its 
 members bound them to make war against England when 
 called on to do so. Its head centre was James Stephens, who 
 had been implicated in Smith O'Brien's abortive outbreak, in 
 1848, and had escaped after many adventures. In 1858 he 
 revisited Ireland, and founded in Dubhn the Fenian organiza- 
 tion known as the Irish Repubhcan Brotherhood. It made 
 preparations for a rising under promises of armed assistance 
 from America. 
 
 The movement received no support whatever from the 
 Bishops and clergy of the Cathohc Church in Ireland, who had 
 always objected to secret societies. Mr. A. M. SuUivan, the 
 able owner and editor of The Nation, did his utmost to prevent 
 
 12 
 
THE FENIAN MOVEMENT 18 
 
 the spread of the movement. In spite of this, the organization 
 made rapid strides. It was claimed that many thousands of 
 Irish soldiers in the British Army became members of it. 
 Many Fenians enlisted for the purpose of inducing soldiers to 
 join. Later, the conclusion of the Civil War in America 
 set free great numbers of Irishmen, who had fought for the 
 maintenance of the Union, and who were now ready, with 
 Hibernian humour, to fight for the disruption of the British 
 Empire. Many of them returned to Ireland for the purpose, 
 and were engaged in secretly drilling the Fenian recruits. In 
 1863, in a Convention at Chicago, it was decided to make 
 every preparation for a rising in Ireland, For two years the 
 Fenian organ. The Irish People, preached treason in Ireland 
 in the most open way. But in 1865, an informer. Pierce Nagle, 
 gave full information to the authorities at Dublin Castle of 
 the designs of the revolutionary party, and their personnel. 
 Lord Wodehouse, the Lord Lieutenant (later and better known 
 as Lord Kimberley), acted upon this information with great 
 promptitude and vigour. He determined to anticipate a 
 rising, and to crush the movement before it had the oppor- 
 tunity of making headway. On September 15th, 1865, the 
 pohce broke into the office of The Irish People and suppressed 
 its issue, and took into custody all concerned in it. O'Dono- 
 van Rossa, Luby, Kickham, O'Leary, and later James Stephens 
 were arrested. The latter, however, effected his escape from 
 Richmond Bridewell, with the connivance of some minor official, 
 and, after being some weeks concealed in Dublin, fled to France. 
 Rossa, Luby, Kickham, and O'Leary were tried for high treason 
 by a special commission, over which, to the indignation of the 
 Irish Party, Judge Keogh was selected to preside, and, on the 
 evidence of Pierce Nagle, were convicted and sentenced to 
 long terms of penal servitude. 
 
 This did not have the effect of suppressing the conspiracy. 
 The American emissaries were still active in most parts of Ire- 
 land, and secret drillings continued. Early in the following 
 year (1866) Lord Wodehouse apphed to the Government in 
 London for greater powers to deal with this revolutionary 
 movement. The escape of Stephens, he said, had given fresh 
 energy to it. Depdts and manufactories of arms had been dis- 
 covered in various parts of Ireland, and large numbers of Irish- 
 American emissaries were known to be dispersed throughout 
 
14 GLADSTONE AND ffiELAND 
 
 the country, swearing in members, endeavouring to seduce the 
 troops from their allegiance, and holding out false hopes of the 
 intervention of the United States Government. More than five 
 hundred emissaries from America were known to the police, 
 and their numbers were continually augmented from England 
 and Scotland. The Government thereupon applied to Parlia- 
 ment, early in the Session of 1866, for a suspension of the 
 Habeas Corpus Act, and for power to arrest on suspicion, and 
 to detain in prison for six months, without trial, any persons 
 who they had reason to believe were engaged in this conspiracy. 
 A measure to this effect was carried through Parliament in a 
 single day, and received the Queen's Assent on the following 
 day. 
 
 Rapid as was the passage of this Coercion Bill through 
 the House of Commons, it led to one very important speech 
 being delivered, which had great influence on public opinion 
 in England. Mr. Bright, while not opposing the measure, 
 made one of his best and most impressive speeches on the 
 state of Ireland. He expressed the shame and humihation 
 which he felt at being called upon, for a second time, in a 
 Parhamentary career of twenty-two years, to suspend the 
 constitutional rights of the people of Ireland. He traced the 
 causes of the chronic discontent to the neglect of the Imperial 
 Parliament, which since the Union had passed many Coercion 
 Bills, but few good measures for Ireland. He pointed out 
 that the fact of Fenianism having to some extent a foreign 
 origin, aggravated the difficulty, and he asked why EngHshmen 
 and Scotchmen, when they emigrated, did not, like Irishmen, 
 carry with them an inveterate hatred to the Government 
 and institutions of their birth ? He declared that it was not in 
 human nature to hve content under such institutions as existed 
 in Ireland, and when this insurrection was suppressed, there 
 would still remain the seeds of another crop of disaffection. 
 He beheved there was a mode of making Ireland loyal, and he 
 threw the responsibihty of discovering it on the Government 
 and on the Imperial Parhament. Mr. John Stuart Mill, the 
 eminent philosopher, then Member for Westminster, supported 
 Mr. Bright, and expressed the hope that if these extraordinary, 
 but no doubt necessary, powers were granted, Parhament 
 would not go to sleep for another eighteen years over the 
 grievances of Ireland. 
 
THE FENIAN MOVEMENT 15 
 
 The measure was supported by Mr, Disraeli on behalf of 
 the Conservative Opposition. Only six members voted against 
 it. The new Act was put in force on the very day it passed 
 through Parliament. Great numbers of arrests were made 
 in Ireland. This led to the hurried departure of numerous 
 emissaries from America. The country appeared outwardly 
 to subside into its usual state of tranquillity. The Fenians in 
 America, however, still maintained the belief that an armed 
 rising in Ireland was possible. Stephens pubHcly pledged 
 himself that it would take place in 1866. The year went by 
 and no great insurrection occurred. Sporadic attempts, 
 however, were made in many parts of the country. Men 
 assembled at the instance of some central association, and 
 met at specified places, but they found no arms ready for 
 them ; they were easily dispersed. 
 
 Another series of State trials took place at which the chief 
 promoters of the movement were sentenced to penal servitude. 
 The movement was apparently extinguished by these measures. 
 At all events disaffection was driven below the surface. Two 
 incidents, however, occurred, which exercised a great influence 
 in succeeding years. 
 
 The first of these was the forcible release from a prison van 
 at Manchester, in 1867, by an armed body of Fenians, of 
 Colonel Kelly, who was being conveyed to prison. Colonel 
 Kelly had succeeded Stephens as the head of the Fenian move- 
 ment in Ireland. He had crossed the Channel for the purpose 
 of attending a Fenian meeting at Manchester, and was arrested 
 there with a companion. Captain Deasy, by the police, 
 in ignorance of their identity and imder the suspicion that 
 they were engaged in a burglary. Thirty armed Fenians at- 
 tacked the van on its way to the prison, and dispersed the 
 drivers and guards. They called on Sergeant Brett, the 
 pohceman who was inside the van with the prisoners, to open 
 the door and release Kelly and Deasy. On his refusal to do so, 
 one of them fired a shot from a pistol through the keyhole of 
 the door, with the object of forcing it open. The shot struck 
 Sergeant Brett and killed him. A female prisoner in the van 
 then took the key from Brett's pocket, opened the door, and 
 released Kelly and Deasy. They made their escape and 
 were not recaptured. Meanwhile a large body of policemen 
 made their appearance on the scene, and after a fierce struggle 
 
16 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 with the body of men engaged in the attack, succeeded in 
 capturing twenty-six of them. 
 
 A Special Commission of two judges was appointed to try 
 these men. Five of them were found guilty of murder, and 
 seven others of riot and assault. Subsequent inquiries proved 
 that one of the five was present only as a spectator, and that 
 he had no part in the conspiracy. He was accordingly par- 
 doned. Another of the five was reprieved on the ground that 
 he had not been armed. The remaining three — Allen, 
 Larkin, and O'Brien {alias Gould) — ^were hanged. The seven 
 convicted of riot were sentenced to penal servitude. 
 
 Mr. Justice Blackburn, who with Mr. Justice Mellor tried 
 these cases, laid down as law that if the jury were satisfied 
 that the accused had a common design, that dangerous violence 
 was used in furtherance of that design, and that death resulted 
 from it, the crime was murder. This was undoubtedly sound 
 law. Subsequent events, however, in Ireland showed that 
 it was a grave error on the part of the Government to inflict 
 capital punishment on these men. There was much doubt 
 from the evidence whether the three men were more re- 
 sponsible for what occurred than any of the others engaged 
 in the affair, or whether any one of the three had actuaUy 
 fired the fatal shot. 
 
 On being found guilty, these men, while disclaiming any 
 intention to kill Brett, claimed that their comphcity in the 
 attack was in the nature of a political offence. They made a 
 dramatic appeal from the dock to Irish opinion by joining in 
 the exclamation, " God save Ireland," a phrase which became 
 a watchword with the Irish people. Irish opinion was pro- 
 foundly roused on their behalf. It was believed that they 
 had been unjustly condemned and hanged. They became 
 martyrs in the eyes of the Nationahsts. Multitudes of people 
 in every part of Ireland made demonstrations, by processions 
 through the streets, to testify their grief. Mr. A. M. Sullivan 
 took part in one of these processions at DubUn, and con- 
 demned the execution of these men in his paper. He was 
 prosecuted with others for attending an unlawful assembly, 
 but the jury did not convict. In further proceedings, how- 
 ever, he was convicted of seditious hbel, and was sentenced 
 to six months' imprisonment, in spite of the fact that he had 
 done his best to discourage Fenianism. 
 
THE FENIAN MOVEMENT 17 
 
 A monument was later erected by public subscription to the 
 memory of the Manchester martyrs, as they were called, 
 in the centre of the town of Ennis (County Clare), without 
 hindrance by the Government. 
 
 The other case was that known as the Clerkenwell explosion. 
 It came to the knowledge of the Irish Fenians in London that 
 one of their leaders, General Burke, was imprisoned in Clerken- 
 well jail. An attempt was made to effect his release in Decem- 
 ber, 1867. A barrel of gunpowder was placed against the wall 
 of the prison, in a narrow street. On this being exploded the 
 wall of the jail was blown down for some length. The prisoner, 
 fortunately for him, was not in that part of the prison. If 
 he had been there, he would have been blown to pieces by the 
 action of his friends. The result of this reckless proceeding 
 was that twelve harmless persons, hving in houses on the 
 opposite side of the street, were killed, and a hundred and 
 twenty were wounded. For this most wanton attack a man 
 named Barrett was convicted of murder, and was hanged at 
 Newgate, without causing any demonstrations of sympathy 
 on his behalf in Ireland. 
 
 These two violent acts for a time greatly exasperated public 
 opinion in England against the Irish. They had, however, the 
 effect of bringing home to the English people the depth of 
 discontent among Irishmen, and the necessity for probing its 
 causes, and finding some remedy which should alleviate it. 
 The best evidence of this is to be found in a passage of a 
 speech delivered by Mr. Gladstone two years later, when 
 speaking in the course of the debate on the Disestablishment 
 of the Irish Church. 
 
 " In my opinion, and in the opinion of many with whom I 
 communicated, the Fenian conspiracy has had an important 
 influence with respect to Irish pohcy. . . . The influence of 
 Fenianism was this — that when the Habeas Corpus Act was 
 suspended, when all the consequent proceedings occurred, 
 when the tranquiUity of the great city of Manchester was 
 disturbed, when the metropohs itself was shocked and horrified 
 by an inhuman outrage, when a sense of insecurity went 
 abroad far and wide . . . then it was when these phenomena 
 came home to the popular mind, and produced that attitude 
 of attention and preparedness on the part of the whole popula- 
 tion of this country which qualified them to embrace in a 
 
18 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 manner foreign to their habits in other times, the vast im- 
 portance of the Irish question."* 
 
 Reverting to 1866 ; it is to be noted that in the debate on the 
 Address at the commencement of the Session, Mr. Gladstone, 
 as Leader of the House, made his first important pronouncement 
 on Irish pohcy. An amendment was moved by The O'Donoghue 
 expressing regret at the widespread disaffection in Ireland, 
 and representing that it was the duty of the Government to 
 examine and remove the causes of it. Mr. Gladstone, in reply, 
 while opposing the motion, said that the law must be vindi- 
 cated, and that being done, inquiry into the existence of dis- 
 affection became an obligation which no Government could 
 resist. The Fenian conspiracy, instead of releasing the 
 Government from the obligation to improve the conditions of 
 Ireland, raised it higher, and he appealed to the House to 
 judge the Government by their conduct on the various 
 measures which would be brought forward. The principle on 
 which they would frame their measures was that of consideration 
 for Irish opinion on purely Irish questions. The amendment 
 was supported by only twenty-five Members. 
 
 Among the few able and independent men at that time repre- 
 senting the Irish Party in the House of Commons were Sir John 
 Gray and Mr. Maguire. The former had been a follower of 
 O'Connell in the repeal agitation. He had been put on trial 
 with his chief in 1844. He had been Lord Mayor of Dublin 
 and was greatly distinguished as a municipal reformer. He 
 was the owner and editor of The Freeman's Journal, the most 
 important of the organs of the more moderate branch of the 
 Irish Party. He had recently been one of the founders of the 
 Tenants' League. He had also, on behalf of his paper, insti- 
 tuted an inquiry into the condition and fimds of the EstabHshed 
 Church, the report of which had produced a great effect on 
 public opinion in Ireland. On April loth, 1866, he made a 
 motion in the House of Commons to the effect " that the 
 position of the Established Church in Ireland is a just cause 
 of dissatisfaction to the people of that country and urgent^ 
 demands the consideration of Parliament. ' ' He contended that 
 the Estabhshment had failed polemically and politically, 
 and had accomphshed no object for which it was imported 
 into the country. It had neither succeeded as a missionary 
 
 • Hansard, May 31st, i86g. 
 
THE FENIAN MOVEMENT 19 
 
 Church in winning over the Roman Catholic population nor had 
 even held its own. 
 
 He disclaimed any wish or intention to transfer one shilling 
 from the Protestant Church to the Roman Catholic priesthood. 
 He concluded by pointing out the great importance of removing 
 the feeling of religious inequahty, produced by the ascendancy 
 of one Church over the others, and alleged that this question 
 lay at the root of aH Irish grievances. 
 
 The Irish Secretary, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, replied that 
 though personally regarding the resolution with cordial con- 
 currence, it was impossible for the Government to accept it, 
 unless they were prepared to follow it up by immediate action, 
 and he maintained that Irish opinion was not yet sufficiently 
 clear, strong, and matured to call upon them for that. The op- 
 position, therefore, of the Government, at the present moment, 
 would be founded not on any grounds of equity or of per- 
 manent pohcy, but simply on considerations of time and circum- 
 stances. Mr. Whiteside, an eminent lawyer, representing 
 Dublin University, speaking on behalf of the Opposition, 
 vehemently opposed the motion. He denied that Ireland 
 was a Roman Catholic country. He contended that the 
 intelligence, wealth, and industry of Ireland were Protestant. 
 He stigmatized the motion as an attack on property and on 
 the Protestant rehgion, prompted by the Roman hierarchy. 
 The debate was adjourned before coming to a decision on the 
 motion, but it was of great importance as indicating the drift 
 of opinion of the Government. 
 
 Later in the same Session the Irish Secretary dealt with 
 another thorny subject. He introduced a Bill for giving effect 
 to Mr. Cardwell's Land Act of i860, which had proved to be a 
 dead letter. He proposed that where tenants in the future 
 effected permanent improvements, they; should be entitled, 
 if dispossessed by their landlords, to a lump sum equivalent 
 to the increased letting value of their holdings. 
 
 This Bill was violently opposed by the Conservative Pzirty 
 in the House of Commons. Lord Naas (later Lord Mayo) 
 moved a resolution condemning it as injurious to the holders 
 of small farms, and affirming the principle that compensation 
 should only be granted for improvements made with the 
 consent of the landlord. The debate which followed was of the 
 more interest as it led to speeches by Mr. Lowe (later Lord 
 
20 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Sherbrooke) and Mr. John Stuart Mill, each stating with great 
 force the opposite views of two schools of pohtical. economy 
 on the subject of Irish Land Tenure. 
 
 Mr. Lowe pointed out that the introduction of a compulsory 
 term into voluntary contracts was a blunder and a solecism ; 
 for if both parties knew of it, provision would be made against 
 it, and if one of the two was ignorant, a fraud would be com- 
 mitted against him. He warned the House against deaUng 
 with this question on sentimental grounds, maintaining that 
 in legislating for Ireland it was the duty of Parhament not to 
 deviate from the strict principles of political economy. The 
 object of the Bill, he said, was to perpetuate small holdings. 
 These contracts should be regulated by supply and demand. 
 Emigration, if left alone, by reducing competition would in 
 time put the tenants in a position to get better terms. Con- 
 cession, he warned the House, would not end there ; fixity of 
 tenure must follow, and ultimately a permanent settlement 
 like that of Bengal. 
 
 Mr. Mill made a closely reasoned speech in reply. The | 
 measure, he said, was a fulfilment of the promise of the Govern- 
 ment, made by Mr. Gladstone early in the Session, to legislate 
 for Ireland according to Irish exigencies and not according to 
 Enghsh routine. It had been said that what would do for 
 England might do for Ireland. In this application of the same 
 laws to England and Ireland, not only did they not know the 
 people of whom they were talking, but they did not know 
 themselves. The fact was that Ireland was not an exceptional 
 coimtry. It was England that was exceptional. Was there 
 any other country in the world where, as a general rule, the 
 land was held in large farms, and was cultivated by capitaUsts, 
 at rents fixed by contract, while the mass of the people were 
 entirely detached from it, and simply received their day's 
 wages ? In this respect Ireland resembled the rest of the 
 world. It was England that was pecuhar. Was it therefore 
 right to look to England's experience to meet Ireland's ex- 
 ceptional case? They ought rather to look to continental 
 experience, for it was there where the similarity to Ireland 
 could be found to exist. What did continental experience 
 tell them as a matter of historical fact ? It told them that 
 wherever a system of agricultural economy, like that in 
 Ireland, had been found consistent with good cultivation and 
 
THE FENIAN MOVEMENT 21 
 
 the good condition of its peasants, rents had not been fixed as 
 in Ireland by contract, but the occupier had the protection 
 of fixed usage, the custom of the country, and had secured 
 to him permanence of tenure so long as he pleased to possess it. 
 He maintained that the right of the improver of the land 
 to the value of his improvement, so far from infringing on the 
 rights of property, was of itself a right of the same description 
 as those of property.^ The speech pointed to a much wider 
 remedy than that in the Bill — ^to some form of security of 
 tenure and judicial determination of rents. 
 
 The debate on the Bill was adjourned, and it did not come 
 on for discussion again. Within a short time the Government 
 of Lord Russell was defeated in Committee on the Bill for 
 extension of the Parliamentary franchise in England and Wales 
 — on an amendment moved by Lord Dunkellin, son of Lord 
 Clanricarde — an Irish Whig Member. Lord Russell resigned, 
 and Lord Derby formed a new Government in which Lord Mayo 
 became Irish Secretary. His first task was to introduce a 
 Bill for the renewal of the Act for suspending the Habeas 
 Corpus Act. Mr. Maguire opposed the renewal of the Act on 
 the ground that the ordinary tribunals had sufficiently vindi- 
 cated the law, and that measures of repressing unaccompanied 
 by those of a remedial nature tended rather to aggravate than 
 lessen discontent and disaffection. No case, he said, had been 
 made out for continuing despotic government. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, on behalf of the Opposition, supported the 
 Government. He did not think that it would be proper, when 
 a new Government had entered on office, to anticipate their 
 policy towards Ireland. If the late Ministry had been in office 
 it would have been their duty to apply for a renewal of the 
 Act. The second reading of the Bill was carried by io8 
 to 31. 
 
 In the Session of 1868, during Lord Derby's administration, 
 and while the Reform Bills for Scotl^id and Ireland were stiU 
 under discussion, a most important debate took place on the 
 state of Ireland, spread over four days. It was one of the 
 rare debates which are the turning-points in political history, 
 and in which the policies of the two great parties in the State 
 are definitely pronounced, and the issue between them fairly 
 laid before the country. 
 
 * I/ansard, May 17th, 1866. 
 
22 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Mr. Maguire, on the part of the Irish Members, opened the 
 discussion, alleging that the discontent in Ireland, which was 
 the cause of the Fenian conspiracy, had its origin in the land 
 question, and in the existence of the Established Church. The 
 former had led to the exodus of vast numbers of the Irish 
 people, and to the planting in America of implacable enemies 
 to British rule and power ; while the latter was a scandal 
 and a monstrous anomaly, which Englishmen, if it applied to 
 themselves, would not tolerate for a single hour. He repudi- 
 ated on the part of the CathoHcs any desire to participate 
 in the spoil of the Protestant Establishment. The Catholic 
 Bishops and clergy, he said, had declared over and over again 
 that they would not touch a farthing of the funds of the 
 Established Church, although derived from lands once the 
 property of the Catholics. They could not accept any pay- 
 ment from the State, for they well knew, if they were to accept 
 it, they would lose all spiritual influence over their flocks, and 
 would become either the spies or the stipendiaries of the State. 
 Lord Mayo, the Irish Secretary, rephed on behalf of the 
 Government. While not denying that much disaffection and 
 disloyalty existed in Ireland, he claimed that it was among 
 a much lower class of persons than in previous cases, that 
 all landowners or traders, of whatever religion, were strenuous 
 opponents of Fenianism, that the Catholic Bishops and clergy 
 were also opposed to it, and that the real strength of the move- 
 ment was in the United States. 
 
 While denying that the creation of a peasant proprietary, 
 such as had been advocated by Mr. Bright, Mr. Mill, and Sir 
 John Gray, would be beneficial to Ireland and would have a 
 conservative effect, alleging that it would only lead to the old 
 system of subdivision of property, he intimated that the 
 Government would introduce a Bill for giving greater facilities 
 to limited owners to grant leases. They also proposed to 
 confer a charter on a new Cathohc University. With regard 
 to the Estabhshed Church, nothing coidd be done until a 
 Royal Commission had reported, but the indication was that 
 the Government were inchned to a policy of levelling up, in 
 the sense of endowing the Catholic clergy out of State fimds, 
 or out of the superfluous property of the Estabhshed Church. 
 
 The announcement of this policy gave no satisfaction to the 
 Irish Party in the House of Commons. Mr. Mill and Mr. Lowe 
 
THE FENIAN MOVEMENT 23 
 
 renewed their duel on the subject of agrarian legislation, the 
 former defending a proposal he had recently launched in a 
 pamphlet, for buying out the landlords in Ireland and turning 
 the tenants into peasant proprietors. The most important 
 speech in the debate was that of Mr. Gladstone, who boldly 
 announced an Irish policy far in advance of anything he had 
 done in the past. The Church as a state institution, he said, must 
 cease to exist. He condemned the proposal to effect religious 
 equality by leveUing up, and redividing the revenues of the 
 Church among the clergy of other denominations, or by 
 endowment out of State funds. As regards land legislation he 
 asserted the real grievance of Ireland had been acknowledged 
 by the Devon Commission. The improvements effected by 
 the tenants should be admitted by law to be their property. 
 He thought that the full recognition of this would obviate the 
 necessity for any fixity of tenure. As regards the University 
 question he admitted that the Irish had a grievance, but he 
 threw cold water on the proposal for creating a purely Cathohc 
 University. The scheme of the Government was an idea only 
 which was dead before it had hved. It will be seen that this 
 momentous speech of the statesman, to whom Lord Russell 
 had recently surrendered the leadership of the Liberal Party, 
 foreshadowed the policy pursued by Mr. Gladstone with 
 enormous vigour during the next few years. 
 
 Later, with the object of pledging the party to the pohcy of 
 disestablishing and disendowing the Irish Church, Mr. Glad- 
 stone moved in the House of Commons a series of resolutions ; 
 the first and most important of them to the effect " that it 
 is necessary that the Established Church of Ireland should 
 cease to exist, due regard being had to all personal interests 
 and to all individual rights of property." The resolution was 
 framed so as to pledge the House to the poUcy of disendowing 
 the Church as well as disestabUshing it. It led to a debate 
 spread over eleven days. The resolution was carried by a 
 majority of fifty-six after negativing a dilatory motion of Lord 
 Stanley on behalf of the Government. 
 
 This was followed up by a Bill for suspending new appoint- 
 ments in the Irish Church. It was carried through all its 
 stages in the House of Commons, by majorities of about the 
 same as that for the resolution. In the House of Lords the 
 Bill was rejected, on the motion for its second reading, after 
 
24 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 a long debate, by a majority of 93 — 192 to 99. The speeches 
 of Lord Derby, on behalf of the Government, and of Lord 
 Salisbury, who had lately left the Government on account of 
 their Reform Bill, were especially violent. They described the 
 policy indicated by it as complete spoliation. Lord Derby 
 denied that the Cathohcs of Ireland had any grievance. They 
 had everything they wanted except their neighbour's goods. 
 The Queen was to be called upon to act in direct opposition to 
 her Coronation oath. The policy was inconsistent with the 
 Union. Ireland would gain nothing, and would suffer by 
 being deprived of a class of resident gentry. It would be 
 dangerous to England and fatal to Ireland. Lord Salisbury 
 appealed on the highest ground, that of justice to the Irish 
 Church, and to the Irish Protestants, who had always been 
 loyal, and whose loyalty might not be proof against such 
 ungenerous treatment. He called on the House to reject so 
 crude, violent, and objectless a measure. These violent 
 speeches paled beside the fiery discourse of the Archbishop 
 of Armagh. 
 
 "If your Lordships," he said, "overthrow the Irish Estab- 
 lished Chiurch, you will put to the Irish Protestants the choice 
 between apostasy and expatriation, and every man among 
 them who has money or position, when he sees his Church go, 
 will leave the country. If you do that, you will find Ireland so 
 difficult to manage that you will have to depend on the gibbet 
 and the sword." ^ 
 
 On the first defeat of the Government, in the House of 
 Commons, on the resolutions respecting the Irish Church, Mr. 
 Disraeli tendered their resignation to the Queen, but it was 
 ultimately decided that they should remain in office until after 
 the dissolution of Parliament, which was to be expedited so 
 as to take place in the autumn. This seems to have been the 
 best course, for an immediate dissolution was practically im- 
 possible. It was necessary to complete the Reform Bills for 
 Scotland and Ireland, and to give time for the registration of 
 new voters there and in England. The Irish Reform Bill need 
 alone concern us. The existing franchises in Ireland were 
 nominally wider than in England, but practically much more 
 restricted. For the Counties in Ireland the franchise was an 
 occupation of ;^I2 in value, and for Boroughs £8 in value, as 
 
 ^ Hansard, June 26th, 1868. 
 
THE FENIAN MOVEMENT 25 
 
 compared with £$o and £io in England. But the numbers of 
 voters were relatively much fewer in Ireland owing to the 
 general average of wealth being so much less. 
 
 The Irish Reform Act was a very small measure. It left the 
 County franchise as it was. It established a £4 rate of franchise 
 for Boroughs in lieu of the household suffrage in England. 
 The Government resisted any extension of it and was sup- 
 ported by small majorities of the House. The result was that 
 while in England the Reform Act of 1868 gave an immense 
 extension of the suffrage, both in the Counties and in the 
 Boroughs, and was accompanied by a considerable, though 
 insufficient, redistribution of seats, that in Ireland was 
 almost a nuUity, leaving the electoral franchise much as it 
 was, and preserving the numerous corrupt little Boroughs. 
 It was not till 1884 that Ireland was dealt with, as regards 
 the franchise and the distribution of seats, in a manner 
 which gave a fair Parliamentary representation to its 
 people. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE IRISIK^HURCH 
 
 LATE in the year 1868, after the settlement of the 
 Reform question, Parhament was dissolved and a 
 ^ General Election took place. The issue before the 
 constituencies turned almost wholly on the Irish Church. 
 The very great extension of the Borough franchise in Great 
 Britain, giving to the working classes a great preponderance 
 of electoral power, did not result in any immediate demand 
 affecting the interests of labour. Justice and religious 
 equality to Ireland were the main topics, conceived on the 
 part of the new electors in a lofty and unselfish public spirit. 
 The credit of inspiring this generous policy was mainly due to 
 Mr. Gladstone. For the first time in his career, in a series of 
 great meetings in his candidature in South- West Lancashire, he 
 developed fully his remarkable powers on the public platform. 
 His speeches, most cogent in their argmnent, and persuasive 
 in form, appealed to the higher instincts of his audiences, and 
 of the electors of the whole country through the Press. They 
 concentrated the attention of the Liberal Party in Great 
 Britain on his Irish policy. 
 
 The Disestablishment and Disendowment ' of the Irish 
 Church may seem to us now a task easy of accomplishment ; 
 but the risks at the time to the Liberal Party and to the 
 position of its leader were great. The Church of England was 
 very strong, especially in Lancashire. It feared that its own 
 fate might be involved in that of its sister estabHshment in 
 Ireland. It put forth its full strength. Mr. Gladstone's closely 
 reasoned speeches were the main cause of success at the 
 elections. As a result of them, the Liberal Party improved its 
 position by the gain of twenty-eight seats. It obtained a 
 majority of 112 in the three countries. The votes of the newly 
 
 26 
 
THE IRISH CHURCH 27 
 
 enfranchised working men in the Boroughs of Great Britain 
 were mainly responsible for this. In the Enghsh Counties the 
 Liberal Party suffered Jmany losses. Mr. Gladstone himself 
 was defeated by Mr. Cross (later Lord Cross) in South- West 
 Lancashire. He was indebted for a seat in the new ParUament 
 to the Borough of Greenwich, which had elected him, wthout 
 putting him to the labour of personal intervention in the 
 contest. Lord Hartington, Mr. Bruce (later Lord Aberdare), 
 Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Horsman, Mr. Bemal 
 Osborne, and Mr. Frederick Peel, kll of them conspicuous 
 members of the Liberal Party, were among the slain. Bfr. Mill 
 was defeated in the contest for Westminster, a most serious 
 loss to the House of Commons. 
 
 In Ireland, Liberals, Tenant Righters, and even Feniaub 
 united to support candidates pledged to Mr. Gladstone's 
 pohcy. It was the last occasion on which there was a straight 
 issue in that country between the two historic parties. Seven 
 seats were won, on the balance, mainly by Whig candidates, 
 and as the result of the election forty-two supporters only 
 of the Government were returned and sixty-three of the 
 various sections of the Opposition. Of these about half con- 
 sisted of pure Whigs. But they had, for the most part, pledged 
 themselves to support the principle of Tenant Right. 
 
 Mr. Disraeli (hd not wait for the meeting of Parliament. 
 He made a new precedent by resigning office, after the elections 
 were over, admitting that the verdict of the country was 
 against him. Mr. Gladstone was then commissioned by the 
 Queen to form a Ministry. On receiving an intimation to this 
 effect at Hawarden, when engaged in felling a tree, he is 
 reported to have said gravely, " My mission is to pacify 
 Ireland.'* 
 
 The Cabinet, which Mr. Gladstone then formed, was un- 
 doubtedly, so far as its personnel was concerned, the ablest and 
 best of his four Ministries, and the most homogeneous — a great 
 element of strength. It was also the Government which made 
 the most mark in legislation of any in the nineteenth century. 
 It was most earnestly desirous of pacifying Ireland by measures 
 of justice and equaUty. Only a single Irishman, however, was 
 a member of the new Cabinet, Mr. Chichester Fortescue, after- 
 ^rds Lord Carhngford, a Whig of detached and independent 
 views, who was more advanced on the question of Land 
 
28 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Reform than almost any of his colleagues. He was appointed 
 Irish Secretary. Mr. O'Hagan, who had been a Yomig 
 Irelander in his early days, became Lord Chancellor of 
 Ireland with a peerage, and Serjeant Sullivan, a lawyer of 
 eminence and of subtle intellect, was the Irish Attorney- 
 General. The Government, therefore, was well manned for 
 deahng with Irish questions. Mr. Bright, as President of the 
 Board of Trade,* was the only Radical in the new Cabinet 
 
 On the meeting of the new Parhament, the Coercion Act 
 of the previous year was allowed to expire, and Mr. Gladstone 
 lost no time in presenting a Bill for dealing with the Irish 
 Church. He introduced it, on March ist, 1869, in a speech 
 three and a half hours in length, and of remarkable perspi- 
 cuity, without a redundant sentence, as generously admitted 
 by his opponent Mr. Disraeli, enhvened here and there by 
 passages of great eloquence. His great and complex scheme 
 was the product of his own brain and invention. No one of his 
 colleagues in the Government had any share in it. It bore the 
 impress of his financial genius. There was no other man in the 
 country who could have worked it out with the same complete- 
 ness and thoroughness in detail, and with the same tender 
 regard for the permanent interests of the religious body he was 
 deahng with. No other statesman could have given a popular 
 explanation of it, so as to make its underlying principles, and 
 its method of achieving them, intelligible and acceptable to 
 the whole body of the supporters of the Government, and 
 impervious to the attacks of his opponents, fits object was to 
 sever, at once and for ever, all connection between the Epis- 
 copal Protestant Church of Ireland and the State,Nand, by 
 disendowing it of its temporahties, to remove every vestige of 
 grievance on the part of the great majority of the people of 
 Ireland, in respect of the inequality of treatment of religious 
 bodies ; at the same time to do so in a manner which would 
 fully respect all vested rights of individuals, and would set up 
 the severed Church as a voluntary association, and give it the 
 best chance of maintaining itself in the future. 
 
 Provision was made in the Bill for the constitution of a new 
 Church Body or Synod, in which all the churches and parson- 
 age houses, and all endowments given to the Church since the 
 
 * The writer was associated with Mr Bright as Secretary to the Board 
 of Trade. 
 
THE IRISH CHURCH 29 
 
 Reformation, were to be vested. A temporary Commission was 
 also to be created, to whom all the other property of the Church, 
 its tithes, and the landed property of the Episcopal and other 
 bodies, and ancient endowments of all lands, were to be trans- 
 ferred, with instructions to wind them up by sale or other- 
 wise, and to pay for life to the existing holders of all benefices 
 or offices, under the Church, their present stipends, subject, 
 however, to the condition that they were to continue to 
 perform their accustomed services and duties, while in receipt 
 of their salaries, under the control of the new Church Synod. 
 The Church Commission was empowered to agree to com- 
 mutations of the life salaries of the Bishops and clergy, on the 
 demand of a certain proportion of the clergy of each diocese, 
 and to hand over the commutation money to the new Synod. 
 The annual vote of £25,000 to the Catholic College for Priests 
 at Maynooth was to be capitalized at the rate of fourteen years' 
 purchase ; and the capital sum was to be handed over to the 
 governors of that College. The life interests of the Noncon- 
 formist ministers in Ulster, who were the recipients of the 
 Regium Donum grant of ;f 35,000 a year, were to be respected in 
 the same way as those of the Disestabhshed Church, and the 
 grant was thenceforward to cease. 
 
 The total value of the Church property of all kinds 
 was estimated at about 16 miUions, of which 9 millions 
 represented the value of the tithe rent charges, and 6^ 
 millions the value of the landed and other property. The 
 estimated commutation of the stipends of the clergy was 
 £5,700,000, The capital sum for extinguishing the grant to 
 Maynooth and the Regium Donum Was £1,100,000 and the 
 compensation to the owners of advowsons £900,000. Other 
 charges and expenses made up a total of about 8J millions, 
 leaving an estimated surplus, after the process of winding up 
 was completed, of about 7J miUions. It was proposed in the 
 Bill to devote this to the reUef of imavoidable calamity in 
 Ireland. Specific appropriations were proposed for lunatic 
 asylums and county infirmaries. The preamble of the Bill laid 
 down the important principle that no part of the surplus was 
 to be devoted to the support of any rehgious bodies — thus 
 negativing the principle of concurrent endowment of other 
 religious bodies. 
 
 In propounding this scheme Mr. Gladstone, over and over 
 
80 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 again, insisted that it was in the permanent interest of the 
 Church itself. *' I believe," he said, " it will be favourable 
 to religion." "It is essential to those principles of right on 
 which any religion must rest." " The establishment cannot 
 continue to exist with advantage to itself or without mischief 
 to the country." " The measure must be prompt and final — 
 the grievance must.be put out of sight, out of hearing, out of 
 mind. The Church must not be inflicted with the pain of a 
 lingering death. Every means should be taken of softening 
 the transaction." " The proposed commutation would be 
 favourable to the Church by enabling the Church body and 
 individual incumbents to adjust their relations, and make a 
 more economical application of their resources, than would be 
 possible by the maintenance of the original annuities." ^ 
 
 When we look at the results of the scheme, since it passed 
 into law, we shall see how enormously important this principle 
 of commutation has been in saving for the newly constituted 
 Church a large part of its endowment. Looking back, we may 
 surmise that Mr. Gladstone foresaw this, but abstained from 
 explaining it more fully, lest he should alienate some of his 
 supporters among the Cathohcs of Ireland, and the Noncon- 
 formists of England, by showing how favourable the scheme 
 would be to the Disestablished Church, and what large 
 endowments would remain to it, on the assumption that the 
 Church people did their best to meet the new position. 
 
 Mr. Disraeh moved the rejection of the Bill on the second 
 reading, in a Speech which, even at this distance of time, is 
 worth reading for its literary merit, although its substance 
 was unsound, and none of his gloomy prophecies have been 
 verified. He strongly opposed Disestabhshment on principle. 
 
 " It is," he said, " because there is an Established Church 
 that we have obtained reHgious hberty, and enjoy rehgious 
 toleration, and without the union of Church and State, I do 
 not see what security there would be for religious hberty or 
 toleration." 
 
 On the subject of Disendowment he was most emphatic, 
 and his speech was loaded with expressions of " confiscation," 
 " plunder," " robbery," and " sacrilegious spoliation." " In a 
 certain number of years," he said, " the Protestant Church 
 will not have left to them a shilling of property, while they 
 
 * Hansard, March ist, 1869. 
 
THE IRISH CHURCH 81 
 
 will see a richly endowed Roman Catholic clergy and a 
 comfortable Presbyterian body, and both provided for out of 
 their property." 
 
 Mr. Disraeh's speech, though carefully prepared and 
 laboured, and not without its passages of eloquent attacks, did 
 not leave the impression of real earnestness and conviction, 
 or of belief in successful opposition. These elements were 
 supplied in the debate by Dr. Ball, Member for the University 
 of Dublin, a lawyer of eminence, and a most eloquent champion 
 of the Irish Church, and Mr. Gathome Hardy, representing 
 Oxford University, who expressed in passionate language the 
 opinions of the great majority of the clergy of the Church of 
 England. They presented the case against the Bill as well as 
 it could be. The point on which both of them most relied was 
 that the Bill, if passed, would be a virtual repeal of the Act of 
 Union of 1801, by doing away with an essential part of it, 
 which declared that the Protestant Church of Ireland was to 
 continue, and that it was to be one as regards doctrine, 
 discipUne, and government with the Church of England. Dr. 
 Ball inveighed against the harshness and imrelenting rigour 
 with which the BiU had been framed. The inevitable result of 
 it, he said, would be general discontent — of the clergy, 
 because the sources of their endowment would be taken from 
 them, of the laity because new and additional burthens would 
 be imposed on them. Religious animosities would be in- 
 creased and great bitterness of feehng would result. He had 
 doubts whether the new Episcopal body of the Church of Ire- 
 land could ever be formed. In any case, the Bill was no presage 
 of peace and conciUation. It would be a precedent for organic 
 changes of a more dangerous character. Mr. Gathome Hardy 
 followed in the same strain. In an impassioned peroration 
 he said : " When I find that endowments, which I beHeve are 
 sacred to the service of Almighty God, are given to purposes 
 for which they were never intended, and taken from those who 
 have done no wrong . . . when also I find that Pro- 
 testants, left without clergy to look after them, will be absorbed 
 in the Roman Cathohc body, to the best of my judgment and 
 to the best light of my conscience the Bill is alike wrong in the 
 sight of God, and against the interests of my coimtry. I do 
 not hesitate to denounce and oppose this sacrilegious measure." 
 
 It cannot be said that Mr. Gladstone was much aided by 
 
82 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 any speeches from Irish Members, or from his Nonconformist 
 supporters. They were effaced by his own complete defence 
 of the Bill. The most conspicuous speech in support of the 
 Bill was that of Mr. Bright, who dealt with the subject in a 
 lofty spirit— one of his greatest efforts in the House of Commons 
 — ^his only speech of real distinction while a member of the 
 Government. 
 
 The Bill was read a second time by a majority of ii8. It 
 passed through the Committee stages unscathed, after long 
 discussions. Here again Mr. Gladstone was supreme. He 
 defended his scheme against all opponents, and completely 
 silenced them in debate, by his infinite superiority of know- 
 ledge of the subject. The only assistance he needed and 
 received was that of the Irish Attorney-General, who on legal 
 points showed great skill in debate. The Government was 
 supported by unfailing majorities. The measure, with a very 
 few minor concessions, passed a third reading by a majority 
 of 124. 
 
 In the House of Lords the fate of the Bill long hung in the 
 balance. The position of the Liberal Government there was 
 not then so hopelessly impotent, as it has been in later years. 
 During Lord Palmerston's Ministries, the two parties had been 
 almost evenly divided in the House of Lords. In 1869, the 
 normal majority of the Tory Party was believed to be about 
 forty. It was known that some of the Tory Peers would vote 
 for the Bill, but it was quite uncertain, up to the last moment, 
 which way the balance would lie. 
 
 We now know, from the published letters of Queen Victoria 
 and Archbishop Tait, that the Queen, though much disapprov- 
 ing the pohcy of the Irish Bill, and regretting that it had been 
 thought necessary by Mr. Gladstone to introduce it, was most 
 anxious to avoid a conflict between the two Houses of Parlia- 
 ment, and regarded with the greatest alarm the result of a 
 hostile vote on the Bill by the Lords. In letters to the Arch- 
 bishop the Queen urged him to use his influence in favour of the 
 second reading of the Bill.* This fell in with the Archbishop's 
 own views. He was not influenced in the opposite direction by 
 a letter from Mr. Disraeli, who had so recently elevated him 
 to his high position, urging that the Lords should be " brave, 
 firm, and unfaltering." 
 
 ' Life of Archbishop Tait, II, 24. 
 
THE IRISH CHURCH 88 
 
 The Archbishop was more than an exemplary prelate of the 
 Church ; he was a most sagacious and independent statesman. 
 He recognized that the Church of Ireland, as it existed, was 
 mdefensible. 
 
 The Bill was introduced by Lord Granville. He was 
 supported in debate by Lord SaUsbury and Lord Carnarvon, 
 who, two years previously, had resigned their posts in Lord 
 Derby's Government and who, in 1868, had spoken and voted 
 against the Suspensory Bill ; also by Lord Grey and by the 
 veteran Lord Russell. 
 
 The Conservative Party in the Lords was then led by Lord 
 Cairns, who had been Lord Chancellor in Mr. Disraeh's short 
 Government, on the retirement of Lord Derby. He was an 
 Irishman from Ulster, sharing in the strong anti-national views 
 and the narrow prejudices of the Protestants of that province. 
 He spoke in the strongest terms against the Bill, and advised 
 its rejection. He was supported by Lord Derby in this last, 
 but not the least effective, of his many eloquent and polished 
 speeches. Lord Derby had resigned office in the Liberal 
 Government of 1834, sooner than agree to the very limited 
 proposal to appropriate a small part of the revenues of the 
 Irish Church to secular purposes, a measure which in three 
 successive years was rejected by the House of Lords, and was 
 finally dropped. It is conceivable that if concessions had then 
 been made, the Irish Church might have been saved from the 
 present wider attack on it. Lord Derby was unchanged and 
 unchangeable. ^He asserted that the Bill was opposed to the 
 Act of Union and to the Coronation Act of the Sovereign ; 
 that it was as impohtic as it was immoral.y The speech of the 
 debate, however, for the Opposition was that of Dr. Magee, 
 Bishop of Peterborough, who had recently been promoted to 
 this See from an Irish Deanery. He represented with extra- 
 ordinary force and eloquence, which electrified the usually 
 torpid House, the repugnance of Irish Protestants to the Bill. 
 He attacked the Bill mainly on its general poUcy, as an act of 
 injustice, cruel, harsh, and niggardly. He denied that the 
 verdict of the electors had been given on any such scheme. 
 He was supported in this view by Dr. Alexander, the Bishop 
 of Deny — later Archbishop of Armagh, whose speech is 
 worthy of notice, if only for the purpose of showing that 
 Bishops are not endowed with the gift of prophecy. He 
 3 
 
34 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 affirmed that voluntaryism was quite unsuited to Ireland. 
 The Bill, he said, would leave the Irish Church unprovided 
 for after the death of the existing clergy. It would bring about 
 in Ireland " an atheistical nation, under the redominion of a 
 Papal Legate, and stamped with und5ang hostility to the 
 Protestant religion." 
 
 Throughout all the speeches of the opponents of the Bill 
 there was the same misconception as to its effects. There was 
 an incapacity to understand how the Irish Church could be 
 reconstituted under the new scheme, and how its clergy and its 
 services could be maintained. There was also a strong desire 
 among many Peers to appropriate the surplus, resulting from 
 winding up the property of the Church, to the provision of 
 residences and glebes for the Roman CathoUc and Presbyterian 
 clergy. 
 
 Archbishop Tait, while recommending the Peers not to 
 reject the Bill, on the second reading, and himself abstaining 
 from voting, attacked its details. There can be little doubt 
 that the Archbishop averted the defeat of the Bill at this 
 stage. Had he thrown his influence against it the Lords would 
 have rejected it. He did not indeed persuade his episcopal 
 brethren. Fifteen of them voted solid against the Bill. The 
 Archbishop of York and the Bishop of Oxford (Wilberforce) 
 abstained from voting. Alone the Bishop of St. Davids 
 (Thirlwall) voted for it after a most powerful speech, in which 
 he completely disposed of the episcopal argument against it 
 that it was sacrilege. The result of the division was uncertain 
 up to the last minute, but when the tellers came to the table 
 it appeared that the second reading had been carried by a 
 majority of 33 — 179 to 146. 
 
 As often happened in the House of Lords, the acceptance of 
 the principle of the Bill, on the second reading, was only a 
 prelude to an attempted destruction of it in detail in Com- 
 mittee. The Conservative lords fell upon the clauses, and 
 wrought havoc on them. They struck out of the preamble 
 the important words excluding the apphcation of any part of 
 the surplus funds of the Disestabhshed Church to rehgious 
 purposes. Later, they introduced a clause, on the motion of 
 Lord Stanhope, enabhng the purchase of residences for 
 Cathohc and Presbyterian clergy. This was strongly opposed 
 by Lord Cairns, but was carried against the Government by 
 
THE IRISH CHURCH 85 
 
 a small majority. They then proceeded to deal with the 
 finance of the Bill, increasing in a number of different ways 
 the amount to be left in the hands of the intended Church 
 body, so as to form a new endowment for the Church. Of the 
 seven miUions, estimated as the surplus, five miUions were to 
 be appropriated in this way. The Government made some 
 concessions. They agreed to give half a million in heu of 
 private endowments acquired by the Church, since 1660, about 
 double their estimated amount. They agreed to an addition 
 of 7 per cent to the commutation money, on the plea that 
 the lives of the clergy were of longer duration than the 
 average of ordinary persons, according to the usual tables of 
 mortality, an estimate which turned out to be incorrect. These 
 concessions in no way conciliated the Opposition, but rather 
 whetted their appetite for more, in their seven nights' struggle 
 in Committee on the Bill. 
 
 The mutilated Bill returned to the House of Commons. Mr. 
 Gladstone made short work of the Lords' amendments. He 
 affirmed that they practically destroyed the Bill. Instead of 
 disendowing the Church, the Bill, as altered, would leave it a 
 highly endowed body, free from any State control. Those 
 who had proposed these changes had been Hving in a balloon. 
 The House of Commons supported Mr. Gladstone by majorities 
 as great as those which had passed the Bill. It returned the 
 Bill to the House of Lords in its original form, with the 
 exception of the concessions already referred to, and a few 
 ininor amendments. The House of Lords met again, on July 
 20th, to consider whether to insist on their amendments. 
 Meanwhile the Queen had again been active in urging conciha- 
 tion. A letter to the Archbishop said : " The Queen cannot 
 view without alarm the possible consequence of another year 
 of agitation, which would be Hkely to result in worse, rather 
 than better, terms for the Church. Concessions will have to be 
 made on either side." ^ 
 
 On taking up the Bill again, the Lords seemed to be ready 
 for battle, and prepared to face the consequences of the defeat 
 of the Bill. The first question for them was their amendment 
 to the preamble. By a large majority, they insisted on the 
 exclusion of the words forbidding the appUcation of the funds 
 to any religious purposes. Thereupon Lord Granville moved 
 
 * Life of Archbishop Tait, II, p. 36. 
 
86 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 the adjourament of the House, intimating that the Govern- 
 ment could no longer be responsible for the conduct of the 
 BiU. A short delay occurred before the House met again. 
 This was availed of by the Queen and the Archbishop for 
 further negotiations. Dr. Tait was for giving way still further, 
 and so also Mr. Disraeli appears to have been. 
 
 A conference finally took place between Lord Granville 
 and Lord Cairns. The latter took upon himself to come to 
 terms, which practically surrendered the claims of the House 
 of Lords, subject to a very few concessions on the part of the 
 Government. The proposed provision of residences for 
 Cathohc and Presbyterian clergy was abandoned. The 
 Government agreed to leave the distribution of the surplus 
 funds to a future Parliament, and to give up their scheme for 
 applying part of it to lunatic asylums. The final demands of 
 the Lords were reduced to very slender proportions. The 
 Government agreed to add another 5 per cent to the com- 
 mutation money when effected through the Church body. 
 When the Lords met again the crisis was over. Lord Cairns 
 justified the course he had taken, on his own initiative, of 
 agreeing to these terms. No exception was pubHcly taken by 
 the party behind him. But Lord Derby immediately rose 
 from his seat and left the House in great dudgeon.* There 
 can be little doubt that the final arrangement was due 
 mainly to the influence of the Queen and to the Archbishop. 
 In his journal the Archbishop wrote : 
 
 " We have made the best terms we could, and thanks to the 
 Queen, a coUision between the Houses has been avoided ; but 
 a great occasion has been poorly used, and the Irish Church 
 has been greatly injured, without any benefit to the Roman 
 Cathohcs."2 
 
 The sequel has not justified the Archbishop's verdict on 
 the transaction. 
 
 It remains to state briefly the results to the Protestant 
 Episcopal Church of Ireland of the great measure, so much 
 dreaded by its members. Forty- three years have elapsed 
 since it became law. With very rare exceptions, all the Bishops 
 and clergy then existing, and whose hfe interests in their 
 stipends were respected and provided for by the Act, have 
 
 * Lord Derby never entered the House again. He died three months 
 later. - Life of Archbishop Tail, II, p. 42. 
 
THE IRISH CHURCH 87 
 
 passed away, and a new generation of clergy has grown up, 
 under completely altered conditions, no longer connected with 
 the State, or provided for out of State endowments. It is 
 now certain that not one of the gloomy predictions of the 
 Irish and EngHsh prelates in the House of Lords, or of opposing 
 pohticians in both Houses of Parhament, has been verified. 
 Everything has occurred in the interval, in the manner 
 provided under the Act, and in the order and with the fortunate 
 results expected and promised by Mr. Gladstone. The Church 
 reconstituted and reorganized itself inmiediately after the Act 
 without any difficulty. A governing Church body was formed, 
 and was sanctioned by Charter from the Crown, consisting of 
 Bishops and clergy and of lay members in equal niunbers, 
 and with the addition of a certain number of co-opted members, 
 of whom a majority were la3nnen. This representative body 
 tackled the difficulties of the new position with courage, and 
 with the greatest financial abihty and prevision. 
 
 They wisely determined to avail themselves of the scheme 
 which had been foreshadowed by Mr. Gladstone, and rendered 
 possible by his Act. By their advice, the Bishop)s and clergy, 
 with rare exceptions, agreed to the commutation of their 
 emoluments and salaries on the terms of the Act, and the 
 payment of the aggregate of these commutations to the Church 
 body, to whom they looked in the future for the payment of 
 their existing stipends, and to whom they were bound to 
 render their services as ministers. The Commission appointed, 
 under the Act, to wind up the affairs of the Church, paid over 
 to the new Church body, in respect of 1282 Bishops and 
 incumbents, the sum of £5,818,000, the actuarial value of 
 their interests in those endowments, with the addition of 
 12 per cent conceded by Parhament, and in respect of 900 
 curates the sum of £1,700,000. They also paid the sirni of 
 £500,000 for private endowments created since the Reforma- 
 tion. The Church body therefore found itself in possession 
 of a capital sum of about £8,000,000, with the obligation to 
 pay their existing stipends to the Bishops and clergy. 
 
 The Church body then appealed to the members of their 
 Church in Ireland, and to churchmen in England, for 
 iinmediate support in subscriptions and donations for the 
 mamtenance of their Church. The appeal met with a generous 
 response in Ireland, and a somewhat niggardly one in England. 
 
88 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 In the two or three years after the Act subscriptions and 
 donations were made to them, at the rate of £220,000 a year, 
 and for the whole forty years they have averaged ;^i65,ooo, and 
 have amounted to an aggregate of over 6 millions. 
 
 The Church body then set to work to reduce the redundant 
 members of their clergy. They were able to effect this by 
 offering to the clergy favourable terms of release from the 
 obhgation of continued service during their lives. Those of 
 the age of thirty-five were allowed to go free, on accepting one- 
 third of the commutation money secured to them by the Act, 
 and those of the age of sixty-five were allowed two-thirds of the 
 same, with proportional increases or reductions for inter- 
 mediate ages. Upwards of 1000 of the 2380 clergy compounded 
 on these terms and were freed from further service. The 
 resulting profit to the Church body of these compounding 
 clergy amounted to no less than £1,300,000. The number of 
 the clergy for the future establishment was greatly reduced 
 by the amalgamation of parishes where Churchmen were few 
 in munber, with the result that the total number now employed 
 is 1535, compared with 2380 before 1869. The present aggre- 
 gate of stipends of the Bishops and clergy is £314,000 exclusive 
 of their residences and glebes, as compared with £590,000 a 
 year inclusive of residences and glebes at the time when the 
 commutations were fixed. For ten of the Bishops alone the 
 stipends are now £18,000 a year, compared with £48,800 a 
 year under the old conditions. 
 
 The result of all these operations has been that the Church 
 body is now in possession of all the churches, of all the resi- 
 dences of the Bishops and clergy, of glebes for the rural clergy 
 not exceeding in each case ten acres, for which they have paid 
 £587,000, and of invested funds valued at shghtly over 9 
 millions, the interest of which is more than sufficient to 
 pay the stipends as now fixed of its Bishops and clergy. The 
 Church body is further in receipt of annual subscriptions 
 and donations which for the last five years have averaged 
 £165,000 a year, of which £100,000 a year is provided by 
 parochial assessments voluntarily paid, and the remainder by 
 donations to the Church body itself. 
 
 It is stated on good authority that the total number of 
 persons of all ages who are members of the Church is 580,000, 
 of whom 209,000 are in the Diocese of Down. It may be 
 
THE IRISH CHURCH 89 
 
 doubted whether any religious body in the United Kingdom, 
 not connected with the State, is so well provided with a staff 
 of clergy, receiving better income, or has a larger endowment 
 in proportion to its members. 
 
 The position of the disestablished Church as a religious 
 commimity is not less satisfactory. Its Synod, freed from 
 control of the Legislature, has been able to make what changes 
 it desired in its ritual. 
 
 The most striking testimony to the good effect of the great 
 Act in giving vitahty to the Church was that of Lx)rd 
 Plunket, late Archbishop of Dubhn, who had been Bishop of 
 Meath in 1869, and had strongly opposed the passing of the 
 measure. In his episcopal charge, in 1892, after twenty-three 
 years' experience of the working of the new order, he said : 
 
 " When I count up the advantages which followed Dis- 
 estabhshment, when I think of the renewed strength and 
 vitality which our Chuich has derived from the admission of 
 the laity, and responsible participation in the councils, in the 
 disposition of patronage, and in the financial departments of her 
 work, when I observe the spirit of unity and mutual respect 
 which has been engendered by the ordeal of our common 
 adversity, and the increased loyalty and love which are being 
 daily shown to their Mother Church by those who have had 
 to make some sacrifice on her behalf, when I remember too the 
 freedom from agrarian compUcations, which our disconnection 
 with all questions of tithe and the tithe rent charge has 
 brought about, and the more favourable attitude, as regards 
 our influence on the surrounding population, which we occupy 
 because of our severance from any State connection, when I 
 remember aU the counterpart of advantages which we enjoy 
 in our new and independent position, and when I try to hold 
 the balance evenly and weigh the losses and the gains of the 
 whole, I say, boldly and without reserve, that in my opinion 
 at lesist the gain outweighs the loss." 
 
 Not less conspicuous have been the poHtical results of the 
 great Act of 1869. It has completely removed every vestige 
 of grievance in Ireland of rehgious inequaUty. There is no 
 suggestion of jealousy on the part of other rehgious bodies 
 of the large endowments remaining to the Protestant Epis- 
 copal Church. It is recognized that the present favourable 
 position is due to the efforts of its clergy and laity, during 
 
40 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 the time when the life interests of the clergy were running 
 out. 
 
 The eventual surplus, after winding up the property of the 
 Church, was in close accord with the original estimate of Mr. 
 Gladstone. He expected a surplus of y^ miUions. Concessions 
 during the passing of the Bill reduced this by about one 
 miUion. The actual surplus has proved to be about 7 mil- 
 lions. It has been disposed of by successive Acts of Parlia- 
 ment as follows : (i) Intermediate Education, 3^1,000,000 ; 
 (2) the Royal University, £600,000 ; (3) Pensions to 
 National School Teachers, £1,300,000 ; (4) the Congested 
 Districts Board, £1,500,000 ; (5) Distress Works, £1,271,000 ; 
 (6) Arrears of Rent (1882), £1,950,000 ; (7) Sea Fisheries, 
 £250,000. 
 
 The great success — financial, religious, and pohtical — of the 
 Act of 1869 is a striking tribute to Mr. Gladstone's constructive 
 power, and to his energy, ability, and enthusiasm in carrying 
 the scheme. Of all the men of his generation there was no 
 one who had such a grasp of principle, and such a mastery 
 of detail, by the combination of which such a great operation 
 was carried through. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE LAND ACT OF 1870 
 
 NO sooner was the Session of 1869 at an end, and its 
 great achievement, the Irish Church Disestabhshment 
 Bill, safely landed, than Mr. Gladstone turned his 
 almost superhuman energies to the even more complex and 
 difficult subject of Irish Land Tenure. Through many months 
 of the recess he was engaged in studjring the past literature 
 of the question, and in corresponding with his colleagues 
 in the Cabinet, in the endeavour to bring them into harmony 
 for legislation in the coming Session. 
 
 The subject was new to him. He had never previously 
 taken part in the debates on Irish Tenant Right Bills. It did 
 not call into play his great genius for finance. It bristled 
 rather with legal difficulties of great complexity and subtlety. 
 The scheme which ultimately resulted from his labours was 
 not, hke that deahng with the Irish Church, his own sole 
 invention. It appears to have been largely, if not mainly, 
 the product of his two Irish advisers, Mr. Chichester Fortescue 
 and Sir Edward Sullivan. To the latter, perhaps, must be 
 mainly attributed the important feature of the Bill, which 
 commended itself to Mr. Gladstone, and which was ultimately, 
 by his persuasion, adopted by the Cabinet, namely the con- 
 cession to the Irish tenants of something more than compensa- 
 tion for improvements effected by them, and which took 
 the form of payment for goodwill, on eviction by their 
 landlords. 
 
 In order to understand the principle involved, and its bearing 
 on subsequent legislation, it is necessary to point out that the 
 great bulk of the Irish tenants, large and small, held their farms 
 under yearly tenancies, liable to eviction after six months' 
 notice to quit. By the law, as it then stood, the tenant, on 
 giving up his holding, was not entitled, apart from any specific 
 
 41 
 
42 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 covenant, to compensation for any improvements effected by 
 himself and his predecessors. With the rarest exceptions, 
 however, all the improvements, including the houses and farm 
 buildings and everything which added to the original and 
 prairie value of the land, had been effected by the tenants. The 
 landowners as a rule had done nothing to improve the land. 
 They were not expected, as EngHsh landowners were, to erect 
 and maintain the buildings or to drain, fence, or otherwise 
 improve the land. This state of the law appUed equally to 
 Ulster as to the rest of Ireland ; but a well-defined and 
 universally admitted custom in that province, not sanctioned 
 by the law, mitigated its hardships. Under this custom the 
 tenant, on giving up his holding, was entitled to claim either 
 from the incoming tenant or from the landlord, not merely the 
 value of the improvements, but a money payment beyond, 
 which represented the goodwill in the farm. It was well 
 understood also that a tenant, once in possession, was entitled 
 to remain there, so long as he paid his rent, and also that the 
 rent would not be increased to a point when it would impair 
 the customary tenant right ; and further that a tenant had the 
 right to sell his interest in the holding to an incoming solvent 
 tenant, to whom the landowner could make no valid objection. 
 This custom existed throughout the whole of the Province of 
 Ulster, varying, however, as to the amount payable for good- 
 will. Though not recognized by law, it was practically 
 enforced by combinations of tenants, and was acquiesced in by 
 landlords. It was well understood that there would be no 
 scruple, on the part of tenants, in resorting to an agrarian 
 vendetta, if any serious breach of the custom was committed 
 by a landowner ; and some of the most determined murders 
 and outrages had occurred in that province, in the rare cases 
 when the custom was violated by the landlord. 
 
 Analogous customs existed in some other parts of Ireland. 
 Whether recognized by landowners or not, payments were 
 generally made by incoming to outgoing tenants. The essence 
 of the new scheme, incorporated by Mr. Gladstone in his Irish 
 Land Bill, was the legal recognition of the Ulster custom, so 
 far as concerned the payment of the customary tenant right 
 to an outgoing tenant, including not merely compensation for 
 improvement, but also a paym^it for goodwill, and its 
 extension to the rest of Ireland by an analogous provision. 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1870 43 
 
 , A scale of payments to the outgoing or evicted tenant 
 was laid down, varying from seven times the rent in the 
 case of holdings mider £io a year in value, to twice the 
 rent in respect of holdings of ^^loo a year. It was pro- 
 vided, however, in respect of this statutory compensation, 
 that it was not to be paid, in the event of eviction for refusal or 
 neglect to pay rent, unless the judge authorizing the eviction 
 should hold that, under the special circumstances of the case, 
 it ought to be paid. This, if adopted, would have enabled the 
 Court to deal with cases where the non-payment of rent was 
 due to its exorbitant amount, or to the failure of crops, or 
 to a great fall of prices, or to other exceptional circum- 
 stances. 
 
 It is clear from the correspondence referred to by Lord 
 Morley that Mr. Gladstone had great difficidty in bringing his 
 colleagues into line on this scheme. There was a section of 
 his Cabinet, including the Duke of Argyll, Lord Clarendon, 
 Mr. Lowe, and Mr. Cardwell, who were political economists of 
 the older type, far removed from the school of Mill, and who 
 stood by the Enghsh principles of landownership. There 
 was Mr. Bright, who recognized fully the evils of the existing 
 state of things in Ireland, but who believed that they could 
 only be cured by multiplying small ownerships of land. He 
 urged a scheme for effecting this, by gradually converting 
 tenants into owners, with the aid of State loans. The sterner 
 economists objected to this scheme almost as much as they 
 did to the interference with freedom of contract. It was also 
 no inmiediate remedy, for it could only be given effect to 
 gradually, as estates came into the market, and it would 
 leave the great bulk of the tenantry without any pro- 
 tection. 
 
 There was, lastly, Mr. Fortescue, the only member of the 
 Cabinet who had any knowledge of Irish tenancy, who recog- 
 nized that the tenants of Ireland were not the product of free 
 contracts, but were in the nature of hereditary holders of the 
 land, with a quahfied, customary, but legally unrecognized 
 right of occupancy, for which it was necessary to provide protec- 
 tion against arbitrary eviction. Mr. Fortescue prevailed with 
 his chief and through him with the Cabinet, and the economists 
 ultimately gave way ; while Mr. Bright was appeased by the 
 promise of clauses, which would give effect to his views as to the 
 
44 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 conversion of tenants into owners, by the advance of two-thirds 
 of the purchase money by the State on favourable terms of 
 interest and repayment of principal spread over a term of 
 years. 
 
 It may seem strange to us now when looking back at these 
 proceedings, by the light of subsequent events, that no effort 
 was made to ascertain what would satisfy the Irish tenants 
 themselves, through their representatives in the House of 
 Commons, or through their organs in the Press, such as The 
 Freeman's Journal. No negotiations appear to have been 
 undertaken in these directions. The demands of the teniints, as 
 formulated in many Tenant Right Associatioixs ana at public 
 meetings, were for fixity of tenure, at rents to be fixed by law or 
 arbitration, and for the right of free sale. Ihe scneme oi the 
 Government was very far short of this. There was to be no 
 interference with the amount of rent. The landlords were 
 to retain power to raise their rents, subject to the right of the 
 tenants to give up their holdings, and to claim the compensa- 
 tion provided in the Bill. There were no means of compelling 
 a reduction of rent however exorbitant, or however much it 
 might expropriate the admitted interest of the tenant. There 
 was no fixity of tenure, and no right of sale by an outgoing to 
 an incoming tenant. The Ulster custom, therefore, was not 
 legalized so far as its most important features were concerned. 
 StiU less was protection given to tenants in other parts of 
 Ireland against rack-renting landlords. 
 
 The principle and the policy of the measure have never been 
 more tersely and clearly explained than in a letter of Mr. 
 Gladstone's to Archbishop Manning, quoted by Lord Morley : 
 " The Bill," he wrote, " is intended to prevent the Irish land- 
 lord from using the terrible weapon of arbitrary and unjust 
 eviction, by so framing the handle that it shall cut his own 
 hands with the sharp edge of pecuniary damages. The man 
 evicted without any fault, and suffering the usual loss by 
 it, will recover whatever the custom of the coimtry gives, 
 and where there is no custom, according to a scale, besides 
 whatever he can claim for permanent buildings or reclamation 
 of land. Wanton eviction will, as I hope, be extinguished by 
 provisions like these. And if they extinguish wanton eviction, 
 they will also extinguish those demands for unjust augmen- 
 tations of rent, which are only formidable to the occupier 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1870 45 
 
 because the power of wanton or arbitrary eviction is behind 
 
 them."i 
 
 The letter is important, for it shows that Mr. Gladstone was 
 aware that one of the main subjects of complaint of the Irish 
 tenants was the imjust increases of rent which expropriated 
 their interest in their holdings. There was nothing, however, 
 in his speech on introducing his measure to indicate his opinion 
 on this most important point. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone explained his great and complex measure 
 in a masterly speech of three and a half hours in length. He 
 dealt fully with the history of Irish Land Tenure. He dis- 
 claimed any interference with the freedom of contract, more 
 than was absolutely necessary. He referred to the demand 
 made in some quarters for a right of continued occupancy 
 subject to payment of rent, for which the tenant was liable, 
 or to such rent as should be settled from time to time by fair 
 valuation, and a right to sell his interest to a solvent tenant, to 
 whom the landlord could "hot make reasonable objection, 
 only to disclaim any such intention. " Will the Irish people," 
 he said, " follow such disastrous leadership ? I beheve not. 
 I hold that each successive act of justice develops feelings of 
 content and loyalty, and narrows the circle of disaffection." 
 " There is in Ireland — do not let us conceal it from ourselves 
 — not only a reckless, but a demoralized and demoralizing 
 agency, which is now at work, for the twofold purpose of 
 disturbing the country through agrarian crimes, and making 
 peaceful legislation impossible." 
 
 The measure was not opposed in principle by the Tory 
 Party in either House of Parhament. In the House of Com- 
 mons, on the second reading, Mr. DisraeU, as Leader of the 
 Opposition, admitted the necessity of some such measure, but 
 he disapproved of many of its details. He protested against the 
 interference with freedom of contract, which he regarded as 
 " one of the greatest sanctions for the progress of civilization." 
 Dr. Ball took the same hne in stronger language. More 
 serious opposition came from a small section of the Irish 
 Members representing the interests of the tenant farmers, 
 from Sir John Gray, the owner of The Freeman's Journal, 
 Mr. Bryan, Mr. Moore, and a few others. They contended 
 that nothing would satisfy the Irish tenants short of fixity 
 
 ' Moriey, Life of Gladstone, II, p. 294. 
 
46 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 of tenure and the arbitration of rents. " I do not depreciate 
 the Bill," said Sir John Gray. ■' It is a great and solid and, I 
 will add, a noble and generous advance. But the interests of 
 the people must be considered in a full settlement. The Irish 
 tenants do not require a Bill of pains and penalties against 
 their landlords. They ask for a Bill of rights for themselves." 
 On the other hand Mr. Maguire and The O'Donoghue, repre- 
 senting another advanced section of the Irish Members, 
 warmly supported the Bill — the latter describing the oppo- 
 sition to it as the " gambols of excited patriots." Sir Roundell 
 Palmer, the most eminent member of the English Bar, who had 
 refused the post of Lord Chancellor in Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet, 
 on account of his objection to disendowing the Irish Church, 
 supported the Land Bill as a " humihating necessity " ; but 
 he insisted on the absolute and imperative obhgation to put 
 down the disturbances in Ireland which had caused this 
 necessity. " It would be a mockery to talk of justice and of 
 redress of wrongs if you allow the rights, which in the Bill are 
 solemnly asserted, to remain at the mercy of secret associa- 
 tions and of bands of conspirators." 
 
 The Bill was read a second time by a majority of 442 to 11. 
 Of the minority of 13, including the tellers, three were English 
 Members. It followed that only 10 Irish Members out of 103 
 were of opinion that the measure was so deficient as to be 
 unworthy of acceptance. It was debated in Committee for 
 three and a half months. Upwards of 300 amendments were 
 moved. Mr. Gladstone bore almost alone the burden of this 
 protracted debate. He had lost the support of Sir Edward 
 Sullivan, who had been elevated to the Bench in Ireland. Mr. 
 Bright was ill, and Mr. Lowe gave him no moral support. 
 Mr. Chichester Fortescue had no debating power. In one of his 
 letters Mr. Gladstone said, " I feel that when I have spoken 
 I have not a shot left in my locker." At times most important 
 clauses were in peril. Mr. Disraeli moved an amendment 
 limiting compensation to the value of past improvements. 
 This was defeated by a majority of 76 ; much less than 
 the ordinary party majority. It fell to 32, a dangerously 
 low figure, on a motion of Mr. Fowler, a Liberal banker, 
 proposing to restrict the compensation for disturbance to 
 holdings imder the value of £50 a year. It was supported 
 by Sir Roundell Palmer, who was also one of the severest 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1870 4T 
 
 critics on other details. Mr. Gladstone said of him in his 
 correspondence that " he knew no more of Irish Land Tenure 
 than "he did of tenures in the moon." " With his legal mind, 
 legal point of view, legal aptitudes and inaptitudes, he comes 
 and stirs the susceptibihties of Members to such a point that 
 he is always near bringing us to grief. ' ' * The Bill, however, with 
 some few concessions escaped these rocks and quicksands, and 
 finally passed a third reading, without opposition and without 
 substantial alteration. 
 
 In the House of Lords the Bill was read a second time with- 
 out a division. The Tory Party there was led by the Duke of 
 Richmond, who had recently succeeded Lord Cairns in this 
 position. He was a man of plain common sense representing 
 about the average opinion of their Lordships. He advised 
 them to accept the Bill in principle, but to amend it greatly in 
 Committee. It was subjected to most hostile criticism in 
 debate. There was not a single peer there representing the 
 majority of the Irish people, not one possessing any sym- 
 pathy with Irish tenants, not one who had any real knowledge 
 of Irish tenure, except those interested as landlords in the 
 opposite camp. 
 
 In Conunittee on the Bill the Lords proceeded, after their 
 usual fashion with Irish measures, to wreck it in detail. 
 Amendments were carried against the Government which 
 entirely altered its character, and which would have deprived 
 it of all healing grace. Lord Granville piloted the Bill with 
 consummate tact and skill. Many of the amendments were 
 withdrawn at a later stage, and others were reduced to harmless 
 dimensions in deference to some concessions offered by the 
 Government. What remained were rejected by the House of 
 Commons, or were conceded in part, or were later the subject 
 of compromise. One, however, most serious amendment was 
 insisted upon by the Lords, which later had the most im- 
 fortunate effect. 
 
 It has already been shown that in the Bill, as introduced, 
 compensation for the disturbance of a tenant was not to be 
 paid, if the tenant was evicted for non-payment of rent, with 
 the qualification, however, " unless the Court should be of 
 opinion that on special grounds it shall be paid." 
 
 The House of Lords, on the motion of Lord Caims, struck 
 
 * Morley, Life of Gladstone, II, p. 295. 
 
48 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 out this proviso. " The purpose of the Bill," he said, " was 
 that the right to compensation should be correlative with the 
 performance of the contract, and that the tenant who had 
 broken his contract, and had been removed on that account, 
 should not be allowed to say that he had been capriciously 
 evicted." " The proviso in the clause, however, would enable 
 any one of the thirty-three Assistant Barristers in Ireland to 
 decide upon special grounds that eviction for non-payment of 
 rent was a disturbance, entitling the evicted tenant to com- 
 pensation. The Assistant Barrister might say, Parliament has 
 left it to me to determine what are special grounds. Well, 
 this is a bad year, and I will decide that to be a special 
 ground." 
 
 The clause went back to the House of Commons and, after 
 it had been bandied about between the two Houses, the 
 Government, finding that the Lords were inexorable on this 
 point, gave way rather than risk the loss of the Bill. But they 
 succeeded in inducing the Lords to apply the quahfication to 
 holdings valued at less than £25 a year " if the Court should be 
 of opinion that the non-payment of rent is owing to its being 
 exorbitant " ; and in this form the clause finally passed into 
 law. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone in agreeing to this said : " The Government 
 attached great value to the clause. They had done all in their 
 power and exerted their utmost influence with their supporters 
 to avoid conflict, and to wash their hands of the responsibility 
 of a confirmed difference of opinion between the two Houses. 
 They made the concession with the greatest pain and reluct- 
 ance, because it was against their conviction of what the Bill 
 ought to accomplish." ^ 
 
 In this mutilated state the Bill passed into law. It will be 
 shown later how serious this action of the Lords proved to be, 
 when, after a disastrous season, large masses of small tenants 
 in Ireland were unable to pay their rents, and when many bad 
 landlords resorted to their old game of wholesale evictions. 
 
 In review of this Land Act and of the long discussion upon 
 it in the two Houses, we must now, by the light of subsequent 
 experience, admit that it was not successful. It did not prove 
 to be a remedy for the evils which it was hoped to cure. It was 
 the first Act only of a great agrarian reform in Ireland, spread 
 
 * Hansard, July 21st, 1870. 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1870 49 
 
 over a long period of years, of which we have not yet quite 
 seen the end. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone had warning that it would not be a final 
 settlement of the question. Lord Morley says that, while 
 the Bill was under discussion, Mr. Gladstone received, through 
 Archbishop Manning, a memorial from the Irish Catholic 
 Bishops to the effect that it would fail to give content, and 
 that no measure short of one conceding fixity of tenure and 
 arbitration of rents would have the desired effect. 
 
 Already there were ominous signs that discontent in 
 Ireland was by no means appeased by the two great measures 
 affecting the Church and the land. At the end of the Session 
 of 1870 a vacancy occurred in the county of Tipperary. The 
 electors returned O'Donovan Rossa, who had been con- 
 victed of high treason in the Fenian prosecutions, and it 
 became the duty of Mr. Gladstone to move that the election 
 should be set aside, on the ground that a convicted felon was 
 incapable of sitting in the House. The motion was carried by a 
 majority of 293, only 10 Irish Members voting against it. 
 
 Between the second reading and the Committee stage of the 
 Land Bill, the Government found itself under the necessity 
 of introducing and carrying a Coercion Act for Ireland, 
 moderate indeed in its provisions, as compared with many 
 previous and subsequent Acts of the same kind, but yet giving 
 exceptional powers to the Executive in Ireland, in respect of 
 the possession of firearms, and in regard to the press in pro- 
 claimed districts. It also enabled Grand Juries, with the 
 approval of the Judge and Court, to levy rates for compensation 
 to famihes of persons subjected to serious outrages. The 
 Bill, unhke others of that ilk, passed the House of Commons 
 without difl&culty, only fifteen Irish Members voting against it. 
 It must be presumed that Mr. Gladstone very unwillingly 
 assented to the measure. Lord Morley says that he pressed 
 the Irish Government the other way. " What we have to do is 
 to defy Fenianism, to rely on pubhc sentiment and to provide 
 (as we are doing) the practical measures that place public 
 sentiment on our side ; an operation which I think is retarded 
 by any semblance of severity to those whose offences we admit 
 among ourselves to have been the ultimate result of our mis- 
 government of the coimtry." The Irish Government, however, 
 Was able to get its way. It had been too accustomed to the 
 
 4 
 
50 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 use of coercive acts to believe in governing without them. 
 Probably also there were men in the Cabinet who agreed with 
 Sir Roundell Palmer in insisting on remedial measures being 
 accompanied by exceptional measures to put down agrarian 
 crime, and who did not believe in the efficacy of the former. 
 In the same spirit of conciliation, and in the hope of favour- 
 ably striking the imagination of the Irish people, Mr. Gladstone 
 pressed on his Cabinet, early in 1870, the importance of giving 
 an amnesty to the Fenians still detained at Portland as 
 convicts. He failed to get their consent till the end of the 
 year. It was even then coupled with the condition that the 
 men, thus released, should be banished from the United 
 Kingdom — a provision which, in the opinion of many in 
 England, and of the majority in Ireland, deprived the act of 
 much of its grace. 
 
 Whatever the defects of the Land Act, it had the effect of 
 putting an end to the arbitrary and wholesale eviction of 
 tenants in ordinary times. Agrarian outrages were conse- 
 quently reduced in the few years which followed. It was not 
 till the bad seasons of 1878-9 that the defects of the Act 
 became apparent, and agitation of a far more formidable 
 character was renewed. 
 
*T. 
 
 CHAPTER V 
 
 THE IRISH UNIVERSITY BILL 
 
 IN the Session of 1873 Mr. Gladstone made another valiant 
 effort to deal with an Irish grievance, the third branch of 
 the Upas Tree, as he called it, that of University Education. 
 The grievance of the Roman Catholics was that higher 
 education, suitable to them, and in accordance with their 
 religious views, was not endowed in the same manner as that 
 for Protestants in the University of Dublin, with its richly 
 endowed Trinity College, or that of the Queen's University, 
 with its unsectarian colleges at Belfast, Cork, and Galway, 
 mainly supported by State grants. 
 
 Trinity College was at that time largely sectarian. It had 
 been part of the machinery for maintaining Protestant 
 ascendancy in Ireland. When, at the time of the Reformation 
 in England, the Irish Roman Cathohc Church was transformed 
 by English law into a Protestant institution, with the intention 
 of converting the population of Ireland from Popery, Trinity 
 College was foimded with the same object, largely out of funds 
 derived from a suppressed Roman Cathohc monastery. No 
 Catholic could graduate or become a student there. In 1793 
 it was thrown open by the Irish ParUament, to the extent 
 that Catholics were allowed to enter as students, and were 
 admitted to degrees ; but the rehgious tests for scholarships 
 and fellowships were maintained. In 1844, Sir Robert Peel 
 admitted the grievances of CathoUcs, and endeavoured to deal 
 with the question, but the authorities of Trinity College 
 refused to throw open their endowments. He found himself 
 unable to compel them to do so. He dealt with the question 
 by establishing the unsectarian Queen's University, with 
 affihated colleges at Belfast, Cork, and Galway supported by 
 State grants. But the Catholics did not want unsectarian 
 colleges. The University and its colleges were condemned 
 
 51 
 
82 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 and tabooed by the Catholic hierarchy. Later a so-called 
 Catholic University was founded by the Bishops, scantily 
 supported by voluntary contributions ; but it had no charter 
 from the Crown. Its degrees were unrecognized by law. 
 The Conservative Government of 1867 tried to deal with the 
 question. They opened negotiations with the Catholic 
 Bishops. But Protestant feeling in Ireland was aroused, and 
 nothing came of this attempt. The problem before Mr. 
 Gladstone was how to give the Catholics the benefit of higher 
 education, largely at the expense of the State, without raising 
 the susceptibilities of Protestants, who had shown in the 
 past that they would oppose the endowment of Catholic 
 religion.) 
 
 Mr. Gladstone set to work on the question with resolution 
 and self-confidence. He devised his own scheme, quite inde- 
 pendently of the Irish Government, and of the Chief Secretary 
 for Ireland, then Lord Hartington, and devoted iftimense 
 labour to it. He did not consult the Irish Catholic Bishops, 
 or the Irish representatives in the House of Commons. It 
 was to be expected that as the success of the measure would 
 depend upon the views which the Catholic Bishops would take 
 of it, he would have sounded them on the subject before 
 announcing it to the House of Commons. In his opening 
 statement on the Bill he gave excuses for not doing so. He 
 said that the authorities of Trinity College had already 
 introduced a Bill, propounding a scheme of their own for 
 dealing with the subject, in the direction of removing religious 
 tests. This, in his view, made it impossible for him to negotiate 
 with them, and as it was necessary to treat other religious 
 commimities equally, he was precluded from negotiating with 
 the Roman CathoUcs. The explanation does not carry con- 
 viction. The measure was intended as a remedy for Catholic 
 grievances. It would seem to be essentially necessary that the 
 Government should know whether it would be accepted by 
 those for whom it was intended. On the other hand it was 
 scarcely conceivable that any plan could be devised which 
 would be acceptable to the authorities of Trinity College. 
 The Government would have to fight theni in any case. To 
 consult them in advance would give them an advantage 
 in the Parliamentary contest. The sequel showed how far 
 wiser it would have been to negotiate with the Cathohc Bishops. 
 
THE IRISH UNIVERSITY BILL 58 
 
 It may have been that Mr. Gladstone's immense Parliamentary 
 success in the two previous Irish measures, affecting the Church 
 and the land, where he followed the same course, led him to 
 believe that he could produce a scheme for the University 
 question which, by its fairness and completeness, wotild meet 
 with support from all sections of the Liberal Party, including 
 the Irish Catholic Members. It will be seen that he over- 
 estimated his powers in this case, and under-estimated the 
 forces which were ultimately arrayed against him. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's scheme was a most ingenious one. It was 
 such as in ordinary times, and if the Irish Bishops had not been 
 led by so ultramontane and masterful a prelate as Cardinal 
 CuUen, might have been successful. He proposed to constitute 
 a single great University for Ireland, for teaching as well as for 
 examining purposes, on a purely imsectarian basis, to which 
 colleges of either sectarian or imsectarian character were to 
 be affiliated. The existing University of Dubhn was to be 
 detached from Trinity College, and was to form the nucleus 
 of the new University. Trinity College was to be affiliated 
 as a sectarian institution, closely connected with the Dis- 
 established Church. The Queen's University was to be done 
 away with. The Colleges of Belfast and Cork were to be 
 affiliated to the new University, as was the Catholic College 
 representing the so-called CathoHc University. No endow- 
 ment or grant was to be given to the CathoUc College, but the 
 University was to be endowed with £50,000 a year, provided 
 in part by a contribution of £15,000 a year from Trinity 
 College, and partly by a State grant. The affiliated CoU^es 
 would all benefit equally from the endowed University. 
 Professorships were to be provided by the University, subject 
 to a proviso, which came to be described as "a gagging 
 proposal," that there were to be no Professors of Religion, 
 Morals, or History. These subjects were to be left to the 
 Colleges to deal with, in any manner they might think best. 
 Professors and teachers were to be Uable to removal if they 
 wilfully gave offence to the religious opinions of any students. 
 The Governing Body of the new University was to consist of 
 twenty-eight members, to be nominated by the Act in the 
 first instance, and later were to be appointed in part by the 
 Crown, in part by co-option, and in part by election of the 
 graduates. 
 
54 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Mr. Gladstone expounded this scheme with a persuasive 
 earnestness, a fuUness of knowledge, and an enthusiasm for 
 the subject, at least equal to his efforts on introducing his two 
 previous Irish Bills. He seemed fairly to mesmerize the House 
 of Commons, with the result that in the debate which followed 
 his scheme was generally applauded, and scarcely a dissentient 
 voice was heard. It was admitted that if a vote could have 
 been taken at once, the Bill would have been almost unani- 
 mously agreed to. But closer examination of its details soon 
 dissipated this favourable impression. Cardinal Cullen 
 assumed from the first a hostile attitude to it. His view pre- 
 vailed with the Irish Bishops. It might possibly have been 
 accepted in this quarter under other auspices than Cullen ; for 
 Archbishop Manning, also an ultramontane, was in favour of 
 it and did his best, but in vain, to induce Cullen and the Irish 
 Bishops to accept it. Nor was it more favourably received in 
 other quarters. The Presbyterians of the North of Ireland 
 denounced it ; so also did the Governing Body of Trinity 
 College. Professor Fawcett and other academic experts were 
 vehemently opposed to the Government scheme, largely on 
 account of the " gagging " clauses. 
 
 The Tory Party, as was to be expected, could not resist the 
 opportunity of making a party question of it. An ingenious 
 motion was devised for rejecting the second reading of the Bill, 
 which, admitting that legislation was necessary, amounted to 
 a declaration of want of confidence in the Government. In 
 the four days' debate the Bill was attacked from every 
 quarter of the House. It was condemned by the Irish Cathohc 
 Members, because it did not give an endowment to the Catholic 
 College, and by the Irish Protestant Members, because it 
 detached some of the funds of Trinity College, and might lead 
 to the endowment of Cathohcs. It met with little support 
 from any speakers but those connected with the Government. 
 But most serious of all was the fact that it failed to enlist a 
 majority of the Irish Members in its favour. 
 
 Towards the end of the debate Mr. Disraeh made a rattling 
 party spfeech against the Bill, denouncing it from many 
 opposite points of view, but carefully committing himself to 
 none of them. He seemed, at one time, rather to favour con- 
 current endowment, which, he pointed out, had been the policy 
 of Pitt, of Peel, of Russell and Palmerston, but this was only 
 
THE IRISH UNIVERSITY BILL 55 
 
 for the purpose of attributing to the Government the alter- 
 native policy of confiscation. This last was the main refrain 
 of his discourse. " You have had," he said, " four years of this 
 pohcy of confiscation. You have despoiled the Irish Church. 
 You have threatened every corporation and every interest in 
 the country. You have criticized every profession and vexed 
 every trade. No one is certain of his property, and nobody 
 even knows what duty he will have to perform. This is the 
 policy of confiscation as compared with that of concurrent 
 endowment. The Irish Roman Catholics were perfectly 
 satisfied when you were despoiUng the Irish Church. They 
 looked on, not unwillingly, upon the plunder of Irish land- 
 lords ; and they thought the time had arrived when the great 
 drama would be fulfilled, and the spirit of confiscation would 
 descend up)on the celebrated walls of Trinity College, and 
 would level it to the ground, and endow the College of St. 
 Stephen's Green [the Roman Catholic College]. I ventured 
 to remark, at the time when the pohcy of the Government was 
 introduced, that confiscation was contagious. I beheve that 
 the people of this country have had enough of this pohcy of 
 confiscation. From what I have seen, the House of Commons, 
 elected to carry out that pohcy, is beginning to experience 
 some of the inconveniences of satiety, and if I am not mistaken, 
 you will give some intimation to the Government to-night 
 that these are your views." * The proposal of the Govern- 
 ment to hand over a small part of the huge endowment of 
 Trinity College to the unsectarian University, whose scholarships 
 and prizes the College would share equally with other Colleges, 
 was a very small peg on which to hang these charges of 
 confiscation, but the speech was intended for the hustings, 
 and should not be too closely scanned for consistency and 
 accuracy. It presented the case on which he was to enlarge 
 at the next General Election, ^nd to which his party was 
 largely indebted for victory. 
 
 When Mr. Gladstone rose to reply he had been informed 
 by the Whips of the party that the Irish Members, who were 
 generally supporters of his Government, would vote against 
 the BiU. Cardinal Cullen had signed a pastoral letter a few 
 days before to be read in all the Cathohc churches of Ireland, 
 denouncing^ the Bill for endowing non-Catholic and godless 
 
 * Hanscard, March nth, 1873. 
 
56 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 colleges, without giving a shilling to Catholics. This deter- 
 mined the votes of the Irish Catholic Members. The fate, 
 therefore, of the Bill was in the balance. Mr. Gladstone must 
 have felt that, even if the Bill were carried by a narrow majority, 
 its fate was sealed, for it would be impossible to proceed with it, 
 when rejected by the great majority of those for whom it was 
 proposed as a remedy for their grievances. In no way dis- 
 couraged by the bad news, Mr. Gladstone made one of the 
 ablest and most effective speeches he ever delivered in the 
 House of Commons. It still remains in the memory of those 
 who, like the writer, heard it, as on the highest level of 
 his achievements. It was marked by the greatest dignity. 
 There was no trace of resentment or anger. It was at times 
 pathetic in reference to his past efforts to do justice to Ireland. 
 He made it clear that the vote of the House would de- 
 termine the fate of the Government. He was not, how- 
 ever, over-insistent or defiant. He spoke with pride of 
 what he had accomplished for Ireland in the past. There was a 
 serenity in his demeanour and language which I had not 
 observed in previous speeches. It seemed to be inspired by the 
 well-known lines : 
 
 " Virtus repulsas nescia sordidae 
 Intaminatis fulget honoribus." 
 
 He made it clear, not so much by words as by manner and 
 expression, that if the verdict was against him he would 
 retire from power without misgiving or regret^ 
 
 It may be doubted whether this admirable speech changed 
 any considerable number of votes — at all events not a sufficient 
 number. When the division was called the Government 
 was defeated on the hostile motion by a majority of 3 — 287 to 
 284 — and the Bill was rejected. Thirty-five of the usual Irish 
 supporters of the Government voted against it, twenty-five of 
 whom were Cathohcs and ten were Protestants. Of eighty-three 
 Irish Members who were present only fifteen voted with the 
 Government. The measure, therefore, was rejected by an over- 
 whelming majority of the Irish Members. It could not have 
 been proceeded with even if the majority of Members for Great 
 Britain had been sufficient to carry it. 
 
 The Bill passed into limbo. Thirtyrfive years elapsed before 
 Parhament finaJly dealt with this question. Mr. Birrell, in 
 
THE IRISH UNIVERSITY BILL 57 
 
 1908, with the general consent of all parties in the House of 
 Commons, succeeded in passing a measure of University reform 
 in Ireland. 
 
 After the adverse vote in the House of Commons, Mr. Glad- 
 stone brought the matter before the Cabinet. They acted on 
 his advice and authorized him to tender their resignation as a 
 body to the Queen. Mr. DisraeU was sent for, but he declined 
 to take office and to form a Government. *' He could not," 
 he said, " carry on the government in face of a House of 
 Commons, where the majority was so adverse to him, and he 
 could not £Lsk for the dissolution of Parhament upon a question 
 where there was no direct issue which could be laid before the 
 electors." In the end, after some further corres|X)ndence 
 through the Queen, Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues resumed 
 office — most unwiUingly, so far as the Prime Minister was 
 concerned, for he said that past experience had shown that 
 Governments resuming office, after defeat and resignation, 
 had never enjoyed a healthy existence. His anticipations, it 
 will be seen, were reahzed. Little was done in the remainder 
 of that Session. The most important measure carried was 
 that of Mr. Fawcett for relieving Trinity College of Tests in 
 respect of its scholarships and fellowships — a measure which 
 converted it into an unsectarian institution, but which, in fact, 
 made hardly any difference in its future personnel and in- 
 fluence. It should also here be stated that in 1872 the Ballot 
 Act passed into law, after a year's delay, due to its rejection 
 in the previous year by the House of Lords. It will be seen 
 that while it did not much affect the result of the next General 
 Election in Great Britain, it was fraught with enormous con- 
 sequencesin Ireland. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE HOME RULE MOVEMENT — 187O-8 
 
 IN 1870 a new movement arose in Ireland in favour of 
 self-government, known as Home Rule, a phrase most 
 happily devised by an eminent Professor of Trinity! 
 College, Dublin, Mr. Gplbraith, a Conservative in politics, 
 who had recently been converted to the national cause. It was 
 not on party lines. It was supported by many weU-known 
 landowners, and others of the dominant class in Ireland, 
 even in the Province of Ulster, and was due in part to their loss 
 of confidence in the Imperial ParUament, and to disaffection 
 arising from the Disestablishment of the Protestant Church, 
 or from the Land legislation then under discussion. The chief 
 exponent of the new policy was Mr. Isaac Butt, who was to 
 play a most important part in the Parliament of 1874-9 as 
 Leader of the Irish Party. 
 
 Bom in 1815, Isaac Butt was the son of a Protestant clergy- 
 man in Donegal. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, 
 where he had a most distinguished career. In 1838 he was 
 called to the Bar and met with such rapid success, that two 
 years later he was selected by the Corporation of Dublin, 
 then under the control of the Protestant Ascendancy Party, to 
 represent them in their petition against the Irish Municipal 
 Reform Bill before Parhament. He appeared on their behalf 
 at the Bar of the House of Lords, and made a speech conspicu- 
 ous for its fire and abihty. It led to his being elected an 
 Alderman by the Corporation. When, three years later, 
 after ^he reform of the Corporation, O'ConneU was elected 
 Lord Mayor of Dublin, and brought before its Council his 
 celebrated motion for the repeal of the Act of Union, which 
 inaugurated his great Repeal agitation, Butt undertook the 
 leading part in opposition to him, in a speech worthy of the 
 occasion, and of his great antagonist. O'ConneU was much 
 
 58 
 
THE HOME RULE MOVEMENT, 1870-8 59 
 
 struck by the speech. He recognized that behind the powerful 
 argument of the advocate there was a latent sympathy for 
 the national cause, and he predicted that the time would 
 not be distant, when Butt would be found ranged on the side 
 of the cause which he then opposed. Butt was made a King's 
 Counsel, after only six years of work at the Bar. His reputation 
 was such that his political opponents were glad to avail 
 themselves of his advocacy. He was retained as counsel by 
 most of the Young Ireland Party, who were prosecuted, in 
 1848, for their abortive attempt at insurrection. He defended 
 Smith O'Brien, Meagher, John Martin, and O'Doherty. The 
 earnestness, patriotism, and devotion to the national cause 
 *of these men made a great impression on their advocate. 
 
 In the General Election of 1852 Butt was returned as a 
 Conservative Member for Youghal, which he continued to re- 
 present imtil 1865. He did not, however, make any mark 
 during these thirteen years of his first essay in Parhamentary 
 life. It was indeed unfortunate for him that his attendance 
 in the House of Commons withdrew him so much from his 
 practice at the Irish Bar, at a critical period of his professional 
 hfe. He was exposed in London to temptations which he 
 could not resist. He was most reckless in expenditure. His 
 purse was always most generously open to demands on it from 
 needy or suffering friends, even when it was at a very low ebb. 
 He contracted debts from which he was never able to free 
 himself during the rest of his life. In 1864, he ceased to attend 
 the House of Commons, and did not seek re-election in the 
 General Election of 1865. He returned to work at the Bar in 
 Dublin, where he soon regained a lucrative practice and was 
 recognized as the leading man in the Irish Courts. 
 
 Butt was again employed, between 1865 and 1868, as counsel 
 by many of the Fenians prosecuted by the Government for 
 the abortive conspiracy, and was again deeply impressed by 
 the patriotic fervour and honesty of their convictions. From 
 this time Butt was graduaUy drawn to the national cause. He 
 took the leading part in favour of an amnesty for the Fenian 
 convicts. He devoted also much labour and time to the 
 claims of the tenants in Ireland for greater security of tenure. 
 His numerous and weighty writings on this subject did much to 
 promote the legislation of 1870, and later to expose its defects. 
 
 In 1870 Butt declared himself in favour of Home Rule for 
 
60 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Ireland on the federal basis, and at once became the recognized 
 leader of the movement. He was well equipped for the position. 
 No speaker on the public platform, since O'Connell, had a 
 greater command over an audience. His speeches were 
 persuasive and sympathetic. They teemed with himiour and 
 wit, and with passages of genuine pathos. They were made 
 attractive by a voice of singular musical tone. In appear- 
 ance he was of the same type as O'Connell, of robust presence 
 and open and attractive expression. His Parhamentary 
 knowledge and experience were great ; his power of debate 
 was recognized as inferior only to that of Mr. Gladstone. No 
 one had a greater knowledge of the constitutional and legal 
 questions which he dealt with. 
 
 The Home Rule Movement was started at a meeting of 
 leading merchants and professional men at Dublin, sixty in 
 number, of whom one half were Protestants and Conservatives, 
 the other half men of opposite pohtics, from Whig Catholics to 
 extreme Nationalists and even Fenians. It was unanimously 
 agreed to form an association, for the purpose of obtaining 
 for Ireland the right and privilege of managing its own affairs, 
 by a Parliament assembled in Ireland, leaving to the Imperial 
 Parliament the power of deahng with all questions affecting the 
 Empire, its relations with foreign States, and the defences of 
 the country. The new movement was not favoured, in the 
 first instance, by the Catholic Church. The Freeman's Journal 
 opposed it. The Association, however, made rapid progress, 
 and was welcomed in every part of Ireland. It soon made 
 its influence felt in the by-elections. In 1871 four such elections 
 took place in the coimties of Meath and Westmeath, and in the 
 cities of Galway and Limerick. In all of them Members were 
 returned pledged to the new pohcy of Home Rule. Butt 
 himself was retiumed for Limerick. In 1872, two more by- 
 elections of great importance took place for the counties 
 of Kerry and Galway. Lord Kenmare, in Kerry, and Lord 
 Clanricarde, in Galway, were members of Whig families, 
 which had an almost recognized claim to nominate repre- 
 sentatives in these counties. Candidates in their interest 
 were put forward and received the support of the whole 
 landed interest in their districts, both Liberal and Tory. 
 Independent candidates were brought forward by the Home 
 Rule Association — in the case of Galway, Captain Nolan, 
 
THE HOME RULE MOVEMENT, 1870-8 61 
 
 and in Kerry, Mr. Blennerhassett. Captain Nolan was elected 
 by a majority of four to one in spite of the whole landlord 
 interest. Mr. Blennerhassett was returned by a majority of 
 over 700, after a fierce contest, in which all the landlords, 
 the CathoUc Bishop of the Diocese, Dr. Moriarty, and even the 
 O'Connell family supported his opponent, a well-known and 
 highly respected Catholic Whig. It was considered a victory 
 equal in significance to that in the county of Clare, in 
 O'Connell's time, which was the turning-point of Cathohc 
 Emancipation^. 
 
 Inspired by these successes and by many other evidences 
 of the trend of public opinion in Ireland, it was decided, in 
 1873, to summon a Home Rule Conference representative 
 of the whole of Ireland. The requisition for it was signed 
 by 24,000 persons from every part of the country. It was 
 attended by 900 delegates, including a large contingent froni 
 Ulster. Men of all parties and rehgions gave it a national 
 character, which had been wanting in the meetings held by 
 O'Connell. 
 
 The Conference was presided over by Mr. WiUiam Shaw, 
 a well-known Cork banker. Isaac Butt was the principal 
 speaker at this great meeting at the Rotunda. A passage 
 from his speech on the occasion explains the motives, which 
 led him to head this movement, and is a good illustration of 
 his eloquence : " Mr. Gladstone has said that Fenianism taught 
 him the intensity of Irish disaffection. It taught me more and 
 better things — the breadth, the sincerity of that love of Father- 
 land, that misgovemment had tortured into disaffection and 
 had exaggerated into revolt. State trials were not new to me. 
 Twenty years before I stood near Smith O'Brien, when he 
 braved the sentence of death, which the law pronounced upon 
 him. I saw Meagher meet the same sentence, and then asked 
 myself this : ' Surely the State is out of joint, surely all our 
 social system is unhinged, when O'Brien and Meagher are con- 
 demned by their country to a traitor's doom.'. . . Years 
 passed away, and once more I stood by men who had dared 
 this desperate enterprise of freeing their country by revolt. 
 They were men who were run down by obloquy ; they had 
 been branded as the enemies of religion and social order. I 
 saw them manfully bear up against all. I saw the unflinching 
 finnness by which they testified the sincerity of their faith 
 
62 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 in that cause — their deep conviction of its righteousness and 
 truth. I saw them meet their fate with a manly fatalism that 
 made them martyrs. ... I asked myself again : ' Is there 
 no way to arrest this ? Are our best and bravest spirits ever 
 to be carried away, under this S5rstem of constantly resisted 
 oppression and constantly defeated revolt ? Can we find the 
 means by which the national quarrel which has led to all 
 these terrible results may be set aside ? I believe in my 
 conscience we have found it. I beheve that England has 
 now the opportimity of adjusting the quarrel of centuries." 
 
 The essential feature, he said, of the Home Rule scheme 
 was the maintenance of the connection between the two 
 countries, and the full representation of Ireland in the Imperial 
 Parliament, while securing to it the control of its own affairs 
 in an Irish Assembly. " I prefer our federal proposal, not only 
 because it gives better security for the connection between the 
 two countries, Ireland and Great Britain, better security 
 against the arising of occasions to disturb their amity, but I 
 prefer it even on grounds which are more particularly Irish." 
 He insisted on the complete and undiminished participation 
 of Irish representatives in the Empire. Without federation 
 Ireland would have no part in the vast colonial system. 
 
 A resolution in favour of Home Rule, in this sense, was 
 carried unanimously with great enthusiasm. It was decided 
 that an Irish Party should be formed, independent of all 
 other parties, and pledged not to take office till their objects 
 were attained. An attempt was made to carry unity of action 
 yet further, and a motion was proposed that a Committee 
 should be appointed by the Irish Members to control their 
 action in the House of Commons ; that the Irish Members 
 should always vote in a body, or abstain from voting, as the 
 majority of them should direct ; and that no Bill should be 
 introduced, or motion made, without the consent of the 
 majority. This was opposed by Butt. He declared that 
 he would betray his own principles, his dignity, his personal 
 honour and personal honesty, if he gave a pledge that he would 
 submit his future conduct to the absolute control of any 
 tribunal on earth, except his own conscience. He thought 
 they would find that every high-minded man would shrink 
 from pledging himself to act in accordance with the decision 
 of a majority, no matter what the decision might be. The 
 
THE HOME RULE MOVEMENT, 1870-8 68 
 
 motion obtained little support in the large assembly. Dis- 
 cussion arose as to the poUcy of obstruction in the House of 
 Commons. On this Mr. Butt said : " Even if they were ready 
 to act on the principle of universal obstruction, that policy 
 ought not to be avowed. The power was one that was lost 
 in the declaration that it would be used. Extreme cases might 
 justify such a pohcy of obstruction. If ever they did, ob- 
 struction would probably be carried on in other and more 
 decided ways." These passages from Mr. Butt's speeches at 
 this great Conference have been quoted because they show 
 how widely his policy differed from that of his successor in 
 the leadership of the Irish Party, Mr. Pamell. 
 
 In January, 1874, shortly before the date when it was 
 expected Parhament would meet, Mr. Gladstone suddenly 
 made up his mind to dissolve it, and to appeal to the con- 
 stituencies for a new lease of power for his Government. 
 The debate on the Irish University Bill, in the previous Session, 
 had weakened its position in the House of Commons. Several 
 by-elections had gone against the Liberal Party. Mr. Glad- 
 stone felt that his Government had no longer a sufficient 
 momentum to carry any considerable measure. He deter- 
 mined, therefore, to appeal to the country, and to claim 
 renewal of confidence mainly on financial grounds. The state 
 of the revenue, resulting from great prosperity in trade, 
 assisted by economies in the great spending Departments, the 
 Army and Navy, would enable the abohtion of the Income 
 Tax, a reduction in the taxes on articles of consumption, and a 
 large subvention to local rates. He made this the main topic 
 of his electoral address. 
 
 In Ireland, however, the sole issue before the electors in the 
 General Election which then ensued was that of Home Rule. 
 It was the first occasion on which an election took place 
 under the recent Ballot Act ; and though the franchise in Ireland 
 was still very limited in the Counties, as compared with 
 England, and though many very corrupt small Boroughs still 
 returned Members, there was a better chance than ever before 
 of the popular will making itself known. The General Election, 
 however, came upon the Home Rule Association as a thief 
 in the night. They were taken by siuprise and they were 
 almost destitute of funds. They had not completed their 
 organization. Their leader, Mr. Butt, was himself at the 
 
64 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 lowest ebb of his finances. He was, in fact, arrested for debt 
 on the very day that the Dissolution of Parliament was 
 announced ; and though he was able to come to some arrange- 
 ment, under which he was released from prison, he was obhged 
 to avoid other Irish creditors by flight to England, and was 
 therefore unable to take an active personal part in the electoral 
 contests, such as was to be expected of a leader. 
 
 In spite of all these difficulties, so great was the strength 
 of the popular movement that 60 out of the 103 Irish Members 
 were returned to the new Parliament pledged to the policy of 
 Home Rule. Of the remaining 43, 12 were Whigs not com- 
 mitted to this pohcy, and only 31 were Conservatives. The 
 result was even more fatal to the old Whig Party in Ireland 
 than to the Conservatives. Among the defeated candidates 
 was Mr. Chichester Fortescue, who had represented for 
 twenty-seven years the County of Louth. This made a pro- 
 found impression. The Home Rule Party, thus returned, in- 
 cluded not a few old Members, who swallowed the pledge, when 
 they found that they could not be re-elected without it, but 
 who were anything but ardent supporters of the cause. Later 
 they were classed as " nominal Home Rulers." They were 
 seldom to be found in the Lobby with their party. Mr. Butt 
 was again returned for Limerick, and Sir John Gray, Mr. 
 Mitchell Henry, Mr. William Shaw, and Mr. John Martin were 
 elected. Amongst other new Members who distinguished 
 themselves later in the national cause were Mr. A. M. SuUivan, 
 Mr. Richard Power, Mr. Shiel, and Mr. Biggar. They formed 
 the nucleus of the national party, which later under Mr. Pamell 
 swept four-fifths of the Irish constituencies. It may be taken 
 that of the sixty Members returned as Home Rulers, not more 
 than one-half were to be relied upon by Mr. Butt as his followers. 
 Most of the other thirty, however, were present at a Conference 
 of Home Rule Members held at Dublin immediately after the 
 elections, at which the Parliamentary Party was constituted. 
 Whips were appointed, and a resolution was unanimously 
 adopted, at the instance of Mr. Butt, affirming their inde- 
 pendence of other poUtical parties in the House of Commons. 
 
 The effect of the resolution, however, w£is much weakened 
 by the refusal of the Conference of 1873, at the instance of Mr. 
 Butt, to enforce combined action of the Home Rule Members, 
 in the sense that a majority of them were to bind the minority 
 
THE HOME RUUE MOVEMENT, 1870-8 65 
 
 and that no action was to be taken in the House of Commons 
 by any independent Members, without the sanction of the 
 majority. The subsequent poHcy of the Home Rule and the 
 Nationsdist Party showed that without such concerted action, 
 and the submission of all to the will of the majority, the 
 party would be Uttle better than a rope of sand, would have 
 no cohesive strength, and would be ineffective for any purpose 
 as against the combined forces of the two main parties in the 
 House of Commons. This was undoubtedly the experience 
 of the six years of the ParUament of 1874-9, during which 
 Butt was for a short time the real head, and later the nominal 
 head of the Home Rule Party in it. The leader of such a party 
 had great difficulty in keeping it together. He had nothing to 
 offer in the way of immediate or prospective ofl&ce or honours. 
 The party tie was a very loose one. On rare occasions only 
 were its members found voting together. Practically nothing 
 was effected by Butt and his supporters. No legislation 
 whatever, of any importance, was carried through Parhament 
 to meet the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the 
 Irish people, and no advance was made towards converting 
 English and Scotch opinion to the principle of Home Rule for 
 Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Butt was over sixty years of age. His health, already the 
 worse for some years of self-indulgence, was further impaired 
 by the great efforts he had to imdergo in carrying on his heavy 
 business in the Law Courts in Dublin, and at the same time 
 in leading the Home Rule Party in the House of Commons, 
 and taking part in frequent debates. This involved incessant 
 and fatiguing travelling between the two capitals. It seemed 
 also to the writer that Mr. Butt, during this time, though 
 immeasurably superior to all others of his party, in Parha- 
 mentary qualification, was physically unable to cope with 
 the powers arrayed against him as O'Connell had done. He 
 Was too deferential in his manner to the House. He did not 
 stand up to his opponents. He was essentially of a conservative 
 type of mind, a ParUamentarian, with great respect for the 
 traditions of the House of Commons. He hoped to attain the 
 objects of his party by persuasive argument, and by gaining, 
 for himself and his followers, the confidence of their opponents. 
 There was never any prospect of success for such a policy. 
 The leadership of the forces by which alone an impression 
 
 S 
 
66 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 could be produced, fell, as the sequel showed, to younger, 
 stronger, more daring, and less scrupulous hands. 
 
 The result of the elections in Great Britain had been very 
 different from that in Ireland. While the Conservatives succeeded 
 in retaining only 31 out of 103 Irish seats, they obtained in 
 England and Scotland a majority of nearly 100, sufficient to 
 outvote the majority of the Irish Members by 60. The great 
 work of Mr. Gladstone's Government diuing the previous 
 five years, now admitted by all historians to have been one 
 of the most capable and best of all Governments in the century, 
 seemed to count for little with the British electors. The 
 two great Irish Acts did not interest them. An Education 
 Act, which established a national system of education for 
 England and Wales, beneficent as it was, alienated a large 
 section of Nonconformists — the backbone of the Liberal 
 Party. An abortive measure, for reducing the number of 
 licensed houses, lashed the brewers and publicans into fury, 
 and led to unlimited supplies of drink during the elections. 
 The rigid economies enforced by Mr. Gladstone were locally 
 unpopular. His foreign policy of peace and abstention from 
 intervention, and particidarly his agreement with the United 
 States Government to refer their claims for the depredations 
 of the Confederate cruisers to arbitration, caused resentment 
 to large classes of swashbucklers. It was claimed by Lord 
 Salisbury that the great increase in the hquor bill of the 
 nation was caused by the desire to drown in drink the 
 humiliation of the surrender to the American claims, and the 
 mot had a wide circulation. 
 
 As a result of these combined influences, the Government 
 was defeated by a large majority in Great Britain. Mr. Glad- 
 stone and his colleagues, without waiting for the meeting of 
 Parliament, accepted the verdict and resigned office. Mr. 
 Gladstone himself, a short time later, withdrew from the 
 leadership of the Liberal Party, under the belief that he had 
 reached an age when he could not look forward to another spell 
 of office — so little did he anticipate the future. Mr. Disraeli 
 was commissioned by the Queen to form a Government. He 
 did so without any programme of future policy, other than 
 that of antagonism to the Government which he had displaced. 
 Lord Hartington was elected by the Liberals as their leader in 
 the House of Commons. 
 
THE HOME RULE MOVEMENT, 1870-8 67 
 
 As regards Ireland, its position was this. It had returned 
 a majority in favour of Home Rule, and a still larger majority 
 against the Conservative Party. A Government was installed 
 at Dublin, with Sir Michael Hicks-Beach (now Lord St. Aldwyn) 
 as Chief Secretary (not in the Cabinet), responsible in no way 
 to the majority of the Irish people, but to a small minority in 
 that country — a position which was certain to create dis- 
 content and disaffection. 
 
 At the opening of the new ParUament, Butt made haste to 
 raise the question of Home Rule for Ireland in an amendment 
 on the address. He was answered by Mr. Gladstone, who 
 advised the Irish Members, before insisting on a great con- 
 stitutional change, to bring forward in the House of Commons 
 their measures to remedy the evils they complained of, and 
 promised them an attentive consideration. The motion was 
 defeated by 314 to 50. 
 
 Nothing daunted by this rebuff, Butt, later in the Session, 
 raised the question again by a more formal motion. His speech 
 on the occasion was the best he ever dehvered in the House of 
 Commons — ^persuasive, argmnentative, and with full knowledge 
 of the history of Ireland, and of the constitutional and ad- 
 ministrative questions involved in his proposal. To the 
 charge that Home Rulers were imgrateful to Mr. Gladstone for 
 his great measures of the previous Parhament, he declared 
 that it was only when Ireland could be made useful for party 
 purposes, that Irish questions were taken up by Enghsh states- 
 men. The motion led to a two nights' debate in which Lord 
 Hartington, who had been Chief Secretary for Ireland in the 
 Gladstone Government, took a leading part against it. Mr. 
 Disraeh in reply, at the end of the debate, made a most amusing 
 speech. He did not affect to treat the subject seriously. He 
 bantered the Irish Members for having complained of being a 
 conquered country. " I deny," he said, " that the Irish people 
 are conquered ; they are proud of it ; I deny that they have 
 any ground for that pride." The Normans, he said, had 
 conquered Ireland, but only after they had conquered England. 
 Cromwell had conquered Ireland, but only after he had con- 
 quered England. It was only in the last few sentences that 
 he became serious. " I oppose the motion," he said, " because 
 I think involved in it are the highest and dearest interests of 
 the country. I am opposed to it for the sake of the Irish them- 
 
68 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 selves, as much as for the sake of the English and the Scotch. 
 I am opposed to it because I wish to see, at this important 
 crisis of the world, that is perhaps nearer arriving than some of 
 us suppose, a united people, welded in one nationality ; and 
 because I feel that if we sanction this pohcy, if we do not cleanse 
 the Parliamentary besom of this perilous stuff, we shall bring 
 about the disintegration of the Kingdom and the destruction 
 of the Empire." The motion was rejected by a large majority, 
 only sixty-one members voting for it, of whom only forty-two 
 were from Ireland. The constitutional claim of Ireland, 
 therefore, was not a strong one, for a majority of its members 
 did not declare themselves by their votes in favour of the 
 pohcy. 
 
 Mr. Disraeh, by his humorous banter, gave the cue to the 
 House of Commons for the treatment of Home Rule and other 
 Irish questions, during the remainder of that Parliament. 
 They were to be met with ridicule rather than argument. 
 Butt himself was not taken seriously thenceforward. In 
 vain he renewed his motion for Home Rule, session after session. 
 He made no advance, but rather lost ground. In vain also 
 he and his followers raised the question of Land Reform, 
 the defects of the Act of 1870, and the growing difficulties of 
 the tenants in Ireland. In vain his followers introduced 
 Bills on subjects of deep interest to their country. The motions 
 or Bills without exception were rejected or put aside. Public 
 opinion in Ireland was disheartened, and was withdrawn 
 from the Home Rule policy. The party in the House of Com- 
 mons was discouraged and disorganized. The less earnest 
 among them fell off from the cause, and lapsed into Whiggery. 
 The more ardent among them took more violent courses, 
 under the leadership of stronger men. It was admitted, after 
 three years of trial, that with all his great Parhamentary 
 quahfications, his efforts and his sacrifices, Butt's leadership 
 was a failure. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 OBSTRUCTION IN PARLIAMENT 
 
 ON the 23rd of April, 1875, when a Coercion Bill was 
 under discussion in the House of Commons, the only 
 legislative proposal for Ireland of the new Govern- 
 ment, two incidents occurred which had important bearing on 
 the future course of Irish pohtics. Charles Stewart Pamell took 
 his seat in the House, for the first time, as Member for the 
 County of Meath, and Joseph Gillis Biggar made his d^but 
 there, in a speech — if indeed it could be designated as such — 
 four hours in length, of pure obstruction to the Bill under dis- 
 cussion. It was difficult to imagine two men differing more 
 in their physical appearance, their antecedents, temperament, 
 and capabilities ; yet they were destined to be closely associated, 
 during the next few years, in a new and mihtant pohcy in 
 Parhament, which soon superseded the constitutional methods 
 of Butt. Pamell was then a young man of twenty-eight years, 
 tall and hthe, exceptionally handsome, with a palhd, delicate, 
 and intellectual countenance, of American rather than English 
 type. He came of most distinguished stock. The Pamells 
 were a Protestant family of piure English descent. Natives 
 of Congleton, in Cheshire, they had settled in Ireland in the 
 time of the later Stuarts. They were distinguished there as 
 statesmen, lawyers, and poets. A Sir John Pamell was for 
 seventeen years Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Irish 
 Parliament before the Act of Union. He was compelled to 
 resign this post because he could not give his support to that 
 measure. His eldest son rose to high office in the British 
 Parliament, in the Ministries of Lord Grey and Lord Melbovime, 
 and was made a peer under the title of Congleton. The second 
 son of Sir John inherited the small but very picturesque 
 property of Avondale, in the Coimty of Wicklow, together 
 with other landed property, and was grandfather to Charles 
 
 69 
 
70 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Pamell. His mother was daughter of Admiral Stewart, of the 
 American Navy, better known as Commodore Stewart, who, 
 when in command of the Constitution, in the war against 
 England of 1815, fought and captured the two British vessels 
 of war, the Cyane and the Levant. His dauntless courage and 
 determination in this and other naval combats earned him 
 the nickname of " Old Ironsides." 
 
 Charles Pamell inherited the intellectual qualities of his 
 father's race, and much of the dogged courage and inflexible 
 will of the American Admiral. There had been little, however, 
 up to the date of his entering Parliament, to indicate any 
 promise of distinction. His career at the University of 
 Cambridge had been cut short by the authorities, on account 
 of his complicity in a petty street brawl. His biographer, Mr. 
 Barry O'Brien, and Mr. F. H. O'Donnell, who was closely 
 associated with him in his early career in the House of Com- 
 mons, agree in saying that he was almost totally ignorant of 
 Irish history. He had, however, a turn for mathematics, 
 and interested himself greatly in mechanical and engineering 
 questions. 
 
 After leaving Cambridge he paid a long visit to a brother 
 in the United States, and on his return settled at Avondale, 
 where he lived, for a few years, as an Irish landowner of small 
 income, hunting and shooting, and taking part in cricket matches 
 like his neighbours. His mother and sisters hved in Dublin, 
 and were strong Nationalists, with close relations to some of 
 the Fenian leaders. There is no reason to believe that Pamell 
 himself was associated with the same cause. His sympathies, 
 however, were strongly enhsted on behalf of the amnesty 
 agitation. In 1874, he joined in the movement inaugurated 
 by Butt for Home Rule, and became a member of the Home 
 Rule League. He wanted to come forward as a candidate 
 for his County of Wicklow in the General Election of 1874. 
 But he was High Sheriff for the County in that year, and the 
 Irish Government refused to allow him to resign the post. 
 He was therefore disqualified. Later, at a by-election in 
 1875, he contested the County of Dublin against Colonel 
 Taylor, the Chief Whip of the Tory Party, and was beaten 
 by a great majority, after a severe and costly contest, in which 
 he showed Uttle capacity for public speaking. In April of 
 the same year another vacancy occurred in the County of 
 
OBSTRUCTION IN PARLIAMENT 71 
 
 Meath, and at the instance of Butt, as leader of the Irish 
 Party, Pamell was invited to become a candidate. He was 
 elected without opposition. Few men have ever embarked 
 on a career of pubhc pohtics with less equipment of pohtical 
 knowledge and experience, and with less expectation or promise 
 of what proved to be his future. 
 
 Compared with Pamell, Biggar had Httle in his appearance 
 to commend him to notice. He was very short in stature, 
 partly owing to his being a hunchback. He had a harsh and 
 grating brogue, such as is common with the labouring people 
 in Belfast. He had difficulty in stringing words together. 
 A native of Belfast, he had, by great industry, rigid economy, 
 and financial capacity, reahzed a considerable fortune as a 
 provision merchant, but he continued to five in penurious 
 style. He had shown great pugnacity in the local affairs of 
 Belfast. He was a kind of stormy petrel there, and roused 
 violent animosities. He was a good hater, especially of his 
 political opponents. He was at one time a member of the 
 Supreme Coiul of the Irish Repubhcan Party, the Fenian 
 Organization, and had taken the oath of that Association ; 
 but he had been expelled by that body shortly after entering 
 the House of Conamons. He was a convert to the Roman 
 Cathohc faith. 
 
 Biggar was first returned to the House of Commons, in 1874, 
 as Member for the County of Cavan. He very early showed 
 that he had no respect for its traditions and conventions. He 
 was absolutely fearless, and was imdaunted by the hostile 
 demonstrations, which his rough language and rude manners 
 roused against him. One of his first essays was to call atten- 
 tion to the presence of strangers in the Gallery of the House, 
 on an occasion when the then Prince of Wales was present. 
 This led, under the then rules of the House, to the Prince 
 having to leave the Gallery with other strangers. A storm of 
 indignation was aroused. It resulted in the immediate repeal 
 of the absurd and obsolete rule of the House, under which 
 strangers, including members of the Press reporting the 
 debates, were present only on sufferance, and so long as no 
 single Member of the House objected. 
 
 In my personal recollection Biggar was regarded by a 
 great majority of Members, in the early days of his member- 
 ship, as a kind of mischievous imp, who alternately shocked 
 
72 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 and amused by his insolent audacity. Later his fighting 
 qualities gained for him a more general respect, and it was 
 recognized that beneath his rugged and uncouth exterior, 
 there was a kind and even generous heart. There never was 
 a more loyal or more disinterested colleague to those who 
 worked with him. His first great opportimity of showing 
 his aptitude for obstruction arose in the debate on the Irish 
 Coercion Bill, in 1875. His leader, Mr. Butt, wishing, for some 
 reason, to protract the discussion, asked Biggar to fill up a gap 
 in the debate. He was fully equal to the occasion. Rising 
 from the Irish bench, he spoke continuously for four hours. 
 There happened in this case what was quite unique in the 
 record of debates in the House of Commons. In Hansard's 
 report, instead of Biggar's speech, more or less condensed, 
 there is a humorous narrative of the general effect of his 
 grotesque proceedings and incoherent utterance. 
 
 It appears that early in his career in the House of Commons, 
 Biggar had formed the opinion that Butt's constitutional 
 method of presenting the Irish case for Home Rule and of 
 advocating Irish reforms was futile, and could lead to no results. 
 " Butt's a fool," he is reported to have said, " too gentlemanly 
 — we're all too gentlemanly. The English stop our Bills. 
 Why don't we stop theirs ? That's the thing to do. No Irish 
 Bills ! Then stop Enghsh Bills. That's the policy. We'll 
 never do any good imtil we take an intelligent interest in 
 Enghsh affairs." It was not, however, till the beginning of the 
 Session of 1877 that he was able to influence Pamell, and 
 some half a dozen of the more advanced section of the Irish 
 Members, in favour of a concerted movement in this direction. 
 
 In the first two years after his election, in 1875, Pamell 
 had rarely spoken in the House of Commons. In 1877, how- 
 ever, he came rapidly to the front. Mr. F. H. O'Donnell, the 
 able journalist who has published his reminiscences of that 
 time, claims that he was largely concerned in influencing 
 Pamell in favour of a more active policy in the House of 
 Commons. His proposal was that the Irish Members should 
 take a leading part in Enghsh and Imperial questions of all 
 kinds, and should not as theretofore confine themselves to 
 Irish questions. They should, in his view, " endeavour to 
 associate the Irish cause with as many other good causes 
 and righteous demands as possible, in order to oppose a mighty 
 
OBSTRUCTION IN PARLIAMENT 78 
 
 confederation of the wronged against the iniquities which 
 oppressed Ireland. They should show a restless activity 
 and should concentrate on a retahatory and constructive 
 propaganda." ^ 
 
 Pamell, in the past two years, had been closely watching 
 the proceedings of the House of Commons in respect of Irish 
 affairs ; he had come to the conclusion that Butt's pohcy 
 was a failure, and that it was hopeless to expect any results 
 from it. He is reported to have said to an Irish Member 
 about this time : 
 
 "It is not by smooth speeches that we can get anjrthing 
 done in the House of Commons. We must show that we mean 
 business. They are a great deal too comfortable in this 
 House, and the Enghsh are a great deal too comfortable every- 
 where." And again : " If we are to have ParUamentary action 
 it must not be the action of concihation, but of retahation." 
 
 Three measures of the Government, in 1877, offered a wide 
 scope for the intervention of Irish Members in debate and 
 discussion of details, whether with the object of obstruction, 
 or of constructive propaganda — ^namely, the Prisons Bill of 
 that year, the Annual Mutiny Bill, and the Bill for the Con- 
 federation of the South African Colonies. Pamell threw 
 himself into the work with the utmost energy and zeal. He 
 speedily developed debating power of a very exceptional and 
 unexpected kind. He showed great faculties of searching 
 criticism and lucid statement, and great abihty in rapidly 
 cramming himself with facts, sufficient to enable him to 
 take part in detailed criticism. Not more than six or seven 
 other Irish Members joined with him in this new movement. 
 His principal aids were O'Donnell, on the one hand, always 
 fertile in suggestion, and ready with amendments, and full of 
 knowledge on subjects of which Pamell was totally ignorant, 
 and Biggar, bent on pure obstruction, incapable of any sus- 
 tained and intelligible argimient, but always ready to fill up 
 a gap in debate with prolonged and incoherent speeches. 
 Every measure under charge of a Minister was systematically 
 obstructed in this way, and day after day motions for adjourn- 
 ment were made, or personal questions were raised, with the 
 object of making the conduct of business as difficult and pro- 
 tracted as possible. It was said of Biggar that he propoimded 
 
 * O'Donnell's History of the Irish Parliamentary Party, I, p. 180. 
 
74 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 and acted upon a gospel of obstruction under the following 
 heads : (i) To speak only in the time set apart for the Govern- 
 ment. (2) To aid any independent Member in expending the 
 time of the Government. (3) When he saw a Government 
 Bill to block it. (4) When he saw a raw of any kind in the 
 proceedings of the Government to rub it. (5) Always to 
 give way to any Enghsh or Scotch Member who had anything 
 to say which the Government wished unsaid. 
 
 Pamell assisted in this policy by his fertihty of resource in 
 raising subjects of debate, and moving amendments, which 
 could not be dubbed irrelevant, but which gave rise to dis- 
 cussions more or less prolonged. Some of his amendments to 
 the Prisons Bill were of real value, especially those relating 
 to the treatment of pohtical prisoners. One of them which 
 he succeeded in carrying was that persons convicted of sedi- 
 tious libel should be treated as first-class misdemeanants, 
 and not with the severity to which ordinary criminals are 
 subjected. But in many of these, and indeed in all his dis- 
 cussions on these three measures, he gave the impression to 
 the House that he cared httle or nothing for the demerits of 
 the Bills, or the merits of the amendments he proposed, and 
 that he was mainly bent on thwarting the pohcy of the Govern- 
 ment, and making it more difficult for them to carry on their 
 business. It seemed as though the more reasonable an amend- 
 ment, the more he valued it as a means only of occupying time, 
 and of harassing the Government. It was part of his skilful 
 tactics that his interventions were nearly always rational, that 
 they were supported by language of a moderate character, 
 and that he seldom laid himself open to charges of mere 
 frivolous waste of time. He was cool, calm, and business-like, 
 kept to the point, and was rarely aggressive in voice or 
 manner. 
 
 The development of this policy of Parnell and Biggar soon 
 brought them into conflict with the leader of the Irish Party. 
 Butt had great respect for the traditions of the House of 
 Commons, and had no sjnnpathy for a policy of obstruction. 
 In the Conmaittee on the Prisons Bill, on March 26th, 1877, 
 when, after repeated motions for adjournment by a small band 
 of three Irish extremists, the Government was compelled 
 to give way at 3 a.m., Butt, on the suggestion of Sir M. 
 Hicks-Beach, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, rose in his place 
 
OBSTRUCTION IN PARLIAMENT 75 
 
 and rebuked these turbulent members of his party. " I must 
 express," he said, " my disapproval of the course taken by the 
 Hon. Member for Meath. I am not responsible for him and 
 cannot control him. I have, however, a duty to discharge to 
 the Irish nation, and I think I shall discharge it best when I 
 say I disapprove entirely of the conduct of the Hon. Member." 
 Pamell sat calmly, and with a cynical smile, while this reproof 
 was being administered. He attempted no immediate reply. 
 But a few days later a correspondence took place between 
 him and Butt, which appeared in The Freeman's Journal. " I 
 claim in future," wrote the former, " the hberty of action on 
 Imperial and English matters which has hitherto been granted 
 to every member of the party, while I shall continue to follow 
 your lead in regard to Irish questions." In reply Butt dis- 
 sented from this view of the obhgations of a member of the 
 Home Rule Party. He reminded Pamell that the pledge 
 taken was clear and distinct. " I see no objection to your 
 taking part in the debates on Enghsh and Imperial questions, 
 provided only they are bona fide. But it is impossible not 
 to see that your action in the House is conducted as an 
 organized system of obstruction. It must tend to ahenate 
 our truest and best Enghsh friends. It wastes, in aimless and 
 objectless obstruction, time which might be obtained for the 
 discussion of Irish grievances." 
 
 Pamell returned to the charge. " I cannot sympathize 
 with your conclusion as to my duty towards the House of 
 Commons. If Enghshmen insist on the artificial maintenance 
 of an antiquated institution, which can only perform a portion 
 of its functions, by the concurrence of those entrusted with its 
 working, I cannot conceive it my duty to connive in the 
 imperfect performance of them." 
 
 Later in the Session, on July 25th, when the House was in 
 Committee on the South African Bill, after a long course of 
 obstruction on the part of sdme seven or eight Irish Members, 
 under the leadership of Pamell, a violent scene took place, in 
 which Pamell denoimced the Bill as mischievous to the Colo- 
 nies and to the native races of South Africa, and drew a 
 comparison between Ireland and these Colonies. " As an 
 Irishman," he said, " coming from a country which had 
 experienced to its fullest extent the result of British inter- 
 ference in its affairs, and the consequences of Enghsh cruelty 
 
76 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 and tin^anny, I feel a special satisfaction in preventing and 
 thwarting the intentions of the Government in respect of this 
 Bill." 
 
 The Leader of the House, Sir Stafford Northcote, moved 
 that the words be taken down, and that the Speaker should 
 be sent for. After a violent speech in justification from Pamell, 
 Sir Stafford Northcote moved that " Mr. Pamell, having 
 wilfully and persistently obstructed the public business, is 
 guilty of contempt of the House, and that he be suspended 
 from the service of the House till Friday next." It was then, 
 however, pointed out that the motion misdescribed Mr. 
 Pamell's language. He had not declared his interest in thwart- 
 ing the designs of the House, but of the Government. The 
 one would have been obstruction which the House could take 
 notice of ; the other, if reprehensible, was not illegitimate. 
 Sir Stafford Northcote was compelled to withdraw his motion, 
 and Pamell resumed his speech as though the incident had 
 not occurred. Later again, on July 31st, a prolonged conflict 
 occurred between the Government and this small band of 
 Irish Members. It was determined by the former that the 
 Committee stage of the South African Bill should be concluded 
 that night. Pamell, O'Donnell, Biggar, and a few others, seven 
 in all, accepted the challenge and determined to carry on the 
 contest to the very extreme of their power. They succeeded 
 in keeping the Committee at work for twenty-six consecutive 
 hours. It was not till 2 p.m., on the following day, that the 
 last amendment to the Bill was disposed of. The House by 
 that time had filled again, and Sir William Harcourt, on behalf 
 of the main body of Liberals, entered a strong protest against 
 the action of the small band of Irish Members. He quoted 
 from a recent speech of Pamell in Manchester to the effect 
 that " if they are to have a Parhamentary policy it must not 
 be one of concihation but of retaliation." Mr. O'Donnell 
 spoke at length, defending the policy of retahation. " What 
 was wrong about it ? They were only paying the Government 
 back." He spoke for the advanced party in Ireland, and he 
 said if they could not have conciliation, they would have 
 retaliation. Butt thereupon intervened with great warmth. 
 " I deny," he said, " that those who act contrary to the pledges 
 given to the Irish Party are members of that party. I know 
 that the Irish Party repudiate the Member for Dungarvan. 
 
OBSTRUCTION IN PARLIAMENT 77 
 
 I would be false to myself, I would be false to my country, if 
 I did not repudiate him. If I thought he represented the 
 Irish Party, and the 'Irish Party represented my country, 
 which it does not, I would retire from Irish politics, as a vulgar 
 brawl, in which no man could take part with advantage or 
 honour to himself." In the division which followed, the last 
 in this scene, seven Members only, including the Tellers, 
 supported the motion, and the great majority of Irish Members 
 followed Mr. Butt into the Lobby with the Government. 
 
 While these events were occurring which were to disintegrate 
 and niin the then Irish Party, Butt had been quite as active 
 as in previous Sessions in pmrsuit of his pohcy of endeavoiuing 
 to persuade Parhament to concede the Irish demands for self- 
 government, for reform of the Land Laws, and for other Irish 
 measures. On April 24th, an important motion was brought 
 forward, at his instance, by Mr. W. Shaw for a Committee to 
 report on the demands of the Irish people for an Irish Parlia- 
 ment. Butt spoke at length in support of it. The debate was 
 important, as it led to declarations by leaders of the Liberal 
 Party against Home Rule in any shape, namely, Lord Harting- 
 ton, Mr. W. E. Forster, and Mr. Fawcett. Mr. Forster, in his 
 speech, declared that Home Rule was not an open question. 
 Until the House of Commons had become convinced that 
 separation was desirable the question could not be an open one 
 which could be submitted to a Conunittee. His own opinion 
 was that the House of Conunons would never entertain that 
 conviction, and he had a sanguine hope that, year by year, 
 fewer Irish Members would support Home Rule. The motion 
 was defeated by 417 to 67, twelve EngUsh Members voting in 
 the minority. 
 
 Later, Butt himself moved the second reading of an Irish 
 Land Tenure Bill. It proposed perpetuity of tenure to existing 
 tenants, excluding all grazing farms with a rental of over ,^50 
 a year, and those on which the tenant did not reside. Where 
 there was dispute as to rent, the landlord and tenant were to 
 appoint an arbitrator to decide between them. The Bill was 
 rejected by a majority of 323. On April 27th the subject was 
 reopened on a motion of The O'Donoghue that in order to ensure 
 to the Irish tenants the benefits intended by the Act of 1870, 
 it was essential that steps should be taken to prevent the 
 exaction of rents, which virtually confiscated their interest in 
 
78 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 their improvements. It was absolutely necessary, he said, 
 to give further protection to the tenants. Cases occurred 
 where landlords threatened tenants with eviction if they did 
 not assent to what might be in the first instance small increases 
 of rent. He quoted the case of a Mr. Buckley, a Lancashire 
 manufacturer, who bought an estate in Tipperary under the 
 Encumbered Estates Act, at eight years' purchase of the 
 rental, and immediately after increased his rents by loo or 
 150 per cent. Lord Hartington opposed the motion, which 
 was defeated by 189 to 65. 
 
 On June nth Butt made another motion for the appoint- 
 ment of responsible Ministers at the head of the Local Govern- 
 ment Board and the Board of Works in Ireland. He was 
 supported on this occasion by Pamell, who declared that 
 " by the past administration of Irish affairs the Government had 
 set the people of Ireland in direct antagonism to the upper 
 classes and landlords of Ireland." The motion was rejected, 
 as was also another on June 5th on the subject of Irish taxa- 
 tion. The Government majority on this was comparatively 
 narrow — 152 to 118. With the above exception Parnell and 
 his small band of followers took no part in the discussions on 
 the motions of Butt and the main body of the Irish Members. 
 
 It was clear, however, beyond all question that Butt could 
 get nothing from the Government and that his pohcy was a 
 failure. Sir M. Hicks-Beach, one of the ablest and most con- 
 scientious of statesmen who had held the post of Irish Secre- 
 tary, did nothing during his four years of tenure of office 
 to meet the demands of the great majority of the Irish 
 Members. His own contribution to legislation was unim- 
 portant, beyond the extension of the Coercion Act for a term 
 of five years. 
 
CHAPTER VIII 
 
 THE SUPERSESSION OF BUTT 
 
 DURING the year 1877 I personally saw much of Mr. 
 Butt in the House of Commons. Early in this year, 
 after two visits to Ireland, in the course of which I 
 had seen some of the properties of the Disestabhshed Church, 
 whose tenants had been able to purchase their holdings 
 under the Act of 1869, I moved for a Select Committee to 
 inquire into the causes of failure of the Bright clauses of the 
 Land Act of 1870. In this view, I consulted Mr. Butt on the 
 subject. Though he was in favour of my motion, and approved 
 generally of the scheme of purchase of their holdings by 
 tenants, he made no secret of his own view that schemes of 
 this kind were quite inadequate as remedies for the existing 
 state of land tenure in Ireland, and for the grievances of tenants. 
 He maintained that the chief object of Land Reformers in 
 Ireland should be to secure fixity of tenure for the tenants 
 and arbitration of their rents. 
 
 In moving for a Committee I showed that the clauses 
 of the Church DisestabUshment Act had been successfully 
 carried out in respect of the large landed property of the Irish 
 Church, consisting of parochial glebes and episcopal and 
 capitular estates, and that over six thousand tenants had 
 been converted into owners, on the terms that two-thirds 
 of the purchase money was left on mortgage, repayable by 
 equal annual instalments of interest and sinking fimd, spread 
 over a term of years. On the other hand, the purchase clauses 
 of the Land Act had been almost a complete failure. Though 
 great numbers of properties had been sold under the En- 
 cumbered Estates Act, yet their tenants had not been offered 
 any opportunity of purchasing their farms. In the seven years 
 since the passing of the Act only nine hundred tenants had 
 been converted into owners. 
 
 79 
 
80 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 The House after a full debate agreed to my motion, and an 
 important Committee was appointed, including among its 
 members Mr. Butt, and Mr. Bright who was the author of 
 the clauses in the Land Act of 1870. Mr. Plunket, then 
 Solicitor-General for Ireland, and now Lord Rathmore, 
 represented the Government. The Committee elected me as 
 its chairman. The inquiry extended over two Sessions. Mr. 
 Butt took some part in its early proceedings, but later ceased 
 to attend, and in 1878 was not reappointed a member of it. 
 Mr. Bright took a most active part on the Committee. 
 
 The evidence taken by the Committee conclusively proved 
 my contention that no serious effort had been made by the 
 officials of the Court administering the Encumbered Estates 
 Act, and of other Departments of the Government in Dublin, 
 to give effect to the Act. Practically the policy of the Land 
 Act in this respect had been burked by the legal and other 
 officials in Dubhn. 
 
 On the conclusion of the evidence I submitted a draft 
 report to the Committee embodying a full statement of the 
 working of the clauses of the Church Disestabhshment Act, 
 in respect of the conversion of the tenants of the Church 
 property into owners, and of the beneficial results of this policy 
 as already manifest. It pointed out the causes of failure 
 of the Act of 1870. It proposed a number of recommendations 
 for amendment of the Act. It advised an increase in the 
 proportion of the purchase money to be loaned by the State, 
 and a prolongation of the term of repayment. A counter 
 report was propounded on behalf of the Government of a 
 most futile character. It was carried by a bare majority of 
 the Committee in substitution for mine. When, however, the 
 report of the Government was considered in detail, most of my 
 recommendations were grafted upon it by majorities of the 
 Committee, and as finally amended and adopted, it repre- 
 sented in the main my conclusions. In the Session of 1879 I 
 made a motion in the House of Commons affirming the conclu- 
 sions of the Report, and directing the Government to give effect 
 to them as soon as possible. I was supported by a most 
 powerful speech of Mr. Bright, and also by one from Mr. 
 Gladstone. An admirable speech was also made in favour of 
 my motion by Mr. Justin McCarthy, who had been returned 
 as Member for Longford only a few days previously. 
 
THE SUPERSESSION OF BUTT 81 
 
 The Government, in the first instance, was unfriendly to 
 the motion, but the general feeling of the House was so 
 strongly expressed in favour of it, in the course of the debate, 
 that it was compelled to change front, and the motion was 
 ultimately agreed to unanimously. Mr. Pamell and the 
 group of Irish Members associated with him took no part 
 in these discussions and proceedings. 
 
 Reverting to the year 1877, it remains to point out that 
 the annual motion, in favour of an amnesty for the remaining 
 Fenians in convict prisons, was made in the course of this 
 Session by Mr. O'Connor Power. Mr. Butt supported it in an 
 eloquent speech, in which he pointed out that only eight of 
 these men were still in convict prisons, two of whom had 
 been concerned in the release of the prisoners in the Manchester 
 affair, and five were soldiers, who had been convicted of taking 
 part in the conspiracy ; the remaining convict was Michael 
 Davitt, who had been convicted of collecting and distributing 
 fire-arms to Fenians in Ireland, and had been sentenced to 
 fifteen years of penal servitude. The leaders of the movement, 
 including O'Donovan Rossa, had been already released. 
 " Was it wise," Mr. Butt said, " to prolong the exasperation 
 and ill-feeling in Ireland, and to imdo the good effected by the 
 release of the leaders by keeping in prison these few miserable 
 men ? " Of those imphcated in the Manchester attack, he 
 said that at most it was a case of " constructive murder " 
 and not such as was popularly held to be murder. The motion 
 was strongly resisted by the Government. The Irish Secre- 
 tary, Sir M. Hicks-Beach, repudiated Mr. Butt's contention 
 that the term of miu-der was not rightly to be attributed to 
 those engaged in the attack. Lord Hartington, on behalf 
 of the main Opposition, supported the Government and con- 
 tended that there was no reason for reversing the decision 
 arrived at by the previous Government. Mr. W. E. Forster 
 voted against the motion. The occasion, however, was 
 taken by Mr. Gladstone for a speech urging the exercise of 
 the prerogative of mercy, though he did not follow it up by 
 his vote. Mr. Butt, he said, has called the Manchester 
 case one of constructive murder. Independently of that it 
 was a most gross outrage against the law, and an act most 
 dangerous to the peace of Society, but it was going beyond the 
 hmits of accuracy to say that it was a deliberate and atrocious 
 6 
 
82 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 assassination. He hoped that the time had arrived when 
 these cases might be examined with a view to the exercise 
 of the prerogative of mercy. * 
 
 It was probably due to this intervention of Mr. Gladstone 
 that, later in the same year, these few remaining Fenian 
 prisoners were released. Michael Davitt was set free on a 
 ticket -of-leave, after eight years of imprisonment as a convict. 
 He was one of the most interesting, able, and independent of 
 the men engaged in the Nationalist movement. On his release 
 he devoted himself, at once, to an agrarian agitation in Ireland 
 for the suppression of landlordism, and was very active in 
 organizing Irish opinion in the United States with this object. 
 The tardy exercise of the prerogative of mercy in the case 
 of these few remaining pohtical prisoners deprived the measure 
 of much of its grace. It might well have been conceded much 
 earher. Instead of this the question was allowed to embitter 
 Irish opinion for many long years. This, and the total failure 
 of Parliament to hsten to the demands of the Irish Members, 
 and to provide any remedy for the grievances which they 
 laid before it in the constitutional way, were fatal to Butt's 
 policy of conciliation. 
 
 The scene above described, which occurred on the South 
 African Bill, was also fraught with disastrous Results to Butt 
 and his pohcy. His intervention on behalf of the Government, 
 in opposition to Pamell, was resented by Irish opinion outside 
 Parhament, and led to his downfall as leader of the Irish 
 Party. For some time past the mihtant attitude of Pamell 
 had attracted and fascinated Irish opinion, especially that 
 of Irishmen in England and in the United States, who had 
 long been far more violent in their views than their com- 
 patriots in Ireland. Pamell had already stimidated this by 
 speeches outside Parliament. At Manchester, on July 13th, 
 1877, he said : 
 
 " For my part I do not beUeve in a p)ohcy of conciliation of 
 English opinion or Enghsh prejudices. What did we ever get 
 in the past by trying to concihate ? Why was the Enghsh 
 Church in Ireland disestabhshed and disendowed ? Because 
 there was an explosion at Clerkenwell and because there was a 
 pohceman shot in a prison- van at Manchester." 
 
 A few days after the scene in the House of Commons, on 
 
 ^ Hansard, 1877. 
 
THE SUPERSESSION OF BUTT 88 
 
 September ist, 1877, the annual meeting of the British Home 
 Rule Confederation took place at Manchester. The Associa- 
 tion had been founded, a few years before, by Butt, who had 
 been elected as its President in each succeeding year. He 
 was present as usual at this meeting, expecting re-election as 
 a matter of course. Pamell was also there. Some member 
 rose and proposed Pamell as President for the coming year. 
 There was no counter proposal on Butt's behalf. Not a single 
 voice was raised for him. Pamell was unanimously elected. 
 The old chief was deeply mortified. Tears were seen to fall 
 from his eyes. " I never thought," he said, " that the Irish 
 in England could do this to me. " He appealed to his supporters 
 in Ireland against this revolt of the Irish in England from his 
 leadership. In an open letter to his constituents, later in the 
 year, he wrote : 
 
 " The difference between the majority of the Home Rule 
 Members and certain Members is not merely of greater or 
 less activity, or as to an improper use of a legitimate instru- 
 ment of opposition, but is deep and vital, embracing the 
 whole of their Parhamentary conduct." 
 
 In spite of his appeal, public opinion in Ireland veered 
 against Butt. It was deeply offended by the neglect and re- 
 fusal of the House of Commons to meet any of the demands 
 of the great majority of the Irish Members. It had practical 
 proof in this of the inutihty of methods based on constitutional 
 lines, and#of the failure of Butt's pohcy. Resentment against 
 him was stimulated by the action of Pamell and Biggar 
 and their small group of adherents, who had bearded the 
 House of Commons. This struck the imagination of the 
 Irish people. The action, however, of the Irish in Ireland 
 was more considerate and deferential to Butt than that of the 
 Irish in .England. 
 
 At a Home Rule Conference held at DubUn on January 14th 
 and 15th, 1878, a vast majority of those present were still 
 favourable to Butt's leadership, though evidently dissatisfied 
 with his conduct of affairs in the House of Commons. A large 
 majority, however, were in favour of the pohcy of obstruction. 
 Butt made a passionate appeal for unity of the party. 
 
 " I have no objection," he said, " to Irish members taking 
 part in the discussion of English and Imperial affairs. I 
 have even held that they did not take a part often enough. 
 
84 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 We should do something for the sufferers of wrong throughout 
 the Empire. What I object to, what I hold to be fatal to the 
 dignity and usefulness of the Irish Party, and to the good name 
 of Ireland throughout the world, is obviously not the inter- 
 vention in EngUsh and Imperial concerns, but the manifesta- 
 tion of a certain Irish party without regard to the matter in 
 hand and the interests involved. I laid down, at Limerick 
 what I believed was the policy to pursue, and that was to make 
 an assault all along the whole line of English misgovemment, 
 and to bring forward every grievance of Ireland and to press 
 the House of Commons for its redress. I believed, and 
 still believe, that if once we get liberal-minded Englishmen 
 fairly to consider how they could redress the grievances of 
 Irish misgovemment, they would come, in the end, to the 
 conclusion that they had but one way of giving us good 
 government, and that is by allowing us to govern ourselves," 
 
 To this Pamell replied in a moderate speech : "I gladly 
 agree with Mr. Butt that it is very possible, and very probable, 
 that he would be able to persuade a few fair-minded Enghsh- 
 men in the direction he has indicated ; but still I do not 
 think that the House of Commons is mainly composed of 
 fair-minded Englishmen. If we had to deal with men who 
 were capable of listening to fair arguments, there would be 
 every hope of success, but we are dealing with political parties, 
 who consider the interests of their political organization as 
 paramount beyond every other consideration." He went on 
 lo defend his own action. As a result, Butt's friends found it 
 inexpedient to press their original motion that no Irish Member 
 ought to persevere in any course of action, which should be 
 condemned by a resolution, adopted at a meeting of Home 
 Rule Members, as calculated to be injurious to the National 
 cause. On the other hand, a motion of Mr. O'Connor Power, 
 in the interest of Pamell, urging determined and vigorous 
 action of the Parliamentary Party, was also withdrawn, and 
 a neutral resolution was agreed to. 
 
 Although the immediate result of this conflict was a drawn 
 battle. Butt recognized that his leadership was practically 
 brought to an end. In April, he addressed a manifesto to the 
 electors of Limerick condemning obstruction, but announcing 
 his intention to resign the leadership of the Irish Party, and 
 alleging ill-health as his reason. He followed this up by tender- 
 
THE SUPERSESSION OF BUTT 85 
 
 ing his resignation to the Irish Party in the House of Commons. 
 It was not accepted. He was induced to continue as nominal 
 leader, but with the understanding that the same regular 
 attendance, in the House of Commons, was not to be expected 
 of him in the future. This was the more necessary to Butt as 
 his finances were in a desperate condition. Subscriptions 
 to the party funds had fallen off, owing to the division of 
 opinion in the ranks of the party, and the hostihty of the 
 extreme section. A national subscription was started in 
 Ireland by Butt's friends to recompense him for the great 
 professional losses he had incurred by devotion to the Irish 
 cause. It was a complete failiu^e. Butt was thrown upon 
 his own resources, which consisted solely of his income from 
 professional work at the Bar. He was harassed by creditors 
 in respect of old and accumulated debts. It was necessary 
 to make every effort to recover his practice at Dublin. His 
 sacrifices to the national cause had been very great. He 
 had declined overtures for appointment to a very high position 
 on the judicial Bench, to which, as the most eminent man at 
 the Irish Bar, he was fully entitled. Like O'Connell, he would 
 not give up his leadership of the national cause for professional 
 advancement. But it was necessary to find the means of 
 Hving. During the year 1878 he relaxed his attendance in 
 Parhament. He devoted himself mainly to the Law Courts 
 at Dublin. He was seldom at Westminster in comparison 
 with the three previous years. He made great efforts to pick 
 up again his professional practice. But it was too late. His 
 health was rapidly failing. It was obvious to his friends 
 that his end was approaching. It was to be regretted that 
 Parnell did not appreciate this, and by generous and sym- 
 pathetic treatment, reheve the gloom of the few remaining 
 months of the old chief. Instead of this he continued his 
 opposition in the party. At his instance a vote of censure on 
 Butt was passed by a majority of the Home Rule Association 
 of England. 
 
 The last speech which Butt made in the House of Commons 
 was on July 4th, 1878, on an annual motion for inquiry into 
 the Land Laws of Ireland and the failure of the Land Act of 
 1870, made by Mr. Errington, one of the most moderate of 
 the Irish Party. Butt's speech was short, but vigorous and 
 persuasive. Mr. James Lowther, who had succeeded Sir M. 
 
86 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Hicks-Beach as Irish Secretary, and who was an uncom- 
 promising Tory of the old school, expressed a detestation 
 of the principle of the Irish Land Act, and banged the door 
 against any amendment of it, in the interest of the tenants. 
 It was an incident of the debate that Lord Randolph Churchill, 
 at that time an imdistinguished Member of the House of 
 Commons, but who had seen something of Ireland, where his 
 father was Lord-Lieutenant, first showed sympathy for the 
 Irish Party, by speaking in favour of the Bill. PameU and 
 his associates took no part in the discussion. The motion was 
 defeated by 124 to 67. 
 
 Butt's last presence at a public meeting was at Dubhn 
 on February 9th, 1879. His appearance there was a shock to 
 his friends. There was no mistaking the signs of his approach- 
 ing end. In spite of this, the reception by the audience was 
 unsympathetic, if not hostile. Old friends gave him the cold 
 shoulder. Butt took the opportunity of defending himself 
 against the recent vote of censure by the British Home Rule 
 Association. His speech, in spite of his failing strength, was 
 worthy of his old reputation. It was persuasive, and closely 
 reasoned, with passages of pathos. He succeeded in defeating 
 a hostile motion by a small majority. It was his last speech. 
 He went home to die. The end came a few weeks later — on 
 May 5th. Butt died of a broken heart, if ever man did so, 
 with a bitter sense of failure, of ruined fortune, and of pohtical 
 defeat by insurgent members of his own party, unredeemed 
 by any generous appreciation of his great services to the Irish 
 people, and of the great personal sacrifices he had made to 
 their cause. 
 
 Isaac Butt's was the last attempt to combine the moderate 
 section of Irish Liberahsm, and representatives of Tory land- 
 owners, in Ireland, in a national pohcy of Home Rule and 
 Land Reform. He was the first to propose, in a definite and 
 practical form, the alternative to Repeal of the Act of Union, 
 of a federal scheme, which was to give to Ireland an executive 
 responsible to its representatives, and a legislature empowered 
 to deal with purely Irish questions, while reserving to an 
 Imperial Parhament matters of common interest and of 
 Imperial concern. His speeches on this meiin topic have stood 
 the test of subsequent experience. They were the text-book 
 for the next generation. He was the fiirst also to formulate 
 
THE SUPERSESSION OF BUTT 87 
 
 specific proposals in the House of Commons for fixity of tenure 
 and judicial rents and to clothe them with legal forms. It 
 may safely be presumed that Mr. Gladstone owed much to 
 Butt's writings and speeches, when he came to deal with the 
 Irish land question in 1881, and when later he made his pro- 
 posals for Home Rule in 1886. 
 
CHAPTER IX 
 
 MR. SHAW'S INTERREGNUM 
 
 ON the death of Mr. Butt in 1879 the Irish Home Rule 
 Party in the House of Commons chose as their leader 
 Mr. William Shaw, Member for Cork, and Chairman 
 of the Munster Bank, with a high repute as a financier, and at 
 that time a man of substance. He was a Protestant, a shrewd 
 and forcible speaker, with a certain quality of dry humour 
 which attracted the House of Commons, but without the gift 
 of eloquence. His election in preference to Pamell, who had 
 already acquired a Parhamentary position, far in advance of 
 any others of the party, showed that a majority of it were 
 imbued with Butt's principles of moderation and conciliation, 
 rather than the more advanced view of Parnellandhis followers. 
 Though nominally leader of the Irish Party, Mr. Shaw 
 appears to have had very little influence. The germs of dissen- 
 sion had already, in the previous year, developed in the party. 
 There were very few subjects on which they agreed. Pamell 
 went his own way, and paid little, if any, deference to Mr. 
 Shaw's leadership. The main subject which occupied him, in 
 1879, was the Army Discipline BiU. This was a measure consoli- 
 dating all the law on the subject. It was the result of the 
 labours of a Committee of the previous Session, which had been 
 due to Pamell's obstruction to the Annual Mutiny Bill. It 
 offered endless opportunities for discussion, and raised the im- 
 portant question of flogging in the Army. Pamell, O'Donnell, 
 and Biggar availed themselves freely of them. Their main 
 object was to abolish flogging. They organized obstruction to 
 the whole Bill for this purpose. They were aided in their op- 
 position to flogging, in the first instance, by a small section of 
 English Liberals, including Mr. Joseph Cowen and Mr. Hop- 
 wood. Later Mr. Chamberlain came to their aid. He bore 
 
 88 
 
MR. SHAW'S INTERREGNUM 89 
 
 testimony to the great public service p)erformed by Pamell 
 and Biggar in obstructing the Mutiny Bill of the previous year. 
 " Nothing," he said, " can be done without obstruction. The 
 friends of humanity and the friends of the British Army owe 
 a debt of gratitude to the Member ior Meath [Mr. Parnell] 
 for standing up alone against this system of flogging, when I 
 myself, and other Members, had not the courage of our con- 
 victions. I hope that his efforts will be crowned by success."^ 
 
 These efforts to abohsh flogging were opposed at first by 
 Lord Hartington, as Leader of the Liberal Party and former 
 Minister of War, and by Sir William Harcourt ; but later 
 public opinion outside the House of Commons declared itself 
 so unmistakably against flogging, that the whole of the 
 Liberal Party in the House veered roimd in the same direction. 
 Mr. Chamberlain taunted Lord Hartington on the subject, 
 and referred to him contemptuously as " lately the Leader 
 of the Liberal Party." Mr. Callan, an Irish Home Ruler, not 
 one of Pamell's followers, succeeded in getting specimens 
 of the different kinds of cat, used for flogging in the two 
 Services, exhibited in the Library of the House. This added to 
 the excitement on the subject, both in and outside the House. 
 After seven weeks of discussion in Committee on the BiU, 
 Colonel Stanley, the Minister in charge of it, who, in the first 
 instance, had asserted that flogging was, in the opinion of 
 the highest miUtary authorities, indispensable for the main- 
 tenance of discipline in the Army, began to waver. He 
 made a series of concessions, giving way from point to point, 
 as the discussion progressed, and eventually took his stand on 
 the maintenance of flogging only in time of war, and for cases 
 where death was the only alternative. Lord Hartington also, 
 who had originally supported the Government, ultimately 
 yielded to the general feeling of the party behind him, and, 
 on the report stage of the Bill, moved a resolution condemning 
 in every case the punishment of flogging in the Army. This 
 was resisted by the Government and was defeated on a party 
 division. 
 
 The BiU, as ultimately passed, limited flogging to the rare 
 cases above referred to. In other respects the severity of the 
 measure was much mitigated. The discussion on it occupied 
 the House for twenty-three nights, and. according to Hansard, 
 
 ^ Hansard, June lothg 1879. 
 
90 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Pamell and O'Donnell spoke, each of them, over 150 times. 
 To them, and to others of their small band of Irish followers, 
 the main credit of the practical abohtion of flogging in the 
 Army was due. It cannot therefore be said that their obstruc- 
 tion was without justification. It was, in fact, successful. 
 If time was wasted, the fault lay with the Members in charge 
 of the Bin, and with the Government, who, by early concessions, 
 might have disarmed opposition and avoided obstruction. 
 
 The Session of 1879 was not unfruitful of Irish measures. 
 It was claimed by Pamell and his followers that their general 
 pohcy of obstruction and of hostihty to the Government, as 
 distinguished from Butt's pohcy of concihation, compelled the 
 Government to propose or agree to measures of appeasement. 
 An Irish University Act was passed, which substituted for the 
 Queen's University an examining University on the model of 
 that of London. It passed without much difficulty or dis- 
 cussion. It failed, however, in its result to give satisfaction or to 
 afford a remedy for the complaints of the Catholics in Ireland. 
 Another measure, important in its pohtical effect, due 
 to a private Member, was the virtual repeal of Lord Clare's 
 Convention Act of 1798. The Act, which was passed by the 
 Irish Parhament of that year, was part of the panic legislation 
 caused by the French Revolution. It prohibited the election 
 of delegates to any central convention in Ireland. The repeal 
 of the Act was supported by a most powerful speech of Mr. 
 Joseph Cowen, which virtually carried the Bill. He showed 
 that the Convention Act did not interfere with the conunon law 
 right of holding meetings in Ireland. The Irish people could 
 muster in immense nimibers on the classic hill of Tara or at 
 Trim or Mullaghmast. But if, instead of holding threatening 
 assembhes 500,000 strong, such as gathered together, imder 
 O 'Council, a dehberative assembly of representative men met 
 quietly in a room in Dublin and strove, not by force but by 
 persuasion and agreement, to put their case for the repeal of a 
 specified law, or the reform of a social usage, the law would 
 step in and prevent them. The Act might be said to offer a 
 premiimi to passion and violence, and to put a penalty on 
 representation and reason. 
 
 The Bill was opposed by the Attorney-General for Ireland, 
 Mr. Gibson, who claimed that the Act was enforced only with 
 the greatest discretion, so as not to abridge the holding of 
 
MR. SHAW'S INTERREGNUM 91 
 
 representative meetings. In reply to him I pointed out that 
 the Act extended far beyond what its framers apparently 
 intended, for its preamble contemplated the prohibition of 
 meetings of delegates claiming the attributes of a Parliament, 
 while the enacting clauses prohibited delegations of all kinds. 
 I suggested that the Bill should be amended so as to maintain 
 the prohibition of meetings arrogating the functions of Parlia- 
 ment. This was supported by Pamell in a closely reasoned 
 and concihatory speech, which showed what advance he had 
 made in Parhamentary debate. He pointed out that under 
 the common law assembUes aping Parliament were illegal. 
 The Irish Secretary, while saving the face of the Government, 
 by saying that the Bill could not be amended as proposed, 
 promised to support one, which would have the desired effect 
 of repealing the Convention Act, but which would maintain 
 the prohibition of assemblies arrogating the functions of a 
 Parhament. This was agreed to, and an Act was passed 
 which repealed the objectionable features of the Convention 
 Act. 
 
 Another important Bill, introduced by an Irish Member, for 
 permitting the enrolment of volunteers in Ireland, also passed 
 the House of Commons. It was supported by Mr. Shaw 
 and Colonel King-Harman. There was unanimity in the House 
 of Commons in favour of it. The Attorney-General for Ireland, 
 Mr. Gibson, said that as an Irishman he was always glad when 
 it devolved on him to make any reasonable concession to 
 Irish opinion. It will scarcely be credited that this most 
 reasonable Bill, passed imanimously by the House of Commons, 
 and supported by the Government, was rejected by the House 
 of Lords by a majority of 36 to 16. The majority consisted 
 mainly of Irish Peers, while the 16 included Lord Beaconsfield, 
 the Duke of Richmond, Lord Cairns, and Lord Cranbrook, 
 members of the Cabinet, and the leaders of the Liberal Oppo- 
 sition, such as Lord Spencer. Lord Bury, who represented the 
 War Ofl&ce, said that it would be a grave responsibility for the 
 Government to express its opinion that the Irish nation was 
 unfit to be trusted with arms. That, indeed, was not their 
 opinion. It was felt by the Government that there could be 
 no danger or difficulty in allowing the volunteer system to be 
 extended to Ireland. In spite of this the reactionary Peers 
 rejected the Bill. 
 
 
92 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Before the close of the Session (1879) the condition of 
 agriculture both in England and Ireland occupied the serious 
 attention of the House of Commons. The two previous years, 
 1877 and 1878, had been very unfavourable. Crops were very 
 deficient, and prices did not rise in proportion to the deficiency 
 as in past years. In July Mr. Chaplin called attention to the 
 prevalent depression of agriculture, and moved for a Royal 
 Commission to inquire into its causes and to suggest 
 remedies. His speech was strongly flavoured by his well- 
 known views in favour of Protection. Speaking of the distress 
 in Ireland, he said that the profits of farmers were reduced 
 by the amount of one half, and often of the whole of their rent. 
 The O'Donoghue, on behalf of the Irish Party, moved an 
 amendment pointing to the necessity of including an inquiry 
 into the Land Laws of Ireland, and their failure to protect 
 the interests of tenant farmers in years of bad harvests and 
 low prices. Agricultural depression, he said, meant inability 
 to pay high rents. The rent question had become a grave one 
 in Ireland, where the overwhelming majority of tenants had 
 agreed to their existing rents under compulsion. They had 
 to choose between accepting the landlords' terms and eviction, 
 which meant ruin, and they naturally preferred the alternative, 
 which, at all events, gave them a chance of security till happier 
 times. . . . The real, the only method, he contended, of 
 deahng with the agricultural depression was to establish a fair 
 system for the adjustment of rents. 
 
 Much discussion followed, and it was ultimately agreed 
 that the subject of the adjustment of rents should be included 
 in the reference to a Royal Commission. A Commission was 
 accordingly appointed with the Duke of Richmond as its 
 President. Mr. Chichester Fortescue and Mr. William Shaw 
 represented Irish interests upon it. 
 
 The harvest which followed on this, in 1879, was the worst 
 which had occurred in Ireland since 1846. Successive weeks 
 of rain ruined the crops of corn and potatoes, and made it 
 impossible in many cases to dry the turf. Agricultmral distress 
 was not confined to Ireland. It was almost equally severe in 
 England. The corn crops were less than one-half of the average 
 of past years. It resulted that there was little demand for 
 the employment of the migratory labourers from the west of 
 Ireland, who yearly crossed the Qiannel for work at harvest 
 
MR. SHAW'S INTERREGNUM 98 
 
 time in England, and who reckoned on paying rent for their 
 small holdings and homes out of wages thus earned. The West 
 of Ireland was consequently in a deplorable condition. 
 
 The year 1880 opened under most gloomy conditions in 
 Ireland. The gravity of the state of things there, as regards 
 the western half of it, was now fully recognized. Famine was 
 stalking through the land. Evictions, pauperism, and crimes 
 were largely increasing. Relief funds were opened by the 
 Duchess of Marlborough, the wife of the Lord-Lieutenant, 
 and by the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. E. D. Gray). Large 
 contributions were made through the Roman Catholic Bishops 
 from the United States, and by emigrants there to their relatives 
 at home. There was also a rehef fund collected by Pamell and 
 Dillon in their political tour in the States. But the aggregate 
 of these funds was little compared to the total deficiency caused 
 by the three bad harvests. 
 
 The distress was not confined to the west of Ireland. It 
 was also, though in a less degree, prevalent in every part of 
 Ireland, among the large as well as other farmers, and generally 
 throughout Great Britain. Lord Beaconsfield, in a speech at 
 Oxford, during the recess, impressed upon the landowners of 
 England the necessity of meeting the emergency by large 
 remissions of rent to their tenants. No similar exhortations 
 to reduce their rents were made to the landlords of Ireland 
 by any responsible member of the Government. Many land- 
 owners did, in fact, make abatements, especially in Ulster, 
 where the distress was least, and where the tenants' interest 
 in their holdings was fully recognized. But in a great part of 
 Ireland no reductions were made, and rents were either fully 
 insisted on, or were allowed to accumulate in arrears, which 
 kept the tenants in bondage till three years later, when relief 
 was afforded by the Legislature. In some cases landlords 
 took advantage of the occasion, and began to clear their 
 estates of tenants, without paying any compensation for 
 eviction, thus appropriating the tenants' interest in their 
 holdings, which it was the object of the Land Act of 1870 to 
 recognize and protect. Eviction processes alarmingly in- 
 creased. In 1879 they were double the number in the previous 
 year, and in the first half of 1880 they were again double the 
 rate of 1879. The recollection of the clearances effected by 
 landowners in many parts of the south and west in previous 
 
94 GLADSTONE AND IREIiAND 
 
 years of bad harvests were still fresh in the memories of the 
 peasantry. 
 
 It was at this juncture that the ill effect of the mutilation 
 by the House of Lords of the Land Act of 1870 became appa- 
 rent. The Act as it left the House of Commons gave discre- 
 tion to the judge to award compensation in cases of eviction 
 for non-payment of rent if there were special circumstances to 
 warrant his doing so. This would have provided for the case 
 of a succession of bad seasons when the payment of full rent, 
 or even any rent at all, became impossible. The action 
 of the House of Lords, in striking out these words of discretion 
 to the judge, was now to produce its malign effect, for the 
 tenants were at the mercy of their landlords, and could be 
 evicted wholesale, without any compensation as intended by 
 the Act. The least that could be expected under these 
 conditions was that the Government would make some 
 proposal for the protection of the smaller tenants at least 
 against the legal consequences of their failure to pay rent, 
 owing to the succession of bad harvests. 
 
 When, however, Parliament met early in 1880 there was no 
 suggestion in the Speech from the Throne of any amendment 
 of the law for the purpose of saving the smaller tenants from 
 eviction for non-payment of rents which had been made 
 impossible by causes beyond their control. Mr. Shaw moved 
 an amendment to the address raising the question of distress 
 in Ireland. A debate prolonged over three nights took place 
 on this motion. Sir Stafford Northcote's explanation on the 
 part of the Government gave a most alarming account of the 
 state of things in Ireland. His statistics showed that there 
 had been a failure of the principal crops in Ireland, as compared 
 with previous years, of 10 millions, or more than one-half, 
 and that the value of the potato crop was 6 millions behind 
 the average — or less than one-third of an average crop. 
 
 It appeared from Sir Stafford Northcote's explanation that 
 the chief action taken by the Irish Government to meet this 
 state of things was the issue of a circular to the Boards of 
 Guardians, impressing upon them the importance of making 
 due provision beforehand of ample stores of bedding and 
 clothing, to meet any pressure on the workhouse which was 
 likely to occur. Nothing had been done in the way of relaxing 
 the order prohibiting outdoor relief, which could only be 
 
MR. SHAW'S INTERREGNUM 95 
 
 effected in Ireland by an Act of Parliament. Nor was anything 
 done immediately, or proposed, with reference to the quarter- 
 acre provision, under which no rehef could be given by the 
 workhouse authorities, if the apphcant was tenant of more 
 than a quarter of an acre of land, without surrendering his 
 holding. A circular, however, had been issued to landowners 
 and local authorities reminding them of their powers to borrow 
 public money, under various Acts of Parliament, for works of 
 drainage, planting, etc., involving the emplo5mient of labour, 
 and offering somewhat more favourable terms by the post- 
 ponement of the commencement of repayment for two years. 
 The applications in response to this were trivial in amount. 
 Lord Hartington, on behalf of the Liberal Party in opposition, 
 refused to join in a vote of censure. He left the responsibility 
 of meeting the distress on the Government. Mr. Plunket 
 (later Lord Rathmore), then Solicitor-General for Ireland, 
 speaking on behalf of the Government, attacked the Irish 
 Home Rule Party. " To the Irish agitator," he said, " the 
 present distress seemed a good occasion to call up the grievance 
 of the past, to rake up buried sorrows, to exasperate the people, 
 and to make them as httle as possible ready or patient to bear 
 their suffering." Mr. Shaw's motion, after a fierce debate, 
 was rejected by a majority of 216 to 66. A few days later 
 Mr. Shaw asked the Irish Secretary whether the Government 
 intended to do anything for Land Reform, in the direction of 
 extending to the rest of Ireland the security enjoyed in Ulster. 
 Mr. Lowther rephed that to extend the Ulster custom as 
 proposed would be pure and undiluted confiscation. He added 
 that the Land Laws had nothing to do with the state of dis- 
 tress in Ireland. 
 
 A Relief Bill was introduced early in the Session by the 
 Government, authorizing the advance of a miUion out of the 
 surplus funds of the Disestabhshed Church for loans to Irish 
 landowners, on favourable terms, to be expended on works 
 providing for the employment of labour. The Bill led to 
 protracted debate. In the course of it a clause was inserted 
 enabhng Boards of Guardians to relax the rigid provision as 
 to outdoor rehef. Mr. Hugh Law, an eminent lawyer, later 
 Solicitor-General for Ireland in Mr. Gladstone's Government, 
 succeeded in inducing the Government to agree to a clause 
 niodifying the landowners' rights as regarded evictions in cases 
 
96 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 where they borrowed money under the Rehef Act. But this 
 clause, so eminently just and expedient under the existing 
 conditions of Ireland, was rejected by the House of Lords. 
 
 The Irish Secretary, Mr. James Lowther, throughout these 
 discussions showed a harsh and cynical attitude to Irish 
 questions. In answer to a deputation suggesting a distribution 
 of seed potatoes to the poorer tenants, he said that what Ireland 
 needed was grass seed, hinting by this that more land should 
 be devoted to grazing purposes — a measure which would 
 obviously entail a further depopulation of the country. No 
 more uns5mipathetic statesman ever filled the post of Irish 
 Secretary. Before, however, he could do more mischief his 
 official career was brought to an end by the sudden determina- 
 tion of the Government in April, 1880, to dissolve Parliament. 
 The favourable result of two by-elections had led them to 
 believe that public opinion was in their favour and that the 
 opportunity was a favourable one for an appeal to the electors. 
 
CHAPTER X 
 
 THE BIRTH OF THE LAND LEAGUE 
 
 THE year 1879 was memorable in Ireland for the 
 commencement of an agrarian agitation, and for the 
 foundation of the Land League, which played so 
 great a part in the next three years. The country was ripe 
 for such a movement, owing to the grave distress of agri- 
 culture, and to the failure of the Government to hold out 
 any hope of a remedial measure for the protection of the 
 tenants. 
 
 ParneU took no part in the discussion on this subject 
 in the House of Commons during this Session. After his 
 great and successful fight on the Army Discipline Bill, he was 
 mainly occupied in attending public meetings in Ireland 
 on the Land question. He appears to have hesitated for some 
 time whether to advocate legislation for fixity of tenure and 
 judicial rents, or the creation of a peasant proprietary, by 
 means of State loans, and the expropriation of landlords by 
 purchase. In 1878 he had paid a visit to the west of Ireland, 
 and for the first time, as later he told the Special Commission, 
 became aware of the misery of its people. He drove for 
 miles through rich grazing land, without meeting any one, 
 though he saw the ruins of many houses, while in other parts 
 he found a dense population living, from hand to mouth, 
 on holdings quite insufficient to support life. He began, 
 he said, to think that a measure for merely fixing rents would 
 be insufficient. 
 
 Later in 1878 Michael Davitt returned from America 
 and commenced an active agitation on the Land question 
 in the west of Ireland. He advocated the extinction of land- 
 lords, and the adoption of a scheme of land nationalization. 
 Taking advantage of a case of gross hardship on a property 
 at Irishtown, in Mayo, which had recently come into possession 
 7 97 
 
98 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 of a Catholic priest, Canon Burke, and where the tenants 
 were threatened with wholesale eviction, for non-payment 
 of large arrears of excessive rents, he summoned a meeting 
 there to protest against the evictions, to demand a reduction 
 of rents, and to denounce the whole system of landlordism. 
 
 The meeting was an immense success. Upwards of 7000 
 persons were present ; 600 mounted farmers acted as a 
 bodyguard to the speaker. Many advanced land reformers 
 attended the meeting. Very strong speeches were made. 
 " Down with landlordism," " The land for the people," were 
 the watchwords of those present. Resolutions were passed 
 demanding an immediate reduction of rents in Mayo, and 
 the ultimate expropriation of landlords. 
 
 The immediate result of the meeting was the announcement 
 by Canon Burke, within a few days, that his rents would be 
 reduced by 25 per cent. These reduced rents were, later, 
 still further reduced by the Land Commission, under the Act 
 of 1 88 1, by 40 per cent — showing that the tenants had very 
 strong ground for their complaints. 
 
 The result of the meeting, the first of its kind, aiming at a 
 reduction of rents, through the pressure of public opinion, 
 was enormous. The Irishtown meeting has always been con- 
 sidered as the commencement of the new agitation, of a revo- 
 lutionary character, for the extinction of landlordism. It 
 was the more important, as the meeting was immediately 
 directed against the action of a Catholic clergyman. Warn- 
 ings were given from their altars by many priests in Mayo 
 against the holding of such meetings, " called by irresponsible 
 people and showing disrespect to priests." Undeterred by 
 this, and influenced by the prospect of obtaining reductions 
 of rent in this way, meetings of the same kind were soon 
 multiplied in the County of Mayo. Pamell appears to have 
 been greatly interested by the accounts of these meetings. He 
 had many conversations on the subject with Davitt, who 
 pressed him to take a leading part in this new movement. 
 Eventually Parnell promised to attend a great meeting at 
 Westport, in Mayo. The meeting was discouraged by the priests 
 of that district, and was openly and fiercely denounced by 
 Dr. McHale, the veteran Archbishop of Tuam, the bosom 
 friend and colleague of O'Connell in the Repeal movement, 
 and who exercised immense influence throughout Ireland. 
 
BIRTH OF THE LAND LEAGUE 99 
 
 "Against such combinations in the diocese," the Archbishop 
 wrote, " organized by a few designing men, who instead of the 
 well-being of the community, seek only to promote their 
 personal interests, the faithful clergy will not fail to raise their 
 warning voice, and to point out to the people that unhallowed 
 combinations lead invariably to disaster, and to the further 
 riveting of the chains, by which we are unhappily bound as a 
 subordinate people to a dominant race." 
 
 In spite of this episcopal manifesto, Parnell addressed a great 
 meeting at Westport on June 8th, 1879. Eight thousand 
 people were present. This speech was a momentous one. 
 
 " I am one of those," he said, " who beheve that the 
 institution of landlords is not a national institution in the 
 country. I believe that the maintenance of the class of 
 landlords in a country is not for the greatest benefit of the 
 greatest number. Ireland has suffered from them more than 
 any other country. In Belgium, Prussia, France, and Russia 
 the land has been given to the people — in some by the iron 
 hand of revolution ; in others, as in Prussia, landlords have 
 been purchased out. If such an arrangement could be made, 
 without injuring the landlord, so as to enable the tenant to 
 have the land as his own, and to cultivate it as it ought to be, 
 it would be for the benefit and prosperity of the country. I 
 look to this as the final settlement of the question. But 
 meantime it is necessary to ensure that as long as the tenant 
 pays a fair rent he shaU be left to enjoy the fruits of his 
 industry. A fair rent is a rent which the tenant can reason- 
 ably pay according to the times, but in bad times the tenant 
 cannot be expected to pay as much as in good times, three or 
 four years ago. Now what must we do in order to induce the 
 landlord to see the position ? You must show the landlords that 
 you intend to hold a firm grip on your homesteads and lands. 
 You must not allow yourselves to be dispossessed as you were 
 m 1848. You must not allow your small holdings to be turned 
 into larger ones. I am not supposing that the landlords will 
 remain deaf to the voice of reason, but I hope that they may 
 not, and that on those properties on which the rents are out of 
 proportion to the time, a reduction may be made and that 
 immediately. If not, you must help yourselves, and the pubhc 
 opinion of the world will stand by you and support you in your 
 struggle to defend your homesteads. If we had the farmers of 
 
100 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Ireland the owners of the soil we should not be long in getting 
 an Irish Parliament." 
 
 Parnell spoke later at Limerick and Tipperary in much the 
 same sense. Indeed, at the former place on August 31st his 
 language was stronger. The bad season had already made it 
 certain that the harvest would be a complete failure, and that 
 the pressure on the small farmers would be very great. 
 
 " It is the duty of the Irish tenant farmers," he said, " to 
 combine among themselves and ask for a reduction of rent, 
 and if they get no reduction of rent, then I say it is the duty 
 of the tenants to pay no rent." 
 
 At Tipperary on September 21st he again enforced his 
 advice to farmers to keep a firm grip on their homesteads 
 and to show a determined attitude to the landlords. 
 
 These speeches, and especially the remarkable one at 
 Westport, made an epoch in the Land question, and must be 
 judged of by the light of subsequent events. At the time they 
 appeared to most people in England to be revolutionary and 
 dangerous, if not illegal, in a very high degree. But what 
 Parnell then recommended has since been carried out almost 
 in its entirety, after long years of agitation and suffering in 
 Ireland. But for the agitation, which Parnell then initiated, 
 it must be admitted that these great changes would never 
 have been effected. It may be that these great and revolution- 
 ary results were not achieved without much of most repre- 
 hensible violence. But impartial historians must look broadly 
 at results, and compare them with the original policy laid 
 down. They must make allowances for much that occurred in 
 the course of the movement which led to such results. Measured 
 and judged in this way, Parnell must be held to have shown 
 most remarkable prevision, when he made the speech at 
 Westport which has been quoted. 
 
 In September Parnell was again urged by Davitt to join in 
 expanding the Land League of Mayo into a National League 
 for the whole of Ireland. He hesitated for some time to do so. 
 In his evidence before the Special Commission in 1888 he thus 
 described his motives in consenting to do so : 
 
 " Mr. Davitt was very anxious that the Land League should 
 be formed, and that the tenants should be supported by an 
 agrarian movement. I had in my mind advice given to me by 
 Mr. Butt, two or three years previously, when I pressed upon 
 
BIRTH OF THE LAND LEAGUE 101 
 
 him the extension of the Home Rule movement, by the 
 formation of branches throughout the country. He said, 
 looking at it from a lawyer's point of view, that we should be 
 made responsible for every foolish thing done by the members 
 of the branches. I was rather disinclined to entertain the idea 
 of the formation of an extensive agrarian movement on account 
 of the caution which I received from Mr. Butt. But ultimately 
 I saw that it was necessary to take the risk. . . . Mr. Davitt 
 spoke to me with regard to the desirability of a combined 
 social and political movement, a movement which would 
 interest the tenant farmers by directing attention to their 
 condition, and proposing remedies for their rehef, and a 
 movement which, at the same time, would interest the Irish 
 nation, at home and abroad, in the direction of the restitution 
 of an Irish ParHament." 
 
 He finally consented to take the leading part in forming a 
 National Land League for Ireland, upon the understanding 
 that the platform put forward should be such as could be 
 advocated as freely in the House of Commons, as on the 
 platform in Ireland. Invitations were accordingly sent out, 
 in his name, to the leading men interested in Land Reform, 
 for a Conference at the Imperial Hotel, Dublin, on October 
 2ist, for the purpose of forming a Land League Association 
 for appealing to Irishmen abroad, and especially in America, 
 for assistance, in forwarding land agitation in favour of the 
 ownership of the soil by the occupier, and also for the purpose 
 of upholding the tenants, during the present terrible season, by 
 the promotion of organization. 
 
 Parnell moved the principal resolution : " That the objects 
 of the League can best be attained by promoting organization 
 among the tenant farmers, and defending those who may be 
 threatened with eviction for refusing to pay exorbitant rents ; 
 by facilitating the working of the Bright Clauses of the Land 
 Act of 1870 during the winter ; and by obtaining such a reform 
 m the laws relating to the land as will enable any tenant to 
 become the owner of his holding by paying a fair rent for a 
 limited number of years." He was appointed President of 
 the League, and he was requested to visit the United States 
 in company with Mr. Dillon, who had already gained distinc- 
 tion on the platform, as a Land Reformer, for the purpose 
 01 inviting assistance to the League, and contributions 
 
102 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 toward the relief of distress in Ireland due to the bad 
 seasons. 
 
 The Land League thus formed was largely in the hands of 
 extreme men in sympathy more or less with Fenians. Mr. 
 Biggar and Mr. Patrick Egan were its honorary treasurers. 
 Mr. Davitt, Mr. Kettle, and Mr. Brennan were honorary secre- 
 taries. Land League meetings were organized throughout 
 Ireland, at which language at least as strong as, and not un- 
 frequently stronger than that of Pamell was used. For 
 speeches at Gurteen, in Sligo, closely resembling that of 
 Parnell at Westport, Davitt, Daly, and Kettle were arrested 
 by the Government, and were brought before a magistrate 
 and charged with sedition and seditious language. The 
 magistrate, after some days of inquiry, committed them for 
 trial at the Assizes in Sligo. When the Assizes came on 
 the Government, finding that there was no prospect whatever 
 of obtaining a verdict against them, changed the venue to 
 Dublin. Eventually the prosecutions were dropped, just 
 before the General Election. The only effect, therefore, of 
 these abortive proceedings was to give wide advertisement 
 to speeches, which would otherwise not have been published 
 in any but the local papers, and to show that, under the 
 existing law, they could be delivered with impunity. They 
 had the effect also of postponing the visit of Parnell to America. 
 To go there, while these prosecutions were pending, would look 
 like running away from the post of danger. Remaining in 
 Ireland, he addressed numerous meetings in the same tenor 
 as the speech delivered at Gurteen. At a meeting at Liverpool 
 he repeated the very speech for which Davitt was prosecuted, 
 and challenged the Government to bring him before an 
 English jury. They refrained from doing so. It was not till 
 November 21st, 1879, that PameU found himself able to 
 embark with Dillon on their American tour. 
 
 The mission was a very great success. It aroused the 
 greatest interest in every part of the United States. On their 
 arrival at New York, they were met by a deputation of 300 
 gentlemen, including senators, judges, merchants, and authors, 
 and Pamell addressed a meeting of 8000 persons. He said that 
 the object of the mission had been modified by the pressure of 
 events, and the increasing distress in Ireland, caused by the 
 failure of crops. It was their original intention to address the 
 
BIRTH OF THE LAND LEAGUE 103 
 
 people in the States on behalf of the political organization, 
 newly created, for the purpose of Land Reform, but the course 
 of events had compelled them to abandon the original inten- 
 tion. They now proposed to open two funds, one for the relief 
 of distress in Ireland, the other for the purely political purpose 
 of forwarding their organization. They would be kept wholly 
 distinct. In this view meetings were held in every part of the 
 States, and were everywhere attended by thousands, including 
 many leading men of the districts. At Brooklyn the eminent 
 divine Mr. Ward Beecher spoke on their behalf. At Boston 
 Mr. WendeU PhiUips, the great anti-slavery leader, was 
 present. 
 
 " I came here," he said, " as you have done, from a keen 
 desire to see the man that has compelled John Bull to listen. 
 Half the battle is won when the victim forces his tyrant to 
 hsten, gains his attention, and concentrates on his wrongs 
 the thought of Christendom and the civilized world." 
 
 At Washington the very rare honour was conferred on Parnell 
 of inviting him to address the House of Representatives. 
 Lafayette and Kossuth had been among the few privileged in 
 this way. Parnell, on being called before the Assembly, made 
 a very judicious and moderate address. 
 
 " We do not seek," he said, " to embroil your Government 
 with the Government of England, but we claim that the 
 public opinion and sentiment of a free country like America 
 is entitled to find expression whenever it is seen that the laws 
 of freedom are not observed. . . . The most pressing question 
 in Ireland is at the present moment the tenure of land. . . . 
 Many of us, who are observing the course of events, believe 
 that the time is fast approaching when the artificial and cruel 
 system of land tenure prevailing in Ireland is bound to fall, 
 and be replaced by a more natural and a more just one. . . . 
 The remedy we propose for the state of affairs in Ireland is an 
 alteration of the land tenure previously there. We propose to 
 imitate the example of Prussia and other countries where the 
 feudal tenure has been tried and found wanting and abandoned, 
 and we propose to make or give an opportunity to every 
 tenant occupying a farm in Ireland to become the owner of 
 his own farm." After referring to Mr. Bright 's proposals in 
 this direction, he said : " The radical difference between our 
 proposition and that of Mr. Bright is that we think that the 
 
104 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 State should adopt the system of compulsory expropriation 
 of the land, whereas Mr. Bright thinks that it might be left 
 to self-interest and the force of public opinion to compel the 
 landlord to sell." 
 
 Nothing was said in this speech of Home Rule, still less of 
 the independence of Ireland. He was more expansive as to 
 his ultimate views at other places. 
 
 At Cincinnati on February 23rd he was reported to have 
 said : " When we have given Ireland to the people of Ireland 
 we shall have laid the foundation upon which to build up our 
 Irish nation. The feudal tenure and the rule of the minority 
 have been the corner-stone of English misrule ; pull out that 
 corner-stone, break it up, destroy it, and you undermine 
 English misgovernment ; when we have undermined English 
 misgovemment we have paved the way for Ireland to take 
 her place amongst the nations of the earth, and let us not 
 forget that is the ultimate goal at which all we Irishmen aim. 
 None of us, whether we are in America or Ireland, or wherever 
 we may be, will be satisfied until we have destroyed the last 
 link which keeps Ireland bound to England." 
 
 Pamell, before the Special Commission of 1888, when 
 questioned as to this passage, said that it was improbable 
 that he had used the expression as to " severing the last link 
 with England," and that if he did it must have been " quahfied 
 with other matters, as it was entirely opposed to anything 
 he had ever thought or said." The Commission did not 
 accept his disclaimer. They found that he had spoken these 
 words. 
 
 It is to be observed that the Special Commission did not 
 include Parnell's name among those against whom they found 
 that the charge of conspiring to bring about a separation 
 between England and Ireland was established. The sentence 
 in the Cincinnati speech as to " the last link " is the only one 
 of the kind which was detected out of many hundreds of 
 speeches. It was distinctly opposed to the general tenor of 
 ParneU's speeches and policy. 
 
 At the conclusion of his tour of meetings in the United States 
 Parnell went to Canada, leaving Dillon behind him. He was 
 joined in Canada by Mr. T. M. Healy, then a clerk in a London 
 warehouse, but who had earned distinction as a writer in The 
 Freeman's Journal. Parnell, who had come across him, was 
 
BIRTH OF THE LAND LEAGUE 105 
 
 impressed by his ability, and now telegraphed to ask his 
 assistance as secretary. Mr. Healy commenced in this way 
 his political career which has been so distinguished, if at times 
 somewhat erratic. He took part with Parnell in meetings in 
 Canada, but within a short time they were recalled to England 
 by the sudden announcement of the Dissolution of Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
CHAPTER XI 
 
 THE GENERAL ELECTION, 1880 
 
 ON March 8th the announcement was made that the 
 six-years-old Parhament of 1874-80 was to be imme- 
 diately dissolved. On the next day Lord Beaconsfield 
 issued a manifesto, in a letter to the Lord-Lieutenant of 
 Ireland, in which the attempt was made to draw off the 
 attention of the electors from the Foreign policy of the Govern- 
 ment and other issues, and to present disaffection in Ireland, 
 and the demand for Home Rule, as the main, if not the sole, 
 issue at the coming General Election. 
 
 " A danger," it said, " in its ultimate results scarcely less 
 disastrous than pestilence and famine, and which now engages 
 Your Excellency's anxious attention, distracts Ireland. A 
 portion of its population is endeavouring to sever the con- 
 stitutional tie which unites it to Great Britain in that bond 
 which has favoured the power and prosperity of both. It is to 
 be hoped that aU men of light and leading will resist this 
 disastrous doctrine. . . ." 
 
 This turgid manifesto missed fire. It met with no response 
 from the country. In a counter address to his constituents 
 Lord Hartington, who stiU led the Liberal Party in the mori- 
 bund House of Commons, wrote : " I know of no party which 
 challenges the expediency of the Imperial character of this 
 realm. . . . No patriotic purpose is gained by the use of 
 language of exaggeration in describing the Irish agitation for 
 Home Rule. I believe the demand to be impracticable. . . • 
 I have consistently opposed it in office and in opposition, and 
 I shall continue to oppose it. The agitation has existed during 
 the whole of the continuance of this Parliament. It has been 
 treated by the Government, till now, if not with indulgence, 
 with indifference. . . . The agitation must be met, not by 
 passionate exaggeration, but by firm and consistent resistance, 
 
 106 
 
THE GENERAL ELECTION, 1880 107 
 
 combined with the proof that the Imperial Parliament is able 
 and wiUing to grant every reasonable and just demand of the 
 Irish people for equal laws and institutions." 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, on his part, in an address to the electors of 
 Midlothian, wrote : " Those who endangered the Union with 
 Ireland were the party that maintained there an ahen Church, 
 an unjust Land Law, and franchises inferior to our own ; and 
 the true supporters of the Union are those who uphold the 
 supreme authority of Parliament, but exercise that authority 
 to bind the three nations by the indissoluble ties of liberal 
 and equal laws." 
 
 The only result of Lord Beaconsfield's move, which by the 
 light of subsequent events must now be considered to have 
 been premature, rather than wholly wanting in justification, 
 was to draw from the Irish Home Rule Association of Great 
 Britain a counter manifesto, drawn up by Mr, O'Donnell, 
 calling upon aU Irish electors, " in the presence of the atrocious 
 and criminal manoeuvres which had been attempted, to vote 
 against Benjamin Disraeli, as the mortal enemy of their 
 country." It urged that no pledges should be asked of Liberal 
 candidates. In deference to this instruction from the Home 
 Rule head-quarters, the large number of Irishmen, who were 
 quahfied as electors in Great Britain, voted for Liberal candi- 
 dates. They formed a most important factor in the rout of 
 the Tory Party. 
 
 Ireland, for all other purposes, dropped out of the political 
 controversy in Great Britain. The elections in Great Britain 
 turned wholly on the misdeeds of the Tory Government 
 during their six years of office, and especially on their aggressive 
 and militant policy in every part of the world. Mr. Gladstone, 
 in his great Midlothian campaign, during which he made 
 sixteen important speeches, devoted himself wholly to these 
 topics, and hardly mentioned the subject of Ireland. No 
 promise whatever was held out to the Irish people of Land 
 Reform. As a result, the elections in Great Britain were 
 largely determined by these efforts of the Leader of the Liberal 
 Party, and nearly loo seats were won from the Tory Party, 
 making a difference of about 200 in the relative strength of 
 the two parties. 
 
 It was very different in Ireland. There the elections turned 
 wholly on the Land question. Home Rule itself became a 
 
108 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 subordinate issue for the time being. The electors took no 
 interest whatever in Imperiahsm, and the aggressive Foreign 
 and Colonial policy of Lord Beaconsfield's Ministry. The only 
 question was the extent to which Land Reform should be 
 carried. 
 
 There was an almost universal demand for a radical 
 amendment of the Land Act of 1870. In Ulster, quite as 
 much as in the west of Ireland, there was profound dissatis- 
 faction with the results of that Act. While it had purported 
 to recognize and give validity to the Ulster custom, it had 
 failed to secure the tenants from the raising of rents, such as 
 to expropriate the tenants' interest in their holdings. Still 
 less did it provide for a reduction of rent, which a fall of prices 
 made necessary, if the tenants' interest was not to be swallowed 
 up by the landlord. The Ulster tenant farmers, therefore, 
 with one voice, demanded a more complete protection, and 
 the legalizing of their custom by the judicial determination 
 of rent. So strong was this demand that the Tory landowners' 
 candidates for County constituencies in Ulster were compelled 
 to support it. Lord Castlereagh, now Lord Londonderry, who 
 was candidate for County Down, obtained and pubhshed a 
 written promise from Sir Stafford Northcote that, in the event 
 of the Government being maintained in power after the 
 General Election, it would legislate on the land question in 
 accordance with the demands of the Ulster tenants. In the 
 rest of Ireland there was also unanimity as to the necessity of 
 a measure securing the three F's, that is, fixity of tenure, fair 
 rents to be determined by a legal tribunal, and free sale of the 
 tenants' interest. But in many constituencies the electors 
 took up a more advanced demand for the extinction of land- 
 lordism, on the hues indicated by Pamell's speeches, namely, 
 the purchase by the State of the landlord's interest, based on 
 rents not higher than the Poor Law valuation. 
 
 Pamell, suddenly recalled from Canada by the Dissolution 
 of Parliament, displayed enormous activity in the elections. 
 He rushed about Ireland addressing meetings in favour of his 
 candidates. He seemed to be equally concerned in opposing 
 and defeating moderate Home Rulers who followed Mr. Shaw, 
 especially if they were landowners. He was returned himself 
 for three constituencies, the two Counties of Meath and Mayo, 
 and the City of Cork. He elected to sit for Cork, where he 
 
THE GENERAL ELECTION, 1880 109 
 
 was returned at the head of the poll by a majority of 200 above 
 the Tory candidate, and 500 above the two Whigs, who were 
 supported by the Cathohc Bishops and clergy and by most of 
 the business men of the city. 
 
 Pamell was largely, if not mainly, responsible for the selec- 
 tion of candidates in other constituencies. They were mostly 
 young men, quite unknown to fame, or to the constituencies 
 where they came forward ; but they abundantly justified the 
 selection. Among them were John Dillon, elected for Tipperary 
 County in spite of his absence in the United States ; Thomas 
 Sexton, for Shgo (County) ; John Redmond, for New Ross ; 
 T. P. O'Connor, for Galway (City) ; James O' Kelly, for Ros- 
 common ; Arthur O'Connor and Lalor, for Queen's County ; 
 T. D. Sullivan, the poet of the National cause and joumahst ; 
 Richard Power and Leamy, for Waterford ; Barry, for Wexford. 
 Of those in the previous Parliament O'Connor Power, A. M. 
 Sullivan, O'Donnell, Biggar, and Dwyer Gray were again 
 returned. 
 
 Not less remarkable than the return of these men was the 
 fact that they defeated so many of the old and respected 
 Liberal Members. Most of the Members representing landlord 
 interest, whether Whig or Tory, outside of Ulster, were 
 rejected. Many more seats would probably have been won 
 by Pamell and the Land League, if there had been more time 
 to organize, and more money at their disposal. Their only 
 resource appears to have been the sum of £2000 borrowed 
 from the funds of the League, which could not by their rules 
 be devoted to such a purpose. 
 
 The success of the party was the more remarkable as 
 the priests were generally opposed to them. Archbishops 
 McHale, of Tuam, and McCabe, of DubUn, pubhshed violent 
 manifestos against the Land League. As a result of Pamell's 
 efforts his seven supporters in the defunct Parhament were in- 
 creased nearly sixfold in the new one, mainly by newly elected 
 men, but in part by the accession to his party of Members 
 hitherto followers of Mr. Shaw. Of the 103 Members for Ire- 
 land in the new Parhament, the Tory Party returned only 26 ; 
 15 of the remainder were pure Whigs not committed to either 
 section of the Home Rule Party, representing Ulster con- 
 stituencies or small Boroughs elsewhere. The Home Rule 
 followers of Mr. Shaw numbered no more than 22, and the 
 
110 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 residue (39) were to be relied on as members of the new party 
 led by Pamell. 
 
 As soon as the results of the elections, as a whole, were made 
 known. Lord Beaconsfield tendered the resignation of his 
 Government to the Queen. The Queen then invited Lord 
 Hartington to form a Government, but it was obvious that no 
 Liberal Government could be' formed without Mr. Gladstone, 
 who had been the main agent in bringing about the fall of the 
 previous Government. He could not be a member of a Govern- 
 ment, except in the position of its Chief. After a brief con- 
 sultation with some of his political friends. Lord Hartington 
 found himself unable to comply with the Queen's invitation. 
 Her Majesty thereupon, but very unwiUingly, committed to 
 Mr. Gladstone the charge of again forming a Government. 
 
 The new Cabinet was quickly constructed. It consisted of 
 fourteen members, a small number compared with more recent 
 Cabinets. Mr. Gladstone gathered round him most of his old 
 colleagues, with the inclusion of Mr. Chamberlain, as a single 
 representative of the new Radicalism. The Cabinet did not 
 contain a single Irishman, or any one who was in sympathy 
 with Home Rule, or with the new demands for Land Reform 
 in Ireland. 
 
 Lord Hartington, generously oblivious to his claims to the 
 Premiership, arising from the fact that he had led the Liberal 
 Party with conspicuous ability for five years, after the retire- 
 ment of Mr. Gladstone in 1875, was content to take the post 
 of Secretary of State for India. Mr. W. E. Forster, who was 
 almost his equal in status in the Liberal Party, and who might 
 well have expected to be one of the principal Secretaries of 
 State in the new Ministry, accepted the post of danger and 
 difficulty, that of Chief Secretary for Ireland. Mr. Forster had 
 served in Mr. Gladstone's previous Government of 1869-74 as 
 Vice-President of the Council, the virtual head of the Education 
 Department, and in that capacity had carried through the 
 House of Commons three of the most important measures of 
 that Ministry so famed for great legislative work : the Endowed 
 Schools Act, the Education Act, and the Ballot Act. He had 
 impressed himself greatly on the House of Commons, in the 
 conduct of these measures, and by his administrative capacity. 
 He was a powerful, if not a polished, speaker, fearing neither 
 foes nor friends. He had shown in the Education BiU that 
 
THE GENERAL ELECTION, 1880 111 
 
 he was ready to take his own line in the interest of the whole 
 community, against the extreme men of his own party, and 
 to risk his popularity with the Nonconformists. It was known 
 that in early life, during the great famine of 1847-8, he had paid 
 visits to Ireland, and had administered charitable funds 
 raised by the Society of Friends, of which he was then a member, 
 among the starving peasantry of the south and west of Ireland, 
 and had formed a strong opinion as to the miserable condition 
 of the tenantry there, and the necessity for land reform. It 
 was doubtless thought by Mr. Gladstone that he had that 
 mixture of strength and sympathy which specially fitted him for 
 the Irish post. Public opinion in England unanimously ratified 
 the appointment. He did not covet the position. He took it 
 as a soldier would take orders from his chief to go under fire. 
 
 The post of Chief Secretary for Ireland, thus conferred on 
 Mr. Forster, was the more conspicuous and important from the 
 fact that the new Lord-Lieutenant, Lord Cowper, an orthodox 
 Whig of the older type, was not to have a seat in the Cabinet, 
 and consequently the Chief Secretary, with Cabinet rank, 
 though officially subordinate, was practically in supreme 
 command in the Irish Office. Mr. Bright became Chancellor of 
 the Duchy of Lancaster, a position which involved but little 
 real work, and left him free to advise in the Cabinet, and to 
 take part in important debates. Mr. Chamberlain was Presi- 
 dent of the Board of Trade. ^ 
 
 Nothing was decided, on the formation of the Cabinet, as to 
 Irish pohcy. The subject of land reform, however important 
 in Ireland, and however unanimously demanded by members 
 of all parties in that country, was never even mentioned at 
 this early stage of the Government. 
 
 I may mention, as matter of personal reminiscence, that, 
 since the conclusion of my Committee on the Purchase Clauses 
 of the Land Act of 1870, 1 had kept in touch with many of the 
 principal witnesses from Ireland, who had given evidence 
 before it, and who had helped me in the inquiry. I had arrived 
 at the conviction that my proposals as to land purchase, and 
 the conversion of tenants into owners, however desirable and 
 beneficial in the long run, were quite inadequate to meet the 
 agrarian crisis in Ireland, and that nothing short of the adop- 
 
 ^ I was myself appointed Secretary to the Admiralty in the new Govem- 
 nient, a post rather out of the stream of contentious poUtics. 
 
112 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 tion of the three F's could suffice to meet the just claims of the 
 tenants. I represented my views to Mr. Forster on his appoint- 
 ment as Irish Secretary. I urged the importance, and indeed 
 the necessity, of deaUng with the Irish land question imme- 
 diately on the meeting of Parliament. I pointed out that 
 Irish opinion had expressed itself at the General Election 
 unanimously in favour of the three F's, and that there could 
 be no stronger or safer basis for legislation than the declared 
 opinion of the electors. I said that, looking at the state of 
 Ireland, it was almost certain that if legislation was delayed, 
 the agitation there would be aggravated, and that exceptional 
 measures for restoring order would be forced upon the Govern- 
 ment, and that coercion would again, as so often in the past, 
 have to take precedence of remedial legislation. I maintained 
 that the clear and certain lesson to be drawn from Irish 
 history was that by applying coercion before a great remedial 
 measure the effect of the latter was seriously impaired, and 
 that at least half its value was lost ; and that, on the other 
 hand, a remedial measure, if applied at once, in answer to 
 the constitutional demands of the electors, might make it 
 possible to dispense altogether with coercion. 
 
 Without committing himself to any specific proposal, Mr. 
 Forster appeared to be impressed with the expediency of 
 pressing at once whatever legislation could be conceded. He 
 said that he would speak to Mr. Gladstone on the subject, 
 and he asked me to represent my views in that quarter. I 
 took an early opportunity of doing so. I found that Mr. 
 Gladstone was quite unprepared for so radical an amendment 
 of his Land Act of 1870, but he admitted that whatever could 
 be done in the way of Land Reform would best be done at once. 
 A few days later he told me that he had consulted Mr. Hugh 
 Law, the newly appointed Solicitor - General for Ireland, as 
 to immediate legislation on the Land question, but had 
 been met by the assurance that it would be quite impossible 
 to frame a measure, whatever direction it might take, within 
 a reasonable time, so as to present it to Parliament and carry 
 it in the Session of 1880. Mr. Forster told me that he had 
 arrived reluctantly at the same conclusion. In any case the 
 Government decided not immediately to deal with the subject. 
 It met the new ParHament without any such measure, and 
 without any definite promise of one in the future. 
 
THE GENERAL ELECTION, 1880 118 
 
 I have always thought that this was an initial error of the 
 new Government, of a most serious character, the cause of 
 many and grave difficulties. In an Irish Parliament, there 
 cannot be a doubt, in view of the practical unanimity of the 
 electors, that a measure of land reform would have been 
 decided on, and that some lawyer would have been found 
 equal to the task of framing it. 
 
 But even if a full measure of reform could not have been 
 devised in time for legislation in the coming Session, it would 
 have been wise policy to have provided a temporary measure, 
 with the object of putting a stop to evictions, and of allaying 
 the agitation. As it was, the Government met the Irish Party 
 in the new Parliament without any land pohcy, and was soon 
 compelled, at the instance of the extreme section of the Irish 
 Party, to frame a temporary measure. They had the appear- 
 ance, therefore, of conceding to pressure of the extremists, 
 what should have been freely recognized as necessary to meet 
 the emergency in Ireland. 
 
 Another early error of Forster, as it seemed to me, at 
 least, as serious as the above, was that from the very first he 
 assumed a position of antagonism to PameU and his party in 
 the House of Commons. He appeared to consider them as 
 beyond the pale of responsible pohticians. He refrained from 
 having any communication with them. It was still thought 
 in official circles that Shaw and his supporters were the 
 true representatives of Irish opinion. But, in fact, Pamell 
 had already ousted Shaw from this position. On the meeting 
 of Parhament the former was elected Leader of the Irish 
 Party in preference to Shaw, and after accepting the position 
 he was faithfully followed by 38 members, while the other 
 22 members of the old party held aloof with Shaw, and soon 
 ceased altogether to be counted as members of a Home Rule 
 party. This cleavage of the Irish Party in the House of 
 Commons was accentuated by the fact that Pamell and 
 his 38 followers took their seats in the House of Commons 
 on the benches opposite to those of the Government, while 
 Shaw and his smaller band of followers sat on benches on the 
 Ministerial side of the House. There could be no stronger 
 evidence of the break of unity of the Irish Party. Thencefor- 
 ward Shaw's influence waned. His party was disintegrated, 
 and at the next General Election it completely disappeared^ 
 
CHAPTER XII 
 
 THE COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE BILL 
 
 THOUGH the Speech from the Throne at the opening of 
 the Session of 1881 was silent as to Land Reform, it 
 promised to Ireland a measure for assimilating its 
 Borough franchise to that in England, and it announced the 
 intention of the Government not to renew the Coercion Act of 
 their predecessors, which was to expire on June ist. This could 
 not be expected to content the Irish Members. Mr. O'Connor 
 Power, on behalf of the party led by ParneU, moved an amend- 
 ment to the Address to the effect that the condition of Ireland 
 required the immediate attention of the Government, in order 
 to secure to the tenants of land the fruits of their industry. 
 He was supported by Pamell in a vigorous speech which 
 described the terrible condition of the tenants in the west of 
 Ireland. Mr. Shaw followed on behalf of his section of the 
 Irish Party, presenting himself as the moderate politician, 
 compared with his more extreme rival, though substantially 
 his story and his claim were much the same. 
 
 Mr. Forster pleaded as an excuse for the Government, in 
 not deaHng at once with the subject, that it had been quite 
 impossible, in the short time since the accession of the new 
 Government, to come to a decision, or to frame a measure, on 
 so difficult a subject. He announced, however, the immediate 
 appointment of another Royal Commission, to report on the 
 grievances of the tenant farmers of Ireland, and their claim 
 for fixity of tenure, and he expressed the confident hope that 
 its report would be ready for legislation in the following Session. 
 His plea for delay was generally admitted by the Irish Mem- 
 bers ; but they insisted that some immediate and temporary 
 measure was needed to save the tenants from the peril of 
 evictions, which were already being cruelly carried out, or 
 
 114 
 
COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE 115 
 
 were threatened. " If," said Pamell, " in consequence of the 
 delay caused by the Chief Secretary requiring time to con- 
 sider the subject, thousands of tenants run the risk of being 
 driven from their holdings, the Irish Members may fairly ask 
 the Government to give them the benefit of some temporary 
 measiue." 
 
 There was no response from the Government to this very 
 reasonable appeal. A Bill was therefore introduced by the 
 Irish Party to amend the grave defect in the compensation 
 clause of the Land Act of 1870, by undoing the work of the 
 House of Lords, and by providing that compensation should 
 be paid in all cases of eviction, even in the case of non-pa5anent 
 of rent.^ The BiU, by some chance, escaped the notice of 
 opponents, and came on for discussion at a very late hour of 
 the night. Mr. Forster, after some hesitation, promised, on 
 behalf of the Government, to deal with the subject by a clause 
 in a Bill for the further pubhc relief of distress which he had 
 already introduced. Strong objection was raised by the 
 Opposition to this course, and ultimately the Government 
 consented to introduce it in a separate Bill. The measure, 
 entitled Compensation for Disturbance Bill, dealt with the 
 subject in a much more halting manner than the Bill of the 
 Irish Party. It was limited to the half of Ireland where the 
 main distress existed. It excluded Ulster. It was to be in 
 force only till the end of the current year. It was to apply 
 only to tenancies rented at ^^30 a year. Subject to these 
 hmitations, tenants, who were imable to pay full rent, by reason 
 of the two last bad harvests, and who were wilhng to continue 
 their tenancies, on just and reasonable terms, as to rent or 
 otherwise, in the event of such terms being imreasonably re- 
 fused by their landlords, were to be entitled, on eviction, to 
 the compensation payable under the Act of 1870. Judged by 
 subsequent legislation, the Land Act of 1881, the Arrears Act 
 of 1882, and subsequent amending Acts, this proposal of the 
 Government was moderate in the extreme. It met, however, 
 with the most determined and prolonged opposition in the 
 House of Commons, and was rejected with contumely by an 
 
 * I was at this time on friendly terms with Pamell. He consulted me 
 35 to a Bill which he contemplated for suspending evictions altogether for 
 two years. I suggested to him the much more moderate course which he 
 adopted in Mr, O'Cormpr Power's BiU, 
 
116 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 overwhelming majority of the House of Lords. It caused a 
 serious defection in the Liberal Party. Lord Lansdowne, the 
 owner of large estates in Ireland, who had joined the Govern- 
 ment as Under-Secretary of the Home Department, resigned 
 his post on account of this Bill, and commenced a new career, 
 which led him ultimately to the Leadership of the Tory Party 
 in the House of Lords. The measure was assailed as one of 
 pure confiscation, and as interfering with contracts between 
 landlords and tenants. Many of the Whig Members joined in 
 the attack. 
 
 Mr. Forster made a powerful defence of the Bill. He showed 
 the great increase of evictions in Ireland. Defending himself 
 for not having brought in the Bill at the commencement 
 of the Session, he said : " We did not do so because we 
 hoped that we might put off legislation until we had all the 
 facts before us, and knew how the Land Act of 1870 was 
 working. It may be said. Why, then, have you brought it in 
 now ? Well, for this reason, that we could wait no longer. 
 Facts are accumulating upon us. Evictions have increased 
 and are increasing. I have here the figures as to the evictions 
 which the constabulary have had to conduct. They are not 
 aU that have been effected, only those in which the aid of the 
 constabulary has been required, and I deduct from them all 
 the cases where the evicted tenant has been readmitted as 
 caretaker. This last, moreover, has nothing to do with process- 
 serving. The average of evictions for the five years ending 
 1877 was 503 for each year. In 1878 the number was 743. 
 In 1879 it was 1908, and up to June 20th of the present year 
 it was 1073. During these few months also upwards of 15,000 
 notices of eviction had been served. ..." 
 
 The evictions, he said, had to be supported by large bodies 
 of police. In the West Riding of Galway alone, upwards of 
 3000 police were engaged in protecting process-servers, and 600 
 in carrying out evictions. In many cases 100 pohce were in- 
 sufficient to protect a single process-server ; upwards of 200 
 were required to protect a single eviction. He desired the 
 passing of the Bill in the interests of law and order and for the 
 preservation of peace in Ireland. In any case, he said, the 
 law would be enforced. 
 
 One of the ablest speeches on behalf of the Bill was that of 
 Lord Hartington, who, as an Irish landowner, might have 
 
COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE 117 
 
 been expected to be frightened by the tendency of the legis- 
 lation, and who, in the Cabinet, had strongly opposed the 
 measure. 
 
 " The Bill," he said, " was but the logical sequel of the Land 
 Act of 1870. In some parts of Ireland the impoverished 
 circumstances of the tenants have placed in the hands of the 
 landlords a weapon which the Government never contemplated, 
 and which enables the landlords to clear the estate of hundreds 
 of tenants whom, in ordinary circumstances, they would not 
 have been able to remove except by a heavy pecuniary fine. 
 I ask whether that is not a weapon calculated to enable land- 
 lords absolutely to defeat the main purposes of the Act. 
 Supposing a landlord wishes to clear the estate of a number 
 of small tenants ; he knows that this is the time to do it, and 
 if he should lose the opportunity he can never have it again 
 without great pecuniary sacrifice."^ 
 
 Mr. Gladstone threw himself into the struggle for the Bill 
 with his accustomed ardour. In one of his speeches he made 
 use of the historic expression that eviction was to the small 
 tenant in Ireland equivalent to a sentence of death. 
 
 " In the failure of the crops," he said, " caused by the year 
 1879, the act of God has replaced the Irish occupier in the 
 condition in which he stood before the Land Act of 1870. 
 Because what has he to contemplate ? He has to contem- 
 plate eviction for his non-payment of rent and, as a conse- 
 quence of eviction, starvation. It is no exaggeration to say 
 that in a country where the agricultural pursuit is the only 
 pursuit, and where the means of the payment of rent are 
 entirely destroyed for a time by the visitation of Providence, 
 the poor occupier may, under these circumstances, regard a 
 sentence of eviction, coming for him, very near to a sentence 
 of death." 2 
 
 I took part myself in the debate and showed that under 
 the Roman Law the most just and complete code which had 
 ever, in the world's history, been framed, when some unexpected 
 calamity occurred, which made the payment of full rent for 
 the year impossible, the tenant was reheved of the payment 
 
 I was sitting next to Lord Hartington while he spoke. When he sat 
 down I said to him that his speech for the Bill could not have been better. 
 I^tope," he grimly replied, " it persuaded others. It did not persuade me." 
 Hansard, 253, p. 1003. 
 
118 GLADSTONE AND mELAND 
 
 of one-half of it. This had been followed by the codes of 
 almost every country in Europe, except that of our own. In 
 England it had been held by the Judges, in the time of Charles 
 I, that where land had been devastated of its crops by a force 
 under command of Prince Rupert, and there was no produce 
 out of which to pay rent, yet the full rent, under the terms of 
 the tenancy, was payable. 
 
 The main opposition of the Tory Party to the Bill was based 
 on a total misconception of the relations of landlord and tenant 
 in Ireland. It was assumed that the relation was that of free 
 contract, as in the case of landlord and tenant in England. 
 It was left out of sight that the tenants in Ireland had an 
 interest in their holdings, universally claimed by Irish opinion, 
 and practically admitted by the Act of 1870. " The measure," 
 said Mr. Plunket, " is not a relief Bill, but a political one. 
 As between landlord and tenant it will do the greatest injustice. 
 It is a direct confiscation of the income of one class for the 
 benefit of the other. It will strengthen and confirm the disas- 
 trous agitation in Ireland." "It is the commencement of a 
 war between landlords and tenants," said Lord Randolph 
 Churchill. " If the Bill passed," said Mr. W. H. Smith, " no 
 tenant will pay any rent till 1881. It will shake all confidence." 
 
 The Bill was read a second time by a majority of 295 to 217. 
 About 20 Liberals voted against it, and not less than 50 
 abstained from voting. They included many representatives 
 of the old historic Whig families. It occupied the House in 
 Committee for many weeks. Pamell and his followers had 
 supported the second reading. But they soon got into conflict 
 with Forster, and there began that personal antagonism 
 between him and Pamell which was so conspicuous and un- 
 fortunate a feature of the foUowing two years. The Bill, as 
 framed, was on the most moderate lines. Less could not be 
 expected to be of the smallest benefit, or to content the Irish 
 Members. Yet Forster, in the hope of warding off opposition 
 from the Tory Party, offered two concessions of a most serious 
 kind. He proposed to make a further exception to payment of 
 compensation for eviction in cases where the landlords were 
 wiUing to allow the tenants to sell their interest in the holdings ; 
 and he proposed to reduce the class of tenants to benefit from 
 the Bill from those paying rent of £y> a year to £15. Both of 
 these concessions were vehemently opposed by Pamell. He 
 
COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE 119 
 
 showed, as regards the first of these, that in the then state 
 of Ireland, there were no possible purchasers of small holdings, 
 and that the amendment would reduce the Bill to a nuUity. 
 He attacked Forster, and apphed to him the text, " Un- 
 stable as water, thoa shalt not excel." He had intended to 
 support the Bill, he said, but could not now take the respon- 
 sibiUty of voting for it, or wasting the time of the House. The 
 measure would be useless. 
 
 After yehement debate, in which Pamell had all the best of 
 the argument, Mr. Gladstone, on behalf of the Government, 
 withdrew in part the amendment, substituting the words 
 " without the offer of any reasonable alternative " for the 
 proposed words " offer to the tenant to sell his interest " — 
 words which, in the view of the Irish leader, were still open 
 to grave objection. The Government were also compelled by 
 the strong opposition of Pamell to withdraw their proposed 
 limitations as to the class of tenant to be dealt with. It was 
 finally read a third time by a majority of 57, considerably less 
 than one-half the normal majority of the Government. The 
 ParneUites abstained from voting, angered by the weakness 
 shown by Forster, and unwilling to admit that the Bill would 
 sufiice as a remedy for the existing perils to tenants in Ireland. 
 
 In the House of Lords the opposition of the Whigs was fatal 
 to the Bill. Lord Lansdowne made the ablest and fiercest 
 attack upon it. "The Bill," he said, "singles out a particular 
 section of the community, and a special contract into which 
 that section has entered, and it announces with all the solemnity 
 of an Act of Parhament that the Legislature is going to revise 
 the terms of one of the parties to it, so that if that party fails 
 to fulfil its obhgations, the Legislature will shield it from the 
 consequences, which in every civilized society result from a 
 breach of contract. ... It will debauch the conscience of 
 the tenants, and hopelessly extinguish in their minds all self- 
 rehance and honesty. . . . Ireland will be brought within 
 measurable distance of civil war." 
 
 The Duke of Argyll, who was soon to part company with 
 Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal Party on another Irish Land Bill, 
 on this occasion gave effective support. He showed that whole- 
 ale evictions were taking place in Ireland, under conditions 
 of great hardship. " I have been asked," he said, " whether 
 We know of any cases where the landlords have taken advantage 
 
120 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 of the state of things m Ireland to make wholesale evictions. 
 The Government must speak with reserve, but I must say 
 frankly that there have been cases in which undoubtedly 
 landlords have shown a disposition to make wholesale evictions, 
 for non-payment of rent, when the non-pajnnent was clearly 
 due to the failure of crops." He gave as an illustration the 
 case of a property in Galway where 89 tenants paid an aggre- 
 gate rent of £1370. Notices of eviction were served, and when 
 it was endeavoured to enforce them, they met with great 
 resistance. " You have in this case," he said, " a population 
 of five hundred at the mercy of the landowner, who, under the 
 existing law, can be evicted without one shilling to carry them 
 to America." After a discussion of two days only the Bill 
 was rejected by the Lords on August 3rd by 282 to 51, more 
 than half of the usual supporters of the Government voting 
 against it. 
 
 Of the many misdeeds of the House of Lords in rejecting 
 Irish Bills passed by great majorities of the other House, and 
 supported by overwhelming majorities of the Irish Members, 
 this was probably the worst, for it was asked for by the Irish 
 Government as a temporary measure, to enable them better 
 to maintain order in Ireland during the coming winter, and 
 with a clear conscience that no injustice was being done, to 
 support the landlords in the collection of their rents. The 
 Irish Government were practically directed by the House of 
 Lords to enforce evictions for non-payment of rent which 
 they knew to be excessive and unjust, having regard to the 
 two bad seasons, and to use all the force at their disposal for 
 the purpose. 
 
 How was the Government to meet this rebuff by the House 
 of Lords ? Was it to dissolve Parliament at the bidding of the 
 Peers, and to take the opinion of the electors on the Bill ? 
 To do so would be to admit that the House of Lords had the 
 right to compel a dissolution of Parliament, a claim never 
 admitted by any Liberal Government. Would it also be 
 reasonable to submit to the electors of Great Britain a question 
 of land tenure affecting only Ireland, of which they understood 
 nothing and cared less ? An overwhelming majority of the 
 Irish Members had declared in favour of the Bill. Was their 
 opinion to be set aside by a majority of Members for Great 
 Britain ? The majority of the House of Commons had been 
 
COMPENSATION FOR DISTURBANCE 121 
 
 returned with the special mandate to ovemde and reverse the 
 Foreign and Colonial policy of Lord Beaconsfield's Govern- 
 ment. The new Government had as yet been able to do httle 
 in this direction. Was their new pohcy to be risked by another 
 appeal to the electors on a totally different issue ? 
 
 The Government rightly decided neither to resign nor to 
 appeal to the electors, but to rub on in Ireland, as best they 
 could, till the next Session, and then to deal with Irish Land 
 Reform on a larger scale. Mr. Forster at first threw out hints 
 that he might be compelled to resign his post, if Irish land- 
 lords should insist on demanding fuU rents, rather than enforce 
 the law on evictions which he knew to be unjust ; but he 
 ultimately decided to struggle on in office through the winter. 
 Resignation would mean desertion of his colleagues. It would 
 compel the Government itself to resign, for no one of his col- 
 leagues could be expected to take his place and carry on the 
 government of Ireland. The position not the less was a most 
 cruel one for him. For the rest of his hfe he spoke with the 
 greatest indignation and impatience of this action of the House 
 of Lords. 
 
 The sequel showed that the House of Lords were not Unly 
 in the wrong, but that they had done the very worst possible 
 thing for the cause they had at heart. During the next six 
 months evictions and consequent outrages increased enor- 
 mously in Ireland. They compelled legislation in the Session 
 of 1881 far more serious to Irish landlords than that of 1880. 
 If they had passed the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, 
 and it had produced the expected effect of quieting agitation, 
 it may be doubted whether a Land Act, so extreme and 
 revolutionary as that of 1881, would have been adopted by 
 the Government, or would have been passed by Parliament. 
 
 Later in the Session the House of Lords added to their list 
 of wrongs to Ireland, by rejecting a measure passed by the 
 Commons for assimilating the law for the registration of Irish 
 electors to that of England. Pamell indignantly pressed 
 the Government to tack this Bill to the Appropriation 
 Bill. The Government refused, but Mr. Forster gave a crumb 
 of comfort to the Irish Members for the rejection of this 
 Registration Bill, by the assertion that if such a course were 
 taken often, it would be very difiicult for the two Houses to 
 go on, and the House of Commons might think that some 
 
122 GLADSTONE AND ffiELAND 
 
 change in the constitution of the House of Lords was desirable 
 and might be necessary. The House of Commons must not 
 forget, he said, that they were representatives of the people, 
 and that the power which the House of Lords had was simply 
 owing to an accident of birth. This seems to have been 
 regarded as a very radical pronouncement in those days. By 
 the light of recent events it would seem to be a very mild one. 
 
 It remains only to state of this short Session of 1880, that a 
 new party bent on obstruction came into existence in it — the 
 Fourth Party, as it was called, consisting of Mr. Gorst, Sir 
 H. Drummond Wolff, Lord Randolph Churchill, and Mr. Arthur 
 Balfour. In a discussion on obstruction, Lord Hartington 
 pointed out that three members of this small party had made 
 247 speeches and asked 140 questions, as compared with 152 
 speeches and 34 questions of the three most active members 
 of the Irish Party. 
 
 Parliament was not prorogued till September 6th. Nearly 
 the whole of the Session had been expended on Irish questions. 
 The only result, so far as Ireland was concerned, was a Relief 
 Act providing an additional million, by way of loan to land- 
 lords under the Act of the late Government, for the employ- 
 ment of labour in the distressed districts. 
 
CHAPTER XIII 
 
 THE WINTER OF 1880-I 
 
 THE rejection by the House of Lords of the Compensa- 
 tion Bill speedily produced a most m£dign effect in 
 Ireland. Discontent was everywhere intensified. 
 Agitation became fiercer. Evictions were multiplied. They 
 were resisted with greater determination and violence. 
 Agrarian crimes followed in their wake. Those who took 
 the farms from which tenants had been evicted were 
 assaulted ; their property was damaged, their cattle were 
 maimed. Outrages of all kinds increased in number, and 
 became more brutal in quahty. From the foundation of 
 the Land League, at the Irishtown meeting, in April of the 
 previous year, till the rejection of the Compensation Bill, 
 there had been very few, if any, agrarian murders in Ireland. 
 They now became frequent, not, indeed, by any means so 
 numerous as in past times of agrarian and pohtical agitation, 
 but still such as greatly to alarm the landowning classes in 
 Ireland, and to impress unfavourably pubhc opinion in England. 
 Speeches at Land League meetings became more violent. 
 Large funds in aid of the cause were remitted from America. 
 They were spent in relief of evicted tenants, in building huts 
 for them, and in defending persons prosecuted for resisting 
 process-servers and evictions. The Land League branches 
 assumed the function of courts for the determination of what 
 reductions of rent ought to be made in their districts, what 
 evictions were unjust, and in what cases it was permissible to 
 take farms from which the tenants had been evicted. 
 
 Pamell crossed over to Ireland, as soon as the Session was 
 at an end, and addressed a series of great meetings. The 
 niost important was at Ennis, on September 19th. His speech 
 there was marked by distinct hostility to Mr. Gladstone and 
 
 123 
 
124 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Mr. Forster. He pointed out that the Government had failed 
 to carry the measure which it had proclaimed to be necessary 
 for the protection of vast numbers of Irish tenants from 
 eviction for non-payment of rent, which the bad seasons 
 had made impossible ; that there was no certain promise of 
 adequate legislation on the Land question in the coming year ; 
 that a Royal Commission had been appointed, with the 
 personnel of which the Irish Members were dissatisfied ; and 
 that the Chief Secretary had proclaimed that the law would be 
 maintained — in other words, that the landlords would be 
 supported by all the force of the police in their evictions under 
 the existing state of the law. He advised the tenants to place 
 no confidence in the Government Commission. Though he did 
 not advise them to refrain from giving evidence before it, he 
 warned them against the danger of accepting responsibihty 
 for its proceedings and conclusions — ^most sensible advice to 
 them under the circumstances. He then proceeded in these 
 strong words : 
 
 *' Depend upon it, the measure of the Land Bill of next 
 Session will be the measure of your activity and energy this 
 winter ; it will be the measure of your determination not to 
 pay unjust rents ; it will be the measure of your determination 
 to keep a firm grip of your homestead ; it will be the measure 
 of your determination not to bid for farms, from which others 
 have been evicted, and to use the strong force of pubhc opinion 
 to deter any unjust men amongst yourselves — and there are 
 many such — from bidding for such farms. If you refuse to 
 pay unjust rents, if you refuse to take farms from which others 
 have been evicted, the Land question must be settled, and 
 settled in a way that will be satisfactory to you. It depends 
 therefore upon yourselves, and not upon any Commission or 
 any Government. When you have made this question ripe 
 for settlement, then and not till then will it be settled." He 
 then proceeded to suggest to them a method to give effect to 
 their determination. 
 
 " What are you to do," he said, " to a tenant who bids for 
 a farm from which another tenant has been evicted ? " 
 
 Several voices : " Shoot him." 
 
 Mr. Pamell : " I think I heard somebody say ' Shoot him.' 
 I wish to point out to you a very much better way — a more 
 Christian and charitable way, which will give the lost man an 
 
THE WINTER OF 1880-1 125 
 
 opportunity of repenting. When a man takes a farm, from 
 which another has been unjustly evicted, you must shun him 
 in the roadside, when you meet him ; you rust shun him in 
 the streets of the town ; you must shun him in the shop ; you 
 must shun him in the fair-green and in the market-place, 
 and even in the place of worship, by leaving him alone ; by 
 putting him into a moral Coventry ; by isolating him from the 
 rest of the country, as if he were a leper of old — ^you must show 
 him your detestation of the crime he has committed." 
 
 In a later speech, at New Ross, he developed his own views as 
 to what should be the goal of land reformers in Ireland : 
 
 " We seek as Irish Nationalists for a settlement of the Land 
 question which shall] be permanent — which shall for ever put 
 an end to the war of classes which has unhappily existed in 
 this country ... a war which supphes the strongest induce- 
 ment to the Irish landlords to uphold the system of EngUsh 
 misrule, which has placed these landlords in Ireland. Looking 
 forward to the future of our country, we wish to avoid all 
 elements of antagonism between classes. I am wiUing to have 
 a struggle between classes in Ireland — a struggle that should 
 be short, sharp, and decisive — once for all ; but I am not 
 willing that this struggle should be perpetuated at intervals, 
 when these periodic revaluations of the holdings of the tenants 
 would come under the system of what is called fixity of tenure 
 at valued rents." 
 
 " Now, then, is the time for the Irish tenantry to show their 
 determination ; to show the Government of England that they 
 will be satisfied with nothing less than the ownership of the 
 land of Ireland. ... I see no difficulty in arriving at such a 
 solution, and in arriving at it in this way ; by the payment of a 
 fair rent, and a fair and fixed rent not hable to recurrent and 
 perhaps near periods of revision, but by the payment of a fair 
 rent for the space, say, of thirty-five years, after which time 
 there would be nothing further to pay, and in the meantime 
 the tenant would have fixity of tenure." 
 
 At Galway he explained the ultimate object he had in view. 
 
 " I wish," he said, " to see the tenant farmers prosperous ; 
 but large and important as is the class of tenant farmers, 
 constituting as they do, with their wives and families, the 
 majority of the people of their country, I would not have 
 taken off my coat and gone to this work if I had not known 
 
126 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 that we were lajdng the foundation in this movement for the 
 regeneration of our legislative independence." By " legislative 
 independence " he clearly meant Home Rule and not sepa- 
 ration. At Kilkenny, October 3rd, he expressed disbehef in 
 the possibility of any partnership between landowners and 
 tenants. One of them must go. 
 
 Pamell's speeches must be studied and compared with 
 subsequent results of the agitations, or rather the succession of 
 agitations in the next twenty years, and with the final settle- 
 ment propounded in 1903 by Mr. Balfour's Government, at 
 the instance of Mr. Wyndham, of universal ownership of their 
 holdings by tenant farmers, in order to estimate at their true 
 worth his statesmanship and prevision. The settlement he 
 aimed at has, in fact, been approved by the Imperial Legis- 
 lature, and is in course of being carried out upon terms much 
 more favourable to the tenants than Parnell could have con- 
 ceived to be possible. 
 
 A few days after the Ennis speech, Parnell's advice as to 
 social ostracism was given practical effect to in an historic 
 case. Captain Boycott, the agent for Lord Erne's property at 
 Lough Mask, in Mayo, who farmed himself a considerable 
 extent of land, had a dispute with his farm labourers as to their 
 wages, and failing to come to terms, dismissed the whole of 
 them. No other labourers in the district could be induced to 
 take their place. Captain Boycott then, by way of reprisal to 
 the district, proceeded to take action against the numerous 
 tenants of Lord Erne. He insisted upon payment of full rent 
 and arrears, and threatened them with eviction. The tenants 
 refused to pay an3rthing unless a fair reduction was made. 
 The local Land League then took up the case. The system of 
 ostracism was brought into play. In furtherance of this, no 
 one could be found willing to serve the writs of eviction. 
 The local tradesmen refused to sell food to Captain Boycott, 
 or to shoe his horses, or otherwise to supply his wants. No 
 one was willing to help him in gathering his crops. His 
 domestic servants left him. Captain Boycott appealed in 
 the Press for sympathy and aid. In response to this, fifty 
 Orangemen from Ulster volunteered their services to gather 
 his crops, and dig his potatoes. It was thought necessary by 
 the Government to give special protection to them. Two 
 thousand soldiers formed an escort for them. Large bodies 
 
THE WINTER OF 1880-1 
 
 127 
 
 of the constabulary were collected in the district. These 
 invaders were left severely alone. No one would supply cars 
 for them. They could obtain no food in the district. By the 
 aid of these intruders from Ulster, guarded in this way, crops 
 to the value of £350 were harvested at a total cost to the 
 Government of ^^3500. 
 
 In the end Captain Boycott was compelled to admit defeat. 
 He resigned his agency and left the country. The case 
 attracted universal attention and comment. A new word, 
 "boycotting," was coined and added to the Enghsh language, 
 to take its place beside those of " l5niching " and " burking," 
 also of Irish origin. It has been adopted in most languages in 
 Europe. The process of boycotting spread widely in Ireland, 
 and was applied freely to other cases of dispute between 
 landlords and tenants, and to disputes in other trades of all 
 kinds. It proved to be most efl&cacious in deterring landlords 
 from eviction. 
 
 While these speeches were being made, and while evictions 
 on the one hand and outrages on the other were being multi- 
 plied, Mr. Forster faced the position with courage and deter- 
 mination. He was in a very solitary position, at the head- 
 quarters of the Irish Government at Dublin. He was between 
 two antagonistic forces, the landlords and the Tory Party on 
 the one hand, and the Land League, the tenants, and the great 
 majority of the Irish people on the other. He had nothing to 
 offer in appeasement of public opinion. He had no authority, 
 at that time, to promise a wide and popular measure of Land 
 Reform. The only expectation held out was that of a possible 
 report from a Royal Commission, the constitution of which 
 did not inspire any confidence in the National Party. All that 
 Mr. Forster could actually undertake to do was to maintain 
 the law in Ireland, and that meant to the tenant farmers the 
 support of evictions for the non-payment of rents which under 
 the conditions of the past two years could not be paid. 
 
 Mr. Forster was deeply pained and horrified by the outrages 
 which were committed. They appeared to lessen, if they did 
 not extinguish, his sympathy for the tenants in the numerous 
 evictions which were being carried out, and which he had to 
 support with police and soldiers. He did not connect these 
 two classes of events as cause and effect. He was obsessed with 
 the behef that the outrages were the result only of the agitation 
 
128 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 of the Land League, and of the violent speeches made at its 
 meetings. 
 
 In Mr. Forster's letters to Mr. Gladstone, and in those of 
 Lord Cowper, the Lord-Lieutenant, to the Cabinet, we can 
 trace the inception and progress of the policy to put down 
 outrages, and the agitation, which they beUeved to be the 
 cause of them, by a strong coercive measure. 
 
 Early in October, within one month of the prorogation of 
 Parhament, we find Mr. Forster writing to Mr. Gladstone from 
 Dublin that he was contemplating the prosecution of Pamell 
 and other leaders of the Land League. The Law Officers had 
 been asked for their opinion. There were, he said, the strongest 
 moral grounds, but doubtful legal grounds, for such a prosecu- 
 tion. In any case he could not expect a conviction. He did 
 not feel sure that it would stop or materially check the outrages. 
 Pamell, he said, had incited these crimes, but they might now 
 be beyond his control. If the prosecution should fail the 
 Government might be driven to call a special Session of 
 Parliament for a coercive measure, in the direction of a 
 suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. 
 
 A few days later Mr. Forster wrote again to Mr. Gladstone : 
 " We may find that nothing will check outrages but the arrest 
 and detention of men under suspicion of committing them. 
 . . . When the whole population S5mipathizes with men who 
 commit outrages, juries will not convict. The suspension 
 of the Habeas Corpus Act is a most violent and brutal 
 remedy. We must be sure that it is the only remedy." 
 A fortnight later, on October 25th, he wrote again, " The 
 last two or three days there has been some diminution 
 of outrages. It is owing to the Land League getting their 
 way and not needing outrages." " Unless real improvement 
 takes place I cannot face the winter, in January and February, 
 without special legislation. I do not beheve that any Bill 
 will be of use, short of suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act." 
 " The state of the country is undoubtedly most serious. Nor 
 do the number of outrages by any means represent the gravity 
 of the situation, and for this reason — that, in many places, 
 those who profit by outrages are completely masters of the 
 position, and thus the temptation is removed. Nobody dares 
 to evict. Tenants of evicted farms, even those who have been 
 in possession for more than a year,, are daily giving them up. 
 
THE WINTER OF 1880-1 129 
 
 . The sudden imprisonment of some of those who are 
 known to instigate, or to commit crime, would strike home in 
 a way that nothing else could do, for no man would know 
 whether his turn would not come next." 
 
 On November 8th Mr. Forster again wrote : " October is 
 very bad. There have been very few evictions. Pamell is 
 quite right in saying that the Land League has stopped 
 evictions, though he ought to have said — the Land League and 
 its attendant outrages. . . . The present outrages, or rather the 
 condition of the country which produces the outrages, is owing 
 to the action of the League, but I beheve that now these 
 outrages are very much beyond their control. . . . The actual 
 perpetrators and planners are old Fenians, and old Ribbon- 
 men and mauvais sujets. They would shrink into their holes 
 if a few were arrested." ^ 
 
 The question of summoning Parliament for the special 
 purpose of passing a coercive measure for Ireland was then 
 brought before the Cabinet. It led to a great and prolonged 
 struggle. It was vehemently opposed by two of its leading 
 members, Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain. Mr. Gladstone also 
 seems to have been much opposed to the form of coercion 
 asked for, namely, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. 
 In a letter to Mr. Forster he pointed out the grave objection to 
 the imprisonment of men under suspicion and without any 
 trial. 
 
 While this conflict was proceeding Mr. Forster wrote on 
 November i8th : ** Evictions 82 in the last six weeks against 
 671 for the previous three months." That is a reduction from 
 50 a week to 12. " Outrages," he added, " are not caused at 
 present by evictions. Pamell can claim the credit of stopping 
 evictions. Outrages and fear of outrages have done their 
 work." 
 
 Both Mr. Forster and Lord Cowper threatened resignation, 
 if their demand for a speedy suspension of the Habeas Corpus 
 Act was not agreed to. It was not till November 27th that this 
 conflict in the Cabinet was brought to an end by a com- 
 promise. Mr. Forster's demand for a suspension of the Habeas 
 Corpus was conceded ; but Parliament was to be summoned 
 for the purpose, early in January, and not earher as pressed 
 for by the Irish Government. Rather than break up the 
 
 1 Life of W, E. Forster, II, 265. 
 9 
 
130 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Cabinet, Mr. Forster determined to carry on his work in a way 
 he disapproved of for another month, throwing the responsi- 
 bility upon his colleagues. 
 
 Lord Cowper also, writing to Mr. Gladstone, said that he 
 was in great doubt whether he was justified in retaining the 
 position of Lord-Lieutenant, unless the remedy he asked for 
 was provided, but as he was unwilling to leave the ship in the 
 middle of the storm, and as he felt that Mr. Forster's position 
 would become untenable, if he left, he had come to the con- 
 clusion not to do anything until January, when if the legisla- 
 tion he asked for was not conceded, he would place his resigna- 
 tion in the hands of the Government. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's answer was interesting and important. 
 While expressing satisfaction that Lord Cowper had deferred 
 until January any intention to resign his office, he wrote : 
 " What I personally think a very doubtful remedy is a suspen- 
 sion of the Habeas Corpus Act, proposed alone, carried after 
 much delay in the teeth of two-thirds of the representatives 
 of Ireland (without taking English allies into account). You 
 may rely upon it, when the time you name comes, the Cabinet 
 will look at the duty of defending proprietary rights, without 
 any mawkish susceptibilities. ... It is with regret, perhaps 
 with mortification, that I see the question of Land Reform 
 again assuming, or having assumed, its large proportion. My 
 desire certainly would have been to remain on the lines of the 
 Act of 1870, such as it left the House of Commons." ^ 
 
 It appears, then, that so late as November, 1880, Mr. Glad- 
 stone had not arrived at the conclusion that it would be 
 necessary to embark on another great measure of Land 
 Reform for Ireland. The patching up of the Act of 1870 was 
 the outside of what he then contemplated. Another point 
 brought out clearly by the correspondence is that in the 
 opinion of the Irish Government the Land League had been 
 successful in putting a stop to evictions. It had done what the 
 rejected Bill of the Government (the Compensation for Dis- 
 turbance BiU) had been intended to do. 
 
 No one who looks dispassionately at the facts of the time 
 can doubt that, but for the action of the Land League, evictions, 
 instead of coming nearly to an end, would have been greatly 
 multiplied, and that they would have led to a great increase of 
 
 ^ Life of Parnell, II, 260. 
 
THE WINTER OF 1880-1 
 
 131 
 
 outrages and crime, as in many past agitations in Ireland. 
 This view is strongly confirmed by the fact that when Mr. 
 Forster succeeded in inducing Parliament to give him power to 
 suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and when he had arrested and 
 imprisoned every man under suspicion of committing outrage 
 or inciting to outrage, and when finally he had gone the length 
 of arresting and imprisoning the leaders of the Land League, 
 including Parnell, crimes and outrages, instead of being put an 
 end to, or even greatly reduced, were seriously increased in 
 number and violence. 
 
 To Parnell must be mainly credited the advice to substitute 
 the scheme of boycotting for the more violent and criminal 
 acts, which had always been the feature of agrarian agita- 
 tion. Of the ethics of the system of boycotting, not for the 
 first time devised, but then recommended in pubUc speech 
 by a responsible leader, as a substitute for more violent acts, 
 there is much to be said. From a legal point of view it 
 seems that the mere refraining, by one or more persons, 
 without combination directed against a particular person, 
 from intercourse or trading with a neighbour, by way of 
 protest against some action of his, held to be unjust, or 
 against the pubhc interest of the district, is certainly not 
 unlawful or criminal. Nor can a speech indicating that 
 such a course is open to the hearers, and is justifiable 
 and expedient in certain cases, not directed against a 
 particular person, be held to be an illegal act, as inciting 
 to violence or crime. But, on the other hand, a combina- 
 tion of persons, aimed at a particular person, to refrain 
 from dealing with him, and with the dehberate intention 
 of injuring him in his trade or occupation, on account of his 
 action in some matter obnoxious to them, may undoubtedly 
 be held to be a criminal conspiracy ; and a speech advising 
 such a course and pointing specially to the obnoxious person 
 may equally be held to be an incitement to a criminal act. 
 But in each of these cases it is a question for the Jury to deter- 
 mine, and not for , the Judge who tries the case. The 
 question of motives then arises, and it is competent for the 
 Jury to take into account the motives of those engaged in the 
 combination, and the conduct of the person against whom it is 
 directed. 
 
 However this may be, boycotting, at the time we are 
 
182 GLADSTONE AND mELAND 
 
 dealing with, was a method by which Irish opinion, deprived 
 of the power of effecting its object, through the legitimate and 
 constitutional method of a legislative measure, sought to 
 effect it, indirectly by combination, and by the use of a 
 method, open to grave abuse, and resulting in not a few cases 
 in great hardship, but not the less a rough-and-ready way 
 of enforcing public opinion against injustice and wrong. It is 
 quite certain that by the use of it evictions were practically 
 stayed, and we have the high authority of Mr. Gladstone for 
 the admission that, but for the Land League and its agitation 
 and its boycottings, the Land Act of 1881 would not have been 
 passed by Parliament. 
 
 Meanwhile, on November 3rd, Mr. Forster decided to 
 prosecute fourteen of the leaders of the Land League, includ- 
 ing Pamell, Dillon, Biggar, Sexton, and T. D. Sullivan. The 
 charge against them was that of conspiracy to prevent the pay- 
 ment of rent, to resist the process of eviction, to prevent the 
 taking of farms from which the tenants had been evicted, and 
 to create ill-will amongst Her Majesty's subjects. Pamell 
 and Biggar met this move with characteristic contempt and 
 defiance. " I regret," said the former, in a speech at Dublin 
 two days later, " that Mr. Forster has chosen to waste his 
 time, the money of the Government and our money on these 
 prosecutions. He has begun in a bad way, and I fear the result 
 of his attempt to govern Ireland will be to shatter his reputation 
 for statesmanship, which he formerly acquired in another 
 branch. He is surrounded by a landlord atmosphere at the 
 Castle of Dublin, and although he may be able to resist the 
 effect of that atmosphere longer than most men, yet sooner or 
 later it is bound to tell upon him." Biggar, on his part, is 
 reported to have exclaimed when he heard the news of the 
 intended prosecutions, " D — d lawyers, sir, d — d lawyers. 
 Wasting the pubhc money. Wasting the pubhc money. \Vhigs 
 d — d rogues. Forster d — d fool." ^ 
 
 The prosecutions appear to have been entered upon without 
 much hope of conviction. The usual course of packing the 
 Jury, so familiar to the Irish legal authorities, was not adopted 
 on this occasion, and without that, it must have been known 
 to the Government that conviction was impossible. The trial 
 took place before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald and Mr. Justice Barry. 
 
 1 Life of Parnell, I, 253. 
 
THE WINTER OF 1880-1 
 
 188 
 
 It lasted for twenty-two days, and was not concluded till after 
 the meeting of Parliament in 1881. The Jury could not agree in 
 their verdict. In the quaint language of the foreman, " They 
 were unanimous that they could not agree." Ten of them were 
 for acquittal and two only for conviction. The result led to 
 rejoicings all over Ireland. It may be doubted whether any- 
 where in the United Kingdom a conviction could have been 
 obtained. While it may have been necessary to show that the 
 law was powerless to convict, before asking for coercive powers 
 from Parliament, there is no doubt that the abortive prosecu- 
 tion brought the Irish Government and Mr. Forster into 
 contempt, and did much to strengthen the Land League. 
 
CHAPTER XIV 
 
 THE COERCION ACT, 1 88 1 
 
 IN 1881, Parliament was summoned to meet on an excep- 
 tionally early day, January yth, for the double purpose 
 of carrying a drastic Coercion Act for Ireland, and of 
 effecting some change in the Land Law, the extent of which 
 had not as yet been decided by the Government. 
 
 On the second day of the debate on the Address, Pamell 
 made one of the two best speeches of his Parliamentary career. 
 He defended the Land League, and repeated in the House of 
 Commons the advice to the tenants, which he had given at 
 numerous meetings in Ireland, and for which he was, at the 
 very moment, being prosecuted at Dublin. The tone of his 
 speech was moderate and concihatory. Coercion, he said, would 
 contribute to crime and outrage by encouraging landlords to 
 evict their tenants. The question was whether there should 
 be an open organization or secret societies. What the Land 
 League had effected was to organize the Irish people to resist 
 unjust laws by constitutional means. This course had been 
 forced upon them by the rejection of the Compensation for 
 Disturbance Bill in the last Session. The Irish people had 
 unfortunately an evil and unhappy history. They had been 
 tempted and driven too much in the past to rely on murder 
 and outrage for redress of their grievances. The politician, 
 who attempted to originate a movement, would do so with the 
 knowledge that there would be crime and outrage, when there 
 was distress, and when there were evictions, and that he 
 would be made personally responsible for the unhappy results. 
 Resistance to unjust laws sometimes became a high duty, 
 and he could conceive of no higher duty on the part of the 
 Irish people than a willingness to go to jail to endure hard 
 labour, and to encounter other sufferings, rather than surrender 
 
 134 
 
THE COERCION ACT, 1881 135 
 
 this right. Those for whom he spoke had undoubtedly called 
 upon the Irish people to resist constitutionally — without 
 violence, but by organization, by refusing to take farms from 
 which tenants had been evicted, and by refusing to deal with 
 the persons who took the farms, and to supply them with 
 provisions — the unjust laws which were the result of the legisla- 
 tion of England. But the emergency was such that there was 
 no other course open to them. He entreated the House 
 of Commons not to be again the cat's-paw of the landlords. 
 He warned the Government that if they attempted to take 
 away from the people the right of meeting pubUcly and dis- 
 cussing their grievances — if they prevented them from organiz- 
 ing, if they prevented them from bringing to bear the strong 
 force of pubhc opinion on individuals, who defy the public 
 opinion of their neighbours, they would see murder and outrage 
 walking abroad through the land, notwithstanding all their 
 Coercion Acts. He moved as an amendment that " the 
 peace and tranquiUity of Ireland cannot be promoted by 
 suspending any of the constitutional rights of the people." 
 
 Mr. Forster retorted in angry terms, and while acknow- 
 ledging the moderation of Pamell's speech, expressed regret 
 that he had not spoken with the same reserve in Ireland. 
 Experience, he said, had shown that the Land League 
 meetings were usually followed by attacks on persons or pro- 
 perty. Quoting from Parnell's Ennis speech, he found in it a 
 clear recommendation not only not to take farms from which 
 tenants had been evicted, but a threat that those who took 
 them would be cut off from all social intercourse and treated 
 as lepers. It was clear from this and other similar advice that 
 it was the object of the Member for Cork to replace the law of 
 the land by the unwritten law of the League. He did not 
 charge Mr. Pamell with having himself incited to the outrages 
 which had occurred, but he held that he must have known 
 what would be the result of his speeches and of his action. 
 This remark drew an angry protest from the Irish Members, 
 and an appeal to the Speaker. Mr. Forster, in deference to 
 the protest, slightly modified his language. " Mr. Pamell," 
 he said, " with his knowledge of the Irish character, and with 
 his abihty, ought to have known, and it is a wonderful thing 
 if he did not know, what the natural effect of his speeches 
 would be. At any rate, the outrages undoubtedly followed 
 
136 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 upon the meetings of the Land League." He dwelt on the 
 long Ust of outrages committed during the closing months of 
 the past year, and on the wide spread of cases of intimidation. 
 He then proceeded to defend himself against the Tory attack 
 for not doing enough to protect law and order. " We have 
 thought it our duty," he said, " to try and exhaust the con- 
 stitutional powers we possessed, and we have exhausted them. 
 We are driven to the distressing conclusion that further powers 
 must be asked for. We believe that our first duty is to protect 
 liberty and person and property. We cannot quietly sit by 
 and allow the law of the land to be replaced by another law. 
 We cannot allow men to be interfered with in the daily walks 
 of life by a system of terrorism. But we do not for a moment 
 suppose that the fulfilment of this painful duty constitutes 
 our whole duty to Ireland. We still intend, and we still do 
 beheve that we shall be able to look into the grievances of 
 Ireland connected with her principal industry, grievances which 
 we fully admit are at the foundation of the state of things 
 which now exists." 
 
 Mr. Shaw, the late leader of the Irish Party, and still the 
 leader of the section which refused to support Pamell, ^ followed 
 Mr. Forster in a speech, in which he defended the Land League 
 from the charge of having been the cause of outrage. He 
 expressed his behef that none of the agrarian outrages of the 
 preceding months could be traced to the meetings of the Land 
 League. Mr. Davitt, he knew, ever since his return from 
 America, had earnestly set himself the task of discouraging 
 anything like crime, arguing that crime must be detrimental 
 to the people's cause. Nevertheless, there was an immense 
 deal going in connection with local Land Leagues that was not 
 at all creditable, and was most injurious to the real interests 
 of the people. The country was absurdly and cruelly over- 
 rented, and the outcome of the pohcy was the permanent 
 pauperization of the people. It would be better not to touch 
 the Irish Land question at all, than not to deal with it firmly 
 and effectively. Measures of coercion might be pressed for- 
 ward, and might, after a few weeks or months of struggle in 
 that House, become the law of the land, but the seeds of sus- 
 
 ^ On January 12th, a few days after this speech, Mr. Shaw retired from 
 the Home Rule Party, and was followed in this by about twenty Irish 
 Members who sat with him on the Government Bench side of the House. 
 
THE COERCION ACT, 1881 187 
 
 picion and distrust would be sown, and would not fail to produce 
 results which would be most prejudicial to the success of any 
 legislation of a remedial character. As to coercion, what, he 
 would ask, was the use of it in dealing with 500,000 or 600,000 
 farms, and with the whole people of the country banded 
 together ? 
 
 Mr. Pamell's motion was rejected by 435 to 57. Of the 
 Irish Members 51 voted with Pamell, 30 abstained from 
 voting, and only 22 supported the Government. The debate 
 on the Address was prolonged for eleven days, most of them 
 occupied with the Irish question. When at last it was con- 
 cluded, Mr. Forster moved for leave to introduce his Coercion 
 Bill for Ireland. He proposed to give power to the Lord- 
 Lieutenant to issue a warrant for the arrest of any person, 
 whom he might reasonably suspect of treasonable or agrarian 
 offences. Persons so arrested were to be treated as uncon- 
 victed prisoners, but might be detained until September 30th, 
 in the following year. He supported this proposal by 
 statistics showing the great increase of agrarian crime. He 
 attributed this to the Land League. Personal inseciuity had, 
 in consequence of the Land League, increased so rapidly that 
 no less than 153 persons were attended, day and night, by 
 two constables each, and 1149 were watched by the pohce. 
 The serving of writs was as impossible as the collection of 
 rents, and the shopkeepers were as unable to obtain justice as 
 the landlords. " In Ireland," he said, " the Land League is 
 supreme, and there is a real reign of terror over the whole 
 country. No man dares take a farm from which another 
 person has been ejected, nor work for a man who pays his rent 
 and who refuses to join the Land League. Those who defy 
 the law are safe, while those who keep it, the honest men, in 
 short, are in danger. The ordinary law is powerless. The 
 unwritten law is powerful, because punishment is sure to 
 follow its edicts." 
 
 The particular form of coercion apphed for by Mr. Forster 
 Was strongly disapproved by Mr. Gladstone. " I considered," 
 he wrote, late in his hfe, in a memorandmn, " that coercion 
 should be apphed by giving stringency to the existing law, 
 and not by abohshing the right to be tried before being im- 
 prisoned." To his distress, however, he found that Chamber- 
 lain and Bright, who had for weeks strongly opposed coercion 
 
188 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 in any form, when at last they acquiesced in its necessity, had 
 arrived at the conclusion that if there was to be coercion at 
 all, there Wcis something simple and effective in the suspension 
 of the Habeas Corpus Act, which made such a method prefer- 
 able to others. He therefore gave his consent, for otherwise 
 his resistance would have broken up the Government, and 
 have compelled his own retirement, before a commencement 
 had been made of the work which had been specially commis- 
 sioned by the constituents, in relation to the Foreign pohcy 
 of the country. 
 
 " Forster," he added, " was a very impracticable man, placed 
 in a position of great responsibility. He was set upon a 
 method of legislation, adapted to the erroneous belief that the 
 mischief lay only with a limited number of well-known indi- 
 viduals — that is to say, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus 
 Act. ... I must say that I never fell into this extraordinary 
 illusion of Forster about his village ruffians." ^ 
 
 The sequel will show that Mr. Gladstone was right in his 
 diagnosis, and that Mr. Forster was completely misled by the 
 police and the Dublin officials as to their power of laying 
 their hands on the perpetrators of crime. 
 
 Meanwhile the debate on the introduction of the Bill was 
 protracted over several nights. It was vehemently opposed 
 by the Irish Members. Mr. Gladstone, whatever his opinion 
 on the scheme of coercion in the Bill, gave his most loyal 
 support to Mr. Forster. His speech, however, showed most 
 clearly that the measure was directed against crime and out- 
 rages only, in the ordinary sense of the term, and not against 
 pohtical combinations, or meetings, or speeches, even when 
 they recommended breaches of contract. 
 
 " We aim by this Bill," he said, " and aim solely at the 
 perpetrators and abettors of outrage. I stand upon the words 
 of the legislation we propose, and I say that they do not in the 
 shghtest degree justify the suspicion that we are interfering 
 with the liberty of discussion. I wiU go farther. We are not 
 attempting to interfere with the hcence of discussion. There 
 is no interference here with the hberty to propose the most 
 subversive and revolutionary changes. There is no inter- 
 ference here with the right of association, in the furtherance 
 of these changes, provided the furtherance be by peaceful 
 
 * Morley's Life of Gladstone, III, 49. 
 
THE COERCION ACT, 1881 189 
 
 methods. There is no interference with whatever right 
 Members may think they possess, to recommend and to bring 
 about, not only changes of the law. but in certain cases breaches 
 of positive contracts. I am not stating these things as a matter 
 of boast, I am stating them as a matter of fact. I must say 
 it appears to me that it is a very liberal state of law which 
 permits honourable gentlemen to meet together to break 
 contracts into which they have entered."^ 
 
 On the fifth night of the discussion it was decided by the 
 Government that it must be brought to a close, if possible, 
 and Mr. Gladstone, at the commencement of the sitting, 
 intimated that it would be prolonged till the motion for the 
 introduction of the Bill was carried. This was taken as a 
 challenge by the Irish Members. They carried on the dis- 
 cussion, at first, by repeated motions for adjournment, and 
 later by long speeches on the main motion, all through the 
 night and the following day and the second night. During one 
 of their nights Mr. Sexton spoke for nearly three hours, between 
 two and five o'clock in the early morning. I was one of the six 
 or seven English Members who were present, and heard the 
 whole of it. I had rarely Hstened to a more closely reasoned, 
 eloquent, and cogent speech. There was no reiteration, and 
 scarcely a word was redundant. It was a presage of many 
 speeches of the same quaUty from Mr. Sexton, which gained 
 him so great an influence in his party, and so high a reputation 
 in the House. It was a surprise to me that he had been told 
 off by his party to waste such an exhibition of power and close 
 reasoning, at a time when practically he had no audience. 
 
 The closing scene of this long sitting was dramatic. When 
 the hour of nine of the second morning arrived, after forty-one 
 hours of continuous debate, the House had filled again, under 
 the impression that a crisis was imminent. Mr. Gladstone 
 and Sir Stafford Northcote, the two leaders, were in their 
 places. Mr. Biggar, by an apt coincidence, was on his legs, 
 the very personification of obstruction, deUvering one of his 
 lengthy and incoherent speeches. The Speaker, on resuming 
 the Chair, in place of Mr. Playfair (later Lord Pla5rfair), who 
 had filled it as deputy diuring the small hours of the morning, 
 caused a break in Biggar's oration. Without calling on him to 
 resume, the Speaker dehvered the well-known historic pro- 
 
 * Hansard, 257, p. 168. 
 
140 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 nouncement from the Chair, pointing out that a necessity had 
 arisen demanding the interposition of the Chair. " The credit 
 and authority of the House," he said, " are seriously threatened, 
 and it is necessary they should be vindicated. ... A new and 
 exceptional course is imperatively demanded, and I am satis- 
 fied that I shall best carry out the wish of the House if I decline 
 to call upon any more Members to speak, and at once proceed 
 to put the question to the House." 
 
 The Speaker thereupon put the question, and the amend- 
 ment to Mr. Forster's motion was negatived by 164 to 19. 
 On the main question that the BiU be introduced, Mr. Justin 
 McCarthy rose to speak on it, but the Speaker declined to hear 
 him. The Home Rulers thereupon stood up en masse, and for 
 some time with raised hands shouted " Privilege," and then 
 bowing to the Chair left the House. Leave was then given to 
 introduce the Bill. There can be no doubt that the Speaker's 
 action was in the nature of a coup d'etat. It was effected with 
 the approval of Mr. Gladstone, and upon the promise that the 
 rules of the House would be strengthened against obstruction, 
 and with the knowledge, and without the disapproval, of the 
 Leader of the Opposition, Sir Stafford Northcote. It led to 
 an immediate change in the rules of procedure of the House, 
 not at once going the length of adopting the closure, but 
 expediting the progress of business which by formal resolution 
 should be declared to be " urgent." 
 
 Before the discussion on this another violent scene occurred. 
 It was announced that Michael Davitt had been sent back 
 to a convict prison, his ticket-of-leave being cancelled. On 
 February 3rd a question was put to the Home Secretary, 
 whether this statement was true. Sir William Harcourt 
 repUed that the Law Officers had given their opinion that 
 Michael Davitt's conduct, as one of the most energetic apostles 
 of the Land League, was not compatible with the ticket-of- 
 leave of which he was the holder ; but he dechned to explain 
 what conditions of the ticket had been violated. On Mr. 
 Gladstone rising to move his resolution for expediting the 
 business of the House, he was interrupted by Mr. Dillon, who 
 desired to raise the question of Davitt's arrest. The Speaker 
 refused to allow Mr. Dillon to speak. He insisted on doing so, 
 and stood with his arms folded, exclaiming, " I demand my 
 privilege of speech." There followed a scene of unprecedented 
 
THE COERCION ACT, 1881 141 
 
 excitement, which ended by Mr. Dillon being named by the 
 Speaker as wilfully disregarding the authority of the Chair. 
 Mr. Gladstone then moved that Mr. Dillon should be suspended. 
 The motion was carried by 395 to 33. Mr. Dillon refused to 
 leave the House, and the Serjeant-at-Arms was directed to 
 remove him. Mr. Dillon avoided the emplojmient of force by 
 rising and walking out of the House amid cries of " shame " 
 from the Irish Party. Mr. Gladstone thereupon resumed his 
 speech, but he was again interrupted by Pamell, who moved 
 that " he be no longer heard." Pamell was then named by the 
 Speaker. He left the House, after a demonstration of force by 
 the Serjeant-at-Arms. The Irish Members had refused to 
 vote on the motion for the suspension of Pamell. They were 
 named in a body by the Speaker, and were suspended from 
 attending the House by a majority of 410 to 6. They succes- 
 sively declined to leave the House till a demonstration of 
 force was made by the Serjeant-at-Arms. Finally, Mr. O'Don- 
 nell and Mr. O' Kelly were dealt with in the same way, with the 
 result that 36 Irish Members in all, practically the whole of the 
 Pamellite Party, were suspended. Among them was Mr. John 
 Redmond, the future and present leader of the party. He 
 took his seat for New Ross for the first time that very day, 
 and had the experience of being suspended before he had 
 completed a day's work in the House. 
 
 Looking back at the arrest of Davitt, and his consignment 
 to a convict prison, it is quite impossible to justify it. He had 
 certainly not committed any act in breach of the condition on 
 his ticket-of-leave. He had been most active in founding the 
 Land League, but the prosecution of the leaders of that body 
 had failed. If he was engaged in committing acts aimed at by 
 the Coercion Bill it would have been reasonable to wait till the 
 Act was passed, and then to arrest him under its provisions ; 
 but to consign him again to a convict prison was a hardship 
 and unjustifiable insult to the man, and a needless provocation 
 to pubhc opinion in Ireland. It is right to say that Sir WiUiam 
 Harcourt gave orders that Davitt was to be treated with 
 exceptional lenity. In doing so, he assumed the right of the 
 Home Secretary to interfere with the treatment of persons 
 convicted of pohtical offences, which it will be seen was denied 
 ty the Tory Government at a later stage of the Irish 
 question. There can be no doubt that among the many 
 
142 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 mistakes made in dealing with, the Irish question, there were 
 few graver than this treatment of Davitt. It did much to 
 aggravate pubHc discontent in Ireland. 
 
 This incident being disposed of, Mr. Gladstone was able to 
 move his resolution. He did so in a speech of great dignity 
 and pathos, which produced a profound effect on the House. 
 He implored Members not to allow the House which had been 
 the mainstay and power and glory of the country to degenerate. 
 His proposal was that in cases where the House of Commons 
 voted by a majority of three to one that the business before 
 them was urgent, the whole conduct of it was to be under the 
 control of the Speaker. The motion was carried with general 
 assent. The Speaker then framed rules of urgency. The most 
 drastic of them was the power secured to him of closing dis- 
 cussion by fixing a time when all the remaining amendments 
 to a Bill should be passed without further discussion. With 
 the aid of these very drastic powers the Coercion Bill passed 
 through its various stages, not, however, without heated and 
 protracted discussion. Four days were devoted to the second 
 reading of the Bill. Mr. Bradlaugh moved its rejection. He 
 was followed in his opposition by several other Radical Mem- 
 bers for British constituencies, among them Mr. Joseph Co wen, 
 who predicted that the Act would have the exact opposite 
 effect to that intended, and would lead to a further outbreak 
 of crime and to a general state of lawlessness in Ireland. He 
 denounced the imprisonment of Davitt in no measured terms. 
 Lord Randolph Churchill also spoke of it with disapproval, 
 and attributed the state of things in Ireland to the action of 
 the Government rather than of the Land League. The Bill was 
 read a second time by a majority of 389 to 56. Some few 
 Radical Members voted against it, and many more abstained 
 from voting. 
 
 In the Committee stage, the Bill was contested by the Irish 
 Members, line by line, and word by word, with the greatest 
 pertinacity. Parnell was occupied most of the time in Ireland, 
 and was seldom at the House. The brunt of the battle fell on 
 Dillon, T. P. O'Connor, Sexton, Healy, the two Sullivans, 
 Biggar, O'Donnell, and others who showed great skill in attack 
 and debate. Mr. Forster made some slight concessions. He 
 made it more clear that persons imprisoned were to be treated 
 as political prisoners. He gave a personal undertaking that 
 
THE COERCION ACT, 1881 143 
 
 no persons should be imprisoned without his personal investi- 
 gation of the case. On the other hand, the demand that no 
 arrests should be made, except on the sworn information of 
 two credible witnesses, was refused. So also was the effort to 
 get a precise definition of the crimes to which the Act was to 
 apply, and that the warrant should specify the crime with 
 which the arrested man was charged, and that he should be 
 furnished with a copy of the warrant. These amendments met 
 with some support from Radical Members of the House, and 
 especially from Cowen, Labouchere, and Bradlaugh. They 
 brought into strong relief the arbitrary nature of the measure, 
 and how completely the liberties of the Irish people were 
 placed in the hands of the Chief Secretary. 
 
 After five days of debate in Committee, only one section of 
 the first clause was disposed of. It was thought necessary 
 for the Speaker to frame a new rule applying a more severe 
 method of closure. By the aid of this, after eight more days of 
 discussion in Committee, the Bill was passed. Two more da5rs 
 were occupied on the Report stage, and a further appUcation 
 of the closure took place, and finally two days on the third 
 reading — in all, twenty-five days were expended on the Bill. 
 On February 24th, the last day of debate on it, Mr. Forster, in 
 his reply to a motion of Mr. Justin McCarthy for the rejection 
 of the measure, claimed that he was conferring a great benefit 
 on Ireland. Pointing to the Irish Members, he said : " We have 
 been delivering Ireland, or doing our best to deliver Ireland, 
 from a great grievance, and have been saving her, or beheving 
 we are saving her, from a still greater peril." Mr. McCarthy's 
 motion was rejected by a majority of 321 to 51. The Bill 
 passed without opposition, and with scant discussion, in the 
 House of Lords. The sequel will show the futihty of the 
 measure, and that the Irish Members were justified in their 
 predictions that it would aggravate the agitation in Ireland, 
 and would lead to an increase, rather than a diminution, of 
 crime. 
 
 The Parliamentary battle for coercion, however, was not 
 concluded. There remained the Arms Bill, which, was to 
 enable the Government to search for and seize arms in pro- 
 claimed districts, and to forbid the sale of them. The Home 
 Secretary, Sir William Harcourt, took charge of it, in the 
 absence of Mr. Forster, who had crossed the Irish Channel in 
 
144 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 order to set going the machinery for giving effect to his Coercion 
 Act. It led to further heated discussion and protracted 
 obstruction. Sir William Harcourt did not mince his words 
 in dealing with the Irish Members. Mr. Dillon took the lead 
 in opposing the Bill, and a battle royal occurred between him 
 and Sir William Harcourt. 
 
 Dillon said that the Irish had no means of waging civil war. 
 He wished they had. He was called to order for this language, 
 and withdrew it, but he attacked Harcourt for his cynical 
 tone. " If," he said, " the peaceful, the loyal, and the consti- 
 tutional agitation of the Land League failed, the people of 
 Ireland would be driven back to the dark and desperate 
 methods, which the League had almost successfully induced 
 them to give up. The whole blame of the murders which would 
 be committed would be at the door of the men who struck 
 from the hands of the League the weapon of open and legal 
 agitation." 
 
 Harcourt, in reply, suggested that the debate should close 
 at once. The House, he said, had heard an authorized agent 
 of the Land League explain its doctrines to be those of treason 
 and assassination. He insisted that Dillon had advised the 
 Irish farmers to shoot those who resisted the Land League. 
 Healy warmly defended his colleague, and charged Harcourt 
 with want of truth. He was at once suspended by a vote of 
 253 to 15. In Committee, the Irish Members, by their per- 
 tinacity, obtained some concessions. Not a few violent scenes 
 took place, and the Bill was only carried by the application 
 of the closure. Parnell moved its rejection on the third 
 reading, and took the opportunity of again defending the 
 Land League. The debate which then occurred was a most 
 interesting one. The opposing parties came to close quarters, 
 and concentrated their bitterness in short speeches. Parnell 
 taunted Mr. Bright for his support of Coercion, and quoted 
 from a speech made a few years ago in which he said : 
 
 " I entirely disagree with those who, when any crisis or 
 disturbance arises in Ireland, say you must first of all restore 
 order and then later you may remedy the grievance. After 
 having asserted the supremacy of the law the grievances are 
 forgotten and there is no consideration for them. This has 
 been done in Ireland for 200 years, and nothing has been done 
 except under the influence of terror." 
 
THE COERCION ACT, 1881 145 
 
 Sir Wiilliam Harcourt denied that Irish opinion was against 
 the Bill. In no single division, he said, had a moiety of 
 the Representatives of Ireland voted against it. If Ireland 
 were against it, would not all its representatives have been 
 found voting in opposition to it ? 
 
 It was worthy of note that Sir Wilham Harcourt, with his 
 plain, and almost brutal, language, was more acceptable to 
 the Irish Members than Mr. Forster, with his professions of 
 sympathy for Ireland. Mr. Justin McCarthy gave voice to this 
 in his speech on this occasion. He complimented Sir William 
 Harcourt on the skill, moderation, and good feeling with 
 which upon the whole he had discharged a very difficult task. 
 The Irish Members expected nothing from him ; he had made 
 no profession of sympathy or protestation of sturdy, rugged 
 honesty. They were not disappointed in him. 
 
 Mr. Forster, in a general reply, speaking for the first time 
 on this BiU, defended it on the ground that repeated advice 
 had been given to the people of Ireland to arm themselves. 
 Many had followed the advice thus given. Foolish young men 
 had begun to arm themselves all over the country in Ireland. 
 He doubted whether the Irish Members represented the real 
 opinion of the Irish people. He would not object, if that was 
 the time to do it — even in their present excitement — to appeal 
 from the Members opposite to the people of Ireland. His own 
 belief was that if a real reform of the Land Laws was intro- 
 duced and carried, the attacks which had been made on the 
 Government would very speedily be forgotten. He was sure 
 that he could venture to appeal with confidence from the Irish 
 Members opposite to their constituents. 
 
 The third reading was carried by 255 to 36 — the minority 
 was the largest of the many divisions in the course of the Bill. 
 It was clear that there was by no means the same hostility to 
 it as to the other and main Coercion Bill. 
 
 10 
 
CHAPTER XV 
 
 THE LAND ACT OF 1881 
 
 THE Coercion Act carried, the Government devoted the 
 whole of its energies to the Land question of Ireland. 
 It did so under great disadvantages, for the majority 
 of the Irish people had been completely alienated by the 
 unfortunate coercive measures of Mr. Forster. Nor had they 
 groimd for supposing that any effective measure would be 
 proposed, which would result in a reduction of rents, and would 
 give security against rack-renting for the future. The indica- 
 tions were that nothing more was intended by the Government 
 than an amendment and moderate extension of the Land Act 
 of 1870. I can personally confirm this, for in January, 1881, 
 after the meeting of Parhament, Mr. Gladstone asked me to 
 put in writing, for the Cabinet, my views as to what should 
 be the main lines of a measure of Irish land reform. In my 
 memorandum, I urged that the mandate given by the Irish 
 electors was clear and unmistakable, namely for fair rents, 
 fixity of tenure, and free sale of the tenant's interest. Mr. 
 Gladstone remarked to me a few days later that he was greatly 
 surprised at my having recommended so extreme a measure, 
 an indication that he was far from having himself arrived at 
 such a conclusion. 
 
 Several occurrences, however, contributed to a rapid 
 development of policy, and to the production of a measure of 
 a much more advanced character than originally contemplated. 
 Early in 1881, the two Royal Commissions above referred to 
 produced their reports, or rather a litter of reports, as Mr. 
 Gladstone called them. That appointed by the late Govern- 
 ment, presided over by the Duke of Richmond, issued a 
 report signed by a majority of its members, in which the 
 necessity for giving greater protection to tenants of land in 
 
 146 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1881 147 
 
 Ireland was fully admitted. It pointed to a scheme of arbi- 
 tration of rents, though in guarded and halting language. 
 A minority of six members of the Commission, led by Lord 
 Carlingford and Mr. Joseph Cowen, strongly asserted the ex- 
 pediency of adopting the full pohcy of the three F's. The 
 smaller Commission, more recently appointed by Mr. Glad- 
 stone's Government to report on the Irish Land question only, 
 with Lord Bessborough as its Chairman, while issuing three 
 separate reports, was unanimous in favour of the three F's. 
 This last Commission examined no less than 800 witnesses. 
 They included a large number of land agents, landowners, and 
 County Court Judges, who agreed as to the necessity for this 
 pohcy. They showed conclusively the causes of failure of the 
 Act of 1870, namely, that many landlords, with the object of 
 evading that Act, had raised their rents by successive degrees, 
 each time such that the tenants could not be expected to refuse, 
 and give up their farms claiming compensation under the Act, 
 but in the aggregate such as to amount to excessive rack rents, 
 infringing on, if not wholly appropriating, the tenant's interest. 
 In view of these reports, it became clear that the intended 
 Land Bill must be a radical one. There were members, also, of 
 the Cabinet who had only agreed to the Coercion Act, upon the 
 express understanding that a wide measure of Land Reform 
 should follow. Mr. Forster's correspondence with Mr. Glad- 
 stone shows that he was fully in accord with this view, and 
 that he had made up his mind that no measure short of the 
 three F's would be of any use. 
 
 These converging influences had their effect on Mr. Gladstone. 
 But there can be no doubt that it was with reluctance that he 
 came to the conclusion that his Land Act of 1870 was a failure, 
 and that a measure drawn on very different lines was necessary. 
 He never quite admitted that he had adopted the scheme 
 of the three F's in its entirety. He had, moreover, much 
 difficulty with some members of his Cabinet. One of them, 
 the Duke of Argyll, could not be persuaded to adopt the 
 scheme. He resigned the office of Privy Seal, and brought 
 to an end his pohtical association with Mr. Gladstone of 
 twenty-nine years' standing. 
 
 The Bill, as ultimately agreed upon, was, in fact, a most 
 revolutionary measure. In this view it was much to be 
 regretted that no attempt was made to obtain the consent and 
 
148 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 support for it of the representatives of those mainly interested 
 in it, the great mass of the Irish tenants. Parnell's course in 
 the discussions did not indicate that he was impracticable. On 
 the contrary, the effect of his speeches and amendments was, 
 in my opinion, such as to show that it would have been 
 possible to come to terms with him. If this had been 
 effected, how different would have been the reception of 
 the Bill in Ireland. But the whole attitude of Mr. Forster 
 to Pamell and the Irish leaders precluded the possibility 
 of negotiation with them. The ultimate success of the 
 measure would necessarily depend on its reception by the 
 Irish people, yet it was not thought necessary to consult their 
 representatives, or to come to terms with them on the details 
 of the scheme. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone introduced his Land Bill in the House of 
 Commons on April 7th, in a speech of two hours in length, not 
 a word of which was superfluous. It was cogent, lucid, per- 
 suasive, and tactful, but not adorned with passages of elo- 
 quence as some of his other great speeches. He appealed to 
 the reasoning powers, and in no sense to the passions, or even 
 the enthusiasm of his audience. He described the task before 
 him as far the most difficult he had ever been called upon to 
 perform. He admitted that his Land Act of 1870 had to a 
 large extent failed. He attributed this in part to the action 
 of the House of Lords in forcing concessions from him, and in 
 part to the inherent defects of the Act. He discussed the 
 litter of reports. He showed that there was almost unanimity 
 in them in favour of a wide measure of Land Reform, involving 
 the independent determination of rents. He vindicated the 
 Irish landlords from the imputation of the Land League. 
 ** They had," he said, *' been tried and acquitted." He 
 quoted from the Bessborough Commission to the effect that the 
 greatest credit was due to the landlords for not exacting 
 from their tenants all that they might have done, under the 
 law as it then stood — a somewhat doubtful compUment. 
 But a few, he admitted, had taken advantage of their position, 
 and had done great injustice, by arbitrary raising of rents and 
 harsh evictions. He described the scheme of the Land League 
 as aiming at public plunder. He based his proposals mainly 
 on the inability of the tena'Hts, on account of their weakness and 
 poverty, to contract freely wi1,h their landlords, and attributed 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1881 
 
 149 
 
 the raising of rents largely to the land hunger which existed in 
 Ireland, owing to the scarcity of land in proportion to the 
 number of those desirous of making a living out of it. This 
 made inevitable, he said, the institution of a Court to arbitrate 
 between landlords and tenants as to rent. 
 
 He proposed, therefore, to constitute a Commission or 
 Court of three members to which tenants might apply to de- 
 termine the rents of their farms. The term for which the rent 
 was to be fixed was fifteen years, at the end of which the tenant 
 was to be permitted to apply to the Court for another term, and 
 a fresh declaration of rent, and so on, toties quoties. The 
 tenant was to have the right of assigning his interest in his farm 
 to a solvent incomer, subject, however, to a right of pre-emption 
 to the landlord on terms to be fixed by the Court. The 
 i^cheme therefore provided for the adoption of the three F's 
 with httle or no restriction. There were also clauses giving 
 greater facilities for the purchase of holdings by their tenants, 
 embodying all the recommendations of the Committee of 
 1878-9. This brief description, however, gives but a faint 
 idea of the complexity of the BiU. 
 
 Looking back at Mr. Gladstone's explanations on intro- 
 ducing this great measure, it seems now, as indeed it seemed 
 to me at the time, that he did not base it on the best ground 
 that was open to him. His main argument was that the 
 weakness and poverty of the Irish tenants, and the intense 
 land hunger that existed, made it impossible for them to enter 
 into free bargains with their landlords as to rent. The better 
 justification for the great change appeared to me to be that the 
 tenants, having effected, themselves and their predecessors, 
 all the improvements on the land, ever5rthing which added to 
 its prairie value, in the shape of houses, farm buildings, etc., 
 they were de facto part owners with their landlords in the 
 holdings, and that such interest, though recognized as their 
 property by the Act of 1870, being inadequately protected, 
 they were not in a position to bargain on equal terms with their 
 landlords as to the rent which should be payable for the 
 landlord's interest ; and that it was essentially necessary, in 
 point of justice, that some independent authority should 
 be called in, in the event of dispute, to determine what the 
 rent should be. This view of the case was more fully developed 
 by Lord Carlingford in his speech on introducing the Bill in 
 
150 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 the House of Lords. He was, to my mind, more imbued with 
 the true Irish view of the tenant's position in Ireland than 
 Mr. Gladstone. But such was the force of lucid persuasion 
 by a supreme master of all the arts of an orator, that 
 while the speech of the latter produced the most powerful 
 effect, and, when supported in Committee by all his immense 
 dialectical powers, carried the measure to success. Lord 
 Carlingford's speech produced little or no effect, either on the 
 House of Lords or on the country. Yet of the two speeches 
 it is now, when read in after years, the more cogent and 
 convincing. Another observation to be made on Mr. Glad- 
 stone's great speech, is that it minimized the case on behalf 
 of the tenants as against the landlords. He uniformly spoke 
 in most generous terms of the latter. He gave the impression 
 that the cases of rack-renting were comparatively rare, that 
 the reduction of rents by the Commission would be small," and 
 that the landlords, as a body, would not be losers by the Act. 
 Yet no one could read the evidence of the Bessborough Com- 
 mission without coming to a very different conclusion, namely, 
 that in a very large number of cases rents had been raised to 
 a point, when they appropriated the tenant's interest. The 
 result also of the proceedings of the Land Court, after the 
 passing of the Act, showed that rack-renting was the rule and 
 not the exception. The effect of the speech was to give a 
 handle to those who were interested in depreciating the 
 effect of the measure, to point out to the tenants in Ireland 
 that they had little to expect from it in the way of reduction 
 of rent. It will be seen that Pamell played upon this theme 
 in criticizing the Bill, both in the House of Commons and 
 at meetings in Ireland. With these reservations, it must be 
 admitted that Mr. Gladstone's speech on introducing the Bill 
 was one of his greatest performances in persuasive expo- 
 sition and argument. 
 
 The Bill, as introduced, even with the limitations which 
 were inherent from Mr. Gladstone's description of it, evidently 
 took the Irish Nationalists by surprise. They had not expected 
 a measure so wide in its scope, and so favourable to the 
 tenants. There was great difference among them as to what 
 should be their attitude to it. The majority were in favour of 
 accepting it in principle, and endeavouring to amend and 
 extend it in Committee. A more militant minority were in 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1881 151 
 
 favour of rejecting the Bill as worthless, and of continuing their 
 battle with the landlords on the lines of the existing agitation, 
 and by the methods of the Land League. A convention of 
 the League was held at Dublin between the introduction of the 
 Bill and its second reading. After two days' discussion it was 
 decided, in view of their differences, to leave the Irish Members 
 unfettered in their action in the House of Commons, as 
 regards the Bill, and to oppose, or not, as they should indi- 
 vidually think best. But just before the second reading of the 
 Bill, at a meeting in London of the Irish Parhamentary Party, 
 Pamell personally informed them that he had come to the 
 conclusion that the best course would be to abstain from 
 voting on the Bill, and, without waiting for any discussion by 
 his colleagues, declared that if his advice was not taken he 
 would resign his position of their leader. He imposed his will 
 upon them much against the opinion of many. His motion 
 for abstention was carried by 19 to 12. 
 
 Pamell has been much blamed in some quarters for this. 
 It was said that he showed want of gratitude to the Liberal 
 Party for the great measure of Land Reform. But impartial 
 consideration of the position wiU, I think, lead to the con- 
 clusion that he was justified in his action. The Irish Members 
 had not been consulted by the Government, and they were in no 
 way responsible for the measure. Though it greatly altered 
 the status of Irish tenants, giving them fixity of tenure, and 
 preventing the unjust raising of rents, it was by no means 
 clear that it would result in a reduction of rents, which, in their 
 opinion, was absolutely necessary, in consequence of bad 
 seasons and faUing prices, and of arbitrary increases of rent 
 of late years, such as to encroach upon and to confiscate the 
 tenant's interest. There were grave defects in the BiU, and 
 everything would depend on the extent to which these might 
 be made good, and on the administration of the Act when it 
 became law. Why should the Irish Party make itself respon- 
 sible for it ? The alternative was to hold aloof, to express 
 dissatisfaction with its details, and to press for amendments. 
 This pohcy must now, by the course of the Bill, and by the 
 experience of its working, when passed into law, be held to have 
 been wise and prudent. It was pursued throughout the 
 proceedings in the House of Commons with abihty and per- 
 sistence. 
 
152 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 If the position of the Irish Party was difficult, so also was 
 that of the Tory Party. The measure realized the best hopes 
 and wishes of the Ulster tenants, and was therefore supported 
 by the Tory Members for County constituencies in Ireland 
 bon gre, mal gre. The Irish landlords, who dreaded the Bill, 
 found little support from their Members. On the other hand, 
 the Tory Members for England and Scotland hated the Bill. 
 They looked at it from the point of view of English law. The 
 very phraseology of Irish Land Law was unknown to them. 
 They looked on the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland 
 as one of free contract. In this view the landlords were 
 entitled to all that the existing law gave to them, and to any 
 rent they could get for the land by competition. They beUeved 
 the Bill to be a scheme of pure confiscation. They dreaded its 
 extension to England and Scotland. 
 
 On the second reading a debate took place extending over 
 eight days. The speech of the greatest interest in this long 
 palaver was that of Parnell. He adopted a neutral attitude to 
 the Bill in language of great moderation. He pointed out 
 many defects in it. He contended that it would have very 
 httle effect on rents, and would therefore not satisfy the tenants, 
 under the existing condition of things. He favoured, himself, a 
 scheme of Peasant Proprietors in Ireland. " We do not," he 
 said, " desire to confiscate anything. The Land League 
 doctrine is that any attempt to reconcile the respective 
 interests of landlords and tenants is impossible. . . . The 
 League does not believe that landlords have yet touched 
 bottom. It has recommended compulsory expropriation, but 
 not of all landlords. It proposes that power should be given to 
 a Commission to expropriate compulsorily those landlords who 
 may be acting as centres of disturbance, the price to be fixed 
 at twenty years' purchase of the Poor Law valuation. The 
 mere threat of expropriation wiU do more to reduce rack rents 
 than all the legal proceedings of the Bill. The Land League 
 also proposed that those who have bought under the En- 
 cumbered Estates Act should be called upon to give up their 
 purchases on repayment of the money given for them. Parha- 
 ment will thus undo the mischief it has done by passing the 
 Act." 
 
 With respect to the proposed judicial rents, he contended 
 that every point would be contested in a court of law, and 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1881 158 
 
 that the costs would eat up any profit which the smaller 
 tenants might expect from a reduction of rent. He complained 
 that the arrears of excessive and unjust rent were not dealt 
 with, and that leaseholders were not included in the benefit of 
 the Bill. He advised the migration of small tenants from the 
 congested districts in the west of Ireland to the thinly populated 
 districts elsewhere, rather than their emigration. He suggested 
 that the Commission shoidd be empowered to buy land and 
 erect labourers' cottages on it. He concluded with these 
 words, which pointed to conciliation and agreement rather 
 than to active opposition to the Bill : 
 
 " I think I have said enough to show why I ought not to 
 compromise m5rself and those whom I represent by accepting 
 a measure which I fear cannot be either a final or satisfactory 
 solution of this question. I regret very much that the Govern- 
 ment appear determined to miss the great chance which is 
 open to them. ... I hope the result will prove that I am 
 wrong in my forecast as to the chief effect of the Bill. No one 
 hopes more sincerely than I do that the measure will turn out 
 better for the Irish tenants than I fear it can. I and my friends 
 have no desire to keep things in a perpetual state of Irish 
 confusion. We desire to see the Land question and every other 
 question settled. We desire to see this division among classes 
 done away with. We do not want the Irish landlords and the 
 Irish tenants continually to live in opposing camps. As 
 individuals, the landlords are well fitted to take their place as 
 the leaders of the Irish nation. They have been placed up to 
 the present time by legislation in a false position, and they 
 would have been more than human if they could have filled 
 it without shame and disgrace. I implore the Government 
 to reconsider the question, and to endeavour in Committee to 
 make the measure more healthy to the poor people and less 
 hurtful, and to bring about such an improvement in it that we, 
 the Irish Members, may vote for it without feehng that we 
 are compromising the position we have hitherto occupied and 
 maintained."! 
 
 The only other speech eminently worthy of notice was that of 
 Lord Hartington, as representing the Whig element of the 
 Government. He denied that the agitation in Ireland, or the 
 obstruction of Irish Members in the House of Commons, was the 
 
 ^ Hansard, May i8tb, 1881. 
 
154 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 cause for the introduction of the Bill. But one of the causes 
 which rendered legislation necessary was the then condition 
 of Ireland. In some parts of the country there actually existed 
 civil war between landlords and tenants. Rent could not be 
 collected except by the threat of wholesale evictions, and 
 numbers of landlords were deprived of their just rights. He 
 defended the methods of the Bill. 
 
 " In my opinion," he said, " the law of Ireland has too 
 long neglected to recognize the customary and equitable rights 
 of the tenants. We have gone all this time on the assumption 
 that the tenants in Ireland were able to protect their equitable 
 rights, and that there ought to be freedom of contract. But 
 we cannot do so now. We have to acknowledge that freedom 
 of contract does not exist in Ireland, and that the tenants never 
 have been, and are not now in a position to protect them- 
 selves in the possession of their equitable rights. . . . The 
 law has given everything to the landlord, and nothing to the 
 tenant. . . . The Act of 1870 has been found practically 
 inadequate, and what the Bill proposes to do is to supple- 
 ment that Act by other and more direct provisions, intended 
 to secure to the tenants their equitable and customary 
 rights." 
 
 Mr. Forster made an admirable speech, but without pre- 
 senting any new view, as also did Mr. Bright. The latter was, 
 I believe, the originator of the expression, " the prairie 
 value of land in Ireland." In illustration of the position of 
 tenants there, he said : 
 
 " If all that the tenants have done were swept off the 
 soil, and all that the landlords have done were left upon it, 
 the land would be as bare of houses and farms, fences and 
 cultivation, as it was in prehistoric times. It would be as 
 bare as an American prairie, where the Indian now roams and 
 where the white man has never trod." After this description 
 it is difficult to understand how he arrived at the conviction 
 which he affirmed to the House that rents would be reduced 
 under the Bill in not more than one case out of ten. The 
 views of the Ulster farmers were ably expounded by Mr. 
 Macnagbten, k.c, then Member for Antrim, now Lord 
 Macnaghten. While supporting the second reading of the 
 BiU, but objecting to some of its details, he said that " it 
 would be nothing less than a national calamity if the House 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1881 155 
 
 did not put aside all party feeling and do its best to settle the 
 question as speedily as possible." 
 
 If I refer to my own speech on the occasion, it is only for 
 the purpose of pointing out that what I have said above as to 
 the best ethical defence of the Bill, and as to the necessity 
 which existed for large reductions of rack rents, were equally 
 the views which I then expressed. 
 
 The general drift of the debate was greatly in favour of the 
 Bill. A hostile amendment moved by Lord Elcho was 
 rejected by a majority of 352 to 176, a proportion of 2 to i, 
 in spite of the abstention of the PameUites. Twenty-four 
 Home Rulers, thirteen Tory and fifteen Whig Members for 
 Irish constituencies voted for the Bill, and only eight Irish 
 Members voted with the minority against it. There was 
 therefore an overwhelming weight of Irish opinion in favour 
 of its main principles. 
 
 The real difficulties of the measure were encountered in 
 the Committee stage. It was there that Mr. Gladstone's 
 incomparable skill and versatihty, knowledge of details of 
 the subject, patience, tact, and dialectical powers were 
 chiefly manifest. He had to face enormous difficulties, for 
 though there was general admission that a reform of the Land 
 Law was necessary, so as to give more or less protection to 
 the tenants, there was great difference of opinion as to how 
 this was to be effected. The English landowners and the great 
 majority of the Tory Members hated the Bill, looked at it 
 from the point of view of EngUsh law and EngUsh land 
 tenure, and held it to be pure confiscation of the landlords' 
 rights. The Irish Nationalists, on the other hand, thought 
 it was inadequate to meet the grievances of the tenant farmers, 
 and made every effort to extend it. 
 
 It was a stupendously difficult task to steer the Mil between 
 these two opposing forces, especially for a leader in his 
 seventy-third year. I was better able to judge of this, for I 
 Was one of a Committee consisting of Sir Farrer Herschell 
 (the Solicitor-General), Mr. Hugh Law, the Irish Attorney- 
 General, and Sir Henry Thring, the draftsman of the Bill, who 
 Were asked by Mr. Gladstone to advise as to the amend- 
 ments proposed to the Bill. We met every morning, 
 during the passage of the Bill through Committee, examined 
 the amendments which were likely to be discussed diu±ig the 
 
156 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 sitting, and reported on them to Mr. Gladstone. But I am 
 bound to say we were of very little use to him. We found that 
 he knew more of the subject than all of us together. He was 
 never for a moment at a loss how to meet his many opponents. 
 He did the work almost alone through thirty-three sittings 
 of the Committee, five days of the Report stage, and four more 
 devoted to consideration of the Lords' Amendments. 
 
 The record in Hansard gives a very inadequate impression 
 of the difficulties encountered, and of the way in which Mr. 
 Gladstone handled them. It was currently said that there 
 were only two Members of the House besides himself who 
 understood the details of this comphcated Bill, namely, 
 Mr. Hugh Law and Mr. T. M. Healy, who won a great reputa- 
 tion by the abiUty, legal knowledge, and dexterity of debate he 
 showed in the discussions. 
 
 It was generally thought at the time that the Irish Party 
 were too critical, too hostile to the Bill, and too pertinacious 
 in their amendments. But when comparison is made between 
 the amendments which they pressed on the Government, with 
 what has since been conceded by ParHament, after years of 
 further demands from Ireland, and long agrarian agitation, it 
 must now be admitted that they were justified in pressing 
 them, and that they knew better what were the just needs of 
 the Irish tenants than did their irresponsible critics. It would 
 have been better for all parties, even for the landlords, as it 
 turned out, if all the demands of the Irish Party had been con- 
 ceded. Their amendments were directed mainly to the follow- 
 ing points. They contended that the direction in the Bill as to 
 the principle on which " fair rents " were to be awarded by 
 the Land Commission was unsatisfactory, and that it was 
 not clear that the rents would be fixed at a rate which would 
 secure to the tenants the full value of the improvements 
 effected by themselves and their predecessors. 
 
 Mr. Healy did, in fact, succeed in obtaining a most im- 
 portant amendment on this point. He moved a new clause 
 to the effect that rent should not be charged on improvements. 
 Mr. Law, the Irish Attorney-General, accepted the clause, 
 without much discussion or demur, and it was adopted in the 
 Bill, without discovery by the Opposition of its supremely 
 important effect. But the clause embodying this principle 
 is now recognized at its true value, and goes by the name of 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1881 157 
 
 " Healy's clause." Apart from this direction, there was no 
 definition of a fair rent. It was left wholly to the discretion 
 of the Commission, and to the Judges on appeal. The Irish 
 Judges, in construing the clause, gave it a meaning favourable 
 to the landlords, which was not intended ; and later in 1897 
 Parliament was compelled to interfere, and to set aside the 
 decision of the Judges. Pamell, therefore, was justified in his 
 criticism of the Bill in this respect. 
 
 Another main point insisted upon by the Irish Party was 
 the necessity for dealing with accumulated arrears of excessive 
 and unjust rents. They contended that the Commission 
 should be empowered to reduce these arrears, in the same 
 proportion as they reduced future rents. After much dis- 
 cussion, the Government agreed to deal with the question. 
 Mr. Forster moved and carried a new clause providing, on the 
 joint application of the landlord and his tenants, for the 
 advance, by way of loan out of the surplus funds of the Dis- 
 estabhshed Church, of one-half of the arrears due by tenants 
 paying rent of less than £30 a year, the interest and principal 
 to be repaid by an addition to the rent spread over a terra of 
 years. The Irish Members objected that it was insufficient 
 and would not work, and so it proved in practice, for nothing 
 came of the clause, mainly because the assent of the landlords 
 was necessary. In 1882, the Government was compelled to 
 deal with the subject in a far more drastic manner. The Irish 
 Party, therefore, were fully justified in their demands. 
 
 Another demand of Pamell and his followers had reference 
 to leaseholders, who, they claimed, should be admitted to the 
 benefit of the Bill. Here, again, a concession was made by the 
 Government. A clause was inserted, providing that on the ter- 
 mination of a lease, the tenant was to be entitled to rank as a 
 tenant under the Act, and to have the benefit of a judicial rent, 
 and perpetuity of tenure. The clause was rejected by the 
 House of Lords, and was not insisted on by the Government. 
 In 1887 the Government of Lord Salisbury gave way on this 
 point, and admitted leaseholders at once, and not at the end 
 of their leases, to the full benefit of judicial rents. It is clear, 
 therefore, that the demands of the Irish Members should 
 have been conceded in 1881. 
 
 With respect to the Land Purchase clauses, the Irish 
 Party urged the advance by the Government of the whole of 
 
158 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 the purchase money to the tenant purchasers, contending 
 that this measure, if restricted to the advance of three-fourths, 
 would be ineffective. The Government resisted this demand. 
 In 1885, under Lord Ashbourne's Act, provision was made 
 for the advance of the whole of the purchase money, and the 
 terms were successively improved by Mr. Balfour's Acts of 
 1891 and 1896 ; and Mr. George Wyndham's Act of 1903 goes 
 beyond the demands of the Parnellites in 1881. Mr. Parnell 
 and his followers also strongly objected to the Emigration 
 Clauses, and suggested as an alternative the migration of 
 small occupiers of land from the congested districts in the 
 west of Ireland to the thinly peopled districts elsewhere, a 
 measure which, rejected in 1880, was adopted later in the 
 Acts passed by Mr. Balfour and Mr. Wyndham. 
 
 It will be seen then that every one of the important amend- 
 ments supported by Parnell, in the course of the discussion 
 on the Land Bill, has since been adopted by Parliament. It 
 may well be asked why they were not conceded in 1881 in 
 defiance to the demand of the great majority of Irish 
 Members. It is not to be gainsaid that the BiU was already 
 heavily laden. There were many occasions when it was in 
 great danger from attack by the Tory Party, backed up by a 
 large section of Whigs in the House of Commons. 
 
 The general effect of the proceedings in Committee was that 
 some few amendments were conceded at the instance of the 
 Irish Members favourable to the tenants, and that practically 
 no concessions of importance were made to the landlords. The 
 case for the Bill, however, was greatly strengthened by the 
 long discussion. The third reading was carried by a very great 
 majority, only fourteen Members voting against it. The Tory 
 leaders and most of their followers abstained from voting : so 
 also did Parnell and six of his followers ; but the bulk of the 
 Irish Members voted for it. 
 
 This acceptance of the Bill by so great a majority of the 
 House of Commons had its effect on the House of Lords. 
 It was vehemently attacked by the Duke of Argyll, who 
 took the opportunity of comparing his recent colleagues, in 
 an amusing sally, to a row of jelly fishes — "most beautiful 
 creatures in the world, endowed with elaborate and delicate 
 nervous systems, but hitherto found destitute of a skeleton or 
 backbone." " They make," he said, " the most convulsive 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1881 159 
 
 movements in the water, and, you see, the poor creatures think 
 they are swimming, but when you take the bearings of the 
 land, you find that they are floating with the current and with 
 the tide." He then proceeded to tear the measure in pieces. 
 Lord Lansdowne followed in the same strain. " This is not 
 an attempt to remove imperfections from the existing law. 
 It is an attempt to quell a grave rebeUion by the wholesale 
 concession of proprietary rights to the peasantry of Ireland — 
 a concession which has been extorted by violence and agitation. 
 These rights we are asked to create." Lord Carnarvon, Lord 
 Lytton, and a bevy of Irish Peers joined in denouncing the 
 Bill. It was severely criticized by Lord Cairns, who admitted, 
 however, that its main provisions must be accepted. It was 
 ably defended by Lord Carhngford and Lord Selbome, and by 
 the Irish Chancellor, Lord O'Hagan. One Irish landowner. Lord 
 Dunraven, alone defended it in point of principle, but claimed 
 that the landlords were entitled to compensation, while 
 other Irish Peers, hke Lord Waterford and Lord Monteagle, 
 denounced its methods, but could not take the responsibihty 
 of voting for its rejection. 
 
 Lord Salisbury, who since the death of Lord Beaconsfield 
 had led the Tory Peers, inveighed against the Bill in the most 
 trenchant terms. " It gave to the tenant the right to sell that 
 which he had never bought, and to tear up contracts by 
 which he was bound." He denied that it would be accepted 
 in Ireland as a message of peace. Landowners would, in 
 future, look upon Parliament as their worst enemy, and in 
 view of recurring General Elections would be living in per- 
 petual apprehension of earthquakes. These vehement de- 
 nunciations were, however, only a presage to a complete 
 surrender. He could not advise the House to reject the Bill. 
 He gave the following reasons for this course. 
 
 " The state of Ireland, the condition into which her popula- 
 tion has been allowed to drift by the culpable leaders of the 
 Executive Government, is a consideration which must greatly 
 govern us in deciding on the course we shall take. If this 
 l^iU is rejected on the second reading, we must, of course, 
 remember that we have not in our hands the Executive 
 Government. I confess, though with some reluctance, I have 
 been led to the behef that it may be wise for us not to vote 
 against the second reading of the Bill, but to see whether in 
 
160 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Committee we cannot remove from it some of its most glaring 
 acts of impolicy, some of its greatest injustices." * 
 
 Once again, therefore, the Tory Leader in the House of 
 Lords, as his predecessors had done in the notable cases of 
 Catholic Emancipation, Irish Tithe Reform, the Disestablish- 
 ment of the Irish Church, and the Land Act of 1870, advised 
 his followers to concede to agitation in Ireland and to violence 
 and outrage what they denied to arguments founded on justice 
 and reason. 
 
 After debate extending over two days, the Bill was read 
 a second time without a division. In the Committee stage the 
 Government was powerless to prevent havoc being made of the 
 clauses. Shoals of amendments were carried by majorities of 
 about three to one, in the interest of landlords in Ireland, com- 
 pletely altering the structure and effect of the BiU. Two sittings 
 were occupied in this wrecking work. On the return of the 
 Bill to the House of Commons, Mr. Gladstone, instead of moving 
 the rejection en bloc of these amendments, asked the House 
 to consider them seriatim and in detail. Four nights were 
 occupied on this. Some concessions of no great importance 
 were made, but substantially the Lords' Amendments were 
 rejected. The House of Lords again dealt with the Bill in the 
 spirit of " no surrender," and insisted upon their amendments. 
 But in the end wiser and more prudent counsels prevailed, 
 and after some negotiations between the leaders of the two 
 parties some few concessions were made by the Government. 
 It was unfortunate that the two main amendments of the 
 Lords which were conceded by the Government were on 
 points which, after long discussion in the House of Commons, 
 the Government had accepted on the proposal of the Irish 
 Party. The one was the clause admitting leaseholders to the 
 benefit of the Act at the end of their leases. The other 
 was a provision which gave some protection to tenants 
 against being evicted for non-payment of rent in the interval 
 between the application to the Law Courts and the fixing 
 of the judicial fent. Apart from these, f this great and 
 revolutionary measure passed almost in the sHape in which it 
 W£LS originally introduced by Mr. Gladstone — 2l monument to 
 his skill, versatility, dialectics, and tactics. It is safe to say 
 that no other statesman of the century could have achieved 
 
 * Hansard, August 2nd, 1881. 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1881 161 
 
 such a success. The measure, indeed, as passed, had grave 
 defects, which, from time to time, were remedied in later years, 
 but its main principles — ^the independent valuation of rents 
 as between l^dlords and tenants, the recognition of the 
 tenants' permanent interests in their holdings, and of their 
 right to assign them — have stood the test of experience, and 
 have been recognized in Ireland as charters of the Irish 
 tenantry. 
 
 It has been the fashion, of late, in some quarters, to speak 
 of this great measure as founded on error ; that it created a 
 position of unstable equihbrium between two opposing 
 parties, the landlords and the tenants, which necessitated its 
 being superseded by a scheme for buying out the landlords, 
 and turning the tenants into peasant proprietors. It is to be 
 observed, however, that no scheme of purchase could have 
 been adopted, without a preliminary valuation, determining 
 the relative interests of landlords and tenants in the holdings, 
 and this must have necessitated an arbitration by a Com- 
 mission or a Court, and must have been based on the rent. 
 A scheme of purchase also could not have been carried out 
 all at once. It must have been spread over a long term of 
 years. It would be impossible for the State to raise and 
 advance 200 millions for this purpose within a short period, 
 without greatly disturbing the money market, and raising the 
 rate of interest, on which the whole scheme would be based. 
 It has been found lately that not more than 5 millions a year 
 can conveniently be raised by the State for this pmrpose, and 
 at this rate forty years or more would be occupied by the trans- 
 action. Meanwhile, the tenants waiting to be turned into 
 owners would require protection from their existing rack 
 rents. It was therefore absolutely necessary that there should 
 be a process for determining fair rents, both as a basis for 
 purchase, and as an interim protection pending the com- 
 pletion of the scheme. 
 
 It has undoubtedly been a defect of the Act of 1881 that it 
 involved so much of legal exp«ise in determining the rents 
 payable in 300,000 small tenancies. The process has brought 
 a harvest to lawyers, and has been a burden to the smaller 
 tenants. Much of this might have been avoided. When, in 
 i886, the Scotch Crofter Act was passed, appl5ang the prin- 
 ciples of the Irish Act to the crofters in the west and north of 
 II 
 
162 
 
 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Scotland, instead of leaving it to each tenant to make his 
 application to the Commission for a determination of rent, 
 the Commission was directed to make personal investigation 
 of districts, and to determine what rents should be payable 
 in future by classes of tenants, and this arrangement avoided 
 the process of individual litigation involved in the Irish case. 
 It would have been far better to have adopted some such 
 scheme in the case of the small tenants in Ireland. But the 
 framers of the Act of 1881 proceeded under the belief that the 
 applicants for judicial rent would be the exception and not 
 the rule. These and other defects in the Act might have 
 been avoided if there had been consultation with the Irish 
 leaders before it was framed and introduced, or if more 
 attention had been paid to their demands, when the Bill was 
 in Committee. 
 
 It cannot, in fact, now be denied that the main criticisms 
 by Pamell and his followers of the Land Bill of 188 1, and their 
 demands for its amendment and extension, which seemed at 
 the time to be unreasonable and excessive, have been justified 
 and confirmed by experience and later legislation. The moral 
 to be drawn is that the best, and in fact the only safe guide 
 for legislation for a community like Ireland, with separate 
 interests and wants, is to be found in the demands of its 
 representatives. This principle was adopted in the main by 
 the Act of 1881, but it was not carried out sufficiently in 
 detail. As a result, it failed to give satisfaction in most 
 important respects, and, after further long agitation, had to 
 be supplemented by other and more complete measures. 
 
 It should be understood, however, that the Bill, as introduced 
 by Mr. Gladstone, was already heavily freighted with a 
 valuable cargo. If more had been put on board the vessel 
 might have foundered. I recollect Mr. Gladstone pointing out 
 to me, about this time, the great difficulty a Minister had in 
 carrying successfully any great remedial measure involving 
 much detail. The Minister in charge of it had first to meet 
 objections raised in the Cabinet. Concessions had often to be 
 made in order to get the consent of his colleagues. Later, 
 the measure had to run the gauntlet in the Committee stage of 
 the House of Commons, where it was often advisable to ease 
 the position, and to ward off opposition, by making further 
 concessions. Lastly, there was the House of Lords always 
 
THE LAND ACT OF 1881 168 
 
 hostile to Liberal measures and ready to mangle the Bill. 
 Concessions had to be made, in considering their amendments, 
 to avoid the loss of the Bill. The Minister was fortmiate 
 if his measure escaped all these difficulties ; but in any case 
 it was seldom that serious changes affecting its remedial 
 effects were not imposed on him. In spite of its grave 
 omissions, the Land Act was a very great and beneficial 
 measure. It effected a revolution in the Irish land system, and 
 prepared the way for a still greater one. 
 
 The carrying of such a measure through a Cabinet in which 
 there was no Irish representative, through a House of Commons 
 in which the Irish Party was in so small a minority, and where 
 the bulk of Members understood nothing of the Irish land 
 question, and through a House of Lords, where the only Irish 
 interest was that of the landlords, was a very great feat, 
 perhaps the greatest, though not the most complete, in Mr. 
 Gladstone's ^career. ' If it had not been handicapped by 
 coercion it would have been received with enthusiasm by the 
 Irish people ; and with some amendments it might have been 
 a settlement of the question. 
 
 " I must make one admission," said Mr. Gladstone in 1893, 
 " and that is that without the Land League the Act of 1881 
 would not now be upon the Statute Book." ^ 
 
 * Hansard, April 21st, 1893. 
 
CHAPTER XVI 
 
 THE ARREST OF PARNELL 
 
 IT was perhaps to be expected of Mr. Forster that, having 
 obtained from Parhament the great and arbitrary powers 
 of the Coercion Act, he would hold them in reserve for 
 a time, while the remedial measure, the Land Bill, was being 
 discussed in the House of Commons. It would probably 
 have been wise policy to see what effect so great a measure of 
 Land Reform would have on public opinion in Ireland. But 
 this was not Mr. Forster's view of the position. He began as 
 soon as possible to put his coercive law in force. He had 
 obtained the consent of the House of Commons to the Act 
 upon the assurance that it was aimed at "mauvais sujets" 
 and " village ruffians/' who were the actual perpetratofs of 
 outrages. The police, he had said, were fully cognizant who 
 these persons were, and could lay their hands on them. 
 Mr. Gladstone also had given his personal assurance that 
 the Act would be put in force only as against the perpetrators 
 and abettors of outrages, and not against those who by speeches, 
 or combinations, advised and promoted breaches of contract 
 as to rent. 
 
 It was, however, soon discovered that the police were at 
 fault in the assurances they had given, and that they were 
 unable to lay their hands upon the actual perpetrators of 
 crime. Mr. Forster divided the disturbed parts of Ireland 
 into six districts, and put at the head of them men with the 
 duties of magistrates and inspectors of police combined. 
 They were invested with the power of putting persons in prison, 
 who were under suspicion of being implicated in outrages. 
 Some of them were men of singular indiscretion, and did much 
 to aggravate local opinion by their arbitrary proceedings. 
 Mr. Forster himself took infinite pains to prevent injustice 
 
 164 
 
 / 
 
THE ARREST OF PARNELL 165 
 
 being done, but he soon found that it was necessary to support 
 his agents in their summary proceedings, and to defend their 
 action in the House of Commons. 
 
 By the end of April, forty persons were under arrest, and 
 this number was doubled in another month. The numbers 
 continually increased, till, in a few months, the total in jail 
 exceeded eight hundred, in spite of numerous releases. It was 
 obviously impossible that Mr. Forster could be personally 
 responsible for the arrest and imprisonment of all these 
 under his letires de cachet. He was obliged to leave the 
 responsibility with subordinates. As a result large num- 
 bers of persons were imprisoned, merely because they were 
 connected with local Land Leagues, and without other evidence 
 of their implication in outrages in their districts. This pro- 
 duced a very bad effect. Disturbances and outrages increased, 
 as had been foretold by objectors to the Coercion Act. 
 
 From a letter of Lord Cowper to the Cabinet, in September,* 
 it appears that the question of the arrest of the leaders of 
 the Land League was then imder consideration. The letter 
 is of great importance, for it shows that up to that date, 
 in the opinion of the legd advisers of the Irish Government, 
 the Land League was not an illegal association ; and also 
 that the Government was not justified in arresting the leaders 
 of the League for openly preaching and advising breaches of 
 contract. Lord Cowper wrote : " There is no doubt that, 
 in the opinion of many lawyers, the Land League is an illegal 
 association, and if our law officers had shared this opinion, 
 it might have been a grave question in the early autumn 
 whether it should not have been put an end to. . . . To strike 
 at the leaders is undoubtedly the right thing, and this is just 
 what we have been accused of not doing. But openly teaching 
 the doctrine of breach of contract, which is their real crime, 
 does not, unfortunately, enable us to take them up. We are 
 hampered in our action by an express agreement that we will 
 not arrest any man, unless we can say, on our honour, that we 
 believe him to have actually committed or incited to out- 
 rage. This has at first prevented us from attacking the leaders 
 as vigorously as we might have done, but latterly some of 
 them have been less cautious, and we have also prevailed 
 
 . ' Life of Paruell, I, 287. The date of this letter is not given, but it 
 »s evident from the context that it was written in September. 
 
166 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 upon ourselves to give a wider interpretation of our powers. 
 For my part, I should be inclined to say that, in the present 
 state of the country, everybody, who takes a leading part 
 in the Land League, does, by the very act of doing so, incite 
 to outrage. And there is now hardly anybody, whose detention 
 pohcy would demand, that I would not personally arrest." 
 
 In another part of the letter there is an important admission 
 as to the Land League. ** If," he writes, " the restraining 
 influence of the central Land League were withdrawn and the 
 local branches were driven to become secret societies, crime, 
 and especially assassination, might increase ; for though 
 the central body gives unity and strength to the movement, 
 it does to a certain extent restrain crime." 
 
 Any scruples, however, which Mr. Forster may have had 
 on the subject of arresting the leaders of the Land League 
 under the Coercion Act were soon dissipated. He had 
 begun early by arresting Mr. Boyton, the Secretary of the 
 League, and Mr. Brennan. A little later, and during the 
 oSscussion on the second reading of the Land Bill in the 
 House of Commons, he arrested Mr. Dillon, who had taken 
 the place of Davitt as general manager of the Land League. 
 Later he authorized the arrest of the leading men of local 
 Land League Committees in every part of the country. It 
 soon became a distinction to be arrested and imprisoned 
 as suspects. The suspects on release from prison were met 
 with ovations. They became local heroes. Twenty-one ex- 
 suspects were elected as Members of Parliament at the next 
 General Election in 1885. 
 
 Their treatment while in prison had nothing of severity. 
 They were not ranked with ordinary prisoners and subjected 
 to prison fare and prison clothing. They were allowed to 
 see their friends and to communicate freely with them. 
 
 The Land Act received the Royal Assent on August 22nd. 
 From Mr. Gladstone's letters it appears that very soon 
 after he began to urge on Mr. Forster a policy of conciliation 
 in Ireland, and a mitigation of the arbitrary imprisonments 
 under the Coercion Act. He had not, indeed, much hope of 
 the effect of this on the leaders of the Land League, but he 
 looked to the more generail effect, in combination with the 
 working of the Land Act. Mr. Forster does not appear to 
 have responded to these suggestions. 
 
THE ARREST OF PARNELL 167 
 
 On September 14th a Land League Convention was held 
 in Dublin, at the Rotunda, for the purpose of determining 
 the action to be taken as regards the Land Act. It was a 
 remarkable assembly. It was attended by delegates from 
 more than a thousand local Land League associations in 
 every part of Ireland. It was a truly representative body 
 of the tenants. Orangemen from Ulster, descendants of 
 the Cromwellian settlers, sat beside the more fiery men from 
 the south and west. One feature of the meeting was the large 
 number of priests who spoke in favour of the Land League. 
 There was much difference among the delegates as to what 
 should be done under the Land Act, and what should be the 
 attitude of the Land League, and the tenants generally, to 
 the Land Commission, which was about to open its proceed- 
 ings. Many of the delegates were of opinion that the tenants 
 should be advised to shun and boycott the Commission, 
 and treat the Land Act as a farce. They held that the League 
 should continue to apply its methods, which they believed 
 would be more efficacious in compelling a reduction of rents 
 than the Land Commission. Others, and the larger number, 
 were of opinion that a fair trial should be made of the Land 
 Courts. Parnell, who was in the chair, advised a course 
 between these two extremes. The duty of the League, in his 
 opinion, was to watch the proceedings of the Land Courts, to 
 study their actions by test cases, and to see, as far as lay in 
 their power, that justice was done to the tenants. 
 
 At his instance, a resolution was adopted that the Act 
 should be tested by selected cases of application for reduction 
 of rents, and, pending decision on them, that the tenants 
 should be advised not to apply to the Land Court. " Nothing," 
 said Pamell, " could be more disastrous to our case, or our 
 organization, and to your hopes of getting your rents reduced, 
 than any indiscriminate rush of the tenantry into the Land 
 Courts, and it is with a view to prevent this that we desire 
 to take the tenantry in hand, and to guide them in this matter, 
 because, depend upon it, if we don't guide them for their 
 advantage, there will be others who will guide them for their 
 destruction." 
 
 A few days after this Convention a popular demonstration 
 took place at Dublin, in honour of Parnell, of a most 
 enthusiastic cheiracter. Never, indeed, had Parnell received 
 
168 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 a greater ovation. It was the apogee of his fame. He was 
 drawn in triumph, through the Dubhn streets, from the station 
 to the offices of the Land League, accompanied by an enormous 
 crowd carrying torches. On the day of this great popular 
 ovation to Pamell at DubUn, Mr. Forster, incited by the 
 previous proceedings at the Dubhn Convention of the Land 
 League, wrote to Mr. Gladstone, suggesting that Mr. Pamell 
 should be arrested under the Coercion Act. Mr. Gladstone 
 was, in a few days' time, to be present at a great political 
 demonstration at Leeds, where he was expected to make an 
 important speech, defending the past policy, and explaining 
 the future intentions of the Government. Mr. Forster sug- 
 gested that he should take the opportunity of denoimcing 
 Pamell's action and policy. Mr. Gladstone, acting with the 
 greatest loyalty to Mr. Forster, made a very strong speech 
 at Leeds on October 7th. He attacked Pamell, compared 
 him unfavourably with O'Connell, and accused him of pro- 
 claiming a gospel of plunder. Pamell, he said, after doing 
 everything he could to destroy the Land Act, was now urging 
 the people of Ireland to test the Act and not to use it. " The 
 people of Ireland, we beheve, desire, in conformity with 
 the advice of patriots and of their Bishops and best friends, 
 to make a full trial of the Act, and if they do make a full 
 trial of the Act, you may rely uf)on it, it is as certain as hirnian 
 contingencies can be, to give peace to the country. . . . 
 If it should appear that there is still to be fought a final 
 conflict in Ireland between law, on the one side, and lawless- 
 ness, on the other — if the law freed from defects is to be 
 rejected and refused, the first condition of political security 
 remains unfulfilled, and then I say, without hesitation, the 
 resources of civilization are not yet exhausted." He pro- 
 ceeded to complain of the want of support to the efforts 
 of the Government from the landlords and other classes 
 threatened, and made the admission that the Government 
 were expected to keep the peace with no moral support behind 
 them. 
 
 Pamell made a passionate reply to Mr. Gladstone, in which 
 he made a full use of the admission that the Government had 
 no moral force behind them in Ireland. Speaking two days 
 later, on Sunday, October 9th, at Wexford, where he met with 
 a most enthusiastic and even frenzied reception, he said : 
 
THE ARREST OF PARNELL 169 
 
 " You have gained something by your exertions during 
 the last twelve months; but I am here to-day to tell you 
 that you have gained but a fraction of that which you are 
 entitled to. And the Irishman who thinks that he can now 
 throw away his arms, just as Grattan disbanded the volunteers 
 in 1789, will find, to his sorrow and destruction, when too 
 late, that he has placed himself in the power of the perfidious 
 and cruel and relentless British enemy. . . . 
 
 " It is a good sign that this masquerading knight-errant, 
 this perfidious champion of the rights of every other nation, 
 except those of the Irish nation, should be obUged to throw 
 off the mask to-day, and stand revealed as the man who, 
 by his own utterances, is prepared to carry fire and sword 
 into your homesteads, unless you humbly abase yourself 
 before him and before the landlords of the country. . . . 
 
 " In one last despairing wail Mr. Gladstone says that the 
 Government is expected to preserve peace with no moral force 
 behind them ! The Government have no moral force behind 
 them in Ireland ; the whole Irish people are against them. . . . 
 He admits that England's mission in Ireland has been a 
 failure, and that Irishmen have established their right to 
 govern Ireland by laws made by themselves." 
 
 On the same day Mr. Forster, before reading the report 
 of this speech, wrote to Mr. Gladstone : 
 
 " Parnell's reply to you may be a treasonable outburst. 
 If the lawyers clearly advise me to that effect, I do not think 
 that I can postpone immediate arrest on suspicion of treason- 
 able practices." 
 
 The letter is the more important as it shows that, up to 
 that date, there was not sufficient justification for arresting 
 Patmell under the Coercion Act. The Law Officers in Ireland 
 must have given their opinion on the above speech on the 
 succeeding Monday. On Tuesday Forster crossed the Channel 
 to attend a meeting of the Cabinet on the Wednesday, when, 
 after five hours of deliberation, it was decided to give orders 
 to arrest Pamell. On the following morning the Irish Leader 
 was arrested at Morrison's Hotel, Dublin, and was conveyed 
 to Kilmainham. Later, on the same day, Mr. Gladstone re- 
 ceived the Freedom of the City of London, at the Guildhall. 
 in the course of his speech he made the dramatic announce- 
 "lent that Pamell had been arrested. " Within these few 
 
170 
 
 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 minutes," he said, " I have been informed that towards the 
 vindication of the law, of order, of the rights of property, and 
 the freedom of the land, of the first elements of political 
 life and civilization, the first step has been taken in the arrest 
 of the man, who has made himself pre-eminent in the attempt 
 to destroy the authority of the law, and substitute what would 
 end in being nothing more than anarchical oppression exercised 
 upon the people of Ireland." 
 
 The announcement was received with immense enthusiasm, 
 and with salvos of applause, almost, it was said, " as if it had 
 been the news of a signal victory gained by England over 
 a hated and formidable enemy." 
 
 It is clear, from Mr. Gladstone's speeches at Leeds and the 
 Guildhall, that the cause of the arrest of Pamell was not his 
 alleged treasonable language at Wexford ; but that he had 
 endeavoured to set himself above the law, and had advised the 
 Irish tenants not to rush promiscuously to the Land Com- 
 mission, for the determination of their rents, but to submit, 
 through the Land League, test cases. " We arrested Pamell," 
 said Lord Cowper to Mr. Barry O'Brien, " because we thought 
 it absurd to put lesser men into jail and to leave him at large. 
 Furthermore, we thought that his test cases would interfere with 
 the working of the Land Act."^ Dillon, Sexton, and O'Kelly 
 were arrested at the same time as Parnell, and warrants 
 were issued for the arrest of Healy, Arthur O'Connor, and 
 Biggar. By the express instruction of Parnell these last three 
 avoided arrest, by remaining in England and not returning to 
 Ireland. 
 
 Looking back at these proceedings, it is difficult for us now 
 to justify the arrest of Pamell, and his imprisonment under 
 the Coercion Act, for advising the tenants of Ireland not to 
 rush hecldlong into the Land Courts, but rather to submit 
 test cases to the Courts through the medium and advice of 
 the Land League. It may well be asked whether the advice 
 given to the tenants was reasonable or not, under the circum- 
 stances. It has been already pointed out that many leading 
 members of the Government, including Mr. Gladstone, had ex- 
 pressed the confident opinion that landlords generally would 
 not suffer in the reduction of their rents by the Commission, 
 In the view of Pamell and the Land League, so far from 
 
 * Life of Parnell, I, 342. 
 
THE ARREST OF PARNELL 171 
 
 rack-renting being the exception, it was almost universal, 
 and no settlement could be satisfactory which did not result 
 in a large and general reduction of rents. The process of 
 ascertainment of values, and the determination of rents would 
 necessarily be a slow one and a costly one. Under these cir- 
 cumstances it would seem that the course suggested by Pamell 
 was not only not unreasonable, but was a wise one. The 
 Commission could have been tested by a few leading cases. 
 If satisfactory reductions were made agreements might have 
 been arrived at between landlords and tenants, subject to 
 confirmation by the Land Court. In this way much delay, 
 and a great expenditure on legal costs, might have been 
 avoided. We must conclude that the imprisonment of Pamell 
 was not justified by the terms of the Coercion Act, and still 
 less by the Parliamentary assurances, and that it was unwise 
 and unnecessary, even from the point of view of the Govern- 
 ment, in the interest of the Commission, which they hoped 
 would lead to a pacification of Ireland. 
 
 Whatever the justification in law and policy, this high- 
 handed and arbitrary act of imprisoning the leader of the 
 Irish Party produced the very worst effect in Ireland. In 
 Dublin there were riots, and serious conflicts between the 
 people and the poUce. Everywhere the greatest indignation 
 was expressed. In many parts of Ireland shops were closed, 
 as in the case of general mourning. Pamell took the treatment 
 with philosophic composure. On being asked in Kilmainham 
 by other suspects there what led to his arrest, he replied : 
 " Forster thought that I meant to prevent the working of 
 the Land Act, so he sent me here to keep me out of the way. 
 I don't know what he will gain by this move."^ And to a 
 pressman who interviewed him he said : " I shall take it 
 as evidence that the people of the country did not do their 
 duty if I am speedily released." 
 
 Five days after the arrest of Pamell a meeting was held 
 at the Central Branch of the Land League on October i8th. 
 A manifesto to the Irish people was agreed upon. 
 
 " The executive of the National Land League," it ran, 
 
 forced to abandon the policy of testing the Land Act, 
 feels bound to advise the tenant farmers of Ireland from hence- 
 forth to pay fw rents under any circumstances to their land- 
 
 1 Life of Parnell, I, 315. 
 
172 GLADSTONE AND ffiELAND 
 
 lords until the Government relinquishes the existing system 
 of terrorism and restores the constitutional rights of the 
 people. . . . The funds of the National Land League will 
 be paid out unstintingly for the support of all who may endure 
 eviction in the course of the struggle. . . . Our exiled brothers 
 in America may be relied upon to contribute, if necessary, 
 as many millions of money as they have already contributed 
 thousands to starve our landlords and bring English tyranny 
 to its end. 
 
 ** Landlordism is already staggering under the blows which 
 you have already dealt it with the applause of the world. 
 Pay no rents under any pretext. ... No power of legalized 
 violence can extort one f)enny from your purses against your 
 will. If you are evicted you shall not suffer. The landlord 
 who evicts will be a ruined pauper, and the Government, 
 which supports him with its bayonets, will learn in a single 
 winter how powerless is armed force against the will of a 
 united, determined, and self-reliant nation." 
 
 This manifesto was written by WiUiam O'Brien at the 
 instance of Ford and Egan. It was signed by Pamell, Dillon, 
 Sexton, Kettle, and Brennan, who were in Kilmainham Jail, 
 and by Egan, the Treasurer of the League, at Paris. Dillon 
 is said to have been strongly opposed to it. Pamell also was 
 against its issue in the first instance. It was submitted to a 
 vote of the leaders in Kilmainham and was agreed to by a 
 majority. The minority then signed it. Davitt's name was 
 appended to the document without his knowledge. He was in 
 Portland Jail, and could not be communicated with. Later 
 he expressed his strong disapproval. He had been in favour 
 of such a course at a certain stage of the land struggle, but now 
 " with the leaders of the movement the Chief Secretary's 
 prisoners, and the new land system coming into operation, 
 the no-rent shell fired from Kilmainham could only demoralize 
 and could not explode. Its fuse had fallen out." " A strike 
 against rent," Dillon is reported to have said, " cannot be 
 carried out without the consent of the Bishops and priests. 
 And the priests cannot support so barefaced a repudiation of 
 debt as this. Rome would not let them." 
 
 The issue of the " No Rent " manifesto was followed im- 
 mediately by a proclamation of the Irish Government, signed 
 by Mr. Forster, declaring the Land League to be an illegal 
 
THE ARREST OF PARNELL 178 
 
 association, on the ground that it assumed to interfere with 
 the Queen's subjects in the free exercise of their lawful rights, 
 and especially to control the relations between landlords and 
 tenants in Ireland. 
 
 It may be doubted whether this was a legal proceeding 
 authorized by law. Two State prosecutions had failed to 
 convict the Land League of a violation of the law, and there 
 was no clause in the Coercion Act authorizing its suppression. 
 But whether strictly legal or not, it was not matter for surprise 
 that the Government should reply to Pamell in this way. 
 
 The '' No Rent " manifesto was one of the gravest errors 
 of Pamell's poUtical career. There was something almost 
 burlesque in the action of men, who had just been imprisoned, 
 calling on the tenants in Ireland to abstain from payment of 
 rent tiU they were released from jail. Nothing could justify 
 such a course but its complete success. If the tenants as a 
 body had acted upon it, this would have been a most striking 
 demonstration of the strength of the movement and the 
 power of its leaders, and would have placed the Government 
 in grave difficulties and embarrassments. But it was not so. 
 What Dillon had anticipated came about. The Catholic 
 Bishops and priests rejected the poUcy and denounced it from 
 their altars. The tenants as a body ignored it and paid their 
 rents. There were some districts where it had effect. There 
 were large bodies of the poorer tenants in the west of Ireland 
 who, by the previous advice of the Land League, were already 
 refusing to pay full rent and arrears without deductions, and 
 who were now confirmed in their action by the new manifesto. 
 The position in these districts was greatly aggravated. Land- 
 lords felt themselves justified in proceeding against these 
 tenants for full rents and arrears, on the ground that the 
 " No Rent " pohcy was being carried out. The agrarian war, 
 therefore, was intensified and social disorder was increased, 
 without any political advantage to the Nationahst cause. 
 Enghsh opinion also was greatly incensed by the " No Rent " 
 circular. 
 
 The arrest of Pamell and the leaders of the Land League 
 was followed by the arrest of the local leaders of the League 
 in the disturbed parts of Ireland, and the Coercion Act was 
 used without scruple in aid of the landlords for collection 
 of rents, however excessive they might be. The assurances 
 
174 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 given by the Government when the Act was under discussion 
 were flung aside, and jails were filled with men, arrested not for 
 suspicion of crime, but because they were prominent in agrarian 
 disputes as to rent. Evictions were multiphed. Outrages 
 increased in number. Secret societies were stimulated, and 
 took the place of the open agitation of the League. 
 
CHAPTER XVII 
 
 COERCION IN MAYO AND GALWAY 
 
 IN January, 1882, at the suggestion of Mr. Forster, I paid 
 a visit to Ireland. He wished me to form an opinion as 
 to the then condition of the country, and the administra- 
 tion of the Coercion Act, with a view to discussion in the House 
 of Commons. He thought it possible I might succeed him in 
 the post of Chief Secretary, of which, as we now know, he was 
 then contemplating resignation. I spent a few days at his 
 house in the Phoenix Park. During this time I occupied myself 
 in seeing as many persons as was possible of different parties 
 and opinions in Dublin. My official position, as member of a 
 Government, which was then enforcing coercion in Ireland, 
 made it impossible for me to have any conununication with 
 representatives of the Nationalist Party ; but I met men of all 
 other grades of opinion. 
 
 The period was one of the greatest gloom in Ireland. Most 
 of the prominent leaders of the Nationalist Party were in 
 prison as suspects, under the Act of 1881. The manifesto 
 issued by the Land League, advising tenants of Ireland to 
 refrain from pajdng rent until their leaders were released, was 
 still in circulation. In most parts of the country it had pro- 
 duced no effect. Where landlords made reasonable reductions 
 of rent to meet the bad seasons they were obtaining their 
 rents. - Where arrears had accumulated, and landlords were 
 pressing for their full rents, there was a firm determination, 
 on the part of the tenants, to refuse pa5niient. Many land- 
 lords, who would perhaps have been willing to deal generously 
 with their tenants, were induced by the " No Rent " circular 
 to press their claims to the utmost. Agrarian crimes and 
 outrages were alarmingly frequent throughout the west and 
 south of Ireland, and since the Coercion Act they had increased 
 
 175 
 
176 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 in number and gravity. The Land Commission had recently 
 begun its work of reducing rents. The Irish leaders had 
 advised the tenants not to apply for judicial rents in great 
 numbers, but to wait till certain test cases should be decided. 
 This advice, however, was not generally followed. Immense 
 numbers of tenants had made applications to the Court, and a 
 small proportion of them had been dealt with. The decisions 
 of the Commission had already given more or less satisfaction 
 to those who had applied. On the other hand, many landlords 
 were alarmed at these reductions, and were the less inclined 
 to make any abatement of arrears of rent owing to them. By 
 threatening to insist on the payment of arrears they were able 
 to prevent their tenants going into Court for a reduction of 
 rent. 
 
 I found a growing feeling among moderate men, that the 
 imprisonment, under the Coercion Act, of the leaders of the 
 Irish Party, and of the local leaders in rural districts, was a 
 grave mistake. They held also that the shutting up without 
 trial of so many hundreds of the local leaders under the plea 
 that they were " village ruffians " was of little avail in quieting 
 the country. There was reason to believe, in spite of every 
 care and precaution taken by Mr. Forster, that many persons 
 were thus dealt with only to gratify the caprice of local authori- 
 ties, or because they were obnoxious to the local landlords. 
 After a few days spent in informing myself of opinions in 
 Dublin, I went, at the suggestion of Mr. Forster, to the west 
 of Ireland, with the object of personally seeing what was then 
 considered the most disturbed part of the country. I first 
 visited Lord Dillon's property in Mayo and Roscommon. It 
 was one of the largest in the west of Ireland, consisting of 
 85,000 acres, with about 4500 tenants. The holdings of the 
 vast majority of these people did not average more than ten 
 acres. They were, in fact, labourers rather than farmers, 
 migrating to England and Scotland during the summer months, 
 either for harvest work, or for work in the brickfields, or other 
 work which required additional hands during a part of the 
 year. They returned home in the autumn in time to dig their 
 potatoes, and did not leave again till after the planting in the 
 spring of the next year. Their rent was wholly paid out of 
 the earnings which they thus made. They were an indus- 
 trious and thrifty set of men, and though their standard 
 
COERCION IN MAYO AND GALWAY 177 
 
 of living was low, their children were healthy, and grew up 
 into strong and vigorous men. The depression of agriculture 
 and of trade in England had told very heavily on these men. 
 Great numbers of them had been unable to find their usual 
 employment in England, or had returned with very much less 
 than the average of savings. These two causes had brought 
 them into great difficulties, and they were in heavy arrears of 
 rent. Lord Dillon's agent, Mr. Strickland, resided in a part 
 of the family mansion, in the middle of one of the largest and 
 most beautiful parks in the west of Ireland. The house, with 
 the exception of that part of it occupied by the agent, was 
 unfurnished and dilapidated, and no member of the Dillon 
 family had resided there since the beginning of the nineteenth 
 century. During these eighty years they had drawn their 
 large rental from the district, and had spent it in England. 
 No capital had ever been expended by them in improving 
 their Irish property, unless it were money lent by the State for 
 drainage, for which the tenants had paid interest. Every 
 improvement which had gradually brought the land into 
 cultivation from its original condition of waste bog had been 
 effected by the tenants. All the houses and buildings had been 
 erected by them. 
 
 When Arthur Young visited this district near the end of the 
 eighteenth century the rental of this estate was £5000 a year. 
 This had been gradually increased to £24,000, the nominal rental 
 when I was there. This, it was stated, was far beyond the real 
 value of the land, and could only be paid out of the earnings 
 saved by the tenants, during their yearly visits to England. 
 None of the functions of landowners, as generally understood 
 and acted upon in England, had ever been performed by the 
 Dillon family. They had not, however, followed the example 
 of many other landowners, of this part of Ireland, in clearing 
 their property of the smaller tenants, and turning the land 
 into large holdings and grazing farms. Mr. Strickland told 
 me that in average years, when the tenants could get employ- 
 ment in England, the rents were well paid without deduction, 
 but that in bad years when the potatoes failed, or when 
 employment fell short in England, rents could not be paid, 
 and it was necessary either to make large abatements or to 
 allow arrears to accumulate. 
 
 At the time of my visit to this district Lord Dillon had 
 12 
 
178 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 offered no abatements of the rent and arrears then due. The 
 agent justified this on the ground that the Land Commission 
 would certainly make large reductions of rent in the future 
 which he considered would be unjust, and, in fact, confiscation, 
 and that the only way of meeting the " No Rent " manifesto was 
 to insist upon the full payment of what was due. He said that 
 the tenants were refusing to pay any rent, and he attributed 
 this to the advice of the Land League. He admitted, however, 
 that there had been a great failure of employment in England 
 for these migratory labourers, owing to the great depression of 
 agriculture, and the bad season of 1878-9, and, generally, to 
 the depression of trade. He also allowed that the tenants had 
 suffered much from the wet years of 1878, 1879, and 1880, when 
 their potatoes had failed, and it had been impossible to dry 
 the turf, and that, consequently, the pressiure upon them was 
 very great. He represented the district to be in a most lawless 
 state. Notices were at the very time posted up caUing a Land 
 League meeting in the park itself, and a large body of police 
 was expected for the purpose of suppressing this gathering. 
 The contrast between this beautiful park and its deserted 
 mansion and the small holdings and cabins, by which it was 
 surrounded, was very striking. 
 
 From Lord Dillon's property I drove to Tuam. I had 
 intended to stop at two or three of the small towns on the way 
 for the purpose of making inquiries, but there was not a single 
 person in them to whom Mr. Strickland or the police could 
 give me a recommendation. It was alleged that the people 
 of these small towns were even more disaffected than those of 
 the country round them, and that I could not obtain from 
 them any information of value. 
 
 At Tuam I made the acquaintance of the Catholic Arch- 
 bishop, Dr. MacEvilly, and had an interesting conversation 
 with him on the state of the country. He was very much 
 opposed to the " No Rent " circular. He considered it most 
 unjustifiable and immoral, and the cause of untold mischief; 
 but he held that a grave error had been committed by the 
 Government in arresting the leaders of the Irish Party. He 
 thought that Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Forster should have had 
 greater faith in their own remedial measure, the Land Act. 
 If this were supplemented by one dealing with arrears of rent, 
 he had the utmost confidence the country would be quieted, 
 
COERCION IN MAYO AND GALWAY 179 
 
 but it would be necessary also to release all the suspects. 
 From Tuam I drove to Athenry, where I met Mr. Blake 
 (now Sir Hewry Blake), then one of the chief inspectors of the 
 Irish Constabulary, recently appointed by Mr. Forster, and 
 later Governor of several colonies. I drove with him from 
 Athenry to Loughrea. 
 
 At Loughrea I found myself in the centre of the Clanricarde 
 property, which extends from Athenry to Portumna, a dis- 
 tance of nearly thirty miles, intermixed, however, with other 
 properties such as those of Lord Dunsandle, Sir Henry Burke, 
 and Mr. Lewis. The whole town of Loughrea belonged to 
 Lord Clanricarde. My position, as the friend of Mr. Blake, 
 made it most difficult for me to get any information from 
 independent sources. It was not, however, impossible to pick 
 up some facts, even in quarters friendly to the Government, 
 and to the landlord interest, which threw much Ught on the 
 condition of the district. 
 
 Lord Clanricarde's property consisted of about 52,000 
 acres, with 1900 tenants, and a rent roll of ;f 25,000 a year. 
 He had never visited the estate since he came into possession 
 of it, in 1873, except once, when he came over from England 
 to the funeral of his father. He had drawn this great income 
 from it, without ever expending an5rthing in the way of im- 
 provement. He had left uncompleted the great mansion 
 commenced by his father in Portumna Park, a most beautiful 
 and romantic demesne of great extent. He lived in London, 
 but his tenants did not know his address. He never answered 
 any letters forwarded to him through his agent. 
 
 Very grave complaints were made on the part of the people 
 of Loughrea, even those favourable to the landlord party, 
 of Lord Clanricarde's treatment of them. It was said that he 
 refused to do anything which would lead to the improvement 
 of the district, or to the prosperity of his tenants. In spite 
 of bad times, and of the severe depression of agriculture, he 
 had refused to make any general abatement of rent. He had, 
 however, in response to a petition from the tenant farmers, 
 promised not to press them unduly, but to allow what rent 
 they were unable to pay to go to a suspense account, and to 
 he treated as arrears. It was alleged that he had not kept 
 even this meagre promise, and that the tenants were unduly 
 pressed for rent. It is fair to add that the rents were not 
 
180 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 considered to be high, as compared with those of other land- 
 lords in the district. This was claimed as a justification for not 
 making general abatements in bad seasons. The passing of 
 the Land Act of 1881, and the action of the Nationalist 
 leaders in the issue of the ** No Rent " circular, were also 
 alleged as reasons for refusing any concessions. 
 
 Most of the other landlords of the district were also absentees. 
 Of the few who resided there, some were represented to be very 
 deficient in those personal qualities and habits which create 
 respect and confidence among the people. In this respect, 
 it was said, there was a very great contrast with what in past 
 times had been the condition of the gentry in this part of 
 Ireland. There could be no doubt, from what I heard in the 
 district, that the landlords — whether through ignorance, as 
 absentees, of the true condition of things, or other reasons — 
 had not met their tenants during recent bad times in a reason- 
 able spirit of concession. The tenants were pressed for rent 
 which they could not possibly pay ; abatements were refused ; 
 arrears of rent accumulated ; evictions were carried out, or 
 were threatened, on a large scale ; resistance followed ; 
 combinations, for the most part secret, took place ; outrages 
 and crime became frequent — the work of individuals driven 
 to despair, or inspired and incited by secret societies and 
 Ribbonmen. 
 
 Nearly a hundred persons in this district alone had been 
 arrested and sent to prison, under the Coercion Act of 1881, 
 without trial — not, as I was assured, for complicity in actual 
 crime, but for connection with combinations which insisted on 
 abatements of rent. Among them were many of the leading 
 tradesmen of Loughrea. Their arrest and detention had not 
 quieted the district, but rather the reverse. The worst out- 
 rages and murders took place after the arrest of these people. 
 Meanwhile the great remedial Act of 188 1 was not receiving 
 a fair chance, as great numbers of the tenants were unable to 
 go into Court for a reduction of rent, on account of the arrears 
 which hung round their necks. I came to the conclusion that 
 the question of arrears was a most pressing one, and that it 
 was hopeless to expect the district to be quiet, until a measure 
 were passed dealing with them. 
 
 My visit to the district of Loughrea was cut short by pro- 
 ceedings of a very strange and exceptional character, which 
 
COERCION IN MAYO AND GALWAY 181 
 
 opened my eyes as to what was possible under the Coercion 
 Act. Mr. BlaJke informed me that he had received instructions 
 from the Government in DubHn to search the two towns of 
 Athenry and Loughrea for arms and treasonable correspond- 
 ence, which there was reason to beheve would be found there. 
 For this purpose a large body of military and poUce were 
 collected in the neighbourhood, and he proposed to surround 
 the two towns, at daybreak, and to carry out his task. 
 Telegrams on this subject were continually passing between 
 Mr. Blake and the authorities at Dubhn Castle, and the morning 
 was already fixed, when the proceedings were to take place. 
 I felt that it was undesirable that a Member of the Govern- 
 ment should be present on the occasion, the more so as Mr. 
 Blake thought it not impossible that the proceedings would 
 result in a serious disturbance. I therefore left Loughrea on 
 the day previous to that on which this manoeuvre was to be 
 carried out. 
 
 The operation was carried out on the morning after my 
 departure, in the manner intended. The two towns were 
 surrounded by a large force of police, and a great number of 
 houses were entered and searched by them. Nothing, 
 however, was found of the smallest importance. This was 
 only what was expected by Mr. Blake, for the cipher tele- 
 grams which he had received from the Dublin Castle authori- 
 ties were so ill constructed — only a few of the most important 
 words being in cipher — that nothing was more easy to an 
 intelligent person than to make out the purport of the messages. 
 The head of the post office at Loughrea was said to be in the 
 interest of the Land League, and Mr. Blake thought it probable 
 that the intentions of the Government would be discovered, 
 and made known to the local Land League, and that conse- 
 quently arrangements would be made to make the search 
 fruitless. Whatever the cause, the operation was a failure, 
 and no discoveries were made of arms or treasonable corre- 
 spondence. That such proceedings could take place in any 
 part of the United Kingdom, that they were submitted to 
 without disturbance, and that no notice was taken of them by 
 the English Press, impressed me not a httle. 
 
 My observations in this district, added to the information 
 and opinions I had obtained at Dublin, led me to the conclusion 
 that the policy of coercion, as carried out under the Act of 1881, 
 
182 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 was a grave error, and that more especially mistaken had been 
 the arrest and imprisonment, without trial, of the leaders of the 
 Nationalist Party. These measures had greatly aggravated the 
 position, and had prevented the great remedial measure, 
 the Land Act, of the same year, from having effect in quieting 
 the country. This Act also, however beneficial as regards the 
 future, was defective as regards the past, in not having dealt 
 with the question of accumulated arrears of rent. So long as 
 these arrears hung round the necks of so large a proportion of 
 the smaller tenants, placing them completely at the mercy of 
 their landlords, and preventing them from going into the Land 
 Court for a reduction of future rents, it was impossible to 
 expect that the tenants would be satisfied, or that order would 
 be restored. On the other hand, I was equally impressed by 
 the mischief effected by the " No Rent " circular. It had 
 greatly aggravated the ill-feeling between landlord and tenant. 
 It was used as a justification by many landlords for refusing 
 to make abatements, and for pressing for arrears. 
 
 On my return to Dublin I submitted these views to Mr. 
 Forster. I suggested to him that the wise course would be at 
 once to release from prison the suspects, and to apply to 
 Parliament for a measure to relieve the tenants from a great 
 part of the arrears of rent, which had accumulated during the 
 bad seasons of 1878-80 ; and that subject to these measures 
 it would be possible to support the landlords to the utmost 
 power of the ordinary law against the " No Rent " movement. 
 The agrarian outrages, I contended, had their origin in the 
 agrarian difficulty, and this arose chiefly from the action of 
 many of the landlords in pressing for arrears of excessive rent. 
 I held that when this difficulty was removed, and when it was 
 made clear and certain that the Government would, subject 
 to this and to the Land Act of 188 1, support the landlords in 
 the collection only of just rents and reduced arrears, the *' No 
 Rent " circular would be completely defeated, and agrarian 
 outrages would cease. As a first condition, however, to a better 
 state of things, it was necessary that the suspects should be 
 let out of prison, with the exception of those against whom 
 there was certain evidence that they had been guilty of actual 
 crime. I was unable to convince Mr. Forster of this view of 
 the position. He said that the Government were quite unable 
 to devote any considerable part of the time of the coming 
 
COERCION IN MAYO AND GALWAY 183 
 
 Session to another Irish measure, such as one deahng with 
 arrears of rent, and he disagreed with me absolutely as 
 regards the policy of releasing the suspects. Indeed, he 
 declined to discuss the question further with me. On my 
 return to London I did not feel free to communicate my views 
 to Mr. Gladstone. 
 
 My visit to Ireland, on this occasion, suggested to me for 
 the first time grave doubts whether the system of administra- 
 tion of that country, known as the Castle Government, and its 
 relations to the Imperial Parliament, were beneficial or defen- 
 sible. The logical sequence of events seemed to me to be 
 very distinct. The neglect of remedial measures for Ireland 
 by the Imperial Parliament was due to want of knowledge, 
 and want of time, and to failure to consult the majority of 
 Irish Members. This neglect resulted in disturbances and 
 outrages of an agrarian character. These outbreaks were 
 seized on by the Irish officials as an excuse for resorting to 
 their well-worn policy of coercion. Coercion was used locally, 
 in the interest of landlords, to support their extreme rights, 
 and, consequently, only aggravated the evil, and led to an 
 increase of outrages. Parliament was then compelled to apply 
 remedial measures; but the remedial measures lost a great 
 part of their efficacy in appeasing public opinion in Ireland 
 by the long delay, and by being connected with coercion. I 
 came to the strongest conclusion adverse to coercion, and I 
 determined that I would never myself be responsible, in the 
 future, in any position connected with the government of 
 Ireland, for renewing or administering a Coercion Act. 
 
 A few weeks after my visit to Loughrea, Lord Clanricarde's 
 agent, Mr. Blake, was brutally murdered. He was driving on 
 a Sunday morning into Loughrea with his wife and servant, 
 on an Irish car. About half a mile from the town two shots 
 were fired from behind a stone fence, and Mr. Blake and the 
 driver were killed on the spot. Mr. Blake was seventy years 
 of age, and had filled the post of agent of the Clanricarde 
 estate for many years, and, until within a recent period, had 
 not been unpopular in the district. Great complaints, how- 
 ever, were prevalent as to his conduct to the tenantry, during 
 the two years previous to the murder. It was said that he 
 was personally responsible for the refusal of Lord Clanricarde 
 to make any abatements of rent, during the period of depres- 
 
184 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 sion. His widow proposed to vindicate his memory by pub- 
 lishing his correspondence with his employer, with the 
 object of showing that he had received express instructions 
 to insist upon the pa5mient of full rent, in spite of his own 
 advice that abatements should be made. His employer, 
 on being informed of Mrs. Blake's intention, obtained an 
 injunction, in the Law Courts in Dublin, prohibiting her from 
 making any use of her late husband's correspondence with 
 him.i 
 
 * A part of this chapter was included in Incidents of Coercion, a journal 
 of visits to Ireland, published in 1888. 
 
CHAPTER XVIII 
 
 THE KILMAINHAM NEGOTIATIONS 
 
 THE imprisonment of Pamell and other leaders of the 
 Land League, and the suppression of the League 
 itself, was followed by the creation of a new 
 agency for carrying on the same work with far greater activity, 
 and more bitter hostility to the Government, under the name 
 of the Ladies' Land League. It was presided over by Miss 
 Anna Pamell, who, with her sister, Miss Fanny Pamell, were 
 much more extreme in their views and objects than their 
 brother, the Irish leader. This Ladies' League had been 
 founded by Davitt some time before, with a view to the 
 possibility of the suppression of the main Land League, and 
 was now ready to take its place. Though Davitt was in 
 Portland Prison during the period of its activity, he made 
 himself fully acquainted with its proceedings, when he was 
 released, and must be accounted as a good authority on the 
 subject. The following is his description of the work of the 
 Ladies' Land League, between the arrest of Pamell and his 
 release six months later. 
 
 " Boycotting, more systematic and relentless than had 
 ever yet been practised, was the weapon with which the 
 Ladies' Land League were to fight Forster, and to beat him. 
 The responsible League leaders, now in prison, had, to some 
 extent, checked, where that was possible, extreme boy- 
 cotting. The line was drawn at violent intimidation. Out- 
 rages were never encouraged except by eccentric characters, 
 or wild men, who held no responsible position, and exercised 
 no mfluence, while the meetings of the local branches gave 
 some stability to the movement in rural districts, and offered 
 opportunities for venting angry feeling by the channel of 
 speeches and resolutions. Mr. Forster put these restraining 
 
 i8s 
 
186 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 powers and influences down, by imprisoning those who wielded 
 them, with the result that for the one thousand or more local 
 leaders whom he had arrested as suspects, double that number 
 of less careful and less scrupulous men volunteered, in one 
 form or another, to carry on the fight of the League, on 
 more extreme lines, under the encouragement lent to their 
 efforts by a body of patriotic ladies in Dublin, led by the sister 
 of the imprisoned national leader. 1 . . . 
 
 " It was neither the business nor the desire of the Ladies' 
 League to inquire too closely into the motives or methods of 
 those who, driven from open combination and public meet- 
 ings, resorted to such expedients as were available in carrying 
 on the fighting policy of the movement. That was Mr. 
 Forster's doing, and not that of Miss Parnell. Her purpose 
 and policy were to render Ireland ungovernable by coercion, 
 and this she and her lieutenants succeeded completely in 
 doing. . . . The system of operations of the Ladies' League 
 was perfect in its way. Thanks to the continued generous help 
 from America, and also from Australia, they were supplied 
 with abundance of money by Mr. Egan from Paris. Agents 
 passed to and fro between the Treasurer of the League and 
 the new League government. Organizers of both sexes were 
 employed to distribute copies of the ' no-rent ' manifesto 
 throughout Ireland, to visit the new local leaders, to organize 
 opposition at process-serving and evictions, and to encourage 
 and stimulate resistance and intimidation. The evicted 
 families were looked after as usual, and the relatives of sus- 
 pects were supported by grants from the central office. 
 In fact, under the nose of Mr. Forster, and in utter de- 
 fiance of his most strenuous application of the arbitrary 
 powers at his disposal, everything recommended, attempted, 
 or done, in the way of defeating the ordinary law and asserting 
 the unwritten law of the League, except the holding of meet- 
 ings, was more systematically carried out, under the direction 
 of the Ladies' executive, than by its predecessors in existence 
 and authority. The result was more anarchy, more illegality, 
 more outrages, until it began to dawn on some of the official 
 minds that the imprisonment of the male leaders had only 
 made confusion worse confounded for Dublin Castle, and 
 made the country infinitely more ungovernable under the 
 
 ^ Miss Anna Parnell. 
 
THE KILMAINHAM NEGOTIATIONS 187 
 
 sway of their lady successors. . . . Tenants going into the 
 land courts were denounced. Secret League meetings were 
 encouraged." * 
 
 It was stated that between October, 1881, when Parnell 
 was arrested, and April, 1882, when he was liberated, no less 
 a sum than ;^7o,ooo was expended by the Ladies' Land League 
 in the manner above described. 
 
 In spite of all these efforts, it is certain that the " No Rent " 
 movement was a failure. The Bishops and priests used their 
 influence to defeat K They were confirmed in this by a 
 letter addressed to the Irish Bishops by the Pope (Leo X), 
 in which the League and its policy were censured, and the 
 people were admonished " not to cast aside the obedience 
 due to their lawful rulers." " We have confidence," the rescript 
 said, " in the justice of the men who are at the head of the 
 State, and who certainly have great practical experience 
 combined with prudence in civil affairs." 
 
 The Irish Bishops issued a manifesto in accordance with 
 these injunctions from the Pope. Forster, in his speeches, 
 in defence of his policy, claimed credit for having defeated 
 the " No Rent " manifesto by the use of the Coercion Act. The 
 better explanation seems to be that where the rents were low, or 
 where reasonable reductions were made to meet the bad seasons, 
 the tenants, whether under the influence of their spiritual 
 advisers, or of their own instincts, paid no attention to 
 the " No Rent " circular, but paid the rents which they admitted 
 were justly due. There were some districts where this was not 
 the case ; but, as a general rule, the " No Rent " manifesto was 
 a failure. This was admitted by Pamell and other leaders of 
 the League. It is equally certain that the advice of the League 
 to tenants to avoid the Land Courts was not adopted. 
 The tenants resorted to the new Courts by thousands. Twelve 
 Sub-Commissions were appointed by Mr. Forster, each con- 
 sisting of two members, and they were hard at work hearing 
 applications. They made reductions of rent which averaged 
 about 23 per cent. 
 
 When Parliament met early in February, 1882, Mr. P. J. 
 
 Smyth raised the question of Home Rule in a most eloquent 
 
 speech, on an amendment to the Address. It led to a short 
 
 discussion. It was important because Mr. Gladstone, for the 
 
 *■ The Fall of Feudalism, by Michael Davitt, p. 340-1. 
 
188 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 first time, in the House of Commons, indicated a leaning in 
 that direction : " With regard to local government in Ire- 
 land," he said, " and local government in general, and its 
 immeasurable benefits, and to the manner in which Parlia- 
 ment is at present overcharged by a too great centralization 
 of duties, I, for one, will hail with satisfaction and delight 
 any measure of local government for Ireland, or for any 
 portion of the country, provided only that it conforms to 
 this one condition, that it does not break down or impair the 
 supremacy of the Imperial Parliament." He discussed some 
 of the proposals for Home Rule, and pointed out that neither 
 Mr. Butt nor his followers had ever produced a definite and 
 practical scheme. Mr. David Plunket, on behalf of the Con- 
 servative Party, at once seized upon Mr. Gladstone's state- 
 ment, and declared that it was most dangerous to hold up a 
 signal for the renewal of the agitation for Home Rule, which 
 had been steadily resisted by both parties. The motion was 
 quickly rejected by 97 to 37 votes. The House, in fact, was 
 not disposed to debate the question. Members were eager 
 to enter upon a discussion raised by Mr. Justin McCarthy, 
 on behalf of the Irish Party. His motion arraigned the policy 
 of Mr. Forster along the whole line of his action as Irish 
 Secretary. It led to a debate of four nights, in which the 
 case against Forster was ably put forward by McCarthy, 
 Sexton, Dwyer Gray, and Redmond, on the part of the Irish 
 Members, and by Gibson and Plunket, on the part of the Tory 
 Party, from a very different point of view, but almost equally 
 hostile to Forster's administration. 
 
 They were replied to by Forster in a speech of two and a 
 half hours in length. Mr. Forster said that without the 
 Protection Act (as he always called it, in preference to Coercion) 
 law in Ireland would have been powerless ; industry would 
 have been impossible ; liberty would not have existed. He 
 accused Pamell of aiming at the abolition of all rent, with 
 the object of making the tenants the owners of their farms ; 
 and of promising tenants whose interests in their farms were 
 sold, that the Land League would keep the farms vacant by 
 means of boycotting. This meant personal violence, destruc- 
 tion of their means of living, and deprivation of the 
 necessaries of life. The Government was obliged to arrest 
 Parnell, unless they were prepared to allow the Land League 
 
THE KILMAINHAM NEGOTIATIONS 189 
 
 to govern Ireland, and to determine what rents should be 
 paid, what shops should be left open, what men should be 
 allowed to buy, what tenants were to be permitted to take 
 advantage of the Land Courts, what decisions of the Law 
 Courts should be respected and what laws obeyed. The 
 Government had to arrest the local leaders, and could not 
 therefore, leave the central leaders at large. . . . 
 
 As regards the suppression of the Land League the Govern- 
 ment had to be convinced that it was an intimidating organiza- 
 tion, and that active membership of it was a crime punishable 
 by law, being an act of intimidation, and an incitement thereto. 
 He quoted cases of outrages. He considered that some of 
 the Irish Members were morally responsible for them. They 
 had happened in consequence of the incitement and advice 
 to the effect that those who paid rent would be visited with 
 penalties. There had been no attempt of the leaders to prevent 
 these outrages — no stepping forward to disown them. He 
 claimed that there had been some improvement as a result 
 of putting the Act in force. The figures of outrages lately had 
 been better, and there had been less boycotting. Tenants, 
 he said, were discovering that they had been misled by 
 Pamell. The Coercion Act was beginning to tell. He could 
 hardly have hoped a few weeks ago to be able to meet Parlia- 
 ment without asking at once for further powers ; but matters 
 had improved, and if there was less intimidation it might be 
 possible to revert to the ordinary law. 
 
 Turning, then, to the complaints of landlords against the 
 Land Act, he said that the worst cases of over-renting 
 had gone first into the Land Courts ; but he admitted that 
 it would turn out that rents in Ireland were higher than the 
 House had expected, not higher than he himself had expected 
 from information in his possession. The pull of the market 
 had been in favour of the landowners for the last hundred 
 years, and there was consequently greater justification for 
 the Land Act than some of them had expected. There was no 
 foundation for the statement that the Government had made 
 concessions to agitation. Those who conducted the agitation 
 were the greatest foes of those who proposed remedial legisla- 
 tion. He thought that agitation would soon be starved out 
 by the Land Act. He concluded by saying that he was " not 
 s^ltogether without hope and faith in the Irish people." 
 
190 GLADSTONE AND ffiELAND 
 
 Mr. Sexton, in reply, explained at length the objects of the 
 Land League. He denied that it aimed at the abolition of 
 all rents without compensation. Its object was to put an 
 end to rack-renting, and landlord oppression, and ultimately 
 to buy out the landlords at twenty years' purchase of the Poor 
 Law valuation. He defended boycotting. The tenants, if 
 dealt with one by one, were isolated and powerless. To 
 obviate this, it was necessary that they should band together, 
 and offer such rents only as enabled them to live in ordinary 
 times. The pivot of the whole system on which landlord power 
 in Ireland rested was the hungry competition for land. When- 
 ever a farm fell vacant, no matter through what injustice, 
 some miserable creature driven to his wits' end for means of 
 living, was willing to come forward and offer whatever rent 
 the landlord asked. The Land League established the rule, 
 based on voluntary action, that the tenants should act to- 
 gether in the matter of rent. When any man acted against 
 the interest of others, and preferred his own selfish ends to 
 those of the community, they were justified in discoimten- 
 ancing such a man by refusing to work for him, or to take a 
 farm from him. Were they to suffer sneaks and traitors to 
 perpetuate a bad and t5n:annical system ? 
 
 Boycotting, he maintained, when confined to social discounten- 
 ance and to negative action, was a method not only necessary 
 to the success of the movement, but largely justified on grounds 
 of expediency and even morals. The Land League had as 
 little to do with boycotting, which included outrage, as with 
 the transit of Venus. The speeches at Land League meetings 
 had, on numerous occasions, denounced outrages and violence. 
 Pamell himself had, on many occasions, done the same. In 
 his speech at Wexford he concluded by saying : *' We are 
 warned by history that we must fight within the lines of the 
 Constitution." He had himself made one hundred speeches 
 between May and October. He was arrested because of one 
 line in a single speech made at the torchlight demonstration in 
 DubUn. He was proud to admit that he had signed the " No 
 Rent ' ' circular when in prison at Kilmainham. As a punishment 
 for this he was condemned to seven days' solitary confinement 
 and to indignities and pains which he would hesitate to 
 describe. The " No Rent " circular was due not to the arrest of 
 Pamell, but to the suppression of the Land League. At the 
 
THE KILMAINHAM NEGOTIATIONS 191 
 
 very moment when the League was preparing hundreds of 
 test cases for the Land Court the Government arrested all its 
 staif. He defended the poUcy of test cases. Their convic- 
 tion was that when test cases to the number of looo or 1200 
 were decided on, there would be a sufficiency of record de- 
 cisions, to enable landlords and tenants to dispense with this 
 costly litigation. The motion was rejected. The minority of 
 30 included no EngUsh Members. In the enforced absence 
 of some members in jail, and of others on amission to America, 
 it represented the strength of the PameUite section. 
 
 While the main attack in the House of Commons was from 
 the Irish Members in the interest of the tenants, in the House 
 of Lords the landlords were the aggrieved party seeking re- 
 dress. Lord Donoughmore, an Irish landowner, moved for 
 a Committee to inquire into the working of the Land Act of 
 188 1. He complained that the Act had been passed by Parha- 
 ment, on representations by the Government that it would 
 have very little effect in reducing the rents of average land- 
 owners. In its actual working, he showed that large reduc- 
 tions of rent had been made by the Sub-Conmiissions, and 
 had been approved by the head Commission in almost every 
 case. The reductions had averaged 23 per cent. He com- 
 plained that the Sub-Conunissioners, twenty-four in number, 
 were mere partisans appointed for party purposes, and were 
 unfair in their awards as against the landowners. The motion 
 was opposed by Lord Carlingford, Lord Spencer, and the 
 Lord Chancellor (Selbome), on the ground that it was wholly 
 unprecedented to inquire into the working of an Act so re- 
 cently passed. Lord Carlingford predicted that the Act would 
 ultimately be found to have increased the security of property 
 in Ireland. On the other hand. Lord Lansdowne, in a lengthy 
 and powerful speech, insisted that the Act was not being 
 administered in accordance with the intentions of Parliament, 
 and Lord Cairns contended that, if the motion was unprece- 
 dented, so also was the Act itself. It had proved to be a 
 measure for strangUng landlords, and alienating the fee simple 
 of their property. The motion was carried by 96 to 53. 
 
 The Government met the rebuff of the Peers by declining 
 to take any part in the proceedings of the Committee, or to 
 give it any assistance. They also contended that the motion 
 amounted to a vote of censure on the Act of the previous year. 
 
192 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 In this view, Mr. Gladstone gave notice of a counter resolu- 
 tion in the House of Commons, to the effect that a Parlia- 
 mentary inquiry into the working of the Land Act would 
 tend to defeat its object, and would be injurious to the interest 
 of good government in Ireland. Four days were spent in 
 discussing this motion. Mr. Gladstone, on moving it, main- 
 tained that the confidence of the Irish people in the Act 
 would be vitally impaired if there was any tampering with it. 
 It was to the Act that the Government looked mainly for 
 the restoration of law and order in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Sexton, on behalf of the Irish Party, demanded inquiry 
 into the working of the Land Act. He believed it could not 
 be made effective except through inquiry leading up to further 
 remedial legislation. A Committee of the House of Lords 
 would be better than none at all. He went at length into the 
 defects of the Act, the arrears question, the non-inclusion 
 of leaseholders, the imperfect definition of the tenants' in- 
 terest, and other matters, and ended by saying that the Irish 
 Party would vote with the Tories against the motion of the 
 Government. In spite of this, the motion was carried by 303 
 against 255 votes — 39 of the Irish Members voted with the 
 minority. It was the first occasion in that Parliament, on 
 which the Irish Party were found, in a party division, voting 
 in the same Lobby with the Tories. Thenceforward through 
 the remainder of the Parliament this was their general course, 
 by way of protest against the Coercion Act of 1881, and of 
 its successor of 1882. 
 
 A little later Mr. Forster himself began to admit in his 
 correspondence with Mr. Gladstone that his statements in 
 the debate on the Address, and in the more recent discussion, 
 were over-sanguine. On April 7th he wrote to Mr. Gladstone 
 to the effect that while there were some good signs, such as 
 that the November rents had been generally paid, that there was 
 no longer open resistance to the law, that the Land League 
 had been defeated in preventing any rent being paid, and that 
 there was less boycotting, yet there were exceptions, important 
 and frequent, mainly in Connaught, and in poor districts 
 elsewhere, where the arrears were hopeless. He showed also 
 that there had been an increase of agrarian crime of the more 
 serious kinds. He attributed this to two causes — (i) t^^ 
 fierce passions evoked by the " No Rent " struggle for which 
 
THE KILMAINHAM NEGOTIATIONS 193 
 
 the Land League leaders were mainly responsible ; and (2) 
 the immunity of crime from punishment. 
 
 The course he proposed was (i) new and increased powers 
 to try agrarian offences by special commissions without juries ; 
 
 (2) making districts contribute for special police protection ; 
 
 (3) giving compensation for injury to persons as in the case 
 of injury to property ; (4) giving power to the police to arrest 
 persons at night under suspicious circumstances. He also 
 proposed a renewal of the Coercion Act of 1881, 
 
 " Can we let the Act expire ? I dare not face the coming 
 autumn and winter without it. The Act does not deter 
 murders through fear of punishment, but it enables us to 
 lock up persons suspected of them." 
 
 Nothing was said in this letter as to an Arrears Bill, or other 
 measiures of a remedial character. His policy was, in fact, 
 a continuance of the existing Coercion Act, strengthened by 
 the abolition of juries in agrarian cases and by greatly in- 
 creased powers to the police and magistrates. 
 
 The reply to this of Mr. Gladstone has not been made 
 public, but a few days later he wrote to Mr. Forster the im- 
 portant letter of April 12th, printed in Lord Morley's work, 
 which shows how far he had already travelled in the direction 
 of a policy of Home Rule for Ireland. 
 
 " About local government for Ireland, the ideas which more 
 and more establish themselves in my mind are such as 
 these. Until we have serious responsible bodies to deal with 
 as in Ireland every plan we frame comes to Irishmen, say 
 what we may, as an English plan. As such it is probably con- 
 demned. At best it is a one-sided bargain, which binds us and 
 not them. . . . 
 
 " If we say we must postpone the question till the state of 
 the country is more fit for it, I should answer that the least 
 danger is going forward at once. It is liberty alone which 
 fits men for liberty. This proposition, like many others in 
 politics, has its bounds ; but it is far safer than the counter 
 doctrine— wait till they are fit." 
 
 He went on to urge the importance of " relieving Great 
 Britain from the enormous weight of the government of 
 Ireland, unaided by the people, and from the hopeless con- 
 tradiction in which we stand ; while we give a Parliamentary 
 representation, hardly effective for anything but mischief, 
 
 13 
 
194 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 we refuse the local institutions of self-government which it 
 pre-supposes, and on which alone it can have a sound and 
 healthy basis." ^ 
 
 Here we have the main principle of Home Rule asserted. 
 On the same day, April 12th, Mr. Forster wrote a yet more 
 gloomy account of the state of things in Ireland : 
 
 " My six special magistrates all bring me very bad reports. 
 They are confirmed by constabulary reports. The immunity 
 from punishment is spreading like a plague. I fear it will be 
 impossible to avoid very strong and immediate legislation." 
 
 There were many indications about this time that public 
 opinion in England was dissatisfied with the administration 
 of the Coercion Act, and was convinced as to its failure. 
 
 The Pall Mall Gazette, under the inspiration of its then 
 editor, Mr. John Morley, had for some time past written 
 strongly against the continuance of coercion, and had recom- 
 mended the removal of Mr. Forster. Mr. Morley's views were 
 believed to be those of Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke, 
 who were strongly opposed to Mr. Forster's policy. Even the 
 Tory organ. The Quarterly Review, spoke in a sneering way of 
 the arrest of cart-loads of suspects. 
 
 Everything, therefore, tended to a change of policy, and 
 it must have been obvious that it would necessitate a change 
 in the personnel of the Irish Government. Lord Cowper had 
 already tendered his resignation of the post of Lord-Lieu- 
 tenant — for private reasons, it was said — and only held on 
 till new arrangements were complete, Mr. Gladstone induced 
 Lord Spencer, who had previously held the post, and who 
 was then a member of his Cabinet, as President of the Council, 
 to succeed Lord Cowper, retaining his position in the Cabinet. 
 This, we are told, was suggested by Mr. Forster, though it is 
 quite certain that his position would be very different if the 
 Lord-Lieutenant was in the Cabinet. The administration of 
 Ireland would practically be taken out of his hands and 
 placed in those of the Lord-Lieutenant. 
 
 While these arrangements were being made important 
 events were being hatched in Kilmainham Jail. Pamell had 
 been interned there for six months. The treatment he was 
 subjected to was most lenient, consistently with his being 
 confined within the prison walls. He had his separate apart- 
 
 » Life of Gladstone, III, 58 
 
THE KILMAINHAM NEGOTIATIONS 195 
 
 ments, which were large and cheerful. Food was provided 
 from outside. He was amply supplied with literature. He 
 could associate with other suspects there. Permission was 
 readily granted to him to see his friends, and to communicate 
 with them by letter. But, in spite of all these relaxations of 
 prison rules, the deprivation of liberty to a man of Pamell's 
 age and temperament must have been increasingly irksome 
 and even intolerable. It is probable that it had a permanent 
 bad effect on his health, and contributed to his premature end. 
 I was myself greatly struck by the change in the appearance 
 of Parnell on his release from prison. He looked haggard and 
 in bad health, and he was never again the same strong and 
 healthy man he had been before his imprisonment. 
 
 Pamell was also profoundly dissatisfied with the action 
 of the Ladies' Land League during his absence from head- 
 quarters. He recognized that the state of the country had 
 become deplorable, and was going from bad to worse. Mr. 
 Barry O'Brien says : " The country was drifting out of his 
 hands and drifting into the hands of reckless and irresponsible 
 men and women, whose wild operations would, he felt sure, 
 sap his authority and bring disaster to the national move- 
 ment. It was quite time for him to grasp the reins of power 
 once more, and to divert the course of events. His release 
 from prison became, in fact, a matter of paramount im- 
 portance."^ 
 
 Everything therefore pointed to the necessity for making 
 an effort to get out of jail. Pamell had come to the con- 
 clusion that the existence of large arrears of rent on the 
 part of the vast body of the poorer tenants was the main 
 cause of disturbance leading to murder and outrage. He 
 recognized that the " No Rent " manifesto had completely 
 failed, and that tenants by thousands were rushing into the 
 Land Court. The poorer tenants, however, were prevented 
 doing so by their indebtedness for arrears which the land- 
 lords insisted on. He had, while in jail, drafted a Bill 
 dealing with this, and other defects of the Land Act of 
 1881, namely, the exclusion of leaseholders, the imperfect 
 protection of the tenants' interest, and the insufficiency of 
 the purchase clauses. The Bill thus drafted was introduced, 
 at his instance by one of his followers, at the beginning of 
 
 * Life of Parnell, I, 235. 
 
196 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 the Session, and stood for second reading on April 26th. 
 The Bill offered the opportunity for a negotiation with the 
 Government. Chamberlain and some other members of the 
 Cabinet were known to be hostile to the Coercion Act. 
 Davitt says that " this was a vital tmning-point in Pamell's 
 career. Hitherto he had been in everything but name a 
 revolutionary reformer. He now entered, as an opportunist 
 statesman, upon a phase of a purely political movement." 
 Without any consultation with his colleagues in Kilmain- 
 ham, or beyond its walls, and without even informing any 
 of them of his intentions, he entered into negotiation with the 
 Government, using as his intermediary Captain O'Shea, a 
 Home Rule Member of the Shaw section, and a personal 
 friend, but not one of his followers. 
 
 Captain O'Shea had several interviews with Forster, and 
 by his leave, with Pamell in Kilmainham, and also with 
 Mr. Chamberlain, and later with Mr. Gladstone. 
 
 On April loth Pamell asked the permission of the Irish 
 Government to leave Kilmainham for a few days on parole, 
 in order that he might visit at Paris his sister, Mrs. Thomson, 
 whose son was dying there. Permission was granted to him, 
 as it had been to other suspects for similar reasons. On his 
 way to Paris he stopped for a day in London, and met there 
 Mr, Justin McCarthy, and had a long conversation with him 
 on the state of Ireland. 
 
 It does not appear that he told McCarthy that he intended 
 to enter into negotiation with the Government. But the next 
 morning he saw Captain O'Shea. It seems to be certain that 
 he authorized O'Shea to communicate with members of the 
 Government. At all events O'Shea wrote to Mr. Gladstone 
 and Mr. Chamberlain, suggesting the feasibility of some 
 arrangement by which the suspects might be released, and 
 an Arrears Bill passed. Mr. Gladstone replied that he would 
 communicate with Forster on the important and varied 
 matter in O'Shea's letter. " I am very sensible of the 
 spirit in which you write. . . . The end in view is of vast 
 moment, and assuredly no resentment, personal prejudice, 
 or false shame, or other impediment extraneous to the matter 
 itself will prevent the Government from treading in the paths 
 which may most safely lead to the pacification of Ireland." 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain also replied in a most judicious letter. 
 
THE KILMAINHAM NEGOTIATIONS 197 
 
 Mr. Gladstone forwarded O'Shea's letter to Forster, who, 
 in his reply, was sympathetic as to the Arrears question, 
 but did not see his way to the relecise of Pamell and the other 
 suspects. " The difficulties and the dangers," he said, " of 
 dealing with the Arrears question are very great . . . but we 
 must interfere. The evictions in Mayo and elsewhere are 
 becoming very serious, and many of the poorer tenants and 
 many of those who are most rack-rented feel it useless to 
 resort to the Land Court. The helpless, miserable position 
 of these poor men is the foundation of the agitation." * 
 He suggested a scheme for dealing with arrears. It was to 
 be based on the voluntary and combined application of both 
 landlords and tenants ; and the advance from the Govern- 
 ment was to be by loan and not by gift. The scheme would 
 no more have been a settlement of the question than that of 
 the Act of 1881. 
 
 As regards the release of the leading suspects, Forster said : 
 " I expect no slight pressure for their immediate and uncon- 
 ditional release. . . . My own view is clear. I adhere to our 
 statements that we detain these suspects solely for prevention, 
 and not for punishment. We will release them as soon as we 
 think it safe to do so." 
 
 There were three events, he said, in which it might be 
 effected : (i) The country being quieted ; (2) the passing of a 
 fresh Act (i.e. a new Coercion Act), which might warrant the 
 attempt to govern Ireland when the suspects were released ; 
 (3) an assurance that Pamell and his friends, if released, would 
 not attempt in any manner to intimidate men into obedience to 
 their unwritten law. " Without the fulfilment of one or other 
 of these conditions I believe their release would make matters 
 worse than they are. At any rate, I could not, without this 
 fulfilment, administer affairs as Irish Secretary with ad- 
 vantage." 1 
 
 It will be seen that this was an ultimatum from Forster, 
 to which he strictly adhered in the negotiations which followed, 
 and which resulted in his resignation. 
 
 ^ Life of W. E. Forster. II, 425. 
 
CHAPTER XIX 
 
 forster's resignation 
 
 ON April 22nd there was a meeting of the Cabinet, spe- 
 cially called to consider the Irish question. Forster 
 crossed the Irish Channel the previous night to attend 
 it. It was his last journey as Irish Secretary. Later, on the trial 
 of the murderers of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke, 
 it transpired that the band of assassins had lain in wait, at 
 the railway station at Dublin, with the determination to 
 murder Forster on that evening. They must have obtained 
 information as to his movements, and fully expected to find 
 him at the station. By a most fortunate accident, on the 
 suggestion of his private secretary that they should dine 
 at the Yacht Club, at Kingstown, before going on board 
 the steamer, instead of at Dublin, they took an earlier train, 
 and escaped the fate which a few days later befell his successor 
 as Irish Secretary. 
 
 At the Cabinet the case of the release of Pamell was pre- 
 sented by Chamberlain, who had been in personal communica- 
 tion with O'Shea. In spite of Forster's objections, the Cabinet 
 agreed to Chamberlain negotiating further with O'Shea. 
 On the same day, April 22nd, Pamell arrived in London 
 on his return from Paris, and met O'Shea, who expressed 
 to him the hope that, as the result of negotiations then going 
 on, he and the other suspects might be permanently re- 
 leased. " Never mind the suspects," said Parnell ; " get the 
 question of the arrears satisfactorily adjusted, and the con- 
 tribution made not a loan, but a gift on compulsion. The 
 Tories have now adopted my creed as to a peasant proprietary- 
 The great object to be attained is to stay evictions by an 
 Arrears Bill." ^ 
 
 ^ Captain O'Shea's speech, Hansard, May 15th, 1882. 
 
 198 
 
FORSTER'S RESIGNATION 199 
 
 After the return of Pamell to Kilmainham, O'Shea had 
 further interviews with Chamberlain and Forster, and then 
 went over to Ireland, by leave of the latter, and visited Pfimell 
 in Kilmainham. A letter was then written by Parnell to 
 O'Shea, for the purpose of being shown to Forster and Chamber- 
 lain. 
 
 ♦' I desire," he wrote, " to impress upon you the absolute 
 necessity of a settlement of the Arrears question, which 
 will leave no remaining sore connected with it behind, and which 
 will enable us to show the smaller tenantry that they have 
 been treated with justice and some generosity. 
 
 " If the Arrears question be settled upon the lines indicated 
 by us, I have every confidence — a confidence shared by my 
 colleagues — that the exertions which we would be able to 
 make, strenuously and unremittingly, would be effective in 
 stopping outrages and intimidation of all kinds. 
 
 " As regards permanent legislation of an ameliorative 
 character, I may say that the views which you always shared 
 with me as to the admission of lease-holders to the fair-rent 
 clauses of the Act, are more confirmed than ever. So long 
 as the flower of the Irish peasantry are kept outside the Act, 
 there cannot be a permanent settlement of the Land Laws, 
 which we all so much desire. I should also strongly hope 
 that some compromise might be arrived at this Session with 
 regard to the amendment of the tenure clause. It is un- 
 necessary for me to dwell upon the enormous advantages to be 
 derived from the full extension of the purchase clauses which 
 now seem practically to have been adopted by all parties. 
 
 " The accomplishment of the programme I have sketched 
 would, in my judgment, be regarded by the country as a 
 practical settlement of the Land question, and would, I feel 
 sure, enable us to co-operate cordially for the future of the 
 Liberal Party in forwarding Liberal principles ; so that the 
 Government, at the end of the Session, would, seeing the state 
 of the country, feel themselves thoroughly justified in dis- 
 pensing with future coercive measures." 
 
 It will be seen that the last part of this letter was practically 
 a new proposal for a wider agreement with the Government, 
 which was not adopted. Mr. Forster has given an account of 
 his interview with O'Shea when Pamell's letter was shown 
 to him : 
 
200 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 " After carefully reading the letter, I said to O'Shea, ' Is 
 that all that Parnell would be inclined to say ? ' He said, 
 ' What more do you want ? Doubtless I could supplement 
 it.' I said, ' It comes to this, that upon our doing certain 
 things he will help us to prevent outrages,' or words to that 
 effect. He again said, * How can I supplement it ? ' — referring, 
 I imagine, to different measures. I did not feel justified in 
 giving him my own opinion, which might be interpreted to 
 be that of the Cabinet. So I said, ' I had better show the 
 letter to Mr. Gladstone, and to one or two others.' He said, 
 * Well, there may be faults of expression, but the thing is 
 done. If these words will not do, I must get others, but 
 what is obtained is ' — and here he used most remarkable 
 words — ' that the conspiracy which has been used to get up 
 boycotting and outrages will now be used to put them down, 
 so that there will be a union with the Liberal Party.' And, 
 as an illustration of how the first of these results was to be 
 obtained, he said that Parnell hoped to make use of Sheridan, 
 and to get him back from abroad, as he would be able to help 
 him to put down the conspiracy (or agitation, I am not sure 
 which word was used), as he knew all its details in the trial." * 
 
 It is to be observed on this conversation, as repeated by 
 Forster, that it is quite impossible to believe that anything 
 which Parnell had said to O'Shea justified the quotation from 
 the former, that the " conspiracy which had been used to 
 get up boycotting and outrages will now be used to put them 
 down." The words may have been correctly quoted by 
 Forster, though O'Shea denied that he had spoken them ; 
 but if he had, they could not have been the words used by 
 PameU, who was far too careful and precise in his use of lan- 
 guage to have made such a compromising admission. PameU, 
 in his cross-examination before the Special Commission, denied 
 that he had ever made such a statement. The Commission 
 did not impute it to him in their report, as they would un- 
 doubtedly have done if they believed he had made it. So far 
 as one can reasonably conclude from the whole circumstances 
 the words, as quoted, were never uttered by PameU. 
 
 PameU 's letter was forwarded by Forster to Mr. Gladstone, 
 together with the account of the conversation with O'Shea. 
 " I expected little from these negotiations," was Forster's 
 
 ^ Life of Forster, II, 436. 
 
FORSTER'S RESIGNATION 201 
 
 comment on the whole transaction. But Mr. Gladstone was 
 highly gratified. " This," he wrote to Forster, " is a hors 
 d'ceuvre, which we had no right to expect, and I rather think 
 have no right at present to accept." He was doubtless re- 
 ferring in this to the new proposals of Parnell for a wider 
 settlement of the whole Land question. 
 
 Meanwhile, on the 26th, Mr. Redmond's Bill had come 
 on for discussion in the House of Commons, and led to an 
 important debate. The Bill proposed to deal with four 
 principal subjects, by way of amendment of the Land Act 
 of 1881, namely, " Arrears of excessive rent," " The admission 
 of leaseholders to the benefit of the Land Court," " The amend- 
 ment of the tenure clauses," so as to make it certain that the 
 improvements effected by tenants and their predecessors 
 in title would not be excluded in assessing the rents, and " The 
 extension of the purchase clauses by the advance from the 
 State of the whole of the purchase money." 
 
 It must be repeated that all these foiu* main points had been 
 urged by the Irish Party in amendments to the Land Act of 
 1881. Agreement might then have been arrived at. They 
 have all later been conceded by Parliament. There was 
 now another opportunity of agreement. So far from finding 
 fault with the Government for coming to an arrangement 
 with Parnell, it seems to me that they erred in not going 
 far enough, and not tsiking the opportmiity of settling the 
 whole question. 
 
 In the debate on Redmond's Bill, Mr. Gladstone, having 
 in view the communications already opened with Parnell, 
 spoke in most conciliatory terms. He welcomed the Bill 
 as an authentic expression of the desire of the Irish Party 
 to make the working of the Land Act an effectual security 
 for the peace of the country. The Government could not, 
 however, support the second reading, because they still 
 thought, as they did, when they opposed the Lords' Committee, 
 that the tenure clauses of the Land Act ought not to be re- 
 opened and disturbed. He admitted that the recent decision of 
 the Irish Judges did not carry out the intentions of Parliament; 
 hut the scope of the discrepancy was not so great as to justify 
 an immediate reopening of the question. 
 
 As regards the purchase clauses, he pointed out that a 
 notice of motion had been given by Mr. W. H. Smith, when 
 
202 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 a proposal of importance would doubtless be made, which 
 it was not expedient to anticipate. With respect to land 
 under lease, the Government was not prepared to interfere 
 with covenants, or to place leaseholders in the same position 
 as yearly tenants. With regard to arrears, the Government 
 was willing to recognize the duty of legislating at an early 
 date, on a basis which should be impartial and in accordance 
 with public opinion in Ireland. 
 
 The Irish Members, through Sexton, Healy, Shaw, and 
 others, expressed themselves as satisfied with the latter part of 
 the statement. Mr. Forster agreed with Mr. Gladstone as 
 to the necessity for dealing with arrears of rent, and admitted 
 that it was most urgent. Mr. Gibson, on behalf of the Tory 
 Party, expressed no hostility to this part of the speech. The 
 debate was adjourned without a division. 
 
 On May ist the subject was again brought before the 
 Cabinet. The letter of Parnell of the 28th was laid before 
 them. Chamberlain appears to have again taken a leading 
 part in insisting on the release of Parnell, and the principal 
 Land League leaders. The Cabinet was in favour of this 
 course. Forster alone stood firm against it, and was irre- 
 concilable. The Cabinet was adjourned till the next day, 
 in the hope that some modus vivendi might be found, 
 which would avoid the resignation of Forster. 
 
 The Cabinet met again the next day at twelve. Mr. Gladstone 
 then read a memorandum, on which, with one exception, they 
 agreed : 
 
 " The Cabinet are of opinion that the time has now arrived 
 when, with a view to the interests of law and order in Ireland, 
 the three Members of Parliament who have been imprisoned on 
 suspicion, since October last, should be immediately released ; 
 and that the list of suspects should be examined, with a view 
 to the release of all persons not believed to be associated with 
 crimes. They decided at once to announce to Parliament 
 their intention to prepare, as soon as necessary business will 
 permit, a Bill to strengthen the ordinary laws of Ireland for 
 the security of life and property, while reserving their dis- 
 cretion with regard to the Life and Property Protection Act 
 of 1881, which, however, they do not at present think it will 
 be possible to renew, if a favourable state of affairs shall 
 prevail in Ireland." 
 
FORSTER'S RESIGNATION 203 
 
 The one exception was Mr. Forster, who resigned his office. 
 Mr. Gladstone, in reply to his letter of resignation, wrote : 
 
 " I have received your letter with much grief, but on this 
 it would be selfish to expatiate. I have no choice ; followed, 
 or not followed, I must go on." 
 
 On Tuesday, May 2nd, after the crucial Cabinet, Mr. Glad- 
 stone announced in the House of Commons the resignation 
 of Lord Cowper and Mr. Forster. He stated that directions 
 had been sent to Ireland for the relesise forthwith of the three 
 Members of the House who had been imprisoned since October 
 last. The list of persons similarly imprisoned would be care- 
 fully examined, with a view to the release, in accordance with 
 like principles of consideration, of all persons who were not 
 believed to be associated with the commission of crime. 
 This measure, he said, had been taken by the Government, 
 aftep gathering all the information which it was in their 
 power to extract, either through the medium of debate in 
 the House, or by availing themselves of such communications 
 as were tendered to them by Irish representatives, and this, 
 without the slightest reference to their previous relations 
 to those Irish Members, but simply with relation to what 
 they believed to be the public interest. 
 
 He disclaimed that the release was in any way the result 
 of a negotiation. " It is an act done without any negotiation, 
 promise, or engagement whatever." " It has entailed upon 
 us a lamentable consequence — the resignation of Mr. Forster, 
 who would make his personal explanation on Thursday, 
 after obtaining the sanction of the Queen to his resignation." * 
 He then proceeded to state the intentions oi the Government 
 as regards legislation. It was not at present in contemplation 
 to renew the Coercion Act of 1881. They pl-oposed, as soon 
 as possible, to introduce a Bill for strengthening the ordinary 
 laws in defence of private rights, and for the enforcement of 
 law, and the maintenance of peace and tranquillity in Ireland. 
 It would be proceeded with as soon as the new rules of pro- 
 cedure of the House had been concluded. An Arrears Bill 
 would £dso be proceeded with. 
 
 The Government was taunted by the Opposition with a 
 change of policy, but generally there was a disposition to 
 adjourn discussion until Mr. Forster should make his personal 
 
 * Hansard, May 2nd, 1882. 
 
204 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 explanation. In answer to a challenge as to the release 
 generally of the suspects, Mr. Gladstone said that, in the belief 
 of the Government, it was conducive to the interests of law 
 and order and security in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Sexton, on behalf of the Irish Party, said : " It might 
 be true that the present policy of the Government was in 
 condemnation of that they had pursued in October last. He 
 was not concerned to drive the comparison home. It was 
 enough for him if the policy they now foreshadowed was a 
 better policy for his country than that which they had adopted 
 before, and he most certainly believed it was so. . . . Mr. 
 Gladstone, in his long and varied life, had never spoken truer 
 words than when he said that the release of the suspects 
 would lead to the advancement of law and order in Ireland. 
 Every day that they maintained these men in prison was 
 a day added to the inflamed passions and deepening hatred 
 towards the British Government which existed in the minds 
 of the Irish people." 
 
 Two days later, on May 4th, Mr. Forster made his promised 
 personal explanation of his resignation. Mr. Gladstone, 
 he said, had rightly stated that the reason for his resignation 
 was that he did not think it right to share the responsibility 
 for the release of the three Members. He would gladly have 
 done so, if he thought it right. " According to the repeated 
 promises I have made to the House, we have only detained 
 persons in prison without trial, for the purpose of prevention 
 of crime, and not for the purpose of punishment. That is 
 why I am opposed to their unconditional release at this moment. 
 ... I believe it will tend to the encouragement of crime. . . ." 
 
 He then proceeded to justify the arrest of the three Members. 
 At this moment a most dramatic scene occurred. Pamell 
 entered the House and took his seat there, confronting Forster, 
 his accuser and judge. He was greeted by a long burst of 
 cheering from the Irish Members. After this interruption, 
 Mr. Forster continued his explanation. The three Members, 
 he said, were not arrested simply for illegal agitation. " It 
 was our duty to arrest them upon what we considered reason- 
 able suspicion of the commission of a crime punishable by 
 law, being either an act of intimidation or an incitement 
 thereto. Now, it is a common notion that Mr. Pamell was 
 arrested merely for obstructing the action of the Land Act. . . • 
 
FORSTER'S RESIGNATION 205 
 
 The real reason why these gentlemen were arrested, and why 
 many others were arrested, was because they were trying 
 to carry out their will — their unwritten law, as they often 
 called it — and to carry it out by working the ruin and the 
 injury of the Queen's subjects by intimidation of one kind 
 or another. If Mr. Pamell had not been placed in Kilmainham, 
 he would very quickly have become in reality what he was 
 called by many of his friends — the King of Ireland. I do not 
 for a moment say that he, or the other two Members, incited 
 to outrage and the intimidation of special individuals ; but 
 what they did was, to my mind, far more dangerous than that. 
 They organized and instituted a system of intimidation of 
 individuals generally, pimishing them for obeying the law 
 of the land, and doing what they had a right to do, and very 
 often what it was their duty to do. . . . Under what circum- 
 stances could I have approved their release ? I will at once 
 admit that it was impossible to detain them for ever. ... I 
 would have released them as soon as I obtained seciuity 
 that the law of the land would no longer be set at naught 
 and trampled imder foot by them. There are three con- 
 ditions on either of which I could have considered their release 
 safe ; but, to my mind, not one of the three conditions has 
 been fulfilled. There should have been a pubhc promise on 
 their part, or Ireland quiet, or the acquisition of fresh powers 
 by the Government. . . . What do I mean by a public promise ? 
 I mean a public undertaking or promise to make no further 
 attempt to set up their will, or rather their law, against the 
 law of the land, and, under no circumstances, to aid or abet 
 or instigate intimidation to prevent men from doing what 
 they had a right to do. Mr. Pamell has in no way disowned 
 his famous Ennis speech, the system of intimidation, of tabooing 
 people, and ruining people, because they did not do what he 
 was trying to make them do. What I want is the avowal of 
 a change. ... A surrender is bad, but a compromise or arrange- 
 ment is worse. I think we may remember what the Tudor 
 King said to a great Irishman in former times : ' If all Ireland 
 cannot govern the Earl of Kildare, then let the Earl of Kildare 
 govern Ireland.' ... If all England cannot govern the Member 
 for Cork, then let us acknowledge that he is the greatest power 
 in Ireland to-day. But I believe that with all England, 
 helped by a large portion of Ireland, no concessions are neces- 
 
206 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 sary, and that the Government should not be weakened by 
 concessions. My first condition has not been fulfilled. There 
 has been no public undertaking to cease from intimidation 
 under any circumstances ; there has been merely a hope 
 held out publicly yesterday week that if Parliament passed 
 a certain Bill, and that if it settled this difficult question of 
 arrears, then the party below the gangway [the Irish Party] 
 would cease to obstruct the law. ... I would have taken their 
 word. Mr. Pamell knows how I differ from him, he knows 
 what a wonder and surprise it is to me that he can bring 
 himself to do what he has done ; but he is not only a gentle- 
 man in station, he is also a man of honour, and I would have 
 taken his word. But his word we have not got." 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, in reply, accepted responsibility for the 
 original arrest of Pamell and the other Members. With 
 respect to the words used by Mr. Forster more than once, 
 which were equivalent to saying that he desired to obtain 
 from Mr. Pamell, and those with whom he acted, an avowal 
 of change, it was, in effect, much like asking for a penitential 
 confession of guilt. He disclaimed for himself and his col- 
 leagues the desire and the right to ask of Mr. Pamell, or any 
 of those who sat with him, anything of the sort. 
 
 ^ In considering whether we should be justified in closing 
 the prison doors on these Members, I had no title to ask any 
 question but the one whether I believed that the effect of 
 their release would be prejudicial to the public tranquillity. 
 I do not believe Mr. Parnell would ever come with a declaration 
 of that kind, and certainly I am not the man to go to any 
 Member of the House and ask him for any statement involving 
 his humiliation." 
 
 Referring to Forster's protests against buying obedience 
 to the law, or entering into any arrangements, or paying 
 blackmail, he held them to be without application to the 
 case. He disclaimed that the release of Pamell and the other 
 suspects was part of any bargain or arrangement. 
 
 Mr. Pamell, speaking after Mr. Gladstone, asserted that 
 he had never referred to his release in any of the verbal or 
 oral communications with his friends ; but he had said and 
 had written that a settlement of the Arrears question would 
 have an enormous effect in the restoration of law and order, 
 and would take away the last excuse for outrage ; and that. 
 
FORSTER'S RESIGNATION 207 
 
 if such a settlement were made, the Irish leaders, in common 
 with all persons who desire to see the prosperity of Ireland, 
 would be able to take such steps as would have a material 
 effect in diminishing those exceptional, those lamentable 
 outrages. ^ 
 
 Mr. Dillon, who followed, asserted that he had never, 
 directly or indirectly, had any communication with the 
 Ministers or with the Government of Ireland. He was aware 
 of the drafting of an Arrears Bill by Mr. Parnell, and he never 
 took any trouble to conceal his conviction that, if the proposals 
 of the Bill were passed into law, and the Coercion Act were 
 withdrawn, it would be easier to maintain law and order in 
 Ireland. He did not care in the least degree whether it reached 
 the ears of the Government or not. He felt himself just as 
 free to take any course which might seem right and judicious 
 to him, as he did when he went into Kilmainham Jail. If 
 the Government believed that he felt himself in any way 
 bound to shape his actions otherwise than might seem right 
 to him, they were greatly mistaken. 
 
 Mr. O' Kelly also affirmed that there was no shadow of 
 foundation for the suggestion that he entered into agreement 
 with the Government, and said that he would have died 
 sooner than give the assurances which Mr. Forster required, 
 as a condition of his release from jail. 
 
 It was not till some days later that the letters of Gladstone, 
 Chamberlain, Parnell, and O'Shea, and the records of con- 
 versation between Forster and O'Shea, above referred to, 
 were made public. Their publication was mainly due to O'Shea. 
 On May 12th and 13th debate took place upon them, and 
 the Government was attacked with the greatest virulence. 
 It was contended that the correspondence showed that a 
 treaty had been virtually concluded between the Govern- 
 ment and Parnell, of which the terms, on the one side, were 
 the release of the suspects and the passing of an Arrears 
 Bill, and, on the other, that Parnell would use his influence 
 in the future to put down outrages, and that the Irish Party 
 would give its support in Parliament to the Government. 
 The transaction was dubbed the Kilmainham Treaty. 
 
 On May 13th Mr. Arthur Balfour moved the adjournment 
 01 the House in a most violent speech, accusing the Govem- 
 "lent of infamous conduct. They had, he said, degraded 
 
208 
 
 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 themselves, by treating on equal terms with men whose guilt 
 they had so fervently believed that they felt themselves 
 justified in imprisoning them for months, without trial, 
 and by negotiating with men whom they had asserted to be 
 steeped in treason, with men who had used their organization 
 for purposes adequately to describe which the vocabulary 
 of the Government had scarcely proved equal. The agitators 
 in Ireland would thenceforward have the conviction that, 
 by holding out to the Government alternately the threat 
 that they would promote outrages, and the promise that 
 they would stop outrages, they would be able to exact what- 
 ever legislative measures they might wish. He charged the 
 Government with infamous conduct, in negotiating with 
 treason in order to get Parliamentary support. 
 
 The speech is interesting from an historical point of view, 
 as it was the first incursion of Mr. Balfour into Irish affairs, 
 a prelude, and perhaps a key, to much that he said and did 
 when Irish Secretary five years later. His speech stung Mr. 
 Gladstone into an instant reply, hot with indignation and 
 passion. It led to a fierce debate, such as gives intense 
 interest in the House of Commons, when the leaders take off 
 the gloves, and hit out in short, impromptu speeches, without 
 measuring their words, or concealing their scorn for their 
 opponents. The substance, Mr. Gladstone said, of the charge 
 was that a compact had been made, under which Pamell 
 was to get his release, and to get legislation for arrears, and 
 the Government was to obtain through him peace in Ireland 
 and Parliamentary support. There was not a word of truth 
 in that. Pamell never knew that he was to be released until 
 he was actually released. 
 
 Mr. Gibson, Sir William Harcourt, and Mr. Chamberlain 
 joined in the fray. The latter insisted that there was no 
 condition in Pamell's assurances as to his release ; that never 
 in these transactions had anything been said indicating, 
 on the part of Pamell, any allusion as to his own personal 
 position. It was impossible for the Government to conclude 
 that the continued imprisonment of Pamell was any longer 
 necessary for the peace of Ireland. On the contrary, they 
 believed that his release would contribute to peace. 
 
 It remains to give the explanation afforded by Pamell 
 to his followers of what had led to his release, and to the 
 
FORSTER'S RESIGNATION 209 
 
 downfall of Forster. It was made, apparently, on May 7th, 
 a few days before the debate last referred to. The substance, 
 as vouched for by Davitt, was as follows :^ 
 
 " The * No Rent ' manifesto had failed. The tenants, 
 instead of working out the plan of testing the Land Act, 
 had entered the Land Courts, and had contracted obligations 
 for fifteen years. The ruined tenants, mostly those of small 
 holdings, would be sacrificed, unless an Arrears Act could be 
 obtained, which would wipe out most of their indebtedness, 
 and give them a clear road into the Land Court. To accom- 
 plish this, a parley with the Government was necessary. 
 But the reasons by which he was chiefly influenced were the 
 growing power of the secret societies, and the alarming growth 
 of outrages. . . . He believed the obnoxious societies to be 
 more or less local. ... He saw in the development and in the 
 growth of the revolutionary feeling inside the movement a 
 menace to the constitutional agitation, and a peril to the 
 country, which could only be successfully resisted and arrested 
 by the release of those who would wield a counter influence, 
 and who would calm down the popular feeling. Then it was 
 evident that Mr. Chamberlain and his friends in the Ministry 
 were equally anxious for other — that was Cabinet — reasons 
 to abandon coercion, and to face the larger question of self- 
 government, which could not be done while Ireland continued 
 in a condition of semi-anarchy. Nothing was said of his letters 
 from Kilmainham, which had not then been disclosed, or of 
 his undertaking to slow down the agitation." 
 
 *■ Mr. Gladstone," says Lord Morley, " was always impatient 
 of any reference to * reciprocal assurances,' or * tacit under- 
 standing,' in respect of the prisoner at Kilmainham. Still, 
 the nature of the proceedings was plain enough. The object 
 of the communication, to which the Government were in- 
 vited by Mr. Pamell, through his emissary, was, supposing 
 him to be anxious to do what he could for law and order, to 
 find out what action on the part of the Government would 
 enable him to adopt this line."* 
 
 The agreement or imderstanding was that the Government, 
 on Its part, would pass an Arrears Act, and, on the part of 
 I^amell, that he would do his best to slow down agitation. 
 
 » Davitfs Fall of Feudalism, 361. 
 * Life of Gladstone, III, 64. 
 14 
 
210 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Whether it can be rightly said that the release of Pamell and 
 the suspects was part of the agreement is another matter. 
 There was no mention of this in PameU's letter. It was 
 obvious, however, that the suspects could not be detained in 
 prison, in view of what was otherwise settled on. 
 
 We must look at the whole transaction by the light of sub- 
 sequent experience. Tested in this way, it was, beyond all 
 question, a wise and successful proceeding. In spite of the 
 overwhelming misfortune, which occurred a few days later, in 
 the murders of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke, which, 
 it will be seen, altered the whole current of events, and pre- 
 vented the full realization of the new policy, it is certain that 
 the release of the suspects did produce a most excellent effect 
 on public opinion in Ireland, and that the passing of the Arrears 
 Act did put a stop to evictions, and did ultimately lead to a 
 great reduction of outrages. It will be seen also that Pamell 
 did, with absolute good faith, use his influence, and success- 
 fully, to slow down the agitation. 
 
 As regards Mr. Forster, it has been shown that he was 
 not averse to coming to an agreement with Parnell and the 
 other leaders ; but he insisted on conditions which would 
 have been humiliating to them. It was impossible to expect 
 they would agree to a penitential admission of their past 
 conduct, and a promise of good behaviour in the future. If 
 his advice, therefore, had been followed, the Irish leaders, 
 and all the hundreds of suspects, would have remained in 
 jail, without trial, while another Coercion Act was being 
 discussed. As a result, it may be safely concluded that 
 the state of things in Ireland would have worsened, rather 
 than improved. 
 
 The difference between the two policies was marked by 
 a well-defined line. That carried out by Mr. Gladstone, 
 against the advice of Forster, led to conciliation, the other 
 would have widened the breach between the Government 
 and the Irish leaders and people. We must conclude that 
 a wiser and bolder new departure was seldom made by Mr. 
 Gladstone, or by any other statesman. He had supported 
 Forster, up to a certain point, with the utmost loyalty and 
 without any reserve. There came a time, however, when 
 he was convinced that Forster's policy was a mistaken one, 
 that the imprisonment of the Irish leaders and of hundreds 
 
FORSTER'S RESIGNATION 211 
 
 of other local leaders, on suspicion and without trial, only 
 aggravated the position of the Government in Ireland, and 
 was the cause of outrages, and not a means of putting them 
 dovm. He then took the matter into his own hands. He 
 perfonned what is the highest and most important duty of 
 a Prime Minister — he overruled a colleague in his depart- 
 mental work, and insisted on a change of policy. The Coercion 
 Act of 1881 was set aside. The bulk of the suspects were 
 set free. Another method was devised of strengthening 
 the criminal law against crime, and a remedial measure of 
 the highest importance was passed. It was impossible that 
 this new policy could have been carried out by the Minister 
 who was responsible for the policy which was reversed and 
 discarded. The resignation of Forster, therefore, was necessary 
 and inevitable. In forming judgment of Forster's two years 
 of administration, as Irish Secretary, every allowance must 
 be made for the enormous difficulties under which he worked. 
 The first of his misfortunes was that his legal advisers in Ire- 
 land were not prepared, on his assmnption of office, with a 
 measure of Land Reform, to meet the universal demand of 
 the Irish electors at the General Election. The second was 
 the rejection, by the House of Lords, of his temporary measure, 
 the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which, if it had been 
 passed, might have bridged over the interval before the passing 
 of the Land Act in the following year. In default of such a 
 temporary remedy, evictions, and their necessary consequence, 
 disturbance and outrages, multiplied to an extent which 
 induced the Government to apply for increased power 
 to deal with them by the Coercion Act of 1881, and to give 
 precedence to it over their remedial measure, the Land Bill. 
 For the unfortunate method of coercion adopted in the Act, 
 Forster must be held to be largely responsible. It was framed 
 against the advice of Mr. Gladstone. It was also put in force 
 in a manner distinctly contrary to the promises made to the 
 House of Commons during its passing. 
 
 No statesman ever went to Ireland with higher ideals, 
 or with greater determination to do justice, and, above all, 
 to ameliorate the condition of the smaller class of tenants 
 there. No man ever administered an odious Coercion Act 
 ^th greater leniency to those who were imprisoned under it. 
 "Ut there was in him a dogmatic self-confidence, which, 
 
212 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 added to a brusque manner, made it difficult for those, with 
 whom he did not agree, to present their views, and prevented 
 him from learning, by free communication with all classes of 
 persons, the effect of his measures, and the necessity for a 
 change of policy. 
 
 Complaints are made by his biographer that Mr. Forster 
 met with unfair treatment in the Cabinet, and not obscure 
 hints are given that Mr. Chamberlain was the centre of an 
 intrigue against him. On review, however, of what is known 
 to the public, it appears that Mr. Chamberlain did no more 
 than his duty in opposing a policy which he saw was leading 
 to bad results. It is an essential object of a Cabinet to afford 
 the opportunity to Ministers to criticize, and, if necessary, 
 overrule, the policy of a colleague. The sequel showed that 
 Mr. Chamberlain was perfectly justified in his opposition 
 in the Cabinet to the coercive measures of his colleague Mr. 
 Forster. 
 
CHAPTER XX 
 
 THE PHOSNIX PARK MURDERS 
 
 ON the resignation of Mr. Forster, it was the general 
 behef that Mr. Chamberlain would succeed as Irish 
 Secretary. He appears to have expected this himself. 
 The offer, however, was not made to him. It is difl&cult to 
 understand the reason for this, unless it were that Lord 
 Spencer, who must have been consulted as to the appoint- 
 ment, was unwilling to have as Chief Secretary one who was 
 so masterful. There could not well be two Kings of Brentford 
 in the Irish Office. It was, however, to be regretted that, on a 
 change of pohcy so important, the statesman, to whom it was 
 so largely due, was not employed to give executive effect to it. 
 The post was offered, in the first instance, to Sir Charles 
 Dilke, who was known to be in complete harmony with Mr. 
 Chamberlain. In spite of the fact that he was to be admitted 
 to the Cabinet, he decHned the post, on the ground that, 
 although in the Cabinet, he would be subordinate to Lord 
 Spencer, and would have to defend acts of administration for 
 which he was not responsible. 
 
 The offer of the post was then made to Lord Frederick 
 Cavendish, brother to Lord Hartington, whose wife was 
 niece, and almost in the relation of a daughter, to Mrs. Glad- 
 stone. Lord Frederick had been, for a short time, Secretary 
 to the Treasury — the most important post in the Government 
 outside the Cabinet. He was a man of the highest character 
 and public spirit, modest and diffident of his own powers, 
 with no reputation as a speaker in the House, but recognized 
 by his friends as of great ability, and as a sound Liberal. He 
 was in complete agreement with Mr. Gladstone's views about 
 Ireland. It was thought that Mr. Gladstone, by this appoint- 
 "lent, hoped to strengthen his political relations with Lord 
 
 313 
 
214 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Hartington, who had already shown signs of divergence on 
 many questions. 
 
 The appointment was made on May 4th, and was announced 
 in the House of Commons that night. On that morning, when 
 crossing the Horse Guards Parade on the way to my office in 
 Whitehall, I met Lord Frederick Cavendish, and had some 
 conversation with him. He told me that he was going to 
 Downing Street, where he expected Mr. Gladstone to offer him 
 the Irish Secretaryship. He was very unwilling, he said, to 
 accept it, as he preferred his then post of Secretary to the 
 Treasury ; but he thought that he should have to take the 
 post, as a matter of duty, if pressed upon him. Turning to 
 me, he said, " Would you like to go to Ireland in place of 
 Forster ? If so, I will refuse the post, and I think it will 
 probably be offered to you." I replied that I could not answer 
 the question, without knowing what was to be the new policy, 
 as I was strongly opposed to renewing coercion. With that 
 our conversation ended, and I never saw Lord Frederick 
 Cavendish again. Two days later he met his end gallantly 
 defending Mr. Burke, the Permanent Secretary for Ireland, 
 from the band of assassins, who murdered both of them. 
 
 Meanwhile, Pamell, who was released from Kilmainham 
 immediately after the Cabinet of May 2nd, crossed the Channel 
 on the next day, and on May 4th made his dramatic reappear- 
 ance in the House of Commons, as above described. On Satur- 
 day, the 6th, Pamell, Dillon, and O'Kelly, the three released 
 suspects, went to Portland to meet Davitt, at the gates of the 
 convict prison, on his release, which had been directed by Sir 
 William Harcourt, in pursuance of the new policy. Davitt 
 had been in prison there for fifteen months as a convict, whose 
 ticket-of-leave had been revoked ; though by special orders 
 of Harcourt he had not been subjected to all the rigours and 
 indignities of the convict prison rules, he had been entirely 
 cut off from the outside world, and knew absolutely nothing 
 of what was taking place. His surprise, at his release and at 
 meeting Pamell and his colleagues, was very great. They 
 travelled together to London. " All the way," says Davitt, 
 " Pamell talked of the state of Ireland ; said it was dreadful ; 
 denounced the Ladies' Land League ; swore at everybody, 
 and spoke of anarchy, as if he were a British Minister bringing 
 in a Coercion Bill. I never saw him so wild and angry. The 
 
THE PHCENIX PARK MURDERS 215 
 
 Ladies' Land League, he declared, had taken the country out 
 of his hands, and should be suppressed. I defended the 
 ladies, saying that, after all, they had kept the ball rolling 
 while he was in gaol. * I am out now,' he said, ' and I don't 
 mean to keep the ball rolling any more. The League must be 
 suppressed, or I will leave public life.' "* 
 
 There seems to have been amusing conversation between 
 the four Irish leaders, thus released from prison, about a 
 future Home Rule Government in Dublin. Pamell laughingly 
 assigned posts in it to the other three. Dillon was to be 
 Home Secretary, Davitt to be Inspector of Irish Prisons, 
 and O' Kelly, the future head of the Constabulary. 
 
 " We are on the eve of something like Home Rule," Pamell 
 said. " Mr. Gladstone has thrown over coercion and Mr. 
 Forster, and the Government will legislate fmther on the Land 
 question. The Tory Party are going to advocate land pur- 
 chase, almost on the lines of the League programme, and I see 
 no reason why we should not soon obtain £l11 we are looking 
 for in the League movement." On their arrival in London, 
 they were welcomed by a crowd of friends. 
 
 Their rosy expectations for the future were destined to be 
 cruelly dispelled by the grave events, of which Dublin was the 
 scene, on the same day. Lord Spencer and Lord Frederick 
 Cavendish had crossed the Channel the previous night ; they 
 took the oaths of their respective offices on the Saturday. 
 The new Lord-Lieutenant made his state entry into Dubhn, 
 and was cordially, if not enthusiastically, received by the 
 people. The change of policy, which his appointment seemed 
 to indicate, gave general satisfaction. It raised hopes of yet 
 further development. Late in the afternoon. Lord Frederick, 
 after transacting business with Lord Spencer at the Castle, 
 drove on a car to the Phoenix Park. At the entrance he dis- 
 mounted, and being overtaken by Mr. Burke, the permanent 
 Under-Secretary, walked with him towards the Viceregal 
 Lodge. There was gross neghgence, on the part of the police, 
 in not affording to him the same vigilant protection which they 
 had always provided for Mr. Forster. When a short distance 
 from the Lord-Lieutenant's residence, and within sight from 
 Its windows, the two officials were suddenly attacked by a 
 band of assassins, armed with long knives. Their object of 
 
 » Life of Parnett, 1, 364. 
 
216 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 attack was Mr. Burke. Lord Frederick tried to defend his 
 colleague with his only weapon — an umbrella. Both were 
 stabbed to death. Their dead bodies were found by passers- 
 by within a few minutes. The assassins escaped without 
 recognition, though it was still light, at seven o'clock in the 
 evening, and there were many people in the Park. Those who 
 saw the affray from a short distance, and from the windows 
 of the Viceregal Lodge, thought that it was a mere scuffle of 
 men at play. 
 
 It transpired some months later, when the murderers were 
 on their trial, that they were members of a secret society 
 called " The Invincibles," formed expressly for the purpose 
 of political assassinations, and with the deliberate intention 
 of taking the lives of Mr. Forster and Lord Cowper. They had, 
 on several occasions, devised elaborate schemes for waylaying 
 Mr. Forster, but had been foiled by some mischances. Finding 
 that he had escaped from them by his final departure from 
 Ireland, they had decided to wreak their vengeance on Mr. 
 Burke. They did not know Lord Frederick by sight. It was 
 the accident of his being in company with Burke which led 
 them, through fear of recognition, to slay him. They were 
 much surprised to learn that he was the newly appointed 
 Chief Secretary. Months passed before any clue was obtained 
 as to the murderers. 
 
 The details of this terrible deed reached the members of 
 the Government in London the same night, when many of 
 them were at an official reception at the Admiralty. Mrs. 
 Gladstone, who was there, returned at once to Downing Street, 
 and thence, with Mr. Gladstone, went to Carlton Terrace on 
 the mournful errand of breaking the dreadful news to Lady 
 Frederick Cavendish. That brave and heroic lady bore her 
 bereavement with fortitude. It afforded some consolation to 
 her to know that her husband died in the performance of his 
 duty, and in the attempt to save the life of his colleague in 
 the Irish Government. She tried to assuage the grief of Mr. 
 Gladstone by saying that he had done right in sending her 
 husband to Ireland. She wrote to Lord Spencer that she 
 would have given up her husband, if she had known that his 
 death would work good to his fellow-men, for that, indeed, 
 was the whole object of his life. 
 
 It was not till the next morning (Sunday) that Pamell 
 
THE PH(ENIX PARK MURDERS 217 
 
 heard of what had occurred. He was distressed beyond 
 measure. In an interview with Dillon, Cowen, Davitt, and 
 others, he is described by the latter as being completely 
 unnerved by the terrible event. He said he would retire from 
 the leadership of the Irish Party, and give up politics. " How 
 can I carry on a public agitation if I am stabbed in the back 
 in this way ? " He spoke of the crime as the work of extreme 
 men, who were hostile to his leadership, and were incensed by 
 his compact with the Government. His friends endeavoured 
 to persuade him from resignation. By their advice, a mani- 
 festo to the Irish people was drawn up and signed by Pamell, 
 Dillon, and Davitt, condemning the crime, and expressing the 
 hope that the assassins would be brought to justice. It con- 
 cluded with the following sentence, suggested by Mr. A. M. 
 Sullivan t 
 
 " We feel that no act has ever been perpetrated in our 
 country, during the existing struggle for social and pohtical 
 rights of the pcist fifty years, that has so stained the name of 
 hospitable Ireland, as this cowardly and improvoked assassi- 
 nation of a friendly stranger, and that until the miurderers 
 of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke are brought to 
 justice the stain will sully our country's name." 
 
 Later, Pamell called on Mr. Chamberlain and met Sir 
 Chaxles Dilke. They strongly dissuaded him from resignation. 
 Strange to say, also, he wrote to Mr. Gladstone, not, as has been 
 alleged, offering to resign his leadership, but asking for advice. 
 Mr. Barry O'Brien gives Mr. Gladstone's version. " On 
 the Sunday after the Phoenix Park murders, while I was at 
 lunch, a letter was brought to me from Pamell. I was much 
 touched by it. He wrote evidently under strong emotion. 
 He did not ask me if I would advise him to retire from public 
 life or not. That was not how he put it. He asked me what 
 effect I thought the murders would have on English public 
 opinion in relation to his leadership of the Irish Party. Well, 
 I wrote expressing my own opinion, and what I thought would 
 be the opinion of others, that his retirement from pubhc life 
 would do no good, but, on the contrary, would do harm. I 
 thought his conduct on the whole matter very praiseworthy." * 
 
 This advice appears to have determined Pamell, and no 
 more was heard of his resignation. There is no doubt, how- 
 
 * Life of Pameil, I, 357. 
 
218 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 ever, that he was profoundly affected, and regarded the crime 
 as aimed, in a great measure, at the constitutional agitation of 
 which he was the leader. His communications on the subject 
 with Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Chamberlain, and Sir Charles Dilke 
 were significant as to the entente which had been arrived at. 
 
 On Monday, the 8th, Mr. Gladstone moved the adjournment 
 of the House of Commons, at its meeting, as a mark of respect 
 and grief for the murdered men, and of horror of the crime. 
 He said of Mr. Burke that he was one of the ablest, the most 
 upright, the most experienced, the most eminent men in the 
 Civil Service ; and, of Lord Frederick, that one of the very 
 noblest hearts had ceased to beat, when it was just devoted to 
 the service of Ireland, full of love for that country, full of hope 
 for her future, full of capacity to render her service. Most 
 appropriate references and eulogies were made by Sir Stafford 
 Northcote, Mr. Forster, and Mr. Lowther. Mr. Pamell, in a 
 few well-chosen words, expressed, on behalf of all Ireland, 
 unqualified detestation of the crime, and his conviction that 
 it had been committed by men who absolutely detested the 
 cause with which he had been associated, and who had devised 
 the crime and carried it out as the deadliest blow which they 
 had in their power to deal against their hopes, in connection 
 with the new course on which the Government had just entered. 
 Mr. Gladstone also gave notice, that all previous arrange- 
 ments and intentions of the Government must be reconsidered, 
 and that, on the following Thursday, a measure would be 
 introduced for the repression of crime in Ireland, and that 
 another measure, dealing with arrears of rent, would also 
 be introduced as soon as possible. On this, Mr. Pamell said 
 that he did not deny that it might be impossible for the 
 Government to resist the situation, and that they might feel 
 themselves compelled to take some step in the direction 
 indicated by the Prime Minister. 
 
 The House then adjourned. Three days later upwards of 
 three hundred of its Members were present at the fimeral of 
 Lord Frederick Cavendish, at Edensor, a remote village in 
 Derbyshire, the burial-place of his family — a most striking 
 testimony of the respect in which he was held, and of horror 
 of the crime which had deprived the country of his services. 
 With respect to the Irish Government, Mr. Forster at once 
 offered to go back to Ireland, to help temporarily in its ad- 
 
THE PH(ENIX PARK MURDERS 219 
 
 ministration, until new arrangements could be made. It was 
 not thought well to accept this generous oiBEer. A successor to 
 Lord Frederick was quickly found in Mr. Trevelyan <now Sir 
 George), then Secretary to the Admiralty, than whom there 
 could not have been a^ stronger or abler man for the post. 
 He was not to be in the Cabinet. Lord Spencer, therefore, 
 was to be mainly responsible for the executive work in Ireland ; 
 but the new Secretary was to have the heavy burden of defend- 
 ing, in the House of Commons, the action and policy of his 
 chief against the powerful attacks of the Irish Party. 
 
/ 
 
 CHAPTER XXI 
 
 THE CRIMES ACT OF 1882 
 
 THE effect of the Phoenix Park murders on public 
 opinion in England was very great. It was thought by 
 many that Mr. Forster had been justified in all that 
 he had charged against Pamell and the Land League. No 
 Government could have survived for a day which did not take 
 instant steps to strengthen the law in Ireland against crime. 
 All schemes, whatever they may have been, of giving to Ire- 
 land some rudiments of self-government, as regards its own 
 affairs, went by the board. The measure for deahng with 
 crime was greatly strengthened, and became a coercive one 
 of harshness to Ireland. Public opinion there was again 
 greatly embittered. 
 
 Looking back impartially at the new pohcy, one must now 
 conclude that, although it was most difficult, if not impossible, 
 in the then state of public opinion in Great Britain, to adopt 
 any other course, it would have been more poUtic and states- 
 manUke to have taken Parnell into consultation, and to have 
 come to terms with him, and the Irish Party, as to what 
 measure should be proposed to Parliament for strengthening 
 the law against outrages and murder. It is almost certain 
 that Pamell, in view of the Phoenix Park horrors, would have 
 agreed to a moderate measure for amending the Criminal Law. 
 Pubhc opinion in Ireland might have been concihated and 
 l^fought into harmony with that of England. No attempt 
 was made in this direction. Pamell was never approached on 
 the subject. He might well have considered himself as ab- 
 solved, by the introduction of a new Coercion Bill, from 
 whatever agreement or imderstanding had been arrived at 
 with the Government. It will be seen that he did his best to 
 carry out his undertaking, and to slow down the agitation. 
 
 220 
 
THE CRIMES ACT OF 1882 221 
 
 It was decided by the Government to give precedence to 
 the new Coercion Bill — the Prevention of Crimes Bill — as it 
 was called, and to proceed with an Arrears Bill pari passu, 
 thus reverting to the old Whig pohcy of giving precedence to 
 a measure for restoring order, before applying a remedy to 
 the evil which was the cause of disorder — a poUcy which 
 deprived the remedy of most of its heaUng quahty. 
 
 The Crimes Bill was introduced by Sir WiUiam Harcourt, 
 the Home Secretary, on May nth, and the Arrears Bill by 
 Mr. Gladstone on May 15th. The former was read a second 
 time on May 25th, after three nights of debate. The Crimes 
 Bill was based on very different principles from that of the 
 previous year. It proposed to put down crime, not by arbitrary 
 imprisonment, for unlimited periods, of persons suspected only 
 of crime, but by strengthening the law against persons who 
 were guilty of actual crime, or of offences of a serious character. 
 It had been an understanding with Lord Spencer, when he 
 accepted the post of Lord-Lieutenant, that a measure of this 
 kind would be proposed by the Government ; but the discus- 
 sion on it was to be postponed until an Arrears Act was 
 passed, and the House was agreed upon the new rules for 
 procedure. As these measures would necessarily occupy the 
 time of the House of Commons for many weeks, it was hoped 
 in many quarters that the improved state of Ireland, due 
 to the Arrears Act, and to the new attitude of Pamell, would 
 dispense with the necessity for a Coercion Act. The Crimes Bill 
 was to be of a moderate character. The Bill, as introduced, 
 however, was tuned up to meet the altered state of public 
 opinion, infuriated by the political murders. New clauses 
 were added to the original Bill, and the measure, as finally 
 adopted and presented to Parhament, was of a very drastic 
 character. It corresponded closely with the demands which 
 had been made by Lord Cowper and Mr. Forster. 
 
 The most serious change proposed, from a constitutional 
 point of view^ was the abrogation of the right of trial by jury. 
 In grave cases of agrarian crime, the Goveniment was em- 
 powered to dispense with juries, and to try them before a 
 Court of three judges, who were to decide questions of fact, 
 as well as of law, without juries. The Attorney-General was 
 to have large powers of changing the venue in criminal cases. 
 Power was conferred on the Lord-Lieutenant of forbidding 
 
222 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 public meetings, and of suppressing newspapers. Powers of 
 search, and of arresting persons wandering about at night, 
 were conferred on the pohce. Stringent provision was made 
 against boycotting. The most serious, from the point of view 
 of the Irish Party, were the increased powers given to magis- 
 trates of convicting persons of incitement to crime and of 
 boycotting, and of membership of secret societies, offences 
 which previously could only be tried before juries. These 
 clauses enormously increased the powers of the special 
 magistrates appointed by Mr. Forster, who had already shown 
 that they were not to be trusted with the more limited powers 
 already conferred on them. They were also empowered to 
 hold secret local inquiries, and to compel the attendance of 
 witnesses, and to interrogate them privately. Compensation 
 was to be levied, in cases of injury to persons, on the rate- 
 payers of the district — ^to be fixed by the Grand Juries, not 
 responsible to them. Additional pohce might also be quartered 
 in districts at the cost of the ratepayers. 
 
 This accumulation of strong provisions, which practically 
 got rid of constitutional securities against injustice and wrong, 
 caused in Ireland a revulsion of public opinion, which had been 
 veering towards the Government, under the belief that a 
 pohcy of conciliation was adopted, and which had been 
 roused against crime by the pohtical murders. It led to the 
 bitter opposition of the Irish representatives in the House of 
 Commons. Pamell made a comparatively moderate speech 
 against the Bill, but his lieutenants. Dillon, Sexton, Healy, 
 O'Donnell, and others, went far beyond him in violent opposi- 
 tion. Dillon's speech especially was impassioned and vehement 
 to the highest degree. He would willingly, he said, have 
 risked his own hfe to save that of Lord Frederick Cavendish. 
 Let the Government, however, beware, if they send another 
 man to carry out another Coercion Act, that a cursed stain 
 may not again sully the page of Irish history. ** Do we not 
 read in the Bill before the House the condemnation of English 
 rule in Ireland ? What profit can you ever expect from govern- 
 ing a nation which nothing conciliates, and which nothing will 
 subdue? In eighty-eight years since the Union there have 
 been fifty Coercion Acts, and that before the House is the 
 worst." If the Government had framed a measure against 
 such crimes as that recently committed, he, for one, would 
 
THE CRIMES ACT OF 1882 223 
 
 have given no opposition to it, but the Bill, as drawn, aimed 
 at every expression of opinion in Ireland. The Irish Party 
 had offered assistance to the Government for the discovery of 
 the criminals. If they abandoned the policy of concihation, 
 if they enacted a measure of the kind before the House, they 
 would be carrying out the object of the assassins. 
 
 This speech has been referred to as an illustration of the 
 temper which had been aroused by the strong coercive measure. 
 The most reasoned speech against it was that of Mr. Sexton — 
 full of contemptuous irony directed against Forster, whose 
 failure he exposed, and full of predictions of failure of this new 
 attempt against the HJ)erties of the Irish people. The measure 
 was ably defended by Mr. Trevelyan, in a first speech as Irish 
 Secretary, and by Mr. Bright, who explained that his well- 
 known, and oft-quoted, phrase, that " force is no remedy," 
 was not inconsistent with support to the Bill. Force, he said, 
 was occasionally necessary as against force, even if a remedy 
 must be found in some other direction. Mr. Plunket, and 
 Mr. Gibson, on behalf of the Opposition, made strong speeches 
 in favour of the Bill. The second reading was carried, after a 
 three nights' debate, by 383 votes against 45 ; seven Enghsh 
 Liberals only voted in the minority — which included also 
 Mr. WiUiam Shaw and Mr. Charles Russell. A majority of 
 the Irish Members voting in the division were in favour of 
 the Bill. The Committee stage led to most violent opposition. 
 It was protracted over twenty-four sittings of the House. Some 
 minor concessions were made by the Government, but sub- 
 stantially the measure passed in its original form, strengthened 
 in one important respect against the will of the Government. 
 No fewer than five da}^ were devoted to the question of 
 " boycotting," which the Government declared they were 
 determined to put down. 
 
 The Irish Members, while admitting that boycotting had 
 been carried, in some cases, to a dangerous point, and willing 
 to put some Umitations upon it, so as to prevent excesses, 
 defended its use, under the conditions which existed in Ireland 
 before the Land Act was passed. They claimed that it had 
 5f6n successfully apphed in preventing unjust evictions. 
 They maintained that the clause, as it stood, practically 
 amounted to making all exclusive dealing criminal, and would 
 be a most dangerous power to commit to magistrates. The 
 
224 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Government insisted that the clause was necessary to prevent 
 the cruel excesses which had taken place. The debates 
 which occurred on this subject were conducted by some of 
 the ablest men, with the most subtle intellects, who ever sat 
 in the House of Commons — Harcourt, Trevelyan, Forster, 
 Gibson, Plunket and Gladstone on behalf of the clause; 
 Pamell, Healy, Sexton, T. P. O'Connor, Charles Russell, and 
 Cowen against it ; while Horace Davey (later Lord Davey) 
 and Bryce took part in the debates, and contended that the 
 clause went too far. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone, in the course of a keen debating speech, said : 
 
 " The evil, which there is in boycotting, dwells more or 
 less in the breasts of most men — the question is, what is the 
 amount of the evil ? In Ireland it is a great and serious evil, 
 limiting most unduly the liberty of action of men, and seriously 
 endangering the peace and order of the country. , . . The 
 clause has been introduced because the system has become, 
 in Ireland, a monstrous public evil, threatening liberty and 
 interfering with law and order." 
 
 The whole of the speech, and indeed the whole of the dis- 
 cussion, on June ist, when the principal debate on the clause 
 took place, would be worth quotation. It was admitted by 
 the Government that mere exclusive dealing — the refusal, for 
 instance, to supply goods to a would-be purchaser, or to work 
 for a particular person — was not criminal, or intended to be 
 made so by the clause. On the other side, it was argued that 
 there was no distinction in the clause, as drawn, between 
 exclusive dealing, in the above sense, and the more serious 
 cases which the Government hoped and intended to prevent 
 and punish, and that it was dangerous to give to magistrates 
 in Ireland the power to determine in what cases exclusive 
 dealing became criminal. 
 
 Dillon, not for the first time, defended the action of the 
 Land League in this respect. He had over and over again, 
 he said, explained to the Irish people what he meant by the 
 S5^tem of boycotting. He had told them that boycotting 
 consisted in having no dealings with a man who had done 
 certain things — such as taking a farm from which a tenant had 
 been unjustly evicted ; assisting in any way in an unjust 
 eviction ; breaking his engagement with his fellow-tenants, 
 to hold out for certain terms as a reduction of rent, and then 
 
THE CRIMES ACT OF 1881 225 
 
 making separate terms for himself. He had said : " Have no 
 dealings with such a man, and have no association with him. 
 But do no injury to him, or to any one associating with him. 
 If you do, you destroy the system of boycotting, because you 
 break the law." So long as he (Dillon) and Davitt were at the 
 head of the Land League they never sanctioned, but strenu- 
 ously set their faces against, any further interference with 
 individual liberty. But he was prepared to admit that after 
 the Land League leaders were arrested, the system of boy- 
 cotting had been very grossly abused. He agreed frankly 
 that the system, defend it as best they could, was a rough 
 system ; but if it had not been adopted the most fearful 
 evils would have happened, which, by the course taken, the 
 Land League had been able in some measure to stave off. 
 In the end the clause passed with but slight amendment ; but 
 the discussion on it doubtless did good in preventing its being 
 put in force generally, and in other than most serious cases. 
 
 As the discussion proceeded the Irish Members disputed the 
 clauses, word by word, and their tactics became more purely 
 obstructive. On the clause enabling the levy of compensation 
 on the ratepayers of the district in cases of murder and maim- 
 ing, an acrimonious debate took place with numerous attacks 
 on the late, and the new, Irish Secretary. The Committee 
 sat continuously for thirty hours, from 3 p.m. on the first day 
 till 8 p.m. on the second, with relays of Chairmen. I occupied 
 the Chair myself on this occasion, from half-past five in the 
 morning till nine, when the Chairman of Committees took his 
 place again. A Uttle later the Chairman expressed the opinion 
 that it was necessary to stop the obstruction, and named six- 
 teen of the Irish Members, including Pamell, Dillon, Justin 
 McCarthy, Redmond, Sexton, and Biggar. On the motion of a 
 member of the Government, they were suspended for the 
 remainder of the sitting by a vote of 126 to 27. Later, nine 
 more Irish Members were reported by the Chairman for wilful 
 and persistent obstruction, and were suspended, and the clause 
 was finally carried against a minority of only six. 
 
 On the next meeting of the House Mr. Gladstone moved 
 the resolution of the previous Session by which the busi- 
 ness was declared urgent. This was carried by 259 to 31. 
 With the aid of new rules supphed by the Speaker, the 
 remaining clauses of the Bill were then carried with prac- 
 15 
 
 \ 
 
226 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 tically little discussion. The Irish Party, ejected from the 
 House, as above described, passed a resolution protesting 
 against the action of the House, and announcing their 
 intention to take no further part in discussions on the Bill, 
 which they affirmed would be devoid of moral force. In 
 their absence the Government was defeated on a most 
 important point. In deference to a promise given to 
 Mr. Pamell in the Committee on the Bill, Mr. Trevelyan 
 proposed to amend the clause, giving greater power of 
 search to the poHce, by excluding night searches, except 
 when there was reasonable cause to beUeve that a secret 
 society was holding a meeting. This concession was violently 
 opposed by the Tory Party, and by not a few Whig 
 Members, on the ground that it would weaken the Bill. Mr. 
 Gladstone, in vehement language, threatened resignation if 
 the amendment was not carried. In spite of this the House, 
 by a majority of 207 to 194, rejected it. Mr. Gladstone, 
 however, did not carry out his threat. He explained that, 
 under ordinary circumstances, after such a rebuff, he would 
 have gone no further with the Bill, but in the condition of 
 Ireland he could not do so. Nor could he resign on such a 
 question. It would, indeed, have been absurdly quixotic to 
 take such a course. It was within the power of the Executive 
 Government of Ireland to refrain from using the power thus 
 thrust upon them. But the fact that the House forced upon 
 the Government larger powers of coercion than was thought 
 necessary, or asked for, was very significant of its temper. 
 Twenty-four Liberal Members voted against the Govern- 
 ment on this occasion, and many more abstained from voting. 
 This was the last difficulty in the Bill. It was read a third 
 time, and sent to the House of Lords. It there passed all its 
 stages in two nights. The only complaint was that the Bill 
 was not strong enough. 
 
CHAPTER XXII 
 
 THE ARREARS ACT 
 
 IT was greatly to the credit of the Government that, in 
 spite of the very strong anti-Irish feehng of Great 
 Britain, aroused by the pohtical murders, it decided to 
 press on its remedial measure for Ireland. The Arrears Bill 
 was read a second time before the Committee stage on the 
 Crimes Bill. It was substantially the scheme devised by Par- 
 nell, when in Kilmainham Jail, and which was incorporated in 
 Mr. Redmond's Bill, already referred to. It differed from the 
 scheme in the Land Act of the previous year, which had proved 
 in practice to be a complete failure, on two vital points. The 
 advance of one year's rent to the landlord, conditional on the 
 payment of another year's rent by the tenant, and the wiping 
 out of all other outstanding arrears, was to be a gift from the 
 State, and not a loan, and the scheme was to be compulsory 
 on both landlord and tenant, on the appUcation of either of 
 them, and not permissive only, and subject to the approval 
 of the landlord. The money required for the purpose was to 
 be provided out of the surplus fund of the Disestablished 
 Church, which was expected to realize i| miUions, and beyond 
 this by the State. The scheme was limited to holdings of 
 which the Poor Law valuation was £30 and under. Advances 
 were only to be made in cases where the Land Conmiission, 
 who were to administer the Act, were of opinion that the 
 tenant was unable to pay the arrears for which he was indebted. 
 Mr. Gladstone, on moving the second reading of the Bill, 
 admitted that it could not be supported on logical grounds, 
 and that the interference of the State in the settlement of 
 debts, legaDy due, by means of gift and compulsion, could not 
 be defended on either economic or constitutional grounds. He 
 justified it on the ground that the permissive clauses of the 
 
 227 
 
228 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Act of 1881 had failed, and that a vast body of tenants, 
 encumbered by arrears of rent which they could not pay, were 
 prevented from going into the Land Court, and obtaining 
 a reduction of rent for the future, and that they were in danger 
 of eviction on a large scale for these irrecoverable arrears ; 
 that this was the cause of disturbance and outrages in Ireland ; 
 and that it was necessary that this difficulty should be removed 
 in the interest of peace in Ireland, and in order that the Land 
 Act of 1 88 1 should have its full effect.* In the course of the 
 discussion on the Bill he spoke the following remarkable words : 
 
 " Eviction in the exercise of a legal right may be to the 
 prejudice of your neighbours, may involve the highest repre- 
 hension, may even imply deep moral guilt. There may be 
 outrages which — all things considered — the persons and the 
 facts — may be less guilty in the sight of God than evictions." 
 
 The Bill was assailed by the Tory Party in full force, 
 on the ground that it would have a demoralizing effect upon 
 those for whose benefit it was designed, and would be a 
 disastrous precedent in after years, and would be fatal to the 
 future careers of Irish farmers. Mr. Chaplin declared that 
 unless the Government made full compensation to those land- 
 lords, who had the right to claim arrears which were their due, 
 they would be found guilty of wholesale confiscation. Sir 
 M. Hicks-Beach (Lord St. Aldwyn) complained that all law- 
 abiding in Ireland would be discouraged, and lawless people 
 would be encouraged to further outrages. He did not 
 believe it could be possible to restore peace and confidence 
 by concessions to those who were responsible for criminal 
 measures. Irreparable mischief, he said, had already been 
 done by the mere introduction of the Bill. Mr. Arthur 
 Balfour pointed out that three remedial land measures had 
 been introduced by the Government in three years, all of 
 which violated not only every principle of political economy, 
 but every principle which had ever been recognized in English 
 legislation ; all were introduced as the result of agitation, 
 and all were recommended as a means of avoiding further 
 agitation. The Bill would pauperize the tenants of Ireland 
 by remitting debts which ought to be paid in full. Sir Stafford 
 Northcote attacked the Government for taking measures from 
 the Irish Party after opposing them. He did not object to 
 
 ^ Hansard, May 22nd, 1882. 
 
THE ARREARS ACT 229 
 
 the Bill because it was exceptional, but because it was bad 
 and unjust, as regards the present, and mischievous, as regards 
 the future. It would encourage a vicious system, of which 
 they would feel the effect in after years. 
 
 The Bill was defended by Mr. Trevelyan in two admirable 
 speeches, largely devoted to a description of what was going 
 on in the parts of Ireland where the scheme would operate. 
 At that moment, he said, in many parts of Ireland men were 
 being turned out of their homes, actually by platoons, who 
 were no more able to pay the arrears of three bad years than 
 they were able to pay the National Debt. In Connemara, he 
 said, in three days, since he had been in office, 150 families 
 consisting of 750 persons were turned out of their homes for 
 non-payment of arrears of rent. In that district thousands 
 of persons, who had been beggared for years, were utterly 
 unable to hold up their heads since the bad years of 1878-9. 
 On many estates, he said, arrears were outstanding since 1847. 
 The essence of the Bill was the clearance of accounts all 
 through Ireland, once and for all. Never, since 1847, had 
 there been years of distress which so utterly impoverished 
 the people, that it was impossible for them to pay any rent 
 at all. He pointed out that in recent famines in India the 
 ryots had their land taxes remitted by a process as near as 
 possible to that of the Bill. 
 
 An excellent debating speech was made by Mr. Bright, who 
 rarely, on other occasions, spoke without elaborate prepara- 
 tions. Mr. Forster also spoke on behalf of the Bill. He had 
 come to the conclusion that the House must make an effort to 
 settle the Arrears question. If not, the Land Act would fail, 
 as regards a vast number of tenants, and would be of little 
 use in restoring peace and order. Compulsion could not be 
 avoided. It was the interest of some landlords to clear their 
 estates of tenants. It was the interest of the State that such 
 clearances should not be made. If the Government had pro- 
 posed to deal with the question by loan, the only effect would 
 have been that the loan would be irrecoverable. 
 
 Looking at the debate as a whole it seemed to me at the 
 time, and I have since been confirmed in the view, that the 
 general line of defence for the Bill was rather timid and weak. 
 Mr. Gladstone, as in the case of the Land Acts of 1870 and 
 1081, refrained from defending the measure on the grounds of 
 
230 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 justice. He based his defence on the grounds of expediency 
 and policy, and the necessity of restoring peace to Ireland. 
 But there was much to be said from the point of view of justice. 
 The smaller tenants in the west and south of Ireland had 
 made whatever improvements had added to the prairie value 
 of their holdings, including the cabins in which they lived. 
 The two Land Acts had already decided that these improve- 
 ments were the property of the tenants, and ought to be 
 protected, and that rent ought not to be levied on them. For 
 years past they had been over-rented. These excessive rents 
 could only be paid in good years. In bad years, when the 
 crops were deficient, when the turf could not be dried, or when 
 there was no employment in England for the migrating 
 labourers, the full rent, or even part of it, could not be paid. 
 Rent, in such cases, was not abated, but was allowed to accu- 
 mulate as arrears, rolling up debt, so that the landlords had 
 greater powers over their tenants, and could evict them at 
 their pleasure. Since the Act of 1881 many of them had made 
 use of these arrears to prevent their tenants going into the 
 Land Court, and obtaining reductions of rent, which, in such 
 cases, often amounted to 30 or 40 per cent. 
 
 In some cases the landlords would be better off if they 
 cleared such estates of the tenants, and some of them were 
 prepared to effect this by wholesale evictions. Evictions led 
 to disturbance and outrages. When the principle of reduction 
 of rent by independent authority was admitted, what could 
 be more just, reasonable, and politic than to apply the same 
 principle to the accumulated arrears of excessive rents ? The 
 same authority, which reduced the rents, should have been 
 empowered to reduce, in the same proportion, the arrears of 
 rents which were due, and which the tenants were unable to 
 pay. This, it will be recollected, was the demand which 
 Pamell made in Committee on the Act of 188 1. If his demand 
 had been acceded to, the difficulty would not have arisen. 
 
 A few years later, in 1886, the same question arose in dealing 
 with the Scotch crofters, whose condition, legal arid economical, 
 was almost identical with that of the Irish cottier tenants. 
 Under the Scotch Act a Commission was appointed to hold 
 inquiries into the condition of the crofter communities, with 
 power to reduce rents, to give security of tenure for the future, 
 and with authority also to decide what arrears of rent should 
 
THE ARREARS ACT 231 
 
 be payable, and to sweep away all excess beyond this. There 
 was no gift or loan from the estate to make up a part of the 
 loss to the landowners, in respect of the arrears thus annulled. 
 The measure passed without any opposition, and this part of 
 it was not even subjected to criticism. 
 
 As a result of that measure arrears of rent, owing by the 
 crofters to very large amounts, were compulsorily reduced to 
 very small proportions. If it was right and just to do this in 
 the case of Scotch crofters, why not in the case of Irish crofter 
 tenants ? The scheme of the Irish measure must be regarded 
 as in the nature of a bribe to the Irish landlords from the 
 State, an inducement to them to wipe off all arrears of rent, on 
 payment of one year's arrears from the tenant, and another 
 from the State — a most excellent bargain to the landlords. 
 
 In the House of Lords the Bill was read a second time, 
 after a violent speech against it by Lord Salisbury. He had 
 wished to reject the Bill, but had been overruled at a party 
 meeting of the Opposition Peers, at the instance of the Irish 
 Peers. He promised to eUminate some of its dangerous 
 proposals in Committee. He moved an amendment to the first 
 clause, making the consent of the landlord necessary for any 
 application to the Land Court. He declared that " if there 
 could be such a thing on the part of the State as stealing, and 
 if it be possible for the State unjustly to take one man's 
 property and give it to another, I cannot understand any 
 offence more distinctly proved than confiscation is proved 
 against the Bill." To bring the Bill into correspondence with 
 the principles of common honesty, it was necessary to make 
 it conditional on the consent of the landlord. Lord Derby and 
 Lord CarHngford, on the part of the Government, said that 
 the amendment was fatal to the Bill, and that it would be 
 equivalent to its rejection on the second reading. 
 
 Lord Lansdowne, for once in his poUtical career, supported 
 a Liberal Government on an Irish Land Bill. The whole point 
 of the arrangement, he said, was a compulsory composition of 
 the tenants' liabihties. The optional system had been tried 
 and failed. . . . The Government had prepared a twofold 
 solution of the difficulties in Ireland. They had carried an 
 effectual measure for dealing with disorders, and they were 
 now proposing to do something to relieve the pressure which 
 had no doubt tended to increase crime. He would greatly 
 
232 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 regret if, on the one hand, the House accepted legislation 
 directed against crime, and, on the other hand, left unmiti- 
 gated, the pressure would add to an increase of crime. In 
 spite of his suppOTt, Lord Salisbury's amendment was carried 
 by 169 to 98. Other small amendments were also carried, 
 defeating the objects of the Bill. 
 
 On the return of the Bill to the House of Commons, on 
 August 8th, Mr. Gladstone made some slight concessions, not 
 substantially altering the character of the Bill, and, subject 
 to this, proposed and carried the rejection of the Lords' amend- 
 ments. In the interval, before the Bill came again before the 
 House of Lords, a party meeting of the Opposition Peers took 
 place, at which the Irish Peers rebelled against the hostile 
 attitude to the Bill of the Tory leader, Lord Salisbury. The 
 bait held out to so many of them of two years' rent, for 
 arrears, which they knew were irrecoverable, was too tempting. 
 In view of this Lord Salisbury found it necessary to drop his 
 opposition to the Bill ; and when it came up for discussion 
 on the amendments of the House of Commons he made the 
 following remarkable statement on giving way, and agreeing 
 to the passing of the Bill without his amendments. 
 
 " I believe that the Bill would be only defensible with the 
 alteration in it which makes the consent of the landlord 
 necessary before the measure can be put into operation. 
 Without that alteration I beheve it to be a most pernicious 
 Bill ; that it will be an act of simple robbery ; and that it is 
 a Bill which will bear the gravest fruits in the legislation of 
 the future. These are my opinions. I have had the oppor- 
 tunity this morning of conferring with the noble Lords who 
 formed the majority by whom the amendment was carried, 
 and which was sent down to the other House ; and I found that 
 the overwhelming majority of their Lordships were of opinion 
 that in the present state of affairs, especially those which have 
 recently arisen in Ireland, and in Egypt, it is not expedient 
 that the Arrears Bill should be thrown out. I do not share in 
 this opinion. If I had the power I would have thrown out the 
 Bill. I find myself, however, in a small minority, and there- 
 fore I will not divide the House. "^ 
 
 He gave way on all the points at issue, and the Bill passed 
 into law substantially in the form desired by the Government. 
 
 * Hansard, August loth, 1882. 
 
THE ARREARS ACT 238 
 
 Lord Monck was appointed a Land Commissioner for the 
 purpose of administering the Act. It worked with absolute 
 success. Many thousands of tenants were able to relieve 
 themselves of the burden of arrears, paying one year's rent. 
 Great numbers of landlords obtained two years' rent, which 
 they had considered to be hopelessly lost. It had a most 
 undoubted effect in quieting the country, far more so, it may 
 confidently be asserted, than the rigorous enforcement of the 
 Crimes Act. It is only right that credit should be given to 
 Mr. Parnell for devising the scheme of the Bill, and to the 
 Government for coming to agreement with him about it. 
 In the result a very much smaller sum than was expected 
 sufficed to settle the question. The charge on the surplus fund 
 of the Disestabhshed Church of Ireland did not amount to 
 more than ;^700,ooo. None of the evil consequences predicted 
 of the Act resulted from it. 
 
 It was unfortunate, however, that again, on the admission 
 of Lord Sahsbury, the Tory Party and the Irish Peers conceded 
 a measure of this importance, not to arguments of justice, nor 
 even to those of expediency and sound policy, but to the 
 disturbed state of Ireland. It would seem to have been wiser 
 statesmanship, on the part of Lord Salisbury, when he found 
 that he was beaten by his own followers, to have avoided the 
 admission that he gave way to agitation and violence. 
 
CHAPTER XXIII 
 
 COERCION, 1882-4 
 
 THERE were two very opposite opinions among the 
 followers of Pamell as to the merits of his action in 
 effecting an arrangement with the Government and 
 his consequent release from jail. Many, and probably a 
 large majority of them, regarded it as a brilliant stroke of 
 policy, by which he defeated the Irish Executive, com- 
 pelled the resignation of Forster, and induced the Govern- 
 ment to concede legislation for clearing away arrears of rent. 
 During the first few days after his release he received ovations 
 in Ireland, and congratulations from his colleagues in Parlia- 
 ment. Others, however, of the more extreme members of 
 his party, took a different view of the transaction. It was, 
 in their opinion, a deal with the Government, the last thing 
 in the world which an Irish leader should have attempted. 
 The militant members of the League were strongly opposed 
 to the arrangement ; and many attributed it to an influence, 
 concerning which scandal was already afloat. This difference 
 might have caused a serious breach in the party, and have 
 endangered Pamell's position. But the prolonged fight 
 against the Coercion Act by the Irish Members, under his 
 leadership, drew off opinion in Ireland from the Kilmainhain 
 arrangement. 
 
 Whatever adverse views there were of the arrangement, 
 on the part of an influential section of his supporters, Pamell 
 strictly adhered to it. He undoubtedly did his best to slow 
 down the agitation. His first important act in this direction 
 was to suppress the Ladies' Land League. This he effected 
 by refusing further supplies of money to it. The Ladies' 
 League had spent upwards of ^^70,000 while he was in prison. 
 It was with difficulty that he was persuaded to advance 
 
 234 
 
COERCION, 1882-4 285 
 
 fioo more to enable them to meet their actual engagements. 
 This was to be the very last advance. " The Ladies' Land 
 League," he said, "has expended an enormous amount of 
 money. They told me, after my release, that I ought to 
 have remained in Kilmainham. I fear they have done much 
 harm along with some good." The refusal of money meant 
 their suppression. There was no formal dissolution, but the 
 League died of inanition. This appears to have caused a 
 quarrel with his sister. Miss Anna Pamell, the President 
 of the Ladies' League, which was never completely healed. 
 
 Pamell was urged by Davitt and others, soon after his 
 release from Kilmainham, to reorganize the Land League. 
 He peremptorily refused to do so. He was unwilling to 
 plunge the country again into the turmoil of violent agitation. 
 Later, however, in September, under the pressure of some of 
 the advanced members of his party, he agreed to the con- 
 stitution of a new organization to be called the National 
 League. At a conference held at Dublin on October 17th, 
 at which a number of Members of Parliament were present, 
 the programme of the new body was decided on. It was in- 
 sisted upon by Pamell, as a condition of his consent, that the 
 new League was to be on a strictly Parliamentary basis as 
 regards the Land question. Home Rule, and not Land 
 Reform, was put in the foreground. 
 
 The first article was the restitution to the Irish people of 
 the right to manage their own affairs in their own Parliament. 
 The second article aimed at the creation of an occup5dng 
 ownership, a peasant proprietary, by an amendment of the 
 purchase clauses of the Land Act of 1881 ; the protection 
 from the imposition of rent on improvements made by the 
 tenants, by an amendment of the Healy Clause ; the ad- 
 mission of leaseholders and other excluded classes to all the 
 benefits of the Land Act. Other articles dealt with the creation 
 of County Boards, the extension of ParUamentary and 
 Municipal franchise, and legislation for the benefit of labourers. 
 This programme, it will be seen, was strictly Parliamentary. 
 There was nothing revolutionary about it. With the exception 
 of Home Rule, every article in it has since been carried out 
 by Parliament. " The outcome of the Conference," says 
 ^avitt, " was the complete echpse by a purely Parliamentary 
 substitute of what had been a semi-revolutionary organization. 
 
236 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 It was, in a sense, the overthrow of a movement and the en- 
 thronement of a man ; the replacement of NationaHsm by 
 Parnellism." * 
 
 The proceedings of the Conference of October, and the 
 programme of the National League, were proofs that Pamell, 
 apart from any arrangement with the Government, had 
 resolved to break with the extreme members of the Irish Party, 
 and never again to engage in a land agitation such as that 
 of the Land League. Egan and Bj-ennan, the chief agents of 
 the old League, were not connected with the new association. 
 They were no more heard of in the movement led by Pamell. 
 This change in the general direction of his policy by Pamell 
 was not recognized, and apparently was not even perceived 
 in England. It was still commonly believed there that the 
 National League was only the old Land League under a new 
 name. Pamell received no credit for this change, or for 
 slowing down the agitation. He was still held responsible 
 for whatever breaches of the law took place. 
 
 It must be admitted that when Pamell came out of jail 
 the condition of Ireland was very bad. Many murders had 
 recently taken place, without any of their perpetrators being 
 discovered, and brought to justice. Forster's Coercion Act 
 had been a complete failure. It had led to an increase of 
 serious crime and murder, instead of a reduction. The task 
 of Lord Spencer and Mr. Trevelyan of administering the 
 Crimes Act, of endeavouring to restore order in Ireland, 
 and of bringing to justice the perpetrators of the Phoenix 
 Park murders, and other terrible crimes, was undoubtedly most 
 arduous, difficult, and perilous. It required strong nerves, 
 and a disregard of violent personal attacks in the Press and 
 in Parliament. Lord Spencer had these qualities in a high 
 degree, and no man with higher courage and greater pubhc 
 spirit ever filled the post of Lord-Lieutenant. " He was 
 seconded," says Lord Morley, with absolute truth, " with 
 high ability and courage by Mr. Trevelyan, whose fortitude 
 was subjected to a severer trial than has fallen to the lot of 
 any Irish Secretary before or since." ^ 
 
 A short time before his arrest) in the autumn of 1881, 
 Parnell had bought, out of funds of the Land League, two 
 newspapers. The Irishman and The Flag of Ireland, belonging 
 
 ' Fall of Feudalism, 377. * Life of Gladstone, III, 71. 
 
COERCION, 1882-4 287 
 
 to Richard Pigott, later so notorious in connection with the 
 forgeries of Pamell's letters, but then beUeved to be a member 
 of the extreme party, who were strongly opposed to the Land 
 League. Pamell started, in place of them, a new paper, 
 United Ireland, as the organ of the League. He selected 
 as editor of this paper Mr. WiUiam O'Brien, who had already 
 won distinction as an uncompromising supporter of the 
 National cause, and as a brilliant writer in The Freeman's 
 Journal. By his vigorous writing and literary ability he more 
 than justified the selection. 
 
 Mr. O'Brien was arrested as a suspect the day after Pamell 
 was lodged in Kilmainham Jail, and the paper itself, after 
 a time, was suppressed by Forster. It continued a precarious 
 existence, published sometimes in England and sometimes 
 in Paris, and was circulated surreptitiously in Ireland. When 
 O'Brien came out of prison, some months later, United 
 Ireland was revived, and for three years was a thorn in the 
 side of the Irish Government. Davitt says of the paper and 
 its editor during this period : 
 
 " Week after week the paper poured broadsides of scathing 
 criticism into the Castle camp, reviewing with remorseless 
 severity the doings of the Coercionist Courts, the blundering 
 of incompetent magistrates, the packing of juries, and the 
 occasional brutality of the Castle poUce. Every resource 
 of an aggressive joumaUsm, and a widely informed pohtical 
 knowledge, was drawn upon in relentless war to the knife 
 against the successors to the Forster poKcy." * 
 
 In this task Mr. O'Brien was powerfully aided by Mr. 
 T. M. Healy, who contributed, it was said, most of the on- 
 slaughts on Mr. Trevelyan. These attacks in the Press were 
 seconded by a ceaseless flow of hostile criticism in Parliament. 
 It must be admitted that these passionate attacks were not 
 without provocation from the Irish Government. It is of 
 the essence of coercion that when arbitrary power is given to 
 officials, to magistrates and police officers, the Government 
 IS powerless to control them. " Put power into a pot," it 
 has been well said, " and it is certain to boil over." To a 
 Government in the position of that in Ireland, especially 
 ^hen the Liberal Party is in power and is in conflict with 
 the National Party, almost the only support it has is from 
 
 * Fall of Feudalism, 380. 
 
288 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 these quarters. The Tory Party give it no support — and the 
 National Party are estranged. It necessarily follows that 
 the Government must support the officials and police in 
 Parliament, whether they are right or wrong, for, if these 
 classes are disaffected, the position of the Government be- 
 comes almost impossible. 
 
 This is probably the explanation of cases which occurred 
 under the Crimes Act, which greatly envenomed public 
 opinion in Ireland. Among others, there was the case of 
 Mr. T. Harrington, who was Secretary to the new National 
 League. A short time after his appointment, Harrington 
 was prosecuted for a speech which be made in Westmeath. 
 The charge against him was "for intimidating divers 
 farmers in order to compel them to pay a certain rate of 
 wages which they are not bound to do." In his speech, which 
 was mainly devoted to the condition of labourers, he com- 
 plained of the apathy of the farmers of Westmeath to the 
 national movement. He would, he said, " be the last 
 person in the world to set class against class, but he was 
 now determined to organize against the men who would not 
 give a fair day's wages for a fair day's work. The full 
 force of the agitation would be directed against them." 
 
 It is scarcely credible that Harrington was prosecuted for 
 intimidating the tenant farmers of Westmeath, by the use 
 of these words, and was convicted by two resident magis- 
 trates, and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. The 
 conviction was confirmed on appeal by the County Court 
 Judge of the district. Harrington was subjected to the plank 
 bed, and to all the other severities of a common prisoner. 
 When he refused to perform some duty of peculiar inliignity 
 he was confined to his cell for a week, without any exercise 
 in fresh air. While in jail a vacancy occurred in the 
 representation of Westmeath, where he was resident as a 
 prisoner. Harrington was put up as a candidate, and was 
 elected without opposition by the farmers, who, in the days 
 before the extension of the County franchise, constituted 
 the bulk of the electors — the very men he was supposed to 
 have intimidated. His election was reported to him in the 
 jail. There could not be a stronger case of popular repudiation 
 of injustice perpetrated under the guise of law. 
 
 In the course of the autumn of 1882 Mr. W. O'Brien was 
 
COERCION, 1882-4 289 
 
 prosecuted for a seditious libel. The case could not be with- 
 drawn from a jury. In spite of every effort to pack the jury, 
 and to obtain a conviction, the prosecution failed. A few 
 days later a vacancy occurred in the representation of Mallow, 
 by the elevation to the Bench of the Attorney-General, 
 Mr. Johnson. The constituency was reckoned as an abso- 
 lutely safe seat for a Government candidate, being small 
 and corrupt. The new Law Officer, Mr. Naish, was sent by 
 the Government to contest it. Mr. W. O'Brien was put up 
 in opposition, and was returned by a good majority. 
 
 Two other cases of somewhat similar character, where 
 Irish leaders were sent to jail, occurred in 1883. Mr. Davitt 
 and Mr. Healy were prosecuted for speeches. In order to 
 secure their imprisonment, articles were exhibited against 
 them under an old Act of Edward III, long ago treated as 
 obsolete in England, but which still existed, imrepealed, in 
 Ireland. They were called upon to give bail for good conduct, 
 or to go to jail. It was obviously impossible for these two 
 men, in the face of pubhc opinion in Ireland, to admit 
 that they were in the wrong, and to give bail for good 
 behaviour. They were, consequently, sent to jail for three 
 months. Shortly after their release a vacancy occurred in the 
 county of Monaghan by the death of its Member, Mr. Gavin. 
 At that time there was not a single PameUite Member for the 
 Province of Ulster. It was thought desirable to make an 
 effort to secm-e a footing in the province. Mr. Healy, who was 
 akeady Member for Wexford, gave up his seat there, and 
 came forward as a candidate for Monaghan. He was re- 
 turned by a good majority, and his seat at Wexford was 
 filled by Mr. WiUiam Redmond. Everything, therefore, 
 tended to show that the electors revolted against the system 
 of coercion, and that there was no passport so certain to 
 secure election as imprisonment imder it. 
 
 On the other hand, the Crimes Act undoubtedly did good 
 Work in bringing to justice the perpetrators of serious crimes, 
 and especially of the Phoenix Park murders. This was mainly 
 effected through the operation of the clause which gave power 
 to magistrates to summon witnesses, and interrogate them in 
 private. Early in 1883, before the meeting of Parhament, the 
 Government, by means of this clause, was able to obtain full 
 information of the conspiracy which had resulted in the murders 
 
240 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke. More than one 
 conspirator turned informer, to save their own lives from the 
 halter. A man called Carey — a member of the Dublin Town 
 Council — was the principal informer, and, on his evidence 
 the whole gang were put on trial and were found guilty. 
 Five of them were hanged, and six were sentenced to penal 
 servitude. Verdicts were obtained by a free use of the clause 
 in the Coercion Act, which enabled the Government in serious 
 cases virtually to form the panel from which jurymen were 
 selected. The Irish Judges had protested most strongly 
 against the clause, which enabled the Government to appoint 
 special Commissions of the Judges to try cases without 
 juries — and, in fact, this most objectionable course was 
 never put in force by the Government. The clauses as to 
 changes of venue, and as to framing panels of jurymen, were 
 found to be sufficient, without resort to that so much objected 
 to by the Judges. The evidence given before the magistrates 
 in the Phoenix Park case greatly excited public opinion, 
 and in some quarters it was firmly believed that the Land 
 League, and Pamell himself, were implicated in the conspiracy. 
 
 At the opening of Parliament, in the beginning of 1883, 
 the Speech from the Throne referred in terms of satisfaction 
 to the improved condition of Ireland. Agrarian crime, it 
 claimed, had sensibly diminished, and the law had every- 
 where been upheld. It went on to say that the continued 
 existence of secret societies called for unrelenting energy 
 and vigilance on the part of the Executive. On this Mr. 
 Gorst, from the Opposition Benches, moved an amendment 
 to the Address, which expressed the hope *'that the recent 
 change in Irish policy would be maintained, that no further 
 concessions would be made to lawless agitators, and that 
 secret societies would continue to receive the energetic vigilance 
 of the Government." The debate raised on this was most 
 important. It raised again the whole policy of the Kilmain- 
 ham transaction. 
 
 Mr. Forster took the opportunity of paying off old scores, 
 by making a most elaborate, long-prepared, bitter, and deadly 
 personal attack on ParneU. He took advantage of the Phoenix 
 Park murders, and of the excited state of public opinion on 
 them, to prejudice Mr. Pamell and the Land League by raising 
 suspicion of their implication in that terrible crime, and by 
 
COERCION, 1882-4 241 
 
 charging them with responsibility directly for all the out- 
 rages and crimes of the past years. The recent disclosures, 
 he said, at the trials before the magistrate in the murder 
 cases, had increased the suspicions against the Land League, 
 and made it incumbent on Mr. Pamell to give an explanation 
 of their transactions. 
 
 " No mere disclaimer," he said, " of connection with out- 
 rages will suffice. We have had disclaimers before. Do not 
 let the Hon. Member, Mr. Pamell, suppose that I charge 
 him with comphcity with murderers, but this I do charge 
 against him and his friends, that he has allowed himself to 
 continue as the leader, and the avowed chief of an organiza- 
 tion, which not merely advocated, and ostensibly and openly 
 urged, the ruin of those who offended by boycotting them, 
 and making hfe almost more miserable than death, but which 
 prompted or organized outrage and incited to murder. The 
 outcome of this agitation was murder, and the Hon. Member 
 ought to have known that this would be its natural result ; 
 and it is hard to understand how he did not know it, and 
 why he did not separate himself from it altogether, and dis- 
 avow and denounce it. The Hon. Member was the man 
 who, more than any other, derived advantage and power 
 by the help of this terrorism, and he is bound to show how 
 it was that he did not find out that this terrorism was used, 
 and he ought to tell us the steps he took to find it out. We 
 know that he took none, and we know that he has been content 
 to reap the advantages." 
 
 He then quoted from speeches by Brennan, Bo5d;on, Sheri- 
 dan, and Redpath, all connected with the Land League, 
 which, he said, were incitements to murder, also extracts 
 from Mr. Patrick Ford's writings in The Irish World, and from 
 United Ireland, of which Pamell and McCarthy were owners, 
 in which murder, arson, and attacks on women were described 
 as " incidents of the campaign," and " indications of the 
 spirit of the coimtry." 
 
 Mr. Forster went on to say : " This is the first time in the 
 history of either England or Ireland, in which an agitation 
 has been conducted by appeals to personal injury to indi- 
 viduals, and not by appeals to the voter or to public opinion. 
 No wonder that from stich an agitation as this has fcilowed 
 the first political assassination that has disgraced our annals 
 i6 
 
242 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 for hundreds of years. There is abhorrence of it in England 
 and Scotland. Until the Hon. Member expresses regret 
 and repentance for having set on foot such an agitation as 
 this, I can have no communication with him. Still, the ab- 
 horrence in Ireland is not so great as it ought to be, because 
 of the efforts of the Hon. Member and his friends to demoralize 
 the Irish people by intimidation and terror. . . . 
 
 " But there are grounds for hope j one is that the Irish 
 Government has now the power to uphold the law, and will 
 use it, and the other is that the Member for Cork and his 
 fellow-chiefs, in this so-called agitation, have been found 
 out."i 
 
 Forster never, in his Parliamentary life, made a more 
 powerful and effective speech. It was delivered amid frequent 
 cheering of the Tory Party on the opposite benches, and 
 of not a small section of the Liberals — a condition which is 
 always most inspiring to a speaker. The speech was the out- 
 pouring of wrath pent up for nearly three years — a deter- 
 mination to destroy the character and influence of the 
 opponent who had defeated him and caused his resignation. 
 It is well to remember that only a few months before he had 
 spoken of Parnell as a man of honour, whose word he would 
 accept — yet if his present indictment was justified, such an 
 appellation most certainly could not be given to him. 
 
 It was the general expectation that Parnell would at once 
 reply to this scathing indictment. O'Connell and Butt would 
 certainly have done so, and in passionate language would 
 have done their best to dispel the impression produced. 
 But Pamell's temperament was very different. He was 
 cold and impassive. He had no command of passionate 
 language. In spite of cries from all parts of the House, he 
 sat silent, scornful, disdainful. The debate nearly collapsed 
 for want of a reply to Forster. Parnell was pressed by his own 
 colleagues to answer at once. He did not wish to make any 
 reply. His friends had to force him to do so, if not at once, 
 at least when the House should meet again. Later in the 
 evening it was generally understood that he would reply 
 the next day, and he moved the adjournment that night for 
 the purpose. 
 
 Mr. O'Donnell, who by this time had ceased to be a follower 
 
 ' Hansard, February 23rd, 1883. 
 
COERCION, 1882-4 
 
 243 
 
 of Pamell, says that he thought he knew how best Pamell 
 should deal with Forster. 
 
 " I sought out Pamell," he says, " in order to render him the 
 last service which his old comrade was ever to pay within that 
 parliament or elsewhere. I found Pamell in the Library of 
 the House with a pile of papers like notes of speeches before 
 him. * O'Donnell,' he cried out, ■ I want you. Sexton and 
 Healy have given me a lot of splendid points for my reply 
 to Forster, but I do not feel quite that they fit. My speech 
 will be rather heavy, I fear. What a tremendous lot of ground 
 Forster went over ! He must have had that speech on the 
 stocks ever since he went out of office.' I pulled /over a chair 
 and sat down by him. ' Do you know, Pamell, my idea ? ' 
 ' I am blest if I would answer Forster at all.' ' But I open the 
 debate to-morrow.' ' Open it by all means.' ' But how ? ' 
 ' You are the head of the Irish nation, and this Enghshman 
 has the impudence to stand you up for the decision of EngUsh 
 opinion. If I were you, I should tell them all to go to the devil. 
 You are responsible to Ireland alone. Give them contempt, 
 nothing but contempt, and Ireland will go wild with pride for 
 you,' Pamell leaned back on his chair for two seconds, and 
 then with a sort of shout cried, ' O'Donnell the audacious. 
 By God ! you are right,' and pushed the whole pile of notes 
 off the table on to the floor. • Let us come down on the 
 Terrace. I shan't think of my speech till to-morrow.* As we 
 went out of the door he half turned to look at the heap on 
 the carpet, and with a chuckle that had something grim in 
 it said, ' Those are great notes of Sexton's.' " ^ 
 
 Pamell acted on O'Donnell's advice. The next day the 
 House of Commons was fuller than I had ever known it. 
 The galleries were crowded. The Heir-Apparent to the Throne 
 was there. The Peers were there in force. All had come to 
 hear the reply of the Irish Leader, who had been distinctly 
 arraigned for having connived at outrages and murders. 
 Pamell was in his place, impassive as usual, but ready, as 
 every one supposed, to meet his enemy at the gate and to 
 dispel his facts. 
 
 To the surprise of all he made no attempt to do so. His 
 speech was a scornful repudiation of any responsibihty to the 
 people of England for his past action, a denial that Forster 
 * History of the Irish Parliamentary Party, II, 147. 
 
244 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 had any right or claim to call upon him for an explanation. 
 His responsibility was only to the Irish people at home and 
 abroad, and to them alone would he address the few words he 
 proposed to say. He looked upon Mr. Forster, he said, as 
 little better than an informer. After dealing with a few minor 
 facts of the indictment, he turned on Mr. Forster and made a 
 bitter onslaught on him. " Why," he said, " was Mr. Forster 
 deposed — he, the Right Hon. Gentleman who has acquired 
 experience in the administration of Ireland ? . . . Why was 
 he deposed, and Mr. Trevelyan, a prentice, although a very 
 willing hand, put in his position ? I feel that the Chief 
 Secretary must say with the Scriptures : ' I am not worthy 
 to unloose his shoe latchet.' It would be far better to have 
 the Act administered by the seasoned politician now in disgrace 
 and retirement. Call him back to his post ; send him to help 
 Lord Spencer in the congenial work of the gallows in Ireland. 
 Send him back to look after the secret inquisitions in Dubhn 
 Castle. Send him to distribute the taxes which an unfortunate 
 and starving peasantry has to pay for crimes not committed 
 by themselves. All this would be congenial work to the Right 
 Hon. Gentleman. We invite you to man your ranks and to 
 send your ablest and best men to push forward the task of 
 misgoverning and oppressing Ireland. For my part, I am 
 confident as to the future of Ireland. Although the horizon 
 may be clouded, I believe our people will survive the present 
 oppression. . . . The time will come when this House and the 
 people of this country will admit once again that they have 
 been mistaken, and that they have been deceived by those 
 who ought to be ashamed of themselves. ... I believe that 
 they will reject their guides and leaders with as much deter- 
 mination and just as much relief as they rejected the services 
 of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford." 
 
 The speech was an appeal to Irish opinion against that of 
 England — a disclaimer that he owed responsibility to the latter. 
 In this view it was received with acclamation by the Irish 
 Party in the House of Commons, and by the great majority of 
 the people of Ireland. It struck a note of defiance to En^nd 
 and its Government which appealed to Irishmen all over the 
 world. It strengthened enormously the position of Pamell as 
 Leader of the Party. It effaced the effect and recollection of 
 his negotiations with the Enghsh Government. 
 
COERCION, 1882-4 
 
 245 
 
 Few people now believe that Pamell incited outrages and 
 crimes or connived at them, or that the Land League organized 
 them, though some of its members in their individual capacity 
 may have been concerned in them. It may be doubted also 
 whether, even at the time of Forster's attack, many persons 
 were persuaded by him, and really believed in the complicity 
 of Farnell. No one appears to have followed Forster's example 
 in refusing to have any communication with Pamell, or with 
 other leaders of the Land League in the House of Commons, 
 because they did not express regret and repentance for having 
 set on foot the agitation. Other Members of the House, so far as 
 my observation went, continued to treat them as honourable 
 political opponents. 
 
 It must be admitted, however, that the refusal of Pamell to 
 answer Forster's charges, though approved by Irish opinion, 
 produced a bad effect on English Members, and on English 
 opinion outside Parliament. He was blamed chiefly for not 
 having denounced outrages and murders, and for not warning 
 his supporters, and the Irish people generally, against them. 
 Comparison was made with O'Connell, who in his successive 
 agitations for Catholic Emancipation, the abolition of Tithes, 
 and the Repeal of the Union, very frequently warned his 
 supporters against violence and outrages of all kinds, and 
 protested that they only did harm to the causes he advocated. 
 It should be recollected, however, that few people in O'Connell's 
 time gave him any credit for so doing. He was frequently 
 charged with responsibility for outrages and crime in language 
 almost as strong as that used against Pamell. Nor did O'Con- 
 nell's efforts in this direction have much effect in preventing out- 
 rages, which exceeded in number and virulence those committed 
 during the Land Agitation. They were generally attributed 
 to O'Connell's agitation, in spite of his efforts to prevent them. 
 There was no reason to believe that condemnations of crime 
 by Pamell would have produced any greater effect than did 
 those of O'Connell. The outrages during the Land movement 
 ^ere the direct result of evictions. If evictions in the opinion 
 of Mr. Gladstone were equivalent to sentences of death to the 
 evicted families, in what light must they have been regarded 
 oy the evicted men themselves, and by the threatened 
 peasantry of the district ? Can we feel surprised that the lex 
 ialionis was enforced, when protection of the law was denied ? 
 
246 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Though Pamell was personally silent on the subject, except 
 on rare occasions, his principal followers were not so. Davitt, 
 who founded the Land League, and who spoke at countless 
 numbers of meetings, never did so without denouncing out- 
 rages and crime. He never received any credit for this. Nor 
 did his action prevent his being sent back to a convict prison 
 in the manner above described. In a circular issued by the 
 Executive of the Land League, early in its proceedings, in the 
 autumn of 1880, to the local organizers of the League, through- 
 out the country, which must have been agreed to by Pamell, 
 crime of all kinds, outrages, the maiming of cattle, and the use 
 of threatening letters were denounced in the strongest language. 
 The local meetings were largely attended by priests ; large 
 numbers of them were presided over by the parish priests of the 
 districts. These clerical speakers never failed to advise against 
 violence of all kinds. They did not succeed in preventing 
 such deeds, though doubtless they had some effect in reducing 
 their numbers. 
 
 Reverting to the rigorous administration of the Crimes Act, 
 it is to be observed that, in the last half of 1882, agrarian 
 outrages were, month by month, greatly and progressively 
 reduced. The average of such offences, including threatening 
 letters, for the first five months was 462. For the next two 
 months it was 257. For the next three months there was a 
 further drop to an average of 139, and for the last two months 
 of the year, generally the worst for such cases, the average 
 was only 89, and this low rate was maintained during the 
 next two years. 
 
 Was this great reduction to one-fifth only of the number 
 at the beginning of the year due to the rigorous enforcement 
 of the Crimes Act ? or was it due to the Arrears Act and the 
 slowing down of the agitation by Pamell, of which the sup- 
 pression of the Ladies' League was an important feature, in 
 accordance with his promises ? The Government expected 
 and intended, by its land legislation and by its arrangement 
 with Pamell, to bring about a reduction of outrages and to 
 restore peace and order in Ireland. They were advised that 
 this would be the result of passing an Arrears Act, of releasing 
 the suspects, and of the promise of Pamell to slow down the 
 agitation. What could be more reasonable than to conclude 
 that these measures had the desired result, and that the 
 
COERCION, 1882-4 247 
 
 improved condition of the country was more due to them 
 than to the Crimes Act, the administration of which incensed 
 pubhc opinion in Ireland ? In any case credit ought to have 
 been given to Pamell for slowing down the agitation, and for 
 his advice and assistance in passing the Arrears Act. It was 
 ungenerous of Forster not to allude to this. 
 
CHAPTER XXIV 
 
 THE IRISH FRANCHISE 
 
 THE Government was now entering upon its fourth year 
 of office. During the first three years the time of the 
 House of Commons had been almost wholly devoted to 
 Irish questions. British legislation had been much neglected. 
 It was impossible that this could continue. The autumn 
 Session of 1882 was devoted to the discussion of the procedure 
 of the House. New rules were prepared and carried by the 
 Government, of a drastic character, for economizing the time of 
 the House, and preventing the waste of it by merely obstruc- 
 tive discussion. The principle of the closure was then first 
 proposed. It led to prolonged discussion. The main issue was 
 raised on a motion of Mr. Gibson, on behalf of the Opposition, 
 proposing that the closure of debates should only be adopted 
 when supported by a majority of two-thirds of the Members 
 present. It was obvious, if this were adopted, that it would 
 only be used against small minorities, and not against the 
 main Opposition. The amendment was strongly opposed by 
 Mr. Gladstone, because it would be unjust to the majority, 
 as it would hand over their rights to a minority. Pamell 
 also opposed the amendment in the interest of the Irish Party. 
 The closure, thus limited, would be used against them alone. 
 He could not admit that the closure in any form would greatly 
 facilitate legislation. The only remedy for the existing block 
 was to restore to Ireland its right to deal with its own affairs 
 in its own Parliament. The amendment was rejected by a 
 majority of 322 to 288, the whole of the Irish Party voting 
 with the Government — one of the very few occasions, when 
 they did so, in this Parliament. Many Radicals abstained 
 from voting. The main clause was carried by 306 to 262, the 
 Irish Members on this occasion voting against it, 
 
 248 
 
THE IRISH FRANCHISE 249 
 
 Thus fortified against obstruction, the Government entered 
 on its fourth year. The Session was mainly devoted to 
 Imperial and English legislation, and no Irish measures of 
 importance blocked the way, though three or four useful 
 Irish Bills of secondary importance, on tramways, fisheries, 
 and the like, were carried with the support of the Irish 
 Members. Pamell was seldom at the House during this and 
 the next Session, partly owing to bad health ; but he turned up 
 when questions of importance affecting Ireland came before 
 the House. He moved, on March 14th, the second reading of 
 a Bill to amend the Land Act of 188 1, in the direction already 
 often explained, proposing to give effect to the Healy Clause, 
 which had been all but defeated by the interpretation given 
 to it by the Irish judges ; to date the judicial rent from the 
 time of application to the Land Court ; to include leaseholders 
 and other classes within the operation of the Act ; and to 
 amend the purchase clauses by the advance of the whole of the 
 purchase money, and by the extension of the term for repay- 
 ment. The Bill was strongly opposed by Mr. Gladstone. The 
 Government, he said, differed organically from it. It amounted 
 to a virtual reconstruction of the Land Act. The Government 
 would give no encouragement to any plan for disturbing 
 its main provisions. The Bill was rejected by 256 to 53. 
 Nearly all the proposals of this Bill were conceded by Par- 
 liament, before many years were passed, most of them by 
 the Tory Party when in office. It cannot therefore now be 
 said that it was wise policy thus to bang the door in Parlia- 
 ment against all interference with the Land Act of 1881. It 
 had the effect of confirming the position of Pamell in the 
 leadership of the Irish people, and of destroying the Liberal 
 Party in Ireland, as distinguished from the Pamellites on the 
 one hand, and the Tories on the other. 
 
 The moderate and constitutional action of Pamell, so 
 different from his earlier methods, though meeting with the 
 general approval of the great majority of his party in Ireland, 
 Was indignantly resented by the more extreme men on the 
 other side of the Atlantic. By way of protest against this 
 moderation and inaction. The Irish World, the organ of ex- 
 tremists, at the instance of its editor, Patrick Ford, preached 
 an active crusade against England, and proposed that its 
 cities should be blown up with dynamite. Some dangerous 
 
250 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 fanatics, in connection with the Clan-na-Gael, proceeded to put 
 these doctrines into practice, and, in the early part of this year, 
 made attempts to blow up public buildings in London, notably 
 that of the Local Government Board in Whitehall. A 
 manufactory of nitro-glycerine was discovered at Birmingham 
 fitted for such purposes ; and evidence was obtained of a 
 dynamite conspiracy, with definite intentions in this direction. 
 There was great pubhc alarm on the subject. The Government 
 met the case with promptness and severity. Sir William 
 Harcourt introduced a Bill to strengthen the law against 
 such infamies. It was of a most stringent character. He 
 succeeded in persuading the House of Commons to pass the 
 Bill through all its stages in a single sitting of an hour and a 
 half. It passed the Lords with equal celerity. The Irish 
 Members raised no objection to it. Though no one suggested 
 that they had any connection with the dynamiters, yet the 
 Irish cause suffered in public estimation in England, and the 
 breach between the two countries became wider. 
 
 No one in England gave credit to Pamell for his changed 
 attitude and his strict adherence to his Kilmainham promises. 
 In Ireland itself Pamell's influence and prestige were never 
 higher. It has already been shown that the effect of Forster's 
 fierce attack on Parnell in the House of Commons, and the 
 defiant reply to it, appealing to Irish opinion against that of 
 England, was to add greatly to the popularity of Pamell in 
 his own country, and to confirm him in the leadership of his 
 party. His friends thought it afforded a good opportunity to 
 raise a fund by way of testimonial to him, in order to relieve 
 him from financial embarrassment due, in great part, to his 
 efforts for the national cause. He had suffered like other 
 landowners from a reduction of rent. Some one had asked him, 
 when he was in Kilmainham, how the " No Rent " manifesto 
 was being acted on. He replied, with a laugh, that he did not 
 know ; all that he could say was that his own tenants had 
 availed themselves freely of the excuse to abstain from paying 
 their rents. His property at Avondale was heavily mortgaged. 
 The mortgagees threatened to foreclose. It was proposed to 
 raise a fund to free the property from debt. The proposal was 
 backed by Archbishop Croke, and was cordially taken up. 
 It was hoped to raise £20,000. When, after some weeks, the 
 fund had reached the amount of £12,000, a most unexpected 
 
THE IRISH FRANCHISE 251 
 
 impetus was given to it by the ill-advised action of the Govern- 
 ment, in persuading the papal authorities at Rome to use 
 their influence with the Irish Bishops, to discourage it. 
 
 It appears that early in the agrarian movement, in November, 
 1880, when many Catholic priests in Ireland were attending 
 Land League meetings, and making violent speeches, Mr. 
 Gladstone, through Cardinal Newman, made representations 
 to the Pope, in the hope of inducing him to use his influence to 
 restrain the clergy in Ireland from aiding the Land League 
 movement. Lord Morley has quoted in full Mr. Gladstone's 
 letter. It is well worth perusal. In the course of it he 
 wrote : *' You will hardly be surprised that I regard the 
 supreme Pontiff, if apprised of the facts, as responsible for the 
 action of these priests, for I perfectly well know that he has the 
 means of silencing them. ... If the persons complained of 
 had been laymen, the Government would have settled their 
 cases by putting them in jail. Mr. Errington [a Home Rule 
 Member for an Irish constituency, not a follower of Pamell] is 
 at Rome, and will, I hope, bring the facts, as far as he is able, 
 to the knowledge of His Hohness. But I do not know how far 
 he is able ; nor how he may use his discretion. He is not an 
 official servant, but an independent Catholic gentleman." * 
 Cardinal Newman replied that he would gladly find himself 
 able to be of service, however small it might be, in a political 
 crisis which he felt to be of grave anxiety to all ; but he 
 thought that Mr. Gladstone overrated the Pope's powers in 
 political and social matters. Mr. Errington, however, succeeded 
 in inducing the Pope to bring his influence to bear on the Irish 
 Bishops. He remained at Rome in a semi-official character, 
 and it was doubtless due to his influence with the Pope that a 
 rescript was addressed by the Prefect and Secretary of the 
 Propaganda de fide to the Irish Bishops commencing, " Quale 
 cumque de Parnellio," bidding them warn their clergy against 
 taking part in collections for the testimonial to Pamell. 
 
 " Apostohc mandates," it said, " absolutely condemn such 
 collections as are raised in order to influence popular passions, 
 and to be used as a means for leading men into rebeUion 
 against the laws. The clergy must hold themselves aloof from 
 such subscriptions, when it is plain that hatred and dissension 
 are aroused by them, and that never in any way are censures 
 
 ^ Life of Gladstone. 
 
252 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 pronounced against the crimes and murders with which 
 wicked men stain themselves. . . . Quibus positis, it must 
 be evident to your Lordships that the collection called the 
 Pamell Testimonial Fund cannot be approved by this sacred 
 congregation, and consequently it cannot be tolerated that 
 any ecclesiastic, much less a Bishop, should take any part 
 in recommending or promoting it." 
 
 The pubhcation of this document caused universal indigna- 
 tion throughout Ireland. It was aggravated by the exultation in 
 the English Press at the intervention of the Pope to suppress 
 the turbulent priests. The result of this interference by papal 
 rescript was an immense stimulus to the fund. There was a 
 rush of new subscribers. It rapidly rose from £12,000 to 
 £39i00O. It was said the Peter's Pence from Ireland remitted 
 to Rome that year was reduced in corresponding proportion. 
 The day came, later in the year (1883), when a presentation of 
 this handsome amount was to be made to Parnell on behalf of 
 the subscribers, by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, to be followed 
 by a banquet at the Rotunda. Mr. Barry O'Brien gives the 
 following account of what took place : 
 
 " The Lord Mayor of Dublin with other leading citizens 
 waited on Parnell, at Morrison's Hotel, to hand him a cheque 
 for the j^39,ooo. His Lordship naturally prepared a few suitable 
 observations for the occasion. The deputation was ushered 
 into a private sitting-room, and there stood the chief. The Lord 
 Mayor, having been announced, bowed and began : ' Mr. 
 
 Pamell ' * I believe,' said Pamell, * you have got a cheque 
 
 for me.' The Lord Mayor, somewhat surprised at this inter- 
 ruption, said, ' Yes,' and was about to resume his speech when 
 Pamell broke in : 'Is it made payable to order or crossed ? ' 
 The Lord Mayor again answered in the affirmative, and was 
 resuming the thread of his discourse, when Pamell took the 
 cheque, folded it neatly, and put it in his waistcoat pocket. 
 This ended the interview. The whole business was disposed 
 of in five minutes, and there was no speech-making." ^ 
 
 On December nth the banquet in Pamell's honour took 
 place. Pamell made a long speech, but never said a word 
 about the cheque, or of thanks for the public subscription. His 
 speech was a vehement arraignment of Lord Spencer and Mr. 
 Trevelyan. It was, however, important, for it was the first in 
 
 1 Life of Parnell. II, 28. 
 
THE IRISH FRANCHISE 
 
 258 
 
 which Pamell attempted to forecast the future, after the coming 
 General Election. " Coercion," he said, " could not last for 
 ever, but if it were to be renewed it should be by a Tory 
 Government, and not a Liberal Government. Beyond a 
 shadow of a doubt, it will be for the Irish people in England — 
 separated, isolated, as they are — and for your independent 
 Irish Members to determine at the next General Election 
 whether a Tory or a Liberal English Ministry shall rule England. 
 This is a great force and a great power. If we cannot rule 
 ourselves, we can at least cause them to be ruled as we choose. 
 This force has already gained for Ireland inclusion in the 
 coming Franchise Bill. We have reason to be proud, hopeful, 
 energetic, and determined that this generation shall not pass 
 away until it has bequeathed to those who come after us the 
 great birthright of national independence and prosperity." 
 
 This speech aroused great attention in England. It was 
 regarded as an uncompromising defiance. It was a presage of 
 what was to take place at the next General Election. That 
 event was deferred in order to carry out the long-promised 
 extension of the franchise in the Counties, and the necessary 
 redistribution of seats. This occupied the attention of Parlia- 
 ment during the whole of the Session of 1884. Two questions 
 deeply affected Ireland in relation to it, the one, whether that 
 country was to be included in this extension of the franchise, 
 the other, whether it was to retain its existing excess of 
 Members in the House of Commons, in proportion to its popula- 
 tion, and still more in proportion to its wealth, as compared 
 with England and Scotland. These two questions were 
 answered in the affirmative by the Government in their 
 Franchise Bill and Redistribution of Seats Bill. The franchise 
 in Ireland was to be assimilated to that of England, and the 
 existing proportion of its Members was to be maintained, 
 though there was to be a wide rearrangement of seats within 
 its boundaries, and most of the small boroughs were to dis- 
 appear. The extension of the County franchise in Ireland 
 meant a much greater change in the addition of its electors, 
 and in its disturbance of the balance of electoral power than in 
 England. The existing franchise in the Counties of Ireland 
 Was a very limited one. It practically gave votes only to one 
 class — the farmers. It excluded altogether labourers and 
 cottier tenants. Household Suffrage meant the inclusion of 
 
254 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 these two classes, outnumbering greatly the existing electors. 
 For the whole of Ireland the existing number of voters was only 
 200,000. The proposed lowering of the franchise meant the 
 addition of 400,000. 
 
 It was to be expected that many Irishmen, of the landowning 
 class, would be much alarmed at the great addition of new 
 voters which would swamp the existing voters. They foresaw 
 that it would completely change the complexion of County 
 representation throughout a great part of Ireland, and would 
 extinguish the Whig interest. On the other hand, Ireland, which 
 at the time of the Union was very much under-represented in 
 proportion to Great Britain, had, by the great reduction of 
 its population, and by the great increase of that in England, 
 come to be very much over-represented in the House of 
 Commons. It returned 103 Members. If the number was 
 reduced to the true proportion of its population there would 
 be no more than 80, and if wealth were to be taken into 
 account the number would be much less. 
 
 The first of these questions was discussed on two nights in 
 Committee on a motion of Mr. Brodrick to exclude Ireland from 
 the Franchise Bill. It led to a brilliant encounter between Mr. 
 David Plunket (now Lord Rathmore), then representing the 
 Dublin University, and Mr. Gladstone. Few of those now ahve, 
 who recollect the scene, can have forgotten the solemn warning 
 by the former of the danger of the proposed extension. In 
 beautifully chosen language, and with a mixture of passion 
 and pathos, he contended that the measure was certain to result 
 in the establishment of an Irish Parliament. The speaker had 
 at times a slight stammer, which writers on oratory have 
 held to be rather helpful in a great and passionate speech, by 
 providing a short interval of expectation, on the part of the 
 audience. His peroration of fervid eloquence, in which he 
 dwelt on the benefits of the Union of the Parliaments of the 
 two countries, and the danger of effecting a breach in it, was 
 worthy of his reputation, and was emulous of his famous 
 grandsire, the Plunket of the Irish Parliament in its last days, 
 who, when translated to the Enghsh Parliament, held his 
 own in the front rank of orators there. 
 
 The speech made a profound impression on the House. The 
 question was a critical one. The division was uncertain. 
 Many of the Whig supporters of the Government were doubtful 
 
THE IRISH FRANCHISE 
 
 255 
 
 as to their votes. It was necessary to supply an antidote at 
 once. Only fifteen minutes remained before the rising of the 
 House in which to apply it. Mr. Gladstone was equal to the 
 occasion. He flung himself into the debate, striking at once 
 the highest note of eloquence. He met passion and pathos by 
 passion of a different character, impetuous and forcible in the 
 highest degree. He dealt with the political and social alarms, 
 and forebodings of evil, by appeals to the principle of justice 
 as between two countries and two races. I know no better 
 illustration of Mr. Gladstone's oratory at its best, concen- 
 trated in comparatively few sentences, and not diffused as in 
 many of his speeches. It was also spontaneous and im- 
 promptu. It completely effaced the impression produced by 
 Mr. Plunket's powerful appeal. 
 
 On the resumption of the debate the next day, Lord Ran- 
 dolph Churchill separated himself, not for the first time, from 
 the majority of his party. He congratulated the Government 
 on their decision to include Ireland in the Bill, and announced 
 his intention to vote with them. He declared there was no 
 difference between the mud cabin of the Irish, and the cottage 
 of the English labourer, and that of the Member for West- 
 minster (Mr. W. H. Smith). Strange to say, he contended 
 that the enfranchisement of the Irish agricultural labourer 
 would be favourable to the cause of the landlord, and to the 
 British connection. He held strongly to the idea, that it was 
 impossible to maintain the Union, if Ireland was not treated 
 on a footing of perfect justice and equity. He preferred that 
 the Separatists should be met in debates in Parhament, 
 rather than by force and violence outside. Mr. Chamberlain 
 also appeared to hold that the extension of the suffrage to 
 labourers in Ireland would be favourable to its landlords. More 
 rightly did Pamell divine the future, and estimate the effect 
 on his party of the proposed extension. In a speech at an 
 early stage of the Bill, while showing no enthusiasm for it, he 
 claimed that, without extension of the suffrage, the strength 
 of the Nationalist Party, in the next Parliament, would be 
 seventy-five, and with household suffrage it would be ninety, 
 fiut whether Ireland were included or not, the Irish Members 
 Would be able to carry out their policy. Lord Hartington, 
 who only a few months before had pronounced the extension of 
 the franchise in Ireland to be dangerous ,now gave it his full 
 
256 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 support. Mr. Trevelyan, in a forcible speech, said that he 
 would not remain for five minutes a member of a Government 
 which denied equahty to Ireland. Mr. Brodrick's amendment 
 in Committee was defeated by 332 to 157 votes, a conclusive 
 determination by the House in favour of equality of treatment 
 to Ireland, no matter what the consequences. Many Tory 
 members voted with the Government, and others abstained 
 from voting. 
 
 With respect to the other main question affecting Ireland— 
 the redistribution of seats — many Members, in the course of 
 the debates, declared in favour of the reduction of the Irish 
 representation. Among them was Mr. Forster. The Govern- 
 ment, however, stood firm. The question was ultimately 
 determined in the negotiations between the Leaders of the 
 two Houses in favour of maintaining the then number of 
 Irish Members, and no specific amendment was discussed in 
 the House of Commons raising the question of reduction. 
 
 I may here mention that in October of the year 1884 Mr. 
 Trevelyan, after more than two years of excessive work, and of 
 strained responsibility, under an unceasing stream of hostile 
 criticism and invective in the Nationalist Press, and in Parlia- 
 ment, which visibly aged him and blanched his hair, was 
 promoted to Cabinet rank with the office of Chancellor of the 
 Duchy of Lancaster. Mr. Gladstone then offered the vacant 
 post of Irish Secretary to me. Before giving him an answer, I 
 asked Lord Spencer as to his intended policy. The question 
 of the renewal of the Coercion Act, which was to expire in 
 September of 1885, was already looming in the near future. 
 I had a great aversion to Coercion, and was determined that I 
 would never undertake the defence of such a measure as a 
 Minister. If I had been offered the post immediately after 
 the Phcenix Park murders, I could not have refused it ; for 
 it was then a post of great danger. The danger had now 
 passed. I learned from Lord Spencer that he was then deter- 
 mined to renew the Coercion Act. As eleven months remained 
 before the expiration of the existing Act, I suggested that he 
 should at once announce that he would cease to make any use 
 of the powers of the existing Coercion Act, and would revert to 
 the ordinary law. This would afford an experience of some 
 months. If the effect of such a course should prove to be bad, 
 and if there should be a renewal of disturbance, it would always 
 
THE IRISH FRANCHISE 257 
 
 be possible to revert to coercion, and the renewal of the Act 
 would then become defensible. Lord Spencer was not dis- 
 posed to adopt this suggestion. On this I declined to accept the 
 
 post.^ 
 
 1 A few weeks later I was appointed Postmaster-General, on the death of 
 Mr. Fawcett, and a little later I was admitted to the Cabinet. 
 
 y 
 
 17 
 
CHAPTER XXV 
 
 THE DEFEAT OF MR. GLADSTONE'S GOVERNMENT 
 
 IN the early days of 1885, when the Government was 
 entering on its sixth year of office, there were many 
 signs of its approaching dissolution. It was labouring 
 in the trough of the political sea. The Cabinet was at sixes 
 and sevens. It was held together only with the greatest 
 difficulty and tact on the part of Mr. Gladstone. Frequent 
 resignations took place of its members, and were recalled only 
 after negotiations. Seldom was a Cabinet meeting held 
 without some member threatening to resign. More than 
 once a member left the Cabinet in dudgeon. Two discreet 
 colleagues were then sent after him, and persuaded him to 
 return. I recollect on one occasion that Mr. Gladstone, on 
 coming out of the Cabinet, remarked to me that all his 
 colleagues seemed to be " going off at half-cock." The con- 
 dition of things reminded me of the saying of a cynical old 
 Whig, who had been a member of several Cabinets, that after 
 some years of continuous office the members of a Government, 
 as a rule, began to hate one another more than they hated 
 their opponents, and that this was the frequent cause of the 
 end of Governments. It is not to be inferred that Mr. Glad- 
 stone's colleagues had begun to hate one another. But, politi- 
 cally, certain members of it were at daggers drawn. There 
 was no longer a common purpose, or a determination, to 
 carry on, and to compromise on points of difference. Some 
 of its members were weary of office. Some had departmental 
 difficulties, from which they desired to escape. Mr. Glad- 
 stone himself felt the advance of age, and the strain of work, 
 and frequently discussed his approaching resignation with 
 Lord Granville and Lord Hartington. 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain had already begun to strike out a new 
 line of his own. He made speeches at Birmingham, Ipswich, 
 
 258 
 
DEFEAT OF MR. GLADSTONE 259 
 
 and elsewhere, propounding a new departure of policy, in- 
 tended to supply a programme for the party at the General 
 Election, which could not long be postponed. He denounced 
 the existing system of taxation as unjust to the poor. He 
 advocated the graduation of the Income Tax, Free Education, 
 and the purchase of land by local authorities for allotments 
 and small holdings. He discussed many social changes which 
 at that time seemed very radical, but which have since been 
 adopted. His speeches were very obnoxious to some of his 
 Whig colleagues, and added to the wish to part company. 
 Mr. Gladstone met the difficulties and differences in his 
 Cabinet, as Lord Morley has most justly said, " with unalter- 
 able patience, imruffled self-command, inexhaustible in re- 
 source, catching at every straw from the resource of others, 
 indefatigable in bringing men of divergent opinion within 
 friendly reach of one another, of tireless ingenuity in 
 minimizing differences." It seemed to me that he treated 
 the threatened resignations of his colleagues as part of the 
 everyday business of his official hfe. He was ready to replace 
 any or all of them, so long as he thought that the public in- 
 terest would suffer by the resignation of his Govemmwit. 
 
 Whatever his personal views as to his own retirement, he 
 played the great game of politics to the very end. He was 
 determined that the Liberal Government should not be 
 broken up on some by-question, not involving a point of 
 principle which the coimtry could understand. If the Govern- 
 ment were to go out of office, it should be on some question 
 not destructive of the integrity of the Liberal Party. He 
 spared no efforts in this view. It has sometimes been charged 
 against Mr. Gladstone that he dominated his Cabinet, and 
 could not brook differences on the part of his colleagues. 
 Nothing could be further from the truth, so far as I observed, 
 in this the fag end of his Government. On the contrary, it 
 seemed to me that he might at times, with advantage, have 
 exercised his authority as Premier with greater force. He 
 was sometimes treated in discussion in the Cabinet by two 
 niembers of it in a manner which, I thought, should have 
 been resented. 
 
 I was admitted to the Cabinet early in February of that 
 year. Within a few days a division took place, in the House of 
 ^onunons, on a vote of censure for the failure of the Govern- 
 
260 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 ment to relieve General Gordon at Khartoum. The Govern- 
 ment escaped defeat only by fourteen votes. The question 
 was mooted the next day, in the Cabinet, whether the Govern- 
 ment should resign in view of the alarming reduction of its 
 majority. There was great diversity of opinion on the subject. 
 Mr. Gladstone asked for the opinion of all his colleagues. 
 They were evenly divided, and Mr. Gladstone decided in 
 favour of remaining in office. One member said that he had 
 so recently become a member of the Cabinet that he would 
 not express an opinion. If I had followed his example the 
 majority would have been in favour of resignation. 
 
 The Parliamentary position of the Government was not 
 much better than that in the Cabinet. There were some 
 seventy or eighty Liberals who were restive under the Party 
 Whip. Candid friends, such as Mr. Forster and Mr. Goschen, 
 were firing broadsides at the Government from the back 
 benches. The Irish Party of thirty-nine, under Pamell's lead, 
 were now always on the side of the enemy. Ireland was, in 
 fact, the main difficulty ahead. The question of Egypt and 
 the Soudan, and that of Russia and the Afghan frontier, had 
 been surmounted by the Government, not without great peril. 
 In Ireland it was different. Two grave questions came up 
 for determination — the one, whether the Coercion Act of 1881, 
 which was to expire in a few months, was to be renewed 
 wholly or in part, in which case early legislation would be 
 necessary ; the other, whether some attempt should not be 
 made to give Ireland some measure of self-government and 
 greater control over its own affairs. 
 
 As regards the first of these, the condition of Ireland in 
 respect of agrarian crime, was at the time satisfactory, whether 
 that was due to the enforcement of the Coercion Act of 1882, 
 or to the working of the Land Act of 1881, and the Arrears 
 Act, 1882. Lord Spencer, however, would not dispense with 
 coercion. He was supported by Lord Hartington, Lord 
 Selbome, Lord Northbrook, and a majority of the Cabinet. 
 He was strongly opposed by Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Charles 
 Dilke, and myself. On the question of Local Government for 
 Ireland there was also great divergence of opinion. Mr. 
 Chamberlain laid a scheme before the Cabinet for a National 
 Council in Dublin, of an elective character, in whom the 
 work of all the numerous administrative Boards and Depart- 
 
DEFEAT OF MR. GLADSTONE 261 
 
 ments in Ireland wets to be vested ; but without power over 
 the pohce, or the administration of the law. No direct 
 communication had been attempted with the Irish leaders, 
 but it had been ascertained from the correspondence of one 
 of them, through Cardinal Manning, that .Pamell approved 
 of the scheme, and if it were agreed to, would not oppose a 
 very Hmited Coercion Bill. 
 
 The scheme was very strongly supported by Mr. Gladstone. 
 He was prepared to go even further, and to invest the 
 National Council with control over the police as a beginning. 
 After long discussion in the Cabinet, a vote was taken upon 
 it — a very unusual course. The Cabinet was evenly divided. 
 All the Peers, plus Lord Hartington, were against the scheme ; 
 all the Commoners in favour of it. On coming out of the 
 Cabinet I asked Mr. Gladstone whether he had observed the 
 remarkable cleavage between Peers and Commoners. " In- 
 deed I did," he said ; " the day will come when the Peers 
 will bitterly rue their decision." "The scheme," he wrote to 
 Lord Spencer, " will quickly rise again, as I think, in larger 
 dimensions."^ For the present, however, he abandoned the 
 hope of solving the Irish question in this direction. 
 
 There still remained the question whether the Coercion Act 
 should be renewed. Lord Spencer, after much discussion, was 
 prepared to whittle down his Bill, but Chamberlain, Dilke, and 
 the writer still objected. For my part, I thought that some 
 of the most objectionable clauses of the Act of 1882 were 
 those giving power to resident magistrates to deal with 
 agrarian offences, which previously could only be determined 
 by juries. Irish opinion would be flouted almost as much 
 by the smaller Bill as by the larger one. If a small Bill, in 
 Lord Spencer's opinion, would suffice, all the more reason 
 for postponing it till the need for it was proved, and for 
 reverting in the meanwhile to the ordinary law. A Coercive 
 Bill of any dimensions would be bitterly opposed by the Irish 
 Party, and by a considerable section of Radical Members, 
 unless an agreement were come to with the Irish Party as 
 to a remedial measure in connection with it. It was a case 
 for negotiation, but Lord Hartington and the Whigs were 
 strongly opposed to any kind of negotiation or agreement 
 with PameU. 
 
 1 Life of Gladstone, III. 127. 
 
262 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 It was hoped to make coercion more palatable by accom- 
 panying it with a Bill for extension of Land Purchase, but 
 Chamberlain and Dilke objected to this unless connected with 
 some kind of local government. A temporary agreement was 
 patched up, and on May 15th Mr. Gladstone announced in 
 the House of Commons that the Government proposed to 
 introduce, what he described as certain clauses of a valuable 
 and equitable description in the existing Coercion Act, and 
 on May 20th he gave notice of a Land Purchase Bill. Mr. 
 Morley, about this time, gave notice, in the House, that 
 he would oppose the renewal of the Coercion Act in any form. 
 Further negotiations took place between Mr. Gladstone and 
 Mr. Chamberlain, and it seemed that some agreement was 
 arrived at as to a measure of coercion,- but whether it was 
 to take effect only after proclamation by the Lord-Lieutenant, 
 or immediately on the passing of the Act, was not settled. 
 On June 5th, after the Whitsun recess, it was decided at a 
 Cabinet that notice should be given in the House of Commons 
 of a Bill to take the place of the Coercion Act. Some points, 
 however, were still open, and it is very doubtful whether 
 agreement was really arrived at. The end of the Government 
 was at hand on another question — that of the Budget. 
 
 While, however, the Liberal Ministers in Mr. Gladstone's 
 Cabinet were still hagghng as to the details of a Coercion Bill, 
 and could not see their way wholly to dispense with it, and 
 were imwilling even to discuss with Pamell, or the Irish 
 Party, a future policy for Ireland, which might have secured 
 their acquiescence in a moderate measure of coercion, their 
 opponents were secretly committing themselves to the very 
 opposite policy. Lord Randolph Churchill is to be credited 
 with having induced the other leaders of the Tory Party to 
 adopt this course. He had recently been admitted to the 
 inner council of the party leaders, and he was certainly, at 
 this time, by far the most active, and virile force in the party, 
 almost the only one who had made any impression on the 
 more democratic of its followers. He had very early per- 
 ceived the advantage, and indeed the necessity, of an aUiance 
 with the Irish Party, as the only possibiUty, at that time, 
 of a Tory Government coming into power. He was prepared 
 to take every advantage of the announcement of the Govern- 
 ment to introduce a Coercion Bill. In a speech at the Con- 
 
DEFEAT OF MR. GLADSTONE 263 
 
 stitutional Club immediately after the notice given by Mr. 
 Gladstone, on May 15th, Lord Randolph declared himself 
 to be profoundly shocked by it. Ireland must be in an awful 
 state, or else the Radical members of the Cabinet would never 
 have assented to such unanswerable evidence that the Liberal 
 Party coidd not govern Ireland, without resort to that arbitrary 
 force, which their greatest orator had declared to be no remedy. 
 It was thoi^ht at the time that these were merely the 
 vagaries of a free-lance. No one, least of all the Tory rank 
 and file, dreamed that they indicated a pohcy, which Lord 
 Randolph had already persuaded their leaders to adopt. 
 Members of the party in the House of Commons were daily 
 hounding on the Government to renewed coercion in Ireland, 
 without dissent from leaders on the front bench. But three 
 months later, after the defeat and resignation of the Govern- 
 ment, Lord Randolph, speaking as a Minister at Sheffield, let 
 the cat out of the bag. He told a surprised pubhc that, early 
 in the year, when Mr. Gladstone was still in office, at the 
 very time when Lord Spencer, the head of the Irish Executive, 
 was assuring his colleagues that he could not safely govern 
 Ireland, without some coercive powers, the leaders of the 
 Tory Party had met in secret conclave, and had come to an 
 opposite conclusion. 
 
 After '* immense deUberation," he said, they had de- 
 termined that, in the absence of official information, they 
 could see nothing to warrant a Government in appl5ang for 
 renewal of exceptional powers in Ireland, and that if they 
 were returned to power they would act on this conclusion. 
 This notable decision was kept secret from all the world. There 
 was good reason for this, as it would most certainly have 
 been repudiated by the rank and file of their party. If made 
 public, it is impossible to suppose that the Liberal Govern- 
 ment would have proceeded farther with their intention to 
 renew a part of the Act of 1882. What, then, was the motive 
 for such an unprecedented course as that of the leaders of an 
 Opposition coming to a decision as to what they would do on 
 an administrative question, long in advance of any responsi- 
 ^i^ty, and when they were without official information? 
 Can any one doubt that it was for the express purpose of 
 being made use of in negotiation with the Irish leaders ? 
 It was obvious that the Irish Party would not assist in turn- 
 
264 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 ing out the Liberal Government, if the only effect of it would 
 be to replace them by a Government pledged to coercion. 
 
 Mr. Justin McCarthy, then acting as Leader of the Irish 
 Party, in place of Pamell, who was temporarily indisposed, 
 has put it on record that an assurance was given to him by 
 emissaries from Lord Salisbury that the Tories, if returned 
 to power, would not renew the Coercion Act. It has since 
 been denied that there was any agreement between the two 
 parties or their leaders. It was not necessary that there 
 should be a written or sealed agreement. All that was neces- 
 sary was a distinct intimation, on the part of the Tory leaders, 
 of the decision arrived at by them not to renew coercion. 
 This assurance would have its effect on the Irish leaders in 
 determining their course. 
 
 That information to this effect was actually given by one 
 of the Opposition leaders to the Irish Party is as certain as 
 anything can be. It had the result of inducing the Irish Party 
 to join in the vote on the division on the Budget against the 
 Government. The assurance thus given was faithfully acted 
 upon. On the earliest possible day, after the formation of 
 the Government of Lord Salisbury, the newly appointed 
 Lord - Lieutenant informed the House of Lords that his 
 Government had come to a decision not to renew the Coercion 
 Act. The policy thus announced, was later, not only carried 
 out, but proved to be eminently successful. The expiring 
 Coercion Act was no longer put in force. Its powers were 
 allowed to drop. The Act was not renewed on its expiration 
 in August. For nearly two years Ireland was administered 
 under the ordinary law without any coercive powers. There 
 were no bad results such as Lord Spencer feared. Public 
 opinion in Ireland was appeased. What a commentary on 
 Lord Spencer's policy and on the decision of the Liberal 
 Cabinet to renew Coercion ! 
 
 Whether the action of Lord Randolph Churchill, and the 
 other Tory leaders, was in accord with a high standard of 
 political ethics may be questioned. There was, indeed, nothing 
 wrong, or open to objection, in negotiating with the Irish 
 leaders, and coming to an agreement with them. That course 
 was only what I have suggested would have been wise and 
 sound policy on the part of the Liberal Government. But 
 was it right to keep the transaction secret ? The Liberals 
 
DEFEAT OF MR. GLADSTONE 265 
 
 had, perhaps, no right to complain of this. The aggrieved 
 persons, if any, were the rank and file of the Tory Party, who, 
 if they had known what was being done by their leaders, 
 behind their backs, would certainly have objected. Secrecy, 
 therefore, was the essence of the transaction. In this view 
 the transaction was in the nature of a manoeuvre not very 
 creditable to those engaged in it. 
 
 The Liberal Government, meanwhile, wholly unconscious 
 of this decision of the Tory leaders, pursued its policy in the 
 direction of a modified and minimized Coercion Bill. Whether 
 all its Members were fully and finally agreed upon a scheme is 
 somewhat uncertain. The hostile motion on the second reading 
 of the Budget Bill was moved by Sir M. Hicks-Beach. It was 
 directed against the proposal to add to the duty on beer, and 
 spirits, in the absence of any increase of the wine duties, and 
 to increase the duty on real property, without remission of 
 local taxation. The case made out was a very weak one, and 
 the alternative suggested was the increase of the duties on 
 tea and sugar, a very objectionable proposal. The House 
 evidently voted irrespective of the immedifeite issue. The 
 Government was defeated on a division, before the dinner-hour, 
 by 264 votes against 252 ; a majority of 12. Six Liberals 
 voted with the Opposition, as did also 39 of the Irish Party — 
 their full strength. No fewer than 76 Liberals were absent 
 unpaired. There was a remarkable absence of effort on the 
 part of the Liberal Whips to bring up their full forces. Many 
 absent Members complained that they had received no intima- 
 tion that the division would be a critical one. It was im- 
 possible to ignore the fact that the defeat gave pleasure to the 
 extreme men of both wings of the party — the Whigs and the 
 Radicals. It reheved them from a position which had become 
 unbearable. There was nothing in the motion itself, and in the 
 Budget, which might not have been repaired if there had been 
 the will to do so. But there was no such effort. I have my- 
 self always been of opinion that the real cause of defeat was 
 the Coercion question looming in the background, and that 
 many Liberal Members dreaded committing themselves to 
 such a policy, immediately before a General Election. But 
 ]^ is a conclusion which is incapable of actual proof. 
 A he scene which occurred in the' House of Commons, on 
 the defeat of the Government, was one of indescribable 
 
266 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 excitement. Lord Randolph Churchill stood on one of the 
 benches, and, waving his hat, led the rounds of cheering. 
 The Irish joined in the jubilation. An Irish Member con- 
 veyed the news to a great meeting of Licensed Victuallers at the 
 Crystal Palace, where he announced it as glad tidings of great 
 joy to an enraptured audience. 
 
 Whatever the causes or motives which led to the defeat, 
 Mr. Gladstone and the Government accepted it as final and 
 conclusive, and tendered their resignations to the Queen. 
 Thus came to an end, at the hands of the Irish Members, and 
 virtually, though indirectly, on an Irish question, a Govern- 
 ment which had spent three, out of its five years of ofiice, on 
 Irish questions, and which had carried out a revolution on 
 Irish land laws more far-reaching in its effect, and more 
 beneficial to the tenants, than could have been thought possible 
 at the commencement of its career. Looking back at its 
 proceedings, by the light of subsequent experience, we are 
 able to see that grave errors were committed, the chief of 
 which was the failure to appreciate that Pamell had at his 
 back the Irish people, and that it was advisable to take him 
 into confidence before presenting a measure of Irish reform 
 to Parliament. It would seem that Mr. Gladstone, follow- 
 ing the example of his great master. Sir Robert Peel, never 
 thought it necessary to consult the leaders of those for whom 
 he proposed remedial measures. In a letter to Lord Harting- 
 ton of May 30th, 1885, on the subject of Local Government in 
 Ireland, quoted by Lord Morley, he explains this as a matter 
 of policy : 
 
 " I do not reckon with any confidence upon Manning or 
 Pamell ; I have never looked much in Irish matters at negotia- 
 tion or the conciliation of leaders. I look at the question in 
 itself, and I am deeply convinced that the measure in itself 
 will be good for the country and the empire."^ 
 
 It may be permitted to differ from so great a master, and 
 to suggest as a principle of practical politics that, in framing a 
 great remedial measure, it is expedient to consult the leaders 
 of those for whom it is intended. 
 
 Another error seems to have been that of coupling a great 
 measure of land reform for Ireland with one of coercion, and 
 of giving precedence to the latter. This was a method insisted 
 
 1 Life of Gladstone, III, 197. 
 
DEFEAT OF MR. GLADSTONE 267 
 
 upon by the earlier Whig statesmen, after the Reform Act 
 of 1832. Experience showed that in doing so they predisposed 
 the Irish people against their remedial measures, and deprived 
 them of a great part of their efficacy. I cannot doubt, for 
 my part, that Mr. Gladstone was aware of this danger, and 
 that he was forced, against his will, into giving precedence to 
 coercion. His difficulties were greatly enhanced by the un- 
 homogeneous constitution of his Cabinet. The two extremes 
 of the Whigs led by Lord Hartington, and the Radicals led 
 by Mr. Chamberlain, went badly together in the harness of 
 office. The jibbing of the one and the free-going of the other 
 made them a most difficult team to manage. Never was 
 Mr. Gladstone's tact more conspicuous than in his endeavour 
 to make them step together. But the result was unfortunate, 
 and the Government might have done better if it had rehed 
 on one or the other only of these incongruous sections. 
 
CHAPTER XXVI 
 
 LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 
 
 ON the resignation of Mr. Gladstone, Lord Salisbury 
 was commissioned by the Queen to form a Govern- 
 ment — passing over Sir Stafford Northcote, who, 
 since the death of Lord Beaconsfield, had been the titular 
 Leader of the Tory Party. Some delay occurred in Lord 
 Sahsbury's acceptance, owing to the fact that there could not 
 be an immediate dissolution of Parliament. The Redistribu- 
 tion of Seats Bill had not passed through all its stages. It 
 WcLs necessary to allow time for the registration of new electors 
 in the altered constituencies, and extended franchise. Mean- 
 while the House of Commons must be kept going to vote 
 supplies, and to carry through other routine business. Mr. 
 Gladstone refused to enter into a compact, on behalf of his 
 party, to support the new Government. But, after some delay, 
 he intimated that he, and his friends, would oppose no diffi- 
 culties to such financial arrangements as were necessary. 
 Upon this assurance Lord Salisbury undertook to form a 
 Government — reserving for himself the post of Foreign 
 Secretary as well as that of Premier — an arrangement open 
 to much objection. 
 
 For the appointment of Ministers, in the House of Commons, 
 Lord Randolph Churchill was chief adviser, if not dictator. 
 At his instance. Sir Stafford Northcote was deposed from his 
 position as leader, was shunted to the House of Lords, imder 
 the title of Earl of Iddesleigh, and was given the post of First 
 Lord of the Treasury, reduced to a rich sinecure, when no 
 longer associated with the Premiership.^ 
 
 * In a memorandum written in 1899 Lord Randolph expressed regret at 
 having treated Sir Stafford Northcote in this manner. " Lord Salisbury's 
 intention," he wrote, "on being commissioned in 1885 to form a Govern- 
 ment, was that Sir Stafford Northcote should become Leader in the House 
 
 268 
 
LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 269 
 
 Lord Randolph was content, himself, to take the second 
 position in the House of Commons, as Secretary of State for 
 India, putting Sir M. Hicks-Beach in the first position, as 
 Leader of the Party, and Chancellor of the Exchequer. He 
 provided posts for Lord Cross and Mr. W. H. Smith, whom he 
 had irreverently, when a free-lance, nicknamed as Marshall 
 and Snelgrove. Sir Hardinge Giffard became Lord Chancellor, 
 as Lord Halsbury. Mr. Gibson, who for years had done 
 yeoman's service for his party on Irish questions, became 
 Lord Chancellor of Ireland, as Lord Ashbourne. The most 
 significant appointment, however, was that of Lord Carnarvon, 
 as Viceroy in Ireland — also in the Cabinet. Lord Carnarvon 
 had been Secretary of State for the Colonies in the previous 
 Tory Government — a post usually reckoned much higher than 
 that now assigned to him. He had been mainly concerned 
 in two great schemes of Colonial Federation — that of the 
 Canadian Dominion, in 1867, when he was Under-Secretary of 
 State, and the measure for the Confederation of the South 
 African Colonies in 1877, which, however, was rejected by the 
 Cape Parhament in 1880. 
 
 On the first day of the meeting of the House of Lords, after 
 the constitution of the new Government, Lord Carnarvon 
 announced that there was to be no more coercion in Ireland. 
 He gave statistics which showed that the Act was no longer 
 necessary. When the Act was passed, he said, Parhament had 
 determined that it should come to an end in three years. 
 It had produced the desired effect. There was no longer any 
 exceptional crime in Ireland, and the Government was justified 
 in the attempt to govern Ireland under the ordinary law, 
 firmly and effectively. While there was much to be said for 
 the renewal of some of the clauses of the Coercion Act, and 
 they might with advantage be adopted as permanent changes 
 of law for the whole country, yet, if adopted, as regards Ireland 
 alone, they would be considered as exceptional legislation, 
 making an invidious distinction between it and the rest of the 
 country. He would therefore, for the present, trust the 
 
 of Commons. To this proposition I declined to agree, adhering to my 
 former opinion as to the indisposition of Sir Stafford Northcote for acute 
 party warfare. Whether I was right or wrong I do not argue. Public 
 opmion in the party and outside was certainly not with me, and soon after, 
 and since I have been strongly drawn to the conclusion that I wais in error," 
 (Life of Lord Randolph Churchill. I, 407.) 
 
270 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 people of Ireland, and though this would be an experiment, 
 it was one which might diminish the ill-feeling between the 
 two nations. On the more general question and the future, 
 he said that he had been looking through the Coercion Acts, 
 and had been astonished to find that, ever since 1847, with 
 some very short intervals hardly worth mentioning, Ireland 
 had lived under exceptional and coercive legislation. What 
 sane man would admit this to be a satisfactory, or a whole- 
 some, state of things ? Why should they not try to extricate 
 themselves from the miserable habit, and aim at some better 
 scheme ? Just as he had seen in British Colonies across the 
 sea a combination of English, Irish, and Scotch settlers, 
 bound together in loyal obedience to the law and the Crown, 
 and contributing to the general prosperity of the country, so he 
 could not conceive that there was any irreconcilable bar, here 
 in their native home and in England, to the unity and amity 
 of the two nations. He went to his task individually, with 
 a perfectly free, open, and unprejudiced mind, to hear, to 
 question, and, as far as might be, to understand. He con- 
 cluded with these words : 
 
 " I do not believe that with honesty and single-mindedness 
 of purpose, on the one side, and with the willingness of the Irish 
 people on the other, it is hopeless to look for some satisfactory 
 solution of this terrible question. These, I believe to be the 
 opinion and the views of my colleagues." 
 
 This remarkable speech was delivered in the presence of 
 Lord Salisbury, who bad said nothing in his own Ministerial 
 explanations about Ireland, and had left the subject wholly 
 to his colleague, the new Viceroy. WTiat could the speech mean 
 but that the subject of Home Rule had been carefully con- 
 sidered between the two Ministers, if not by others of their 
 colleagues, and that Lord Carnarvon had been expressly 
 selected for the Irish post, with the object of conciliating the 
 opinion of Irishmen, and of endeavouring to find a solution 
 which would concede to them a measure of self-government, 
 more or less in accord with Colonial experience ? What more 
 wise pohcy could have been adopted in view of the state of 
 Irish opinion, and of what was then a certainty, that Pamell's 
 followers would sweep the Irish elections, and would come 
 back to the new Parliament with an overwhelming majority ? 
 It may be that Salisbury and Carnarvon looked forward to 
 
LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 271 
 
 the possibility of a Parliamentary alliance between the Tory 
 Party and the Irish Party, which would redress the balance 
 against the former in Great Britain. There would be nothing 
 wrong in this if it were intended. 
 
 On the day after delivering this speech. Lord Carnarvon 
 made his State entry into Dublin, and met with a most cordial 
 reception — a great contrast to the farewell to Lord Spencer, 
 who, though greatly respected in Ireland for his courage and 
 honesty, had left behind him many galling memories of coercion. 
 While Lord Spencer had always been guarded by an escort 
 of cavalry. Lord Carnarvon walked freely about Dublin 
 unattended. 
 
 Further evidence of a new policy of conciliation was soon 
 forthcoming in proposals for legislation, even in the short 
 Session preceding the Dissolution. Lord Ashbourne, in the 
 House of Lords, introduced and carried a measure for extend- 
 ing very greatly the system of land purchase in Ireland, by the 
 conversion of tenants into owners. It introduced, for the 
 first time, the principle of advancing the whole of the purchase 
 money by the State, repayable by equal annual instalments 
 of interest and sinking fund, spread over forty-six years, 
 together amounting to 4 per cent on the purchase money. 
 Five millions were to be advanced for the purpose. The 
 surplus fund of the Disestablished Church was to be security 
 for the payment of interest, and one-fifth of the purchase 
 money was to be retained, until repayment to that amount 
 was made. At this time there was a block in the Irish land 
 market. There were no buyers except the tenants, and the 
 landowners, as a class, were as eager for the measure as the 
 tenants. The average rate of purchase expected was about 
 eighteen times the rental. At this rate the tenants, who were 
 fortunate enough to come under the provisions of the Act, 
 would pay 28 per cent less to the State for interest and sinking 
 fund, than their previous rent. Lord Spencer, while not op- 
 posing the Bill, doubted the expediency of an advance by the 
 State of the whole of the purchase money. If it were generally 
 adopted the State would find itself in the position of being 
 practically the landlord for forty-six years of the greater part 
 of the land of Ireland. I maintained the same objection in 
 the House of Commons. The Bill, however, passed, and has 
 Deen the prelude to many more of the same kind, with reduced 
 
272 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 rates of interest, and extended terms of repayment. Another 
 Irish measure, passed in this short Session, was that for extend- 
 ing the powers of local authorities to purchase land, and erect 
 labourers' dwellings, a measure long asked for by the Irish 
 Members. 
 
 But even more important, as evidence of rapprochement 
 with the Irish Party, was the reception given by the Govern- 
 ment to a motion of Pamell, in the House of Commons, 
 censuring Lord Spencer, in relation to the administration of 
 the law, in the cases of the Barbavilla and Maamtrasma 
 murders, which, especially the latter, had long been the 
 subject of great attacks on the late Government by the Irish 
 Party. The Tory Party had supported Lord Spencer in 
 refusing further inquiry. The new Government took a different 
 line. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he was authorized 
 by Lord Carnarvon to say that he would inquire personally 
 into any memorial which might be presented to him, on behalf 
 of the prisoners, in these cases, with the earnest desire to do 
 justice. In giving this undertaking. Sir M. Hicks-Beach added 
 that, while believing Lord Spencer to be a man of honour and 
 with a high sense of duty, " he must say very frankly that 
 there was much in the Irish policy of the late Government, 
 which, though in the absence of complete information, he did 
 not condemn, he should be very sorry to make himself respon- 
 sible for." A heated debate ensued, in which Sir William 
 Harcourt said that if the experiment of governing Ireland by 
 the ordinary law were to commence by discrediting the ad- 
 ministration of justice, and by throwing over the judges and 
 juries, it was foredoomed to failure. Lord Randolph Churchill 
 replied : ** I will tell you how the present Government is 
 foredoomed to failure. They will be foredoomed to failure if 
 they go out of their way unnecessarily to assume one jot or 
 tittle of responsibility for the acts of the late administration. 
 It is only by divesting ourselves of all responsibility for the 
 acts of the late Government, that we can hope to arrive at a 
 successful issue." ^ 
 
 In view of these declarations on behalf of the Government, 
 Pamell withdrew the motion ; but the language used by the 
 two Ministers, throwing discredit on the administration of the 
 Crimes Act by Lord Spencer, while it was received with great 
 
 1 Hansard. July 17th, 1885. 
 
LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 273 
 
 demonstrations of delight by the Irish Members, caused 
 resentment and distrust on the part of the friends of Lord 
 Spencer and the late Government, and even among many 
 supporters of the Government. It gave rise to the suspicion 
 that the Government had already come to secret terms with 
 the Irish Party. A demonstration was arranged in the form 
 of a banquet in honour of Lord Spencer. It was attended by 
 three hundred Members of the House of Commons. Mr. Bright 
 made a strong speech, in the course of which he alluded to 
 the followers of Parnell as " Irish rebels." He was caUed 
 to account for this in the House of Commons, but he stuck 
 to his text. Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke were 
 conspicuously absent from this banquet in honour of Lord 
 Spencer. 
 
 The suspicions as to a compact between the Government 
 and Parnell would have been greatly strengthened if it had 
 been generally known, at the time, that there had been an 
 interview between the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord 
 Carnarvon, and the Irish Leader, in the early days of the Tory 
 Government, in which there was an exchange of views as to 
 the details of a scheme of Home Rule for Ireland. The fact of 
 such an interview was kept a profoimd secret. A general 
 statement of its purport, however, was disclosed to the public 
 by Parnell, in the course of a speech, a year later, on the second 
 reading of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bill. Parnell had been 
 taunted with having made a speech at Wicklow, in the previous 
 year, in which he claimed for an Irish Parhament the right of 
 levying import duties for the protection of Irish industries. 
 He replied that when he made that speech he had reason to 
 believe that the Government of Lord Salisbury, if successful 
 at the approaching General Election, would offer to Ireland 
 a statutory legislature, with power to protect its industries. 
 Though he dechned to name his authority for this statement, 
 it was asserted, in the Press, that it was Lord Carnarvon. 
 Upon this Lord Carnarvon made an explanation, two days 
 later, in the House of Lords, in which, while admitting that 
 he was personally in favour of giving to Ireland local self- 
 government, more or less on the Colonial plan, and that he 
 had discussed the question with Parnell, he denied that he 
 had spoken on behalf of the Government, or had entered into 
 ^ny compact with Parnell on this subject. This led to a reply 
 i8 
 
'1 
 
 274 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 from Parnell, giving a further account of the interview. 
 Two years later the subject turned up again, and further 
 explanations were afforded by Lord Carnarvon and Parnell 
 as to their interview. More revelations were later made by 
 Sir C. Gavan Duffy, who was in intimate relation on this 
 subject with Lord Carnarvon, and by Justin McCarthy, who 
 was also privy to the interview, and who had been in commu- 
 nication with Lord Randolph Churchill. Putting all these 
 together, we are now able to construct a fairly succinct version 
 of what took place. 
 
 There can be no doubt that Lord Carnarvon had been 
 a convinced Home Ruler for some years past. His views 
 on the subject must have been known to Lord Salisbury, 
 when he offered to him the post of Lord-Lieutenant, and 
 there must have been correspondence between them on the 
 subject. Sir C, Gavan Duffy, who had strongly urged Lord 
 Carnarvon to propound a policy of Home Rule, arranged an 
 interview between him and Parnell, with the full concurrence 
 of Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister. The interview took 
 place in London, in an empty house of Sir Howard Vincent, 
 and there can be no doubt that the subject was fully discussed, 
 and that Lord Carnarvon explained his views as favourable 
 to a statutory legislature for Ireland, with power to protect 
 native industries. Lord Carnarvon communicated to Lord 
 Salisbury what took place at the interview with PameU, and 
 received from him a full approval of what he had said and 
 done. It is true that no definite compact was come to at the 
 interview, and that the Cabinet was not informed of what had 
 taken place. But it is also true that Lord Randolph ChurchiB 
 expressed himself to Mr. Justin McCarthy as favourable to the 
 policy of conciliation to the Irish people, without committing 
 himself absolutely to Home Rule. Under these circumstances 
 Parnell was impressed with the belief that if the Government 
 survived the General Election it would entertain a scheme for 
 Home Rule in the new Parliament. On the strength of this 
 he decided, in the course of the General Election, that the 
 votes of the Irish electors in Great Britain should be given io\ 
 Tory candidates — a most important reinforcement to that 
 party, which had the effect of securing to them from twenty to 
 forty Members, who would otherwise have been defeated. As 
 a result, however, of the General Election, the Tory Party 
 
LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 275 
 
 was left in so small minority that, even with the addition and 
 full support of the eighty-six Paraellites then returned (making 
 172 in a division), there would scarcely be a majority for the 
 Government. It appears that immediately after the General 
 Election, the question of their Irish pohcy was brought before 
 the full Cabinet, for the first time, and the concession of Home 
 Rule in any form was repudiated. What views Lord Sahsbury 
 expressed at this Cabinet we do not know. But we do know 
 that Lord Carnarvon immediately tendered his resignation. 
 It was kept back a few days, but was announced at the meeting 
 of the new Parhament. It is obvious that the provocation to 
 Carnarvon to resign at the moment, when the defeat of the 
 Government was certain within a few days, must have been 
 very great, for he was not the man to desert a sinking ship, 
 except for some very strong pohtical reason. The explanation 
 afforded in the House of Lords of the resignation of Lord 
 Camarvon, on the opening of Parliament, was obviously in- 
 complete, to use no stronger language. 
 
 If I have been justified in this account of these trans- 
 actions, by piecing together the facts which have so far 
 been made pubUc, it follows that Lord Sahsbury, the Premier, 
 and some of his colleagues, were prepared, in the event of 
 the elections being favourable to their party, to entertain, 
 in the new Parliament, the question of Home Ride. In this 
 he was wisely looking forward to the possibihty, then not 
 remote, of the Irish Party, eighty-six in number, holding the 
 balance between the two main parties, and being in a position 
 to secure to either of them the government of the country, 
 and to dictate their terms. In such case, why should not the 
 Tory Party be prepared to make concessions equally with the 
 Liberals ? But the rout of the Tory Party in the elections in 
 Great Britain, completely knocked the bottom out of the 
 scheme. A stable Government could not be formed even with 
 the support of the Irish Party. It was obviously useless to 
 entertain any scheme for conciUating them by the concession 
 of anj^hing in the shape of self-government. To do so would 
 "6 to risk a schism in the Tory Party, without any equivalent 
 advantage. The pohcy, therefore, was dropped, and Camarvon 
 I Was thrown over. 
 
 The only possible alternative explanation of the known 
 h^cts of the case is that Camarvon was used as a cat's-paw 
 
276 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 by Lord Salisbury ; that Home Rule was dangled before the 
 Irish Leader, as a lure to induce him to make things easy for 
 the Government in Ireland, in the interval before the General 
 Election, and to secure the Irish vote in the elections in Great 
 Britain, but without any real intention seriously to entertain 
 it, if the elections should be favourable to the Tory Party, and 
 with the intention of throwing over Carnarvon, when the time 
 came for fulfilling the expectations held out to him. But this 
 hypothesis involves such discredit to those concerned in the 
 transaction, that it is unreasonable to entertain it. We must 
 therefore fall back on the only alternative which is consistent 
 with the personal honour of the statesmen concerned. The 
 transaction, in this view, was honest, wise, and statesmanlike. 
 The policy might have had important and far-reaching results, 
 if the Tory Party had obtained a larger support at the 
 elections. 
 
 At some future day, when the correspondence between 
 Lord Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon, on the appointment of 
 the latter as Viceroy, on his interview with Pamell, and on his 
 resignation of office, is made public, fuller hght will be thrown 
 upon the whole transaction. That important correspondence 
 exists on this subject is well known. There have been indica- 
 tions that the Carnarvon family have threatened to publish it, 
 for the purpose of vindicating Lord Carnarvon's reputation. 
 Till this correspondence is pubhshed we must be content to 
 draw such inferences from the known facts of the case as are 
 fair to Lord Carnarvon's statesmanship, and consistent with 
 the good faith of Lord Salisbury, and some of his colleagues. 
 
 Reverting to the interval which occurred between the 
 defeat of Mr. Gladstone's Government and the General Elec- 
 tion, it is to be noted that the concihatory policy of Lord 
 Salisbury and Lord Carnarvon had most salutary results. 
 The leading members of the Government took every oppor* 
 tunity of emphasizing the difference between their Irish policy 
 and that of their predecessors. " Undoubtedly," said Lord 
 Randolph Churchill, "we do intend to inaugurate a change 
 of policy in Ireland. . . . The policy of the late Government 
 so exasperated Irishmen — ^maddened and irritated that 
 imaginative and warm-hearted race — that I firmly beheve 
 that had the Government remained in oifice no amount oi 
 bayonets or military would have prevented outbreaks." 
 
LORD SALISBURY'S FIRST MINISTRY 277 
 
 Lord Salisbury also, speaking at Newport just before the 
 General Election, said : 
 
 " The effect of the Crimes Act has been very much exag- 
 gerated. While it was in existence there grew up a thousand 
 branches of the National League, and it is from them that 
 these difficulties proceeded with which we have now to 
 contend. The provisions in the Crimes Act against boy- 
 cotting were of very small effect. It grew up under that 
 Act because it is a crime which legislation has very great 
 difficulty in reaching. I have seen it stated that the Crimes 
 Act diminished outrages ; that boycotting acted through 
 outrages; and that the Crimes Act diminished boycotting. 
 .... It is not true ; the Act did not diminish outrages. 
 In September without the Crimes Act there were fewer 
 outrages than in August with that Act. . . . The truth about 
 boycotting is that it depends upon the passing hmnour of the 
 population. I do not believe that in any country it has 
 endured. I doubt whether in any community law has been 
 able to provide a satisfactory remedy ; but I beheve it con- 
 tains its own Nemesis." 
 
 Meanwhile Pamell, beheving that he had good expectations 
 from Lord SaUsbury and Lord Carnarvon, cried off with the 
 Liberal Party. He had, as already shown, been willing to 
 accept Mr. Chamberlain's scheme of a National Council for 
 administrative purposes. He now threw this over. Mr. 
 Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke had offered to go over to 
 Ireland on a tour of inquiry, with a view to such a scheme. 
 Their offer was now most unwisely declined, with something of 
 contumely. It was clearly intimated to them by the National- 
 ist Press that their reception would not be of a friendly kind. 
 It was, therefore, abandoned. 
 
CHAPTER XXVII 
 
 THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1885 
 
 PARLIAMENT was prorogued on August nth, and 
 though the General Election was not to take place 
 till late in November, the leading politicians com- 
 menced the campaign in the constituencies within a few days. 
 Pamell opened the ball by a speech at Dublin, on August 
 24th, in which he pledged his party to Home Rule, and little 
 else. After boasting of the measures which had been carried 
 for Ireland, he said : " It is admitted by all parties that you 
 have brought the question of Irish legislative independence 
 to the point of solution. . . . Our sole work in the new 
 Parliament will be the restoration of our own Parliament; 
 and when we have obtained it, what will be its functions, 
 what will be its powers ? We shall require our national Parlia- 
 ment to do those things for us which we have been asking the 
 British Parliament to do for us." 
 
 He then proceeded to emmierate these objects — the develop- 
 ment of the Healy Clause, the promotion of a peasant pro- 
 prietary, the admission of leaseholders to the Land Courts, 
 the extension of education on a religious basis, the improvement 
 of the condition of labourers, the building up of industries, and 
 so forth. There was not a trace in this of any Imperial ques- 
 tions. It was evident, therefore, that the Irish Parliament, 
 he was contemplating, was to deal only with purely Irish 
 questions. But it was to have fiscal independence, and the 
 right to impose import duties for the protection of Irish 
 industries. This was due to the expectations which Parnell 
 believed to have been held out to him on behalf of Lord 
 Salisbury. 
 
 The proposal to create an Irish Parhament with fiscal inde- 
 pendence was ill received by the English people, including 
 
 278 
 
THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1885 279 
 
 the Liberal Press. The first prominent statesman to answer 
 the challenge of the Irish Leader was Lord Hartington. In a 
 speech at Waterfoot in Lancashire, after throwing cold water 
 on the schemes of social reform, which had been projected by 
 Mr. Chamberlain, in his many speeches, in the previous six 
 months, he tmned to the question of Ireland, and dealt with 
 Pamell's speech. 
 
 ** I cannot believe," he said, " that there exist in this country 
 any political leaders who will consent, either to acquire ofl&ce, 
 or to retain office, by conceding the terms by which alone 
 Mr. Pamell says his alliance can be purchased. ... He tells 
 you that he wiU be satisfied with nothing less than a separate 
 Parhament ; and not only a separate Parliament, but a Parha- 
 ment independent of the Imperial Parhament, at least to this 
 extent : that it is to have absolute power to deal with the 
 land of Ireland, with the relations between landlord and 
 tenant in Ireland, and that it is to have absolute power to 
 protect, as it is termed, Irish industry, and Irish trade, to 
 the exclusion of British commerce and British manufactures 
 from Ireland. In my opinion, Mr. Pamell, for once, has made 
 a mistake in so openly advocating and declaring his demands, 
 and has by that declaration ensured his own defeat. . . . 
 If he should return to Parhament his eighty or ninety Members 
 pledged to obey his behest, still I am convinced he will not 
 have accompUshed the object he has in view. . . . Means 
 will be found by which a practically united Parliamentary 
 representation will impose a firm and decided veto upon 
 proposals which are, in their opinion, so fatal and mischievous." 
 
 Mr. Chamberlain, rather less than two months before, on 
 July 17th, at Holloway, had made a most powerful and 
 oft-quoted speech on the subject of Ireland, at a time when 
 he still behoved that his proposal of a National Council was 
 acceptable to Pamell. 
 
 " The pacification of Ireland at this moment," he then 
 said, " depends, I beheve, on the concession to Ireland of the 
 light to govern itself in the matter of purely domestic busi- 
 ness. Is it not discreditable to us that, even now, it is only 
 by unconstitutional means that we are able to secure peace 
 and order in one portion of Her Majesty's dominions ? Its 
 government is a system as completely centralized and bureau- 
 cratic as that by which Russia governs Poland, or that which 
 
280 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 prevailed in Venice under the Austrian rule. ... I say the 
 time has come to reform altogether the absurd and irritating 
 anachronism which is known as Dublin Castle. That is the 
 work to which the new Parliament will be called." 
 
 There was a lack of proportion between language of this 
 vehemence and the scheme of a National Council. When now 
 confronted with a scheme which seemed to be adequate to 
 provide a remedy for evils he had so forcibly described, he 
 drew back, and, speaking at Warrington a few days after 
 Pamell, on September 8th, he said : " If these and these alone 
 are the terms on which Mr. Pamell's support is to be ob- 
 tained, I will not enter into the compact. This new pro- 
 gramme of Mr. Pamell involves a great extension of anything 
 we have hitherto known or understood by Home Rule. . . . 
 If this claim were conceded we might as well abandon the 
 hope of maintaining a United Kingdom, and we should es- 
 tablish within thirty miles of our shores a new foreign country, 
 animated from outside with unfriendly intentions towards 
 ourselves. Such a policy as that I firmly believe would be 
 disastrous and ruinous to Ireland herself." 
 
 To this policy Mr. Chamberlain has since adhered with some 
 occasional aberrations. It is in my personal recollection 
 that, in the course of the autumn of 1885, I paid a visit to 
 him at Highbury, and met there Mr. Morley and Sir Charles 
 Dilke. We discussed many of the questions which were then 
 threatening to divide the Liberal Party. I need not advert 
 to what passed on other subjects than Ireland. Mr. Chamber- 
 lain expressed great fear that Mr. Gladstone intended to 
 propose a Home Rule policy. He declared, in the most 
 positive manner, that he would not himself go beyond his 
 proposal for a National Council. I said to him: "Why not 
 call your National Council a Parliament, and appease the 
 national sentiment of Ireland ? " He could not assent to 
 this. These were, I think, the last words which passed 
 between us on political topics, for shortly after this the 
 Home Rule question became the principal issue. There 
 occurred a breach, as in so many other cases of political 
 associates of that time, which was never mended. 
 
 In view of the prominence given to the Irish question by 
 Pamell, Hartington, and Chamberlain, it was expected that 
 the Tory leaders would deal with it. Lord Randolph Churchill. 
 
THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1885 281 
 
 on September 3rd, four days after Lord Hartington's speech, 
 and less than a fortnight after that of Pamell, made an im- 
 portant election speech at Sheffield, but not a single word did 
 he utter about Ireland. He was repeatedly challenged to 
 say whether he agreed with Pamell, but he observed a dis- 
 creet silence throughout the elections. It was not till Octo- 
 ber 7th that Lord Salisbury made his first pronouncement in 
 the election campaign. It was at Newport, in Monmouthshire. 
 His statement as to Ireland was vague and illusive. There 
 was no emphatic challenge of Pamell's terms. It was the 
 first principle, he said, of his party, to extend to Ireland all 
 the institutions of England. He then went on to explain 
 that the concession of local government to small areas would 
 be more dangerous than to a large area (presumably the whole 
 of Ireland). Local authorities, be said, were more exposed to 
 the temptation of enabling the majority to be unjust to the 
 minority, when they obtained jurisdiction over a small area, 
 than in the case where the authority derived its sanction, and 
 extended its jurisdiction over a wider area. In a large central 
 authority the wisdom of several parts of the country would 
 correct the folly and mistakes of the other parts. This seemed 
 to point to the possibihty of creating a great central authority 
 in Ireland in the direction of a National Council, as a safer 
 measure than the extension of local government to smaller 
 bodies, such as County Councils. He then commented on 
 Pamell's reference to the relations of Austria-Hungary, but 
 merely for the purpose of showing how inapphcable such a 
 scheme would be to Ireland. As to the larger organic 
 question affecting Ireland, his party would never depart 
 from its traditions. He then went on to defend his Govern- 
 ment for not renewing the Coercion Act in Ireland. It would 
 have been grossly inconsistent after extending the franchise 
 in Ireland to have applied coercion — Parliament would have 
 stultified itself by so doing. He showed how impossible 
 it was to deal with boycotting, even with the aid of coercive 
 measures, in a passage already quoted. The whole speech 
 Was conceived in a spirit of conciliation quite in harmony with 
 the general attitude of Lord Carnarvon. The door was not 
 banged against the discussion of any future scheme for giving 
 self-government to Ireland. Tory candidates, as a rule, in the 
 elections, were silent on the subject of Home Rule. Many 
 
282 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 expressed themselves as favourable to some scheme of Local 
 Government in Ireland. 
 
 Meanwhile Mr. Gladstone, who had been on a yachting 
 cruise to Norway, returned to England, at the begianing of 
 September, invigorated in health, and eager for the fray. He 
 had occupied himself in writing an address to the Midlothian 
 electors. It was lengthy as a pamphlet. He had been much 
 pressed to remain as leader of the party, in order to compose, 
 as far as possible, the differences between its two wings, led 
 respectively by Hartington and Chamberlain. He was willing 
 to do so for two purposes — one to prevent a spht in the party, 
 the other to deal with the Irish question, if it should appear 
 to be necessary and possible after the General Election. His 
 address struck the mean line between the two rival leaders. 
 His correspondence and conversations, however, showed that 
 he was thinking more about Ireland, than about questions of 
 social reform in England, which were the bones of contention 
 between the two sections of his party. Almost alone he 
 appears to have been conscious of the extreme gravity of 
 the Irish question, which would come up for immediate settle- 
 ment in the new Parliament. 
 
 It has already been shown, by quotations from Mr. Glad- 
 stone's speeches and correspondence, that he had, for some 
 time past, been veering in favour of concession of self-govern- 
 ment to Ireland, so far as was consistent with the maintenance 
 of the unity of the Empire. He had warmly supported Mr. 
 Chamberlain's scheme of a National Coimcil for Ireland, and 
 had intimated that he was prepared to go even further by 
 giving it control over the police. He now saw looming before 
 Parliament demands which could not be satisfied by a National 
 Council with administrative functions only. Whatever his 
 desire to retire from political life, he felt that it might be his 
 duty to remain for the purpose of dealing with this question. 
 He dealt in his address to Midlothian with the Irish question 
 in general terms of concession, but with guarded reserve as to 
 the scheme which he would recommend. 
 
 " In my opinion," he wrote, " not now for the first time, 
 the limit is clear within which the desires of Ireland, con- 
 stitutionally ascertained, may, and beyond which they cannot, 
 receive the assent of Parliament. To maintain the supremacy 
 of the Crown, the unity of the Empire, and £ill the authority 
 
THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1885 288 
 
 of Parliament necessary for the conservation of that unity, is 
 the first duty of every representative of the people. Subject 
 to this governing principle, every grant to portions of the 
 country of enlarged powers for the management of their 
 own affairs is, in my view, not a source of danger, but a means 
 of avoiding it, and it is in the nature of a new guarantee for 
 increased cohesion, happiness, and strength. ... I believe 
 history and posterity will consign to disgrace the man and the 
 memory of any man, be he who he may, that having the 
 power to aid in an equitable settlement between Ireland and 
 Great Britain shall use that power not to aid, but to prevent 
 or retard it." 
 
 On September 28th, Mr. Childers, a member of the late 
 Cabinet, and one of his most trusted supporters, who had 
 long experience of Colonial pohtics in Austraha, wrote to 
 ask Mr. Gladstone's advice as to a proposed address to his con- 
 stituents, in which he formulated a scheme of Home Rule in 
 very precise terms. Mr. Gladstone rephed : " I have a decided 
 sympathy with the general scope and spirit of your proposed 
 declaration about Ireland." This, however, was a private 
 letter, and was not then made public. In pubUc he would 
 not absolutely commit himself to a scheme. On November 9th, 
 however, in a speech at Edinburgh, he said : " What Ireland 
 very deliberately and constitutionally demands, rniless it in- 
 fringes the principles connected with the maintenance of the 
 unity of the Empire, will be a demand that we are bound, 
 at any rate, to treat with careful attention " ; and he went on 
 to say : " It will be a vital danger to the country and to the 
 Empire if, at a time when a demand from Ireland for larger 
 power of self-government is to be dealt with, there is not in 
 Parhament a party politically independent of the Irish vote." 
 It must be admitted that this appeal to the electors of 
 Great Britain to give a majority to the Liberal Party 
 independent of the Irish Members was open to miscon- 
 ception. It gave rise to suspicion in the Irish leaders that 
 Mr. Gladstone was playing fast and loose with the subject, 
 and that when secure of a majority, independent of the Irish 
 Hembers, he might throw them over, or insist on terms which 
 could not be accepted. Pamell, in the absence of a definite 
 scheme from Mr. Gladstone, came to the conclusion that it 
 Would be more to the interest of the Irish Party, that they 
 
284 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 should hold the balance in the new ParUament, and that 
 neither Liberals nor Tories should have a majority inde- 
 pendent of them. After vainly endeavouring to tempt Mr. 
 Gladstone into a fuller declaration of any scheme he might 
 have in view, he authorized, on November 21st, on the eve 
 of the election, the issue of a manifesto by the National League 
 of Great Britain. It called on the Irish voters in Great Britain 
 to vote against the Liberal Party — " the party who had coerced 
 Ireland, deluged Egj^pt with blood, menaced religious liberty 
 in the schools, the freedom of speech in Parhament, and 
 promised to the country generally a repetition of the crimes 
 and foUies of the last Liberal Administration." 
 
 The Irish voters in British constituencies were believed to 
 number about 150,000, spread about very unequally in the 
 constituencies. They were a very important section in the 
 Lancashire districts, and in the larger towns in Yorkshire 
 and elsewhere. There were very few of them in the rural 
 districts, and in the south of England. It was variously 
 estimated that the turnover of these voters, as compared with 
 the General Election of 1880, caused a loss to the Liberal 
 Party, in 1885, of from twenty to forty seats. I inclined 
 myself to the larger figure, in part because I was one of the 
 unexpected victims of the manifesto. I had represented 
 the Borough of Reading for twenty-three years, and had 
 fought successfully six elections there, generally, of late years, 
 after very close contests. No one could have supposed that 
 the Irish vote would affect the result in such a constituency. 
 But there proved to be about eighty Irish Cathohcs, workers 
 in the well-known biscuit factory. They had always voted 
 for me in past elections. They now came to me with 
 tears in their eyes, saying that they were bidden by their 
 leaders and their priests to vote against me, and expressing 
 their deep regret. I was defeated in the election by 129 votes. 
 It was clear, therefore, that the eighty Irish voters turned the 
 scale, and secured a victory to my Tory opponent. What 
 happened at Reading doubtless occurred in many other con- 
 stituencies where the two parties were evenly divided, and 
 where the turnover of a small number of Irish voters caused 
 the defeat of Liberal candidates. 
 
 It is now generally admitted that a very grave mistake was 
 made by Pamell, in thus deciding to throw the weight of his 
 
THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1885 285 
 
 influence with Irish voters in Great Britain against the Liberal 
 Party. Not only would the twenty or forty additional Mem- 
 bers of this party, counting double their numbers in a division, 
 have been of the utmost importance, and have saved the 
 Home Rule Bill from defeat in the coming Session, but the 
 opinion of many electors in England was turned against the 
 Irish by this interference, and by a course which had the 
 appearance of being actuated by a want of appreciation of 
 what had been done for Ireland by the Liberal Party in the last 
 fifteen years. Pamell himself eventually recognized that he 
 had made a mistake in issuing this manifesto. He more than 
 once made this admission to Davitt. 
 
 It is not necessary to refer to the other questions which 
 were debated and voted upon in Great Britain in the election. 
 Little, indeed, was said upon the Irish question either for 
 or against Home Rule. I do not think the subject was men- 
 tioned in my contest at Reading. It was the same elsewhere 
 in England and Scotland, except in rare cases. The questions 
 of interest there were Land Reform and the compulsory 
 purchase of land for allotments, Free Education, the extension 
 of Local Government, Plural Voting, the Graduation of the 
 Income Tax, the DisestabUshment of the Church. These 
 were not only at issue between the Tories and Liberals, but 
 many of them between the two wings of the Liberal Party. 
 Hartington and Chamberlain fired into one another hotly on 
 these topics. 
 
 On the Irish question Mr. John Morley was one of the few 
 leading men who declared themselves boldly and unequivocally 
 in favour of Home Rule. In speeches at Newcastle and 
 elsewhere he expressed himself as favourable to a large 
 measure of self-government for Ireland, subject to the Umits 
 imposed by the safety and the integrity of the sovereign realm 
 as a whole. Two things, he said, had to be faced — a de- 
 moraUzed executive in Ireland, and a demorahzed legislature 
 at Westminster. He did not hide from himself the magnitude 
 of the task of conceding to Ireland the great extension of self- 
 government. It would raise deep passions, it would perhaps 
 destroy a great party ; but those who, with himself, had the 
 integrity of the Empire and the interests of ParUament really 
 at heart, would not shrink from difl&culties, or be deterred by 
 clangers which beset their party. 
 
286 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 On the other hand, Mr. Forster, in a speech to the electors 
 of Bradford, which he had represented as a whole for many 
 years before its division into three by the recent Act, declared 
 against any large concession to Ireland. He would give to 
 it local government, as he would to England and Scotland, 
 with the exception that he could not at present give to local 
 authorities the control of the police. He was not in favour 
 of Chamberlain's scheme of an elective council. He believed 
 that would be Home Rule in disguise. This was Mr, Forster's 
 last speech. He was taken ill shortly after. He was unable 
 to take part in the contests at Bradford. He was returned 
 as Member for the central division, largely by the aid of Tory 
 votes. He died a few weeks later from the effects of a malarial 
 fever, contracted while on a tour on the Continent. There 
 can be little doubt, however, that his death was due indirectly 
 to the enormous strain of his two years' work as Irish Secretary. 
 If in the above pages I have differed from Mr. Forster on a 
 grave question of policy, that does not lessen my admiration 
 of his splendid career as a whole, and his great public spirit. 
 
 After an unusually long campaign, the elections took place, 
 between November 23rd and December 19th, in greatly 
 altered constituencies, returning for the most part single 
 Members, and with a widely extended franchise in the Counties. 
 The Liberal Party lost heavily in the earlier contests in the 
 English Boroughs, with the result that the representation of 
 them was almost evenly divided. This was, in great part, 
 due to the loss of the Irish vote. The losses, however, were 
 made up for by successes in the Counties, where the electors, 
 partly out of gratitude to those who had given votes to them, 
 and partly from a desire to make use of them to better their 
 conditions, and inspired by the election cry of " Three acres 
 and a cow," returned Liberals in the proportion of three to 
 two Tories. Scotland was true to its old traditions of 
 Liberalism, and returned sixty Liberals to ten Tories. 
 
 But it was in Ireland that the greatest change took place. 
 Up to this time there had always been a large contingent of 
 Liberal Members from Ireland, as distinguished from Home 
 Rulers. They were greatly reduced in 1880, but still numbered 
 fourteen. There were also twenty-six nominal Home Rulers in 
 the last Parliament, who could be counted on to support the 
 Liberal Government. Both these sections were now swept 
 
THE GENERAL ELECTION OF 1885 287 
 
 away by a wave of popular feeling in favour of Pamell. Not 
 a single Liberal was returned for Ireland. Every nominal 
 Home Rule follower of Mr. Shaw disappeared from the scene, 
 or was compelled to eat the leek, and to swear allegiance to 
 the Nationalist Party, pledging himself to resign when the party 
 called upon him to do so. Pamell all but swept the board. 
 Out of 103 Members, eighty-five were his followers, many of 
 them his nominees. Only eighteen Tories were returned. Ulster, 
 the stronghold of Toryism, returned a majority of Nationalists. 
 In Munster and Connaught, and in three-fourths of Leinster, 
 the PameUites carried everything before them. The votes 
 given to opposing candidates were so few as to be negUgible ; 
 often not one-tenth, or even one-twentieth of those given for 
 the Nationalists. Never since the birth of representative 
 institutions was there a more conclusive, overwhelming, con- 
 vincing demonstration at the polls. Ireland, in the first 
 General Election, at which there was a really popular franchise 
 and a fairly equal distribution of seats, pronoimced by an 
 overwhelming majority in favour of self-government, Great 
 Britain returned a majority for the Liberals of just 100 — 333 
 Liberals to 233 Tories. For the United Kingdom, the 
 Liberals and PameUites together numbered 418 to 251 
 Tories, giving a majority of 167. If the PameUites transferred 
 their votes to the Tories, their joint numbers would be 336 to 
 334 Liberals, almost an equality. 
 
 As Mjl. Gladstone had foreseen, a constitutional crisis 
 occurred of the first magnitude, which it was the bounden 
 duty of England to deal with. He alone of living statesmen 
 had the authority, the knowledge, the capacity, and the force 
 of wiU to cope with it. He decided, in spite of his seventy-six 
 years, to remain in political life for the sole purpose of settling, 
 if possible, this grave question. 
 
CHAPTER XXVIII 
 
 THE FALL OF LORD SALISBURY'S GOVERNMENT 
 
 FOR the first time since the Act of Union the Irish 
 people had made their demand for self-government 
 in their own affairs, in a constitutional form which 
 could not be mistaken or overlooked. O'Connell had the 
 support of only 40 of the Irish Members on his motion for 
 the Repeal of the Union in 1835. Although, as has been shown, 
 in 1874, 60 out of the 103 Irish Members pledged themselves 
 on election to the policy of Home Rule, many of them were 
 very lukewarm, and were classified as merely nominal Home 
 Rulers. Butt was never able to bring into the lobby in favour 
 of his proposal an actual majority of the Irish members. Now, 
 in 1885, the recently enfranchised householders sent an over- 
 whelming majority of 85 out of 103 Members to demand the 
 restitution of self-government. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone was deeply interested by the result. It 
 was evident that from that time forward he thought only of 
 Ireland, and how best to satisfy its demands. He beheved 
 that, better than any other man, he was capable of solving it. 
 He approached the subject with caution, and in the spirit, as be 
 said himself, of the old Parliamentary hand. He maintained that 
 it was no part of his duty, when not invested with the respon- 
 sibihty of Government, to frame a specific legislative scheme. 
 During the few weeks which elapsed before the meeting 
 of the new Parliament he was in constant communication, 
 personally or by letter, with the most trusted of his late col- 
 leagues. He made no secret with them of his desire to come 
 to terms with the Irish Party for a concession of self-govern- 
 ment to Ireland, if their demands were compatible with the 
 maintenance of the unity of the Empire. He found willing 
 
 288 
 
FALL OF SALISBURY GOVERNMENT 289 
 
 support in this from Lord Spencer, without whose co-operation 
 his efforts to induce the Liberal Party, or the bulk of it, to 
 accept his poUcy would most probably have failed. He met 
 with equal support from Lord Granville, who had been his 
 indispensable aid in promoting and defending his successive 
 great measures in the House of Lords. With Lord Harting- 
 ton it was different ; it was very soon clear that there would 
 be a breach with him. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone's first impression was that the Irish question 
 might, and should be, settled by co-operation between the two 
 main political parties, in the same manner as CathoHc Eman- 
 cipation, the Repeal of the Com Laws, and the recent extension 
 of the Franchise. In this view he took the opportimity of 
 meeting, at a neighbour's house, Mr. Arthur Balfour, a member 
 of the Government, as Secretary for Scotland, to communicate 
 by message, and later by letter, indirectly with the Premier. 
 He wrote to Mr. Balfour, on December 20th, that *' it would 
 be a great public calamity if this great question were to fall 
 into the lines of party conflict " ; that the Government of 
 the day only could deal with it ; and that he specially desired 
 that the existing Government should do so. If Lord SaUsbury 
 and his Cabinet would bring forward a measure for the purpose, 
 he, Mr. Gladstone, would desire to treat it in the same spirit 
 as he had shown in the Afghan and Balkan Peninsula questions. 
 When he wrote this he was imder the impression that Lord 
 Sahsbury, and his colleagues, were not indisposed to entertain 
 the question of Home Rule, in some form or other. He had 
 been fully informed of the conversation between Carnarvon 
 and Pamell, not then generally known to the pubhc. It 
 appears that Mr. Gladstone's letter to Mr. Balfour was treated 
 hy the Tory Cabinet with contempt. His expressions of hope 
 that the question should not fall into party lines were con- 
 sidered as mere hj^crisy. Lord Salisbury repUed, through 
 Mr. Balfour, that the Government policy would be announced 
 to ParUament in the usual manner, at its meeting, and that 
 It was better to avoid a departure from ordinary practice, 
 which might be misunderstood. 
 
 In point of fact. Lord Salisbury and his Cabinet had already 
 
 decided definitely against any attempt to conciliate the Irish 
 
 "Y an advance in this direction. The correspondence between 
 
 Lord SaUsbury and Lord Randolph Churchill shows that as 
 
 19 
 
290 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 early as November 30th the Government had quarrelled with 
 the Irish Party. The alliance between them had scarcely sur- 
 vived the General Election. Later, on December 8th, Lord 
 Carnarvon, in a memorandum laid before the Cabinet, declared 
 " that unless the Cabinet could move in the direction of Home 
 Ride, he would not continue in office." ^ Lord Salisbury for- 
 warded it to the principal members of his Cabinet, and asked 
 them to express their opinion upon it. The answer of Lord 
 Randolph Churchill, dated December loth, is interesting. 
 " Lord Carnarvon's memorandum was carefully considered by 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. W. H. Smith, and myself. 
 We came to the conclusion that if the Lord-Lieutenant insists on 
 the choice being made between the adoption of his policy and 
 resignation, the latter course becomes compulsory on us. If 
 we go out merely on the groimd of our Parliamentary position, 
 we remain for all purposes of opposition to Home Rule as a 
 party totus teres atque rotundus, but if that blessed man sets 
 the signal of concession flying, our party will go to pieces, as 
 it did on the Irish Land Act. The only hope for the country 
 is to keep this present Tory Party weU together ; and, unfor- 
 tunately. Lord Carnarvon has it once more in his power, as 
 on two former occasions, to disintegrate, demoralize, and 
 shatter." Lord Salisbury preferred to face the consequences of 
 Lord Carnarvon's resignation, whatever they might be. " The 
 Carnarvon incident," the Premier rephed (December nth), 
 " is vexatious. I hope he will be induced to stay with us till 
 Parliament meets. But even if he does not, I doubt if his 
 retirement will produce any serious confusion. He will 
 nominally retire on the ground of ill-health, or some private 
 reason. The truth may ooze out. But we shall not mend 
 matters by all retiring with him. The true reason will equally 
 ooze out J and we shall have proclaimed our own impotence 
 very loudly." * Carnarvon agreed to remain as Viceroy till 
 Parliament met, and his resignation was not announced. In 
 the interval it was decided to send Mr. W. H. Smith, the 
 Secretary of State for War, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, in 
 place of Sir W. Hart Dyke. 
 
 Meanwhile Mr. Gladstone, accepting the rebuff of Lor<^ 
 Salisbury as an intimation that the Government did not intend 
 to make any attempt to deal with the Irish Government 
 
 ^ Life of Lord Randolph Churchill, II, 21. « Ibid., 22. 
 
FALL OF SALISBURY GOVERNMENT 291 
 
 question, communicated further with his chief political friends. 
 A statement appeared in the papers to the effect that he 
 was prepared to concede an Irish Parliament in DubUn. It 
 was due to the inspiration of Mr. Herbert Gladstone, but 
 without any authority from his father. Mr. Gladstone himself 
 informed the Press that the statement as to his views was 
 inaccurate, and not authentic. This was rightly interpreted 
 as not amounting to a denial, and great excitement was conse- 
 quently aroused in the pubUc mind. Lord Hartington, on 
 reading the original statement in the Press, wrote at once to 
 the Chairman of his Election Committee, in his Lancashire 
 constituency, affirming his adherence to the policy he had 
 announced, during the recent election, of dehberate hostility 
 to anything in the nature of Home Rule for Ireland. This 
 must be considered as the point of cleavage between him and 
 Mr. Gladstone, which was to have such potent effect in the 
 near future. Mr. Gladstone, on his part, on December 26th, 
 issued a memorandum to some of his immediate supporters, 
 on whom he could rely, in the event of his being called upon 
 to form a Govermnent, in which he said that, if the existing 
 Government should be willing to deal with Ireland in a manner 
 which could satisfy him and the Irish Nationahsts, he would 
 support them. But if not, and if he was charged with the 
 duty of forming a Government, he would make it an indis- 
 pensable condition that a scheme of duly guarded Home Rule 
 should be prepared. 
 
 The new Parliament met, on January 21st, for the transaction 
 of business. By this time Lord SaUsbury had already deter- 
 mined on a pjolicy of coercion for Ireland, and had drawn a 
 paragraph in the Queen's Speech announcing this, but in 
 deference to the protests of Sir M. Hicks-Beach and Lord 
 Randolph Churchill he modified it, and referred to the subject 
 in less positive terms. The latter had given up all idea of 
 alliance with the Irish Members. He was engaged in casting 
 about for an alliance with the Whigs. He suggested to Lord 
 Salisbury that offers of office should be made to some of the 
 leading Whigs, including Lord Hartington, Mr. Goschen, and 
 Sir Henry James. He also pressed upon him a programme of 
 democratic measures, such as later he became identified with. 
 Lord Salisbury rejected these proposals with cynical scepticism 
 as to their value. 
 
292 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 On the meeting of Parliament, the announcement was made 
 of the resignations of Lord Carnarvon and Sir W. Hart Dyke 
 and of the appointment of Mr. W. H. Smith as Irish Secretary. 
 A correspondence was also published between Lord SaUsbury 
 and Lord Carnarvon, which made it appear that the resigna- 
 tion of the latter was due to an understanding arrived at when 
 he accepted the office on the formation of the Government, 
 that he would hold it only till the meeting of the new Parlia- 
 ment. It was further added that there had been no difference 
 between the Government and Lord Carnarvon as to the policy 
 he had pursued. We now know that the first of these state- 
 ments was very far from being the whole truth. It is certain, 
 from the published correspondence of Lord Randolph, that Car- 
 narvon resigned because his Home Rule policy was not adopted 
 by the Cabinet. It is only possible to explain his resignation, 
 on the very eve of the certain defeat of the Government, by 
 the fact that he considered that faith had not been kept with 
 him, and that his expectations of support from Lord Salisbury 
 and others of the Cabinet had not been fulfilled. 
 
 The public was also led to believe that the question whether 
 there would be a Coercion Bill was to be determined by the 
 new Irish Secretary, after consultation with the officials in 
 Ireland. Mr. W. H. Smith crossed the Irish Channel on the 
 night of January 23rd, and returned on the night of the 26th. 
 In his absence notice was given in the House of Commons 
 by Sir M. Hicks-Beach, at the commencement of its sitting 
 on the 26th, that on the next day the Irish Secretary would 
 introduce a new Coercion Bill. Much merriment was caused 
 by Mr. W. H. Smith's supposed rapid discovery, during his 
 two days at Dublin, that coercion was necessary. But we 
 now know from Mr. Winston Churchill's life of his father, 
 that Mr. W. H. Smith did not come to the conclusion during 
 this brief visit that coercion was immediately necessary, and 
 that the notice of the introduction of a Bill was not only not 
 authorized by him, but was distinctly opposed to his wishes. 
 In a letter to Lord Randolph Churchill, dated from Dublin 
 on the 25th, referring to a telegram from Lord Salisbury 
 urging prompt action on the subject of the Coercion Bill, Mr. 
 Smith wrote : 
 
 " There is only one opinion here — that the National League 
 must be suppressed, and large powers obtained to protect life, 
 
FALL OF SALISBURY GOVERNMENT 293 
 
 property, and public order, unless the Government is prepared 
 to treat for terms of capitulation with the PameUites. But 
 the Land question is at the bottom of the trouble, and gives 
 all the force to the agitation. As at present advised, I should 
 be unwilling to ask for large repressive powers, unless I had 
 authority to promise a large land scheme. . . . We are at a 
 crisis in the relations of the Imperial Government with Ireland. 
 I may, very possibly, fail to do any good, but I will not be 
 hurried into a positive decision on such momentous issues by 
 the party or the papers."^ 
 
 Lord Randolph replied by telegram on the 26th : 
 
 ** Absolutely necessary for Government to state to-night 
 their intentions with regard to Ireland, viz. suppression of 
 National League followed by Land Bill. This is the only 
 method of averting defeat on Jesse CoUings' motion. Notice 
 should be given to-day of introduction of Repression Bill on 
 Thursday." 
 
 To this Mr. Smith rephed : 
 
 " I think proposed action looks precipitate. There is no 
 excessive urgency here. ... I should prefer, if possible, to 
 provide against the intimidation of League than denounce it 
 by name." 
 
 Lord Randolph's answer was : 
 
 " Your telegram received half -hour after Cabinet separated. 
 Beach has just announced introduction of Bill by you on 
 Thursday, for suppression of National League and other 
 dangerous associations, for the prevention of intimidation, 
 and for the protection of life, property, and order in Ireland. 
 Of course, great sensation. I showed your wire to Lord 
 Sahsbury. We both agreed you would not wish unanimous 
 decision of Cabinet modified." 
 
 It appears, then, that the decision to introduce immediately 
 a new Coercion Bill was arrived at for party purposes, with 
 the object of defeating Mr. Jesse Collings' motion, and in the 
 hope that many of the Wbig Members would support the 
 Government in the division on this account. 
 
 The notice of a new Coercion Bill most appropriately sealed 
 the fate of the Government. The discussion on the Address 
 w reply to the Speech from the Throne bad already occupied 
 three nights. On the first of these Mr. Gladstone spoke on the 
 
 ^ Life of Lord Randolph Churchill, II, 44. 
 
294 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Irish question, without committing himself to any scheme for 
 deahng with the question of the government of Ireland. In 
 a paper written some years later, and printed by Lord Morley, 
 he gave an explanation of his position at this critical moment. 
 He showed his extreme anxiety lest an amendment should be 
 moved to the Address, following the example of 1833, and 
 proposing a solemn declaration in favour of the Act of Union. 
 He expressed the opinion that if the question of Home Rule 
 had been prematurely raised in this way not more than two 
 hundred Members would have voted against such an amend- 
 ment.^ In this view, Mr. Gladstone spoke in the following 
 guarded manner : 
 
 " Responsibility lies where the means of action lie. In my 
 opinion there could not be a greater calamity than to bring 
 the Irish question within the lines of party conflict. If, un- 
 happily, that shall be done, I will, so far as in me lies, take care 
 I will not be the doer. It is the Government alone who ever 
 act in such a matter. In my opinion, the action of a person 
 in the position I have the honour to hold, not only is unneces- 
 sary, but would not be warrantable, and would be in the highest 
 degree injurious and mischievous ; and I will do nothing that 
 can tend, by making proposals, if I were prepared with pro- 
 posals, to be a challenge to others to bring this question into 
 the category of party controversies. . . . 
 
 " I do not intend, so far as lies in my power, to have it 
 determined for me by others at what time, or in what manner, 
 I shall make any addition to the declaration I laid before the 
 country early in September. I stand here as a Member of the 
 House, where there are many who have taken their seats for 
 the first time upon these benches, and where there may be 
 some to whom possibly I may avail myself of the privilege 
 of old age to offer a recommendation. I would tell them of my 
 own intention to keep my counsel and reserve my own free- 
 dom, until I see the occasion when there may be a prospect 
 of public benefit in endeavouring to make a movement for- 
 ward, and I will venture to recommend them, as an old 
 Parliamentary hand, to do the same." • 
 
 Mr. ParneU had no more intention to be drawn as to the 
 demands of the Irish Members at the moment than Mr- 
 
 1 Life of Gladstone, III, 284. 
 • Hansard, Januaxy 21st, 1886. 
 
FALL OF SALISBURY GOVERNMENT 295 
 
 Gladstone. For the present, he could only say he had little 
 doubt that if the House of Commons approached the question 
 of the government of Ireland in the same spirit, and with the 
 same largeness of views as had characterized Mr. Gladstone's 
 speech, such a solution could be found as would enable Ireland 
 to be entrusted with the right of self-government, and secure 
 those guarantees regarding the integrity of the Empire, the 
 supremacy of the Crown, and the protection of what was called 
 the loyal minority in Ireland, which had been required by 
 both the political parties. He had always believed that if 
 they could come to a decision — ^if they could agree upon the 
 principle that the Irish people were entitled to some self- 
 government, that Parliament had, to a very large extent, 
 failed in her self-imposed task of governing Ireland during the 
 eighty-five years since the Union — they would not find the 
 details so very formidable. His own candid opinion was that 
 so far from increasing the chances of separation, the concession 
 of autonomy would undoubtedly largely diminish them. 
 
 Two more days were occupied on the Address on other 
 topics remote from Ireland. On the 26th the motion of Mr. 
 Jesse Collings came on, expressing regret that there was no 
 reference in the Queen's Speech to any measure for affording 
 facilities to agricultural labourers to obtain allotments and 
 small holdings, on reasonable terms, and with security of 
 tenure. His motion raised the agrarian question of " Three 
 acres and a cow," which had filled with hope the agricultural 
 labourers at the recent County elections in England, and had 
 resulted in so many victories to Liberal candidates at the 
 polls. Looking back at this question by the light of later 
 experience, and in view of legislation for this very purpose 
 carried by a Tory Government, it is difficult now to beheve 
 that such a motion could have involved the fate of a Govern- 
 ment in 1886. But it was so. The subject had formed part of 
 the unauthorized programme of Mr. Chamberlain. He had 
 recently made a very powerful speech on its behalf at a meeting 
 of the Allotments and Small Holdings Association. He vigor- 
 ously supported his henchman, Mr. Jesse Collings. The 
 Government had no objection to the provision of allotments, 
 and pleaded that they had a Bill on the anvil for that purpose, 
 but they threw cold water on the proposal to multiply small 
 holdings of land. They were supported by Lord Hartington, 
 
296 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Mr. Goschen, and others of the Whig wing of the Liberal 
 Party. Mr. Gladstone, who had not included small holdings 
 in his election address, supported the motion. 
 
 The division took place. The Government was defeated by 
 331 to 252 votes — a majority of seventy-nine. Only eighteen 
 Liberals voted with the Government, but no fewer than seventy- 
 nine of them abstained from voting. The trick of the Govern- 
 ment in giving notice of a coercive measure for Ireland in the 
 name of the Irish Secretary, but without his authority, had not 
 tempted, as was hoped, a sufficient number of Liberals to break 
 away from their party. Seventy-nine Irish Nationalists voted 
 in the majority. The next morning Mr. W. H. Smith returned 
 from his brief excursion to Ireland, to find that the Govern- 
 ment had been defeated, and to ponder over the unscrupulous 
 use which had been made of him. The Government made 
 haste to submit their resignation to the Queen, and Mr. 
 Gladstone, for a third time, at the age of seventy-six, was 
 commissioned to form a Government. 
 
 It will be seen that much, bearing on these events, has 
 oozed out, to use Lord Salisbury's expression, even since Lord 
 Morley's great work, especially in Mr. Churchill's life of 
 his father. Much more will certainly ooze out when the life 
 of Lord Carnarvon comes to be written. Indeed, there are 
 few papers, still hidden from the historian, more important and 
 full of interest, than the correspondence between Lord Car- 
 narvon and Lord Salisbury. It will no doubt show how far 
 Lord Sahsbury, and others of his colleagues, were inclined to go 
 in the direction of Lord Carnarvon's policy, and also what 
 were Lord Carnarvon's conclusions as to his experience in 
 Dublin in administering the law without resort to coercive 
 powers, and what were his real reasons for resignation. 
 
 It is not to be supposed that Lord Salisbury made any 
 distinct promise to Lord Carnarvon as to a future policy for 
 Ireland. He more probably left it an open question, dependent 
 on the position of things, and the attitude of his colleagues. 
 Whatever the expectations held out may have been, it is quite 
 certain that Lord Salisbury, after the General Election, could 
 not possibly have carried them out, with the small number of 
 supporters which were returned by the constituencies. To 
 have attempted to do so, even with such support as Mr. 
 Gladstone would have given him, would have split the Tory 
 
FALL OF SALISBURY GOVERNMENT 297 
 
 Party, and have destroyed its efficacy for years to come, just 
 as happened to the Tory Party after Cathohc Emancipation 
 and the Repeal of the Com Laws. Lord Salisbmy's best 
 course, undoubtedly, was to abandon any inchoate schemes 
 for reform of the Irish Government, to throw over Carnarvon, 
 and to fall back on the main body of his party, and the old 
 war cries. This course, at all events, was justified from a 
 party point of view by subsequent events. It undoubtedly 
 led to a coahtion with the Whigs, and to twenty years of Tory 
 government with their support. 
 
 It may be worth while here to refer to a conversation I had 
 with Mr. Gladstone in 1883, showing how confidently he 
 expected to retire from pohtical life within a short time, and 
 how impossible he thought it that he could ever again be 
 Prime Minister. It fell to my lot, as First Commissioner of 
 Works in that year, to provide an inscription to the monument 
 erected by the vote of Parhament to the memory of Lord 
 Beaconsfield in Westminster Abbey. I asked Lord SaUsbury 
 and Sir Stafford Northcote to write it, but neither of them 
 would undertake it. Lord Sahsbury suggested that I should 
 write one myself, and show it to him and Northcote for their 
 approval. In this view I went to the Abbey to see how other 
 epitaphs of Prime Ministers had been treated. I determined 
 on the short inscription which now appears on Lord Beacons- 
 field's monument. " Erected by Parliament to the Memory 
 of the Earl of Beaconsfield, Twice Prime Minister of England." 
 Returning to the House of Commons, I showed it to Mr. 
 Gladstone, and asked his opinion. " Twice Prime Minister," 
 he said ; " that is no particular distinction. I was only 
 thinking a few days ago about the Prime Ministers since the 
 Reform Act of 1832, and I noted that, with one exception, 
 they had all held that post a second time. One held the post 
 three times. You will not, I am sure, guess who that was." 
 
 I tried my hand at a guess, but failed. ** It was Lord 
 Derby," he said j " he was three times Prime Minister, but 
 his aggregate ministries did not extend over more than four 
 ^nd a half years, so they don't count for much." After some 
 further conversation on the subject, I concluded by sajdng, 
 " I hope, sir, you will beat Lord Derby's record." " Beat 
 1-ord Derby's record," he replied, in his most emphatic manner ; 
 
298 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 " that is an absolute impossibility. This is positively my last 
 Ministry, and it cannot last much longer. A man must be mad 
 who thinks that I could ever again form a new Ministry. No 
 one should take the post after the age of seventy." Yet he 
 lived to do so twice again, and his momunent in the Abbey 
 records the fact, rather unhappily capping the inscription 
 on that of Lord Beaconsfield immediately adjoining, that he 
 was Four Times Prime Minister. 
 
CHAPTER XXIX 
 
 THE FIRST HOME RULE GOVERNMENT 
 
 WHEN inviting his colleagues in the last Liberal 
 administration to join in forming a new Cabinet, 
 Mr. Gladstone laid down, as a basis of policy, ** the 
 examination whether it was practicable to comply with the 
 desire widely prevalent in Ireland, and testified by the return 
 of 85 out of 103 representatives, for the establishment by 
 statute of a legislative body to sit in Dubhn, and to deal 
 with Irish, as distinguished from Imperial affairs, in such 
 a manner as would be calculated to support and consohdate 
 the imity of the Empire." 
 
 Of the members of his last Cabinet, five, following the 
 lead of Lord Hartington, refused to enter upon any such 
 inquiry. They were opposed to Home Rule for Ireland in 
 any shape or form. They included Lord Derby, Lord North- 
 brook, Lord Selbome, and Lord Carlingford. Two, Mr. 
 Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan, agreed to join provisionally, 
 but without much expectation of being able to agree to a 
 scheme for an Irish Parhament, though willing to examine 
 the subject. Two others were imavailable, Sir Charles Dilke, 
 and myself who had been defeated in the General Election. 
 Seven of the old hands accepted the new policy without re- 
 serve — Lord Granville, Lord Spencer, Lord Kimberley, Lord 
 Ripon, Lord Rosebery, Sir William Harcourt, and Mr. 
 Childers. Four new members were admitted to the Cabinet — 
 Mr. Morley, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Mundella, and 
 Lord Herschell (as Lord Chancellor). With few exceptions, 
 the main body of aristocratic Whigs, who had formed 
 such an important, if not the main, element, in successive 
 Governments since the Reform Act of 1832, took this oppor- 
 tunity of severing themselves from the Liberal Party. 
 
 299 
 
8CK) GLADSTONE AND ffiELAND 
 
 The most significant appointment in the new Cabinet was 
 that of Mr. Morley as Irish Secretary. Mr. Morley had been 
 one of the few in the General Election who boldly and un- 
 mistakably pronoimced in favour of Home Rule. He had 
 strongly and consistently opposed coercion, in 1881-2, when 
 editor of The Pall Mall Gazette. His mind, at least, was made 
 up as regards the principle of Home Rule. Lord Roseboy 
 became Foreign Secretary, in place of Lord Granville, who 
 took the post of Colonial Secretary, not without grievous 
 heart-burning on finding Rosebery preferred to him for 
 Foreign Affairs. Sir William Harcourt was appointed Chan- 
 cellor of the Exchequer, the post which it was imderstood 
 Mr. Chamberlain desired. This last statesman was offered, 
 and declined, the Admiralty. He accepted the Local Govern- 
 ment Board. It would seem that this relegation of Mr. 
 Chamberlain to a comparatively secondary post was unfortu- 
 nate. The success of the Home Rule pohcy was imperilled 
 by the defection of either Lord Hartington or Mr. Chamber- 
 lain ; but it became almost impossible when both were ranged 
 against it. In fact, there seems to have been from the first 
 a personal antagonism between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Cham- 
 berlain, Which was one of the main causes of the defeat of the 
 new pohcy. 
 
 There does not appear to have been any inquiry by a 
 Committee representing different sections of the new Cabinet, 
 as was indicated in the memorandum which has been quoted. 
 A scheme for a Home Rule Bill was framed by Mr. Gladstone 
 in consultation only with Mr. Morley. But the latter was in 
 constant communication with Mr. Pamell. Mr. Gladstone 
 himself had only two interviews with the Irish chief, but 
 indirectly, through Mr. Morley, was in touch with him. The 
 assent of Mr. Pamell was obtained to all the main features 
 of the Bill, save only, a most important one, that of finance. 
 Pamell was of opinion that the financial provisions were not 
 sufficiently favourable to Ireland. He reserved the right to 
 claim amendments in the Committee on the Bill, if it should 
 reach that stage. But Lord Morley intimates that it was 
 quite possible that the scheme might ultimately have broken 
 down on this point, by the refusal of the Irish Members to 
 agree to the fiunancial terms. 
 
 With regard to the general features of the scheme, it was 
 
FIRST HOME RULE GOVERNMENT 801 
 
 obvious to any one who considered the subject, that there 
 were two main alternative lines on which it might be framed. 
 The one was based on the ** Federal " principle, under which 
 the Irish people, while having an Irish Parliament to deal 
 with purely Irish questions, would still be represented in the 
 Imperial Parliament. The other was based, more or less, on the 
 Colonial principle. Ireland, under this, would have its own 
 Parliament limited to Irish affairs, but would not be repre- 
 sented in the Imperial Parliament. There were merits and 
 defects in both these schemes about equally balanced. Writing 
 myself on the subject, in one of the monthly reviews, before 
 the introduction of the Bill, I examined these alternatives, 
 and ventured on the prediction that, whichever scheme was 
 first proposed to Parliament, the other would ultimately be 
 adopted- This prediction seems likely to be verified. The 
 Home Rule Bill of 1886 was based on the Colonial principle, 
 and that of 1893 on the Federal principle, and this, it may be 
 assumed, will be the basis of the next and final scheme. 
 
 The scheme of 1886, as settled by Mr. Gladstone and Mr. 
 Morley, and laid before the Cabinet, consisted of two BiDs — 
 one proposing a new Parliament for Ireland for purely Irish 
 afTairs, and determining its relation to the Imperial Parlia- 
 ment ; the other dealing with land purchase on a large scale. 
 Under the first of these, an Irish Parliament was to be created, 
 consisting of two orders, the one of 28 re{^esentative peers 
 and 76 representative Members elected for ten years by 
 electors of high qualification ; the other of 204 Membeis 
 elected under the existing franchise. These two orders were 
 to sit togetho" for most purposes. They were to be prohibited 
 by statute from dealing with specified Imperial subjects, 26 
 in number { but otherwise they were to have complete l^is- 
 lative powers over Ireland, including ultimately law and police. 
 The Irish Executive was to be responsible to them. The 
 Irish Constabulary was for a time to be under the control of 
 the Lord-Lieutenant. 
 
 As regards finance, Ireland was to contribute in proportioD 
 of one-fifteenth to the Imperial Debt, and to the cost of the 
 Army and Navy, and certain Civil Services conmion to the 
 Hmpire ; but as all the Customs duties and Excise duties 
 collected in Ireland were to be paid over to the Irish Govem- 
 °ient, and no duties were to be levied as between England 
 
302 GLADSTONE AND ffiELAND 
 
 and Ireland, and as very large quantities of spirits and beer 
 produced in Ireland were exported to and consumed in England, 
 Ireland would benefit by this to the extent of £1,400,000 a year. 
 Taking this into account, the contribution of Ireland to Im- 
 perial purposes would be reduced to one-twenty-sixth, in 
 place of one-fifteenth, and the charge per head of its popula- 
 tion would be only 13s. 5d. a year as compared with £1 los. iid. 
 in Great Britain. When Mr. Pamell complained of the pro- 
 portion of one-fifteenth being too high, he did not appear 
 to take into account the enormous gain to Ireland of the 
 duty paid on spirits and beer, produced in Ireland, but con- 
 sumed in England. The actual payment by Ireland to Im- 
 perial purposes imder this arrangement would be reduced to 
 £1,844,000 a year. 
 
 The Land Bill proposed that an option should be given 
 to all landowners in Ireland, in respect of land let on tenancy, 
 to be bought by the State on the terms of twenty years' pur- 
 chase of the net rent, after deducting, from the judicial rent, 
 the law charges, bad debts, and the cost of management. 
 The tenants would have the option in such cases to become 
 the owners of their holdings by paying 4 per cent on the 
 purchase money in interest and sinking fund for forty-nine 
 years. For this purpose a new 3 per cent stock was to be 
 issued at par by the Land Commission, and it was estimated, 
 in the first instance, by Mr. Gladstone, that an issue of 
 £113,000,000 might be required for this purpose ; but later 
 he reduced his estimate to £50,000,000 without any very clear 
 explanation. 
 
 The scheme thus briefly outlined was laid before the Cabinet, 
 and led almost at once to the resignations of Mr. Chamberlain 
 and Mr. Trevelyan — ^the former because he objected in every 
 way to the scheme of land purchase, and also to the exclusion 
 of the Irish Members from the Imperial Parhament ; the 
 latter mainly because he could not agree to hand over to an 
 Irish Parhament and Irish Executive the control of the police 
 and the administration of the law. After these resignations, 
 the scheme was carefully examined by the Cabinet, and some 
 important modifications were made in its details. It appeared'"^ 
 that the land scheme was chiefly insisted upon by Lord 
 Spencer and Mr. Morley. 
 . Mr. Gladstone, on April 8th, introduced the main Bill in 
 
FIRST HOME RULE GOVERNMENT 808 
 
 the House. It was a memorable occasion. The House was 
 more crowded than had ever been known. In the galleries 
 were the Prince of Wales and all the leading peers of the other 
 House. Not being a Member of the House of Commons, I 
 found a place in the Gallery j and, sitting next to Davitt, was 
 witness of the effect, on an excitable Irish temperament, of 
 the generous phrases and appeal of Mr. Gladstone. It was 
 one of his greatest efforts — ^perhaps his greatest, all things 
 considered : the difficulty of the subject ; his age ; the 
 enormous extent of the ground he had to cover; the many 
 opponents and critics he sought to disarm. He spoke for 
 3| hours with unfaltering vigour, without ever losing for a 
 moment the rapt attention of his hearers — a speech equal in 
 length to seven over-long sermons, and yet not a single one 
 of his hearers left the chamber wearied by the long discourse. 
 The speech was so densely packed with matter, and so 
 closely reasoned, that it is impossible to condense it. Mr. 
 Gladstone gave a history of the Act of Union, and the infamous 
 means by which it was carried through the Irish Parliament. 
 He referred to the promises made to the Catholics, which were 
 broken by George III and Pitt. He showed the failure of the 
 Act to give content : how constantly renewed Coercion Acts 
 deprived the Irish people of constitutional liberty, and of pro- 
 tection from the arbitrary acts of the Executive, and how 
 measures of reform demanded by overwhelming majorities 
 of Irish Members were, again and again, rejected, and were 
 only at last conceded to agitation, carried almost to the 
 point of rebellion, and enforced by outrages and crime. He 
 showed how disastrous had been the absence of Irish control 
 over the expenditure of the country. It was only by a large 
 view of the past that an adequate conception could be formed 
 of the grave necessity for a change. He then unfolded the 
 scheme of his two Bills with a lucidity and completeness of 
 which he alone, of all the speakers I have heard in Parliament, 
 was fully capable. 
 
 The debate which then followed, and that on the second 
 reading of the Bill, were spread over sixteen days. They were 
 Worthy of the great occasion. It was notable that the main 
 attack on the Bill came from the Dissentient Liberals. These 
 Were divided into two sections, the larger one of Whigs, led 
 "y Lord Hartington, Mr. Goschen, and Sir Henry James, who 
 
304 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 objected in toto to any scheme in the direction of Home Rule • 
 and a much smaller one of Radicals, led by Mr. Chamberlain 
 who admitted that the existing system of Irish government 
 was indefensible, and was willing to amend it, but who ob- 
 jected to the particular scheme of the Bill. 
 
 It was not easy to understand the position of Mr. Chamber- 
 lain himself. While strongly objecting to Mr. Gladstone's 
 scheme, he stated in the debate, on the introduction of the 
 main Bill, that the true solution of the problem of Irish govern- 
 ment was to be found, not in the position of the self-governing 
 colonies, but upon the lines of federation. Again, on the 
 second reading, he said that he was fully prepared, the very 
 next day, if the Government pleased, to establish between the 
 Imperial Parliament and Ireland the existing relations be- 
 tween the Dominion Parliament of Canada and the provincial 
 legislatures. Yet, when the offer was made later to take 
 the second reading of the Bill as an affirmation of the principle 
 of a subordinate Irish Parliament, leaving its relations to be 
 determined at a future stage, he showed no desire to act upon 
 it. The explanation of his position was probably to be found 
 in the conversation reported by Mr. Barry O'Brien in his 
 Life of Parnell. When asked whether he objected to the 
 exclusion of the Irish Members as a matter of detail, Mr. 
 Chamberlain rephed: *'I wanted to kill the Bill." **And you 
 used the question of the exclusion of the Irish for that pur- 
 pose ? " Mr. Chamberlain : *' I did, and I used the Land 
 Bill for the same purpose. I was not opposed to the reform of 
 the land laws. I was not opposed to the land purchase scheme. 
 It was the right way to settle the Land question, but there 
 were many things in the Bill to which I was opposed in prin- 
 ciple. My main object in attacking it was to kill the Home 
 Rule Bill."i 
 
 After this frank admission, we may assume that the alterna- 
 tive schemes were also put forward by Mr. Chamberlain mainly 
 for the purpose of kiUing the Bill. Certain it is that when 
 the Bill of 1893, based on a Federal scheme, came before 
 Parliament, Mr. Chamberlain was just as hostile to it as io 
 the Bill of 1886. Mr. Gladstone clearly appreciated the 
 unreality of Mr. Chamberlain's alternative schemes, for in 
 his speech, winding up the debate on the second reading 01 
 
 1 Lift of Parnell, II, 140. 
 
FIRST HOME RULE GOVERJ^MENT 805 
 
 the Bill, in reply to the assertion of Mr. Chamberlain that 
 a Dissolution had no terrors for him, " I do not wonder at 
 this," he retorted ; ** I do not see how a Dissolution can have 
 any terrors for him. He has trimmed his vessel, and he has 
 touched his rudder in such a masterly way, that in whatever 
 direction the winds of heaven may blow they will fill his 
 sails." After describing with most teUing banter the various 
 kites which Mr. Chamberlain had set ^ying, he described them 
 " as creations of the vivid imagination bom of the hour, 
 and perishing with the hour, totally unavailable for the 
 solution of a great and difficult problem." ^ 
 
 There can be no doubt that the scheme of Land Purchase 
 mainly contributed to the defeat of the Bill. It conciliated 
 no one. The Irish landowners did not accept it. Looking 
 back, we can now perceive how unwise they were not to 
 do so ! The terms then proposed were infinitely better than 
 those they have since been content to accept. 
 
 Three days before the introduction of the Bill the death of 
 Mr. Forster occurred, and a few days later I was asked to 
 become a candidate for Central Bradford in the vacancy thus 
 occurring. It fell to my lot, therefore, to fight the first great 
 battle for Home Rule before the electors, in one of the most 
 influential constituencies of England, as a successor to a states- 
 man who was vehemently opposed to the principle of the 
 Bill. I annoimced myself as strongly in favour of Home 
 Rule for Ireland, and fought the battle on that issue only, 
 but I said that I could not support the Land Bill. I was 
 elected, after a severe contest, by a majority of 740, about 
 one-half that of my predecessor in the election of 1886. I 
 returned to the House of Commons in time to speak in favour 
 of the main Bill, and to vote for the second reading. 
 
 Of the speeches in favour of the Bill, those of Morley, 
 Pamell, and Sexton stood out in marked superiority. I did 
 not think that other members on the Ministerial benches, or on 
 those behind them, showed much grasp of the subject. It was 
 difficult for them to range over the whole historical and 
 economic grounds, so fully explored by Mr. Gladstone. Nor 
 did the Tory Members make much mark in the discussion. 
 Their Leader, Sir M. Hicks-Beach, alone won much distinction 
 hy his speeches. The main attack, as already pointed out, 
 
 » Hansard, June 7th. 1886. 
 
 20 
 
306 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 came from the Dissentient Liberals. Lord Hartington made 
 the best, the most impressive, weighty, and, indeed, most 
 animated speeches of his poHtical career. It was evident that 
 he was profoundly stirred by the crisis. With him it was not 
 only a breach with the Liberal Party on the Irish question, 
 but along the whole line of Liberal measures. He had long 
 worked half-heartedly in a Liberal team. He had no longer 
 any sympathy with the more democratic measures in the 
 advanced programme, which had won popular support at 
 the General Election. In a letter to Mr. Gladstone, in which 
 he declined to join the new Cabinet, Lord Hartington said that 
 his adherence would be of little value. He had already, in 
 the Government of 1880, made concessions on other subjects, 
 that might be thought to have shaken public confidence in 
 him ; he could not go farther without destroying that con- 
 fidence altogether.^ It would be difficult to point out any 
 Liberal measure, in the past ten years, with which Lord Harting- 
 ton had been in sympathy. Mr. Gladstone said of him that 
 if he had gone into the new Cabinet, he would have had to 
 make up his mind to go under the Caudine Forks once a week. 
 His speech seemed to me to be inspired by this complete 
 breach with his Liberal traditions, quite as much as by hos- 
 tility to the particular proposal of Home Rule. I recollect 
 Mr. Gladstone remarking, after Lord Hartington's speech on the 
 second reading, that it seemed to be the rule that ex-Ministers 
 spoke infinitely better against their old friends and colleagues, 
 after resignation and separation, than ever they had done for 
 them, and he illustrated this by Lord Hartington, Mr. Goschen, 
 and Mr. Forster. 
 
 Meanwhile the movement outside Parliament became very 
 pronounced and heated. A great meeting was held at Her 
 Majesty's Theatre, when Hartington and Salisbury met for the 
 first time on a public platform, and denounced the Bill. The 
 latter also, at Hatfield, made his celebrated and oft-quoted 
 speech, in which he compared the Irish people to Hottentots 
 and Hindoos, incapable of self-government, and suggested that 
 Coercion should be applied to Ireland for twenty years, at 
 the end of which time, she might be fit to accept any gift in 
 the way of Local Government, or repeal of coercion, that Eng- 
 land might wish to give her — a speech which was delivered at 
 
 1 Life of Gladstone, III, 222.^ 
 
FIRST HOME RULE GOVERNMENT 307 
 
 a time when the world knew nothing of the Camarvon-Pamell 
 incident, and which may now be considered by the light of 
 nearly twenty years of Coercion. 
 
 Another important manoeuvre of the time was that of 
 Lord Randolph Churchill, who, flinging aside all his attempted 
 rapprochement with the Irish Party, went to Ulster, and did 
 his utmost to stir up animosity on the part of the Orange 
 section against their CathoUc compatriots, and there de- 
 livered himself of the jingling phrase, " Ulster will fight and 
 Ulster will be right," which did much to exasperate opinion in 
 Ireland, and to revive animosities between Orangemen and 
 Catholics. It was directly the cause of most serious riots in 
 Belfast. 
 
 In view of all these converging hostilities to the Bill, it 
 became clear that some concessions must be made. The Land 
 Bill was practically dropped. It had not been accepted by 
 the landowners. It disarmed no opposition. It was strongly- 
 objected to by economists. It was the principal butt of Cham- 
 berlain, who insisted that it would cause the loss of millions 
 to the Enghsh taxpayers. As regards the main Bill, it also 
 appeared that a considerable section of the Liberal Party were 
 averse to the exclusion of the Irish Members from the Imperial 
 ParUament. Some concession was necessary on this point. 
 The change of front, however, in the face of the enemy was 
 difficult. It appeared that the Dissentient Liberals numbered 
 about a hundred, of whom about two-thirds were followers of 
 Lord Hartington ; the other third of Mr. Chamberlain. The 
 first of these were irreconcilable. The others objected to the 
 particular method of the scheme. If they could be induced 
 to abstain from voting the Bill would be read a second time. 
 At a meeting of the party, held at the Foreign Ofi&ce, Mr. 
 Gladstone announced that if the Bill were read a second time, 
 it would be withdrawn, and would be reintroduced in an 
 autumn Session, with the clause as to the representation of 
 the Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament reconstituted. 
 This seemed to give great satisfaction, and the hopes for the 
 Bill rose. Mr. Chamberlain dispelled them by calling a meet- 
 ing of " those Members who, being in favour of some sort of 
 autonomy for Ireland, disapproved of the Government Bills 
 in their present shape." Fifty-five Members were present ; 
 ^any of them mtxt hostile to Home Rule in any shape. The 
 
308 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 question for their consideration was whether thiey should 
 vote against the Bill, or abstain from voting. Mr. Chamberlain 
 presided. A letter from Mr. Bright was read, or rather the 
 effect of it was stated, and the pubhcation of it was promised, 
 but was never carried out. The meeting, swayed mainly, it 
 was said, by Mr. Bright 's advice, decided to vote against the 
 second reading of the Bill. This practically decided the fate 
 of the Bill and the defeat of the Government. But perhaps 
 as potent in efficacy was the offer of the Tory Leaders to those 
 Liberals who would vote against the Government, that there 
 would be no opposition to them, in their constituencies, 
 from Tory candidates if a General Election should occur, 
 and that Tory voters would be recommended to vote for 
 them. This is said to have determined not a few waverers. 
 This bargain had the effect of securing the return, at the 
 General Election, of seventy-eight of the ninety-three Liberals 
 who voted against the Government. 
 
 There came the last day of the debate — June 7th. It was 
 a momentous one. The speeches, of very high order, were 
 opened by Mr. Goschen. He described the Bill as a bundle 
 of impossibilities, not the result of hasty drafting, but of 
 difficulties inherent in the question. He said that Members 
 were in the dark, whether the Government was, or was* not, 
 pledged to reconstruct it. Mr. Gladstone, interrupting, in- 
 dignantly repudiated the statement that the Government 
 intended to reconstruct the Bill. They had proposed to 
 reconstruct a single clause only. Mr. Goschen affirmed that 
 the Bill carried in it all the seeds of political, commercial, 
 financial, and, above all, of executive friction. He raised every 
 possible prejudice against it, and ignored altogether that any 
 question of Irish government needed solution. 
 
 Mr. Pamell, who followed him, made what was the best 
 speech of his ParHamentary career. It was dignified, admirably 
 delivered, closely reasoned, and well arranged. He had 
 already in the debate, on the introduction of the Bill, while 
 expressing the opinion that the financial clauses were not 
 sufficiently favourable to Ireland, said that the Bill, subject to 
 some change in Committee in this respect, would be accepted 
 by the Irish people as a solution of the long-standing dispute 
 between the two countries. He now said that though he 
 would at one time have preferred the restoration of Grattan s 
 
FIRST HOME RULE GOVERNMENT 309 
 
 Parliament, he saw advantages in an Irish legislature es- 
 tablished for Home Government, limited and subordinated to 
 the Imperial Parhament. The Bill, he affirmed, had been freely, 
 cheerfully, and gladly accepted by all the leaders of national 
 feehng both in Ireland and America. Not a single dissentient 
 voice had been raised against it by any Irishmen holding 
 nationalist opinions. With regard to the retention of the Irish 
 Members, he proposed to keep his mind open. Personally 
 he had no objection to their retention, but he believed that 
 great difficulties would ensue, and that ultimately it would be 
 the English Members, and not the Irish, who would object to 
 their being retained. With respect to Ulster he absolutely 
 declined to assent to its separation from the rest of Ireland. 
 He then dealt with the question of protective duties, and 
 explained his speech at Wexford, with which he had been 
 taunted by many speakers, by the reference to the Carnarvon 
 interview, which has already been dealt with. Though he 
 did not give Carnarvon's name, he said that a member of the 
 late Government had given him reason to believe that they 
 favoured this view. The statement was at once repudiated 
 by Sir M. Hicks-Beach. But his disclaimer merely went to this, 
 that no such proposal had been agreed to by the late Cabinet. 
 The debate was wound up by Mr. Gladstone, who, as we 
 have seen, never spoke better than when he was on the verge 
 of defeat. He dealt with all the main objections, and delivered 
 the banter against Mr. Chamberlain, which has been quoted. 
 His last words, delivered with entrancing dignity and pathos, 
 were these : 
 
 " Ireland stands at your bar expectant, hopeful, almost 
 supphant. Her words are the words of truth and sober- 
 ness. She asks a blessed obhvion of the past, and in that 
 oblivion our interest is deeper even than hers. Mr. Goschen 
 asks us to abide by the traditions of which we are the 
 heirs. What traditions ? By the Irish traditions ? Go into 
 the length and breadth of the world, ransack the htera- 
 ture of all countries, find, if yoti can, a single voice, a 
 single book — find, I would almost say, as much as a 
 single newspaper article, unless the product of the day, in 
 which the conduct of England towards Ireland is anywhere 
 treated, except with profound and bitter condemnation. Are 
 those the traditions by which we are exhorted to stand ? 
 
310 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 No, they are a sad exception to the glory of our country. They 
 are a broad and black blot upon the pages of its history, and 
 what we want to do is to stand by the traditions of which we 
 are the heirs in all matters, except our relations with Ireland, 
 — to make our relations with Ireland conform to the other 
 traditions of our country. So I hail the demand of Ireland 
 for what I call a blessed oblivion of the past. She asks also 
 a boon for the future i and that boon for the future, unless we 
 are much mistaken, will be a boon to us in respect of honour, 
 no less than a boon to her in respect of happiness, prosperity, 
 and peace. Such, sir, is her prayer. Think, I beseech you, 
 think well, think wisely, think, not for a moment, but for the 
 years that are to come, before you reject the Bill." 
 
 The House, amid the greatest excitement, proceeded to a 
 division. Never in its history did so large a number of its 
 Members take part in it. Only ii Members were absent, 
 10 of whom were Liberals. The division was 314 to 344. The 
 Bill and the Government were defeated by a majority of 
 30. The full force of Nationalists, 85 in number, voted for it ; 
 93 Liberals voted against the Bill. A single Tory Member, 
 Sir Robert Peel, son of the great statesman, voted for the Bill. 
 
 Mr. Bright, who had abstained from speaking out of rever- 
 ence to Mr. Gladstone, finally decided, after much searching 
 of heart, to vote against the Bill. It has been shown that his 
 letter to the Dissentients, who were led by Mr. Chamberlain, 
 determined the votes and caused the defeat of the Bill. It 
 will be seen that at the General Election which followed his 
 speech, on the eve of it, had a most potent effect upon the 
 result. He spoke to me many times about the Bill and its 
 policy. It appeared that what he chiefly feared was handing 
 over Ireland to Parnell and his followers. 
 
CHAPTER XXX 
 
 LORD SALISBURY'S SECOND MINISTRY 
 
 MR. GLADSTONE, on the defeat of his Home Rule 
 Bill, decided at once to dissolve Parliament, and to 
 appeal to the constituencies. The first to enter the 
 lists in the electoral campaign was Mr. Chamberlain. In a 
 speech at Birmingham he denounced the Government Bills, 
 up hill and down dale, especially the Land Bill. 
 
 " Why," he asked, " of all the classes in Ireland who were 
 going to be ruined by Home Rule, should the landlords alone 
 be compensated ? The scheme would cost 150 miUions to 
 the British taxpayers, the most gigantic bribe ever offered 
 to the opponents of any legislation." 
 
 As Birmingham was the Mecca of local self-government, it 
 appeared to be necessary for him to concihate opinion in this 
 direction by suggesting an alternative scheme for Ireland. 
 It did not want in boldness. He proposed a definite plan of 
 federation founded, for the most part, on Mr. Gladstone's 
 principles. It was a very long advance beyond the National 
 Council scheme. When Mr. Gladstone had agreed to retain 
 the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament, there 
 was not much difference in principle between his scheme and 
 this new emanation from Birmingham. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone also was early on the warpath. He met with 
 an enthusiastic reception everywhere on his way to Midlothian 
 His election there was unopposed. He was able, therefore, 
 to address many great meetings at Glasgow, Manchester, and 
 elsewhere, in spite of the remonstrance of the Queen, who. 
 Lord Morley tells us, thought that her Prime Minister should 
 confine himself to speeches in his own constituency. He might 
 well conclude from his personal triumph that the verdict of the 
 constituencies generally would be favourable to his policy. 
 
 311 
 
312 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 He put it before them in plain and simple language, enforced 
 by sympathetic and eloquent passages. The plan of the 
 Government that Ireland, under well-considered conditions, 
 should transact her own affairs, was contrasted with that of 
 Lord Salisbury, who asked for new repressive laws, and their 
 resolute enforcement for twenty years. The benefits which 
 Irish autonomy could confer were the consolidation of the 
 Empire, an augmentation of its real strength, the extinction 
 of ignoble feuds in Ireland, the stopping of constant and 
 demoralizing waste of pubhc money, the redemption of the 
 honour of Great Britain from the stigma fastened upon her, in 
 respect of Ireland, by the judgment of the whole of the civilized 
 world, and the free restoration to the Imperial Parliament of 
 its dignity and efficiency. 
 
 Lord Salisbury, on the other hand, denounced the scheme 
 as one for disintegrating the Empire in a manner which the 
 wildest revolutionaries had never dreamt of. Mr. Goschen, who 
 had represented, in the last Parliament, one of the divisions 
 of Edinburgh, was directly pitted against Mr. Gladstone. 
 He took Ulster under his special protection. He declared that 
 its people would never submit to Home Rule without coercion. 
 He objected to the withdrawal of the police from the impartial 
 hands of the Imperial executive. Justice to Ireland should 
 not mean injustice to one-third of her population. These 
 arguments, though put forward with great force, did not 
 persuade the constituency. He was rejected in the election 
 which followed, as was also Mr. Trevelyan in another Scotch 
 constituency, the Border Boroughs. 
 
 In England the drift of public opinion was adverse to the 
 new policy. Mr. Schnadhorst, who was then the principal 
 agent and adviser to the Liberal Party on election matters, had 
 given his opinion that the turnover of the Irish vote in English 
 constituencies would counterbalance any defection of the 
 Liberal Unionists. But it was not so. The most potent voice 
 in the election against Mr. Gladstone was that of Mr. Bright. 
 He was re-elected at Birmingham without opposition. On 
 thanking the electors for his return, he declared, for the first 
 and last time, his fuU opinion on the Home Rule Bill. 
 As the result, he said, of his long study of the Irish question, 
 and with all his sympathy for Ireland, he was entirely opposed 
 to anything, in any shape, which should be called a Parliament 
 
LORD SALISBURY'S SECOND MINISTRY 813 
 
 in Dublin. He described Mr. Gladstone's proposed legislature 
 as " a vestry which would be continually breaking the bars of 
 its cage, striving to become a Parliament." The only good 
 thing of the original scheme was the proposal to exclude the 
 Irish Members from the Imperial Parliament. As to the 
 proposed alternative of bringing back the Irish Members to 
 discuss Imperial questions, what would be the result of having 
 an intermittent Irish fever in the House of Commons ? 
 He absolutely declined to surrender the field to the Parha- 
 mentary Party in Ireland, one-half of whom had dollars in 
 their pockets subscribed by the enemies of England in the 
 United States. History, he said, had no example of a monarchy 
 or a repubhc submitting to a capitulation at once so unneces- 
 sary and so humiliating. He was entirely opposed to the land 
 scheme, making England the universal absentee landlord for 
 the whole of Ireland. The Irish patriot would be sure to say, 
 " You have got free from the burdens of local proprietors. 
 Will you now pay rent to a foreign Government ? " There can 
 be no doubt that this forcible speech, dehvered on the eve of 
 the borough elections, produced a most powerful effect on the 
 voters. The Enghsh and Welsh Boroughs which, in the 
 previous year had been almost equally divided in their repre- 
 sentation, returning 122 Conservatives to 120 Liberals, now 
 sent 153 Conservatives and 20 Liberal Unionists, and only 
 69 Liberals. London, Liverpool, and Birmingham went 
 almost wholly against Home Rule. 
 
 In the English Coimties the result was relatively as bad. 
 In 1885, the main success of the Liberals had been in the 
 Counties. They returned 152 Liberals to loi Conservatives. 
 The defection of the Whigs was more serious here than in the 
 Boroughs. It may be said that, with rare exceptions, all the 
 Liberal landowners went against Mr. Gladstone. The Home 
 Rule question did not interest the rural voters. They did not 
 understand it. 
 
 In 1885 tbey had been induced to vote for Liberal 
 candidates by promises of land reform, which would bring 
 allotments and small holdings within their reach. By an 
 incredible neglect, no measure with this object had been 
 prepared by the Local Government Board and laid before 
 Parliament. As a result of this the English and Welsh Coimties 
 returned only 85 Liberals as against 136 Conservatives and 39 
 
314 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Liberal Unionists. Scotland, though true in the main to the 
 old Liberal traditions, gave a very reduced majority. Jq 
 1885 it returned 61 Liberals and only 9 Conservatives. It 
 now sent to Parliament 42 Liberals, 12 Conservatives, and 
 16 Liberal Unionists. Ireland was again almost overwhelm- 
 ingly in favour of Home Rule. The Nationalists lost one 
 seat only, but speedily redressed this at a by-election. 
 
 The result for the whole country was the return of only 
 191 Liberals and 85 Irish Nationalists, as against 316 Con- 
 servatives and 78 Liberal Unionists. The majority, there- 
 fore, against Home Rule was 118. The verdict of the country 
 was unmistakable. The actual majority of the electors, how- 
 ever, was not considerable. In the contested constituencies 
 in England and Wales, 1,416,000 voted against Home Rule, 
 as against 1,328,000 for it — a difference of only 5 per cent. 
 But, as usually and, I believe fortunately, happens, the 
 majority of voters was accentuated by the return of Members. 
 Of the 93 Liberal Unionists who voted against the Home 
 Rule Bill, 78 were again returned by the votes of their previous 
 opponents, retaining just enough of their former Liberal 
 supporters to turn the scale in their favour. This may be 
 said to have been the determining cause of the disaster to the 
 Liberal Party. If these y8 seats had been contested between 
 Liberals and Conservatives in the usual manner, it is probable 
 that a fair majority of them would have returned Home 
 Rulers. The strategy, therefore, of the Tory Party in 
 promising to support Liberals who voted against the Bill 
 was equally successful in the constituencies as in Parliament. 
 It secured, however, to the Liberal Unionists the command of 
 the position in the House of Commons. Without their sup- 
 port the Tory Government could not be formed, nor could any 
 Tory measure be carried without their approval. This was 
 the key to the political position in the House of Commons 
 during the next six years. 
 
 As soon as the result of the election was known, Mr. Glad- 
 stone, on July 20th, called his Cabinet together. They de- 
 cided on immediate resignation without waiting for the 
 meeting of Parliament. Lord Salisbury was again entrusted 
 with the task of forming a Government. Two important 
 changes were made in its personnel as compared with his last 
 short-hved Ministry. Sir M. Hicks-Beach voluntarily gave 
 
LORD SALISBURY'S SECOND MINISTRY 815 
 
 up the leadership o! the party, in the House of Commons, to 
 Lord Randolph Churchill, whom he recognized as better fitted 
 for the position than himself. He accepted the post of danger 
 and difficulty, that of Irish Secretary, with, of course, a seat 
 in the Cabinet. In other respects the new Government was 
 much the same as the first of Lord Salisbury's ventures. 
 
 The new Parliament met on August 19th. The Irish ques- 
 tion at once required its attention. The position was a novel 
 one. The difference between the English and Irish elections 
 had never before been so accentuated. Ireland, where there 
 was an overwhelming majority of Nationalists, was to be 
 governed and overruled on Irish questions by a majority of 
 Tories in England, in sympathy with the small minority of 
 Ulster Tories in Ireland. The position required statesman- 
 ship of high order and bold conception. If any lesson had 
 been taught by the past history of Ireland, since the Act of 
 Union, it was the danger of refusing to listen to the demands 
 of the great majority of its Members in the House of Commons. 
 The only constitutional alternative to Home Rule consistent 
 with the principle of representative institutions, was con- 
 cession to the majority of Irish Members on purely Irish 
 questions. 
 
 Lord Carnarvon, apart from any expectations held out 
 in the direction of Home Rule, during his short tenure of 
 office, had pursued the policy of coming to agreement with 
 the Irish leaders as to Irish questions. The question for the 
 new Government was whether to pursue this poUcy still 
 further, or to adopt the alternative of meeting Irish demands 
 by a veto supported by English votes. The Government 
 endeavoured to evade disclosure of its policy till the next 
 year. No announcement was made of a new Coercion Bill. 
 Two Royal Commissions were to be appointed, the one to 
 report on the working of the Land Act of 1881 and the Land 
 Purchase Acts ; the other to report on schemes for arterial 
 drainage in Ireland. Sir Red vers Buller, an able general, was 
 to be placed in the novel position of administrator of three or 
 four counties in the south of Ireland, where agrarian dis- 
 turbances still existed. 
 
 The Irish Members, however, would not brook this dilatory 
 PoUcy. The economic condition of Ireland was serious and 
 nienacing. Irish agriculture, equally with that of England, 
 
816 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 had suffered during the last two years from grave depression 
 due to the ^reat fall in the prices of produce. The price of 
 com had fallen in 1885-6 by 30 to 40 per cent, and that of other 
 produce from 20 to 30 per cent. Landowners in England had 
 almost without exception, met the losses of their tenants by 
 generous remissions of rent, seldom less than 20 per cent, and 
 often 30 or even 40 per cent. Some of the best landlords in 
 Ireland followed this example i but the greater number de- 
 chned or neglected to do so. The prevalent opinion among 
 them was that as many of the tenants had obtained judicial 
 rents, at reduced rates for fifteen years, there was no obligation 
 to concede any further reductions. 
 
 The Land Commission, however, was showing its apprecia- 
 tion of the altered position. The rents fixed by them during 
 the last six months were 20 per cent lower than those fixed 
 in the previous year. The question, therefore, at once arose 
 whether the rents adjudicated, in the years 1881-5, were not 
 too high, when measured by the generally lower prices of 
 produce. The question also as to the 130,000 leaseholders, 
 who had been excluded from the Land Act, and whose rack 
 rents were now far beyond what the tenants could pay, 
 became a most serious one. 
 
 Pamell raised this question, on behalf of the Irish Members, 
 by an amendment to the Address and later by a Bill, in speeches 
 of a most moderate character. He asserted that the economic 
 condition of the Irish tenants was more serious than even 
 in 1881, but that he and his friends did not contemplate for 
 a moment such an agitation as was set on foot in 1880; 
 but he said that neither he nor his friends would be able to 
 hold back the wave of violence, if the Irish people were driven 
 to desperation by the prospects of wholesale eviction. He made 
 out an unanswerable case of falling prices and of increasing 
 evictions of men unable to pay existing rents. His proposals 
 were : (i) The revision of rents fixed by the Land Court up 
 to a recent date ; (2) the inclusion of leaseholders in the Act 
 of 1881 ; (3) power to be given to the Commission to stay 
 eviction on payment of three-fourths of the rent (later re- 
 duced to one-half the rent) subject to the determination at a 
 later period of the rent to be paid. 
 
 It was rumoured that the Cabinet, at the instance of Lord 
 Randolph Churchill and Mr. Matthews, the Home Secretary, 
 
LORD SALISBURY'S SECOND MINISTRY 317 
 
 was inclined to meet the Irish Leaders in a conciliatory spirit ; 
 but that Lord Hartington refused his consent, and made 
 the support of his followers dependent upon a distinct refusal 
 to make terms with the Irish Nationalists.* However that 
 may have been, the Government met the Irish demand with 
 a direct veto. The Irish Secretary said that prices were not 
 so low in Ireland as to make the general payment of moderate 
 rents impossible, though he admitted that in some districts 
 they might be too high. The Government, he said, did not 
 take the view that inability to pay was the sole ground for non- 
 payment of rent. The imwiUingness to pay was fortified by 
 terrorism. On the other hand, the case of the Irish Members 
 was fully admitted by Mr. Chamberlain. 
 
 " We have to deal," he said, " with a crisis which is ap- 
 parently imminent, with the general inabihty to pay rents, 
 with the numerous evictions and consequent suffering, 
 and with great danger to social order. I do not think 
 that any one will deny that there has been a great 
 fall in the price of almost all the chief produce of Ireland, 
 since judicial rents were fixed. The fall may be variously 
 estimated at 20 or 30 per cent. Now if the judicial rents were 
 fixed upon the basis of former prices and at that time they 
 were fair, then they must necessarily be unfair now. I do not 
 admit for a moment that there is any sanctity about judicial 
 rents or any other rents. If rent cannot be paid and leave 
 a fair subsistence to the tenant, no doubt the landlords must 
 bear the loss." * 
 
 In spite of this very full admission of the Irish case, Mr. 
 Chamberlain found himself compelled by party exigencies 
 to support Lord Hartington, whom he had recently, at a 
 meeting at Devonshire House, recognized as his leader. 
 Most strange bedfellows in view of their recent antagonism 
 in Mr. Gladstone's Government ! He voted against Pamell's 
 Bill. The Irish demand was supported by the full force of 
 the Liberal Party, and by a forcible speech of its Leader, 
 Mr. Gladstone, without committing himself to the details of 
 the Bill. Sir M. Hicks-Beach wound up the debate on the 
 Bill by this emphatic, and as the sequel proved, most unwise 
 pronouncement : 
 
 » Annual Register, 1886, p. 276. 
 * Hansard, September 2ist, 1886 
 
318 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 " The Government desires as much as any one to govern 
 Ireland constitutionally, in accordance with the wishes of the 
 Irish people. But we will not attempt to govern Ireland by 
 a policy of blackmail. It is because that attempt has been 
 made so often by the right honourable gentlemen who sit on 
 the opposite benches, from time to time, yielding to coercion 
 and dictation on the part of the Irish Members, in spite of 
 what they knew was right, that we are landed to-day in the 
 great difficulties that environ the Irish question, and that 
 Mr. Pamell has been emboldened to place before the House 
 a Bill which, though purporting to be a mere instalment of 
 justice to the poor Irish tenants, is an act of gross injustice 
 and confiscation to the landlords of Ireland."^ 
 
 The Bill was rejected by 297 to 202 — 31 Liberal Unionists 
 voting with the Government. 
 
 It was a bad beginning for the new Irish Secretary. A more 
 unfortunate decision was never arrived at. It is impossible 
 to condemn too strongly the refusal to negotiate with the 
 Irish Leader. It is clear from Parnell's speeches, and from 
 all that we have since learnt, that he was most anxious to 
 come to terms of a reasonable character ; and that he had no 
 wish for a renewed agitation on the Land question. If it was 
 right to negotiate with the Irish in 1885, why not again in 
 1886 ? The sequel abundantly confirmed all Parnell's state- 
 ments as to the fall of prices, the inability of the Irish tenants 
 to pay existing rents, even judicial rents, and the justice of the 
 demands for a revision of judicial rents, and for the admission 
 of leaseholders to the Land Court. In the very next year the 
 Government was compelled to concede these demands to the 
 full. It did not need a Royal Commission to bring out the 
 facts on which this concession was founded. They were 
 notorious on Mr. Chamberlain's admission. Sir M. Hicks- 
 Beach and his Government, backed by Lord Hartington and 
 Mr. Chamberlain, must be held to be responsible for the grave 
 results which followed from this denial of the claims of five- 
 sixths of the Irish Members put forward in a constitutional 
 form. All past experience showed that such a refusal was 
 certain to lead to unconstitutional methods of enforcing 
 demands. A great opportunity was lost of showing that the 
 Imperial Parliament, when rejecting the demands of the Irish 
 
 ^ Hansard, September 21st, i886. 
 
LORD SALISBURY'S SECOND MINISTRY 319 
 
 people for self-government in an Irish Parliament, was able 
 to concede the demands of the great majority of their Mem- 
 bers on a purely Irish question, put forward in a constitutional 
 manner free from any threats of violence — the only possible 
 way in which the Union could be maintained with justice to 
 Ireland. 
 
CHAPTER XXXI 
 
 THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN 
 
 THE results of the unfortunate action of the Govern- 
 ment in rejecting the demands of the Irish Members, 
 in the short autumn Session of 1886, were very soon 
 made apparent. Parhament was prorogued on September 
 25th, and the Irish Secretary returned to his official work at 
 Dublin. He found a state of things in Ireland which showed 
 that he had been over-sanguine in the representations which he 
 had made in the House of Commons. The agrarian position was 
 such that he felt it his duty at once to bring all the influence 
 of the executive Government to induce the landlords to make 
 abatements of rent to meet the serious fall of prices of produce. 
 The better men among them were already doing this, but 
 large numbers were pressing their tenants for full rents, and 
 were threatening eviction, in default of payment. One of the 
 main centres of difficulty and disturbance was the, Loughrea 
 district of Galway, which has been described in an earlier 
 chapter. The chief landowner there, Lord Clanricarde, had 
 declined to make any general abatements of rent to his large 
 body of tenants, and his example was being followed by other 
 landlords of the district. The rents of the Clanricarde property 
 were about 10 per cent above the average of the earlier 
 judicial rents determined by the Land Commission between 
 1882 and 1885, and were fully 25 to 30 per cent above the 
 more recent judicial rents. Very few of the tenants had 
 applied for judicial rents, in part -because Lord Clanricarde 
 opposed in every case, and put the applicants to heavy law 
 costs, and in part because large arrears of rent had been 
 allowed to accumulate, and the landlord insisted on these 
 being paid by any tenant applying to the Land Commission. 
 Difficulties of a most serious character arose in 1885. A large 
 
 320 
 
THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN 821 
 
 body of the tenants met and signed a petition to Lord Clan- 
 ricarde, asking him to make an abatement, and offering to 
 pay their rents subject to a reduction of 25 per cent. The 
 petition was signed by the clergy of the district, and by Dr. 
 Healy, the coadjutor Bishop — now the Archbishop of Tuam — 
 well known for his very moderate views on the Land question. 
 In forwarding the petition, the agent, Mr. Joyce, strongly 
 advised his employer to make an abatement of rent, as others 
 of the best landlords in Galway were doing. Lord Clanricarde 
 reprimanded him for forwarding the petition, and refused to 
 follow his advice. " You must," he wrote, " at once, and 
 without losing a moment of time, take full and drastic measures 
 to secure the amount of rent due." From other letters which 
 passed, it appeared that Lord Clanricarde looked upon the 
 Land Act of 1881 as an invasion of his rights of property, 
 justifying him in pressing for his rents to the fullest extreme. 
 Living in London, never visiting his property, and knowing 
 nothing personally about it, and incurring no personal risk 
 himself, he left no discretion whatever to his agent. 
 
 A correspondence was later pubhshed in the Press, with 
 respect to the management of this estate. Lord Clanricarde 
 wrote that it was untrue that his agent had advised him to make 
 abatements — ^that on the contrary, his agent had informed 
 him that the tenants were engaged in a strike against the 
 payment of any rent. The agent thereupon wrote to his 
 employer complaining of this statement. " This year," he 
 said, " is a bad one, and all landlords are making abatements. 
 I consider it most unfair that the whole blame for your not 
 having granted any abatement should fall upon me." After 
 further correspondence, Mr. Joyce resigned his agency, and 
 brought an action at law against his employer, in the course 
 of which all the facts of the case, and the correspondence 
 referred to, became public. The judge who tried the case 
 made very severe comments on the treatment of the tenants, 
 and the press of England, equally with that of Ireland, with- 
 out distinction of politics, expressed the strongest sympathy 
 for them. 
 
 The tenants of the Woodford part of the estate, finding that 
 they could get no abatements, entered into a strict combina- 
 tion, binding themselves, to one another, to pay no rent at all, 
 Unless a reasonable abatement was conceded. The case was 
 21 
 
822 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 of great importance, for it was the first one, it is beKeved, in 
 which the tenants of a large property entered into such a 
 combination. It was a purely spontaneous one on their part, not 
 promoted by the National League. It was the case of a con- 
 flict between a landowner, with immense means, unapproach- 
 able, and beyond the reach of injury or threats, and a vast 
 body of small tenants, each of whom alone would be powerless 
 against the remote despot. Taken singly, the tenants would 
 certainly have to succumb to the threat of eviction, and be 
 cleared out of their last pennies, but, united, they might be 
 strong enough to induce or compel their landlord to come to 
 reasonable terms. 
 
 Who could wonder that under these circumstances the 
 tenants should combine to protect themselves ? It was an 
 essential feature of the combination that the tenants, who 
 were financially strongest, would stand by the weaker men, 
 and would not, by yielding, lessen the force of the whole body 
 against the landlord ; and further, that if some of them 
 should be evicted, in defence of the common cause, no final 
 arrangement would be come to by the others, imless those 
 already evicted, who were the first victims, should be reinstated 
 in their holdings. 
 
 The Irish judges laid down that a combination of tenants 
 with this object was an illegal conspiracy. It may be doubted 
 whether the English judges would hold this view. At all 
 events, under the ordinary law, no members of such a com- 
 bination could be convicted of a criminal conspiracy without 
 the verdict of a jury ; and it is very certain that no jury in 
 Ireland could be found to give a verdict against the Clanricarde 
 tenants, and it is very doubtful whether any British jury 
 would do so. The case was very analogous to that of a com- 
 bination of workmen, against their employer, for an increase 
 of wages, and should be judged of by similar considerations. 
 A combination may be just and necessary, or the reverse, 
 and pubhc sjmipathy will be given to either side, as the equities 
 of the case may lie. In the dispute between Lord Clanricarde 
 and his tenants, the equities of the case were unquestionably 
 on the side of the tenants. 
 
 Lord Clanricarde determined to break down the combination 
 by all the power which the law would afford him. It was one 
 of the earliest cases which Sir M. Hicks-Beach had to deal 
 
THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN 828 
 
 with. He authorized the employment of 500 of the constabu- 
 lary to support the eviction of a selected number of the Wood- 
 ford tenants. This led to a great pubhc demonstration. 
 Thousands of persons were present at the evictions. The farm- 
 houses were barricaded, and were garrisoned by a number of 
 young men of the district. Every possible resistance was 
 made, short of using actual personal violence, against the 
 police. Boihng water was poured from the windows and 
 roofs ; but no actual harm was done to any one. By great 
 efforts of the police, four or five of the tenants, with their 
 families and defenders, were ejected from the houses. 
 
 For this resistance to the law seventy-five yoimg men of 
 Woodford, of good character, were committed by the magis- 
 trates for trial at the next assizes at Shgo. Bail was refused, 
 and they remained in jail for some weeks awaiting trial. At 
 the assizes, by packing the juries, and excluding every Catholic 
 from them, convictions were obtained, and a large proportion 
 of the seventy-five men were sentenced to terms of imprison- 
 ment of one year to eighteen months^ with hard labour. 
 This was but the first act in a long, protracted drama. Lord 
 Clanricarde pressed the Irish Government to support him in 
 a further batch of evictions. Sir M. Hicks-Beach very properly 
 hesitated to employ the forces of the Crown in another raid 
 of this kind, without an endeavour to arrive at a settlement. 
 He sent for the agent of the property, and having ascertained 
 from him that he had advised his employer to make abate- 
 ments of rent, and had been refused, and that the proposed 
 evictions were for the full rents, admitted by the agent to be 
 excessive, he informed him that the Government would not im- 
 mediately support such wholesale evictions unless abatements 
 were made. A correspondence ensued between the Chief Secre- 
 tary and Lord Clanricarde, in which the latter remonstrated 
 against the refusal of the Government to support him, and 
 Sir M. Hicks-Beach rephed in a letter, such as had seldom, if 
 ever, been addressed by the Irish Government to a landowner. 
 He informed Lord Clanricarde that if he adhered to his decision 
 to make no abatements of rent, against the advice of his agent, 
 ^d contrary to the general attitude of Irish landlords, he might 
 find that further proceedings for wholesale evictions would be 
 costly and ineffective, and that " any application to the 
 Government for the use of constables and military would be 
 
324 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 retarded by the pressure of other claims and duties, and would 
 most probably be postponed, to the utmost extent permitted 
 by the law." 
 
 After the rejection of the Tenants' Relief Bill, and the 
 absolute refusal of the Government to admit that there was 
 any agrarian crisis in Ireland which needed a remedy, it was 
 certain that the Irish tenants and their supporters would 
 not accept the position lying down. The Clanricarde case 
 seems to have suggested to them a modus operandi more 
 effective than the proceedings of the Land League in 1881-2. 
 What has since been known as the Plan of Campaign was 
 devised by Mr, T. Harrington, and after consultation with 
 Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien, was recommended to the main 
 body of Clanricarde tenants by Mr. O'Brien at a meeting at 
 Woodford, on October 17th. It was launched in United 
 Ireland, on October 23rd, within a month after the rejection of 
 the Tenants' Relief Bill. It was suggested to the tenants of 
 every estate, where the landlords refused to make reasonable 
 abatements of rent. 
 
 Under this scheme the tenants of any estate, where reason- 
 able abatements were refused, were advised to combine 
 together, after the manner of the Woodford tenants, and to 
 offer payment of rent with a reasonable abatement. There 
 was this important addition, that if the abatement was 
 refused, the tenants were to pay their rents into a common 
 fund, in the name of some friend, which was to be held in 
 trust, till agreement should be arrived at with the landlord ; 
 and that if evictions took place, the evicted families were to 
 be maintained out of this fund. The importance of this 
 addition to the more simple combination was that it was 
 made difficult for any single tenant to break away from the 
 combination, and to pay his rent under the threat of eviction. 
 The scheme was settled and promulgated, without any concert 
 with or approval of Pamell, who was at this time in England, 
 incapacitated by serious illness. When later he became aware 
 of it, he expressed his strong objection. 
 
 " He complained," says Davitt, " that neither Mr. Dillon 
 nor Mr. O'Brien had communicated to him their intention 
 to reopen in this new way the agrarian conflict. He said not 
 a word about motives, but he severely criticized the tactical 
 unwisdom of the whole proceeding. The plan could not 
 
THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN 325 
 
 possibly be justified before English public opinion> which, 
 unfortunately, had the fate of Home Rule at its disposal. 
 Home Rule had been beaten by tricks and Hes, and this in 
 England only. Scotland and Wales were sound, and it only 
 needed the conversion of about one hundred thousand out of 
 some four million EngHsh voters to enable Mr. Gladstone to 
 win at the next General Election. Gladstone was now ' the one 
 and only hope for Ireland.' He was seventy-six years of age. 
 He had flung himself, in the most courageous and chivalrous 
 manner, into the fight for an Irish Parhament, and it was 
 nothing short of cruel, apart from the necessity of a scheme, 
 which was a deliberate challenge to a new measure of coercion, 
 to handicap the great Liberal Leader in his mighty task, by 
 an agitation which would only present a sordid character to 
 the voters of Great Britain, in comparison with the interests and 
 welfare of Ireland embraced in the fortunes of Home Rule. . . . 
 Parnell appeared to be in wretched health, and remarked, 
 with a kind of foreboding spirit : * I don't care who leads 
 when I am gone, but I am anxious the old country should get 
 some kind of Parhament as a result of our struggles, and unless 
 Mr. Gladstone can do this for us, no other living Enghshman 
 can.'"* This advice, however, of Parnell, was too late. The Plan 
 of Campaign had already been launched. It caught on with 
 popular opinion in Ireland. Whatever might be urged against 
 it from a legal point of view, it had undoubtedly most import- 
 ant and immediate effects. Its promulgation induced a large 
 number of landlords, who had refused to make abatements of 
 rent, to reconsider their position, and to come to reasonable 
 terms with their tenants. It was almost as effective as an Act 
 of Parhament. Very great care appears to have been taken by 
 those who were concerned in devising it, to put it in operation 
 only in cases where rents were notoriously excessive, and 
 where landowners had refused to negotiate with their tenants. 
 It was put in force in the autiunn and winter of 1886-7 on 
 eighty-four estates. In no fewer than sixty of these the land- 
 lords, after a time, gave way, and agreed to terms which, on 
 the average, amounted to abatements of rent of 25 per cent. 
 The scheme was adopted by the main body of tenants on the 
 Clanricarde estate, and it speedily spread to others of the 
 principal estates in the neighbourhood of Loughrea, those 
 
 * Fail of Feudalism, 518. 
 
826 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 of Sir Henry Burke, Lord Dunsandle, Lord Westmeath, and 
 Mr. Lewis. 
 
 In the meantime Sir M. Hicks-Beach had been doing his 
 utmost to persuade landlords to make reasonable abatements 
 of rent. He was much influenced in this by the reports and 
 advice of Sir Redvers Buller, who, as already pointed out, had 
 been appointed to supervise the disturbed districts of Kerry 
 and Cork. With the experience of a generous English land- 
 owner. Sir Redvers was startled by the indifference shown by 
 many of the Irish landowners to the exigencies of the times, 
 and by the extreme poverty of large numbers of the tenants, 
 and their total incapacity to pay the existing rents. In his 
 evidence before the Royal Commission, presided over by Lord 
 Cowper, he expressed the opinion, as the result of his personal 
 investigations, that the rents of many estates in his district 
 were excessive, and more than the tenants could pay. " You 
 have got," he said, " an ignorant poor people, and the law 
 should look after them, instead of which the law has looked 
 after the rich." He specified cases where numerous evictions 
 had taken place, though the tenants were quite unable to pay. 
 The Chief Secretary, acting on the advice of Sir Redvers 
 Buller, endeavoured, before lending the forces of the Crown 
 to support evictions, to discriminate whether landlords were 
 acting reasonably or not. As above shown, he practically 
 refused to send another force to support the wholesale evictions 
 on the Clanricarde estate, unless the owner was wiUing to 
 concede the abatements, which his agent advised to be reason- 
 able. He called this " putting pressure within the law." 
 For this, however, he was severely censured from the judicial 
 bench by Chief Baron Palles, in the course of the trial of the 
 seventy-five Woodford men. " The landlords," the Judge 
 said, " were entitled to collect their rents, and to evict if they 
 were not paid. The Government were bound to protect them 
 in this course, with all the forces at their disposal, and every 
 officer of State in Ireland, including the Chief Secretary hiin- 
 self, was liable to a prosecution for a failure to perform his 
 duty." When the Executive Government was thus warned off 
 any intervention to prevent harshness and injustice being 
 done, it was to be expected that the tenants themselves would 
 devise a method, such as the Plan of Campaign, to protect 
 themselves. 
 
THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN 327 
 
 The Chief Secretary met this new movement by directing a 
 prosecution against John Dillon, William O'Brien, and other 
 leaders concerned in launching the Plan of Campaign, for 
 inciting the tenants to an illegal conspiracy. At their trial 
 the Judge directed the jury that the Plan of Campaign was 
 ipso facto an illegal conspiracy, and that the advice to put it 
 in operation was a criminal act. In spite of this, the jury, 
 though every effort had been made by the Crown officers to 
 pack it, did not agree in a verdict. 
 
 Whatever may be thought of the Plan of Campaign, from 
 a purely legal point of view, it was remarkably effective 
 for the purpose it aimed at. It did, in fact, save vast numbers 
 of tenants from being pressed and evicted for rents, which the 
 great fall of prices had made excessive, and which most of 
 them could not possibly pay. It undoubtedly preserved 
 Ireland from an outbreak of agrarian crime of a grave char- 
 acter, which would certainly have occurred, if large numbers 
 of tenants had been evicted. It was probably the main cause 
 for legislation in 1887 of a remedial character for the revision 
 of judicial rents. Parliament also has long since condoned the 
 offence, if it were a legal offence, of those who were actually 
 engaged in such combinations, for it unanimously passed 
 measures, in 1903 and 1906, with the express object of re- 
 instating many hundreds of tenants, parties to these combina- 
 tions, who were selected by their landlords for eviction, and 
 who thus suffered for the common cause of their fellow- 
 tenants. Not only were they reinstated, but Parliament voted 
 money for the rebuilding of their houses, and for restocking 
 their farms. 
 
 The Plan of Campaign was furiously denounced by the 
 Government and its supporters, and by their allies, the Liberal 
 Unionists, in England. It was made the main excuse and 
 justification for a new Coercion Act in 1887. Mr. Gladstone 
 was appealed to by Lord Hartington and others to express his 
 disapproval of such combinations. He contradicted a state- 
 ment that he had approved it ; but his disavowal was given 
 m the following cautious words, which were very remarkable, 
 in view of the very strong current of opinion in England against 
 the scheme. Speaking at the Hemorial Hall in London, on 
 July 29th, 1887, he said : 
 
 " The Plan of Campaign is one of those devices that cannot 
 
328 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 be reconciled with the principles of law and order in a civilized 
 country. Yet we all know that such devices are the certain 
 results of misgovernment. With respect to this particular 
 instance, if the plan be blameable (I cannot deny that I feel 
 it difficult to acquit any such plan), I feel its authors are not 
 one-tenth part so blameable as the Government, whose con- 
 temptuous refusal of what they have now granted was the 
 parent and source of the mischief." 
 
 This speech was made after the passing of the Land Act of 
 1887, which practically conceded what Pamell and his followers 
 had, in vain, asked for from the Government and Parhament, 
 in August of the previous year, and which, if then granted, 
 would undoubtedly have made such a scheme wholly un- 
 necessary. It may confidently be expected that the opinion 
 which history will give on the scheme will be in accord with 
 that of Mr. Gladstone. 
 
CHAPTER XXXII 
 
 THE CRIMES ACT AND THE LAND ACT OF 1887 
 
 EARLY in 1887, before the meeting of Parliament, the 
 Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Cowper, 
 issued its report on the agrarian question in Ireland. 
 It confirmed all that Parnell had alleged, on behalf of his 
 Tenants' Relief Bill of the previous year, as to the crisis caused 
 by the great fall of prices of agricultural produce in Ireland, 
 the impossibility of tenants paying existing rents, and the 
 necessity for a reduction of judicial rents adjudicated before 
 1886. It recommended that the term of judicial rents should 
 be five years, and not fifteen, that rents fixed before the end 
 of 1885 should be revised, and that leaseholders should be 
 admitted to the benefit of judicial rents. There could not be 
 stronger testimony to the justice of the claims made by the 
 Irish Members, in the course of the discussion of the Act of 
 1881, and on Pamell's Bill of 1886. Looking at the constitu- 
 tion of the Royal Commission, it is difficult to believe that, 
 in the then state of Ireland, it could have taken the responsi- 
 bility of advising interference with judicial rents, unless it 
 had obtained the approval of the then Irish Secretary to such 
 a course. 
 
 On the meeting of Parliament at the end of January notice 
 was given of two measures for Ireland — the one a Coercion 
 Bill, to be introduced in the House of Commons, the other a 
 Land Bill, in the House of Lords — the two to be proceeded 
 ^th at the same time, in pursuance of a long-estabhshed, 
 but discredited policy, known as "kicks and halfpence." 
 The Coercion Bill, introduced in the House of Commons, 
 proved to be the most stringent of its kind ever proposed to 
 Parliament, not, indeed, after the fashion of Mr. Forster's Act, 
 giving power to the Executive of Ireland to arrest and im- 
 
 329 
 
880 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 prison any one on suspicion, but by a vast number of pro- 
 visions abridging and destroying the constitutional liberties 
 of the people in Ireland, and creating new offences. It with- 
 drew the protection of juries, and gave full powers to resident 
 magistrates of dealing with cases of intimidation, and of 
 holding public meetings against the will of the Executive. 
 It made the extraordinary proposal of enabling the Irish 
 Government to send persons, accused of murder and other 
 grave offences, to be tried in London. Above all, in contra- 
 diction to all precedents, it proposed that the measure should 
 be a permanent one, and not restricted to one or a limited 
 number of years. 
 
 It may safely be said that never, in the past history of Ireland, 
 since the Act of Union, had a Coercion Bill been introduced 
 with so little justification. There had practically been no 
 increase of serious crime in Ireland, during the last two years, 
 since the Coercion Act of 1882 had been allowed to drop by 
 Lord Salisbury's first Government. The only new cause of 
 complaint was the existence of combinations of tenants. 
 These combinations did not aim at the non-payment of all 
 rent, but only of so much of the rent as, by the admission of 
 all the best landlords of Ireland and England, and now by 
 that of the Royal Commission, was excessive in view of the 
 great fall of prices. It would seem that the statesmanlike 
 course would have been to test the effect of legislation, as 
 proposed by the Cowper Commission, in putting an end to 
 combinations, rather than to flout opinion in Ireland by a new 
 and unprecedented invasion of its constitutional liberties. 
 It is difficult to believe that Sir M. Hicks-Beach, who, we 
 have seen, did his utmost to restrain the bad landlords from 
 wholesale evictions for rents, which he admitted were exces- 
 sive, could have assented to a policy which would compel him 
 to support evictions with the full powers of the proposed 
 Coercion Act. However that may be, his failing eyesight 
 (fortunately of a temporary character) compelled his resigna- 
 tion. His successor, as Irish Secretary, was Mr. Arthur 
 Balfour, who seems to have had no such compunction or 
 misgivings as his predecessor in office. He entered upon 
 a policy of coercion with zest and even avidity. He developed. 
 in defence of it, debating faculties of the highest order and 
 unexpected power, and a dexterity in meeting opponents, not 
 
THE CRIMES ACT AND LAND ACT 881 
 
 merely from the overwhelming majority of the Members of 
 the country, of which he was to be dictator, under the Coercion 
 Act, but also from the Liberal Members for Great Britain. 
 
 There were three distinguishing featm-es in Mr. Balfour's 
 Coercion Policy. Never, since the Act of Union, had a Coercion 
 Act been passed by a mere party majority, or without the 
 consent and support of the two main poUtical parties ; never 
 before had such a measure been passed against the votes of a 
 great majority of the Irish Members ; and never before had it 
 been suggested that such a measure, infringing the constitutional 
 liberties of the people, shoiild be a permanent one — not even 
 limited to Lord Sahsbury's unhappy requirement of twenty 
 years of coercion. It was not only an alternative policy to 
 Home Rule, as Mr. Gladstone had confidently predicted, but 
 it was based on a cynical denial and abrogation of the only 
 alternative to Home Rule, consistent with representative 
 institutions and the maintenance of the Union, namely, that 
 Ireland should be treated in the Imperial ParUament, in accord- 
 ance with the wishes of the majority of its Members. 
 
 At a meeting, held at Devonshire House immediately after 
 the introduction of this Bill, it was decided by the Liberal 
 Unionists to support this unprecedented Coercion Bill. That 
 Lord Hartington should do so caused no surprise, for he had 
 never in the past expressed any objection to coercion, but when 
 Mr. Chamberlain's opposition to Mr. Forster's Act of 1881 was 
 recollected, there was much comment, in Radical circles, on 
 his new departure, and his consent to follow the lead of Lord 
 Hartington in support of a perpetual coercive measure. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone threw himself with extraordinary vigour in 
 opposition to the Bill, and made many powerful speeches 
 against it at various stages. With respect to the proposal to 
 send Irish prisoners across the Channel, to be tried by juries 
 in London, he said : 
 
 " I did not beHeve that I should ever live to see the day 
 when a proposal so insulting, so exasperating, so utterly in 
 contrast with the whole lesson which Irish history teaches us, 
 could have been submitted to a British House of Commons." 
 
 With respect to serious crime, he showed that in comparison 
 with past years there was no justification for the measure. 
 ' What is the cl\aracter, purpose, and object of such crime 
 as exists in Ireland at the present time ? It is to obtain certain 
 
832 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 reductions of rent. It is not a movement against rent in 
 general. I do not deny that there is intimidation. The amount 
 of crime is small and insignificant under the circumstances. 
 Boycotting and exclusive deahng," he said, " may be very 
 bad things, but they are the only weapons of self-defence 
 belonging to a poor and disheartened people." ^ 
 
 Pamell was in bad health at the time, and did not take a 
 very active part in the opposition to the Bill, but he made 
 more than one effective speech. He discouraged obstruction, 
 and advised his followers to select certain important points of 
 attack, and to disregard the other clauses. After a protracted 
 debate, the second reading was passed on April 28th by a 
 majority of 100. On that morning, and obviously with 
 a view to the division, and in the hope of deterring any 
 waverers from abstaining to vote for the Bill, The Times, which 
 had been engaged in a series of attacks on the Irish Party 
 for their agitation of the past seven years, published a facsimile 
 letter, purporting to be signed by Parnell, and apparently 
 addressed to one of his associates, in which he was made to ex- 
 plain away his reasons for denouncing the Phcenix Park murders. 
 " You can tell all concerned," it said, " that though I regret 
 the incident of Lord F. Cavendish's death, I cannot refuse to 
 admit that Burke got no more than his deserts." The impli- 
 cation was that Parnell was a consenting party to the tragedy. 
 
 Pamell, in his place in the House of Commons, on the same 
 night, declared this to be a barefaced forgery, and protested 
 that he would willingly have placed his body between the 
 bodies of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke and the 
 assassin's knife. There were many, however, who would not 
 believe that a paper like The Times could have been taken in 
 by a forgery, and who did not accept the assurance of Pamell. 
 Lord Salisbury gave a cue to doubts of this kind, in a 
 speech delivered two days later, in which he said : 
 
 " Mr. Pamell belongs to a party, a large wing of which was 
 worked by murder, and which has been supported by contribu- 
 tions from those who advocated political assassination. . • • 
 When so grave and pressing a case of presumption exists 
 against a man it is not sufficient to take refuge in a mere 
 denial." 
 
 Pamell did not act on the suggestion thus made, and sup- 
 ^ Hansard, March 22nd, 1887. 
 
THE CRIMES ACT AND LAND ACT 888 
 
 ported by many others, that he should bring an action for Ubel 
 against The Times. We now know that he was advised 
 by eminent members of the Liberal Party that, mider the 
 conditions of public opinion in England, he would not be 
 justified in trusting his honour to a London jury. But we 
 also know now, beyond all question, that the letter was a 
 forgery. It had, however, the desired effect. It undoubtedly 
 influenced waverers, and secured for the Crimes Bill a full 
 party majority. 
 
 On going into Committee, another great debate was raised 
 by Mr. Reid, now Lord Lorebum, on a motion declaring " the 
 unwillingness of the House to proceed with a measure for 
 strengthening the law against combinations of tenants, until 
 it had before it the full measure of their relief from excessive 
 rents," This went to the very root of the measure, which was 
 undoubtedly intended to break down combinations of tenants 
 against excessive rent. The motion was rejected, after a three 
 days' debate, by the usual party majority, the Liberal Unionists 
 supporting the Government in full force. In the Committee 
 stage, Mr. Morley proposed an amendment limiting the dura- 
 tion of the Bill to three years, and was strongly supported by 
 Mr. Gladstone. It was rejected on a party vote. 
 
 On June loth, when thirty-five working days had been 
 occupied by discussions on the Bill, Mr. W. H. Smith made 
 and carried a motion for cutting short future discussions in 
 Committee on the Bill, by the process known as the "guillotine." 
 He proposed that if the proceedings of the Committee were 
 not concluded by the end of the sitting, on June 17th, the 
 Chairman should put the remaining clauses to the vote without 
 further discussion. The motion was carried, and by this means 
 this comprehensive scheme of coercion was passed through 
 Committee. The operation was repeated in the Report stage. 
 Many of the clauses, and many proposals of the Irish Members 
 in mitigation of them, were not discussed. Among the latter 
 was an amendment proposing that persons convicted of 
 certain classes of offences should be treated as pohtical 
 prisoners, and should not be subjected to the ordinary prison 
 severities. The only substantial change effected in the Bill 
 was the omission of the clause providing for the transfer to 
 London of certain classes of Irish criminal cases. 
 
 ^r. Gladstone made a last protest against the Bill by 
 
384 
 
 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 moving its rejection, on the third reading. He again insisted 
 that it was the official alternative of the Tory Party to Home 
 Rule. Lord Hartington, in reply, practically admitted this • 
 *' Mr. Gladstone's policy," he said, " will lead straight to 
 separation. I support the Bill as a protection against organized 
 terrorism by which that policy is presented." The Bill was 
 passed by the House of Lords without a division, and with 
 little discussion. 
 
 While the severest of Coercion Bills was thus wending its 
 painful course through the House of Commons, a remedial 
 Land Bill, of an attenuated character, was introduced by the 
 Government in the House of Lords. It did not propose to 
 carry out the main recommendation of the Cowper Com- 
 mission for the revision of judicial rents. It proposed, 
 however, to admit the large body of leaseholders in Ireland to 
 the benefit of judicial rents, and it contained most complicated 
 provisions, founded on the bankruptcy law, for dealing with 
 arrears of rent, which had come into existence in the last two 
 or three years of depression. It empowered the Land Com- 
 mission to commute these arrears into a charge upon the 
 tenant for a term of years. The Bill was no remedy for the 
 emergency and agitation in Ireland, which were mainly due to 
 the excessive rents adjudicated by the Land Commission, as 
 measured by the recent great fall in price of agricultural 
 produce. Lord Cadogan, who had charge of the Bill, most 
 positively refused to deal with judicial rents. " The Govern- 
 ment," he said, " have found it impossible to give effect to 
 the recommendations of the Royal Commission." Lord 
 Salisbury took the opportunity of renewing his expressions 
 of hatred of the Land Act of 1881. 
 
 " I conceive," he said, " the Act of 1881 to be one of the 
 most unfortunate measures ever submitted to Parliament. 
 ... It must inflict a blow upon all confidence in dealing 
 with property and will require a generation to efface it. . . • 
 A belief on the part of men that they will have to perform 
 their promises is the very foundation of civilized society. . • • 
 You are lajdng your axe to the very root of that fabric." 
 
 When, however, the Land Bill reached the House of Commons, 
 it was soon found by the Government that two forces were im- 
 pelling them to the very course which Lord Salisbury had so 
 fiercely denounced ; the one, the Ulster tenant farmers, who. 
 
THE CRIMES ACT AND LAND ACT 885 
 
 through their representatives, insisted upon an amendment, 
 which would break the solemn compacts, and revise the judicial 
 rents ; the other, the section of Liberal Unionists led by Mr. 
 Chamberlain, who, having swallowed coercion, on the imder- 
 standing there should be an effective remedial measure, now 
 insisted on the bargain being carried out. In the debate on the 
 second reading the discussion mainly turned on this question. 
 
 " Why," said Mr. Chamberlain, " is the leaseholder to have 
 his rent reduced, except on the groimd of inability to pay ? 
 If it is just that the leaseholder should have his rent reduced, 
 why is the judicial renter not to have the benefit of the same 
 rehef ? " Lord Randolph Churchill made a powerful speech 
 in the same direction. 
 
 It may be worth while to quote from the speech of Pamell» 
 on the same occasion, as to the effect of the Act of 1881 on the 
 Land League. 
 
 " It was not," he said, *' the Coercion Act of 1881, or that 
 of 1882, that broke down the Land League. I well know the 
 truth of what I am saying. I watched from Kilmainham Jail 
 ninety thousand tenants going into the Land Court. It 
 would otherwise have been possible for us, even from our cells 
 in Kilmainham, to have pushed the Land League movement 
 to any extreme we chose it to work. Mr. Gladstone saved the 
 Irish landlords at that time by the Act of 1881." 
 
 The Government had to give way, not, indeed, to the wishes 
 and claims of the great majority of the Irish Members, but to 
 the importunities of the small nimiber of Members from Ulster. 
 The Committee, also, after prolonged discussion, struck out 
 the bankruptcy clauses. No one approved them. The land- 
 lords, equally with the tenants, objected. Unfortunately, no 
 substitute was adopted for them. The Government refused 
 the claim of Pamell and the Irish Members, that the same 
 powers should be conferred on the Land Commission of dealing 
 with arrears of excessive rent, as had been given two years 
 before to the Scotch Crofters Commission. They rejected also 
 every proposal for dealing with the case of evicted tenants, 
 the victims of what was practically admitted to be an unjust 
 system. Many years were to elapse before the opposition of 
 the House of Lords to a measure with this object was removed. 
 ^t seems strange, indeed, that the Government and Parlia- 
 ment, when legislating in a manner which admitted so much 
 
886 
 
 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 of the claims of the Irish Party, so unwisely rejected in previous 
 years, did not learn the lesson that the demands of the great 
 majority of the representatives of a people on matters con- 
 cerning themselves alone, are the only safe basis of legislation 
 for them. Before the amendments made by the House of 
 Commons were considered by the other House, Lord Salisbury 
 was compelled to explain to a meeting of his supporters that 
 if he did not accept the amendment as to the revision of judicial 
 rents, Ulster would be lost to the Unionist cause, and then 
 Home Rule could not be resisted 1 
 
 " When once," he said, in the House of Lords, in moving 
 agreement with the amendments of the House of Commons, 
 " the genius of an evil principle was introduced, it was im- 
 possible to get rid of it." 
 
 And thus it came about that the implacable enemy of the 
 Act of 1881 was compelled to give the greatest possible 
 extension to its principle, which he had so much condemned, 
 by extending it to the large class of leaseholders, and by 
 agreeing to revise the rents already determined by the Land 
 Commission. 
 
CHAPTER XXXIII 
 
 METHODS OF COERCION, 1887-9 
 
 NEVER was a graver mistake made by a Goveniment 
 in Ireland than that of the Chief Secretary in 1887, 
 in not taking the Irish leaders into concert for the 
 purpose of making his remedial measure a complete and final 
 one. The Land Act, as passed, was indeed a very great step 
 in advance. Compared with what it conceded, the additions 
 required to make a settlement of the question were trifling. 
 It was only necessary that power should be given to the Land 
 Commission, when deciding on judicial rents, to deal with the 
 arrears of excessive rents in the same manner as had been done 
 in the Crofters Act for Scotland, and that clauses should be 
 inserted to induce or compel the comparatively few landlords 
 who had, by that time, evicted their tenants for non-payment of 
 rents, now admitted to be excessive, to reinstate them in 
 their holdings. The measure, defective as it was in these 
 respects, had the effect of obviating any future combinations 
 of tenants. For want of these small additions to it, the com- 
 binations which had been entered into in 1886-7 were not 
 brought to an end. They continued to be a festering cause of 
 disturbance during the next three years, and practically the 
 main use made of the Coercion Act was to endeavour to break 
 up these combinations, and to punish those concerned in them. 
 It has been already shown that the Plan of Campaign was 
 adopted on eighty-four estates where the landlords had refused 
 to make any abatements of rent, and that in sixty of these the 
 landlords, when faced by this new movement, found it their 
 best policy to give way, and after some negotiation with their 
 tenants to concede satisfactory terms. There remained, 
 therefore, only twenty-four unsettled cases, in which the land- 
 lords had refused to come to terms, and had begun to evict 
 
 22 337 
 
388 GLADSTONE AND ffiELAND 
 
 their tenants. In seven of these cases agreements were later 
 arrived at, on reasonable terms of abatement of rents, and in 
 all of these the reinstatement of the evicted tenants was 
 insisted upon by the tenants, and was conceded by the land- 
 lords. In most, if not in all, of the remaining seventeen cases 
 where these deplorable disputes continued, the ultimate 
 question, which prevented settlement, was the refusal of the 
 landlords to reinstate the evicted men. 
 
 It seems to be almost incredible that this small residuum of 
 obstinate landlords were allowed to keep alive the embers of 
 the agrarian struggle. But so it was. A very large proportion 
 of the many hundreds of imprisonments, which took place 
 under the Coercion Act of 1887, were in connection with these 
 twenty-four cases, where the landlords delayed or refused to 
 come to terms. The Plan of Campaign was, in fact, a kind 
 of red rag to the landlord party. Its very success, in compelling 
 so many of them to concede terms, made them fiercer against 
 those who devised it and put it in force, and more determined 
 to punish and make an example of all concerned in these few 
 remaining cases. Landlord associations were founded for the 
 purpose of defeating the Plan of Campaign, assisting those on 
 whose properties it was in force, and finding tenants for the 
 farms from which the tenants had been evicted. The Govern- 
 ment, instead of trying to bring about peace, and to put an 
 end to these troubles, by bringing pressure to bear equally on 
 both parties, threw all the weight of its influence against the 
 tenants, and allowed the Coercion Act to be used in support 
 of evictions, and for crushing the combinations. 
 
 Immediately after the passing of the Coercion Act, the 
 National League and about two hundred of its branches were 
 proclaimed and suppressed by the Government. This did not, 
 however, make much difference. Meetings of the LeJ^e 
 continued to be held in secret, and reports of their j)roceecJings 
 appeared, daily and weekly, in the Nationalist papers. The 
 Government thereupon prosecuted several editors of these 
 papers for reporting their proceedings. Chief among them 
 were Mr. T. D. Sullivan, m.p., owner of United Ireland, then 
 Lord Mayor of Dublin, Mr. W. O'Brien, m.p., Mr. E. Harrington, 
 M.P., Mr. Hooper, m.p., and Mr. Walsh, editors of other papers. 
 They were convicted, and sentenced to various terms of 
 imprisonment, from six weeks to two months. 
 
METHODS OF COERCION, 1887-9 889 
 
 Mr. T. D. Sullivan had the good luck to be tried by Mr. 
 O'Donell, the stipendiary magistrate of Dublin, who directed 
 that he should be treated in jail as a first-class misdemeanant. 
 No such favour was accorded to the others by the resident 
 magistrates. They were sentenced and treated as common 
 criminals. They resisted this to the utmost. They refused to 
 wear the prison clothing, or to take exercise with common 
 criminals of the baser kind, or to perform degrading 
 menial work while in jail. Their clothes were torn from them 
 by the warders. They were forcibly dressed in the prison 
 garb. They were put under punishment for days and weeks, 
 and were reduced to bread and water for food. Mr. T. Har- 
 rington, while in prison, was summoned to give evidence in 
 the case of another prosecution at Tralee, in the centre of the 
 constituency he represented in ParUament. He was forcibly 
 compelled to wear the prison dress on the occasion, and was 
 exhibited in court to his constituents in this garb. Mr. 
 Hooper's health was most seriously injured by deprivation of 
 food and exercise, imposed on him for refusing to perform 
 the menial indignities of the jail. 
 
 On coming out of jail all these men annoimced their intention 
 to repeat the acts for which they had been convicted and 
 imprisoned. They continued to rep>ort in their papers the 
 proceedings of the National League. They did so with im- 
 pmiity. The Government were obhged to admit that they were 
 defeated in this class of cases. They were equally unsuccessful 
 in their attempts to prevent the sale of these papers. After 
 several prosecutions it was compelled to abandon them. 
 In another class of cases the Government used what were 
 called " the Star Chamber " clauses of the Coercion Act, for 
 the purpose of defeating the Plan of Campaign. They sum- 
 moned tenants, suspected of being parties to it, examined 
 them in secret, and by threats of imprisonment, compelled 
 them to turn informers, and to disclose the names of other 
 persons engaged in the combination. They then prosecuted 
 batches of persons so engaged. The witnesses, however, when 
 they came into court, refused to give evidence. The prosecu- 
 tions broke down, and the persons who refused to give evidence 
 Were then prosecuted and sent to jail. 
 
 Foiled in their endeavours to convict persons actually 
 ^^gaged in combinations, the Government prosecuted and 
 
840 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 convicted many persons for attending and speaking at public 
 meetings held in favour of the Plan, or in sympathy with 
 tenants who were engaged in it. The resident magistrates 
 were ready to hold almost any public meeting, in the pro- 
 claimed districts, to be an illegal assembly, and to convict 
 persons attending them. A marked feature of the proceedings 
 was the strange caprice of the authorities in selecting persons 
 for prosecution. They laid their hands upon any whom, 
 for any other reason, they desired to punish, irrespective of 
 the part which they had taken in meetings or in speeches. 
 Cases occurred in which persons were prosecuted, not on 
 account of speeches made by themselves, but for speeches 
 made by others who were present at the meetings, but who 
 were not themselves prosecuted. 
 
 Another very numerous class of prosecutions, under the 
 Act, arose out of boycotting. The police, taking a boy- 
 cotted person with them, applied to tradesmen, whom they 
 selected for prosecution, for supplies of articles, which often 
 were not really wanted, and when refused, charged these 
 tradesmen before the resident magistrates with criminal con- 
 spiracy. Batches of pubhcans were convicted for refusing 
 to supply liquor to the pohce, or to provide cars for them. 
 Boycotted persons sent their servants to tradesmen selected 
 for prosecution, with whom they never before had deahngs, 
 and when refused, charged them before the magistrates. 
 The resident magistrates seldom failed to convict in such 
 cases, and sentenced the accused to months of imprisonment 
 with hard labour. They invariably refused to state a case for 
 the Judges of the High Court. After great nimibers of such 
 cases, the Irish Party, by a clever device of Mr. Healy, were 
 able at last to get the decision of the Judges of the High 
 Court on a case of this kind. Four shopkeepers of Killeagh 
 were convicted of a conspiracy to refuse supplies to the police, 
 the only evidence against them being their bare refusal. The 
 Judges held that the convictions were illegal, there being no 
 evidence of a conspiracy. They threw ridicule on the decisions 
 of the magistrates. They held that tradesmen had the right 
 to refuse supphes to persons applying to them, and that io 
 support a conviction there must be distinct evidence of a 
 conspiracy. When the decision was given, several persons, 
 in other similar cases, were in prison, undergoing sentences 
 
METHODS OF COERCION, 1887-9 841 
 
 with hard labour. It was to be expected that the Government 
 would at once direct their release. They refused to do so ; and 
 this course was upheld and defended in the House of Conunons. 
 
 Another conspicuous use of the Coercion Act was to per- 
 secute by repeated prosecutions on trivial charges the local 
 leaders of the people, who were concerned in combinations of 
 tenants against landlords, who refused to make abatements 
 of rent. Many illustrations could be given of this. 
 
 The policy was foolish and mistaken. It had exactly the 
 opposite effect to what was intended by the Government. 
 It tended only to raise such men in the popular estimation 
 of the district. It gave them the status of martyrs in addition 
 to that of popular leaders. So far from frightening or deter- 
 ring others from this course, it stimulated them to follow 
 the example, and it intensified pubhc opinion against the 
 authorities and the Government. It did not put an end to the 
 boycotting of. land-grabbers. Not a few of these local leaders, 
 after treatment of this kind were elected as Members of 
 Parliament for their districts. 
 
 I can vouch for these methods of enforcing the Crimes Act, 
 for I personally visited, in the years 1888-9, several of the 
 estates, where the Plan of Campaign was in operation, and 
 made full inquiries as to the causes of the disputes, and the 
 methods attempted by the authorities for defeating the com- 
 binations.^ I was induced to embark on these inquiries by 
 the fact that Mr. Wilfrid Blimt, a relative and friend, was 
 prosecuted by the Government, under the Crimes Act, for 
 attempting to hold a pubhc meeting at Woodford, for the pur- 
 pose of expressing S5nnpathy with the Clanricarde tenants. 
 Recollecting what I had seen and heard on this property in 
 1882, I felt strongly that the prosecution was unjust, and I 
 went to Woodford, with many of Mr. Blunt 's friends, to 
 support him during the trial. I was again astounded by what 
 I learned there of the treatment of his tenants by Lord Clanri- 
 carde, and of the action of the Government in support of him. 
 1 came to the conclusion that it was most necessary that 
 public attention should be called to the wholesale evictions, 
 which had been effected there, and were threatened. Mr. 
 Blunt had done a pubhc service by calling a meeting for this 
 
 ^ I published in 1888-9 two journals of tLese visits entitled Incidents of 
 '^rcion and Combination and Coercion. 
 
842 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 purpose. He was prosecuted for so doing, and was convicted 
 and sentenced to two months' imprisonment as a common 
 criminal. Never, in my opinion, was greater and more palpable 
 injustice perpetrated. 
 
 I have already shown that, in 1887, Sir M. Hicks-Beach 
 endeavoured to discriminate between the bad and the good 
 landlords, and had practically refused to give the support of 
 the forces of the Crown to the wholesale evictions by Lord 
 ClanricEirde. His successor, Mr. Balfour, seemed to have no 
 such misgivings. He gave full support to the evictions of 
 large batches of tenants, from time to time, on this estate, 
 and apparently made no effort to bring this unfortunate 
 dispute to a close by the influence of the Government. 
 Further inquiries on the spot convinced me that the case of 
 the tenants was overwhelmingly strong. Their combination 
 was justifiable and necessary if ever such action could be so. 
 The leaders were men of high principle, most anxious to 
 prevent any acts of violence. 
 
 Later, at the invitation of the Clanricarde tenants, I pre- 
 sided myself at a great open-air meeting at Loughrea, for the 
 purpose of protesting against further evictions, and of inform- 
 ing the pubhc of the true nature of this dispute. The authori- 
 ties, acting wisely, for once in a way, did not proclaim the 
 meeting, and, at my suggestion, they abstained from sending 
 any police there to risk a conflict with the people. As a result, 
 the meeting was most orderly. It was attended by many 
 thousands of people from all the country-side, and on the 
 platform were many English Members, and other distinguished 
 members of the Liberal Party. 
 
 The advantage of holding such a meeting was at once 
 manifested. On the very morning of the meeting Lord Clan- 
 ricarde's agent issued a public notice offering, for the first 
 time, a general abatement of rents to the tenants. It was 
 considered insufficient by the leaders of the tenants, but it 
 afforded the hope that negotiations might lead to a settlement. 
 It had the effect, therefore, of moderating the speeches at the 
 meeting. By the earnest wish of the Bishop of the Diocese, 
 Dr. Duggan, who was a strong supporter of the tenants in 
 their combination, I did my best in my speech, while ex- 
 pressing a strong opinion as to the past evictions, to advise 
 moderation and concihation to the tenants, but I expressed 
 
METHODS OF COERCION, 1887-9 848 
 
 the opinion that, on coming to terms with their landlord, the 
 tenants still in possession were boimd in honour to insist on 
 the reinstatement of the evicted men. 
 
 This proved eventually to be the main stmnbling-block in 
 the way to an agreement. The first offer of abatement of 
 rents was quite insufficient, and the landlord evicted another 
 batch of tenants. Later, the offer was improved upon, and 
 finally was such that the tenants were wilhng to accept it. If 
 it had been made before any evictions had been carried out, 
 there would have been no combination, and no evictions. 
 But in the interval 170 tenants out of the 1900 had been 
 evicted. The farms thus vacated, with rare exceptions, were 
 at that time imtenanted. No one could be found to face the 
 odium of the district by hiring them. It was most unreason- 
 able, therefore, to refuse reinstatement of the evicted men. 
 But this, from first to last. Lord Clanricarde obstinately 
 refused to do. 
 
 This miserable dispute consequently continued, and further 
 batches of evictions were continually being carried out. It 
 was at this stage, if not earher, that the Government should, 
 in my opinion, have intervened, and have brought pressure on 
 Lord Clanricarde to induce or compel him to do an act of 
 justice, by reinstating the men evicted for non-payment of 
 rents, now admitted to be excessive and unjust. The Govern- 
 ment, however, equally with Lord Clanricarde, seemed to be 
 determined that an example should be made of the evicted 
 men in this case. 
 
 After inquiries on the Clanricarde property, I was induced 
 to visit others of the Plan of Campaign estates — among them 
 the Vandeleur property in Co, Clare, that of Captain Ponsonby 
 in Cork, the Coolgreaney Estate in Wexford, that of Lord 
 Massereene in Co. Louth, and two or three others. There was 
 a marked similarity in all these cases. The landlords, in all of 
 them, had originally refused to make any abatements of rent, 
 to meet the great fall of prices. In most of them the resident 
 agents had advised abatements, but their employers, the 
 landlords, had refused. The Plan of Campaign was thereupon 
 adopted. Evictions of large batches of tenants then took place, 
 and were supported by strong bodies of pohce, and by putting 
 in force the Coercion Act for the imprisonment and punish- 
 ment of any and every man connected with the movement. 
 
844 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 or sympathizing with the tenants, whom the authorities 
 selected for this purpose. 
 
 At the time I visited these estates, the question of abate- 
 ments of rent had, in nearly all of them, been practically 
 conceded. The landlords had, at last, made offers, which the 
 tenants were willing to agree to. The only remaining question 
 in dispute was that of the evicted tenants, whether they should 
 be replaced in their holdings, and have the benefit of the 
 abatements. The combinations of tenants most justly insisted 
 on this. The landlords refused it. There was no real difficulty 
 in reinstating them. The vacated farms, with few exceptions, 
 were untenanted. The fields were rank with thistles and 
 weeds. The houses had, in many cases, been shattered by 
 battering-rams used in the evictions. It is impossible to 
 overstate the scenes of desolation on many of these estates. 
 When new tenants had been induced to take the farms, they 
 were evidently men of straw, who might easily be induced to 
 depart. These planters, as they were called, were loathed and 
 boycotted by the whole neighbourhood. They had taken the 
 farms at rents much below those for which the tenants had 
 been evicted. They were in possession of the interest of these 
 previous tenants without paying anything for it. They were 
 regarded as receivers of stolen property, worse than those 
 who had deprived the tenants of it. At that stage of the 
 movement there could be no possible doubt that the tenants 
 were justified in morals, if not in law, in maintaining the 
 combinations, till the evicted men were replaced on their 
 holdings. I made speeches to this effect, in the presence of 
 police reporters, at several of the districts where the Plan of 
 Campaign had been adopted. I always predicted that the 
 time would come when Parliament would interfere to insist 
 upon the reinstatement of these evicted men.^ 
 
 * Some years later I met Lord O'Brien, now Chief Justice in Ireland, 
 who, at the time I refer to, was the principal law officer of the Government. 
 He told me that on my visits to Ireland he was determined to put me in jail. 
 He had me followed by two poUce reporters wherever I went. I was the 
 only man who had beaten him. He was unable to discover cause in my 
 speeches for arresting me. I replied that I had never said anything beyond 
 what I had repeatedly said in England, and which I was convinced was 
 perfectly lawful. It was satisfactory to me to find that the Irish Govaii- 
 ment had come to the conclusion that my advice to tenants on the CampaiS" 
 estates, to maintain their combination till the evicted men were reinstated 
 
METHODS OF COERCION, 1887-9 845 
 
 The impression left on my mind, by these visits to the 
 Campaign estates, was that a graver misconception of its 
 duties by the Government had never occurred, even in Ireland. 
 If it had used its influence to bring these disputes to an end, 
 there would haVK been no difficulty in doing so. As a matter of 
 fact, I was able^ myself to bring about settlements in two of 
 them. On my visit to Loughrea, Sir Henry Burke sent his 
 brother to me to ask me to endeavour to bring about an 
 arrangement between himself and his tenants of a neighbouring 
 estate, who had adopted the Plan of Campaign. I was able to 
 do so, mainly through Mr. John Roche, the leader of the 
 Clanricarde tenants in their combination. In Colonel Vande- 
 leur's case, also, I had negotiations with his agent, which 
 ultimately, and through Mr. Henniker Heaton, resulted in a 
 reference of the dispute to Sir Charles Russell, and by his award, 
 in a happy settlement. In that case the Irish Government, 
 through its local agent, not only did not assist in a settlement, 
 but did its very utmost to prevent it, and seemed to be bent 
 on punishing the evicted men for having embarked in the 
 Plan of Campaign. In both these cases of the Burke and the 
 Vandeleur estates, the reinstatement of the evicted men was 
 an essential condition of the settlements. 
 
 The use made of the Coercion Act to defeat and punish the 
 tenants engaged in these combinations was made clear to me 
 beyond question. In the Clanricarde dispute no fewer than 
 150 persons had been sent to prison, in connection with it, for 
 speeches made at meetings of sympathy, often for merely 
 attending meetings, for refusing supphes to planters, and for 
 resisting evictions. In the case of a dispute between a Mrs. 
 Moroney and fifty of her tenants, at Miltown Malbay, in Clare, 
 fifty-six prosecutions and thirty-eight convictions and im- 
 prisonments had taken place. It was much the same on other 
 Campaign estates. 
 
 AH of these were, in my opinion, wholly unnecessary. It 
 Would have been easy enough for the Government to settle 
 the disputes, if there had been the wish to do so. In the three 
 years I refer to more than two thousand persons were 
 convicted and sent to prison under the Coercion Act for 
 
 ^as not illegal. But there can be no doubt that many Irishmen, including 
 Members of Parliament, were sent to jail, under the Coercion Act, for saying 
 °iQch less than this. 
 
N 
 
 S46 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 offences which, for the most part, were connected directly 
 or indirectly with the twenty-four cases of combinations of 
 tenants mider the Plan of Campaign. They included twenty- 
 two Members of Parhament, eighteen priests, a great number 
 of joumahsts, tradesmen, farmers, and other men of good 
 position. It may safely be said that very few indeed of 
 them belonged to the criminal class, or had been guilty of what 
 is commonly included under the term of crime. It is equally 
 certain that hcirdly any of them would have been convicted, if 
 tried by juries fairly chosen in Ireland. I doubt whether they 
 would have been convicted by juries in England. Just as in 
 the case of the Coercion Act of 1881 Mr. Forster found it 
 incumbent on him to support the ofi&cials under him in Ireland 
 in their proceedings, however arbitrary and indefensible, so 
 Mr. Balfour never failed in the House of Commons to support, 
 defend, and justify the same classes of officials in every case 
 which came under discussion. Innumerable interpellations took 
 place on the part of Irish Members. I do not recollect a single 
 one in which Mr. Balfour admitted that even the smallest wrong 
 had been done, or that redress was necessary. He appeared to 
 feel no compunction when his Irish opponents in the House of 
 Commons were subjected to the plank-bed, and other severities 
 and indignities of the prisons. He adopted the airs of a 
 superior person, who looked down from philosophic altitudes 
 on the disorderly crew which Ireland sent to Parliament. 
 His attitude in Parhament gave the cue to the Castle 
 ofl&cials, the resident magistrates, the pohce, and the prison 
 warders in Ireland in their treatment of Irish Members, 
 and of all others representing the tenants in the agrarian 
 disputes. He defended these subordinates with unfailing 
 zeal, and with great dialectical powers. Under an air of 
 indifference and nonchalance there was concealed a rapier 
 as sharp and deadly as was ever wielded in Parhamentary 
 contests. He never made the smallest concession to the 
 Irish Members. The nearest approach to it was when he 
 consented to postpone some prosecutions of them in Ireland, 
 in order that they might remain a few days in the House of 
 Commons to take part in some important Irish debate. 
 
 Not the least reprehensible part of this miserable policy 
 was the treatment of the persons sent to jail, imder the new 
 Coercion Act. With the rarest exceptions, they were all 
 
METHODS OF COERCION, 1887-9 847 
 
 treated as common criminals, and were subjected to all the 
 harshness and indignities which are properly meted out to 
 persons of the really criminal class. To many of them there 
 was added the infliction of hard labour. Of the twenty-two 
 Members of Parliament, sentenced to imprisonment, only 
 three were treated as first-class misdemeanants. The others 
 were subjected to the plank-bed, the prison dress, the cutting 
 of their hair, the exercise with criminals of the baser kind, and 
 the performance of menial jail tasks of indignity. It has been 
 shown that many of them resisted these indignities, and 
 submitted only to violence and constraint by the warders. 
 Frequent discussions took place on the subject in the House 
 of Commons. Mr. Balfour most positively refused to admit 
 any distinction between pohtical prisoners and others — a. 
 distinction recognized in every other civilized country. 
 Speaking on the subject in the House of Commons on August 
 8th, i888, he said : 
 
 " I state in the most positive manner, on my responsibihty 
 as a Minister of the Crown, that the one regulation which I 
 have laid down, and which I insist upon being carried out, is 
 this : that every person in prison shall be treated exactly 
 alike, without any distinction as to whether he is a pohtical 
 prisoner or not. A pohtical prisoner, according to my orders, 
 is not to be treated any better or any worse than any other 
 prisoner ; and he has not been treated any better or worse, 
 so far as I have any control. . . . Never will I consent to draw 
 a distinction between one class of offender against the law 
 and another." 
 
 He took every opportimity of throwing contempt and 
 ridicule on Mr. W. O'Brien for resisting these indignities in jail, 
 by compeUing the prison warders to deprive him forcibly of 
 bis clothes, and then lying naked, or nearly so, in his cell, 
 rather than put on the prison dress. " I take," he said, 
 "little interest in these histrionic performances. I took a 
 small interest in the first representation. I take even less 
 interest in them on the second representation." 
 
 Mr. Balfour Wcis backed up by the Prime Minister in these 
 sneers. Speaking at Edinburgh on December ist, i888. Lord 
 Salisbury said : ** I know not where this strange, maudlin, 
 effeminate doctrine as to the treatment of pohtical prisoners 
 "as come from. ... So long as pohtical prisoners are danger- 
 
848 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 ous to the community, or to the State, as long as they tend to 
 propagate blunders, and other men are likely to imitate them 
 so long must they be treated just as all other offenders are 
 treated, with a view to the deterrent effect of the punishment. 
 ... Of course there may be some instances in which men 
 act from a pure and imdiluted patriotism. But there are also 
 some instances in which they act for the sake of getting a 
 maintenance which they could not get in any other way. 
 And there are many more instances in which they act from a 
 bastard sort of ambition — a diseased love of notoriety. At 
 all events, to my mind, in many cases the motives which 
 influence ordinary criminals are nobler than the motives which 
 influence the political offenders, on whom so much sympathy 
 is lavished." 
 
 This treatment of Irish Members made a most unfavourable 
 impression on pubUc opinion in England. They told their 
 experiences at pubhc meetings. I often heard them speak on 
 such occasions. They deeply interested their audiences, and 
 were heartily welcomed. They did much to change the current 
 opinion in Enghsh constituencies in favour of Home Rule. 
 The Government was advised that the treatment of these, 
 and other men in Irish jails, had become odious to the people 
 of England, and that it was necessary to change the system. 
 Mr. Balfour had frequently maintained in his speeches that he 
 had no power to direct how persons in jail should be treated. 
 He now discovered that the Irish Prisons Board could insist 
 upon what new regulations he desired. At his suggestion 
 orders were issued by the Board to the prison authorities to 
 dispense with some of the requirements of the prison rules, in 
 cases where it seemed to them to be unnecessary to insist 
 upon them, in the interest of health and cleanhness. They 
 were also given full discretion with respect to the treatment 
 of prisoners, but nothing was said as to how the discretion 
 was to be exercised. 
 
 The rules appeared to be framed so as to effect the main 
 object of avoiding the scandal of Irish Members being com- 
 pelled by force to wear the prison dress, and to exercise 
 with criminals, and at the same time to preserve for Mr- 
 Balfour the semblance of consistency and persistency. This 
 was effected by appl5dng the new treatment not merely to 
 political prisoners — for Mr. Balfour would not recognize such 
 
METHODS OF COERCION, 1887-9 849 
 
 a distinction — ^but to all prisoners who belonged to the better 
 class of society, to whom the ordinary treatment in prison 
 would be distasteful— a distinction never hitherto made in 
 prison rules, and one to which there are many grave objections. 
 This treatment of men convicted imder the Crimes Act was 
 in harmony with the whole policy adopted to those engaged 
 in the agrarian movement. It was desired to afl&x on them 
 the stigma of crime, and to present them in that aspect to the 
 people of Ireland, and also of England, and thus to ruin the 
 cause of Home Rule. It had exactly the opposite effect. 
 Those who were in prison became martyrs in the opinion of 
 Irishmen. No passport to pubhc credit and honour was so 
 certain as that of having been imprisoned by Mr. Balfour. 
 The Members of Parhament who suffered in this way were 
 secure of re-election for the remainder of their hves. And no 
 recommendation was stronger for a new candidate for election 
 than having been in jail under the Coercion Act. Those who 
 suffered came out of prison boasting that they would commit 
 again the acts for which they had been convicted. 
 
 The whole pohcy of coercion as administered under this 
 Coercion Act was as futile as it was unconstitutional, irritating, 
 and vindictive. Its main object was to put down combinations 
 by punishing those concerned in them. It was useless for 
 this purpose. It brought the law into contempt. It showed 
 that the Government was ranged on the side of the rich, as 
 agamst the poor, of the landlords against the tenants. The 
 immediate victims of it were the 1900 evicted men, who for 
 years remained out of their holdings. Nothing in Irish history 
 has been more remarkable than the tenacity with which the 
 Irish people insisted on the restoration of these evicted men to 
 their houses, and the absolute certainty with which these 
 men looked forward to it. It will be shown later that they 
 had good reason for this. 
 
 A review of the proceedings, under the Crimes Act of 1887, 
 shows that the main provisions which led to the results above 
 described, and which so outraged pubhc opinion in Ireland, 
 ^ere those dispensing with trial by jmy, and enabling the 
 Government to relegate cases, which otherwise must have been 
 decided by juries, to resident magistrates, who were virtually 
 their subordinate officials. The cases which occurred are illus- 
 trations of the enormous importance of the system of trial 
 
850 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 by jury, not only in preventing the abuse of the law by arbitrary 
 and dependent officials, but by virtually compelling amend- 
 ment of the law when juries persistently refuse to convict. 
 
 People in England have so long been accustomed to the 
 safeguard of juries, that they have almost forgotten the abuses 
 which occurred, when the Executive Government or the 
 Judges could dispense with them. But high constitutional 
 authorities have maintained the extreme importance of the 
 system in its bearing on self-government, and the contentment 
 of the community. In his work on the Constitution, Lord 
 John Russell (later Earl Russell) wrote as follows : 
 
 " The verdicts of juries have operated to check the execu- 
 tion of cruel and oppressive laws, and in the end to repeal or 
 modify the laws themselves. Juries are not only the real 
 judges in England, but they possess a power no judge would 
 venture to exercise, that of refusing to put the law in force. 
 . . . Exercised as it has been with temper and moderation, 
 the discretion of juries has proved to be extremely salutary. 
 It has been the cause of amending many bad laws, which 
 judges would have administered with exact severity, and 
 defended with professional bigotry ; and above aU it has this 
 important and useful consequence, that laws totally repugnant 
 to the feehngs of the community, for which they are made, can- 
 not long prevail in England. . . . It is to trial by jury, more 
 than to representation, that the people owe the share they 
 have in the government of the country ; it is to trial by jury 
 also that the Government owes the attachment of the people 
 to the law, a consideration which ought to make our legislature 
 very cautious how they take away this mode of trial by jury 
 by new and vexatious enactments." ^ 
 
 In Ireland, under successive Coercion Acts, since the Act 
 of Union, the system of trial by jury has seldom been in 
 full force. Sometimes it has been superseded, as in Mr. 
 Forster's Act of 1881, by arbitrary powers given to the Execu- 
 tive Government to imprison any persons whom they suspect 
 or distrust ; at other times, as by Mr. Balfour's Act of 1887. 
 power to convict and imprison has been given to inferior 
 judges without the safeguard of juries. The result has been 
 much the same in both cases. PubUc opinion in Ireland has 
 
 ^ English Government and Constitution, pp. 392-4. 
 
METHODS OF COERCION, 1887-9 351 
 
 been flouted and set aside. If Ireland had enjoyed self- 
 government, as regards its own separate affairs, it is certain 
 that the refusal of juries to give verdicts would have com- 
 pelled the attention of its Government and its legislature 
 to grievances, and would have led to reforms, at least a 
 generation earher than they were effected by the Imperial 
 Legislature. 
 
CHAPTER XXXIV 
 
 THE PARNELL COMMISSION 
 
 IT has already been shown that on the morning of the 
 second reading of the Coercion Bill of 1887, The Tims, 
 apparently by arrangement with the Government, or, 
 at all events, for their benefit, pubUshed the facsimile letter 
 purporting to be signed by Pamell, and implying complicity 
 in the Phoenix Park mm"ders. It was set out in one of a long 
 series of articles, entitled " Pamellism and Crime," extending 
 over many months of 1887-8, in which the effort was made to 
 hold the Irish Party responsible for all the agrarian outrages 
 and crimes which had taken place in the past eight years. 
 These letters had not, so far, produced much effect on public 
 opinion in England. They were regarded as a belated ampli- 
 fication of Mr. Forster's attack at the beginning of 1883. The 
 issue, however, of the facsimile letter gained for them a credence 
 which they would not otherwise have attained, the more so 
 as Pamell, acting under advice above referred to, abstained 
 from bringing an action for libel against The Times. 
 
 In November, 1887, however, Mr. O'Donnell, who had long 
 before separated himself completely from the Nationalist Party, 
 and who was incidentally, but not prominently, named in 
 some of the letters of The Times, beheving himself aggrieved, 
 brought an action for hbel against Mr. Walter, the owner of the 
 paper. The case came before Chief Justice Coleridge and a 
 London jury in July, 1888. The Times pleaded that the 
 plaintiff was not aimed at in the articles, and further that the 
 charges contained in them were true. Mr. O'Donnell's counsel, 
 most unwisely, as the result proved, contented himself, on 
 opening the case, with putting in the articles complained oi- 
 He did not call his client as a witness. He reserved ^^ 
 O'Donnell's evidence till The Times should present its proois 
 
 352 
 
THE PARNELL COMMISSION 
 
 853 
 
 on the plea of justification. The counsel for The Times, Sir 
 Richard Webster, the Attorney-General, in his reply made a 
 speech of enormous length. He undertook to prove all that 
 had been said in The Times articles on " Pamellism and 
 Crime," including the authenticity of the facsimile letter. He 
 produced and read in court a batch of other letters, purporting 
 to be written by Parnell, pointing even more clearly to com- 
 plicity in the Phoenix Park murders. He promised to prove 
 the genuineness of these letters, but said that nothing would 
 induce him to say how they had come into the possession of 
 The Times. Having spent three days on these charges, he 
 admitted that it would not be fair or just to PameU, and his 
 associates, to call witnesses in proof of the case, which he 
 had thus presented, when there was no one in opposition to 
 meet or dispute the facts, except the plaintiff, Mr. O'Donnell, 
 against whom The Times did not allege complicity in these 
 acts. He claimed that as Mr. O'Donnell had not been called 
 as a witness, there was practically no evidence of any libel 
 against The Times. The presiding Judge took this view of the 
 case, and at once directed the jury that they would be justified 
 in giving a verdict for The Times. This was done, and Mr. 
 O'Donnell found himself completely discomfited, without having 
 had the opportunity of meeting the charges of The Times. It 
 was matter of general comment that it was somewhat beyond 
 the privilege of counsel to make such definite and damning 
 charges against a man, who was not a party to the suit, when 
 it was not intended to call witnesses in proof of them. It 
 seemed that they were not made in the interest of The Tim^s, 
 in the actual case before the jury, but as affording an oppor- 
 tunity of emphasizing the charges of the paper against Parnell 
 and the Irish Party. They had, at aU events, this effect, and 
 the charges of The Times appeared to have the warranty 
 of the Government, through their Attorney-General. They 
 consequently produced a profound impression on the pubhc. 
 
 Parnell, since the issue of the facsimile letter in The Times, 
 bad satisfied himself that it had been forged by a worthless 
 and impecunious hack journalist, named Richard Pigott, 
 formerly editor of a Nationalist paper, who was known to be 
 ready for any blackmailing enterprise. Parnell was most 
 anxious to bring an action for libel against The Times, but was 
 ^suaded from this course by Mr. Morley. He then decided 
 23 
 
304 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 to bring the case before the House of Commons. He did so, in 
 a speech, in which he most emphatically denied that any of 
 the letters, quoted by the Attorney-General, had been written 
 by himself. He pronounced them to be forgeries. He asked 
 the House to appoint a Committee to inquire into the genuine- 
 ness of them. He was willing that the Committee should con- 
 sist only of Enghsh Members. 
 
 Mr. W. H. Smith, on behalf of the Government, refused to 
 agree to a Committee, but offered to appoint a Special Com- 
 mission of Judges to inquire into the charges made by The 
 Times against PameU and the other Irish Members. Mr. 
 Pamell, he said, might either take or reject this offer. The 
 Irish Leader, not seeing the trap that was being laid for his 
 party, was willing to agree to the course, rather than have no 
 inquiry at all. When the Bill for this purpose was laid before 
 the House, it appeared that the scope of the inquiry proposed 
 was infinitely wider than had been suggested. It was framed so 
 as to include not only the charges against the Irish Members, but 
 against any other persons referred to in the articles on " Pamell- 
 ism and Crime." It opened out an enormous and unprece- 
 dented inquiry, covering the whole field of the agitation of the 
 past ten years. It meant the trial by English Judges of the 
 agrarian movement in Ireland. PameU himself, rather than 
 that there should be no inquiry at all, and confident that he 
 could prove the origin of the forged letters, was not disposed to 
 oppose the Bill on the second reading. The Liberal leaders 
 were divided in opinion about it. Mr. Gladstone himself 
 feared the effect of objecting to inquiry. The Bill, therefore, 
 was read a second time without a division. 
 
 At the Committee stage, the gravity of the constitutional 
 objections to such an inquiry was more fully perceived, and 
 the clauses were strongly opposed. It now appeared that the 
 Government were determined to force the Bill upon the Irish 
 Party, and no longer gave them the option to take or reject it. 
 The BiU was passed, through this and further stages, by the 
 most trenchant use of the guillotine. It passed the House of 
 Lords, in spite of a most powerful and dignified protest by 
 Lord Herschell, in one of the ablest speeches ever delivered in 
 that House, protesting against the danger of setting up a 
 special tribunal to try the Irish Members and others engaged 
 in the agrarian movement. Three Judges were appointed to 
 
THE PARNELL COMMISSION 855 
 
 hold the inquiry; they were men of well-known political 
 views adverse to the Irish cause. The President was Sir James 
 Hannen, a Judge of the highest reputation for impartiahty. 
 But Judges, however eminent and impartial, do not divest 
 themselves of their instincts, and no one in his senses, sym- 
 pathizing with the Irish cause, would have dreamt of sub- 
 mitting such a case to these three Judges. 
 
 The question submitted to them was the truth or falsehood 
 of the charges made against the Irish Party, and all other 
 persons in The Times articles, including the genuineness of the 
 letters attributed to Pamell. This last was the only question 
 which interested the pubUc. It was the hinge of the whole 
 proceeding, without which there would have been no inquiry. 
 If these letters were genuine they threw a lurid hght upon the 
 whole cause of the Nationalist Party, which would be damned 
 irretrievably in the opinion of the pubUc. It was, above all, 
 necessary that their authenticity should be cleared up at the 
 earliest day. Immense hardship, therefore, was inflicted on 
 Pamell, by deferring this issue, and allowing him to remain 
 for months imder the foul suspicion of being the writer of the 
 letters, while efforts were being made to prejudice the mind of 
 the pubUc by taking evidence of the agrarian agitation of the 
 past ten years. Yet this was allowed by the Judges. The 
 Attorney-General again appeared for The Times. The pro- 
 ceedings had all the appearance, and, indeed, the substance, of 
 a prosecution by the Government. Their aid was given in every 
 possible way, by the ransacking of pubhc departments in Ireland, 
 and by the collection of witnesses, including not a few from the 
 jails. Evidence was given of iimumerable outrages committed 
 in Ireland in the ten years. Hundreds of speeches, including 
 those by every kind of irresponsible persons, were read and com- 
 inented on. After long months spent by the Commission in 
 this way the incriminating letters were at last reached. It 
 then turned out that they had been sold by Richard Pigott to 
 Mr- Houston, the Secretary of the Royal Patriotic Union of 
 "eland, and the writer of " PameUism and Crime." No 
 explanation had been given, or even asked for, by The Times 
 ^ to the provenance of these letters. The manager of the 
 P^Per was satisfied by a bare comparison of the handwriting 
 p the letters with other well-authenticated letters. The 
 otters, he said, were what might be expected of Pamell. 
 
356 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 This was sufficient for the too credulous manager of The Times 
 Mr. Macdonald, and for the owner of the paper, Mr. Walter' 
 who, against the advice, it was said, of the able editor, were 
 induced to make use of these letters for the purpose of ruining 
 the character and position of the Irish Leader, and destroy- 
 ing the cause which he led. It is to be feared that Mr. Walter 
 who honestly believed in the genuineness of the letters 
 suffered most grievously for this one grave error of his eminent 
 and honourable career.^ 
 
 The Attorney-General called witnesses to testify their 
 belief that the letters were written by Pamell. First among 
 them was Captain O'Shea. He then proposed to call expert 
 evidence as to the handwriting. The Judges at last insisted 
 on Richard Pigott being called. The cross-examination of 
 this miserable man by Sir Charles Russell, who appeared for 
 the Irish Members, was sensational to the highest degree. 
 The bad spelling of the letters, illustrated by the witness in 
 the witness-box, when called upon to write down identical 
 words, was alone sufficient to expose him. He was compelled 
 to admit that he had offered these letters to others by way 
 of blackmail. 
 
 More revelations were expected at the next meeting, when 
 the cross-examination was to be resumed, but the witness 
 could stand it no more. He fled the country in the interval. 
 He was followed by detectives to Madrid, where he blew his 
 brains out with a pistol to avoid arrest. He left behind in 
 London, in the hands of Mr. Labouchere, a full confession, 
 to the effect that he had himself forged all the incriminating 
 letters. It was expected and hoped that Sir Richard Webster, 
 on behalf of The Times, after this terrible expose and the 
 breakdown of the main case, would, in generous terms, 
 acknowledge the unparalleled wrong that had been done to 
 Pamell, and express some regret for the cruel suffering inflicted 
 on him by the long suspense. To the surprise of every one the 
 retractation of the charge was made in guarded and frigid 
 words : " After the evidence which has been given we are 
 not entitled to say that the letters are genuine." Without 
 a single generous expression of regret ! 
 
 1 The costs of the Irish Party in defending themselves before the C^ 
 mission amounted to ;^42,ooo. The costs of The Times must have D*^ 
 many fold greater. 
 
THE PARNELL COMMISSION 357 
 
 After the exposure of the forgery, the pubhc interest in the 
 Commission ceased, but the inquiry continued for seventy 
 more days. Sir Charles Russell made a splendid defence for 
 the Irish Party, in a speech occupying seven days, a noble 
 vindication of his countrymen by a true patriot. Sir Henry 
 James wound up for The Times in an able speech of twelve 
 days in length, in which everything that could be urged against 
 the Nationahst Party was put forward. Mr. Biggar, not 
 interested in protracting the inquiry by obstruction, defended 
 himself in a speech of twenty minutes, and ended by saying 
 that his friend Mr. Davitt would follow him with a few words. 
 The few words were extended over five days in a most powerful 
 and closely reasoned speech, scarcely less effective than those 
 of the lawyers engaged in the case. 
 
 The public meetings of the Commission came to end at last, 
 and after some more months, the Commission issued its report 
 in January, 1890. On the all-important new charges put 
 forward by The Times the report was an acquittal. They were 
 pronounced to be either untrue, or without foundation, or 
 unproven. The letters were declared to be forgeries, but with- 
 out reprobation of the use which had been made of them. They 
 were dealt with in a short paragraph, referring to the evidence 
 printed in the voluminous appendix, as though of httle 
 importance. The allegations that Pamell was intimate with 
 the Invincibles, that he communicated with them, when 
 released from Kilmainham on his parole, that he recognized 
 the Phoenix Park murders as their handiwork, and that he had 
 by a timely remittance enabled one of the murderers to 
 escape, were pronounced to be without foundation. On the 
 other hand, it was reported that the respondents had incited 
 to intimidation, which was followed by crime ; that while 
 they had denounced crime and outrage they had not denounced 
 the system which led to crime and outrage, but persisted in it 
 ^th the knowledge of its effect ; that they had entered into a 
 conspiracy by a system of coercion and intimidation against 
 the payment of rents for the purpose of expelling the land- 
 lords; and that eight of the sixty-five respondents, not in- 
 cluding Pamell, had formed the Land League Association with 
 the intention to bring about the independence of Ireland. 
 
 The report was accepted by the pubhc generally as an 
 Acquittal on all the main points. The others did not interest 
 
358 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 them. They were stale. They were no more than Mr. Forster 
 had insisted upon in 1883. They had been condoned in 
 1885, when the Tory leaders were in alliance with the 
 Irish Party, and negotiated with Parnell through Lord Car- 
 narvon. The day came at last (March 8th, 1890) when the 
 report was considered by the House of Commons. Mr. W. H. 
 Smith, on the part of the Government, moved a vote of 
 thanks to the Judges for their impartial report. In conven- 
 tional words, he grudgingly expressed satisfaction that the 
 personal charges against Parnell and the Irish Members were 
 disproved. He insisted that the other charges which were 
 proved were of a wide and serious character. He disclaimed 
 the intention to punish these men. Not a generous word of 
 sympathy for Parnell fell from his lips. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone sprang to his feet in reply, and supplied 
 everything that was wanting in Mr. Smith's address, and a 
 good deal more. He moved as an amendment " that the House 
 of Commons deemed it its duty to record its reprobation of the 
 false charges of the gravest and most odious description, 
 based on calumny and forgery, that had been brought against 
 Members of the House ; and while declaring its satisfaction 
 at the exposure of these calumnies, expressed its regret at 
 the wrong inflicted, and the suffering and loss induced, through 
 a protracted period, by reason of these charges of flagrant 
 iniquity." He spoke on this for an hour and three-quarters. 
 I never heard him to greater advantage. It was a marvellous 
 performance of sustained energy for a man of eighty-one years. 
 Indeed, I would single out the speech as a better illustration 
 than any other I recollect of the varied oratorical powers of 
 the veteran statesman ; his debating skill, his scornful re- 
 partees, his close reasoning, his glowing passion, his- fervid 
 appeal to the generous instincts of Members. He tore the 
 report to pieces. He showed how incomplete, one-sided, and 
 unfair it was ; how belated it was to inquire into matters 
 which had occurred eight and ten years ago, which had since 
 been condoned by the Tory leaders, in 1885 ; how the report 
 shut out all references to the main causes of the increase 01 
 crime, the grave agricultural distress of 1879-80, the pre- 
 valence of excessive rents, and the wholesale evictions. He 
 showed how false was the contention that the rejection of the 
 Compensation for Disturbance Bill by the House of Lords, m 
 
THE PARNELL COMMISSION 359 
 
 1880, had nothing to do with the increase of crime ; and that 
 the Land Act of 1881 had not been the cause of the reduction 
 of crime. He vindicated, as a whole, the agitation which had 
 brought about such beneficial legislation. " As the man," he 
 said, " responsible more than any other, for the Act of 1881 — 
 as the man whose duty it was to consider that question day 
 and night, during the whole of that Session — I must record 
 my firm opinion that it would not have become the law of the 
 land if it had not been for the agitation with which Irish 
 society was convulsed." ^ 
 
 This powerful appeal did not affect the vote of the House, 
 which was on purely party hnes. The effect, however, of 
 such a demonstration is not to be measured by the division 
 list. It was supported at a later stage by a passionate denun- 
 ciation by Lord Randolph Churchill of the appointment of the 
 Commission, and its method of procedure — the last speech I 
 can recollect dehvered with his full force and fire, before 
 disease, creeping upon him, incapacitated him, without his 
 being conscious of failure. 
 
 The two speeches together destroyed what vitahty there 
 was in the report, other than its acquittal of Pamell of the 
 odious charge of comphcity in the Phoenix Park murders. 
 It recoiled, in fact, on those who devised the scheme of destroy- 
 ing their opponents in Ireland, by methods so tortuous and 
 glaringly unfair. Pamell, as a result of it, reached the zenith 
 of his influence in Ireland and of his reputation in England. 
 The cause of Home Rule gained immensely. If a General 
 Election had taken place, in the summer of 1890, there can be 
 little doubt that the majority in England for Home Rule 
 would have been sufficient to carry the pohcy to success. 
 
 * Hansard, March 8th, 1890. 
 
CHAPTER XXXV 
 
 THE FALL OF PARNELL 
 
 AT the close of 1890 a thunderclap burst on the Irish 
 / \ Party. On November 15th, the suit of Captain 
 JL \^ O'Shea against his wife and Pamell, as co-respondent, 
 was heard in the Divorce Court, and was decided in his favour. 
 Mrs. O'Shea had originally made counter-charges against her 
 husband, and had also pleaded connivance and condonation ; 
 and Parnell had assured his friends and followers that he 
 would triumphantly refute every accusation. But at the last 
 moment the pleas in defence were withdrawn. As, however, 
 they had charged O'Shea with acts arraigning his honour, the 
 case was not dealt with briefly, in the usual manner of un- 
 defended suits. Evidence was gone into at length, purporting 
 to show that Parnell, for many years past, had acted in a 
 manner which produced a most unfavourable impression on 
 the public. 
 
 Mr. O'DonneU, who was the personal friend of Captain 
 O'Shea, has given an explanation of the withdrawal of the 
 defence. 
 
 " Mrs. O'Shea," he says, " could not contemplate the 
 possibility of continuing to bear her husband's name after her 
 husband had dragged her into Court, and overwhelmed her 
 reputation with charges which nothing could efface. Do you 
 want me to be that man's wife till death ? was her question 
 to Parnell, which left him no alternative but to bow to her 
 decision. "1 He significantly adds : " Captain O'Shea bitterly 
 hoped that Gladstone's Parliamentary majority would suffer 
 like Parnell's uncrowned kingship by the event of the Divorce 
 Court." O'Shea was a Roman Cathohc, by whose Church 
 divorce and remarriage were forbidden. The relations of the 
 
 ^ History of the Parliamentary Party, II, 290. 
 360 
 
THE FALL OF PARNELL 361 
 
 parties concerned had been well known to Pamell's supporters 
 for some years past. It was assumed that the husband was 
 a consenting party. In 1886, Pamell had foisted O'Shea as a 
 candidate on the NationaHst electors of the City of Galway, 
 at a by-election, in spite of the strongest objections on their 
 part. Biggar, Healy, and others made speeches there, com- 
 menting in the plainest language on the relations of Pamell 
 and Mrs. O'Shea. 
 
 Pamell was able, by a personal visit to Galway, and by 
 threatening resignation of his leadership, to quell the revolt 
 against his authority, and to insist on the withdrawal of oppo- 
 sition to his nominee. The speeches referred to were kept out 
 of the papers, and no notice was taken of them by Pamell. 
 O'Shea justified the suspicions of the electors of Galway, that 
 he was not to be relied on, by voting in the same year against 
 the Home Rule Bill. He then resigned his seat, and disappeared 
 from politics. This was four years before he took action in 
 the Divorce Court. In the meantime, he had given evidence 
 before the Special Commission that the letters forged by 
 Pigott were written by PameU. It might seem, therefore, 
 that O'Shea was more intent on discrediting and destroying 
 Pamell, as his late political leader, than as the old and very 
 intimate friend of his wife. Though the main fact of the case 
 is not disputed, the evidence given in the divorce proceedings 
 cannot be accepted as conclusive in relation to Pamell's 
 conduct. 
 
 Pamell, from the first, determined to face the position, and 
 had no intention whatever of making any concession to public 
 opinion. He may have had in his mind cases, in the not remote 
 past, where men in high pohtical positions had been in the 
 same position as himself, without any question of the for- 
 feiture of their claim to confidence. If so, he did not distinguish 
 ^tween pubUc and private cognizance of such cases, and he 
 ovedooked the fact that the official career of one of them, 
 ^en living, had been brought to an end, by the pubhcity 
 of divorce proceedings. 
 
 It seemed at first that Irish opinion would stand by ParneU, 
 ^J^d Would be unaffected by the proceedings and imputations 
 ^ the Divorce Court. At a meeting, of the National League in 
 
 ^}in, on the day after the divorce decree, and at a more 
 public meeting at the Leinster Hall, two days later, votes of 
 
862 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 unabated confidence in him were carried unanimously, and he 
 was assured that nothing which had occurred in the divorce 
 proceedings would make the least difference in their political 
 support. In England, however, it was different. At the 
 annual meeting of the National Liberal Federation, held at 
 Sheffield on November 20th-2ist, at which Sir WilUam Har- 
 court and Mr. Morley were present, though no public notice 
 was taken of Pamell's position, it appeared that it was the 
 almost unanimous opinion of the delegates that his continuance, 
 as Leader of the Irish Party, in alliance with the Liberal Party, 
 would be absolutely fatal to the prospects of the Home Rule 
 policy, so far as Great Britain was concerned. Urgent repre- 
 sentations to this effect were made to Mr. Gladstone, who came 
 to the conclusion that his own leadership of the Liberal Party, 
 which had been prolonged for the sole purpose of carrying 
 Home Rule, would become futile if Parnell were to continue, 
 for the time being, as Leader of the Irish Party. 
 
 There was no time to lose if a change was to be made. 
 Parliament was to meet on November 25th, and on the same 
 day Parnell would, in the ordinary course, be re-elected by 
 the Irish Members as their Sessional Leader. Mr. Gladstone 
 returned to London on the 24th, and had a consultation with 
 three members of his late Cabinet and the Chief Whip of the 
 Party, at which the terms of a letter, to be shown by Mr. 
 Morley to Parnell, were agreed upon. Mr. Gladstone wrote 
 that he had come to the conclusion that " notwithstanding 
 the splendid service rendered by Mr. Parnell to the country, 
 his continuance at the present moment in the leadership (of 
 the Irish Party) would be productive of consequences disas- 
 trous in the highest degree to the cause of Ireland." 
 
 " The continuance I speak of," he added, " would not only 
 place many hearty and effective friends of the Irish cause in a 
 position of great embarrassment, but would render my reten- 
 tion of the leadership of the Liberal Party, based as it h^ 
 been mainly upon the presentation of the Irish cause, almost 
 a nullity." 
 
 Mr. Gladstone also saw Mr. Justin McCarthy, and through 
 him sent a personal message to Mr. Parnell to the same effect. 
 It was to be regarded as confidential, and was not to be com- 
 municated to the Irish Members, if Parnell contemplates 
 spontaneous action, but if not, it was to be made known to 
 
THE FALL OF PARNELL 863 
 
 the Irish Party at their meeting on the morrow. Mr. Gladstone, 
 in sending this message, reminded Mr. McCarthy that Mr. 
 pamell had consulted him, after the Phoenix Park murders, as 
 to remaining Leader of the Irish Party. 
 
 The meeting of the Irish Members took place the next day, 
 the 25th, at 2 p.m. ; fifty-nine of them were present. Mr. 
 McCarthy was able to dehver Mr. Gladstone's message to 
 Pamell just before the meeting. Pamell curtly rephed that he 
 would stand by his guns. Mr. McCarthy, though in the Chair 
 at the meeting, did not carry out the further instructions of 
 Mr. Gladstone by informing the Irish Members of his views.* 
 They proceeded, on the motion of Mr. Sexton, to re-elect 
 PameU as their Sessional Leader, two Members only raising 
 any objection. There must be no English dictation, it was 
 said ,v we must stand by our leader. 
 
 In the meantime, Mr. Morley had made every effort to 
 deliver Mr. Gladstone's letter to Mr. Pamell, but in vain. It 
 was not tiU after the re-election by the Irish Party that he 
 was able to do so. It was then too late. Pamell was obdurate. 
 He said that the feeling against him was a storm in a tea-cup, 
 and would soon pass. Morley repHed that it was much more 
 than that — that if he set British opinion at defiance, and 
 brazened it out, it would be ruin to Home Rule at the coming 
 election. He suggested to Pamell that if he withdrew from 
 the actual leadership now, as a concession to pubUc opinion 
 in this country, this need not prevent him from again taking the 
 position when new circumstances might demand his presence ; 
 that he might treat his re-election as a pubhc vote of confidence 
 by his party ; that having secured this he would suffer no loss 
 of dignity or authority by a longer or shorter period of retire- 
 ment. ^ Pamell rejected this wise advice, given in a most 
 conciliatory and tactful manner. In reply to a suggestion of 
 ^r. Morley that the letter might be published, PameU said, 
 " I think Mr. Gladstone will be quite right to do so. It will 
 set him right with his party." 
 
 Sir. Morley immediately informed Mr. Gladstone of the 
 failure of his mission, and of the re-election of Pamell as 
 
 Lord Morley says of this, " The gravity of the fact that Mr. McCarthy 
 ailed to deliver the message lay in this, that it magnified and distorted 
 ""^.^Gladstone's letter into a humiliating public ultimatum." 
 
 Life of Gladstone, III, 440. 
 
364 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 leader. Mr. Gladstone thereupon decided to publish his letter 
 to Morley, and directed that it should be sent to the Press at 
 once. I thought myself, at the time, that the publication of the 
 letter to Morley at that stage was needlessly hasty, and that 
 it might have the appearance of dictation to the Irish Party. 
 It would have had far more serious effect, if it had not been 
 for the subsequent action of Pamell. He drew up and issued 
 a manifesto to the Irish people, in which he was not content 
 with protesting against Mr. Gladstone's dictation to the Irish 
 Party. He endeavoured to shift and widen the issue. Refer- 
 ring to a visit which he had paid to Hawarden, in December, 
 1889, he charged Mr. Gladstone with the intention to play false 
 to the cause of Home Rule, in a variety of ways which he 
 specified. He also charged Mr. Morley with the same intention. 
 Both these statesmen repUed in the Press, denying absolutely 
 the versions given of their conversations. If anything more 
 was needed to disprove these charges than these personal 
 contradictions, it was to be found in the fact that, on the day 
 after leaving Hawarden, Pamell spoke at a pubhc meeting at 
 Liverpool, on December 19th, 1889, and called on his country- 
 men to rejoice : " for we are on the safe path to our legitimate 
 freedom and our future prosperity," words absolutely incon- 
 sistent with his new version of betrayal of the Irish cause by 
 Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Morley. Before issuing his manifesto, 
 Parnell showed it to Mr. McCarthy, who said, " I object to 
 every word in it. It is all objectionable." It went forth, 
 however, without change. The charges against Mr. Gladstone 
 and Mr. Morley in this manifesto appear to have determined 
 Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien, then on a mission to the United 
 States, to declare themselves against Pamell's leadership. 
 
 There resulted from these untoward events a serious breach 
 in the Irish Party. About two-thirds of them favoured the 
 temporary retirement of Pamell from the leadership. They 
 included the most influential men of the party — McCarthy, 
 Dillon, O'Brien, Sexton, Healy, and others — while the two 
 Redmonds, T. Harrington, O'Kelly, Nolan, and others stood 
 by Parnell. After eight days of discussion in a Committee 
 Room of the House of Commons, under the presidency 0' 
 PameU, the party split into two. The larger party elected 
 McCarthy as their leader. " No service," said Sexton to 
 Parnell, in the course of the discussion, " rendered by a^y 
 
THE FALL OF PARNELL 865 
 
 leader to any cause entitled him to effect its niin." The 
 smaller section continued to follow Pamell. Meanwhile, on 
 pecember 8th, the Catholic Bishops of Ireland, at the instance 
 of the papal authorities a,t Rome, issued a manifesto declaring 
 that Parnell " having been convicted of the gravest offences 
 known to rehgion and society was unworthy of Christian 
 confidence." 
 
 In June, 1891, six months after the decree of the Divorce 
 Court, Pamell married Mrs. O'Shea. This did not avail to 
 rectify his position with Cathohcs, by whom the marriage of 
 divorced persons is regarded as a sin. The Cathohc Bishops 
 issued another manifesto against him, and The Freeman's 
 Journal, which up to that time had favoured the PameUite 
 Party, took this opportunity of going over to the other side. 
 It brought all its great influence to bear against Pamell. 
 The contest was now transferred from the Committee Room 
 of the House of Commons to Ireland. Three by-elections 
 took place in the course of the next few months : at Kilkenny, 
 in December, 1890 ; North Sligo, in April, 1891 ; and Carlow, 
 in July, 1891. At all three PameU put forward candidates 
 against those of the main body of Nationalists. They were 
 defeated by very large majorities. The Cathohc Priests of 
 these districts made immense efforts to bring up voters to the 
 poll. Though Pamell continued to hold his own at pubUc 
 meetings, especially in the larger towns, the verdict of the 
 electors of Ireland was unmistakably against him, and in 
 favour of maintaining the alliance of the Irish Party with 
 Mr. Gladstone and the Liberals of Great Britain. This was 
 confirmed at the General Election of 1892, when only nine 
 Parnellites were elected, as compared with seventy-five of the 
 main party. 
 
 In the ten months which followed his deposition from the 
 leadership of the main Irish Party, Pamell made the most 
 desperate efforts to maintain his cause in Ireland by speeches 
 at the by-elections, and in every part of the country. His 
 home was in England, but he crossed the Channel to Irelemd 
 ^very Saturday, and spoke at great meetings on the Sundays 
 and Mondays. It was distressing to read his speeches during 
 this period, when he was at bay before the growing opinion in 
 Ireland against him. They became reckless and personal, 
 "is attacks on Mr. Gladstone and the Liberal leaders and his 
 
866 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 old associates were most bitter. They were replied to, or were 
 provoked by equally bitter speeches and taunts from the 
 opposite section of the Irish Party. He was in a miserable 
 state of health, quite unequal to the efforts he made. It is 
 perhaps fair to conclude that his mind was somewhat imhinged 
 by all that he had gone through. The strain was too much for 
 him. His constitution had been seriously undermined by 
 illness in 1886. The consciousness that the ground was sinking 
 beneath him, and that pubhc opinion in Ireland was declaring, 
 more and more, against him, must have embittered those 
 days. The closing weeks of his hfe were even more mournful 
 and hopeless than those of O 'Council and Butt. He died at 
 Brighton on October 6th, 1891, of cardiac rheumatism, at the 
 early age of forty-six. On the same day there died also Mr. 
 W. H. Smith, the Leader of the Tory Party in the House of 
 Commons, who had been so largely concerned in the appoint- 
 ment of the Special Commission, which it was expected would 
 ruin Parnell and the Irish Party. 
 
 Pamell's career in the House of Commons had extended over 
 no more than sixteen years, from 1875 to 1891. From these 
 sixteen years, two must be deducted at the beginning, when 
 he was silent and unnoticed, and four at the close when, from 
 ill-health and other causes, he was seldom at his post in the 
 House of Commons, and practically took httle part in its busi- 
 ness. His effective career, therefore, was little more than ten 
 years. That he should have achieved the position he filled in 
 the House and in Ireland, in so short a time, and have held it 
 unquestioned, during these years, was most remarkable — the 
 more so when we consider how small were his apparent equip- 
 ments for it.- Compared with his two predecessors in the 
 leadership of the Irish Party, O'Connell and Butt, he had 
 none of the qualities which might be expected to quahfy him 
 for the position. He had nothing of their sympathetic in- 
 stincts, or their emotional powers of speech. He had none 
 of their constitutional lore, or historical knowledge, or their 
 powers of constructive legislation. Unhke them, there was 
 nothing of fire, imagination, humour, or wit in his speeches. He 
 had few intimate friends. He was reserved, aloof, and even 
 frigid. He had no Celtic instincts in him. His speeches were 
 cold, hard, and unimpressionable. But he was endowed with 
 a dogged and imperturbable will. He knew what he wanted 
 
THE FALL OF PARNELL 
 
 867 
 
 to say, and could say it in the fewest, clearest, and most direct 
 v(fords. He had a rare distinction of manner which greatly 
 impressed his hearers. He had courage which never failed 
 him. Above all, he had the very rare gift of instinctive com- 
 mand over men, and the power of compelling them to follow 
 
 him- 
 Statesmen must be judged of by comparing their aims and 
 
 objects, and their ideals at the early stages of their careers 
 with their later achievements. When Pamell's speeches in the 
 House of Commons, his determination to force it to listen to 
 Irish demands, and his early speeches at Westport and other 
 places in favour of land reform and self-government for Ire- 
 land, are compared with what was achieved during his short 
 career, he must be placed on a high level. He succeeded where 
 O'Connell and Butt failed. He acquired a position for himself 
 and his party in Parliament which neither of them ever 
 attained. He was mainly concerned in effecting a revolution 
 in land tenure. He succeeded in inducing the Liberal Party 
 to adopt Home Rule as their pohcy. 
 
 His speeches in the early stage of the agrarian movement 
 were regarded in England as revolutionary, dangerous, and 
 predatory. But the revolution has been successfully accom- 
 plished, or is in course of being so. Looking back at these 
 speeches it must now be admitted that they were statesman- 
 I like, and remarkable for their prevision. It may be doubted 
 whether any such great reform of land tenure has been effected 
 in any other country with less of social disturbance, and with 
 fewer regrettable incidents. It must also be admitted that if 
 no manifestations of discontent had occurred, there would have 
 been no motive force to compel Parliament to listen to Irish 
 demands. Even then, if we admit many mistakes, and all that 
 can be urged against his action during the last year of his life, 
 We must still recognize the great and beneficent results to 
 peland of Pamell's political career. 
 
 The effect of the schism in the Irish Party, which was not 
 
 Ihealed even by the death of Pamell, was most serious to the 
 
 Rational cause. Among other things it dried up the sources 
 
 ^f revenue in the United States, for dissension spread there 
 
 equally as in Ireland. Funds largely- failed for the support of 
 
 Re evicted tenants. A panic occurred on those few of the 
 
 ^n of Campaign estates, such as that of Lord Clanricarde, 
 
868 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 where any substantial number of tenants still remained in 
 possession of their farms and houses ; members of combina- 
 tions pledged to stand by those already evicted, and not to 
 come to terms except on the basis of their reinstatement 
 They gave up the combinations, accepted the terms offered 
 them of greatly reduced rents, and abandoned the evicted 
 men. This was notably the case in the Tipperary combination 
 where the town tenants of Mr. Smith Barry had combined to 
 refuse payment of rent, not on their own account, for it was 
 admitted they had no personal complaint, but out of sympathy 
 for the tenants of the Ponsonby estate, where Mr. Smith Barry 
 was backing up the owner in resisting the legitimate claims 
 of the tenants for reduction of rents, and was carrying out 
 wholesale evictions. The Tipperary combination was quixotic. 
 It proved to be a great blunder. The support of the 
 town tenants and the erection of a new Tipperary for them, 
 which was attempted, involved great expenditure, which 
 could not now be met. It tumbled to pieces. The Govern- 
 ment most unwisely prosecuted W. O'Brien and Dillon 
 and others for speeches made six months previously in con- 
 nection with this affair, and sent them to prison for varying 
 terms of four to six months. This did much to retrieve the 
 failure of the Tipperary scheme in the estimation of pubhc 
 opinion in Ireland. 
 
 The Tipperary prosecutions formed the subject of a vote of 
 censure, moved by Mr. Morley, on February i6th, 1891, in 
 which he complained of the brutality and lawlessness indulged 
 in by the subordinates of the Irish Government in consequence 
 of Mr. Balfour's habit of backing them up whether right or 
 wrong. He showed that the trial of Dillon and O'Brien was 
 the prostitution of a legal tribunal. Mr. Balfour defended the 
 proceedings, and was supported by a majority of 320 to 245- 
 I was personally no more fortunate in a motion I made, in the 
 same Session, for terminating the disputes on the Plan of Cam- 
 paign estates by enforced arbitration and the reinstatement 
 of the evicted men. Mr. Balfour opposed, on the ground that it 
 involved a recognition of the Plan of Campaign, a movement 
 which he said was clearly not spontaneous, but one promoted 
 by political revolutionists. Many years Were still to elapse 
 before justice was done to the evicted tenants on these estates. 
 
 It remains to add that the last year of Mr. Balfour's tenure 
 
THE FALL OF PARNELL 
 
 869 
 
 of office as Irish Secretary was in pleasing contrast to the 
 earlier period. In the autumn of 1890, he paid a visit to the 
 most distressed parts of the west and south of Ireland. As a 
 result of this he promoted, in the following year, a scheme of 
 light railways for these districts, which opened them out, and 
 also provided for the emplo5anent of labour. He also carried 
 a measure for creating a Congested Districts Board, with the 
 object of permanently reheving these districts by enlarging 
 inadequate holdings of land, and establishing new industries 
 —a measure which has since been greatly developed. He was 
 also able to extend the scheme of land purchase, by providing 
 for an additional loan from the State of 33 millions, and by 
 extending the period of repayment to forty-two years. These 
 measures were weU received by the Irish Members, but they 
 did nothing to relieve the political position. The enigma of 
 the Irish question was unsolved by six out of the twenty years 
 of Lord Salisbury's prescription of coercion. 
 
 24 
 
CHAPTER XXXVI 
 
 THE SECOND HOME RULE BILL 
 
 DURING the six years after the defeat of his first Home 
 Rule Bill, Mr. Gladstone, in spite of his great age 
 and increasing infirmities, devoted himself heart 
 and soul to the Irish cause. He thought of little else in politics. 
 In the House of Commons he lost no opportunity of backing 
 up the Irish Members, in attacks on the Government for 
 their methods of coercion, for breaking up public meetings in 
 Ireland by the police, and for the treatment of Irish Members 
 and others as common criminals. He did more for them than 
 Parnell himself, who was very lax in his attendance in Parlia- 
 ment, during these years. 
 
 He also advocated Home Rule at numerous public meetings. 
 I was present at some of them, and though there was neces- 
 sarily much repetition of the main arguments for the Irish 
 cause, there was always freshness of treatment. His speeches 
 were delightful to listen to. The greatest of all the meetings 
 was that at Bingley Hall, Birmingham, in the citadel of his op- 
 ponents, where, in November, 1888, he spoke to an audience of 
 over sixteen thousand. I had never heard him more effective. 
 He spoke on this occasion for an hour and fifty minutes— an 
 immense effort for a man of seventy-nine years, and especially | 
 so, in view of the possible risk of opposition at Birmingham- 
 He described the fruits of the past policy of England to| 
 Ireland as unmitigated bitterness, mischief, disparagement, 
 and dishonour. " Our opponents teach you to rely on the usel 
 of an enfeebled and superannuated weapon of coercion. ^^\ 
 teach you to rely upon Irish affection and goodwill " — and sol 
 on. The speech was an enormous success. It seemed to carryi 
 conviction to his audience. It was, however, but anotneri 
 illustration that public meetings are not to be relied on as| 
 
 370 
 
THE SECOND HOME RULE BILL 371 
 
 tests of the opinions of the electors of the district, for at the 
 subsequent General Election, Birmingham returned its seven 
 Members, in support of Chamberlain, by the accustomed 
 immense majorities. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone was undoubtedly depressed by the set-back 
 to his policy, caused by the unfortunate proceedings of the 
 divorce case^ and the subsequent split of the Irish Party. 
 But later his sanguine hopes were renewed. The by-elections 
 gradually reduced the Tory majority in the House of Commons 
 from 115 to 67. When the General Election came at last in 
 1892, Mr. Gladstone still confidently expected a majority in 
 the new Parhament of about 100. But he was over- 
 sanguine. There was a majority for the Liberals, and the 
 Irish Party combined, in the United Kingdom, of no more 
 than 40. But the majority in England against him was 
 71. This gave rise to a new and specious argument 
 against Home Rule. It was contended that such a great 
 constitutional change ought not to be effected, against the will 
 of the predominant partner in the Union, even if the three other 
 partners, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, were overwhelmingly in 
 favour of it. Some support was given later to this view by Lord 
 Rosebery, though it had not prevented his joining Mr. Glad- 
 stone's fourth administration. In view of the narrow majority 
 in the United Kingdom, it was recognized that Home Rule 
 could not be carried, without another appeal to the electors, 
 and thenceforward it was well understood that the House of 
 Lords would reject the new Bill, whatever form it might take. 
 Mr. Gladstone, however, in the course of the General Election, 
 had given his word that Parliament would not again be dis- 
 solved, at the dictation of the House of Lords, by their rejection 
 of any Bill, even that of Home Rule. 
 
 The majority against them being only 40, Lord Salis- 
 bury's Government did not think it incumbent on them to 
 resign before the meeting of Parliament. Mr. Gladstone, on 
 Ws part, nothing daunted by the insufficiency of the majority 
 ^or canying so great a change in the constitution, at once 
 entered the field again. A vote of want of confidence in the 
 Government was carried at the meeting of Parliament, in 
 August, at the instance of Mr. Asquith, by a party majority, 
 ^^ Mr. Gladstone, for the fourth time, undertook to form a 
 Government. Mr. John Morley again took the post of Irish 
 
372 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Secretary, and Lord Rosebery again became Foreign Secretary. 
 Lord Granville was no longer alive to lead in the House of 
 Lords, His place was taken by Lord Kimberley.^ 
 
 The new Parliament, having accomplished the task of 
 displacing the Tory Government, was prorogued, and met 
 again early in January, 1893, for a Session which lasted till 
 March in the following year. Mr. Gladstone, on February 
 13th, introduced his second Home Rule Bill. The main 
 change, as compared with the original Bill, was the retention 
 in the Imperial Parliament of the Irish Members, reduced, 
 however, from 103 to 80. This entailed other changes in 
 detail. Mr. Gladstone's speech on the occasion, though 
 powerful and lucid, did not compare in interest with that of 
 1886. There was little in it new in substance. The subject 
 was somewhat threadbare. His voice showed diminished 
 power. The debates on the introduction and second reading 
 were also reproductions of those of 1886, and call for no speciaJ 
 remark, save that Sir Edward Clarke replied impromptu to 
 Mr. Gladstone's speech, on introducing the Bill, in the very 
 best speech delivered against the Bill, in the course of these 
 long debates, a very remarkable performance ; and that Mr. 
 Chamberlain, on the same occasion, made the significant 
 statement that his vote against the Bill would not be a vote 
 against Home Rule, but the expression of an opinion that this 
 particular Bill did not fulfil the conditions necessary for such 
 a measure. The Bill passed the second reading by a majority 
 of forty-three. 
 
 It was in the Committee stage that the main interests of 
 the Bill were centred. The Tory leaders fought it, line by line 
 and word by word. The certainty that it would be rejected 
 by the House of Lords gave them an advantage in Committee ; 
 for it relieved them of all responsibility for improving it. 
 Their sole object was to destroy it in detail. Mr. Balfour an- 
 nounced that he would vote for any amendment, which would 
 injure the Bill in any way, and he kept his word by sup- 
 porting any change which would make it unworkable. Through 
 sixty-three nights of discussion these tactics were prolonged, 
 and the measure was finally carried by the application of the 
 guillotine, which left many of its clauses undiscussed. 
 
 1 I became a member of this Government as First Commissioner of Wor», 
 and later as President of the Local Government Board. 
 
THE SECOND HO^ RULE BILL 878 
 
 It was in this protracted contest that Mr. Gladstone was 
 conspicuous above all others. He met the attack with the 
 most extraordinary vigour. In the whole course of his career 
 there was nothing more remarkable than the way in which he 
 met all comers, and worsted them in the fray. He was, by 
 this time, under the infirmity of deafness,^ but picking up, in a 
 few words, the drift of an opponent's argument, he would draw 
 for a reply on his wealth of knowledge and past experience. 
 He revelled in these combats. He was completely master of 
 the position. No one could cope with him. His exuberant 
 spirits, his courtesy in debate, and his resoiurces of argument, 
 caused amazement to his opponents, and ever-increasing 
 pleasure to his friends. It was delightful to hsten to him, 
 night after night, while in this strain. On one point only was 
 he worsted. The Bill provided that the eighty Irish Members 
 retained in the Imperial Parhament were to be precluded from 
 voting on purely EngUsh and Scotch questions. This " in-and- 
 out " clause, as it was called, gave rise to great objections, 
 even on the Government side of the House, and Mr. Gladstone, 
 who, it would seem, still at heart favoured his original pro- 
 posal, was compelled to drop it, with the result that the Irish 
 Members were to remain in the House of Commons. This 
 opened up fresh difl&culties and objections. The dilemma was 
 a serious one, going to the root of the whole question. 
 
 The Bill finally passed a third reading by a majority of 34. 
 It was rejected by the House of Lords by a majority of 419 to 
 41- Of the minority, thirty-eight held offices in the Govern- 
 ment, or had been made Peers in recent years. It may be said 
 that the hereditary Peers, almost without exception, voted 
 against the Bill. Nothing very new was said in the debate. 
 Jhe Duke of Devonshire, who had carried the hostile motion 
 m the House of Commons against the Bill of 1886, now moved 
 the rejection of the new BiU in the House of Lords, in a speech 
 conspicuous for its fairness and fullness of treatment. Lord 
 Salisbury, in his powerful arraignment of the Bill, made much 
 
 A friend of mine, an old member of the House, just before the General 
 Section of 1892, expressed his regret to Mr. Gladstone that he was unable 
 ^^ to seek re-election, alleging his deafness as the cause of retirement. 
 /^^fness," replied the old chief. " do you call that any disqualification for 
 J^s House of Commons ? I can assure you that for the last five years I 
 ^^ hardly heard anything in the House. I pick up a word or two and 
 ^^"^ I guess all the remainder." 
 
874 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 of the point that while the majority in the House of Commons 
 was only thirty-four, thirty-eight of the Irish Members voting 
 had been condemned by the highest Judges of the land for not 
 denouncing the system of intimidation, which led to crime 
 and for persisting in it with full knowledge of its effect. 
 
 Mr. Gladstone had been ably seconded in the House of 
 Commons by Mr. Morley. It may be well here to mention 
 that Mr. Morley, in 1892, appointed a Royal Commission, 
 presided over by Mr. Justice Mathew, to inquire into the 
 question of the tenants evicted from the Plan of Campaign 
 estates. The Commission reported in favour of their com- 
 pulsory reinstatement as tenants, subject to a rent to be 
 determined by the Land Commission. A Bill founded on this 
 was introduced by Mr. Morley, in 1894, and was carried through 
 the House of Commons. He defended it on the grounds of 
 policy and expediency, as necessary for the peace of Ireland, 
 rather than on those of justice. The House of Lords con- 
 temptuously rejected the Bill. Their unwisdom and impolicy 
 of doing so was later abundantly made clear. 
 
 In 1903 Mr. Balfour's Government, as part of a great 
 scheme of land purchase for Ireland, found it expedient to 
 appease pubUc opinion in Ireland by deaUng with the evicted 
 tenants. They held out inducements to the owners not only 
 of the Campaign estates, but of others where tenants had been 
 evicted during the agrarian agitation, to reinstate the evicted 
 men, not as tenants, but as purchasers of their former hold- 
 ings. The measure, however, was a permissive, and not a com- 
 pulsory one. It did not effect a complete settlement. In 1907 
 the Liberal Government foimd it necessary to deal with the 
 question again. They introduced a measure for the compulsory 
 reinstatement of the evicted men, not as tenants, but as pur- 
 chasers of their holdings. The Land Commission was em- 
 powered to advance money for the rebuilding of houses, and 
 for stocking the farms. Where planters were in possession of 
 the farms, power was given to expropriate them. The House 
 of Lords was now wiUing to pass this compulsory measure, 
 far more extreme than that which they had rejected in i894' 
 But after a discussion, largely conducted by Peers who w^e 
 owners of Plan of Campaign estates, they inserted a claflse 
 forbidding the compulsory purchase of farms where the 
 planters were bond fide farmers. In spite of this amendment, 
 
THE SECOND HOME RULE BILL 375 
 
 the Act had the desired effect on the remaining Campaign 
 estates, save only that of Lord Clanricarde, where, by further 
 litigation, the owner succeeded in defeating the object of the 
 Act, though the planters were willing to sell. In 1908, an 
 amending Bill was carried to deal with this one remaining 
 Campaign estate. The owner continued to resist. At the time 
 I write forty-three of the two hundred evicted tenants are still 
 out in the cold. The Congested Districts Board is negotiating 
 for the purchase of part of the Clanricarde estate, and when 
 this is effected the last of the surviving evicted tenants will be 
 replaced on their holdings. The Plan of Campaign had its 
 origin on this property. It will be the last in which a settle- 
 ment will be arrived at. One way or another, every one of the 
 men evicted from these properties has been, or will be, re- 
 instated, if not on their former holdings, in others of equivalent 
 value. They have been reinstated as owners. Their annual 
 payments for interest and sinking fund average about 40 
 per cent less than the rents for which they were evicted. 
 Their houses have been rebuilt and their farms restocked at 
 the cost of the State. It would be difficult to conceive more 
 ample amends to these men for the wrong done to them by 
 eviction, and by the rejection of the Bill of 1894. It is 
 interesting to note that Mr. ICilbride, m.p., who was the leader 
 of the Plan of Campaign on Lord Lansdowne's estate at 
 Luggacurran, in Tipperary, has been reinstated in the office of 
 the agent of the estate, his own house having been sold to a 
 bond fide purchaser. 
 
 As a general result, the owners of these Campaign estates 
 have disappeared. The planters also, with rare exceptions, 
 have surrendered their farms. The evicted men have been 
 reinstated as owners. What persistency the whole case shows 
 in Irish opinion, and what tenacity of purpose on the part of 
 the evicted men ! The marvel is that such long years were 
 necessary for giving effect to this policy, and for accomplishing 
 an act of justice. 
 
 It remains to point out, as bearing on Parnell's programme 
 of Land Reform laid down in his speech at Westport in 1882, 
 that in 1893, at the instance of Mr. Morley, a Committee was 
 appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the 
 Working of the Land Act of 1881, especially as regards the 
 Healy Clause and the interpretation put upon it by the Irish 
 
376 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Judges. The Committee reported in favour of an amendment 
 much in the sense demanded by Pamell twelve years previously. 
 In 1896 Mr. Gerald Balfour carried a measure conceding in 
 great part the Irish claim. In 1903 a further extension was 
 given to the scheme of converting tenants into owners by a 
 measure proposed by Mr. George Wyndham. It reduced the 
 annual pa5niients of tenant purchasers to 3J per cent on the 
 purchase money, of which ^ per cent was for the Sinking 
 Fund. The term of repajnnent of the capital sum was extended 
 to sixty-eight years. A large bonus was given in money to 
 landowners to induce them to sell to their tenants. The 
 important feature of the scheme was its assumption that all 
 the landowners of Ireland would be ready to come to terms 
 with their tenants, and that tenancy would cease to exist and 
 a universal system of peasant proprietors would be substituted. 
 Under this and previous schemes about one-half of the Irish 
 tenant farmers have been converted into owners, or have 
 agreed with their landlords on terms for the purpose. The 
 problem, therefore, is in course of solution, and before many 
 years are gone the scheme of conversion will be completed, 
 and Pamell's proposal of 1882, which then seemed so revolu- 
 tionary, wiU be accomplished. The rents of the landowners, 
 which form the basis of land purchase, have been greatly 
 reduced under the operation of the Land Acts of 1881 and 
 1886. It may be doubted, however, whether they have been 
 reduced in a larger proportion than rents in England, under 
 voluntary arrangements, between landowners and their tenants, 
 in conformity with the great fall of prices. 
 
CHAPTER XXXVII 
 
 THE RETIREMENT OF MR. GLADSTONE 
 
 ON the rejection of the Home Rule Bill by the House 
 of Lords, Mr. Gladstone was precluded by his declara- 
 tion already quoted from dissolving Parhament, 
 and appealing to the electors. Later, however, in the same 
 Session, which was prolonged till March in the following year, 
 when the Lords had virtually rejected the Employers' Liability 
 Bill, and had seriously mangled the Parish Councils Bill, he 
 urged his colleagues in the Cabinet to take the opportunity, 
 thus afforded, of appealing to the constituencies, and raising the 
 whole question of the House of Lords. His colleagues, how- 
 ever, did not agree. This may have been one of the causes 
 which determined him to resign the post of Premier, and to 
 retu-e from political hfe. His age and growing infirmities 
 were contributory, if not main, causes. There was also his 
 grave objection to the great increase of naval expenditure, 
 insisted upon by the Board of Admiralty, and agreed to by 
 nearly all his colleagues. 
 
 I shall never forget the pathetic scene at his last Cabinet, 
 on March ist, 1894, so well described by Lord Morley, when 
 the veteran chief bid farewell to his colleagues with the parting 
 words, " God bless you all." Most affecting also was his 
 speech in the House of Commons, on the same night, on the 
 subject of the Lords' amendments to the Parish Councils Bill, 
 in which, without announcing his intention to resign, he made 
 his well-known testamentary exhortation as to the urgent 
 necessity for deahng with the House of Lords. 
 
 "A solution," he said, "will have to be found for the tre- 
 niendous and incessant conflict upon matters of high principle 
 ^nd importance between the representatives of the people 
 ^nd those who fill a nominated assembly. It is the authority 
 °^ the nation which must in the last resort decide." ^ 
 
 *■ Hansard, March ist, 1894. 
 377 
 
378 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 This speech closed Mr. Gladstone's Parliamentary career 
 He was never seen again in the House of Commons, though he 
 continued to be a Member of it till the General Election of 
 1896. He remained in fairly good health till 1897, when 
 illness came upon him, painful and distressing. He lingered 
 on till May, 1898, when at the age of eighty-eight he succumbed. 
 I saw him in 1896, just before his last illness. He was greatly 
 aged, but his memory was still wonderfully clear. In the 
 course of conversation I asked him a question on a point 
 which was then of public interest, whether a Prime Minister 
 could admit a member to his Cabinet without consulting his 
 colleagues. He replied at once : " That is a moot point. I 
 will tell you what happened to me. When I led the House of 
 Commons in 1866, the Prime Minister, Lord Russell, put 
 Goschen into the Cabinet without consulting me. I thought 
 that a very strong measure." He went on to say that a Prime 
 Minister was certainly under no obligation to take the opinion 
 of the whole Cabinet on the subject, but he ought to consult 
 two or three of its leading members, as the balance of the 
 Cabinet might be altered by a new appointment. I never 
 saw the great man again. 
 
 His absence from the House of Commons, after the spring 
 of 1894, caused a very great blank in that assembly. It was 
 no longer the same. There was a magnetism in him, which 
 had given vitality and interest to its proceedings, when he was 
 present. He was always alert. He listened with marked 
 attention to even the humblest Member who had anything to 
 say. When he ceased to be there debates flagged and became 
 dull. I can vouch for this only for the next two years, for I 
 lost my seat at Bradford, in the General Election of 1896, and 
 did not again return to the House of Commons. I had been 
 in the House, as a follower of Mr. Gladstone, for thirty-three 
 years, and had heard from the Gallery his greatest speeches 
 for ten preceding years. I witnessed, and felt myself, during 
 this long time, the influence of this greatest of all Parliamen- 
 tarians. None of the reports in Hansard give an adequate 
 impression of his speeches. They convey no idea of his resonant 
 and penetrating voice, his graceful and impressive gestures, 
 his luminous and sometimes hawklike eye, his earnestness and 
 ardour, and his ever-varying moods. His speeches, as a rule, 
 were not constructed with a view to permanent literary effect. 
 
RETIREMENT OF MR. GLADSTONE 879 
 
 Xhey were purposely diffuse. I recollect his telling me that one 
 night, when in Sir Robert Peel's Government, he sat next his 
 chief, during an important debate, and just before rising to speak 
 he turned to Peel and said, " Shall I be short and concise ? " 
 " No," was the reply ; " be long and diffuse. It is most 
 important to present your argument in many different ways, 
 so as to persuade men of different sections of the House." It 
 was a characteristic of Mr. Gladstone's speeches that they were 
 meant to persuade and convince many sections of his hearers. 
 Though diffuse, there were passages in them of concentrated 
 dignity and sometimes of pathos. They were wanting only in 
 one quality — that of " humour." He could, however, deliver 
 delightful banter. I have read many of them during the 
 last few months. It is only by recalhng the man himself that 
 one can understand the full effect of them. 
 
 It was a feature, and in some respects a defect, of Mr. Glad- 
 stone, that any Member of the House, however obscm-e, could 
 draw him in debate. He was always ready to take up a 
 challenge, and to enter the lists agsdnst any man who ventured 
 to attack him. Lord Randolph Churchill, in his early days, 
 laid traps for him, and gained experience and notoriety by 
 challenging the great chief. 
 
 No one in my recollection ever succeeded in quoting Mr. 
 Gladstone's speeches against him. I often heard this attempted. 
 He would prick up his ears. He seemed to have a perfect 
 recollection of all that he had ever said on the subject, however 
 remote. " Go on with your quotation," he would say, and the 
 luckless assailant would find, in a sentence or two further on, 
 that there was some qualification or reservation httle noticed 
 perhaps at the time. 
 
 While a supreme master of lucid exposition he was also an 
 adept in the use of subtle distinctions, and of phrases, which 
 tended to obsciure rather than to throw fight on the subject 
 under discussion. There are occasions when a Minister cannot 
 give a direct answer to an inopportune question without injury 
 to the public service. I have known Ministers, and even Prime 
 Ministers, who, unable to say either Yes or No, would resort 
 to lies. To Mr. Gladstone ^here were infinite varieties of 
 shades between Yes and No. He was able to make a reply 
 such that no one could distinguish or disentangle the facts. 
 Some people called this casuistry or sophistry. I have heard 
 
880 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 high authorities say that the art of casuistry ought not to bi 
 neglected. Call it by what name we may, the use of languagi 
 in this way is at times necessary in the House of Commons ii 
 the interest of the public, or for the purpose of perplexing ai 
 unscrupulous opponent. This faculty of subtle distinctioi 
 not unfrequently widened the area of discussion and drev 
 Mr. Gladstone into unnecessary controversies. 
 
 No leader in the House of Commons was ever more generou 
 to his opponents, or more studiously careful to avoid any 
 thing which would wound the feelings of any Member, 
 had an early illustration of this, in 1866, when the Hous( 
 of Commons was in Committee on the Reform Bill of tha 
 year. An amendment was moved by Lord DunkeUin, one 
 the Liberal " Cave," who were determined to defeat the Bill 
 It was well known that the Government would be defeated or 
 this amendment. I recollected this story about Dunkellin 
 He was in the army at the siege of Sebastopol. One night h( 
 missed his way to the trenches, and being very short-sightec 
 found himself in the lines of the enemy, and was taken prisoner 
 When the Russians learned that he was the son of a formei 
 Ambassador to their country, they sent him to St. Petersburg 
 gave him his parole, and he spent the remainder of the wintei 
 in amusing himself there. When his brother officers in th( 
 Crimea, who were undergoing the hardships of the winter in th( 
 trenches, heard of this, it was the subject of chaff among them 
 that it was not altogether by accident that Dunkellin hac 
 wandered into the lines of the enemy. 
 
 Sitting immediately behind Mr. Gladstone, on the occasior 
 referred to, I reminded him of this story, and suggested that 
 in his reply, he should say that it was not the first time in hii 
 life that Dunkellin, with a fatal short-sightedness, hac 
 wandered into the lines of the enemy. Mr. Gladstone said 
 *' That is excellent ; I will use it in my speech." He got uf 
 to reply shortly after, and made one of his most eloqueni 
 speeches, but without use of my suggestion as regards Dun- 
 kellin. When he sat down he turned round to me and said 
 " I was thinking all the time of my speech whether I could saj 
 that about Dunkellin, but I came to the conclusion that i^ 
 was a little too bitter." Not one speaker in a thousand woulc 
 have refrained from making use of such a retort. 
 
 The incident is an illustration of what I often observed 
 
RETIREMENT OF MR. GLADSTONE 381 
 
 in Mr. Gladstone, namely, the double action of his mind when 
 he was speaking. He would rise to reply on a subject which 
 liad arisen unexpectedly, and when he was uncertain as to 
 ^hat line to take. He would talk round it for some time, in the 
 most perfectly formed sentences, while he was obviously making 
 up his mind as to what conclusion he would adopt. Later he 
 would state his dehberate judgment in clear and forcible 
 words. 
 
 In these pages I have dealt with one topic only of Mr. 
 Gladstone's long political career in the House of Commons — 
 that relating to Ireland. But what a range it covered ! What 
 superhuman efforts he made in the twenty-six years, during 
 which he was engaged on reforms for Ireland, and in advocating 
 its right of self-government, and what extraordinary freshness 
 and progressiveness of mind and purpose he showed. 
 
 It is a trite observation that the full height and grandeur of 
 a range of mountains cannot be estimated by one who is 
 standing near to the foot of them. The lower spurs hide the 
 higher peaks. It is the same with great historic events, and 
 with the careers of statesmen. They cannot be fairly judged 
 till many years have elapsed, and till the full development 
 of their policy comes into view. This is more true of Mr. 
 Gladstone in relation to his Irish policy than of any other 
 statesman of his time. The great miscarriage of his poUtical 
 career was his failure to carry Home Rule for Ireland in 1886 
 and 1893. This policy caused a breach between the great 
 historic Whig Party, and the main body of Liberals, and threw 
 the former into the anas of the Tory Party. It gave to the 
 combination thus formed a tenure of office which lasted for 
 nearly twenty years. But how different will be the verdict 
 of history, if in the course of the next two years or even later, 
 a Home Rule measure should be carried through Parliament. 
 The main credit for this will undoubtedly be given to the 
 statesman who initiated the policy, and devoted so many 
 years of his life to the conversion of pubhc opinion. It will 
 then be recognized that the Whig statesmen who, by their 
 secession, delayed the accomplishment of this policy, for so 
 niany years, did a great disservice to the State, and to no 
 section of it more than to the Irish landlords. 
 
 Meanwhile, no final verdict can be given at present upon 
 the policy of Mr. Gladstone. But, at least, we must all agree 
 
882 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 with {he generous appreciation on his death by Mr. Balfour 
 that he was the greatest Member of the greatest deliberative 
 assembly which so far the world had known. "^ 
 
 When dealing in 1887 with the fifty years which elapsed 
 between the Act of Union and the death of Sir Robert Peel 1 
 I concluded by asking whether the expectations held out by 
 Mr. Pitt, when presenting his measure to the British Parlia- 
 ment, had been realized, whether, to use his words, " mutual 
 harmony and confidence had been established between England 
 and Ireland." I showed that the effect of the Act had been to 
 relegate the decision on purely Irish questions to the repre- 
 sentatives of England and Scotland, who were ignorant of the 
 condition and requirements of Ireland ; that from time to time 
 legislation demanded by great majorities of the Irish people was 
 refused or rejected by majorities drawn from Great Britain; 
 and that ultimately what was refused to the constitutional 
 demands of the Irish people, was conceded to agitation attended 
 by violence and outrage. 
 
 I showed that the effect of the suppression of Irish auto- 
 nomy was to induce the Protestant minority in Ireland 
 to dissociate itself from its fellow-citizens there, and to look 
 for support in England ; and to sectarianize and divide a 
 people, who by the physical conditions of their country should 
 be one community. I showed also that the Irish question had 
 been the continual cause of embarrassment and disturbance 
 in English and Imperial politics. 
 
 The events of the last half of the century recorded in the 
 present book confirm, in a remarkable manner, the lessons 
 drawn from the earlier period. Together they show that the 
 only safe guide for legislation affecting Ireland is the demand of 
 the majority of its representatives, and that Parhament has 
 never neglected this principle without repenting later, and 
 making concessions ultimately in advance of what would origi- 
 nally have satisfied the demand. It is an undeniable fact that 
 Ireland during the last forty years passed through a period of 
 most revolutionary changes of land tenure. They are not yet 
 quite complete, though the principle of the expropriation of 
 landlords, and the universal conversion of tenants into owners, 
 has been virtually recognized by the authors of the Land Pur- 
 chase Act of 1903. These great changes were forced upon 
 
 * Peel and O'ConneU, 1887, p. 339, 
 
RETIREMENT OF MR. GLADSTONE 383 
 
 parliament by successive agitations attended by most regret- 
 table outbreaJcs of violence. 
 
 The arguments to be drawn from these events in favour of 
 conceding autonomy in administration and domestic legislation 
 to Ireland, are enormously strong, and^whenever such a 
 measure is accomplished it will be recognized that to Mr. 
 Gladstone it will have been mainly due. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Aberdare, Lord, 27 
 Aberdeen, Lord, 4, 7 
 Absentee landlords, 179-80 
 Agrarian question, Report on, 329 
 Agriculture, condition of (1877-80), 
 
 92-4 
 Alexander, Dr., 33 
 Allen, 16 
 Allotments and Small Holdings 
 
 Association, 295 
 Annual Mutiny Bill, 73, 88 
 Anniiol Register, 317 
 Appointments, seeking for, 1-2 ; Bill 
 
 for suspending Church, 23-4 
 Argyll, Duke of, 119-20, 147, 158-g 
 Aimagh, ArchUshop of, 22, see also 
 
 Dr. Alexander 
 Arms Bill, 143-5 
 
 Arms, searcMng for in Loughrea, 181 
 Army Discipline Bill, 88 
 Arrears Act, 115, 193, 196, 198-9, 
 
 206-7, 209, 221, 227-33, 246 
 Arrest of Laiid Leaguers, 132-3,165-6 
 Ashbourne, Lord, 27, 90-1, 188, 202, 
 ^208, 223-4, 248. 269, 271 
 Ashbourne's Land Act, Lord, 158 
 Asquith, H. H., 371 
 Athenry, 179, 181 
 Avondale, Pamell's property at, 250 
 
 Balfour, A. J., 122, 207-8, 228, 289, 
 
 _ 330-1. 344. 34&-9. 368-9. 372. 382 
 Balfour's Land Act, 158 
 Balfour, Gerald, 376 
 BaU, Dr., 31, 45 
 BaUot Act, 57, 63 
 ^arbavilla murders, 272 
 Barrett, 17 
 Barry, 109 
 
 Barry, Mr. Justice, 132 
 Barry, Smith, 368 
 
 Beacousfield, Lord, 6-7, 15, 24, 27. 
 30. 45-6, 54-5, 57, 66-8, 93. 106, 
 
 Beecher. Ward, 103 
 ^essborough. Lord, 147 
 '^iggar. J. G.. 64, 69, 71-4. 76, 88, 102. 
 ^09. 139. 142, 170, 225, 357, 361 
 
 25 385 
 
 Bingley Hall, meeting at, 370 
 Birmingham, Chamberlain at, 311 ; 
 
 Gladstone at, 370 
 Birrell, A., 56-7 
 Blackburn, Justice, i& 
 Blake, Sir Henry, 179, 181 
 Blake, Mr., 183-4 
 Blennerhassett, Mr., 61 
 Blunt, W. S., 341-2 
 Board of Worl^, motion regarding, 78 
 Borough franchise, 114 
 Boston, meeting at, 103 
 Boycott, Captajn, 126-7 
 Boycotting, 127, 131-2, 190, 222-5, 
 
 277. 332, 340 
 Boyton, 166, 241 
 Bradlaugh, Charles, 142-3 
 Brennan, 102, 166, 172, 236, 241 
 Brett, Sergeant, 15 
 Bright, John, 14, 43, 80, in, 129, 
 
 144, 154, 223, 273, 308, 310, 312-13 
 British Home Rule Confederation, 83, 
 
 85-6 
 Brodrick, H, St. J., 254, 256 
 Brooklyn, meeting at, 103 
 Bryce, J., 224 
 Buckley, 78 
 Budget Bill, 265 
 Buller, Sir Redvers, 315, 326 
 Burke, Canon, 97 
 Burke, E., 198, 210, 214-18 
 Burke, General, 17 
 Burke, Sir Henry, 179, 326, 347 
 Bury, Lord, 91 
 Butt, Isaac, 5, 58-68, 71-86, loo-i, 
 
 188, 243, 288 
 
 Cadogan, Lord, 334 
 
 Cairns, Lord, 33-4, 36, 159, 191 
 
 Callan, 89 
 
 Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H., 299 
 
 Card well, 10 
 
 Carey, 241 
 
 Carlingford, Lord, 19, 27-8, 41, 43, 
 
 64, 92, 147, i49-50» 159. 231, 299 
 Carnarvon, Lord, 33, 159, 269-76, 290, 
 
 292, 296-7, 309, 315 
 Castle Govt., 183 
 
886 
 
 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Castlereagh, Lord, see Lord London- 
 deny 
 Catholic University, founding of a, 
 
 52-3 
 Cavendish, Lady F., 216 
 Cavendish, Lord F., 198, 210, 213-18 
 Censure, vote of, 260 
 Chamberlain, J., 88-9, iio-ii, 129, 
 
 194, 196-9, 202, 207-8, 212-13, 
 
 255, 258-62. 267, 273, 277, 279-81, 
 285, 295, 299-300. 302, 304, 307-9, 
 311. 317-18, 311, 335, 372 
 
 Chaplin, H., 92, 228 
 
 Childers, H., 283, 299 
 
 Church Disestablishment Bill, 28-37 ; 
 appeal for support, 37-8 ; income, 
 38-40 ; Act of 1877, 79-80 ; Arrears 
 Bill charge on, 233 ; utilization of 
 funds, 271 
 
 Churchill, Lord Randolph, 86, 118, 
 122, 142, 255, 262-4, 266, 268-9. 
 272, 274, 281, 289-93, 307. 315-16, 
 
 335. 359. 379 
 Churchill, Winston, 292 
 Cincinnati, Pamell at. 104 
 Clan-na-Gael disturbers, 250 
 Clanricarde, Lord, 60, 179-80, 183, 
 
 320-3, 341-3. 375 
 Clare, Lord, 90 
 Clarke, Sir Edward. 372 
 Clerkenwell explosion, the, 17 
 Closure, tendency towards the, 140 ; 
 
 discussion of, 248 
 Coercive measures, 14, 28. 49, 69. 72, 
 
 78, 114, 137-43. 164-5. 176. 180-3. 
 
 188-9, 192-4. 197, 2X1, 221-3, 236. 
 
 256. 260-5. 269-70, 281, 291-3, 
 
 329-34, 337-51 
 Coleridge, Chief Justice, 352 
 
 Collings. Jesse. 293, 295 
 
 Combination and Coercion, 341 
 
 Compensation for Disturbance Bill. 
 
 115-21. 211 
 Condition of Irelajid (1882), 175-82, 
 
 236 ; (1883) 240, 246 
 Congested Districts Board, 369, 375 
 Congleton, Lord, 69 
 Connemara, 229 
 Convention Act, repeal of, 90-1 
 Coolgreaney estate, 343 
 Corporal punishment, 88 
 Cowen. Joseph, 88, 90, 142-3, 147, 224 
 Cowper, Lord, in, 128-30, 165-6, 
 
 170, 194, 203, 216, 326 
 Crimes Bill, see Prevention of 
 Crofter Act, Scotch, 161-2, 230-1, 335 
 Croke, Archbishop, 250 
 Cross, Lord, 27, 269 
 Cullen, Cardinal, 53-5 
 
 Daly, 102 
 
 Davey, Lord, 224 
 
 Davitt, Michael, 81-2, 97, 100-2, 136 
 
 140-2, 172, 185, 187, 209, 2l!l-i6' 
 
 225, 235-6, 237, 239, 246, 285, 30,' 
 
 324, 357 "" 
 
 Deasy, Captain, 15 
 Deasy Act, 10 
 
 Derby, Lord, 5-7, 21, 33, 36, 231, 299 
 Derry, Bishop of, see Dr. Alexander 
 Devonshire, Duke of, 373 
 Dilke, Sir Charles, 194, 213, 217, 
 
 260-2, 273, 277, 280, 299 
 Dillon, John, 93, 101-4, 109, 140, 142, 
 
 144, 166, 170, 172, 207, 214-15, 
 
 222. 224-5, 324, 327, 364 
 Dillon, Lord, 176-8 
 Disestablishment and Disendowment 
 
 proposals, 28-31 ; see also Church 
 
 BiU 
 Disraeli, see Beaconsfield 
 Distress in Ireland, 92-4 
 Donoughmore, Lord, 191 
 Downing, McCarthy, 6 
 Dublin, Archbishop of, see Dr, Trench 
 Dublin, Pamell at, 278 
 DufiEy, Gavan, Sir C, 1-4, 7, 9, 274 
 Duggan, Dr., 342 
 Dunkellin, Lord, 21, 380 
 Dunraven, Lord, 159 
 Dunsandle, Lord, 179, 326 
 Durham, Bishop of, 3 
 Dyke, Sir W. Hart, 290, 292 
 
 Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, 3-4 
 
 Edensor, 218 
 
 Editors, prosecution of, 338-9 
 
 Egan, Patrick, 102, 172, 186, 236 
 
 Elcho, Lord, 155 
 
 Elections (1852), 5; (1868), 26; 
 
 (1874). 63-4; (1880), 106-10; 
 
 (1885), 278-87; (1886), 313-14; I 
 
 (1892). 371 . J 
 
 Emigration statistics, 11 ; clauses a | 
 
 Laiid Act, 158 
 Employers' Liability Bill, 377 
 Encumbered Estates Act, 2, 78, ^9^^ | 
 Ennis, Pamell at, 123-5, 135 
 Eme, Lord, 126 
 
 Errington, 85, 251 , 
 
 EstabUshed Church, Report on, i»-j 
 
 19 ; debate on, 22-4 
 Eversley, Lord, 256, 260-1, 27i,2w,i 
 
 284, 297, 299, 303. 305. 342-4' 
 
 368, 382 
 Evictions, 2, 93-4, 114-20, '^''1 
 
 228-30, 337-8, 374 
 
 " F's." the three. 3, 108, 146-7 ^1 
 Fall of Feudalism, 187, 209, 235-"^| 
 
 237. 325 
 
INDEX 
 
 8^7 
 
 Fawcett, Professor, 54. 57, 77, 257 
 Fenian Movement, tiie, 12-18 ; pro- 
 posed amnesty, 81 
 Fennoy, Lord, 6 
 
 Finance under Home Rule, 301-2 
 Fitzgerald, Mr. Justice, 132 
 Flag of Ireland, The, 236 
 Flogging in the Army, 88-g 
 Ford, Patrick, 172, 241, 249 
 Forster, W. E., 77, 81, 110-19, 121, 
 
 127-33. 135-8. 142-5. 147-8. 154. 
 157, 164-6, 168-9, 172, 175, 182, 
 186, 188, 192, 197-207, 210-12, 
 216, 218-19, 223-4, 229, 240-7, 
 256, 286, 305-6 
 
 Fortescue, Chichester, see Carlingford 
 
 Fourth Party, formation of, 122 
 
 Franchise Bill, 253-6 
 
 Freeman's Journal, 3, 18, 44-6, 60, 
 75. 104. 237. 365 
 
 Galbraith, Professor, 58 
 
 Galway, evictions in, 116; Pamell 
 at, 125-6 
 
 Gavin, 239 
 
 Gibson, see Lord Ashbourne 
 
 Gifiard, Sir Hardinge, see Lord Hals- 
 bury 
 
 Gladstone, Herbert, 291 
 
 Gladstone, W. E., on Fenianism, 18; 
 supports Lord Derby's Govt., 21 ; 
 on state of Ireland, 23 ; Irish 
 policy, 26-7 ; his ministry, 27 ; 
 Irish Church Bill, 28-40; Land 
 Act, 41-50 ; University Bill, 51- 
 63 ; appeal to the country, 63 ; 
 retirement from leadership, 66 ; 
 speech on Land Act Report, 80 ; 
 proposed amnesty for Fenians, 
 81-^ ; indebtedness to Butt, 87 ; 
 address to electors, 107 ; Govt, of 
 1880, no ; Compensation for Dis- 
 turbance, 117, 119; letters from 
 Forster, 128-9, 147; correspondence 
 with Lord Cowper, 130 ; on coer- 
 cion, 137-9; Dillon and Pamell, 
 1 40-1 ; Land Reform measures, 
 146 ; Land Act of 1870, 147 ; Land 
 Bill of 1881, 148-51, 155, 160, 162- 
 3 ; Coercion Act, 164 ; urges con- 
 ciliation. 166; and PameU, 168- 
 70 ; indication of leaning towards 
 Home Rule, 187-8 ; resolution on 
 i^and Act, 192 ; correspondence 
 With Forster on Land Act, 192-3 ; 
 letter to O'Shea, 196, 201 ; on 
 
 4 f^edmond's Bill, 201 ; movement 
 to release Land Leaguers, 202-4 > 
 resignation of Cowper and Forster, 
 203; on arrest of Land Leag- 
 
 uers, 206 ; reply to Balfour, 208 ; 
 attitude towards Forster, 210-11 ; 
 appointment of Lord F. Cavendish, 
 213-14 ; Phoenix Park murders, 
 216 ; advice to Pamell, 217-18 ; 
 adjournment of House, 218 ; Ar- 
 rears Bill, 221, 227-9 ; Crimes 
 Bill, 223-6 ; opposition to closure, 
 248 ; opposition to Land Act 
 amendment, 249 ; appeal to Rome, 
 251-2 ; Franchise Bill, 254-6 ; 
 condition of Cabinet, 258--60 ; 
 Local Govt, scheme, 261 ; defeat 
 of Govt., 265-6 ; letter to Harting- 
 ton, 266 ; return as leader and 
 address to electors, 282-3 ; reply 
 to Childers, 287 ; decision to re- 
 main in poUtics, 287-9 ; Home 
 Rule, 289-91 ; Irish question, 294 ; 
 expectations of retirement, 296-8 ; 
 the new Govt., 299-300 ; Home 
 Rule Bill, 300-4 ; letters from 
 Hartington, 306 ; Home Rule 
 debate, 307-10 ; dissolution of 
 ParUament, 311, 314; Davitt on, 
 325 ; Plan of Campaign, 327-8 ; 
 on Coercion Bill (1887), 331 ; on 
 Pamell forgeries, 358 ; on Par- 
 nell's leadership, 362-3 ; letter to 
 Morley, 364 ; at Birmingham, 
 370 ; fourth Govt., 371-2 ; second 
 Home Rule Bill, 372-3 ; his deaf- 
 ness, 373-4 ; last speech, 377 ; 
 last days, 378 ; general survey of, 
 
 378-83 
 Gordon, General, 260 
 Gorst, J. E., 122, 240 
 Goschen, G., 291, 296, 303, 306, 308, 
 
 312. 378 
 Granville, Lord, 33, 36, 47, 289, 299, 
 
 300 
 Gray, 109, 188 
 Gray, E. D., 93, 122 
 Gray, Sir John, 3-5, 18, 45, 64, 188 
 Grey, Lord, 33 
 " Guillotine," the, 333 
 Gurteen, arrests at, 102 
 
 Habeas Corpus Act, suspending of, 
 21, 128-30, 138 
 
 Halslaury, Lord, 269 
 
 Hannen, Sir James, 355 
 
 Hansard quoted : Gladstone on 
 Fenianism, 17-18 ; Alexander on 
 Disestablishment, 24 ; Gladstone 
 on Land Bill, 48 ; Disraeli on 
 University Bill, 55 ; Biggar on 
 Coercion Bill, 73 ; Gladstone on 
 Amnesty for Fenians, 81-2 ; Cham- 
 berlain on Mutiny Bill, 89 ; Glad- 
 stone on Compensation for Dis- 
 
388 
 
 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 turbance, 117; Gladstone on 
 Coercion, 138-9 ; Pamell on Land 
 Bill, 153 ; Gladstone on Land Bill, 
 156 ; Salisbury on Land Bill, 159- 
 60 ; O'Shea's speech, 198 ; Glad- 
 stone on Arrears Bill, 228 ; Salis- 
 bury on Arrears Bill, 232 ; Forster's 
 attack on Pamell, 241-2 ; Chur- 
 chill on the Govt., 272 ; Gladstone 
 on Irish question, 294 ; Gladstone 
 on Home Rule Bill, 305 ; Cham- 
 berlain on Land Bill, 317 ; St. 
 Aldwyn on Govt, of Ireland, 318 ; 
 Gladstone on Coercion Bill, 331-2 ; 
 Gladstone on Pamell forgeries, 
 358-9 ; Gladstone's last speech, 
 
 377 
 
 Harcourt, Sir Wm., 76, 89, 140-1, 
 143-5, 208, 214, 221, 224, 250, 299, 
 300, 362 
 
 Hardy, Gathome, 31 
 
 Harrington, T., 238, 324, 338-9 
 
 Hartington, Lord, 27, 66-7, 77-8, 81, 
 89. 95. 106, no, 1 16-7, 122, 153-4, 
 255, 260-1, 266-7, 279. 285, 291, 
 295. 299-300. 303. 306, 317, 327-31, 
 
 334 
 
 Healy, Dr., 321 
 
 Healy, T. M., 104-5, 142, 144, 156, 
 170, 224, 237, 239, 340, 361 
 
 Heaton, Henniker, 347 
 
 Henry, M., 64 
 
 Herschell, Lord, 155, 299, 354 
 
 Hicks-Beach, see St. Aldwyn 
 
 History of Irish Parliamentary Party, 
 73. 243, 360 
 
 Hollowaiy, Chamberlain at, 279 
 
 Home Rule, movement for, 58, 60-8 ; 
 Committee on Irish demand for, 
 77 ; Carnarvon and, 273-5 '< under 
 Salisbury's Govt., 275 ; Pamell 
 on, 278 ; Hartington on, 279 ; 
 Chamberlain on, 279-80 ; Morley 
 on, 285 ; Forster on, 286 ; result 
 of election (1885), 286-7; Glad- 
 stone and, 289-^1 ; Gladstone's 
 first Bill, 300-12 ; Gladstone's 
 second Bill, 372-4, 377 
 
 Home Rule Association, 60-1, 63, 107 
 
 Home Rule Conferences, 61, 83 
 
 Home Rule raised by P. Smyth, 187-8 
 
 Hooper, 338-9 
 
 Hopwood, 88 
 
 Horsman, 27 
 
 Houston, 355 
 
 Incidents of Coercion, 184, 343 
 " Invincibles, The," 216 
 Irishman, The, 236 
 Irish People, The, 13 
 Irishtown, 97-8 
 
 Irish voters, manifesto against LibeRj 
 
 Party to, 284 
 Irish World, 241, 249 
 
 James, Sir Henry, 291, 303, 357 
 Johnson, Mr. (Attorney -General), 239 
 Joyce, 321 
 Judicial rents, 87 
 
 Jury, abrogation of trial by, 221-2 
 330-1 
 
 Kelly, Colonel, 15 
 Kenmare, Lord, 60 
 Keogh, James, 8-9 
 Keogh, Wm., 4, 6, 7-9, 13 
 Kettle, 102, 172 
 Kickham, 13 
 Kilbride, 375 
 Kilkenny, Pamell at, 126 
 Kilmainham, Pamell at, 171 
 Kimberley, Lord, 13, 299, 372 
 King-Harman, Colonel, 91 
 Kossuth, 103 ;:'' 
 
 Labouchere, H., 143, 356 
 
 Ladies' Land League, 185, 195, 214-15, 
 
 234-5, 246 
 Lafayette, 103 
 Lalor, 109 
 
 Land Acts, Card well's, 19-21 ; in- 
 quiry into failure of, 79-81, 85; 
 mutilation of, 94 ; demands for 
 amendment, 108, 112 ; Bill to 
 provide compensation for eviction, 
 115; Bill of 1881, 148-63, 166, 
 182, 191-2 ; proposed amend- 
 ments, 199, 307, 311 ; Redmond's 
 Bill on Act of 1881, 201-2 ; jffo- 
 posed amendment, 249 ; Royal 
 Commission, 315-16 ; aflEairs in 
 Galway, 320-2 ; Act of 1887, 
 328-9, 334-6 ; inquiry into Land 
 Act, 375-6 
 Land Commission, reducing rents, 176 
 Land League, 97-100, 127-33, i34"7> 
 163/ 165-6, 171-5, 181, 188-^. 
 224-5, 234-5. 241, 251, 335 
 Land League Convention, 167 
 Land League leaders, arrest and 
 trial of, 132-3, 165-6 ; movement 
 to liberate, 202-3 ; debate on 
 arrest and release of, 204-7 ; ^^^^ 
 of their release, 210 
 Land Purchase schemes, 157-8. 199" 
 
 202, 262, 271-2, 305, 315, 374-5 
 Land question, Pamell on, 124-5 
 Land tenure, Irish, 41-50, 77 
 Landlord Associatdcms, 338 
 Landlordism, Pamell on, 99-100 
 Lansdowne, Lord, 116, ii9f ^^^' 
 231-2. 375 
 
INDEX 
 
 889 
 
 Larkin, i6 
 
 Law, Hugh, 95, 112, 155-6 
 
 Leamy, 109 
 
 Leaseholders, concessions to, 157, 
 
 160, 202 
 Leeds, Gladstone at, 168, 170 
 Lewis, 179, 326 
 
 Limerick, Pamell's speech at, 100 
 Liverpool, Pamell's speech at, 102, 
 
 364 
 Local Govt. Board, motion regarding, 
 
 78 
 Local Govt, scheme for Ireland, 260-1 
 
 Londonderry, Lord, 108 
 
 Lorebum, Lord, 333 
 
 Lough Mask, 126 
 
 Loughrea, 179-81, 320-5, 342, 345, 
 
 367-8 
 
 Lowe, Robert, see Lord Sherbrooke 
 
 Lowther, James, 85-6, 95-6, 218 
 
 Luby, 13 
 
 Lucas, 9 
 
 Luggacurran, 375 
 
 Ljrtton, Lord, 159 
 
 Maamtrasma murders, 272 
 
 McCabe, Dr., 109 
 
 McCarthy, Justin, 80, 140, 143, 145, 
 
 188, 196, 241, 264, 362-4 
 Macdonald, 356 
 MacEvilly, Dr., 178 
 McHale, Dr., 98-9, 109 
 Macnaghten, Lord, 154-5 
 Magee, Dr., 33 
 Maguire, 10, 18, 21-2, 46 
 Manchester martjnis, the, 15-17 
 Manning, Archbi^op, 44, 49, 54, 260, 
 
 266 
 Marlborough, Duchess of, 93 
 Martin, J., 64 
 Massereene, Lord, 343 
 Mathew, Justice, 374 
 Matthews, H. (Home Sec.), 316 
 Maynooth College, 29 
 Mayo, Lord, 19, 21-2 
 Mayo, 176-8 
 M^gher, 59, 61 
 MeUor, Justice, 16 
 MiUtia BiU, Govt, defeat on, 5 
 
 Mm, 27 
 
 Mill, J. S., 14, 20 
 
 Monck, Lord, 233 
 
 Money, power to borrow puUic, 95 
 
 Monteagle, Lord, 159 
 
 Moriarty, Dr., 61 
 
 Morley, Lord, 194, 262, 280, 285, 
 299-31, 305. 333. 362-4. 368, 
 
 w 371-2, 374-5 
 
 Motley's Life of Gladstone, 44, 47, 49, 
 138. 193-4. 209. 236, 251, 259, 261, 
 206, 294, 306, 31 X, 363, 377 
 
 Moroney, Mrs., 345 
 Mundella, A. J., 299 
 
 Naas, Lord, see Mayo 
 
 Nagle, Pierce, 13 
 
 Naish, 239 
 
 National Council, opinions on, 279-82 
 
 Naticmal Land League, loo-i, 171-3, 
 
 175 
 
 National League, formation of, 235-6; 
 manifesto of, 284 ; efiort to sup- 
 press, 292-3 ; proclamation and 
 suppression of, 338 ; meeting of, in 
 Dublin, 361-2 
 
 National Liberal Federation, 362 
 
 Newman, Cardinal, 251 
 
 Newport, Lord Salisbury at, 281 
 
 New Ross, Pamell at, 125 
 
 Nolan, Captain, 60-1 
 
 " No Rent " manifesto, 171-3, 175, 
 178, 182, 187, 190 
 
 Northbrook, Lord, 260, 299 
 
 Northcote, Sir Stafiord, 76, 94, 108, 
 139-40, 218, 228-9, 268, 297 
 
 O'Brien, 16 
 
 O'Bffen, Lord, 343 
 
 O'Brien, R. Barry, 70, 130, 132, 170^ 
 
 195, 217, 252, 304 
 O'Brien, Smith, 12, 59, 61 
 O'Brien, William. 172, 237, 239, 324, 
 
 327. 338, 347, 364 
 Obstruction, Butt's condemnation of, 
 
 84; of Mutiny Bill, 88-90; of 
 
 Fourth Party, 122 ; of Crimes Bill, 
 
 225 
 O'Connell, Daniel, 243, 245, 288 
 O'Connell (Lord Mayor of DuUin), 
 
 58-9,61 
 O'Connor, Arthur, 109, 170 
 O'Connor, T. P., 109, 142, 224 
 O'Donell, 339, 360 
 O'Donnell, F. H., 70, 72-3, 76, 89, 
 
 107, 109, 141-2, 242-3, 352-3 
 O'Donoghue, The, 18, 46, 77, 92 
 O'Flaherty, Edward, 7, 9 
 O'Grady, 341 
 O'Hagam, Lord, 28, 159 
 O'Kelly, James, 109, 141, 170, 207, 
 
 214-15 
 O'Leary, 13 
 Osborne, B., 27 
 O'Shea, Captain. 196, 198-9, 200-1, 
 
 207, 356, 360-1 
 O'Shea, Mrs., 360, 365 
 
 Palles, Chief Baron, 326, 342 
 Pall Mall Gazette, 194, 300 
 Palmer, Sir Roundell, 46 
 Palmerston, Lord, 7, 9, 10 
 Parish Councils Bill, 377 
 
390 
 
 GLADSTONE AND IRELAND 
 
 Famell, C. S., first appearance in 
 Parliament, 69-78 ; Church Dis- 
 establishment, 81 ; President of 
 B. Home Rule Confederation, 83 ; 
 reply to Butt, 84 ; Army Discipline 
 Bill, 88-90 ; Relief Fund of 1880, 
 93; Land question, 97-105, 114- 
 15. 134-7. 375 ; Forster's antagon- 
 ism, 113; Compensation for Dis- 
 turbance Bill, 1 18-19, 123-5 ' boy* 
 cotting and evicting, 13 1-2 ; Coer- 
 cion Act (18 81), 141, 144; Land Bill 
 (1881), 151-3 ; Land League Con- 
 vention, 167 ; demonstration in 
 Dublin, 167-8 ; his arrest, 169-72 ; 
 his imprisonment, 194-5 ; Ladies' 
 Land League, 195 ; on parole, 196, 
 198 ; return to Kilmainham, 199 ; 
 letter to O'Shea, 200-2 ; return to 
 Parliament, 200-9, 214 ; endea- 
 vours to quiet agitation, 209-10, 
 220, 246-7 ; on state of Ireland, 
 214-15 ; Home Rule question, 
 215 ; distress at Phoenix Park 
 murders, 216-18 ; on Crimes Bill, 
 222, 224 ; suspension of, 225 ; 
 Arrears Bill, 227, 233 ; suppression 
 of Ladies' Land League, 234-5 ; 
 National League formed, 235-6 ; 
 attack by Forster, 240-5 ; on 
 closure, 248 ; his moderation re- 
 sented, 249-45 ; popularity in 
 Ireland, 250-2 ; speech at the 
 banquet, 253 ; Franchise Bill, 255 ; 
 and Local Govt., 260-1 ; and 
 Gladstone, 266 ; motion of cen- 
 sure on Lord Spencer, 272 ; Lord 
 Carnarvon and Home Rule, 273-5 ; 
 throws over Liberal Party, 277, 
 283-5 ' speech at Dublin, 278 ; 
 attack by Hartington, 279 ; his 
 following in Ireland, 286-7 ; and 
 Home Rule, 294-5, 300-2, 305, 
 308-9 ; on Land Bill, 316 ; at- 
 tempt at conciliation, 3x8 ; on 
 Plan of Campaign, 324-5 ; on 
 Coercion Bill (1887), 332-3 ; on 
 Land League, 335 ; Phoenix Park 
 murder forgeries, 332, 352-9 ; and 
 O'Shea, 360 ; his leadership, 362-5 ; 
 marriage to Mrs. O'Shea, 365 ; his 
 death, 366 ; survey of his career, 
 366-9 
 
 Pamell, Anna, 185-6, 235 
 
 Pamell, Fanny, 185 
 
 Pamell, Sir John, 69 
 
 Paruellism and Crime, 352-7 
 
 Peel, F., 27 
 
 Peel, Sir Robert, 10, 379 
 
 Peterborough, Bishop of, see Dr. 
 Magee 
 
 Phillips, Wendell, 103 
 
 Phoenix Park murders, 198, 210, 2i4» 
 
 18, 220, 239-40, 332, 352 
 Pigott, Richard, 237, 353, 355-6 
 Plan of Campaign, the, 324-7, 337-g 
 
 343-6. 374-5 
 Playfair, Lord, 139 
 Plunket, see Lord Rathmore 
 Ponsonby, Captain, 345 
 " Pope's Brass Band," the, 4 
 Power, O'Connor, 81, 84, 109, 114 
 Power, R., 64, 109 
 Prevention of Crimes Act, 221-6, 239, 
 
 246, 272, 277. 333, 341 
 Pnsoners, treatment of, 348-50 
 Prisons Bill, 73-4 
 Procedure in the House, 140 
 Property, condition of, see Condition 
 
 of Ireland 
 Protection Act, see Coercion 
 
 Quarterly Review, 194 
 Queen's University, 51, 90 
 
 Rathmore, Lord, 30, 80, 95, 118, 188, 
 224, 254-5 
 
 Redmond, John, 109, 141, i88, 225 
 
 Redmond, WiUiam, 239 
 
 Redmond's Bill on Laiid Act. 201-2 
 
 Redpath, 241 
 
 Reform Act, Irish, 24-5 
 
 Reform Bill (1866), 380 
 
 Registration Bill, 121 
 
 Regium Donum grant, 29 
 
 Reid, see Lord Lorebum 
 
 Relief Bill, 95-6, 122 
 
 Rents, proposed adjustment of, 92; 
 remissions in times of distress, 93 ; 
 reductions of, 98, 100; charg^ 
 on improvements, 156-7 ; arrears 
 of, 157 ; question of reductions, 
 1 70-1 ; proposed refusal to pay, 
 1 7 1-5 ; reducing of, 176 
 
 Repeal Association, 1-2 
 
 Richmond, Duke of, 47, 92, 146 
 
 Ripon, Lord, 299 
 
 Roche, John, 345 
 
 Roche, see Lord Fermoy 
 
 Roden, Lord, 7 
 
 Roebuck, 27 
 
 Roman Catholics, conferring of tern- 
 torial titles on, 3-4 ; Bill against, 4 
 
 Rosebery, Lord, 299, 300, 371-2 
 
 Rossa, O'Donovan, 13, 49, 81 ■ 
 
 Royal Commission on condition of 
 agriculture, 92, 146-7 ; Gladstones 
 Commission, 147, 150 ; on Plan 01 
 Campaign evictions, 374 
 
 Royal Patriotic Union, 355 
 
 RusseU, Sir Ghas., 223-4, 345, 35^ 
 
 RusseU, Lord John, 3-5, 7, 21, 33. 37° 
 
INDEX 
 
 891 
 
 Sadleir, John, 4, 7-9 
 
 St. Aldwjm, Lord, 67, 74, 78, 81, 
 85-«, 228, 265, 269, 272, 290-1, 
 305. 309, 314-15. 317-19. 322-3, 
 32^. 330. 342 
 
 Salisbury, Lord, 24, 33. 159-60, 231-3, 
 264, 268, 270-1, 274-7, 281, 289-90, 
 291-2, 296-7, 306, 312, 314, 332, 
 
 334. 347^. 373-4 
 Schnadhorst, 312 
 
 Seats, question of redistribution of, 
 
 256, 268 
 Selbome, Lord, 191, 260, 299 
 Sexton, Thomas, 109, 139, 142, 170, 
 
 172, 188, 190, 192, 204, 223-5, 305, 
 
 363-5 
 Shaw, William, 61, 64, 77-88, 91, 92, 
 
 94, 113-14, 136, 223 
 
 Sheffield, meetings at, 281, 362 
 
 Sherbrooke, Lord, 10, 20 
 
 Sheridan, 200, 241 
 
 Shiel, 64 
 
 Small Holdings, 295-6, 313 
 
 Smith, W. H., 118, 201, 255, 269, 290, 
 292-3, 296, 333, 354, 358, 366 
 
 Smyth, P. J., 187 
 
 South African Colonies, Bill for Con- 
 federation of, 73, 75-7 
 
 Spencer, Lord, 191, 194, 213, 215-16, 
 219, 221, 236, 252, 256-7, 260-1, 
 264, 271-3, 289, 299 
 
 Stanhope, Lord, 34 
 
 Stephens, James, 12-14 
 
 Stanley, Colonel, 89 
 
 Stanley, Lord, 23 
 
 Stephens, J., 13 
 
 Stewart, Admiral (Commodore), 70 
 
 Strangers' Gallery, repeal of ru' re- 
 garding, 71 
 
 Strickland, 177-8 
 
 Sullivan, A. M., 12, 16, 64, 109, 142, 
 
 Sullivan, Sir Edward, 41 
 Sullivan, Serjeant, 28 
 Sullivan, T. D., 109, 338-9 
 
 Tait, Archbishop, 32, 34-6 
 
 Taxation, motion on, 78 
 
 Tenant Farmers, Royal Commission 
 
 on grievances of, 114 
 Tenant Right Convention (1850), ^ ; 
 -(1852), 6 
 tenants' League, 5 
 Tenants' ReUef Bill, 324, 329 
 tenants' Right Bills, 7-8, 10 
 «nure. fixity of, 87 
 ^^IwaU. Bishop, 34 
 
 Thring, Sir Henry, 155 
 Tipperary Bank, 4, 8, 9 
 Tipperary, Pamell at, 100 
 Tipperary prosecutions, 368 
 Thomson, Mrs., 196 
 Times. The, quoted, 321, 332-3, 344, 
 
 352-7 
 Trench, Dr., 24 
 Trevelyan, Sir George, 219, 223-4, 
 
 226, 229, 236-7, 252, 256, 299, 302, 
 
 312 
 
 Trial of Land Leaguers, 132-3 
 Trinity College, DubUn, 51, 57 
 Tuam, 178 
 
 Tuam, Archbishop of, see McHale and 
 Healy 
 
 United Ireland, 237, 241, 324, 338 
 
 Union, motion for repeal of Act of, 
 58, 86, 268 ; Gladstone's fear of 
 di^laration in favour of, 294 ; 
 Gladstone on, 303 
 
 UniVeijsity Act, 51-7, 90 
 
 Univeifsity, proposed Catholic, 22-3 
 
 Vandeleur, Colonel, 343, 345 
 Victoria, Queen, and Irish Church 
 
 Bill, 32, 36 
 Vincent, Sir Howard, 274 
 Volunteers Bill, 91 
 
 Walsh, 338 
 
 Walter, John, 352, 356 
 Warrington, Chamberlain at, 280 
 Washington, Pamell at, 103 
 Waterfoot, Lord Hartington at, 279 
 Waterford, Lord, 159 
 Webster, Sir Richard, 353-6 
 Westmeath, Harrington at, 238 
 Westmeath, Lord, 326 
 Westport, meeting at, 98-100, 375 
 Wexford, Pamell at, 168-9, 190 
 Whiteside, 19 
 Wilberforce, Bishop, 34 
 Wiseman, Cardinal, 3 
 Wodehouse, Lord, see Kimberley 
 WolfE. Sir H. D„ 122 
 Woodford evictions, the, 322-4, 326, 
 
 341 
 Worthington, 341 
 W5mdham, George, 376 
 W5mdham's Land Act, 158 
 
 York, Archbishop of, 34 
 Young, Arthur, 177 
 Young Irelanders, i 
 
PKINTED BT 
 
 WnXIAM BSKNDON AND SON, LTU 
 
 PLYMOUTH 
 
A SELECTION OF BOOKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY METHUEN 
 
 AND CO. LTD., LONDON 
 
 36 ESSEX STREET 
 
 W.C. 
 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 
 
 rAGB 
 
 « 
 
 PACB 
 
 General Literatnrs 
 
 
 2 
 
 Little Quarto Shakespeare . 
 
 19 
 
 Ancient Cities. 
 
 
 la 
 
 Miniature Library 
 
 »9 
 
 A.ntiqaary'a Books. 
 
 
 13 
 
 New Library of Medicine . 
 
 19 
 
 Arden Shakespeare 
 
 
 »3 
 
 New Library of Music 
 Oxford Biographies 
 
 so 
 ao 
 
 Classics of Art 
 
 
 »4 
 
 Romantic History 
 
 30 
 
 Complete Series . 
 
 
 M 
 
 States of Italy 
 
 30 
 
 Connoisseor'B Library . 
 
 
 t4 
 
 Westminster Commentaries 
 
 31 
 
 Handbooks of Bngliab Church 
 
 
 ShUling Library . . 
 
 SI 
 
 History . , . , 
 
 
 «5 
 
 
 
 Handbooks of Theology 
 
 . 
 
 »5 
 
 Fiction 
 
 31 
 
 Illustrated Pocket Library 
 
 of 
 
 
 Twe-SbilUng Novels . 
 
 a6 
 
 Plain and Coloured Books 
 
 [5 
 
 Books for Boys and Girls . 
 
 36 
 
 
 
 
 Shilling Novels 
 
 36 
 
 Leaders of Religion 
 
 
 16 
 
 Novels of Alexandre Dumas 
 
 »7 
 
 Library of Devotion 
 
 
 16 
 
 Sixpenny Books 
 
 *1 
 
 Little Books on Art . 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 Little Oalleriee 
 
 
 *7 
 
 Books for TraveBers 
 
 30 
 
 Little Quides . . . 
 
 
 17 
 
 Some Books on Art . 
 
 30 
 
 Little Library • 
 
 
 18 
 
 Some Books on Italy 
 
 31 
 
 SEPTEMBER 1911 
 
A SELECTION OF 
 
 MESSRS. METHUEN'S 
 
 PUBLICATIONS 
 
 In this Catalogue the order k according tm authors. As asterisk denctes 
 that the book is in the press. 
 
 Colonial Editions are published of all Messrs. Mkthukn's Novels issued 
 at a price above zs. 6J., and similar editions are published of some works of 
 General Literature. Colonial editions aur« only for circulation in the British 
 Colonies and India. 
 
 All books marked net are noC subject to discount, and cannot be bought 
 at less than the published price. Books not marked net are subject to th« 
 discount which the bookseller allows. 
 
 Messrs. Methubn's books are kept in stock by all go«d booksellerv If 
 there is any difficulty in seeing copies, Messrs. Methuen will be very glad to 
 have early information, and specimen copies of any books will be sent on 
 receipt of the published price /ius postage for net books, and of the published 
 price for ordinary books. 
 
 This Catalogue contains only a selection of the more Important books 
 published by Messrs. Methuen. A complete and illustrated catalogu* of their 
 publications may b« obtained on application. 
 
 indrewes (Lancelot). PRECES PRI- 
 
 VATAE. Translated and edited, with 
 Notes, by F. £. Bkigktmam. Cr. St>#. 6t. 
 
 Aristotle. THE ETHICS. Edited, with 
 an Introduction and Notes, by John 
 BuxNBT. Demy 8r«. lof. id. net. 
 
 Atkinson CC 1.\ A HISTORY OF GER- 
 MAN V, from 17x5-1815. Illustrated. Demy 
 lv«. lu. &i£ net. 
 
 Atkinson (T. D.). ENGLISH ARCHI- 
 TECTURE. Illustrated. Fca^.lv. yt.dd. 
 net. 
 
 A GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN 
 ENGLISH ARCHITECTURE. Illus- 
 trated. Second Edition, Fcaf. Sew. yt. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 Bain (P. W.). A DIGIT OF THE 
 MOON: A HINDOO LOVB STORY. Eighth 
 Edition. Fcai. ivo. %s. 6d. net. 
 
 THE DESCENT OF THE SUN : A ctcl* 
 or BiRTK. Fi/th Edition. Fcaf. 8<v. 
 xt. 6d. net, 
 
 k HEIFER OF THE DAWN. Sixth Edi- 
 tion. Fcap. %v». at. id. net. 
 
 IN THE GREAT GOD'S HAIR- Fourth 
 Edition. Feap. %vo. as. 6d. net. 
 
 A DRAUGHT OF THE BLUE. Fourth 
 Edition. Fca*. %vo. as. td. net. 
 
 AN ESSENCE OF THE DUSK. Second 
 Edition. Fcap. Zvo, as. td. net. 
 
 AN INCARNATION OF THE SNOW 
 Second Edition. Fcai. Svo. xs. dd. net 
 
 A MINE OF FAULTS. Second Edition 
 Fcap. Svo. 3*. 6d. met. 
 
 THE ASHES OF A GOD Feaf. iv» 
 it, 6d. net. 
 
 Balfour (Graham). THE LIFE 01 
 ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON. Illus- 
 trated. FMh Edition m one Velume 
 Cr. iv». Buckram, tt, 
 
 Barlnc-Gould (S.). THE LIFE OF 
 NAPOLEON BONAPARTE. Illustrated 
 Second Edition. Royal Stw. xot. 6ti. net. 
 
 THE TRAGEDY OF THE CiESARS : 
 A Study of thb Chakactbrs or thi 
 
 CfiSARS or THB JULXAM AKD ClaUDIAM 
 
 Houses. Illustrated. Stvettth Edition 
 
 RoyeU 9vo. lot. 6d. net, 
 A BOOK OF FAIRY TALES. lUustrated 
 
 Second Editi0n. Cr. »V0. ti. hhoMedim 
 
 tvo. 6d. 
 OLD ENGLISH FAIRY TALES. WuJ- 
 
 trated. Third Edition. Cr. tvo. Buck' 
 
 rant. 6x. 
 THE VICAR OF MORWENSTOW. Witt 
 
 a Portrait. Third Edition. Cr. Svo. y. U 
 OLD COUNTRY LIFE. Illustrated. fi/H 
 
 Edition. Large Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 STRANGE SURVIVALS : Somb Chaptbm 
 
 IN THE History or Man. Illustrated 
 
 Third Edition. Cr. Svo. as. 6d net. 
 
General Literature 
 
 YORKSHIRS ODDITIES : Incidkmts 
 AND Strange Events. Fifth Edition. 
 Cr. iv. a*- 6d. Hti. 
 
 A BOOK OF CORNWALL. lUuitrated. 
 Second EdttioH. Cr. %vo. 6*. 
 
 A BOOK OF DARTMOOR. lUustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. Zv». 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF DEVON. lUustrated. TOird 
 Edition. Cr, tvo. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF NORTH WALES. IHus- 
 trated. Cr. Btw. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF SOUTH WALES. lUus- 
 trated. Cr. tvt. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF BRITTANY. lUustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF THE RHINE : From Cleve 
 to Mains. lUustrated. Second Edition, 
 Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF THE RIVIERA. lUus- 
 trated. Second Edition. Cr. iva. 6s. 
 
 A BOOK OF THE PYRENEES. lUus- 
 trated. Cr. iv0. 6s. 
 
 BaplnfiT-Gould (S.) and SheppaFd (H. 
 Fleetwood). A GARLAND OF 
 COUNTRY SONG. English Folk Songs 
 with their Traditional Melodies. Demy 4/*. 
 6x. 
 
 SONGS OF THE WEST <. Folk Songs of 
 Devon and Cornwall. Collected from the 
 Mouths of the People. New and Revised 
 Edition, under the musical editorship of 
 Cecil J. Shakf. Large Imperial 6ve. 
 5J. net. 
 
 Barker (B.). THE POLITICAL 
 THOUGHT OF PLATO AND ARIS- 
 TOTLE. Detny tv0. tos. 6d. net. 
 
 Bastable (C. P.). THE COMMERCE 
 OF NATIONS. Fifth Edition. Cr. Bw. 
 is. 6d. 
 
 Batson (Mrs. Stephen). A CONCISE 
 HANDBOOK OF GARDEN FLOWERS. 
 Fca^. Svo. 3*. 6d. 
 
 Beckett (Arthur). THE SPIRIT OF 
 THE DOWNS; Impressio7\s and Remi- 
 niscences of tlM Stissex Downs. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Demy ivo, lof . 6d, not. 
 
 Beekfopd (PeWr). THOUGHTS ON 
 HUNTING. Edited by J. Otho Pagbt. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Demy 8**. 6*. 
 
 Belloe (H.). PARIS. lUustrated. Second 
 Edition, Revised, Cr. 6vo. 6s. 
 
 HILLS AND THE SEA. Third Edition. 
 Fcai. %v». 5*. 
 
 ON NOTHING AND KINDRED SUB- 
 JECTS. Third Edition. Fcaf. Zvo. 5*. 
 
 ON EVERYTHING. Second Edition. Fcaf. 
 Ivo. s*. 
 
 ON SOMETHING. Second Edition. Fea^. 
 
 •FIRST AND LAST. Fca*. %v». v 
 
 Marie Antoinette, illustrated. 
 
 Third Edition. Demy %vo. 15*. net. 
 THE PYRENEES. lUustrated. Setond 
 Edition. Demy ivo. 7s. 6d. net. 
 
 Bennett (W. H.). A PRIMER OF THE 
 
 BIBLE. Fifth Edition. Cr. 6vo. 2*. 6d. 
 
 Bennett (W. H.) and Adeney (W. P.). A 
 BIBLICAL INTRODUCTION. With a 
 concise Bibliography. Sixth Edition. Cr. 
 %vo. js. 6d. 
 
 Benson (Arehblshop). GOD'S BOARD. 
 
 Communion Addresses. Second Edition. 
 Fca/. Svo. y. 6d. net. 
 
 Bensusan (Samuel L.). HOME LIFE 
 
 IN SPAIN. lUustrated. Second Edition. 
 Demy ivo. tos. 6d. net. 
 
 Betham-Edwards (Miss). HOME LIFE 
 IN FRANCE. lUustrated. Fifth Edition. 
 Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 
 Bindley (T. Herbert). THE OECU- 
 MENICAL DOCUMENTS OF THE 
 FAITH. With Introducdons and Notes. 
 Second Edition. Cr. &vo. 6s. net. 
 
 Blake (William). ILLUSTRATIONS OF 
 
 THE BOOK OF JOB. With a General In- 
 troduction by Laussncx Bimyon. Illus- 
 trated. Quarto, ais. net. 
 
 Bloemfonteln (Bishop of). ARA CCELI : 
 An Essay in Mystical Theology. 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. ivo. xs. 6d. net. 
 
 FAITH AND EXPERIENCE. Cr. 8m>. 
 3«. 6d. net. 
 
 Bowden (K. M.). THE IMITATION OF 
 BUDDHA: Quotations from Buddhist 
 Literature for each Day in the Year. Sixth 
 Edition. Cr. i6mo. as. 6d. 
 
 Brabant (P. G.\ RAMBLES IN SUSSEX. 
 lUustrated. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Bradley (A. G.). ROUND ABOUT WILT- 
 SHIR!£. lUustrated. Second Edition. Cr. 
 ivo.' 6s. 
 
 THE ROMANCE OF NORTHUMBER- 
 LAND. lUustrated. Second Edition. Demy 
 Sv0. fs. 6d. net. 
 
 Braid (James). ADVANCED GOLF. 
 
 lUustrated. Sixth Edition. Demy ivo. 
 10s. 6d. net. 
 
 Brallsford (H. N.> MACEDONIA t Its 
 Races and their Future. lUustrated. 
 Demy tvo. tas. 6d. net. 
 
 Brodrlek (Mary) and Morton (A. Ander- 
 son). A CONCISE DICTIONARY OF 
 EGYPTIAN ARCHiEOLOGY. A Hand- 
 book for Students and TraveUers. lUus- 
 trated. Cr. ivo. 3s. 6d. 
 
 Brownlflff (Robert). PARACELSUS. 
 Edited with an Introduction, Notes, and 
 BibUography by Margaret L. Lee and 
 Kathakinb B. Locock. Fca/. ivo. 31. 6d. 
 not. 
 
Methukn and Company Limited 
 
 Buekton (A. M.). EAGER HEART: A 
 Christmai Mystery-Play. Ninth Edition, 
 Cr. 8f«. M. net. 
 
 BudM (E. A. Wallls). THE GODS OF 
 THE EGYPTIANS. Illustrated. Tvm 
 Vclumts. RoyoU%v: £3 3s. tut 
 
 BuU(PauI). GOD AND OUR SOLDIERS. 
 StcoHd Edition. Cr. tvo. 6f. 
 
 Burns (Robert). THE POEMS AND 
 SONGS. Edited by Amdkkw Lang and 
 W. A. Craigie. With Portrait. Third 
 Edition. Widt Dtmy %v, 6*. 
 
 Busbey (Katherlne G.). HOME LIFE 
 IN AMERICA. lUustrated. Second Edi- 
 tion. Demy%v0. xox. bd, net. 
 
 ButUn (F. M.). AMONG THE DANES. 
 Illustrated. Demy ivo. js. 6d. net. 
 
 Cain (Georsres), WALKS IN PARIS. 
 Translated by A. R. Alxinson. Illustrated. 
 Dewty Svo. 7*. 6d. net. 
 
 •Caiman (W. T.). THE LIFE OF 
 CRUSTACEA. Illustrated. Cr. 8i>#. 6t. 
 
 Carlyle (Thomas). THE FRENCH 
 REVOLUTION. Edited by C R. L. 
 Flbtchkr. Three Volumes. Cr. Svo. i&r. 
 
 THE LETTERS AND SPEECHES OF 
 OLIVER CROMWELL. With an In- 
 troduction by C H. Firth, and Ncte» 
 and Appendices by S. C. Lomas. Thr*4 
 Volumet. Demy iv4. iSf. net. 
 
 Celano (Brother Thomas of)- THE 
 
 LIVES OF S. FRANCIS OF ASSISL 
 Translated by A. G. Feekeks Howsli. 
 Illustrated. Cr. 8v0. it. net. 
 
 Chambers (Mrs. Lambert). LAWN 
 TENNIS FOR LADIES. lUnitntwL 
 Cr. iv*. w. 6d. net. 
 
 Chesterfield (Lord). THE LETTERS OF 
 THE EARL OF CHESTERFIELD TO 
 HIS SON. Edited, with an Introduction by 
 C. Strachby, and Notes by A. Caltheoy. 
 Two Volumee. Cr. Ivo. la*. 
 
 Chesterton (G.K.). CHARLES DICKXNS. 
 
 With two Portraiu in Photogravur*. Seventh 
 
 Edition. Cr. %v». 6*. 
 ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. Sixth 
 
 Edition. Fcnp. Svo. 5*. 
 TREMENDOUS TRIFLES. Fourth 
 
 Edition. Fcaf. tvo. st. 
 ALARMS AND DISCtJRSIONS. Suond 
 
 Edition. Fcap. 8fW. 5*. 
 THE BALLAD OF THE WHITE 
 
 HORSE. Fcap. tvo. 5*. 
 
 Clausen (Georgre). SIX LECTURES ON 
 PAINTING. Illustrated. Third Edition. 
 Large Post tvo. y. 6d. net. 
 
 AIMS AND IDEALS IN ART. Eight 
 Lectures delivered to the Students of the 
 Royal Academy of Arts. Illustrated. Second 
 Edition. Lar£e Post Zvo. 5/. net. 
 
 Clutton-Broek (AO SHELLEY- thu 
 MAN AND THE POET. IlluitA^J 
 DemyZvo. j*. id. not. "^«tratei 
 
 Cobb CW.P.). THE BOOK OF PSALMs 
 with an Introduction and Notes. Demy 8m 
 MX. id. net. ^' 
 
 ColllnflTWOOd (W. G.). THE LIFE Of 
 JOHN RUSKIN. With Portrait ^/;,i 
 Edition. Cr.tv*. v. id. net 
 
 Conrad (Joseph> THE mirror of 
 
 THE SEA: Memoriet »nd Impreisiom 
 Third Edition. Cr. U>o. U. '""""" 
 
 Coolidge (W. A. B.). THE ALPS. II]m. 
 trated. Demy go*, it. id. net. 
 
 Coulton (G. G.). CHAUCER AND HIS 
 
 ENGLAND. lUustrated. Second Edition 
 Demy Svo. 10s. id. net. 
 
 Cowper (William). THE poems. 
 
 Edited with an Introdnction and Notes by 
 J. C. Bailkt. Illustrated. Dewy 8w. 
 xos. id. net. 
 
 Crlspe (T. K.). REMINISCENCES OF A 
 K.C:. With s Portraits. Second Mditien. 
 Demy tvo. lof . id. net, 
 
 Crowley (Ralph H.). THE HYGIENE 
 OF SCHOOL UFE. Ulustrated. Cr. 
 tvo. it. id. net. 
 
 Dante Allffhlerl. LA COMMEDIA DI 
 
 DANTE. Tha lulian Text edited \>y 
 Paget ToTNasK. Cr. tvo. it. 
 
 Davey (Biehard> THE PAGEANT OF 
 
 LONDON. Illustrated. InTwVelumu. 
 Demy tvo, ly. net. 
 
 Davis (H. W. C). ENGLAND UNDER 
 THE NORMANS AND ANGEVINS: 
 1066-1373. Illustratwl. Soeond Eiititit. 
 Demy tvo. wot. U. mot. 
 
 •Dawbani (Charles.) FRANCE AND 
 
 THE FRENCH. lUostiated. DemfUt. 
 
 Mt. id. 
 
 Dearmer (Mabel). 4 CHILD'S LIFE 
 OF CHRIST. Ulustrated. Lori» Cr. 
 tvo. it. 
 
 Deffand (Madame Du). THE LETTERS 
 
 OF MADAME DU DEFFAND TO 
 HORACE WALPOLE. Edited, wtk 
 Introduction, Notes, and Index, by Mrs. 
 Paget Toynbex. In Three Velmet- 
 Demy tvo. £i jf • met. 
 
 Dickinson (6. L.). THE GREEK VIEW 
 OF LIFE. Seventh Edition. Crovmif- 
 V. id. net. 
 
 Dltehfleld (P. H.). THE PARISH 
 CLERK. lilnstrated. Thtrd Sdttwi. 
 Demy tvo. Jt. id. net. , 
 
 THE OLD-TIME PARSON. IUusti»ted 
 Second Edition, Demy tvo. js. id «* 
 
General Literature 
 
 5 
 
 mtehfleld (P. H.) and Roe (PredX 
 
 *^VANISHING ENGLAND. The Book by 
 p. H- DitchfieUt Illustrated by Fkbo Rob. 
 Stcond EditicM. Wide Demy iiM. lit. met. 
 
 Douglas (Hugh A.). VENICE ON FOOT. 
 
 With the Itinerary of the Grand Canal. 
 
 Illustrated. Second MdiiUn. Fca^. %v. 
 
 tf. net. 
 VENICE AND HER TREASURES. 
 
 Illustrated. K t t md earner*. Fcmf. W*. 
 
 y. net, 
 
 Dowden (J.). FURTHER STUDIES IN 
 THE PRAYER BOOK. Cr.*v*. 6*. 
 
 Driver (S. R.). SERMONS ON 
 SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE 
 OLD TESTA14ENT. Cr. tv*. 6*. 
 
 Dumas (Alexandre). THE CRIMES OF 
 
 THE BORGrAS AND OTHERS. With 
 
 an Introdcction by R S. Gakmktt. 
 
 Illustrated. Secend Editivn, Cr. iv». 6t. 
 THE CRIMES OF URBAIN GRAN- 
 
 DIERAND OTHERS. Illustrated. Cr. 
 
 8w. 6». 
 THE CRIMES OF THE MARQUISE 
 
 DE BRINVILLIERS AND OTHER& 
 
 Illustrated. Cr. 8«*. 6t. 
 THE CRIMES OF AU PACHA AND 
 
 OTHERS. Illustrated. Cr.Zve. 6*. 
 MY MEMOIRS. Translated by E. M. 
 
 Wallkr. With an Ii^oductioa by Andkbw 
 
 Lang. With Frcmtispieoes in Photogravture. 
 
 In six Volumes. Cr. 8t>«. 6i. each velume. 
 Vol. L i8oa-i8ax. Vou IV. 1830-1831. 
 
 Vol. IL 18M-X835. Vou V. 1831-1833. 
 
 Vol. hi. 1826-183* Vol. VL iSsa-iSaa. 
 MY PETS. Newly tnmsUted by A. R. 
 
 Allinson. Illustrated. Cr. %ve. 6s. 
 
 Duncan (F. M.\ OUR INSECT 
 FRIENDS AND rO£& Illnstrated. 
 Cr. ivo. 6f. 
 
 Dunn-Pattison (R. P.). NAPOLEON'S 
 MARSHALS. IHustrated. Demy lew. 
 Second Edition, \r*. (>d net, 
 
 THE BLACK PRINCE. ninstiated. 
 Stcond Edition. Demy 8m. ff. id. net. 
 
 Durham (The Earl of). THE REPORT 
 ON CANADA. With as Introductory 
 Note. Demy Bm. 4«. td. net. 
 
 Dutt(W.A.). THE NORFOLK BROADS. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. 8r#. 6*. 
 WILD LIFE IN EAST ANGLHu Illus- 
 
 trated. Second Edition. Demy Zvo. jt. td. 
 
 net. 
 
 Edwardes (Tleknert THE LORE OF 
 THE HONEY-BEE. Ulostrated. Third 
 
 iT-?.'^''^- Cr.tvo. 6*. 
 
 LIFT-LUCK ON SOUTHERN ROADS. 
 Illustrated. Cr. 9v». it. 
 NEIGHBOURHOOD: A Ykak'i Lifb in 
 AND About ah English Villa(». Uhu- 
 trated. Cr.ivo. 6t. 
 
 EjMrton (H. B). A SHORT HISTORY 
 T)F BRITISH COLONIAL POLICY. 
 Third Edition. Demy Svo. jt. td. net. 
 
 Exeter (Bishop of). R E G N U M D E L 
 
 (The Bampton Lectures of 1901.) A Cheaper 
 Edition. Demy 6va. jt. 6d. net. 
 
 Falrbrother (W. H.7. THE PHILO. 
 
 SOPHY OF T. H. GREEN. Second 
 Edition. Cr. »vo, jt. id. 
 
 Fea (Allan). THE FLIGHT OF THE 
 KING. Illustrated. Second und Revited 
 Edition. Demy ivo. -jt. id. not. 
 
 SECRET CHAMBERS AND HIDING- 
 PLACES. Illustrated. Third mnd Revited 
 Edition. Demy ivo. jt. td. net. 
 
 JAMES n. AND HIS WIVES. Illustrated. 
 Demy ivo. zv. id net. 
 
 Firth (C. H.). CROMWELL'S ARMY: 
 A History of the Enslish Soldier during the 
 Civil Wars, the Commonwealth, and the 
 Protectorate. Cr. 6vo. it. 
 
 Fisher (H. A. L.). THE REPUBLICAN 
 TRADITION IN EUROPE. Cr. ivo. 
 it.net. 
 
 FltzGerald (Edward). THE RUBAI'YAT 
 OF OMAR KHAYYAM. Printed from 
 the Fifth and last Edition. With a Com- 
 mentary bv H. M. Batson, and a Biograph- 
 ical Introduction by £. D. Ross. Cr. tvo. 
 it. 
 
 Fleteher (J. S). A BOOK OF YORK- 
 SHIRE, nhistrated. Demy •«». 1*. id. 
 met. 
 
 Flux (A. W.). ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES 
 Demy Stw. jt. td. net. 
 
 Fraser (J. F.). ROUND THE WORLD 
 ON A WHEEL. lUustrated. Fifth 
 Edition. Cr. %vo. it. 
 
 Galton (Sir Francis). MEMORIES OF 
 
 MY LIFE. Illustrated. Third Edition. 
 Demy Saw. >&f . id. nH. 
 
 Glbblnt ffl. de B). INDUSTRY IN 
 ENGLAND: HISTORICAL OUT- 
 LINES. With 5 Maps. Sixth Edition. 
 Demy %vo. lot. td. 
 
 THE INDUSTRIAL HISTORY OF 
 ENGLAND. Illustrated. Seventeenth 
 Edition. Cr. tvo. y. 
 
 ENGLISH SOCIAL REFORMERS. 
 Second Edition. Cr. 8*». *t. id. 
 
 Gibbon (Edward). THE MEMOIRS CF 
 
 THE LIFE OF EDWARD GIBBON. 
 Edited by G. Birkbkck Hili. Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 THE DECLINE AND FALL OF THE 
 ROMAN EMPIRE. Edited, with Notes, 
 Appendices, and Maps, by J. B. Bukt, 
 Ulostrated. In Seven Vilumot. Demy 
 %vo. Each lot. id. net. 
 
Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 Gloag (M. R.) A BOOK OF ENGLISH 
 GARDENS. Illustrated. Dtmy Zoo. 
 I or. fid. net. 
 
 •Glover (J. M.). JIMMY GLOVKR— HIS 
 BOOK. Dtmy %vo. la*. 6d. net. 
 
 Glover (T. R.). THE CONFLICT OF 
 RELIGIONS IN THE EARLY ROMAN 
 EMPIRE. Fturth Edition. Dtmy 8w#. 
 ^t. td. net. 
 
 Godfrey (Elizabeth). A BOOK OF RE- 
 MEMBRANCE. Being Lyrical Selections 
 for every day in the Year. Arranged by 
 E. Godfrey. Stcend Edition. Fcaf. ivo. 
 It. 6d. net. 
 
 Godley (A. D.). OXFORD IN THE 
 
 EIGHTEENTH CENTURY. Illustrated. 
 
 Second Edition. Demy ivo. js. 6d. net. 
 LYRA FRIVOLA. Fonrih Edition. Fcap. 
 
 %vo. %t. td. 
 VERSES TO ORDER. Second Edition. 
 
 Fcap. Zvo. ax. 6rf. 
 SECOND STRINGS. Fcaf. Zvo. ax. f>d. 
 
 Gordon (Llna Duff) (Mrs. Aubrey Water- 
 field). HOME LIFE IN ITALY : Lkttkm 
 FROU THB Apbnninks. Illustrated. Second 
 Edition. Demy 8r#. lor. td. net. 
 
 Gostling (Frances M.). THE BRETONS 
 
 AT HOME. Illustrated- Third Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 AUVERGNE AND ITS PEOPLE, Illus- 
 trated. Demy %vo. lof . td. net. 
 
 Grahame (Kenneth). THE WIND IN 
 THE WILLOWS. Illustrated. Fifth 
 Edition. Cr. Svo. tt. 
 
 •Grew (Edwin Sharpe). THE GROWTH 
 OF A PLANET, ifiustrated. Cr.lvo. tt. 
 
 Grlffln (W. Hain and Minehln (H. C.\ 
 THE LIFE OF ROBERT BROWNING. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Dtmy tvo. 
 rat. td. net. 
 
 Hale (J. R.). FAMOUS SEA FIGHTS : 
 FROM Salamis to Tsu-Shima. Illastrated. 
 Cr. tvo. tt. net. 
 
 Hall (Cyril). THE YOUNG CARPEN- 
 TER. Illustrated. Cr. Bvo. y- 
 
 Hall (Hammond). THE YOUNG EN- 
 GINEER : or MoDUN Engines and thbir 
 Models Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Cr. ivo. 5». 
 
 THE YOUNG ELECTRICIAN. IUu»- 
 trated. Second Edition. Cr. ivo. 5/. 
 
 Hannay (D.) 
 
 THE ROYAL NAVY 
 
 A SHORT HISTORY OF 
 Vol. I., 1917-1688. 
 Vol. II., 1689-1815. Dtmy ivo. Each 
 yt. td. net. 
 
 Harper (Charles G.). THE AUTOCAR 
 ROAD-BOOK. Four Volumes with Maps. 
 Cr. Svo. Emch 7/. td. net. 
 \<A. I. — South of the Thames. 
 Vol. II. — North and South Wai:.bs 
 AMD West Midlands. 
 
 HassaU (Arthur). NAPOLEON. lUus- 
 
 trated. Dtmy ivo. jt. td. net. 
 
 Headley (P. W.). DARWINISM and 
 
 ■MODERN SOCIALISM. Second Edition. 
 Cr. ivo. St. net. 
 
 Henderson (B. W.). THE LIFE AND 
 
 PRINCIPATE OF THE EMPEROR 
 NERO. Illustrated. iV«to mnd themter 
 ittue. Demy Svo. jt. td. ntt. 
 
 Henderson (M. Sturae). GEORGE 
 MEREDITH : NOVELIST, POET 
 REFORMER. IDustnited. StcondEditioii 
 Cr. %vo. tt. 
 
 Henderson (T. F.) and Watt {Francis). 
 
 SCOTLAND OF TO-DAY. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. Svo, tt. 
 
 Henley (W. E.). ENGUSH LYRICS. 
 CHAUCER TO POE. Second Edition. 
 Cr, Svo. at. td. net. 
 
 HIU (Georire Francis). ONE HUNDRED 
 masterpifx:es of sculpture. 
 
 Illustrated. Demy Svo. tos, td, net. 
 
 Hind (C. Lewis). DAYS IN CORNWALL. 
 Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr. tvo. 6t. 
 
 Hobhouse (L. T.). THE THEORY OF 
 KNOWLEDGE. Demy Svo. lot. td. net. 
 
 Hodgson (Mrs. W.). HOW TO IDENTIFY 
 OLD CHINESE PORCELAIN. Illus- 
 trated. Second Edition, Pott Svo, tt. 
 
 Holdieh IStr T. H.). THE INDIAN 
 BORDERLAND, 1880-1900. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Doiitf tvo. tot. td. net. 
 
 Holdsworth (W. S.). 
 ENGLISH LAW 
 
 A HISTORY OF 
 In Four Volumes. 
 VoU, /., //., ///. Demy Sow. E4tch lot. td. 
 net. 
 
 Holland (Cllve). TYROL AND ITS 
 
 PEOPLE. Illustrated. Dtmy tvo. 101. td 
 net. 
 •THE BELGIANS AT HOME. lUuttrated. 
 Demy tvo, tot. td. net, 
 
 Horsbunrb (E. L. S.). LORENZO THE 
 MAGNIFICENT : and Florence in her 
 Golden Age. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Demy Svo. ist. net. 
 
 WATERLOO : A Naxxatitb and a crit- 
 icism. With PlaM. Second Edition. Ct. 
 Svo. Kt. 
 
 •THE Life of savonarola. nius- 
 
 trated. Fourth tmd EnUrgtd Edition. 
 Cr. 8r«. jx. net. 
 
 Hosle (Alexander). BIANCHURLi. nin». 
 
 trated. Second Edition. Dtmy tvo. 7*. td. 
 net, 
 Hudson (W. H.). A SHEPHERD'S 
 LIFE : Impressions or the Sooth Wilt- 
 •hire Downs. Illnstrated. Third.Edf 
 tion. Dtmy Svo. ji. td. met. 
 
General Literature 
 
 •HuBon (Welle), SOaAL LIFE IN 
 FRA.NCE IN THE XVII. CENTURY. 
 Illustrated. Demy 8tv. lor. 6tL net. 
 
 Humphreys _^hn_^H.). 
 
 PROPOR- 
 TIC5NAL' REPRESENTATION. Cr. Sv0. 
 5f. tut. 
 
 Hutchinson (Horace G.). THE NEW 
 
 FOREST. IHustntted FturtA Edition. 
 Cr. Sew. 6x. 
 
 Button (Kdwapd). THE CITIES OF 
 
 SPAIN. Illustrated. Fourth Edition. 
 
 Cr. %vo. 6t. 
 THE CITIES OF UMBRIA. lUustrated. 
 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. %v». fa. 
 FLORENCE AND THE CITIES OF 
 
 NORTHERN TU'SCANY WITH 
 
 GENOA. Illustrated. Stcond EdUion. 
 
 Cr. t»o. 6s. 
 SIENA AND SOUTHERN TUSCANY. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. Svo. 6t. 
 •VENICE AND VENETIA. lUustrated. 
 
 Cr. 8w#. 6f. 
 ROME. lUustrated. Second Edition. Cr. 
 
 Sua. 6t. 
 ENGLISH LOVE POEMS. Edited with 
 
 an Introduction. Fcai. 9vo. xs. 6d. net. 
 COUNTRY WALKS ABOUT IXORENCE. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Fc»^. ivo. 
 
 c,s. net. 
 IN UNKNOWN TUSCANY With Notes. 
 
 by WiixiAM Hkywooo. Illustrated. Second 
 
 Edition. Demy ivo. jt. 6d. net. 
 •A BOOK OF THE WYE. lUustrated. 
 
 Demy Sfw. jm. 6d. net. 
 
 Ibsen (Henrik). BRAND. A Dramatic 
 Poem, Translated by Wiixiam Wilson. 
 Fottrth Ediii4». Cr. Stw. y . ftd. 
 
 Insre (W. R.). CHRISTIAN MYSTiaSM. 
 (The Bampton Lectures of 1899.) Dew^ Saw. 
 12/. id. nit, 
 
 InnesjA. D.). A HISTORY OF THE 
 
 BRITISH IN INDIA. With Maps and 
 
 Plans. Cr. Sew. 6«. 
 ENGLAND UNDER THE TUDORS. 
 
 With Maps. Third Edition. Demy %vo. 
 
 xo*. 6d. net. 
 
 Innet (Mary). SCHOOLS OF PAINT- 
 ING. lUustnted. Second Edition. Cr. 
 iv: it. net. 
 
 Jenks «.). AN OUTLINE OF ENG- 
 LISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Second 
 Edition. Revised by R. C K. Knsox, 
 Cr. Sew. M. 6d. net. 
 
 Jeriilngham (Charles Edward). THE 
 MAXIMS OF MARMADUKE. Second 
 Edttim. Cr. Sew. jr. 
 
 Merrold CWalter). THE DANUBE. 
 
 Illustrated. Demy Svo. lof. 6d net. 
 
 Johnston (Sir H. H. ). BRITISH CEN- 
 
 TRAL AFRICA. lUustrated. TAird 
 Edition. Cr. ^to. i8j. net. 
 THE NEGRO IN THE NEW WORLD. 
 Illustrated. Demy 8t/o. six. net. 
 
 Julian (Lady) of Norwich. REVELA- 
 TIONS OF DIVINE LOVE. Edited by 
 Gkacb Waxkack. Fourth Edition. Cr. 
 ivo. 31. 6d. 
 
 Keats iJohn). THE POEMS. Edited 
 with Introduction and Notes by E. de 
 SiLiNCOURT. With a Frontispiece in Photo- 
 gravure. Third Edition. Demy ivo. 
 
 js. 6d. net. 
 
 Keble (John). THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. 
 With an Introduction and Notes by W. 
 Lock. Illustrated. Third Edition. Fcap. 
 %vo. y. 6d. 
 
 Kempls (Thomas a). THE IMITATION 
 
 OF CHRIST. With an Introduction by 
 Dean Farrar. Illustrated. Third 
 Edition. Fca^. ivo. 31. 6d/ /added 
 morocco, 5*. 
 
 Kipling (Rudyard). BARRACK-ROOM 
 BALLADS. 100th Thousmnd, Twenty- 
 ninth Edition. Cr. 8v«. fit. Also Fca/. 
 %vo. Leather. $s. net. 
 
 THE SEVEN SEAS. 84M Thousand. 
 Seventeenth Edition. Cr. ivo. ts. Also 
 Fcai. tt>e. Leather. 5J. net. 
 
 THE FIVE NATIONS, ^otk Thousand. 
 Seventh Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s. Also Fca/. 
 tvo, Leather. 5*. net. 
 
 DEPARTMENTAL DITTIES. Nineteenth 
 Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s. Also Fca/. tve. 
 Leather, it. net. 
 
 Knox (Winifred P.). THE COURT OF 
 A SAINT. lUustrated. Demf Sew. 
 lor. 6d. net. 
 
 *Lamb (Charles and Mary). THE 
 WORKS. Edited with an Introduction 
 and Notes hjf E. V. Lucas. A New and 
 Revised Edition in Six Volumes. H^ith 
 Frontispiece. Fca/ ivo. $*• *ach. The 
 volumes are :— 
 
 I. MiSCBLLANBOUS PrOSB. II. EUA AND 
 
 THB LAST Essays of Elia. iiu Books 
 FOX Childkbn. vr. Plays and Poems. 
 V. and VI. Letters. 
 
 Lane-Poole (Stanley). A HISTORY OF 
 EGYPT IN THE MIDDLE AGES. 
 lUustrated. Cr. ivo. 6t. 
 
 Lankester (Sir Ray). SCIENCE FROM 
 
 AN EASY CHAIR. Illustrated. Fifth 
 Edition. Cr. ivo- 6s. 
 
 Le Braz (Anatole). THE LAND OF 
 
 PARDONS. Translated by Frances M. 
 GoSTLiNC. Illustrated. Third Edition, 
 Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 
8 
 
 Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 Lindsay (Mabel M.). ANNI DOMINI : 
 A Gospel Study. With Maps. Tw« 
 Volumet. Su^iV R»yal Svw. \ot. ntt. 
 
 Lock (Walter). ST. PAUL, THE 
 MASTER-BUILDER. Third Edition. 
 Cr, Zvo. V. 6d. 
 
 THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIAN LIFE. 
 Cr. tv*. 6s. 
 
 Lodge (Slp Oliver). THE SUBSTANCE 
 OF FAITH, ALLIED WITH SCIENCE : 
 A Catechism for Parents and Teacfaert. 
 EUvtntk Edition. Cr. ivo. a*, net. 
 
 MAN AND THE UNIVERSE : A Studt 
 
 OF THB InFLUBNCK OP THB AdVANCK IN 
 SCIBNTIFIC KnOWLKDGB UPON OUm UNDKX- 
 
 STANDiMO or Christianitt. Ninth 
 
 Edition, Demy tvo. ex. net. 
 THE SURVIVAL OF MAN. A Study im 
 
 Unrkcocniseo Human Faculty. Fifth 
 
 Edition, Wide Crown 8v#. y. net. 
 REASON AND BELIEF. Fifth Edition, 
 
 Cr. &V0. y. 6d. net. 
 
 Lopfmer (Georcre Horaee). LETTERS 
 
 FROM A SELF-MADE MERCHANT 
 TO HIS SON. Illustrated. EiihUenth 
 Edition. Cr. 8vo, v. 6d. 
 OLD GORGON GRAHAM. IDustnted. 
 Second Edition. Cr. 6vo, 6t. 
 
 •Loyal SePYlteup.' THE STORY OF 
 liA YARD. Adapted by Amy G. Andxewes. 
 Illustrated. Cr. ivo. at. id. 
 
 Lucas (E. v.). THE LIFE OF CHARLES 
 
 LAMB. Illustrated. Fifth Edition. Demy 
 
 ivo. js. 6d net. 
 A WANDERER IN HOLLAND, nius- 
 
 trated. T-wtlfth Edition. Cr. lew. 6t. 
 
 *AUo FctU.Zvo. w. 
 A WANDERER IN LONDON. Illus- 
 trated. Eleventh Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 
 *A Iso Fcap. 8vo. 5s. 
 A WANDERER IN PARIS. Illustrated. 
 
 Seventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 *Also Feat. ivo. jj. 
 THE OPEN ROAD: A Uttle Book for 
 
 Wayfarers. Eighteenth Edition. Fca/. 
 
 ivo. 5*. ; India Paper, js. 6d, 
 THE FRIENDLY TOWN : a LittU Book 
 
 for the Urbane. Sixth Edition. Fe*/. 8vw. 
 
 SJ. ; India Paper, js. 6d. 
 FIRESIDE AND SUNSHINE. Sixth 
 
 Edition. Fcap. ivo. 5*. 
 CHARACTER AND COMEDY. Sixth 
 
 Edition. Fcap. ivo. ss. 
 THE GENTLEST ART. A Choice of 
 
 Letters by Entertaining Hands. Sixth 
 
 Edition. Fcap iivo. ks. 
 THE SECOND POST. Third Edition. 
 
 Fcap. ivo. 5*. 
 A SWAN AND HER FRIENDS. IHus- 
 
 trated. Demy ivo. izx. 6d. not. 
 HER INFINITE VARIETY : A FsMiNiMm 
 
 Portrait Gallery. Fifth Edition. 
 
 Fcap. iv». is. 
 
 GOOD COMPANY: A Rau.t or Mew 
 Second Edition, Fcap. ivo. u. 
 
 ONE DAY AND ANOTHER, FoMrth 
 Edition. Fcap. ivo. $s. 
 
 •OLD LAMPS FOR NEW. FcaP.Uo. « 
 
 LISTENER'S LURE : Am Oblique Nar- 
 ration. Eiehth Edition. Feap. 8w. « 
 
 OVER BEMERTON'S: An Easy-Going 
 Chronicle. Ninth EditJMt. Fcmp. Ui: 
 
 •bIr. INGLESIDK Feap. •«». 51. 
 See also Lamb (Charles). 
 
 *Lydekkep (R. and Others), reptiles, 
 
 AMPHIBIA. AND FISHES. lUustrated! 
 Demy ivo. lof. 6d. not, 
 
 *Lydekker (R.). THE OX mastrated 
 Cr. Sfw. 6t. 
 
 Haeaolay (Lord). GRITICAL AND 
 HISTORICAL ESSAYS. Edited by F. 
 C HoNTACUB. Three Volnmot. Cr. ive 
 \tt. 
 
 MeCabe (Joseph). THE DECAY OF 
 THE CHURCH OF ROME. Third 
 Edition. Demy ivo. jt. id. net. 
 
 •THE EMPRESSES OF ROME. Illns 
 trmted. Deng) tvo. tms. id. pet. 
 
 HaeCaFthy (Desmond) and Russell 
 
 (Aaratha) LADY JOHN RUSSELL: 
 
 A Muioi* tilBstrated. Fourth Edition 
 
 Domy U>o. tos id. not. 
 
 MeCnIlach (Franels). THE FALL OF 
 
 ABD-XJL-HAMID. mustrated. Demj 
 tv#. lor. id. net. 
 
 •MaeDonaffh (Michael). THE SPEAKER 
 OF THE HOUSE. Den^ Ivo. lot. U 
 net. 
 
 MeDongan(WDnam). AN INTRODUC- 
 TIOIT TO SOCLAL PSYCHOLOGY 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. UfO. w. net. 
 
 •BODY AND MIND : A HnroRT and a 
 Defbncx or Animism. I>omy 8s». 101, id. 
 net. 
 
 • MdHe. Mopl • (Author ofj, ST. CATHER- 
 
 INE OF SIENA AND HEfl TIMES. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Domy Iv* 
 yt. id. net. 
 
 Maeterlinck (Maurtce). THE BLUK 
 BIRD: A Fairy Play in Six Acts. 
 Transbued by Auucandkk Tbixxira di 
 Mattos. Twentieth Edition. FtaP. iv». 
 Deckle Edge*, y. M net. Also Fcip. Ivt. 
 Paper covert, u. net. 
 
 •THE BLUE BIRD : A Faixt Plat in Six 
 Acts. Translated by Albxamdbr TbixbiRA 
 DE Mattos. Illustrated. Cr. \to. tjs. net. 
 
 MARY MAGDALENE i A Play nc Three 
 Acts. Translated byAucxANDKB Tbixeira 
 DB Mattos. Third Edition. Feap. 8w- 
 Dechle EdgU. y. id. net. 
 
General Literature 
 
 HahaflVUb P.). A HISTORY OF EX5YPT 
 UNPER THE PTOLEMAIC DYNASTY. 
 Illustrated. Cr. iv*. 6s. 
 
 MaltUnd (F. W.}. ROMAN CANON 
 LAW IN THE CHURCH OF ENG- 
 LAND. Xt^ 8tv. jt. 6d. 
 
 Marett (R. R.), THE THRESHOLD OF 
 RELIGION. Cr. 8tw. 31. 6d. net. 
 
 Harriott (Charles). A SPANISH HOLI- 
 DAY. lUustmted. D«my Ivo. 74. dd. net. 
 
 »THE ROMANCE OF THE RHINE. 
 Illustimt«(L Demy tve. xor. (>d. net. 
 
 HarHott (J. .A. R.). THE LIFE AND 
 TIMES OF LUCItrS CARY, VISCOUNT 
 FALKLAND. IllastntUd. Second Editien. 
 Demy 8w». 7*. (td. net. 
 
 Hasefleld (John). SEA LIFE IN NEL- 
 SON'S TIME. Illustrated. Cr. ivc. 
 V. 6d. net. 
 
 K SAILOR'S GARLAND. Selected and 
 Edited. Second Edition. Cr. 8v«. y. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 AN ENGLISH PROSE MISCELLANY. 
 Selected witk an Introduction. Cr. 8tw. 6r. 
 
 Hasterman (C F. C). TENNYSON 
 AS A REUGIOUS TEACHER. SecMid 
 Editim. Cr. tv». fir. 
 
 THE CONDITION OF ENGLAND. 
 Fourth EditioH. Cr. 8w. 6f . 
 
 Medley (D. J.). 
 TRATIONS or 
 
 ORIGINAL ILLUS- 
 ; OF ENGLISH CONSTITU- 
 TIONAL HISTORY. Cr.Sm. jt.f^nei. 
 
 •Meldrtnh (D. S.). HOME LIFE IN 
 HOLLAND. lUustratad. Den^ Im 
 lot. 6d. net, 
 
 Hethuen (A. M. S.). ENGLAND'S RXHN ; 
 Discussed in Fodktxkn Lbttbks to a 
 Protbctionist. /iTintA EdMon. Cr. 8m. 
 id. net. 
 
 Meynell nrenml). COROT AND HIS 
 FRIENDS. XUastrated. Demy 8w. lor. 6d. 
 
 Hit. 
 
 Miles (Snstae^ LIFE AFTER LIFE: 
 
 OR, Thb Thkokt or Rbimcaknation. 
 
 Cr. 8t>0. M. td net. 
 THE POWER OF CONCENTRATION : 
 
 How TO AcQOiKB IT. Third Editifm. 
 
 Cr. 8m. y. 6d. net. 
 
 Millals (J. a). THE LIFE AND LET- 
 TERS OF SIR JOHN EVERETT 
 MILLAIS. Illustrated. Hew EdUim. 
 Demy tve. jt. 6d. net. 
 
 Milne (J. G.). A HISTORY OF EGYPT 
 UNDER ROMAN RULE. Illtistrated. 
 Cr. ivo. 6«. 
 
 Moffat parrM.). QUEEN LOUISA OF 
 PRUSSIA. Illustrated. Fottrtk EdiOm. 
 Cr. Zve. it. 
 
 *Maria THERESA. Ulnstnttad. ie«.M 
 
 net. 
 
 Money (L. 6. Chlozza). RICHES and 
 
 POVERTY, 1910. Tenth tuid Revised 
 Edition. Demy %vo. 5J. net. 
 MONEY'S FISCAL DICTIONARY, 1910. 
 Second Edition. Demy ivo. ss. net. 
 
 MontaarueCC.E.). DRAMATIC VALUES. 
 Second Edition. Eca/. Svo. st. 
 
 Moorhoase (E. Hallam). NELSON'S 
 
 LADY HAMILTON. Illustrated. Third 
 Edition. Demy ivo. 7*. (td. net. 
 
 Morgan (J. H.), THE HOUSE OF LORDS 
 AND THE CONSTITUTION. With an 
 Introduction by the Lord Chancellor. 
 Cr. Stvo. IS. net. 
 
 Nevill (Lady Dorothy). UNDER FIVE 
 
 REIGNS. Edited by her son. Illustrated. 
 Ei/tJk Edition. Demy ive. 15s. net. 
 
 Norway (A. H.). NAPLE& Past akd 
 Pkxsemt. Illustrated. Third Edition. 
 Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Oman (C. W. C). A HISTORY OF THE 
 ART OF WAR IN THE MIDDLE 
 AGES. Illustrated. Demy ivo. lot. 6d 
 net. 
 
 ENGLAND BEFORE THE NORMAN 
 CONQUEST. With Maps. Second 
 Edition. Demy \vo. lor. 6d. net, 
 
 Oxford (M. N.). A HANDBOOK OF 
 NURSING. P^ik Edition. Cr. to*. 
 V.6d. 
 
 Pakea (W. C C). THE saENCE OF 
 HYGIENE lUustrated. Demy ivo. iv- 
 
 Parker (Erie> THE BOOK OF THE 
 ZOO; Br Day and Night. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 
 •Pears (Sir Edwin). TURKEY and its 
 
 PEOPLE. Den^ ivo. las. 6d net. 
 
 Petrle (W. M. Flinders). A HISTORY 
 
 OF EGYPT. lUostrated. Zn Six yolume*. 
 
 Cr. ivo. 6s. each. 
 Vol. I. From thk 1st to th« XVIth 
 
 Dtnasty. Sixth Edition. 
 Vou II. Th« XVIIth and XVIIIth 
 
 Dtnastiks. Fourth Edition. 
 Vou III. XIXth to XXXth Dymastiks. 
 Vol. IV. Egypt undkk thb Ptolemaic 
 
 Dynasty. J. P. Mahatyy. 
 Vol. V. ScTPT unokr Roman Rule. J. G. 
 
 Milne. 
 Vou VI. Egypt in the Middle Ages. 
 
 Stanlkv Lane-Poole. 
 RELIGION AND CONSCIENCE IN 
 
 ANCIENT EGYPT. Illustrated Cr. ivo. 
 
 ax. 6d. 
 SYRIA AND EGYPT, FROM THE TELL 
 
 EL AMARNA LETTERS. Cr. 8m. 
 
 nt.id. 
 
 A 2 
 
lO 
 
 Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 EGYPTIAN TALKS. Translated from the 
 PapyrL First Series, ivth to xiith Dynasty. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition, Cr. ivo. 
 
 at. 6 J. 
 iYPTIAN TALES. Translated from the 
 Papyri. Second Series, xviiilh to wxth 
 Dynasty. Illustrated. Cr. 6vo. y. 6d. 
 EGYPTIAN DECORATIVE ART. Illus- 
 trated. Cr. 8vo. 3*. 6d. 
 
 Phelps (Ruth S.). SKIES ITALIAN : A 
 Little Breviary for Travkllkrs in 
 Italy. J^'ca/. ivo. 51. net. 
 
 Podmor© (Frank). MODERN SPIRIT- 
 UALISM. Two Volumes. Demy 6vo. 
 2 IX. net. 
 
 MESMERISM AND CHRISTIAN 
 SCIENCE: A Short History of Mental 
 Healing. Second Edition. Demy Zvo. 
 10*. 6d. net. 
 
 Pollard (Alft^d W.). SHAKESPEARE 
 FOLIOS AND QUARTOS. A Study in 
 the Bibliography of Shakespeare's Plays, 
 1594-1685. Illustrated. Folia, aif. ntt, 
 
 •Porter (G. R.) THE PROGRESS OF 
 THE NATION. A New Edition. Edited 
 by F. W. Hirst. Demy Zvo. 21X. net. 
 
 Powell (Arthur E.). FOOD AND 
 HEALTH. Cr. %vo. 31. td. net. 
 
 Power (J. O'Connor). THE MAKING OF 
 AN ORATOR. Cr. 8v<7. ts. 
 
 •Price (Eleanor C). CARDINAL DE 
 RICHELIEU. Illustrated. Demy ivo. 
 los. 6J. net. 
 
 Price (L. L.), A SHORT HISTORY OF 
 POLITICAL ECONOMY IN ENGLAND 
 FROM ADAM SMITH TO ARNOLD 
 TOVNBEE. Seventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. 
 as. 6d. 
 
 Pycraft (W. P.). A HISTORY OF BIRDS. 
 Illustrated. Demy 8vo. los. 6d. net. 
 
 •Rappoport (Angelo S.). HOME LIFE IN 
 RUSSIA. Illustrated. Demy ivo. xos. td. 
 net. 
 
 Rawllnfirs (Gertrude B.). COINS AND 
 HOW TO KNOW THEM. Illustrated. 
 Third Edition. Cr. ivo. 6x. 
 
 Read (C Stanford), FADS AND FEED- 
 ING. Cr. ivo. 2S. 6d. net. 
 
 •ReRan (C Tate^ THE FRESHWATER 
 FISHES OF THE BRITISH ISLES. 
 Illustrated. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 
 Reid (Archdall), THE LAWS OF HERE- 
 DITY. Second Edition. Demy ivo, ai*. 
 net. 
 
 Robertson (C Grant). SELECT STAT- 
 UTES, CASES, AND DOCUMENTS, 
 1660-1894. Demy ivo. xos. td. net. 
 
 ENGLAND UNDER THE HANOVER- 
 IANS. Illustrated. Demy ivo. 101. td. 
 net. 
 
 Roe (Fred). OLD OAK FURNITURE. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Demy 8f«. 
 lox. td. net. • 
 
 Royde-Smlth (N. G.). THE PILLOW 
 BOOK : A Garner of Many Moods, 
 Collected. Second Edition. Cr. ivo. 
 AS. td. net. 
 
 POETS OF OUR DAY. Selected, with u 
 Introduction. Eca/. 8t>«. 5J. 
 
 Russell (W. Clark). THE LIFE of 
 ADMIRAL LORD COLLINGWOOD. 
 Illustrated. Fourth Edition, Cr. ivo. ti. 
 
 •Ryan (P. F. W.). STUART LIFE AND 
 MANNERS : A Social History. Illus- 
 trated. Demy ivo. los. td. net, 
 
 St. Francis of Assist. THE LITTLE 
 FLOWERS OF THE GLORIOUS 
 MESSER, AND OF HIS FRIARS. 
 Done into English, with Notes by William 
 Hevwooo. Illustrated. Demy ivo. $s. net. 
 
 ' Saki ' (H. H. Munro). REGINALD. 
 
 Second Edition. Fcap. ivo. at. td. net. 
 REGINALD IN RUSSIA. J5fca>. 8i>«. 
 w. td. nA. 
 
 Sandeman (G. A. C-). METTERNICH. 
 
 Illustrated. Demy ivo. lor. td. net. 
 
 Selous (Edmund). TOMMY SMITHS 
 
 ANIMALS. Illustrated. Eleventh Edi- 
 tion. Fea^. ivo. as. td. 
 
 TOMMY SMITHS OTHER ANIMALS. 
 Illustrated. Ftyth Edition. fca/. 8p<». 
 as. td. 
 
 JACK'S INSECTS. lUustrated. Cr.ivo. 6». 
 
 Shakespeare (William). 
 
 THE FOUR FOLIOS, 1683; 163a; 1664; 
 1685. Each £4 4X. net, or a complete set, 
 /n lat. net. 
 
 THE POEMS OF WILLIAM SHAtCE- 
 SPEARE. With an Introduction and Notei 
 by Georgx Wymduam. Demy ivo. Buck- 
 ram, lor. td. 
 
 Sharp (A.). VICTORIAN POETS. Cr. 
 ivo. ax. td. 
 
 Sldgwick (Mrs. Alfred). HOME LIFE 
 IN GERMANY. lUustrated. Second 
 Edition. Demy ivo. lox. td. net. 
 
 Sladen a>ouffIas). SICILY: The New 
 Winter Resort. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Cr. tvo. jx. net. 
 
 Smith (Adam). THE WEALTH or 
 NATIONS. Edited by Edwin Cannan. 
 Two Volumes. Demy ivo. tis.'net. 
 
 •Smith (G. Herbert). GEMS AND 
 
 PRECIOUS STONES. Illustrated. Cr. 
 ivo. tt. 
 
 Snell (F. J.). A BOOK OF EXMOOR. 
 Illustrated. Cr. ivo. tt. 
 
General Literature 
 
 II 
 
 'StanclifTe.'. golf do's and dont's. 
 
 Third Kdition. Fcap Sva. ts. net. 
 
 Stevenson (R.L.). THE LETTERS OF 
 ROBERT LOUIS STEVENSON. Edited 
 by Sir Sidney Colvin. A New and En- 
 larged Edition in ^ volumet. Second Edi- 
 tion. Fcap. Svo. Leather, each ss. net. 
 
 VAILIMA LETTERS. With aa Etched 
 Portiait by William Strang. Eighth 
 Edition. Cr. imo. Buckram, ts. 
 
 THE LIFE OF R. L. STEVENSON. See 
 Balfouk (G.). 
 
 Stevenson (M. I). FROM SARANAC 
 TO THB MARQUESAS AND BEYOND. 
 Being Letters written W Mrs. M. I. Steven- 
 son during 1887-8S. Cr. iva. 6f. net. 
 
 LETTERS FROM SAMOA, 1891-95. Edited 
 and arranged by M. C Balfouk. Illus- 
 trated. Second Ediii«m, Cr. too. 6s. net. 
 
 Storr (Vernon P.). DEVELOPMENT 
 AND DIVINE PURPOSE. Cr. 8w. y. 
 net, 
 
 Stpeatfelld (R. A.). MODERN MUSIC 
 AND MUSICLANS. Illustrated. Second 
 Edition. Demy 8tw. 7«. bd. net. 
 
 Swanton O. W.), FUNGI AND HOW 
 TO KNOW THEM. Illustrated. Cr. Svo. 
 6s. net. 
 
 Sykes (Ella C). PERSIA AND ITS 
 
 PEOPLE. Illustrated. Demy ivo. xof. 6d. 
 net. 
 
 Symes (J K.). THE FRENCH REVO- 
 LUTION. Second Edition. Cr. tvo. as. 6d. 
 
 Tabor (Marsraret E.). THE SAINTS IN 
 ART. Illustrated. Fca^. ivo. y. 6d. net. 
 
 Taylor {A. E). THE ELEMENTS OF 
 METAPHYSICS. Second Edition. Demy 
 ivo. 10s. 6d. net. 
 
 Thibaudeau (A. C). BONAPARTE AND 
 THE CONSULATK Translated and 
 Edited by G. K. Fortbscux. Illustrated. 
 Demy ivo. xof. 6d. net. 
 
 *Thomas (Edward). MAURICE MAE- 
 TERUNCK. Illustrated. Cr.ivo. ^s.net. 
 
 Thompson (Francis). SELECTED 
 POEMS OF FRANCIS THOMPSON. 
 With a Bio^I^cal Note by Wilfrid 
 Meynell. With a Portrait in Photogravure. 
 Seventh Edition. Fe»p. ivo. 5*. net. 
 
 Tileston (Mary W.). DAILY STRENGTH 
 
 FOR DAILY NEEDS. Eighteenth Edi- 
 tion. Medium i6mo. at. 6d. net. Lamb- 
 skinny. 6d. net. Also an'edition in superior 
 binding, 6s. 
 •THE STRONGHOLD OF HOPE. 
 Medium 16m*. u. 6d. net. 
 
 Toynbee (Paset). DANTE ALIGHIERI : 
 His Life and Works. With 16 Illustra- 
 tions. Fourth and Enlarged Edition. Cr. 
 8W. 5*, net. 
 
 Treneh (Herbert). DEIRD RE WEDDED, 
 
 and other Poems. Second and Revised 
 
 Edition. Large Post ivo. 6s. 
 NEW POEM a Second Edition. Larg, 
 
 Post ivo. 6s. 
 APOLLO AND THE SEAMAN. Largt 
 
 Post ivo. Paper, is. 6d. net ; cloth, as. 6d 
 
 net. 
 
 Trevelyan (G. M.). ENGLAND UNDER 
 THE STUARTa With^Maps and Plans. 
 Fourth Edition. Demy ivo. 10s. 6d. net. 
 
 TriggS (InlgO H.). TOWN PLANNING : 
 Past, Present, and Possiblk. Illustra- 
 ted. Second Edition. Wide Royal ivo. 
 t$s. net. 
 
 Underhlll (Evelyn> MYSTICISM. A 
 
 Study in the Nature and Development of 
 Man s Spiritual Consciousness. Second Edi. 
 turn. Demy it>o. x$s. net. 
 
 Vaughan (Herbert M.). THE NAPLES 
 RIVIERA. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 
 •FLORENCE AND HER TREASURES. 
 Illustrated. Fcap. ivo. ss. net. 
 
 Vernon (Hon. W. Warren). READINGS 
 ON THE INFERNO OF DANTE. With 
 an Introduction by the Rev. Dr. Moore. 
 Two Volumes. Second Edition. Cr. ivo. 
 IS*, net. 
 
 READINGS ON THE PURGATORIO 
 OF DANTE. With an Introduction by 
 the late Dsam Church. Two Volumes. 
 Third Edition. Cr. ivo. 15*. net. 
 
 READINGS ON THE PARADISO OF 
 DANTE. With an Introduction by the 
 Bishop op Ripon. Two Volumes. Second 
 Edition. Cr. ivo. ly. net. 
 
 Waddell (Col. L. A.), LHASA AND ITS 
 MYSTERIES. With a Record of the Ex- 
 pedition of X903-_i904. Illustrated. Third 
 mnd Cheaper Edition. Medium ivo. js. 6d 
 net. 
 
 Wagner (Richard). RICHARD WAG- 
 NER'S MUSIC DRAMAS : Interpreta- 
 tions, embodying Wagner's own explana- 
 tions. By Alicb Leighton Cleather 
 and Basil Crump. Fcap. ivo. as. 6d. each. 
 The Ring of the Nibelung. 
 
 Fourth Edition. 
 Tristan and Isolde. 
 
 Waterhouse (Elizabeth). WITH THE 
 SIMPLE-HEARTED : Little Homilies to 
 Women ia Country Places. Third Edition. 
 SmedlPott ivo. as. net. 
 
 THE HOUSE BY THE CHERRY TREE. 
 A Second Series of Little Homilies to 
 Women in Country Places. Small Pott ivo. 
 as. net. 
 
 COMPANIONS OF THE WAY. Being 
 Selections for Morning and Evening Read- 
 ing. Chosen and arraneed by Elizabeth 
 Waterhouse. Large Cr. ivo. ss. net. 
 
 THOUGHTS OF A TERTIARY. SmaU 
 Pott ivo. IS. net. 
 
12 
 
 Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 Waters (W. G.). ITALIAN SCULPTORS 
 AND SMITHS. Illustrated. Cr. to*. 
 J*. 6d. tut. 
 
 •Watt (FranelsX EDINBURGH AND 
 THE LOTHIANS. lUustrated- Cr. gtw. 
 7<. td. ntt. 
 
 Welerall (Arthur B. P.). A GUIDK TO 
 THE ANTIQUITIES OF UPPER 
 EGYPT I From Abydos to the Sudan 
 Frontier. Illustrated. Cr. lev. jt. id. tut. 
 
 Welch (Catharin©). THE LITTLE 
 
 DAUPHIN. Illustrated. Cr. lv». 6t. 
 
 Wells (J.). OXFORD AND OXFORD 
 LIFE. Third Edition. Cr.Zvo. v. 6d. 
 
 K SHORT HISTORY OF ROME. Tenth 
 Edition. With 3 Maps. Cr. %v». y. 6d. 
 
 Westell (W. Perclval). THE YOUNG 
 NATURALIST. Illustrated. Cr. Zvo. 6*. 
 
 •THE YOUNG ORNITHOLOGIST. Illus- 
 trated. Cr. 8v#. it. 
 
 Westell (W. Perclval). and Cooper (C. S.). 
 THE YOUNG BOTANIST. Illustnited. 
 Cr. 8p«. y. 6d. net. 
 
 White (Georee P.). A CENTURY OF 
 SPAIN AND PORTUGAL, i788-x89«. 
 Demy ivo. i2t. 6d. net. 
 
 Wilde (Oscar). DK PROFUNDIS. 
 
 Twelfth Edition. Cr. Zvo. ct. net. 
 THE WORKS OF OSCAR WILDE. In 
 Twelve V^lumet. Fcap. tvo. iS. net each 
 volume. 
 I. Lord Arthuk Satilx's Cximk and 
 
 THE P0KT«A1T OF M« W. H. II. ThM 
 
 Duchess op Padua. iil Pokms. iv. 
 Lady Windbrmerb's Fan. v. A Wouam 
 or No Importanck. vi. An Idxal Hus- 
 band. viL Thx Importancb or bking 
 Eaknbst. VIII. A HousK or Pomb- 
 
 GRANATXS. IX. INTENTIONS. X. Db PRO- 
 
 ruNDis AND Prison Lxttkrs. xi. Essays. 
 XII. SalomI, a Florbntinx Txagkst, 
 and La Saimtb Courtisanx. 
 
 WiUlama (H. Noel). THK WOMKm 
 
 BONAPARTES. The Mother and three 
 Sisters of Napoleo*. Illustrated. /« Two 
 yWmmet. Demy lew. 14*. net. 
 
 A ROSE or SAVOY 1 Maxib AoiLAlox or 
 
 SaTOY, DccHXSSX SB BOUXGOCNX, ICOTHBI 
 
 or Louis xv. Illustrated. Second 
 EeUtien. Dtn^ %v*. X5<. ntt. 
 
 THK FASCINATING DUC DE RICHE- 
 LIEU: LoDis FxAN9on Armand du 
 Plxssis (1696-1718). Illustrated. Demylvo. 
 15/. net. 
 
 •A PRINCESS OF ADVENTURE : Marib 
 Carounk, Duchkssx db Bxxkt (1798- 
 1870). Illustrated. Demy 8«w. ijf. net. 
 
 Woed (Sir BTelyn). FROM midship. 
 MAN TO FIELD-MARSHAL. lUustra- 
 ted. Fifth eutd Chta^er Edition. Demy 
 %v*. jt. 6d, net. 
 
 THE REVOLT IN HINDUSTAN. 1857- 
 59. Illustrated. SuondEditmt. Cr.ivo. ts. 
 
 Wood (W. Blrkbeek). and Idmonds 
 OJeut-Col. J. E.). A HISTORY OF 
 THB CIVIL WAR IN THE UNITED 
 STATES (i8«i--s). With an Introduction 
 by H. Spxnsxr Wilkinson. With 24 Maps 
 and Plans. Third Edititm. Demy tvo. 
 tat. 6d. net. 
 
 Wordsworth fW.). THE POEMS. With 
 an Introductioa and Notes hy Nowbll 
 C Smith. In Thru Volume*. Demy %vt. 
 [$«. n*t. 
 
 WylUe (M. A.l NORWAY AND ITS 
 FJORDS. lUostrated. Second Edition. 
 Cr. ivo. 6t. 
 
 Yeats (W. B.). A BOOK OF IRISH 
 VERSE. 2Aird Edition. Cr. ivo. y. U 
 
 Part II. — A Selection of Series. 
 
 Ancient Cities. 
 
 General Editor, B. C. A. WINDLB, 
 Cr. Svt, 4J. 6d. 
 With Illnstrations by E. H 
 
 Bristol. Alfred Harvey. 
 Cantxrbury. J. C. Cox. 
 Chester. B. Cf. A. Windi*. 
 DvBUN. S. A. O. Fitzpatri<^ 
 
 »a each volume. 
 New, ud othei Artists. 
 
 Edinbckgb. M. G. Williamsoa. 
 Lincoln. £. Mansel Sympson. 
 Shxxwsbukv. T. Aaden. 
 WxLLs and Glastonbuxt. T. S. Hohnes. 
 
General Literature 
 
 13 
 
 The Antiquary'i Books. 
 
 General Editor, J. CHARLES COX. 
 Demy Sv*. It. 6d. tut etui volume. 
 With Nameroas Illostratioiu. 
 
 \KCH>KOLoav ARB Falsb AMTIQOrmS. 
 
 R. Monro. 
 BxLU or England, Thk. Canon J. J. Rav«a. 
 
 S*C0nd KdUUm. 
 Bkass» or England, Tkk Herbtrt W. 
 
 Macklin. Stcond Edition. 
 Ckltic Act im Pagan and Ckkistlam 
 
 TiMlS. J. Romilly Allen. 
 Castlxs and Waluu) Towns of England. 
 
 A. Huryey. 
 OoMBSDAT Inqukst, Thk. Adolphns Balbu^ 
 English Cnukcm Ftonitukk. J. C. Coz 
 
 and A.'HarTe7. Seeotid Edition. 
 Ekgusm Costvmb. From Prehistoric Time* 
 
 to til* End of th« Eighteentk Century 
 
 Geors* Clindi. 
 English Monastic Lifi. Th* Rigbt Rev. 
 
 Abbot Oasquet. Fourth Edition. 
 English Seals. J. Harrey Bloom. 
 
 FOLK-LOKH AS AM UlSTOKICAL SciBNC» 
 
 Sir G. L. Gomme. 
 Gilds and CoMrAHin or Lsmdon, Thb. 
 GcorgvUnwis. 
 
 Manok and Manokial Rkcokds, Thb. 
 
 Nathaniel T. Hone. 
 Medi^ctal Hospitals of England, Thb 
 
 Rotha Mary Clay. 
 Old English Instruments of Music 
 
 F. W. Galpin. Second Edition. 
 Old English Libraries. James Hutt. 
 Old Service Books of the English 
 
 Church, Christopher Wordsworth and 
 
 Henry Littlehales. Second Edition, 
 Parish Life in Medieval England. 
 
 The Right Rev. Abbot Gasquet. Third 
 
 Edition. 
 Parish Rbgistxxs of Englanb, Thb. 
 
 J. C. Cox. 
 Remains of thb Prbhistokic Agb in 
 
 England. B. C A. Windlo. Second 
 
 Edition. 
 *Roman Era in Britain, Thb. J. Ward. 
 *Roman-British Boildincs and Earth- 
 works. J. Ward. 
 RoTAL Forests of England, Thk- J. C 
 
 Coz. 
 Shrinbs of British Saints. J. C Wall. 
 
 The Arden Shakespeare. 
 
 Demy %vo. - xs. 6d. net each volume. 
 
 An edition of Shakespeare in single Flays ; each edited with a full Introduction, 
 Textual Notes, and a Commentary at the foot of the page. 
 
 4ll's Will That Ends Wbu. 
 
 Antony and Clbopatka 
 
 Cyubblinb. 
 
 Conor or Errors, Thb 
 
 Hamlbt. Second Edition 
 
 Jiruxrs Cabsar. 
 
 King Hbnrt it. Pt. l 
 
 Kino Hbnrt v. 
 
 Kino Hbnrt n. Pt. i. 
 
 K.1H0 Henry ti. Pt. ii. 
 
 KncQ Hbnrt tl Pt. iil 
 
 Kino Lkaju 
 
 King Richard iu. 
 
 LiFB AND DkaTH of KinG JoHN, ThB. 
 
 Lovx's Labour's Lost. 
 Macbbtk. 
 
 Mkasurb for Mbasurx. 
 
 Merchant of Vbnicb, Thb. 
 
 Mbrrt Wives of Windsor, The. 
 
 Midsummer Night's Dream, A. 
 
 Othello. 
 
 Pericles. 
 
 Romeo and Jcubt. 
 
 Taming of the Shrew, The 
 
 Tempest, The. 
 
 Timon of Athens. 
 
 Titus Andronicus. 
 
 Tkoilus and Cressida. 
 
 Two Gentlemen or Verona, The. 
 
 Twelfth Night. 
 
 Venus and Adonis. 
 
14 
 
 Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 Classic! of Art. 
 
 Edited by Dr. J. H. W. LAING. 
 fViiA numerous Illustrations. Wide Royal %v». 
 
 Thk Art or thb Gkeeks. H. B. Waltert. 
 
 1 2 J. 6rf. net. 
 The Art of thb Romans. H. B. Walter*. 
 
 15*. net. 
 Chardim. H. E. a. Furst. i2x. fid. net. 
 DoNATKLLO. Maud CruttwelL 15^. net. 
 
 Florentine Sculptors or the Renais- 
 sance. Wilhelm Bode. Translated by 
 Jessie Haynes. iw. bd. net. 
 
 Gborgk Romnby. Arthur B. Qiamberlam. 
 
 I3X. 6</. net. 
 Ghirlandaio. Gerald S. Davie*. Sec»nd 
 
 Edition, \ot. ftd. 
 
 MiCHBLANGKLO. Gerald S. Daries. tu. 6</. 
 net. 
 
 Rubbns. Edwa)|l Dillon, tft. net. 
 
 Raphabl. a. p. Oppi. lu. 6<£ net. 
 
 *Rei<brandt's Etchings. A. M. Hind. 
 
 Titiah. Charles Ricketts. la/. &/. net. 
 
 Tintoxxtto. Evelyn March Pbillipps. 151. 
 
 net. 
 
 Turnkb's Sketches and Dkawings. A. J. 
 FiNBBRG. lu. fid. net. Second Edition. 
 
 Velazquez. A. dc BerueU. im. id. net. 
 
 The Complete Series. 
 
 Fully Illustrated, Demy iiv: 
 
 The Complete Billiard Player. Charles 
 Roberts. loj. td. net. 
 
 Thb C0MFI.BTB Cook. Lilian Whitlins. 
 7*. f>d. net. 
 
 Thb Complete Cricketer. Albert E. 
 
 Knight, ^s. kd. net. Second Edition. 
 
 The Complete Foxhunts*. Charles Rich- 
 ardson. I3J. dd. net. Second Edition. 
 
 The Complete Golfer. Harry Vardon. 
 lot. 6d. net. Eleventh Edition. 
 
 The Complete Hockey-Player. Eustace 
 E. White. $s. met. Second Edition. 
 
 The Complete Lawn Tennis Player. 
 A. Wallis Myers, xos. (td. net. Second 
 Edition. 
 
 Thb Complbtb Motorist. Filson Younf. 
 XM. 6<£ net. Nevt Edition ^Seventh). 
 
 Thb Complete Mountaineer. G. D. 
 Abrah;un. 15/. net. Second Edition. 
 
 The Complbtb Oaksman. R. C. Lehmann. 
 lox. 6d. net. 
 
 The Complete Photographer. R. Child 
 Bayley. los. 6d. net. Fourth Edition. 
 
 The Complete Rogbt Footballer, on thb 
 New Zealand System. D. Gallaher and 
 W. J. Stead. 101. (>d. net. Second Edition. 
 
 The Complete Shot. G. T. Teasdalc 
 BuckelL X2X. 6d. net. Third Edition. 
 
 The Connoisseur's Library. 
 
 With numerous Illustrations, Wide Royal Svo. 2^s, net etuh volume. 
 
 Ivories. Alfred MaskelL 
 
 H. Qifford Smith. Second 
 
 English Furniturb. F. S. Robinson. 
 English Coloured Books. Martin Hardie. 
 •Etchings. F. Wedmore. 
 
 European Enamels. Henry H. Cunyng- 
 
 hame. 
 
 Glass. Edward Dillon. 
 
 Goldsmiths' and Silversmiths' Work. 
 Nelson Dawson. Second Edition. 
 
 Illuminated Manuscripts. J. A. Herbert. 
 
 Jewellery. 
 Edition. 
 
 Mezzotints. Cyril Davenport. 
 
 Miniaturxs. Dudley Heath. 
 
 Poxcklain. Edward Dillon. 
 
 Seals. Walter de Gray Birch. 
 
 *WoOD Sculptuxx. Alfred MasIceU. 
 
General Literature 
 
 15 
 
 Handbooks of English Church History. 
 
 Edited by J. H. BURN. Crown %ve, is, 6d. net each volume. 
 
 Thb Foukoatioms op tkk Enslish Church. 
 J. H. Mande. 
 
 Thb Saxon Chukch and ths Nokman Con- 
 quest. C T. Cruttwell. 
 
 Thb Mbdi.«val Chusch and thb Patact. 
 A. C Jennings. 
 
 Thb Rsfokmation Period. Henry Gee. 
 
 Thb STRUGGI.B with Pukitanism. Bruce 
 Blazlsmd. 
 
 Thb Chukch op England in thb Eich- 
 TBBNth Century. Alfred Plummer. 
 
 Handbooks of Theology. 
 
 The Doctrinb op the Incarnatioh. R. L. 
 
 Ottley. Fifth Edition, Revised. Demy 
 
 8v#. X9f. 6a. 
 A History op Early Christian Doctrine. 
 
 J. F. Bethune-Baker. Demy ivo. los. td. 
 
 An Introduction to the History op 
 Religion. F. B. Jeron*. Fifth Edition. 
 Demy 8w. lor. ^d. 
 
 An Introduction to the History op the 
 Creeds. A. K Bum. Demy %vo. xos. 6d. 
 
 The Philosophy of Religion in England 
 and America. Alfred Caldecott. Demy 8r«. 
 tor. td. 
 
 The XXXIX. Articles of the Church op 
 England. Edited by E. C. S. Gibson, 
 Seventh Edition. Demy ivo. iat.6d. 
 
 The ninstrated Pocket Library of Plain and Coloured Books. 
 
 Fca/. Svo. 3J. 6d. net each volume. 
 WITH COLOURED ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 Old Coi^ourbb Books. George Paston. 1. 
 
 net. 
 The Lipb and Death op John Mytton, 
 
 Esq. Nimrod. Fifth Edition. 
 The Lifb op a Sportsman. Nimrod. 
 Handlxy Cross. R. S. Surtees. Third 
 
 Edition. 
 Mr. Sponge's Sporting Tour. R. S. 
 
 Surtees. 
 
 JoRRocKs's Jaunts and Jollities. R. S. 
 Surtees. Third Edition. 
 
 Ask Mamma. R. S. Stirtees. 
 
 The Analysis op thb Hunting Fibld. 
 
 R. S. Surtees. 
 The Tour op Dr. Syntax in Search op 
 
 thb PiCTtJRESQUB. William Combe. 
 
 The Toue op Dr. Syntax in Search op 
 Consolation. William Combe. 
 
 The Third Tour op Dr. Syntax in Sbaxch 
 op a Wifb. William Combe. 
 
 Thb History of Johnny Quae Gbnus. 
 the Author of ' The Three Tours.' 
 
 The English Dancb of Death, from the 
 Designs ot T. Rowlandson, with Metrical 
 Illustrations by the Anthor of 'Doctor 
 Syntax.' Two VolMme*. 
 
 Thb Dance of Life : A Poem. The Authot 
 of 'Dr. Syntax.' 
 
 Life in London. Pierce Egan. 
 
 Real Life in London. An Amateur (Pierce 
 Egan). Two Velumet. 
 
 The Life of an Actor. Pierce Egan. 
 
 Thb Vicar op Wakefield. Oliver Gold- 
 smith. 
 
 Thb Military Adventures op Johnny 
 Newcombb. An Officer. 
 
 The National Sports of Great Britain. 
 With Descriptions and 50 Coloured Plates by 
 Henry Aiken. 
 
 The Adventures op a Post Captain. 
 A Naral Officer. 
 
 Gamonia. Lawrence Rawstome. 
 
 An Academy fox Grown Horsemen. 
 Geoffrey Gambado. 
 
 Real Life in Ireland. A Real Paddy. 
 
 The Adventures of Johnny Nkwco»:"je in 
 the Navy. Alfred Burton. 
 
 The Old Engusr Squire. John Careless. 
 
 The English Spy. Bernard Blaclcmantle. 
 T^o Velnmet. jt. net. 
 
i6 
 
 Methuen AND Company Limited 
 
 WITH PLAIN ILLUSTRATIONS. 
 
 Thk Grays : A Poem. Robert Blair. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS or THB BoOK OF JOB. In> 
 
 vented and engraved by William Blake. 
 Windsor Castlb. W. Harrison Ainsworth. 
 
 The Towkr 
 Ainsworth. 
 
 Frank Tairlbgm. F. E. Smedley. 
 
 Uandt Andt. Samuel Lover. 
 
 Thk Complkat Anglkr. Izaak Walton and 
 Charles Cotton. 
 
 or London. W. Harrison . Thk Pickwick PArsxs. Charles Dickciu. 
 
 Leaders of Religion. 
 
 Edited by H. C. BEECHING. fVitA Portrait*, 
 Crown Sva. n. net each volume. 
 Cardinal Nkwman. R. H. Hutton. 
 John Wbslbt. J. H. Overton. 
 BiSHOr WiLsmrORCB. G. W. DanielL 
 Cardinal Manning. A. W. Hutton. 
 Charlbs Simbon. H. C. G. Moule. 
 John Knox. F. MacCunn. Second EditUn. 
 John Howb. R. F. Horton. 
 Thomas Kbh. F. A. Clarke. 
 
 T. HodgkiB. 
 
 Geokgb Fox, thb Qdakbr. 
 Third Edition. 
 
 John Kbblb. Walter Lock. 
 
 Mrs. Oliphant. Second 
 . R.L. Ottley. Second 
 
 Thomas Chalmers. 
 Editi<m. 
 
 Lancelot Anorbwbs. 
 Edition. 
 
 Augustinb or Canterbury. E. L. Cutts. 
 
 William Laud. W. H. Hutton. TAird Ed. 
 
 John Donnb. Augustas Jessop. 
 
 Thomas Cxanmex. A. J. Mason. 
 
 Bishop Latimbr. R. M. Carlyle and A. J. 
 Carlyle. 
 
 Bishop Butlxx. W. A. Spooncr. 
 
 The Library of Devotion. 
 
 With Introductions and (where necessary) Notes. 
 Small Pott Zvo, cloth, 2s. ; leather, 2s. 6d, net each volume. 
 
 or St. Augustinb. 
 
 Thk Confessions 
 Seventh Edition. 
 
 The Imitation or Christ. Sixth Edition. 
 
 Thb Christian Ybar. F»urth Edition. 
 
 Lyra Innocbntium. Second Edition. 
 
 Thb Tbmplb. Second Edition. 
 
 A Book or Dbvotions. Second Edition. 
 
 A Serious Call to a Devout and Holt 
 Life. Fourth Edition- 
 
 A GuiDB to Eternity. 
 
 Thb Innbx Wat. Second Edition. 
 
 On thb Lovb or God. 
 
 Thb Psalms or David. 
 
 Lyra Apostolica. 
 
 Thb Song or Songs. 
 
 Thb Thoughts or Pascax. Second Edition. 
 
 A Manual or Consolation rxoM thb 
 Saints and Fathers. 
 
 Devotions rROM the Apocktpha. 
 
 Thb SriRiTDAL Combat. 
 
 Thb Dbvotions or St. Amsblm. 
 
 Bishop Wilson's Sacra Privata. 
 
 Gracb ABOUNDUia to tux CHiEr or Sin- 
 ners. 
 
 Ltra Sacra : A Book of Sacred Verse. 
 Second Edition. 
 
 A Dat Book 
 Fathers. 
 
 ntoM THB Saints and 
 
 A Littlb Book or Heavbnlt Wisdom. A 
 Selection from the English Mystics. 
 
 Light, LirE, and Lovb. A Selection from 
 the German Mystics. 
 
 An Introduction to thb Dbvoitt Life. 
 
 The Little Flowers or thb Glorious 
 Messer St. Francis and or his Friars. 
 
 Death and Immoktalitt 
 
 Thb Spiritual Gvidb. Second Edition. 
 
 Dbvotions rox Evbxt Dat in thb Wbxk 
 AND thb Gbbat Fbstitals. 
 
 PXBCBS PBIVATiB. 
 
 HoXiK Mtstics : A Day Book from the 
 Writings of Mystics of Many Natioas. 
 
General Literature 
 
 17 
 
 Little Books on Art. 
 
 fFM mutf^ lUustrtOmu, Demy i6m*. ts. 6d. net each volume. 
 
 Each Tolame consists of about 2<XJ pages, and contains from 30 to 40 Illustrations, 
 including a Frontispiece in Photogravure. 
 
 Ai.BRECHT DOrbr. J. Allen. 
 
 Arts of Jatan, Thx. £. Dillon. Second 
 
 Edition. 
 
 llooKPLATXS. E. Almaclc. 
 
 BoTTiCKixi. Mary L. Bonnor. 
 
 BuRNE-JoNKS. F. de Lisle. 
 
 Christian Symbolism. Mrs. H. Jenncr. 
 
 Christ in Art. Mrs. H. Jenner. 
 
 Claudb. E. Dillon. 
 
 Constablb. H. W. Tompkins. Secortd 
 
 Edition. 
 CoROT. A. Pollard and E. Birnstingl. 
 Knamels. Mrs. N. Dawson. 
 Frederic Lbighton. A. Corkran. 
 
 (JEORGE ROMNEY. G. PaSton. 
 
 Greek Art. H.B.Walters. Fourth Edition. 
 Greuze and Boucher. £. F. Pollard. 
 
 Holbein. Mrs. G. Fortescue. 
 
 Illuminated Manuscripts. J. W. Bradley. 
 
 Jewellery. ~<i. Davenport. 
 
 John Hoppner. H. P. K. Skipton. 
 
 Sir Joshua Reynolds. J. Sime. Second 
 
 Edition. 
 Millet. N. Peacock. 
 Miniatures. C. Davenport. 
 Our Lady in Art. Mrs. H. Jenner. 
 Raphael. A. R. Dryhurst. 
 Rembrandt. Mrs. E. A. Sharp. 
 Turner. F. Tyrrell-Gill. 
 Vandyck. M. G. Smallwood. 
 
 Velasquez. W. Wilberforcc and A. R. 
 
 Gilbert. 
 Watts. R. E. D. Sketchley. 
 
 The Little aalleries. 
 
 Demy i6me. is, td. net each volume. 
 
 Each volume contains 20 plates in PhotograTure, tc^ether irith a short outline 0/ 
 the life and work of the master to whom the book is devoted. 
 
 A LiTTLB Gallkkt or Rbynolos. 
 K LiTTLX Gallkkt of Romhkt. 
 K LiTTUi Gallsxt of HorriiKK. 
 
 A LiTTLB Gallery of Millais. 
 
 A Ltttlx Gallxry of Ensush Posts. 
 
 The Little Guides. 
 
 With man J lUustratioDs by E. H. Nzw and other artists, and from photographa. 
 
 Smull Pott 8vo, cUtA, 2s. 6d. net; leather, y. 6d. net^ each volume. 
 
 The main features of these Guides are (i) a handy and charming form ; (2) illus- 
 trations from photographs and by well-known artists ; (3) good pltuQS and maps ; (4) 
 an adequate but compact presentation of everything that is interesting in the 
 natural features, history, arclueolt^y, and architecture of the town or district treated. 
 
 Cambridgb AMD ITS Collects. A. H. 
 Xhompsoa. Third Edition, Revised. 
 
 Chajmnkl Islands, The. E. E. Bicknell. 
 
 English Laxxs, Tkb. F. G. Brabaat 
 
 IsL« or Wight, Thb, G. CUnch. 
 
 Malvkrx Coumtxt, Thk. B. & A. Windk. 
 
 NoBTH Walbs. a, T. Story. 
 
 Oxford and rrs Collxgss. J. Wells. 
 ifintk Mditim. 
 
 Shakkspkark's Coontxt. B. C A. V^ndle 
 Third Edition, 
 
 St. Paul's Cathkdxal. G. Clinch. 
 
 Wbstminstkk Abbet. G. E. Troutbeck. 
 Sectud Sdiii»n. 
 
 Bbrkskikk. F. G. Brabant. 
 
 BUCKIMGHAMSHIRX. E. S. RotCOS, 
 
 Chxsmirs. W. M. Gallichaa. 
 
i8 
 
 Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 Thx Littlk Gvioma—c^Htimtud. 
 
 Cornwall. A. L. Salmoa 
 
 Dkxbyshikk. J. C. Coz. 
 
 Devon. S. Baring-Gould. Stc»nd Ediiion. 
 
 DoKSKT. F. R. Heath. S«c»nd Xditun. 
 
 EssBx. J. C. Cox. 
 
 Hampshikk. J. C Coz. 
 
 Hrrtfordshirk. H. W. TompkJm 
 
 Kknt. G. Clinch. 
 
 Kkrrt. C. p. Crane. 
 
 MiDDLKSKX. J. B. Firth. 
 
 MoNMOUTHSHiRK. G. W. Wade and J. H. 
 
 Wade. 
 NoRFOLR. W. A. Dutt. Second Edition, 
 
 Revised. 
 Northamptonshire. W. Dry. Second Ea. 
 Northumberland. J. E. Morris. 
 Nottinghamshire. L. Guilford^ 
 OxroRDSHiRX. F. G. BrabaoL 
 
 Somkrsst. G. W. and J. H. Wad*. 
 
 Staffordshire. C £. Maaefidd. 
 
 Suffolk. W. A. Dutt 
 
 SaxRKT. J. C. Cox. 
 
 Sussex. F. G. Brabant Third Edition. 
 
 Wiltshire. F. R. Heath. 
 
 The East Xjoimo. 
 
 Yorkshire, 
 Morris. 
 
 Yorkshire, 
 Morris. 
 
 J B 
 
 The North Ridino. J. E. 
 
 Yorkshire, The West Riding. J. E. 
 Morris. Clttk, 3/. bd. net ; leatfur, ^s. id. 
 net. 
 
 Brittant. S. Baring-Gould. 
 NoRMANDT. C Scudamor*. 
 Rome. C. G. Ellaby. 
 SiciLT. F. H. JacksoB. 
 
 The Little Library. 
 
 With Intiodactions, Notes, and Photogravure Frontispieces. 
 Sma/I Pott 8tv. Each Volume, cloth, is. 6d. net. 
 
 Anon. A LITTLE BOOK OF ENGLISH 
 LYRICS. Second Edition. 
 
 Austen (Jane). PRIDE 
 DICE. Two yolumei. 
 
 northanger abbey. 
 
 AND PREJU- 
 
 Baeon (Fmnels). 
 LORD BACON. 
 
 THE ESSAYS OF 
 
 Barham (R. 
 
 LEGENDS. 
 
 H.). THE INGOLDSBY 
 Two Volumes. 
 
 Barnet (Annie). A UTTLE BOOK OF 
 ENGLISH PROSE. 
 
 BeekfoPd (WUUam). THE HISTORY 
 OF THE CALIPH VATHEK. 
 
 Blake (William). SELECTIONS FROM 
 THE WORKS OF WILLIAM BLAKE. 
 
 BoFPow (George). LAVENGRa Two 
 
 Volumes. 
 THE ROMANY RYE. 
 
 Browning (Robert). SELECTIONS 
 FROM THE EARLY POEMS OF 
 ROBERT BROWNING. 
 
 Canning (George). SELECTIONS FROM 
 THE ANTI- JACOBIN : with George 
 Canning's additional Poems. 
 
 Cowley (Abraham). THE ESSAYS OF 
 ABRAHAM COWLEY. 
 
 Crabbe (George). SELECTIONS FROM 
 THE POEMS OF GEORGE CRABBE. 
 
 Cralk (Mrs.). JOHN HALIFAX, 
 GENTLEMAN. Two Volumes. 
 
 Crasbaw (Richard). THE ENGLISH 
 POEMS OF RICHARD CRASHAW. 
 
 Dante Allghleri. THE INFERNO or 
 
 DANTE. Translated by H. F. Cary. 
 THE PURGATORIO OF DANTE. Trai* 
 
 lated by H. F. Carv. 
 THE PARADISO OF DANTK Tranr 
 
 Uted by H. F. Carv. 
 
 Darley (George). SELECTIONS from 
 THE POEMS OF GEORGE DARLEY. 
 
 Deane (A. C). A LITTLE BOOK OF 
 LIGHT VERSE. 
 
 Dlekens(Charles). CHRISTMAS BOOKS. 
 Two Volumes. 
 
 Ferrier (Susan). MARRIAGE. Twe 
 
 Volumes, 
 THE INHERITANCE. Tioo Volumes. 
 
 GaskelKMrs.). CRANFORD. SecondEd. 
 
 Hawthorne (Nathaniel). THE SCARLET 
 LETTER. 
 
 Henderson fT. F.). A UTTLE BOOK 
 OF SCOTTISH VERSE. 
 
 Keats (John). POEMS. 
 
 Klnglake (A. W.). 
 Edition. 
 
 EOTHEN. Second 
 
General Literature 
 
 »9 
 
 Th> Littlb Limaky— <#«/MMi^ 
 
 Lamb (Charlas). ELIA, AND THE LAST 
 ESSAYS OF ELIA. 
 
 Locker (F.). LONDON LTUCS. 
 
 LonjrfBlIow (H. W.). SELECTIONS 
 FROM THE POEMS OF H. W. LONG- 
 FELLOW. 
 
 Harvell (Andrew). THE POEMS OF 
 
 ANDREW MARVEUL 
 
 Milton (John). THE MINOR POEMS OF 
 JOHN MILTON. 
 
 MoIrCD. M.). MANSIEWAUCH. 
 
 Nichols (J. B. B.)- A LITTLE BOOK 
 OF ENGLISH SONNETS. 
 
 Rochefoucauld (La). THE MAXIMS OF 
 
 LA ROCHEFOUCAULD. 
 
 Smith (Horaee and James). REJECTED 
 
 ADDRESSES. 
 
 Sterne (Lanrenee). 
 
 JOURNEY. 
 
 A SENTIMENTAL 
 
 Tennyson (Alfred, Lord). THE EARLY 
 
 POEMS OF ALFRED, LORD TENNY- 
 SON. 
 
 IN MEMORIAM. 
 
 THE PRINCESS 
 
 MAUD. 
 
 Thaekeray (W. M.V TANITT FAIR 
 
 Thru VMutHM. 
 PENDENNIS. Thru V*lum*$. 
 ESMOND. 
 CHRISTMAS BOOKS. 
 
 THE POEMS OF 
 
 r. 
 
 THB COMPLEAT 
 
 VatLKlian (Henry). 
 
 HENRY VAUGHAN 
 
 Walton Oxaak). 
 
 ANGLER. 
 
 Waterhonse (Elizabeth). A LITTLE 
 BOOK OF LIFE AND DEATH. 
 Thirteetttk EdiU^n. 
 
 Wordsworth (W.). SELECTIONS FROM 
 THE POEMS OF WILLIAM WORDS- 
 WORTH. 
 
 Wordsworth (W.) •aA Colerldfe (S. T.). 
 LYRICAL BALLADS Stc0>U£tUti»H. 
 
 The Little Qnarto Shakespeare. 
 
 Edited by W. J. CRAIG. With Introductions and Notes. 
 
 Pfitt i6mc. In 40 Volumes. Ltather^ prkt is. net each vtlunu. 
 
 Mahogany Revolving Book Case, xos. net. 
 
 Miniature Library. 
 
 EuFHRANOK : A Dialogue on Yonth. Edward 
 FitzGerald. Dtmj 32m*. Lfotker, **. net. 
 
 Thk Lifb of Edward, Lord Hrkbext of 
 Chbkburv. Written t>y himseif. Demy 
 33m«. Ltatktr, a*, net. 
 
 PoLONius: or Wise Saws and Modern In- 
 
 •tances. Edward FitzGerald. Demy 3am^. 
 
 Ltathtr, *t. ntt. 
 The RubXiyXt of Omar KhaytXm. Edward 
 
 FitzGerald. Fourth Editi»n. Leather, u 
 
 tut. 
 
 The New Library of Medicine. 
 
 Edited by C. W. SALEEBY. Demy Svo. 
 
 Cark of thk Body, The. F. Cavanagh. 
 Second Eelition. ^s. 6d. net. 
 
 Children of the Nation, The. The Right 
 Hon. Sir John Gorst. Second Edition. 
 ^t. ftd. n€t. 
 
 Control of a Sconxas, The; or, How 
 Cancer is Curable. Chas. P. Childe. ^t. bd 
 net. 
 
 Diseases of Occupation. Sir Thomas Oliver. 
 10^. f>d. net. Second EditUn. 
 
 DitiNK Problem, The, in its Medico-Sodo- 
 logical Aspectt, Edited by T. N. Kelynack. 
 7*. id. not. 
 
 Drugs and the Drug Habit. H. Sainsbtiry. 
 
 Functional Nerve Diseases. A. T. Scho- 
 field. 7«. 6d. net. 
 
 Hygiene of Mind, The. T. S. Clouston. 
 Fifth Edition, js. td. not. 
 
 Infant Mortauty. Sir George Newmaa 
 jt. 6d. not. 
 
 Prevention of Tuberculosis (Consump- 
 tion), The. Arthur Newsholme. zot. 6d. 
 net. Second Edition. 
 
 Air and Health. Ronald C Macfie. jt. 6d 
 net. Second Edition. 
 
20 
 
 Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 The New Library of Mnsie. 
 
 Edited by ERNEST NEWMAN. lUuttrtUi. Demy Zvo. Is. 6d. tut. 
 
 Brahms. J. A. FuUer-Maitland. 
 
 Edition. 
 
 Stcond 
 
 Handel. R. A. Streatfeild. Stcond Edition. 
 Hugo Wolf. Ernest Newman. 
 
 Oxford Biographies. 
 
 Illustrated. Fcap. 8iv. Each volume, cloth, is. td. net ; leather, 3J. 6d. net. 
 
 Dantb Alighikri. Paget Toynbee. Third 
 Edition. 
 
 GiROLAMO Savonarola. E. L. S. Horsburgh. 
 Fourth Edition. 
 
 John Howakd. K. C. S. Gibson. 
 
 Alfkbd Tknktson. A. C. Benson, Stc»nd 
 
 Edition. 
 SiK Waltks Ralbigh. I. A. Tajlac. 
 Erasmus. K. F. H. Cap«y. 
 
 Thb Young Pketendbk. C S. Teir> 
 RoBBKT BaBNS. T. F. Hendersoa 
 Chatham. A. S. M'DowalL 
 Fbancis or AssiSL Aiuw VL Stoddan 
 Canning. W. Alison Phillips. 
 Bkacomsfislo. Walter Sicbd. 
 JoHANN Wolfgang Gobthb. H. G. Atkin* 
 FXAM90U FiMBLOK. Viscount St. Cyiei 
 
 Romantie History. 
 
 Edited by MARTIN HUME. Illustrated. Demy^v. 
 
 A series of attractire volumes in which the periods and personalities selected are 
 such as afford lomantic human interest, in addition to their historical 
 
 importance. 
 
 Thb Ffrst Govbknbss or thb Nbthbb- 
 LANDS, Margaret of Austria. Eleanor 
 E. Tremayne. lor. dd. net. 
 
 Two Engush Qubbns and Phiuf. Martin 
 
 Home. is«. net. 
 Thb Ninb Days' Queen. Richard Davey. 
 With a Preface by Martin Home. Scconi 
 Editien. voi. 6d. net. 
 
 The States of Italy. 
 
 Edited by E. ARMSTRONG and R. LANGTON DOUGLAS. 
 
 Illustrated. Demy %V0, 
 
 A HisTORT OF Milan undkr tbb Sfokza. I A Histoxt of Veroma. A. M.Allen, nt-ii- 
 Cecilia M. Ady. lor. (>d. net. \ net, 
 
 A Histoxt of Pbxuoia. W. Herweod. x%t. id, net. 
 
PrCTIOH 
 
 The Westminster Commentaries. 
 
 Genend Editor, WALTER LOCK. 
 
 21 
 
 Thb Acts or trb Ai«sn.n. E<nt*d by R. 
 B. Rjdkbam. Dtm^f %w. Fifth M^Uti*n. 
 
 The f ns^ Srarui or Faul tkm Araenji 
 TO THS CoxiNTBiANS. Edited br H. L. 
 Goudge. Tkird EditUi*. Dtmjiv. 6i. 
 
 Tkb Book op Exodos. Edited by A. H. 
 
 M'Neile. With a ]ii»p and 3 Plans. D*my 
 iva. lot. id. 
 
 Ths Book op IbmnjL. Edited by H. A. 
 RedpatK Dai^ Itwk acw. &£ 
 
 Tmt Book or Genesis. Edited with Intro- 
 
 ductioa snd Notes by S. R. Driver. 
 
 Eighth EdUi*H. Dtmy*M. lot. id. 
 Thb Book op thx PRorRsr Isaiah. Edited 
 
 by G. W. Wade. Demy Sm. 10*. 6d. 
 Additions AND CoKRKcrioNS intrk Sbvknth 
 
 Edition op The Book op Gxnksis. S. R. 
 
 Driver. Dtmy %vo. is. 
 
 Tmb Book op Job. Edited by E. C S. Gibsoa 
 Stcond Edition. Demy 8v#. it. 
 
 Thb Epistuc op St. James. Edited with In- 
 troductioB and Notes by R. J. Kaowling. 
 Second Edition. Demy gtv. 6*; 
 
 Methnen's Shilling Library. 
 
 Db Pkopcndo. Oscar ^Hlde. 
 
 I The Lokb op thb Honbt-Bbb. Ticknet 
 
 Edwardes. 
 
 j LeTTBKS PBOM a SbLP-MaDB IfBECRAMT 
 
 TO HIS Son. Geors* Honoe LorinMr. 
 •Sblbctbd Pobus. Oscar Wilde. 
 
 •The Lipb op Robkxt Louis Stbvbnsoh. 
 Graham Balfour. 
 
 *Thb Lipb op John Roskim 
 wood. 
 
 •Thb Conditiom 
 Mastermaa. 
 
 W. G. CoUing- 
 op Emclano. G. F. G. 
 
 Part III. — A Selection of Works of Fiction 
 
 Albanesl (B. KarU). SUSANNAH AND 
 ONE OTHER. Fourth Edition. Cr. 
 ivo. is, 
 
 LOVE AND LOUISA. Second Edition. 
 i Cr. Ivo. 6s. 
 
 I THE BROWN EYES 07 MARY. Third 
 I Edition. Cr. tve. 6t. 
 ! I KNOW A MAIDEN. . Third Edition. 
 ! Cr. 6vo, is. 
 
 I THE INVINCIBLE AMELIA: ok. Thb 
 I PouTB Advbntvkbss. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. Ivo. V, id. 
 
 THE GLAD HEART. FSfth Edition. 
 
 \ Cr.tvo. it. 
 
 Bagot (Riehard). A ROMAN MYSTERY. 
 
 Third Edition. Cr. too. it. 
 THE PASSPORT. Fomrth Edition. Cr. 
 
 ivo, is, 
 ANTHONY CUTHBERT. Fomrth Edition. 
 
 Cr. Srw. is. 
 LOVE'S PROXY. Cr.tvo. it. 
 DONNA DIANA. Second Edition Cr. 
 
 8w. it. 
 CASTINO OF NETS. Tweffth Edition. 
 ^ Cr. 8w. 6t. 
 THE HOUSE OF SERRAVALLE. TUrd 
 
 Edition. Cr. 8m. te 
 
 Bailey (H.C.}. STORM AND TREASURE. 
 
 Third Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 •THE LONELY QUEEN. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Baplng-Gould (S.). IN THE ROAR 
 
 OF lllE SEA. Eighth Edition. Cr. 'i,vo. 
 
 6s. 
 MARGERY OF QUETHER, Secomt 
 
 Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 THE QUEEN OF LOVE. Fifth Edition 
 
 Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 JACQUETTA. Third Edition. Cr.tvo. is. 
 KITTY ALONE. Fi/tk Edition. Cr.Svo. is. 
 
 NOEMI. Illnstrated. Fourth Edition. Cr. 
 
 ivo. is, 
 THE BROOM • SQUIRE. Illastrated. 
 
 Fifth Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 DARTMOOR IDYLLS. Cr. ttw. 6*. 
 GUAVAS THE TINNER. Illustrated 
 
 Second Edition, Cr, tvo. 6t, 
 BLADYS OF THE STEWPONEY. Hlus 
 
 trated. Second Edition. Cr. tvo. it. 
 PABO THE PRIEST. Cr. tvo. is. 
 WINE FRED. Illustrated. Second Edition 
 
 Cr. Svo. it. 
 ROYAL GEOR6IS. IDvsttated. Cr.tvo.6t 
 
22 
 
 Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 CHRIS OF ALL SORTS. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 IN DEWISLAND. Second Editiotu Cr. 
 
 %vo. dr. 
 THEFROBISHERS. Cr.Zvo. (>s. 
 MRS. CURGENVEN OF CURGENVEN. 
 
 Fifth Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 
 Barp (Robert). IN THE MIDST OF 
 ALARMS. Third Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 THE COUNTESS TEKLA. Ei/ih 
 Edition. Cr. Sva. 6s. 
 
 THE MUTABLE MANY. Third Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Begble {Harold). THE CURIOUS AND 
 DIVERTING ADVENTURES OF SIR 
 JOHN SPARROW, BART. ; or, The 
 Frocrkss of an Open Mind. Second 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 Belloc (H.). EMMANUEL BURDEN, 
 MERCHANT. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 A CHANGE IN THE CABINET. Third 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Bennett (Arnold). CLAY HANGER. 
 
 Seventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 THE CARD. Ei/th Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 •HILDA LESSWAYS. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Benson (E. F.). DODO : A Detail op the 
 Day. Sixteenth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Birmingham (Georgre A.). THE BAD 
 
 TIMES. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 SPANISH GOLD. Sixth Edition. Cr. 
 
 Zvo. dr. 
 THE SEARCH PARTY. Fifth Edition. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 •LALAGE'S LOVERS. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 ♦THE ADVENTURES OF DR. WHITTY. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 Bowen (Marjorle), I WILL MAIN- 
 TAIN. Sixth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 DEFENDER OF THE FAITH. Fourth 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 Castle (Agnes and Egerton). flower 
 
 O' THE ORANGE, and Other Tales. 
 Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 Clifford (Mrs. W. K.). THE GETTING 
 WELL OF DOROTHY. Illustrated. 
 Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 3X. 6d. 
 
 Conrad (Joseph). THE SECRET AGENT : 
 
 A Simple Tale. Fourth Ed. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 A SET OF SIX. Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 UNDER WESTERN EYES. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Corelli (Marie). A ROMANCE OF TWO 
 
 WORLDS. Thirtieth Ed. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 VENDEITA. Twenty-eighth Edition. Cr. 
 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 THELMA : A Norwegian Princess. 
 
 Forty-first Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 ARDATH : The Stoky of a Dead Self. 
 
 Tv/tntUth Edition. Cr. %vo. 6t. 
 
 THE SOUL OF LILITH. Seven/eent/, 
 
 Edition. Cr. Sv0. dr. 
 WORMWOOD : A Drama of Paris. 
 
 Eighteenth Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 BARABBAS ; A Dream of the World's 
 
 Tragedy. Fortyjifth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 
 
 6s. 
 THE SORROWS OF SATAN. Fifty sixth 
 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 THE MASTER CHRISTIAN. Thirteenth 
 
 Edition. iTjth Thousand. Cr. Zvo. 6s 
 TEMPORAL POWER: A Study in 
 
 Supremacy. Second Edition. 130^ 
 
 Thousand. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 GOD'S GOOD MAN : A Simple Love 
 
 Story. Fifteenth Edition. 154/A Thou- 
 sand. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 HOLY ORDERS: the Tragedy of a 
 
 Quiet Life. Second Edition. 120M 
 
 Thousand. Crown Zvo. dr. 
 THE MIGHTY ATOM. Twenty-ninth 
 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 BOY : a Sketch. Twelfth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 
 
 6s. 
 CAMEOS. Fourteenth Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s 
 THE LIFE EVERLASTING. Second Ed. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 Crockett (S. R.). LOCHINVAR. lUus- 
 trated. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 THE STANDARD BEARER. Second 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Croker (B. M.). THE OLD CANTON- 
 MENT. Second Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s. 
 
 JOHANNA. Second Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 THE HAPPY VALLEY. Fourth Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 A NINE DAYS' WONDER. Fourth 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 PEGGY OF THE BARTONS. Seventh 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 ANGEL. Fifth Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 KATHERINE THE ARROGANT. Sixth 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 BABES IN THE WOOD. Fourth Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 
 Doyle (A. Conan). ROUND THE RED 
 LAMP. Twelfth Edition. Cr.Zvo. dr. 
 
 Duncan (Sara Jeannette) (Mrs. Everard 
 
 Cotes). A VOYAGE OF CONSOLATION. 
 
 Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr.Zvo. 6s. 
 COUSIN CINDERELLA. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. dr. 
 THE BURNT GFFERINa Second 
 
 Edition. Cr, 8tw. dr. 
 
 Fenn (G. ManviUe). SYD BELTON: 
 The Boy who would not go to Sea. 
 Illustrated. Second Ed. Cr. 8v«. jr. 6a'. 
 
 Findlater (J. H.). THE GREEN GRAVES 
 OF BALGOWRIE. Fifth Edition. Cr. 
 Zvo. dr. 
 
 THE LADDER TO THE STARS. Second 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6t. 
 
Fiction 
 
 23 
 
 Findlater (Mary). A NARROW WAY. 
 
 Third Edition. CK Svo. 6s. 
 OVER THE HILLS. Second EdiHon. Cr. 
 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 THE ROSE OF JOY. Third SditioM. 
 
 Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 A BLIND BIRD'S NEST. Illustrated. 
 
 Second Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Fry (B. and C. B.). A MOTHER'S SON. 
 Fifth Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 
 •Gibbon (Perceval). MARGARET 
 HARDING. Cr.Svo. 6s. 
 
 Gissing (George). THE CROWN OF 
 LIFE. Cr. 8w. 6*. 
 
 Happaden (Beatrice). IN VARYING 
 
 MOODS. FourUenth Edition. Cr. %vo. dr. 
 
 THE-SCHOLAR'S DAUGHTER. Fourth 
 Edition. Cr. %vo. 6s. 
 
 HILDA STRAFFORD and THE REMIT- 
 TANCE MAN. Twelfth Ed. Cr.ivo. 6s. 
 
 INTERPLAY. Fifth Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 
 Hichens (Robert). THE PROPHET OF 
 BERKEIJEY SQUARE. Second Edition. 
 Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 TONGUES OF CONSCIENCE. Third 
 Edition, Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 FELIX. Seventh Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE WOMAN WITH THE FAN. Eighth 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 BYEWAYS. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 
 THE GARDEN OF ALLAH. Twentieth 
 Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 THE BLACK SPANIEL. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 THE CALL OF THE BLOOD. Seventh 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 BARBARY SHEEP. Second Edition. Cr. 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 
 THE DWELLER ON THE THRES- 
 HOLD. Cr.Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Hope (Anthony). THE GOD IN THE 
 CAR. Eleventh Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 A CHANGK OF AIR. Sij^th Edition. Cr. 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 
 A MAN OF MARK. Seventh Ed. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 THE CHRONICLES OF COUNT AN- 
 TONIO. Sijrth Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 
 PHROSO. Illu&uated. Eighth Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 SIMON DALE. Illustrated. Eighth Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 THE KING'S MIRROR. Fifth Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 QUISANTE. Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 THE DOLLY DIALOGUES. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 A SERVANT OF THE PUBLIC. Illus- 
 trated. Fourth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 TALES OF TWO PEOPLE. Third Edi- 
 tion. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 THE GREAT MISS DRIVER. Fourth 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 •MRS. MAXON PROTESTS. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Hutten (Baroness von). THE HALO. 
 J'i/th Edition. Cr. Zvo, 6s. 
 
 Hyne (C J. CuteUfTe). MR. HOR- 
 ROCKS, PURSER. Fi/th Edition. Cr. 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 
 ' ^5,^?^Shrine ' (Author of the). THE 
 WILD OLIVE. Third Edition. Cr.Zvo. 
 6s. 
 
 Jacobs (W. W.). MANY CARGOES. 
 
 Thirty-second Edition. Cr. Zvo. -is. 6d 
 SEA URCHINS. Sixteenth Edition. Cr. 
 
 Zvo. 3x. 6d. 
 A MASTER OF CRAFT. Illustrated. 
 
 Ninth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 3*. 6d. 
 LIGHT FREIGHTS. Illustrated. Eighth 
 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 3s. 6d. 
 THE SKIPPER'S WOOING. Tenth Ed. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. 3*. 6d. 
 AT SUNWICH PORT. Illustrated. Tenth 
 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. y. 6d. 
 DIALSTONE LANE. Illustrated. Eighth 
 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 3*. 6d. 
 ODD CRAFT. Illustrated. Fourth Edition. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. 3*. 6d. 
 THE LADY OF THE BARGE. lUustrated. 
 
 Eighth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 3*. 6d. 
 SALTHAVEN. Illustrated. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. 31. 6d. 
 SAILORS' KNOTS. Illustrated. Fifth 
 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. jr. 6d. 
 SHORT CRUISES. Third Edition. Cr. 
 
 Zvo. y. 6d. 
 
 James (Henry). THE GOLDEN BOWL. 
 
 Third EdiHon. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 THE FINER GRAIN. Third Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Le Queux (William). THE HUNCHBACK 
 
 OF WESTMINSTER. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 THE CLOSED BOOK. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW. 
 
 Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 BEHIND THE THRONE. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 THE CROOKED WAY. Second EdiHon. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 London (Jack). WHITE FANG. Eighth 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 Lucas (E. v.). LISTENER'S LURE ; An 
 
 Obliquk Narration. Eighth Edition. 
 
 Fcai. Zvo. is. 
 OVER BEMERTON'S: An Easy-ooing 
 
 Chronicle. Ninth Edition. Fcap Zvo. w. 
 MR. INGLESIDE. Eighth Edition. Cr. 
 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 
 DERRICK VAUGHAN, 
 44M Thousand. Cr. Zvo. 
 
 ^ysia (Edna). 
 
 \ NOVELIST, 
 or. 6d. 
 
 Ha^naughtan (S.). THE FORTUNE OF 
 CHRISTINA M'NAB. Fifth Edition. 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 
 •PETER AND JANE. Cr. Zvo. 6t. 
 
24 
 
 Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 Malet (Lucas). COLONEL ENDERBVS 
 
 WIFE. Fifih Edition. Cr.tve. 6j. 
 A COUNSEL OF PERFECTION. Stctnd 
 
 Edition, Cr. 8v«. ti. 
 TOE WAGES OF SIN. SixUtntk EditUn. 
 
 Cr. iv0. ts. 
 THE CARISSIMA- Fifth Ed. Cr.tvo.ts. 
 THE GATELESS BARRIER. FiftJi. Edi- 
 
 ti»H. Cr. tvo. 6t. 
 THE HISTORY OF SIR RICHARD 
 
 CALM AD Y. Seventh Edition. Cr. Zv«. 6j. 
 
 Mann {Mr». M. K). THE PARISH 
 
 NURSE. Fourth Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 k SHEAF OF CORN. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. ivo.. 6t. 
 THE HEART-SMITER. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. 6vo. 6s. 
 AVENGING CHILDREN. Second Ediium. 
 
 Cr. 6vo. 6s. 
 ASTRAY IN ARCADY. Second Edition, 
 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 THERE WAS A WIDOW. Cr. 5w. 6s. 
 
 Harsh (Richard). THE COWARD BE- 
 
 HIND THE CURTAIN. Cr. tvo. 6*. 
 THE SURPRISING HUSBAND. Second 
 
 Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 k ROYAL INDISCRETION. Second 
 
 Edition. Cr. Iw*. 6*. 
 LIVE MEN'S SHOES Second Edition, 
 
 Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 
 MarshaU (Archibald). MANY JUNES. 
 
 Second Edition. Cr. tvo. 6t. 
 THE SQUIRE'S DAUGHTER. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 THE ELDEST SON. Third Edition. Cr. 
 
 Mason (A. B. W). CLEMENTINA. 
 Illustrated. Stvonik Edition. Cr. tvo. 
 as. net, 
 
 MaxwelKW. B.). VIVIEN. Tenth Mdi. 
 Hon. Cr. tvo. 6t. 
 
 THE RAGGED MESSENGER. Third 
 Edition. Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 
 FABULOUS FANCIES. Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 
 THE GUARDED FLAME. Seventh Edi- 
 tion, Cr. tvo. 6t. 
 
 ODD LENGTHS. Second Ed, Cr. tvo. «#. 
 
 HILL RISE. Fourth Edition. Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 
 THE COUNTESS OF MAYBURY: Ba- 
 TWKXN Yoo AND I. Fourth Edition Cr. 
 Svo. 6s. 
 
 THE REST CURE. Fourth Edition. Cr. 
 tvo, 6*. 
 
 Meade (L. T.y. DRIFT. Second Edition. 
 
 Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 RESURGAM. Second Edition. Cr. tvo. 6t. 
 VICTORY. Cr.tvo. &». 
 A GIRL OF THE PEOPLE. lUuitrated. 
 
 Fourth EdituMt. Cr. tvo. jx. ^ 
 HEPSY GIPSY. lUttstrated. Cr. tvo. 
 
 THE HONOURABLE MISS: A Stort 
 or AN Old-fashionbd Town. Illustnted. 
 Second Edition, Cr. tvo. %t. 6d. 
 
 Mltford (Bertram). THE SIGN OF THE 
 
 SPIDER. Illuttiated. Seventh Edition. 
 Cr. tvo. y. 6d. 
 
 MoleswoKh (Mrs.). THE RED GRANGE. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. tvo. 
 V- 6d. 
 
 Montasrue (C. E.)- A HIND let 
 LOOSE. Third Edition. Ct^tvo. 6s. 
 
 Morrison (Arthur). TALES OF MEAN 
 STREETS. Seventh Edition. Cr.tvo. 6s 
 
 A CHILD OF THE J AGO. Sixth Edition. 
 Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 
 THE HOLE IN THE WALL. Fontih Edi- 
 tion. Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 
 DIVERS VANITIES. Cr. tvo. 6t. 
 
 Nesbit (E.), (Mrs. H. Bland). THE RED 
 HOUSE. lUustrated. Fi^tM Edition. 
 Cr, 8iv. &r. 
 
 •DORMANT. Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 
 Olllvant (Alftwd). OWD BOB, THE 
 GREY DOG OF KENMUIR. With a 
 Frontispiece. Elevertth Ed, Cr, tvo, 6s 
 
 •THE TAMING OF JOHN BLUNT. 
 Cr. tvo, 6t. 
 
 •Onions (OUver> GOOD BOY SELDOM ; 
 A RoiiANCK or Adtsktisbmbnt. Cr. tvo. 
 6*. 
 
 Oppenhelm (E. Phillips). MASTER OF 
 
 MEN. Fourth Edition. Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 THE MISSING DELORA. lUustratei 
 Fourth Edition. Cr, 8m. 6t. 
 
 •Orczy (Baroness). FIRE IN STUBBLE. 
 
 Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 
 Ozenhara (John). A WEAVER OF 
 
 WEBS. Illustrated. Fifth Ed Cr. tvo. ts. 
 THE GATE OF THE DESERT. Seventh 
 
 Edition. Cr. tvo. as. net. 
 PROFIT AND LOSS. Fo$triA Edition. 
 
 Cr. tvo. 6s, 
 THE LONG ROAD. Fourth Edition. Cr. 
 
 tvo, 6e. 
 THE SONG OF HYAaNTH, and 
 
 Othbk Stokibs. Second Edition, Cr. 
 
 8v«. 6s, 
 MY LADY OF SHADOWS. Fourth Edi- 
 tion, Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 LAURISTONS. Fourth Edition, Cr. Ive. 
 
 6s. 
 THE COIL OF CARNE. Fifth Edition. 
 
 Cr. tvo. 6s, 
 
 Pain (Barry). THE EXILES OF FALOO. 
 Second Edition, Crown tvo. 6*, 
 
 Parker (Gilbert)- PIERRE AND HIS 
 
 PEOPLfe. Seventh Edition, Cr. tvo. 6i. 
 MRS. FALCHION. Fi/th Edition. Cr. 
 
 tvo. 6s. 
 THE TRANSLATION OF A SAVAGE. 
 
 Fourth Edition. Cr. tvo 6s. 
 THE TRAIL OF THE SWORD. lUva- 
 
 Uated. Tenth Edition. Cr, tvo. 6t. 
 
Fiction 
 
 25 
 
 i IVHEN VALMOND CAME TO PONTIAC : 
 The Storjr of m Lost Napoleoa. Six^ 
 Edition, Cr. Zvo. ts. 
 
 A.N ADVENTURER OF THE NORTH. 
 The Last Adrentures <A ' Prtitf Pierre.' 
 FtYiA Ediiipn. Cr. tvo. fir. 
 
 THE SEATS OF THE MIGHTY. Illus- 
 trated. Sevmtttntk EditicH. Cr. tvo. 6r. 
 
 THE BATTLE OF THE STRONG: a 
 Romance of Two Kingdoms. Illustrated. 
 Sevtnih EiiihM$, Cr. 8tw. tt. 
 
 THE POMP OF THE LAVILETTES. 
 Third Edition. Cr. %vo. u. U. 
 
 NORTHERN UGHTS. Fvtrtk EdiH*m. 
 Cr. tcwk <«. 
 
 Pastors (Mn. Henry de la). THE 
 TYRANT. F»$trtk EdtUtH. Cr.tv*. tt. 
 
 Pemberton CMmx\ THE FOOTSTEPS 
 
 OF A THRONE. IIlnstrat«L FtnrtA 
 
 EdttioH. Cr. 8«v. 6m. 
 I CROWN THEE KING. Dliutrated. Cr. 
 
 8vo. 6s. 
 LOVE THE HARVESTER I A Stokt of 
 
 THB Shrzs. Illustrated. TMnI Edltitm. 
 
 Cr. 8tw. w. 6d. 
 THE MYSTERY OF THE GREEN 
 
 HEART. Tiird Edition. Cr.tvo. 6*. 
 
 Perrln (AUee). THE CHARM. Fifth 
 Edition. Cr. Bm. 6t. 
 
 PbIIIpotts(BdeD> LYING PROPHETS. 
 
 Third Edition. Cr. ivt. 6t. 
 CHILDREN OF THE MIST. Fi/l* Edi- 
 tion. Cr. 8v«. 6t. 
 THE HUMAN BOY. With a Frontispiec*. 
 
 Seventh Edition. Cr. 8v#. 6«. 
 SONS OF THE MORNINa Stcond 
 
 Edition. Cr. Sim. 6r. 
 THE RIVER. Fourth Edititn. Cr. Sew. 61. 
 THE AMERICAN PRISONER. Fourth 
 
 Edition, Cr. ti9o. 6*. 
 THE SECRET WOMAN. Fourth Edition- 
 
 Cr. 8«7*. 6». 
 KNOCK AT A VENTURE. Third Editiom. 
 
 Cr. ivo. 6f. 
 THE PORTREEVE. Fourth Edition. Cr. 
 
 Zvo. 6t. 
 THE POACHER'S WIFE. Stetnd Editiom. 
 
 Cr. tvo. 6t. 
 THE STRIKING HOURS. Steond EdiHom. 
 
 Cr. Zv». 6t. 
 DEMETER-S DAUGETTER. Third 
 
 Edition, Cr. Srw. 6t. 
 
 rickthan (Marmaduke). SaYd THE 
 FISHERMAN. Eighth Edition. Cr. Zvo. 
 
 ti. 
 
 '«' (A. T. QuUIer Coueh). THE WHITE 
 
 ^WOLF. Second Edition. Cr. two. 6t. 
 THE MAYOR OF TROY. Fourth Edition. 
 
 MERRyIgaRDRN aks onua Sroxm. 
 
 Cr. 8tv. 6f 
 MAJOR VIGOUREUX. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. tvo. 6t. 
 
 Ridge (W. Pett). ERB. Second Edition 
 
 Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 A SON OF THE STATE. Third Edition 
 
 Cr. 6vo. y. 6d. 
 A BREAKER OF LAWS. Cr. Svo. 3s. 6d. 
 MRS. GALER'S BUSINESS. Illustrated 
 
 Second Edition. Cr. Svo. 6t. 
 THE WICKHAMSES. Fourth Edition 
 
 Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 NAME OF GARLAND. Third Edition 
 
 Cr.Svo. 6s. 
 SPLENDID BROTHER. Fourth Edition 
 
 Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 NINE TO SIX-THIRTY. Third Edition. 
 
 Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 •THANKS TO SANDERSON. Cr.Svo. ts. 
 
 Robins (EUzabeth). THE CONVERT. 
 
 Third Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Russell (W. Clark). MY DANISH 
 
 SWEETHEART. lUustrated. Fifth 
 
 Edition. Cr. tivo. 6s. 
 HIS ISLAND PRINCESS. Olustrated. 
 
 Second Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 ABANDONED. Second Edition. Cr. Svo. 6t 
 MASTER ROCKAFELLAR'S VOYAGE 
 
 Ulostrated. Fourth Edition. Cr. Svo- y. 6d 
 
 Sldsrwlek (Mrs. Alfred). THE KINS- 
 MAN. lUustrated. Third Edition. Cr. 
 Sew. 6*. 
 
 THE SEVERINS. Sixth Edition. Cr. 
 Svo. 6s. 
 
 THE LANTERN-BEARERS. Third Ed. 
 Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 •ANTHEA'S GUEST. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 *SomeFviIIe (E. (E.) and Ross (Martin). 
 DAN RUSSEL THE FOX. Illustrated. 
 Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Thurston (E. Temple). MIRAGE. Fourth 
 Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Watson (H. B. Marriott). TWISTED 
 
 EGLANTINE. lUustrated. Third Edi- 
 tion. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 THE HIGH TOBY. Third Edition. Cr. 
 
 tvo. 6s. 
 A MIDSUMMER DAY'S DREAM. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 THE CASTLE BY THE SEA Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. Svo. 6t. 
 THE PRIVATEERS. lUustrated. Second 
 
 Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 A POPPY SHOW : Being Ditkm and 
 
 DnrxKSE Taucs. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 THE FLOWER OF THE HEART. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 ALISE OF ASTRA. Third Edition. Cr. 
 
 Svo. 6s. 
 
 WebltaR (PeggT). ^JHE story of 
 
 VIRGINIA PERFECT. Third Edition. 
 Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 THE SPIRIT OF MIRTH f^fth Edition 
 Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 
 Weill (H. G.V THE SEA LADY. Cr. 
 
 lew. it. 
 
26 
 
 Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 Weyman (Stenley). UNDER THE red 
 
 ROBE. Illustrated. Twmty-third Edition. 
 Cr. &V*. &t. 
 
 Whitby (Beatrice). THE RESULT or 
 
 AN ACCIDENT. Stcand Editum. Cr. 
 Zvo. 6s. 
 ROSAMUND. Steottd Edition. Cr.iv*. ft*. 
 
 iVUllamson (C N. and A. H.). THE 
 LIGHTNING CONDUCTOR: The 
 Strange Adventures of a Motor Car. Illus- 
 trated. Seventeenth Edition. Cr, iv». 
 6j. Also Cr. Bv». is. net. 
 
 THE PRINCESS PASSES : A Romance of 
 a Motor. Illustrated. Ninth Edition. 
 Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 
 MY FRIEND THE CHAUFFEUR. Illus- 
 trated. Tenth Edition. Cr. tvo. 6s. 
 
 LADY BETTY ACROSS THE WATER. 
 Eleventh Edition. Cr. 8v». 6t. 
 
 THE CAR OF DESTINY AND ITS 
 
 ERRAND IN SPAIN. Illustrated. Fifth 
 
 Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 THE BOTOR CHAPERON. lUustrated 
 
 Sixth Edition. Cr. ivo. 6s. 
 SCARLET RUNNER. lUustrated Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. Svo. 6s. 
 SET IN SILVER. lUustrated. Third 
 
 Edition. Cr. Bvo. 6s. 
 LORD LOVELAND DISCOVERS 
 
 AMERICA. Second Edition. Cr. 6w>. 6t. 
 THE GOLDEN SILENCE. Sixth Edition. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 •A NEW NOVEL. Cr. 8ro. 6s. 
 
 Wyllarde (Dolf)- THE PATHWAY O? 
 
 THE PIONEER (Nous Autrcs). Feurti 
 
 Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6s. 
 •THE UNOFFICIAL HONEYMOON 
 
 Cr. ivo. 6i. 
 
 ICethuen's Two-Shillfng NovelB. 
 
 Cr. Zvo. 2s. net. 
 
 fm Gatx or thk Desekt. Jobn Oxenhaa. 
 Thb Severins. Mrs. Alfred Sidgwick- 
 CuuturriMA. A. E. W. Mason. 
 
 Thk Pkinckss Vikginia. C N. and A. M 
 
 Williamson. 
 CoLONSL Endemy's Witb. Lucas Malet 
 
 Books for Boys and Oirls. 
 
 Illustrated. Crown Svo. y. 6d. 
 
 Cross and Dagger. The Crusade of the 
 
 Children, laia. W. Scott Durrant. 
 The Getting Well of Dorothy. Mrs. 
 
 W. K. Clifford. 
 Only a Guard-Room Dog. Edith E. 
 
 Cuthell. 
 Master Rockafkllar's Voyage. W. Clark 
 
 Russell. 
 Syd Belton : The Boy who would not 
 
 go to Sea. G. Manville Fenn. 
 
 The Red Grange. Mrs. Molesworth. 
 A Girl of the People. L. T. Meade. 
 Hepsy Gipsy. L. T. Meade. «. 6d. 
 The Honourable Miss. L. T. Meade. 
 
 Mrs. M. S. 
 
 There was once a Prince. 
 Mann. 
 
 When Arnold comes Home. 
 Mann. 
 
 Mrs. M. E. 
 
 Methuen's Shilling Novels. 
 
 Jake. Marie CoreUl. 
 
 Under the Red Robe. Stanley J. Weyman. 
 
 Ladt Betty Across the Water. C. N. 
 k A. M. WUliamsoQ. 
 
 Mirage. E. Temple Thurston. 
 ViRGiNA Perfect. Peggy Webling. 
 Spanish Gold. G. A. Birmingham. 
 *Barbarv Sheep. Robert Hichens. 
 
Fiction 27 
 
 The Novels of Alexandre Dumas. 
 
 Medium %vo. Price 6d. Double Volumes, is. 
 
 ACT*. 
 
 Lbonb-Lkoma. 
 
 Vkm Advbntukxs of Caftaim Pamprilb. 
 
 LoCTiSK DK LA VALLikRK. (Double yolume.) 
 
 Amaukt. 
 
 Thk Mak ir thk Iroh Mask. (Double 
 
 Thx Bikd or Fatb. 
 
 ▼olume.) 
 
 Thx Black Tulip. 
 
 MAtxKK Adam. 
 
 Thk Castlk or Efpstbhi 
 
 Thb Moutr of Hbll. 
 
 Cathkrink Blum. 
 
 
 CiciLX. 
 
 Nanon. (Doable rolame.) 
 
 Thb ChAtxijit. 
 
 Olympia. 
 
 Tn CmvALiKX D'Hakmkntal. (Double 
 
 Paulinx ; Pascal Bruno ; and Bontkkob. 
 
 ▼olume.) 
 
 P&rb la Ruinb. 
 
 CracoT THK Jestek. 
 
 The Portb Saint-Antoinb. 
 
 Chicot Kitnivivus. 
 
 
 Thk Comtk dk Montgommkky 
 
 Thk Princk of Thievks. 
 
 CONSCIKNCK. 
 
 Thk Reminiscences of Antont. 
 
 Thk Cokvict's Son. 
 
 St. Quentin. 
 
 Thk Coksican Brothkks; and Otho thb 
 
 Robin Hood. 
 
 Archkk. 
 
 Samuel Gblb. 
 
 Crop-Eaxkd Jacquot. 
 
 Thb Snowball and tmx Soltakkttj^ 
 
 DOU GOKXNrLOT. 
 
 Stlvandikb. 
 
 Thk Dvc s'Anjou. 
 
 The Taking or Calais. 
 
 Thk Fatal Ck)iiBAT. 
 
 Talks of thk Supernatural. 
 
 Thk Fxncimg Mastxb. 
 
 Tales of Strange Adventuxb. 
 
 Fkknandk. 
 
 Talks of Terror. 
 
 Gabkibl Lambbkt. 
 
 Thk Three Musketeers. (Double volume.) 
 
 Gbokgbs. 
 
 Touknkt or thb Rub St. Antoihb. 
 
 Thk Gkkat Massacrk. 
 
 Thb Tkacedt or Nantes. 
 
 Hknxi dk Navakrk. 
 
 TwBNTT Years ArrKR. (DoaUe Tolum*.) 
 
 HiL&NK DK CrAVKKNT. 
 
 Trb Wild-Duck Srootbb. 
 
 TXB HOKOSCOPB. 
 
 TkB WOLr-LEADEK. 
 
 Methaen's Sixpenny Booki. 
 
 Medium 8«#. 
 
 Albanesl (S. Maria). LOVE AND 
 
 Barinar-Gould (S). FURZE BLOOM 
 
 LOUISA. 
 
 CHEAP JACK ZITA. 
 
 I KNOW A MAIDEN. 
 
 KITTY ALONE. 
 
 THE BLUNDER OF AN INNOCENT. 
 
 URITH. 
 
 PETER A PARASITE. 
 
 THE BROOM SQUIRE. 
 
 
 IN THE ROAR OF THE SEA 
 
 Anster (F.). A BAYARD OF BENGAL. 
 
 NOEMI. 
 
 
 A BOOK OF FAIRY TALES. Dlattrated 
 
 Austen (J.). PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. 
 
 LITTLE TXTPENNY. 
 
 BaflTot (Rlehapd). A ROMAN MYSTERY. 
 
 WINEFRED. 
 
 THE FROBISHERS. 
 
 CASTING OF NETS. 
 
 THE QUEEN OF LOVE. 
 
 DONNA DIANA. 
 
 ARMINELL. 
 
 Balfonp (Andrew). BY STROKE OF 
 
 BLADYS OF THE STEWPONEY. 
 
 SWORD. 
 
 CHRIS OF ALL SORTS. 
 
28 
 
 Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 Barr (Robert). JENNIE BAXTER. 
 IN THE MIDST OF ALARMS. 
 THE COUNTESS TEKLA. 
 THE MUTABLE MANY. 
 
 Benson (E. F.). DODO. 
 THE VINTAGE 
 
 Bronte (Charlotte). SHIRLEY. 
 
 Brownell (C. L.). THE HEART OF 
 JAPAN. 
 
 Burton (J. BloondellaV ACROSS THE 
 
 SALT SEAS. 
 Caffsm (Mrs.). ANNE MAULEVERER. 
 
 Capes (Bernard) THE LAKE OF 
 
 WINE. 
 
 THE GREAT SKENE MYSTERY. 
 
 ClIfTord (Mrs. W. K.). A FLASH OF 
 
 SUMMER. 
 
 MRS. KEITH'S CRIME. 
 
 Corbett (Julian). A BUSINESS IN 
 GREAT WATERS. 
 
 Croker (Mrs. B. M.). ANGEL. 
 A STATE SECRET. 
 PEGGY OF THE BARTONS. 
 JOHANNA. 
 
 Dante (Alighleri). THB DIVINB 
 
 COMEDY (Cary> 
 
 Doyle (A. Conan). ROUND THE RED 
 LAMP. 
 
 Dunean (Sara Jeannette). THOSE 
 
 DELIGHTFUL AMERICANS. 
 
 Eliot (George). THE MILL ON THE 
 FLOSS. 
 
 Findlater (Jane H.). THE GREEN 
 
 GRAVES OF BALGOWRIE. 
 
 Gallon (Tom). RICKERBY'S FOLLY. 
 
 GaskeU (Mrs). CRANrOSD. 
 MARY BARTON. 
 NORTH AND SOUTH- 
 
 Gerard (Dorothea). HOLY MATRI- 
 MONY. 
 
 THE CONQUEST OF LONDON. 
 
 MADE OF MONEY. 
 
 Gisslnc (G.). THE TOWN TRAVELLER. 
 THE CROWN OF LIF£. 
 
 Glanvllle (Bmest). THE INCA'S 
 TREASURE. 
 
 THE KLOOF BRIDE. 
 
 Glelg (Charles). BUNTER'S CRUISE. 
 
 Grimm {The Brothers). GRIMM'S 
 FAIRY TALES. 
 
 Hope (Anthony). A MAN OF HARK. 
 A CHANGE OF AIR. 
 
 THE CHRONICLIS OF COUNT 
 ANTONIO. wv/u«i 
 
 PHROSO. 
 
 THE DOLLY DIALOGUES. 
 
 Horauni^W.). DEAD MSN TELL 
 
 ^^uV&ia.'"^^" ^™^T ^«^ 
 
 Injrraham U. H.). THE THRONE OF 
 
 Le Queuz (W.). THE HUNCHBACK 
 OF WESTMINSTER. 
 
 THE CROOKED WAY. 
 
 •THE VALLEY OF THE SHADOW. 
 
 Levett-Teats (S. K.). THE TRAITOR'S 
 
 tV AY. 
 ORRAIN. 
 
 Linton (B. Lrnn). THE TRUE HIS- 
 TORY OF JOSHUA DAVIDSON. 
 
 Lyall(Edna). DERRICK VAUGHAN. 
 
 Malet (Lueas). THECARISSIMA 
 A COUNSEL OF PERFECTION. 
 
 Mann (Mrs. M. B.). MRS. PETER 
 HOWARD. 
 
 A LOST ESTATE. 
 
 THE CEDAR STAR. 
 
 ONE ANOTHER'S BURDENS. 
 
 THE PATTEN EXPERIMENT. 
 
 A WINTER'S TALE. 
 
 Marehmont (A. W.). mSKK HOAD- 
 
 LEY'S SECRET. 
 A MOMENTS ERROR. 
 
 Marryat (CapUln). PETER SIMPLE. 
 JACOB FAITHFUL. 
 
 March (Richard). A METAMORPHOSIS 
 THE TWICKENHAM PEERAGE. 
 THE GODDESS. 
 THE JOS& 
 
Fiction 
 
 Mason (A. E. WJ. CXXMENTINA. 
 
 Mathers (Helen). HONEY. 
 GRIFF OF GRIFFITHSC0UR2. 
 SAM'S SWEETHEART. 
 THE FERRYMAN. 
 
 Meade (Mn. L. T.). DRIFT. 
 
 MUlaF (KstlMrt. UVING UE& 
 
 Utford Sertraai), THK SIGN OF THE 
 
 SPIDS& 
 
 MontresOF (F. F.). THE ALIEN. 
 
 Morrison (Arthur). THE HOLE IN 
 THE WALL. 
 
 Nesblt (S,). THE RED HOUSE. 
 
 Norrls (W. B.). HIS GRACE. 
 
 GILES INGILBY. 
 
 THE CREDIT OF THE COUNTY. 
 
 LORD LEONARD THE LUCKLESS. 
 
 MATTHEW AUSTEN. 
 
 CLARISSA FURIOSA- 
 
 Ollphant (Mrs.), THE LADY'S WALK 
 
 SIR ROBERT'S FORTUNE. 
 
 THE PRODIGALS. 
 
 THE TWO MARYS. 
 
 OpiMnhdm (B. P.). MASTER OF MEN. 
 
 Parker (Gilbert). THE POMP OF THE 
 LAVILETTES. 
 
 (VHKN VALMOND CAME TO PONTIAC. 
 
 THE TRAIL OF THK SWORD. 
 
 Pemberten (Max). THE FOOTSTEPS 
 OF A THRONE. 
 
 I CROWN THEE KING. 
 
 PhUlpottt (Bden). THE HUMAN BOY. 
 CHILDREN OF THE MIST. 
 THE POACHER'S WIFB. 
 THE RIVER. 
 
 •Q' (A 
 
 whit: 
 
 T. QuiUer Coueh). 
 KITE WOLF. 
 
 29 
 
 THE 
 
 Rldjte (W. Pett). a son of the state. 
 
 LOST PROPERTY. 
 GEORGE and THE GENERAI^ 
 A BREAKER OF LAWS 
 ERB. 
 
 RusseU (W. Clark). ABANDONED 
 A MARRIAGE AT SEA. 
 MY DANISH SWEETHEART, 
 HIS ISLAND PRINCESS. 
 
 Sergeant (Adeline). THE MASTER OF 
 BEECHWOOD. 
 
 BALBARA'S MONEY. 
 
 THE YELLOW DIAMOND. 
 
 THE LOVE THAT OVERCAME. 
 
 SidRwlek (Mrs. Alfred), the kins. 
 
 MAN. 
 
 Surtees (R. S.). handley CROSS. 
 MR. SPONGE'S SPORTING TOUR. 
 ASK MAMMA. 
 
 Walford (Mn. L. B.). MR. SMITH. 
 
 COUSINS. 
 
 THE BABY'S GRANDMOTHER. 
 
 TROUBLESOME DAUGHTERS. 
 
 Wallace (General Lew). BEN-HUR 
 THE FAIR GOD. 
 
 Watson (H. B. Marriott). THE ADVEN- 
 TURERS. 
 
 CAPTAIN FORTUNE. 
 
 Weekes (A. B.]. PRISONERS OF war. 
 
 Wells (H. G.). THE SEA LADY. 
 
 Whitby (Beatriee). THE RESULT OF 
 
 AN ACCIDENT. 
 
 White (Percy), a PASSIONATE PIL- 
 GRIM. 
 
 Williamson (.Mrs. C N.). PAPA. 
 
30 
 
 Methuen and Company Limited 
 
 Books for Travellert. 
 
 Cravm Stw. 6r. taeh. 
 Each Tolome contains a nomber of Illastrations In Cdoai. 
 
 A Wandbkkx im Paxis. E. V. Lttca^i 
 A Wanokkxb in HoLuiKB. E. V. Lucas. 
 A Wandxxr im London. B. V. Lucas 
 Tm NoKFOLX Bkoads. W. A. Dutt. 
 The New Fokkst. Horace G. Hntchinsoa. 
 Naplks. Aithnr H. Norway. 
 Thb Citibs or Ukbkia. Edward Hutto^ 
 Thb Citou of Spain. Edward Hutton. 
 
 TLOIUtNCS AND TMI CiTIKS OF NoKTHBKN 
 
 Tuscany, with Gxnoa. Edward Hutton. 
 ROMB. Edward Hutton. 
 Vbnicb and Vxnxtia. Edward Hnttoa. 
 
 Tkb Bxbtoms at Horn. F. 
 
 Thb Land »v Paxoon* (Brittany). 
 L« Bras. 
 
 M. GostHnf. 
 
 AnatoU 
 
 A Book or thb Rhihb. S. Barinf-Gould. 
 
 Thb Naplbs Ritibka. H. Bf. Vanghaa. 
 
 Days in Coxkwaix. C. Lewis Hind. 
 
 Thkodgr East Anglla in a Motox Cai. 
 J. K Vincent. 
 
 Thb Skixts or thb Gxxat Citt. Mrs. A 
 G. BelL 
 
 Round about Wiltcbixb. A. G. Bradky. 
 
 SconjiND or To-dat. T. F. Henderson an4 
 Francis Watt. 
 
 NOKWAT AND ITS FjOKIM. M. A. WyUk. 
 
 Somt Booki 01 Art 
 
 AxTANoLirB. T. Stvge Mmr. UbtstraMA. 
 Cr. %v*. St. M4t. 
 
 Aims and Idbals in Axt. Georp Claosea. 
 Illustrated. S*e*Hd MiUUm. Lmrg* Ptt 
 tv». St. lui. 
 
 Six Lbctuxbs ON PAiNTiNa GeorxeGaosen. 
 Illustrated. Third MMwm. L»ret Peti 
 %v». 3/. (>d. tut. 
 
 FxANCKSco GuAXDi, lyxs-iTos. O. A. 
 Simonsoa. Illustixted. ImfttuJ 4/*. 
 £a at. tut. 
 
 Illustkations or thb Book or Jo*. 
 William Blake. QttsrU. £1 u. tut. 
 
 John Lucas, Poxtxait Paintbx, 112^1874. 
 Arthur Lucas. lUnstrated. Im/erM 4/*. 
 £3 3». mtt. 
 
 Onb Hundkbo M astkkpixcks or Paintino. 
 With ax Introduction by R. C. Witt Illus- 
 trated. Stcotid Edition. Dtmy Sew. lof . dd. 
 tut. 
 
 Onb Hvhdkbd Mastbxpixcxs or Scuuruxx. 
 V^th as IntroductioB by G. F. HilL Illus- 
 trated. Dtmy tv0. lor. 64. tut. 
 
 A RoMNXT Fouo. With ax Essay by A. B. 
 Chaxiberlaia. Itm^trisl Ftii*. £1% 151. 
 tut. 
 
 Thb Saints 
 Illustrated. 
 
 in Axt. Margaret E. Tabot 
 Fe*/. 8v0. 3*. 6d. tut. 
 
 Schools or Painting. Mary Inoes. Illus- 
 trated. Cr. t»0. y. tut. 
 
 Thb Post Impxbssionists. C Lewis Hind 
 Illustrated. Xtyai »V0. ji. 6d. tut. 
 
 Celtic Axt in Pagan and Chxistian Tmxs. 
 J. R. Allen. lUustrated. Dttnyiv. 11. U 
 tut. 
 
 " Classics or Axt." See page 14. 
 
 "ThbConnoisbbux'sLibxaxt." See page 14- 
 
 " LiTTLB Books on Axt." See page 17. 
 
 "Thb Littlb Gallxxixs.'' See page x^ 
 
General Literature 
 Some Books on Italy. 
 
 31 
 
 4 HisTOKT OP Milan dndkx thb Sfokza. 
 
 Cecilia M. Ady. Illustrated Demy %v». 
 
 lof. 6^ ntU 
 k. HisTOKT or VEkoNA. A. M. Allea. 
 
 Illustrated. D*my 8tv. lu. dd. tut. 
 
 L HiSTOKT OP Pbkugia. William Heywood. 
 
 Illustrated. Dtmy \v». tax. td. net. 
 Tm Lakbs or Nokthkrn Italy. Richard 
 
 BagoC Illustrated. Fca^. %v». %t. net. 
 Woman in Italy. W. Boulting. Illustrated. 
 
 Demy \vo. vox. €d. net. 
 
 Old Etrukia and Modern Tuscany. Mary 
 
 L. Cameron. Illustrated. Second Edition 
 
 Cr. 8v#. 6t. net. 
 Florkncb and thk Citi«s op Northern 
 
 Tuscany, with Gknoa. Edward Huttoa. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. ive. 6/. 
 
 Sibna anb Southkrn Tvscany. Edward 
 Hutton. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 Cr. tvo. it. 
 
 I In Unknown Tuscany. Edward Hutton. 
 I Illustrated. Second Edition. Demy %v». 
 I ^t. id. net. 
 
 I Vbnick and Vbnktia. Edward Huttom. 
 Illustrated. Cr. %vo. 6t. 
 
 \ VxNicx ON Foot. H. A. Douglas. Illustrated. 
 
 F'ca/. tvo. it. net, 
 ! Vbnicb and Hbr Trbasukbs. H. A. 
 j Douglas. Illustrated. Fca/. Sv«. $*• x"^- 
 
 Flokbncb : Her History and Art to the Fall 
 of the Republic F. A. Hyett. Demy ivo. 
 jt. 6d net. 
 
 Florbncx and Hxk Trbasukxs. H. M. 
 Vaughan. Illustrated. Fca^. ivo. 5J. net. 
 
 Country Walks about Florenck. Edward 
 Hutton. Illustrated. Fca^. ivo. $*• ***(• 
 
 Naples : Past and Present. A. H. Norway. 
 Illustrated. Third Edition. Cr. Zvo. 6/. 
 
 Thb Naples Rivikra. H. M. Vaughan. 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. ivo. 6t. 
 
 Sicily : The New Winter Resort Douglas 
 
 SladoL Illustrated. Second Edition. Cr. 
 
 ivo. it. net. 
 Sicily. F. H. Jackson. Illustrated. Small 
 
 Pott Ivo. CUtk, at. 6d. net; leather, 3/. td, 
 
 net. 
 RoMB. Edward Hutton. Illustrated. Second 
 
 Edition. Cr. »vo. 6t. 
 A Roman Pilgrimage. R. E. Roberts. 
 
 Illustrated. Demy ivo. lox. 6d. net. 
 Rome. C. G. Ellaby. Illustrated. Smait 
 
 Pott ivo. Cloth, at. td net ; letftheri y. (td. 
 
 net. 
 The Cities op Umbsia. Edward Hutton. 
 
 Illustrated. Fourth Edition. Cr. ivo. 6t. 
 
 Thb Lives op S. Francis op Assisi. 
 Brother Thomas of Celano. Cr. ivo. it. 
 net. 
 
 Lorenzo the Magnipicbnt. E. L. S. 
 
 Horsburgh. Illustrated. Second Edition. 
 
 Demy ivo. ly. net, 
 GiKOLAMO Savonarola. E. L. S. Horsburgh. 
 
 Illustrated. Cr. ivo. it. net, 
 St. Cathbrinb op Siena and Her Times. 
 
 By the Author of" Mdlle Mori" Illustrated 
 
 Second Edition. Demy ivo. js. td. net. 
 
 Dantb and his Italy. Lonsdale Ragg 
 Illustpated. Demy tvo. tas. 6d. net. 
 
 Dantb Alichibxi : His Life and Works 
 Paget Toynbee. Illustrated. Cr. ivo. st 
 met, 
 
 Thb Mboici Popes. H. M. Vaughan Illus- 
 trated. Demy ivo. 15s. net. 
 
 Shelley and His Friends in Italy. Helen 
 
 R. AngelL Illustrated. Demy ivo. lot. 6d 
 
 net. 
 Home Life in Italy. Lina Duff Gordon. 
 
 Illustrated. Second Edition. Demy ivo. 
 
 lot. 6d. net. 
 Skies Italian : A Little Breviary for Traveller! 
 
 in Italy. Ruth S. Phelps. Fca/. ivo. y. 
 
 net. 
 
PRINTED BT 
 
 WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, 
 
 LONDON AND BECCLES.