B 364332
7
DUPL
D
INCHI
wwwwww
SE
SOIT.
LIFE AND TIMES
OF THE
Right Hon: The
MARQUIS OF SALISBURY
K-G
TOSA
Amy
MAL
QUI
WOH
PENSEN
LY.PE
SEN
S HUEYES
JOU
***
CARLANANA
...............
mix./8
தாரரா
IMA
نند
HTT
ARTES
LIBRARY
18370
HENTAY
VERITAS
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
PLURIBUS UNUM
TUEBOR
SCIENTIA
OF THE
SI-QUÆRIS PENINSULAM·AMŒNAM
CIRCUMSPICE
NAJATINA
DAGOGI) DG.
*10*
!
THE LIFE AND TIMES
OF
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE
MARQUIS OF SALISBURY, K.G.
DA
564
S2
J6
XELMON –
UNAK
OF
ICH

VISCOUNT CRANBORNE.
From a photo by Mayall & C.S!
LONDON, JS VIRTUE & CO LIMITED.
THE LIFE AND TIMES
OF
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
THE
MARQUIS OF SALISBURY K.G.
A HISTORY OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY DURING
THE LAST FORTY YEARS
Sameer E
BY
H. JEYES, M.A.
OF THE INNER TEMPLE, BARRISTER-AT-LAW
WITH NUMEROUS ILLUSTRATIONS
IN FOUR VOLUMES
VOL. IV.
LONDON
J. S. VIRTUE & CO., LTD., 294, CITY ROAD
LONDON:
PRINTED BY J. S. VIRTUE AND CO., LIMITED,
CITY ROAD.
вто
fe
06-26
•
History - English
Soth.
6·26-28
17215
CHAP.
I. THE IRISH MOVEMENT (Continued).
•
CONTENTS.
II. EGYPT AND THE SOUDAN
•
Mr. Parnell released on Parole-Negotiations between Government and the Prisoners
-The Treaty of Kilmainham-Mr. Forster's Resignation-The Murder of Lord
Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke-The Suppressed Clause in the Treaty-
Exposure in Parliament-Renewal of Coercion-The Arrears Bill-Mr. Dillon's
heart-breaking Speech-Lord Salisbury on Liberal Vacillation-On the Arrears
Bill-Foundation of the National League-The Phoenix Park Murders and the
informer Carey-Conviction of the Criminals-Egan and the Land League Books-
The Fate of Carey-Lord Salisbury on the Situation—The Vatican and the Irish
Priesthood-Lord Salisbury on the Land Acts of 1870 and 1881.
VOL. IV.
The Mutiny of Arabi-Becomes Under-Secretary for War-Death of Gambetta
and changed policy of France-Bombardment of Alexandria-Lord Wolseley ordered
to Egypt The Battle of Tel-el-Kebir-Diplomatic difficulties and hesitation of
British Government-Lord Dufferin's Mission-Rise of the Mahdi-Egyptian
Government advised to evacuate the Soudan-Gordon sent to Khartoum-Lord
Salisbury on the "Three Policies" of Ministers-Lord Hartington's Explanations—
Desperate Straits of Gordon-Fall of Khartoum-The futile Relief Expedition-
Vote of Censure in the Lords-Narrow Escape in the Commons-Irish Nationalists
and the Mahdi.
III. THE GLADSTONE MINISTRY, 1882-1885
((
Legislative Work of the 1882 Session-The New Rules-Lord Salisbury on
Clearing the Liberal Conscience"-Controversy with Mr. Chamberlain-Lord
Randolph Churchill's intrigues-The Agricultural Holdings Bill in the Lords-Lord
Salisbury on Mr. Bright and Mr. Chamberlain-On Disintegration-On South
Africa-On the Troubles in Madagascar-On the Government of London—The
Ilbert Bill-The Agitation for Reform-Extension of the Franchise without
Redistribution of Seats-Third Reading of the Bill-Mr. Gladstone warns the Peers
-The Bill thrown out-Mr. Gladstone and Lord Salisbury-Attempted Com-
promise--Organized Demonstrations against the Peers-Disclosure of the Ministerial
Scheme-Steps towards an Arrangement-Consultation agreed upon-The Gladstone-
Salisbury Scheme-Success of Conservative Tactics-Housing of the Poor-The
National Union at Sheffield—African Affairs-Ministers and Nationalists-The
Penjdeh Incident-War Imminent-Condition of the Navy-Ministers defeated on
the Budget.
IV. THE HOME RULE CRISIS
Lord Salisbury Prime Minister-Lord Randolph Churchill and Sir Stafford North-
cote-Coercion to be Suspended-Lord Carnarvon and Mr. Parnell-The Maamtrasma
Inquiry The Ashbourne Act-Lord Salisbury's Speech at Newport-“Three
Acres and a Cow"-Lord Salisbury and Mr. Chamberlain-On Free Trade-The
General Election of 1885-A Political Deadlock-First-feelers about Home Rule—
Mr. Gladstone's Suggestion to Lord Salisbury-Home Rule taken up by the Liberal
PAGE
1
27
58
105
vi
CONTENTS.
CHAP.
Party-Nationalists and the Prince of Wales-Conquest of Burmah-Resignation of
Lord Carnarvon and Sir W. Hart Dyke-Mr. W. H. Smith goes to the Irish
Office-Coercion to be renewed-Conservative Ministry defeated on the Address—
Lord Salisbury's Resignation-The new Gladstone Administration-Lord Salis-
bury's Criticisms-The First Home Rule Bill-The Liberal Unionists-Meeting at
the Opera House-Introduction of the Land Bill-Mr. Chamberlain and the Radical
Unionists-Lord Salisbury on Twenty Years of Resolute Government-Coalition of
Lord Hartington and Mr. Chamberlain-Defeat of the Home Rule Bill—Mr.
Gladstone appeals to the Country.
V. THE SECOND SALISBURY ADMINISTRATION.
Great Unionist Victory-Lord Salisbury's Offer to Lord Hartington—The Plan of
Campaign-Resignation of Lord Randolph Churchill-Mr. Goschen becomes Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer-Death of Lord Iddesleigh-The Round Table Conference—
Reform of Procedure in the Commons-Mr. Balfour's Message to Captain Plunket—
The Crimes Bill-The Times and the " Parnell Letters "-The Crimes Bill carried by
the Closure-Mr. Chamberlain and the Revision of Judicial Rents-Prosecution of
Irish Leaders-Disturbances on the Continent-Sir H. Drummond Wolff and the
proposed Evacuation of Egypt-Conversion of Consols-Lord Salisbury on Reform
of the House of Lords-The County Councils Act-The Licensing Scheme aban-
doned-Appointment of the Parnell Commission-Lord Sackville at Washington—
The Exposure of Pigott-The Naval Defence Act-The Sugar Bounty Convention—
Visit of the German Emperor-Flight of Boulanger-Lord Salisbury on the Fusion
of Liberal Unionists and Conservatives-On Assisted Education-Foreign Affairs in
1890-Dispute with Portugal-Report of the Special Commission-The Licensing
Proposals withdrawn-Failure of the Session-The Anglo-German and Anglo-
French Agreements as to Spheres of Influencé in Africa-Mr. Parnell in the Divorce
Court and Paralysis of Nationalist Obstruction-The Tithes Bill-The Land Pur-
chase Bill-Free Education -The Anglo-Portuguese Agreement-The Behring Sea
Arbitration-France and Newfoundland-Lord Salisbury on Irish Feuds —The
Disaster in Manipur-Death of Mr. W. H. Smith and of Mr. Parnell-The Super-
fluous Session of 1892-The Small Holdings Act and the Irish Local Government
Bill-Lord Salisbury on Ulster and on Free Trade.
VI. THE GLADSTONE-ROSEBERY ADMINISTRATION OF 1892-1895
The General Election of 1892-Mr. Gladstone's Return to Power-His Weakness in
the Cominons-The Evicted Tenants Commission-Lord Salisbury on the Abolition
of the House of Lords-Promises of the new Government in 1893-Lord Rosebery
and Egypt-The Second Home Rule Bill-Closure by Compartments-Thrown out
by the Peers-Failure of Threatened Agitation-The Employers' Liability Bill-
Lord Dudley's Amendment carried-The Bill abandoned by Ministers-The Parish
Cɔuncils Bill—Meeting of the Conservative Party—Amendments introduced by the
Peers-Relations between the two Houses of Parliament-Mr. Gladstone's Warn-
ing-His Retirement from Public Life-Succeeded by Lord Rosebery-Hawaii and
the United States-The Matabele War-The Session of 1894-" Newcastle Pro-
gramme as Usual"-Sir G. Portal's Report on Uganda-The Evicted Tenants'
Bill-The Democratic Budget-Assassination of President Carnot-Lord Salisbury
on Anarchists in England-Collision between English and French in West Africa—
The Leeds Conference and Lord Rosebery-Death of Alexander III.-Turks and
Armenians-Lord Salisbury's Warning to English Agitators --Welsh Disestablish-
ment—The Speakership vacant-Lord Salisbury on Radical Legislation and the
Disturbance of Commercial Confidence—Uganda and Swaziland—The Chitral Cam-
paign-Resignation of the Duke of Cambridge-Debate on the Supply of Cordite-
Defeat of the Government-Courses open to Ministers-They decide on Resigna-
tion-Lord Salisbury forms his Third Administration-Defeat of the Home Rulers
and Radicals-Postscript.
PAGE
139
195
LIST OF ETCHED PORTRAITS.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE
MR. GEORGE J. GOSCHEN.
MR. W. H. SMITH
MR. HENRY MATTHEWS (VISCOUNT LLANDAFF)
COLONEL SAUNDERSON
MR. C. T. RITCHIE
MR. W. L. JACKSON .
VOL. IV.
SIR M. WHITE RIDLEY, BART.
•
•
Frontispiece
To face page
""
"}
""
"
"
"}
56
108
140
152
164
190
214
1
THE LIFE AND TIMES
OF
A
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY, K.G.
CHAPTER I.
Ar the opening of Parliament, on February 7th, 1882, Mr. Forster thought
himself justified in contributing a paragraph to the Queen's Speech, in which he
declared that "signs of improvement" had shown themselves in the condition of
Ireland. They were not obvious to less sanguine observers. The Debate on the
Address largely consisted of a wrangle about Mr. Forster's administration, though
the indictment of his Irish policy was only supported by a handful of members in
the Lobby. There was another little brush between the two Houses of Parliament,
on Lord Donoughmore persuading a majority of the Peers to appoint a Select
Committee to inquire into the operation of the Land Act of 1881, which, he
said, was not being worked by the Sub-Commissioners in accordance with
the intentions of Parliament. Lord Granville announced that the Government
would not recognise the Committee or be represented upon it, and Mr. Gladstone
gave notice that he would move a Resolution in the House of Commons declaring
that such an inquiry would tend to defeat the operation of the Act, and would be
injurious to the interests of good government in Ireland. This was, in effect, a Vote
of Censure on the House of Lords, and, after a prolonged Debate, was only carried
by a strictly Party vote (303 against 235). The main justification for the action
of the Lords was the appearance of a pamphlet, written by the Secretary to the
Land Commission, in which the work of the Land League was warmly com-
mended. The landlords had some excuse for thinking that an official with such
pronounced views would hardly act with impartiality between them and their
tenants.
When Parliament rose for the Easter Recess (1882), there was a general
feeling that the Ministerial policy with regard to Ireland had not been, and
showed no signs of becoming, successful. It was one of two things either the
coercive powers vested in the Executive must be further strengthened (and this was
known to be Mr. Forster's view), or there must be another attempt to conciliate the
Agrarian and Fenian leaders. The wholesale arrest of suspected persons-six or
VOL. IV.
B
2
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
seven hundred were now in prison-and their detention without any form of trial
wcre, at least, unwelcome expedients, which would only have justified themselves in
popular opinion if they had broken the back of the seditious agitation. But, as a
matter of fact, murders and cattle mutilations, boycotting and intimidation, were
being carried out with equal audacity and impunity. Even more alarming was the
renewed activity of the Secret Societies, which had previously been acting, for some
little time, on the hint they had received to make way for the "open" movement.
of the Land League. But on the suppression of that body they began work again.
Though the Land League was supposed no longer to be in existence, the
Ladies' Land League was even more active and violent than its predecessor-so
active and so violent that, for prudence' sake, it had to be dissolved by the Nation-
alist leaders, who took over its assets and liabilities. Another indication of the
undiminished influence of the Land League was the unopposed election of its
founder, Mr. Davitt, to a vacancy in Meath, created by the resignation of Mr. A.
M. Sullivan; but, as a felon still working out his sentence at Portland, he was, of
course, not allowed to take his seat.
Ge
"6
""
On April 11th, Lord Salisbury delivered an important address to a Conservative
meeting at Ormskirk. With reference to Irish matters he once again expressed
his conviction that the Land Act of the previous year had proceeded on a wrong
principle, and would have to be largely modified. "I am not," he said,
one of
those who believe that after a revolutionary step you can go back. It is one of
the curses of Revolution that it separates you by a chasm from that which you have
left-a chasm which you never can recross. The Government had set up a system
of dual-or divided-ownership in land. What was really required now was to
restore single ownership, but to place it in the hands of the tenants; and Lord
Salisbury expressed his strong approval of the proposals put forward by Mr.
W. H. Smith for increasing the power of the Commissioners to enable tenants to
purchase their holdings on equitable terms. But for the present there were more
urgent questions to be dealt with. Animosity had been excited between class and
class; it had done its work, and social revolution was all but complete.
Almost as these remarks were uttered, it happened, by an ironical coincidence,
that Ministers were deciding to try another dose of kindness on the Irish leaders
-at the very time when the National Invincibles were maturing their plot for a
signal attack on the British Government. We come now to the period of the Kil-
mainham Treaty and the Phonix Park Murders. On April 10th Mr. Parnell was
released from Kilmainham, on parole, in order to attend the funeral of his sister's
only child in Paris, and he appears to have honourably observed the conditions on
which this indulgence was granted him-that he should not take part in political
agitation during his leave of absence. He returned to custody on the 24th. It
has been suggested that he was brought into close communication, while in the
French capital, with some of his Parliamentary and other colleagues. But,
although one of the persons with whom he conversed was Mr. Frank Byrne, there
is no reasonable doubt, whatever personal links there might be between the Land
League and some of the Secret Societies, that this body was quite unconnected with

"THE TREATY OF KILMAINHAM."
the Irish National Invincibles. We may unhesitatingly accept the subsequent
verdict of the Special Commission that "there is no foundation whatever for the
charge that Mr. Parnell was intimate with Invincibles, knowing them to be such,"
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
(From a photograph by The London Stereoscopic Co.)
3
or that he had any knowledge, direct or indirect, of the conspiracy which resulted
in the Phoenix Park Murders.
The temporary liberation of Mr. Parnell, though granted for a special reason,
was regarded as a sign that the Government were tired of keeping the Nationalist
leaders under lock and key, and it is certain that many overtures were put forward
B 2
4
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
to the effect that they might have their freedom if they would only leave the
country. The prisoners, however, held out for unconditional liberation, since they
knew that the Act under which they were detained would expire in the autumn.
But the completeness of the Ministerial surrender, which was announced by Mr.
Gladstone on May 2nd, fairly took the country by surprise. The Government had
already earned an unexampled reputation for weakness of purpose, but their most
prejudiced critics would hardly have prophesied that they were about to adopt a
policy which would entail the immediate resignation of Lord Cowper and Mr.
Forster, their Lord Lieutenant and Chief Secretary. Not only were Mr. Parnell,
Mr. Dillon, and Mr. O'Kelly to be released without condition, not only was Mr.
Davitt to be set at large, but the Government had promised to bring in an Arrears
Bill that would give effect to the measure drafted by the Irish leader. Sir T.
Wemyss Reid has shown, in his valuable "Life of the Right Hon. W. E. Forster,”
that the Irish Secretary, who had voluntarily placed in Mr. Gladstone's hand, on
April 4th, an offer of conditional resignation, was willing to consent to the release
of the Irish leaders, but only if they gave an assurance, on which Ministers could
depend, that they and their friends "would not attempt in any manner to intimi-
date men into obedience to their unwritten law." Otherwise, he declared in a
confidential letter to Mr. Gladstone, their liberation would make matters much worse
than they already were-unless the country became so quiet that "Parnell & Co."
could do little harm, or unless a strong Act were passed which would make it pos-
sible to govern Ireland in defiance of them.
G
The negotiations between the Kilmainham prisoners and the Cabinet, or that
section of the Cabinet which followed Mr. Chamberlain, had been conducted by
Captain O'Shea, and there is plenty of evidence that the whole affair was very
distasteful to Mr. Forster. But some of his colleagues were becoming eager to
dispense with his services in Ireland, since he was making it quite clear that he
would insist upon another and still stronger Coercion Act than the one now coming
to an end. Rather than bring before Parliament what they considered an un-
popular, and no doubt believed to be a harsh, measure, they were prepared to drive
Mr. Forster out of the Cabinet. The final issue of Captain O'Shea's services as inter-
mediary between Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Parnell was that the latter wrote a
letter which afterwards obtained notoriety from the attempt he made to burke its
most significant passage. The terms which Mr. Parnell dictated-such, in fact, was
the attitude assumed by the Government's prisoner-were that the Arrears Ques-
tion was to be settled on lines which he indicated. On that understanding he
declared that he and his colleagues felt every confidence that the exertions they
were prepared to apply "would be effective in stopping outrages and intimidation
of every kind." This was the nearest approach Mr. Parnell would make to the
pledge demanded by Mr. Forster. But the former was willing to concede some-
thing else which the latter had scorned to stipulate for. In private and in public
Mr. Forster had protested against any trafficking for the Parnellite Vote. But
Mr. Parnell was now addressing himself not to the upright official, but to a
wavering Cabinet, and he knew that he was offering Ministers a temptation they

MR. PARNELL DICTATES TERMS.
3
could not resist, when he promised that in return for this "practical settlement of
the Land Question," his followers would soon be enabled to "co-operate cordially
for the future with the Liberal Party in forwarding Liberal principles and measures
of general reform."
Mr. Gladstone was satisfied. Still, his conscience seems to have pricked him a
MR. T. H. BURKE.
(From a photograph by Chancellor, Dublin.)
little when, in reference to the final bribe, he wrote to Mr. Forster that it was "a
hors d'œuvre which he had no right to expect." No right to expect it! As if it
were not the consideration on which the whole bargain turned! "I rather think,"
the Prime Minister went on, with delicious candour, "we have no right at present
to accept it." He wound up by saying that he "could not help feeling indebted
to O'Shea." He altered that opinion before he was many days older.
6
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
A "disgraceful compromise" was the term which Mr. Forster, in a private
letter of May 2nd, applied to the so-called Treaty of Kilmainham; and on
the same day he announced to Mr. Gladstone his intention to retire from
the Ministry, and was succeeded as Chief Secretary, not by Mr. Chamberlain
(who had been designated by public opinion for the office as well as by his special
responsibility for the new Ministerial change of policy), but by Lord Frederick
Cavendish. The office of Lord Lieutenant, almost simultaneously resigned by Lord
Cowper, was accepted by Lord Spencer. Sir T. Wemyss Reid gives a graphic
account of the scene presented by the House of Commons on May 4th, when the
late Chief Secretary made his personal explanation. "The mind of the nation,"
he writes, "was strongly divided as to the wisdom and safety of the new policy,
and according as men thought of that policy, so did they regard Mr. Forster.
To those who were the advocates of the new departure, his fall from office was an
occasion of triumph. To the rest of the world he stood forth as a hero and a
victim, sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Thus the crowded House,
where every seat on the floor and in the galleries had its occupant, met under the
influence of the strongest emotions to hear his statement. The Prince of Wales and
many of the leaders of the Peers, sat with Ambassadors in the Diplomatic Gallery,
deeply interested spectators of the scene. But it was not on the Heir Apparent or
the distinguished men around him, that the attention of the House was first fixed.
Among the Irish Members below the gangway two men were to be seen who had
long been absent from their Parliamentary duties. They were two of the released
suspects-Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Kelly-and their presence in the midst of their
friends seemed to proclaim their triumph over the Minister to whose last official
statement the House was about to listen.
There were two vacant
places on the Treasury Bench that evening: one was the place so lately occupied
by Mr. Forster himself, the other was that which belonged to Lord Frederick
Cavendish, whose refined and gentle face could be seen beneath the Gallery,
where for the moment shut out from the House of Commons by the acceptance
of office—he sat to listen to the speech of his predecessor. No mark of doom was
on his brow; but there were many afterwards who recalled the air of almost
pathetic interest-the grave and slightly abstracted expression in his eyes-
which distinguished him while the Debate proceeded. As one who was near
him said later on, it seemed as though he were in a waking dream."
As a matter of fact, the evidence of the informer Carey shows that the Invin-
cibles' plot had been directed, in the first instance, against Mr. Forster and Lord
Cowper; that the Secret Society which aimed at the "removal" of "tyrants" had
been formed in Dublin more than a year before; and that on two previous occasions
attempts, only baulked by accident, had been made to waylay Mr. Forster, once
on March 3rd, 1882, and again a few days later. For four nights again, the first
four nights of the last week that Mr. Forster spent in Ireland before he retired
from office, the Invincibles had kept watch for him; and it was only when they
learned that he was not to return that they resolved to sacrifice Mr. Burke, the
Under-Secretary. Sir T. Wemyss Reid thinks that "Lord Frederick Cavendish
THE VENGEANCE OF THE INVINCIBLES.
7
was unknown to the men who slew him." He owed his fate to the fact of his
having walked across the Park with Mr. Burke, and to his courage in defending
that gentleman when he was attacked.
It was about seven o'clock on the Saturday evening, May 6th-in broad
daylight, while Phoenix Park was thronged with people, in sight of the Viceregal
Lodge-that the murder was carried out. A party of boys on bicycles, who were
passing down the broad highway, saw Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke
walking and talking together. When they came back to the Monument on their
return spin, they found them dead. The murderous attack had itself becn
witnessed from some little distance by a passer-by, who thought it was only a
scuffle among roughs. It was even watched with unconscious eyes by the Lord
Lieutenant himself, from the windows of his Lodge. It was but a bit of vulgar
horse-play, Lord Spencer believed, and gave it no further thought. Meanwhile
the murderers were picked up in a cart that was kept in waiting, and drove
rapidly away.
The news did not reach London for some hours, and it was at a Ministerial
dinner party that a telegram from Lord Spencer was brought in to Sir William
Harcourt, and Mr. Forster was informed at a reception held at the Admiralty.
The next morning (Sunday) he went to Mr. Gladstone and expressed his readiness
to return to Dublin the same evening, and resume, for a time, the duties of Chief
Secretary. Though the offer was not accepted, it stands in history to Mr.
Forster's credit.
1
When Parliament met on the Monday afternoon, the chief business in both
Houses was to pay a public tribute to the memory of the murdered men —a duty in
which Lord Granville was heartily joined by Lord Salisbury and Lord Cowper, and
Mr. Gladstone by Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Forster. But the Government
had also to announce that on the next day they would proceed with the stringent
measure of Coercion which they had in preparation. Even Mr. Parnell-who
spoke with evident emotion-could not protest with much vigour against a course
on which the overwhelming majority of the House were so clearly resolved. "I
wish," he said, "to express on the part of my hon. friends, and on my own part,
and, I believe, on the part of every Irishman in whatever part of the world he
may live, my most unqualified detestation of the horrible crime which has been
committed in Ireland. I cannot advert to the steps which the Government
propose to take. I do not deny that it may be impossible for the Government to
resist the situation, and that they feel themselves compelled to take some step or
other in the direction indicated by the Prime Minister; but I wish to state my
conviction that the crime has been committed by men who absolutely detest the
cause with which I have been associated, and who have devised that crime and
carried it out as the deadliest blow which they had in their power to deal against
our hopes in connection with the new career on which the Government had just
entered."
There is no doubt that Mr. Parnell spoke the truth-it was wrung from the
bitterness of his heart-when he thus disavowed and denounced the act of the

8
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Invincibles. But he spoke falsely-and he knew it when he declared that the
murder would be disapproved by his countrymen all over the world. What was
the object of the Skirmishing Fund, what was the meaning of a Physical Force
Party, whether in America or in Ireland, but to organize and perpetrate just such
outrages as the one he deplored? He was well aware how numerous, how influen-
tial these men were, how large a part they played on the secret side of that
movement of which he represented the more open aspect. He had stood, as has
already been shown, in sufficiently intimate relations with the American conspi-
rators, whom he now seemed finally to throw over, to understand the view which
they would take of the plot carried out by these Irish Invincibles. Yet he was.
justified in saying that the blow was aimed at himself as well as the British
Government. It was, in fact, a defiant protest against "the new career on which
the Government had just entered."
The truth was that, though the
negotiations between Ministers and
their prisoner in Kilmainham had been
conducted with some attempt at secrecy,
the Extremists had managed to get wind
of them. They had never trusted Mr.
Parnell, and they now believed that he
was going to sell them. Though he was
ready enough to make use of them as a
living argument for Constitutional con-
cession, though he would even take their
money and abstain from condemning
their policy of insurrection, they were
alive to the fact that he was never in sym-
pathy with their criminal methods. Just
as they despised his Land League and
his Parliamentary agitation, so did he
abhor their employment of dynamite and daggers. The compromise which had
been patched up-that the two sections should each go its own way - was no more
a harmonious than a similar arrangement between husband and wife. A breach
may be averted for a time, but there is no possibility, there is hardly a pretence,
of mutual confidence. The Physical Force men had been jealously watching
Mr. Parnell's coquetting with the Liberal Government. Their suspicions seemed to
be confirmed when he obtained from his gaolers the indulgence of a leave on
parole. If they were not to be betrayed by him they believed that no time must
be lost in spoiling his game. Hence the attempts to trap Mr. Forster and the
successful ambuscade against Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke.
Ministers quite understood the embarrassment in which their ally was placed;
and when it was no longer possible to disguise the fact that a bargain had been
struck, they allowed him to try to conceal the clause which would most seriously com-
promise him in the eyes of the Extremists. The questions which were put night after
CAPTAIN O'SHEA.
THE OMITTED CLAUSE.
9
night in Parliament with a view of "drawing" the Government were more or less.
successfully evaded, but not so completely as not to reveal the fact that there was
something they were anxious to keep back. On May 15th, Mr. Parnell professed to
make a clean breast of the affair by reading out in the House of Commons what
purported to be a copy of the letter he had written before his release from Kil-
mainham. It was correct so far as it went, but it finished before the end! Mr.
Forster had no motive for screening Ministers, or for making things pleasant
Mr. Parnell. When the latter sat down, the late Irish Secretary inquired'
whether he had read the whole of the letter. The following account of a memor-
able exposure is given by Mr. Lucy, a writer as well known for his Liberalism as
for his skill in reproducing scenes of Parliamentary life. It is taken from his
recent biography of Mr. Gladstone :-
E
"Mr. Parnell said he had read the whole of the copy as supplied to him by
Captain O'Shea. Captain O'Shea, who though at this time on terms of personal
intimacy with Mr. Parnell, and later disclosed as the emissary between Mr. Cham-
berlain and the captive Irish Leader in the preliminaries of the Kilmainham
Treaty, usually sat with the Ministerialists. He was thus within reach of Mr.
Forster, who, amid a scene of growing excitement, handed to him a document,
and asked him to read the last paragraph. Captain O'Shea showed some
unwillingness, and there was a bandying of the paper to and fro between the front
bench below the gangway and the shaggy statesman in the corner seat. Even-
tually Captain O'Shea read the paper handed to him by Mr. Forster. It proved
to be a copy of Mr. Parnell's letter, dated from Kilmainham, 28th April, 1882,
addressed to Captain O'Shea. In it appeared a clause affirming that the settlement
of the Land Question alluded to would, I feel sure, enable us to co-operate cor-
dially for the future with the Liberal Party in forwarding Liberal principles.'
("
By whose authority, or at whose instigation, this important passage in the
letter had been omitted from the copy prepared for Mr. Parnell's reading, is partly
explained by Mr. Chamberlain. In the course of recurrent conversation on the
subject, Mr. Chamberlain said that Captain O'Shea, in privately communicating
Mr. Parnell's letter to him, had asked leave to withdraw the sentence omitted
from the letter read by Mr. Parnell. The incident had, he assured the scoffing
Conservatives, made so little impression on his mind that when the letter was read
by Mr. Parnell he had not noticed the omission was made. That the letter in its
complete form came before the Cabinet, and was discussed by them with the
subsequently omitted sentence forming part of the text, appears from the fact that
the document handed by Mr. Forster to Captain O'Shea was the identical one
circulated among members of the Cabinet for their information. It was one of the
bitter reproaches of the controversy that Mr. Forster, in handing about the scrap
of paper, had betrayed the confidence of the Cabinet. However it came about,
by whomsoever inspired, the omission of the sentence was a petty machination
that invested the whole proceeding with an underground air of mystery dis-
tasteful to the House of Commons, and most harmful to the Ministry.”
Because Mr. Chamberlain has since become a prominent member of the Liberal

10
Unionist Party, the English Home Rulers have attempted to fix upon him indi-
vidually, as distinct from his colleagues, the blame of this attempt to mislead the
House of Commons for the joint benefit of themselves and Mr. Parnell. Any
responsibility which lay at his door for this affair was fully shared by his
colleagues, and by Mr. Gladstone in particular. Indeed, the Prime Minister had
made an explicit declaration that "there was not the slightest understanding of
any kind, that Mr. Parnell had asked nothing of the Government, and the Govern-
ment sought nothing from him."
The Conservatives naturally fastened upon so dubious a transaction, and the
still more equivocal methods adopted to disguise it, and Ministers were made very
sore by the taunts to which they had exposed themselves. Lord Waterford had given
1558
HGR
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
TOPHERS WE Wigmor
UTMEROMESS
8
14-1-1
114
THE VICEREGAL LODGE IN PHOENIX PARK.
notice of a Question in the House of Lords which purported to regard the "Treaty
of Kilmainham" as an arrangement made with a Foreign Power, and asked the
Government, in accordance with the usual practice, to lay Papers on the Table of
the House. The question was not, of course, intended to be taken literally-it was
more of the nature of a squib. But Lord Granville, a politician who was gene-
rally ready to dwell on the humorous side of life, failed to see a joke directed
against himself. When Lord Waterford rose on May 22nd to ask leave to post-
pone his Question, Lord Granville retorted by moving the Adjournment of the
House, and lectured Lord Waterford on the irregularity of his conduct, reminding
him that a similar Notice given in the House of Commons had been prevented by
the Speaker from being presented in such terms. Lord Salisbury yielded to the
temptation of carrying on the jest. He would not answer, he said, for every word
THE ARREARS BILL.
11
in the Notice, but it seemed fairly to express the anomalous position in which the
House and the country had been placed by the action of the Government.
As a
matter of fact, the Treaty in question had been made, if not with an alien Power,
with a Power which relied on alien support for its resources, whose objects were
not those of England, but inconsistent with them. In reply, Lord Granville
twitted Lord Salisbury with assuming paternity of an irregular Notice. There, for
the present, the matter was allowed to drop, but it did not sink out of public
mind, and was admitted, by Liberal apologists, to seriously damage the credit
of Mr. Gladstone's Government.
The choice of a successor to Lord Frederick Cavendish at the Irish Office, fell,
not as had again been expected in some quarters upon Mr. Chamberlain, but upon
Mr. (now Sir) George Trevelyan.
The Nationalists were loud in denouncing what they called the shortcomings
of the Land Act of the previous Session, and it was abundantly plain that this
measure had failed to carry contentment to the minds of the Irish peasant-farmers,
who were carefully kept in a state of progressive expectation by the agitators
who were making use of them for political purposes. Backward as was the state
of general business at the Easter Recess, it was considered necessary by the
Government to carry two further measures specially relating to Ireland-the
Prevention of Crimes Bill and the Arrears Bill.
The former was introduced on May 11th, the day on which the funeral of
Lord Frederick Cavendish was held at Chatsworth. Admitting the wholesale
intimidation practised on jurymen in Ireland, Sir William Harcourt announced,
on behalf of the Government, that they proposed, in certain cases and on certain
occasions, to set up a special kind of tribunal. Whenever the Lord Lieu-
tenant was of opinion that an important trial could not properly be held under
the ordinary system, he was to be enabled-on charges of treason, murder or
attempted murder, aggravated violence, and attacks on dwelling houses—to
appoint three Judges to hear the case without a Jury, but their decision must be
unanimous, and an appeal would lie to the Court for Criminal Cases Reserved.
Other Clauses of the Bill invested the Police with power of search, by day or
night; to arrest persons prowling about in the dark and unable to give an account
of themselves; to arrest strangers and remove them when they were considered
dangerous to the public security. Membership of a Secret Society was to involve
a heavy liability, and the Lord Lieutenant was empowered to deal with unlawful
assemblies. Newspapers might be forfeited for seditious articles, and their
proprietors compelled to give security for good behaviour. Finally, power was to
be taken for holding inquiries in cases where the accused had made his escape, and
compensation might be levied in districts where murders or maimings had taken
place. The Act was to remain in force for the next three years.
As gilding to the very bitter pill which the Nationalists were now asked to
swallow, on May 15th Mr. Gladstone introduced the Arrears Bill.
The present
proposal was to spend about two millions sterling-three-quarters of that amount
being taken from the Surplus of the Irish Church Fund-on carrying out a com-
12
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
promise between landlord-creditors and tenant-debtors. The benefits of the Measure
were confined to holdings under £30 a year (Griffiths' Valuation) and to tenants
who had paid their rents between November, 1880, and November, 1881, and were
able to prove that they could not pay the accumulated arrears. But in such cases
the State would pay one-half the arrears accruing before November, 1880, and on
the tenant paying the other half he would have the remainder of his debt cancelled,
and the arrangement duly registered in Court.
The Second Reading was carried a few days later, and the House of Commons
thereupon went into Committee on the Prevention of Crimes Bill. The
Government were assisted by the Conservatives, but had to deal with prolonged
Obstruction by some of the Irish Members. A violent attack was commenced
by Mr. Dillon. He spurned the Arrears Bill as a gift to the landlords, and
said that if the question were left to the Irish Members, they could settle it
in twelve months without costing the English taxpayer a penny. If the
Government had refrained from bringing in the Coercion Bill, the landlords would
have been glad to accept twenty years' purchase for their estates. Now they would
ask for twenty-six or twenty-seven years'. The result would be that the peasantry
would not buy; there would be another long Agrarian war; the Land League would
spring up again; and the landlords would not get more than ten years'. If the
Land League were forcibly kept under, it would be replaced by "Captain Moon-
light,” and another movement would be begun on a still more advanced plat-
form.
C
It was a heart-breaking speech, Mr. Gladstone declared. Mr. Dillon refused
to denounce outrage so long as the Government refused to denounce eviction. He
defended Boycotting, a method which the Prime Minister had defined as combined
intimidation for the purpose of destroying the private liberty of choice by fear of
ruin and starvation, and enforced by the murder that was not to be denounced.
Some of the Irish Members were alarmed by Mr. Dillon's outburst, and Mr. Parnell
endeavoured to water down its meaning, but he wound up by an appeal to the
Government to give the Arrears Bill a fair trial, and to drop a Coercion Bill
that would throw everything into the hands of the Secret Societies, and serve the
purposes of the Phoenix Park murderers.
The now customary incidents of an all-night Sitting and a wholesale suspension
of Nationalists led to Mr. Gladstone invoking the assistance of the Urgency Rules,
and on the same day the Committee Stage was concluded. But on the Report
(July 7) Ministers encountered a defeat. In order to conciliate the Parnellites,
they had promised to modify the right of night search conferred on the Police by
confining it to cases when there was reasonable cause to suspect the meeting of a
Secret Society. The Amendment to this effect, proposed by Mr. Trevelyan,
the new Irish Secretary, was defeated by 207 votes to 194-twenty-four Liberals
voting in the adverse majority and many others abstaining, while the Parnellites, to
whom the bribe had been offered, declined to assist Ministers in their hour of need.
After this rebuff, Mr. Gladstone declared that his natural impulse was to sacrifice
the Bill, but the condition of Ireland prevented him from taking that course.

RENEWAL OF COERCION.
The Third Reading was carried on July 10th, and having passed quietly through
the House of Lords, where it was supported by Lord Salisbury, the Prevention of
Crimes Bill became law on July 12th.
AVINY
The policy of combined force and bribery pursued by the Government, was
denounced by Lord Salisbury in a speech delivered to the South Essex Conservative
Association, on May 24th. The vital error, he said, had been the attempt to
purchase Irish support for the Liberal Party in Parliament. Mr. Gladstone had
shown that he was ready to "buy off the outrages and crimes of those who thought
in that manner to force his conduct." He had preached the doctrine on four
occasions; the first was when he intimated that the Clerkenwell Explosion brought
the abolition of the Irish Church within the range of practical politics'; the second
VOBOL
H
CHATSWORTH, FROM THE RIVER DERWENT.
13
YOU MISLITEZHA
IЛIЗIНILICHE
***TALTUNG FINDE
KRAJH
was when he introduced the Land Act, by which a quarter of the landlord's
property was transferred to the occupying tenants, and which violated the prin-
ciple of Free Contract, though in 1870 Mr Gladstone had laid it down as his
permanent guide in dealing with Irish land questions. The third occasion in
which the same weak and disastrous policy was followed, was when he put Mr.
Parnell and his colleagues in prison because they opposed the working of the
Act, and released them on obtaining a promise of co-operation with his Govern-
ment. Mr. Parnell, Lord Salisbury said, was arrested on suspicion of treasonable
practices. "One of two things must be true. Either at the moment before he
was let out there was no ground for the charge of treasonable practices-and
in that case he was the most deeply injured of menor else he was let out
14
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
1
without having given any security that the treasonable practices with which he
was charged would cease. Mr. Gladstone was bartering the interests of the
Empire for Parliamentary advantage." Finally, the Arrears Bill was a measure
for paying other people's debts out of funds to which the debtors had no-
claim.
The Arrears Bill, after undergoing certain modifications in Committee, was.
read a third time in the House of Commons on July 21st. On reaching the
Peers it was described by Lord Salisbury as being-apart from the Emigration
clauses, which were only added as an afterthought-the approved product of the
Kilmainham Treaty. He objected in particular to the compulsory character of the
arrangement, and, though not opposing the Second Reading, he proposed in Com-
mittee that the landlord should have the option of refusing to compound for arrears.
This Amendment, which was carried by 169 votes against 98, went to the root of
the measure, and another, of hardly less importance, was also added to the Bill by
Lord Salisbury. It provided that, in the event of the Tenant Right being sold, the
tenant should repay, from the proceeds, any sum which the landlord might, under
the Act, be compelled to forego. A third Amendment, introduced by the Duke of
Abercorn, required that, in considering the question of a tenant's solvency, before
he could be admitted to the benefits of the Act, the Commissioners should take into
account the value of his interest in the holding. Finally, Lord Waterford intro-
duced a special provision as to the "hanging gale," and it was also provided that
any single Commissioner to whom any function was delegated must be a barrister-
at-law.
It was not expected that the Amendments proposed by Lord Salisbury would
be accepted as they stood by the Government; they turned the Bill inside out,
and he only brought them forward, we may conjecture, as an emphatic way of
protesting against what he regarded as an inequitable policy. "There is no prin-
ciple," he said, at Hatfield, on August 7th, "that enters more deeply into our
social life than this-that every man should pay his debts to the utmost of his
ability. If a man can say-I will not pay my debts according to the law
and practice of the country, but will go behind hedges and shoot at my creditor,
and burn his house down, and make the country too hot to hold him-and if the
Legislature offers such a man release from his obligations as a bribe to keep the
peace—an evil example is set which strikes at a principle that is at the root of
our prosperity, the only principle in which industry and capital can work
together."
This speech was delivered the day before the Bill, in its modified form, came
up for reconsideration in the House of Commons. Mr. Gladstone announced that
the first of Lord Salisbury's Amendments must be negatived, but he agreed to
give both landlord and tenant an equal right to apply to the Court, though the
former was to have no veto on the application of the latter. The second Amend-
ment was partially accepted; but only as regards sales effected within seven
years, and as to one year's rent. The Duke of Abercorn's Amendment was
adopted with a slight modification, while Lord Waterford's was rejected.

ARRIVAL OF EARL SPENCER IN DUBLIN,
16
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Finally, the proposal as to single Commissioners delegated to any special function
was accepted, though solicitors were to be held qualified as well as barristers.
A private meeting of Conservative Peers was convened by Lord Salisbury, at
which the majority of those present seem to have considered that no useful object
would be gained by persisting in opposition to the House of Commons, especially as
the concessions announced by Mr. Gladstone were by no means unsubstantial. While
assenting to the predominant opinion of his supporters, Lord Salisbury did not
agree with it, and on the meeting of the House of Lords he declared that his
opinion of the Arrears Bill, even as modified by the Government, was practically
unchanged. It made no discrimination between debts accruing through inability
to pay, and those which were shirked on account of ill-will. The precedent was
a bad one, which would some day be invoked against those who were now estab-
lishing it. He scouted the suggestion that the measure was exceptional and final,
and that, if it were passed, no more would be heard of the subject.
"We heard that argument," he said, "last year; and we know how mar-
vellously the germ theory has affected politics of recent years. We know how
the measures which are pressed upon us one year as final are, in succeeding years,
pointed to as containing the germs of a principle which necessitates some further
step in the same direction. What has been in the past will probably recur in the
future." Lord Salisbury expressed his strong belief that the Bill should only
be accepted if the landlord's consent were made necessary before it could be
brought into operation. As it stood, it was "an act of simple robbery." Such
were his own opinions, but he found that the views of an overwhelming majority
were against him. In the present state of affairs, both in Ireland and Egypt, his
supporters, however, thought it was not expedient to throw the Bill out. He did not
share that opinion. If he had the power, he would throw it out. But being in a
small minority he would not divide the House.
The result of this concession on Lord Salisbury's part to the somewhat oppor-
tunist scruples of the Conservative Peers was that, after some further technical
modifications, the Arrears Bill received the Royal Assent on August 18th. On
the same day Parliament was adjourned, the Government having now completed
the programme which they had drawn up for themselves with regard to Ireland.
We shall now be enabled to turn for a time to events of more varied interest, if
not of greater moment.
name.
The Land League having been "suppressed," it was reconstituted under a new
An Irish National Conference was held in Dublin on October 17th, and a
new organization was founded under the title of the National League, the objects
of which were, in Mr. Parnell's words: "National self-government, land law
reform, local self-government, extension of the Parliamentary and Municipal
franchises, and the development and encouragement of the labour and industrial
interests of Ireland." Of the new body it may be sufficient to quote the dictum
of the Judges of the Special Commission-that, like the Ladies' Land League, it
was substantially the old Land League under another name. Rumours of a split
in the Nationalist Party arose on the announcement by Mr. Dillon, that he
TRIAL OF THE INVINCIBLES.
17
intended to retire from Parliament, and it was believed even then that
Mr. Parnell's methods were too mild and conciliatory for his taste. He was asked,,
however, by Archbishop Croke to withdraw his resignation, but went abroad-to
recruit his health. Whatever may have been Mr. Dillon's own opinions of the
new League, it was hotly condemned by the American extremists whose views
were represented by the Irish World.
For a long time it seemed as though the Phoenix Park murders were to
go unavenged, but the Castle officials had been busily at work, and made good.
use of the powers conferred by the Crimes Act of examining witnesses in private,
and without bringing a specific charge against any particular individual. They
received information that arms were stored in the house of one James Carey,
a Town Councillor and tradesman in a respectable way of business in Dublin.
In
the middle of January, 1883, eight months after the perpetration of the crime, the
Police made a sudden raid and arrested a number of persons-Carey among them
—who were at once charged with conspiracy to murder. On January 20th it
appeared that one of the number, an ex-Fenian, named Robert Farrell, had
turned informer. He disclosed the existence of an organization that included an
"inner circle,” of which he was not himself a member, but the business of which
was to bring about the assassination of Government officials. The members were
not acquainted one with another, each man knowing only his "right," who had
introduced him, and his "left," whom he himself introduced.
The full import-
ance of the arrests were not at first realized, since it was thought that the informa-
tion obtained related only to the recent attacks on Mr. Field and certain officers of
Police. But on February 3rd the "arins" found in Carey's house were produced
in Court. They consisted of surgical knives, which the medical men who had
examined the bodies of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke declared to
correspond with the wounds. Other evidence, implicating Edward O'Brien and
Joseph Brady, was given on this occasion.
A weck later, a car-driver named Michael Kavanagh also turned informer.
He had taken Brady, Tim Kelly, and Patrick Delaney to Phoenix Park, where
they met Carey, who subsequently gave the signal for the attack by raising his
handkerchief. The car-driver saw the murder committed, and drove the four
men away.
But any lingering doubt that the police were now on the right track
was removed on February 17th, when Carey himself was put into the witness-box,
and gave evidence against his own associates. He had joined the Invincibles in
1881, who were under the control of a person known as “No. 1,”—P. J. Tynan,
the professed author of "The Irish National Invincibles and their Times."
The evidence of Carey was so explicit that the prisoners were at once com-
mitted for trial. When they came up in April their fate was not long in
suspense. Two of them, Caffrey and Delancy, pleaded guilty, and were
sentenced to death, though the penalty of the latter was afterwards commuted
to penal servitude for life. Brady, Curley, Fagan, and Kelly-the last only
after two Jurics had disagreed-were convicted, and, with Caffrey, were
hanged in due course. Two other men, Mullett and Fitzharris, were sen-
VOL. IV.
C
18
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
tenced to penal servitude for life, and minor sentences were passed on the other
prisoners.
It is fair to add that neither the testimony of Carey nor any other produced at
the trials pointed to any connection between the Land League and the murders in
Phoenix Park, and the Special Commission subsequently declared that the
Invincibles were not a branch of that body. The informer had indeed charged
Mrs. Byrne, wife of the secretary of the English branch, with having brought
over from London the knives that were used for the assassination, nor can there be
much doubt that the accusation was correct. Both before and after her death
that "plucky little woman was frequently glorified on that very ground by
Irish extremists. But when she was arrested and confronted with the informer,
he failed to identify her and she was discharged. Her husband had previously
got away to France, and Mr. Parnell was expressly exonerated by the Special
Commission from the charge of having supplied funds for his escape. Byrne was
brought up in Paris, but was released on the ground that no case had been made
out for extradition.
در
The most damaging fact in connection with the Land League was that,
no sooner had the public inquiry assumed a serious aspect than Patrick Egan,
Treasurer to that association, fled from Dublin, arriving in New York on March
1st, 1883, and with him disappeared most of the account books in his custody. It
is true that he rendered an account to Mr. Parnell of the receipts and expenditure
up to October 14th, 1882; but on the figures presented to the Judges-which had
never been audited, Mr. Parnell admitted, by a professional accountant-they
found that a sum of more than £100,000 had been raised by the Land League,
while no details were given as to the manner in which it had been expended.
The cash books and ledgers for the years 1881-3 of the Land League of Great
Britain-the body to which Byrne acted as secretary-were similarly missing
when required by the Court. The Judges also complained that Mr. Parnell
refused to assist them by giving authority to the Paris bankers with whom
Egan kept an account to produce the Land League accounts. It is the fault
of the managers of that association if they have exposed it to injurious
suspicion by withholding the information which was demanded in the interests
of truth.
Nor can we forget that, on arriving on American soil, Egan, who was as
much responsible as any one for the direction of the Land League policy, went
straight to the house of the notorious Alexander Sullivan. At the end of March,
1883, a circular was issued by the Clan-na-Gael, asking the "Senior Guardians"
to supply the names of men ready for "private work of a confidential and
dangerous nature.” About this time-anyhow, before the end of May—it is proved
that Egan became a member of the Clan-na-Gael. The Philadelphia Convention
held at the end of April consisted of three nominally distinct assemblies: the
Clan-na-Gael (which met in secret), the Irish Land League Convention, and the
Irish American National Convention. At a meeting of the second body it was
resolved to appoint a Committee for merging the old Land League in the National

Relay
League, and of the seven persons nominated for this purpose four were members
PHAN
THE NATIONAL LEAGUE FOUNDED.
BAREEEEE
LSSO
1741
THE THRONE ROOM, DUBLIN CASTLE.
7A4A26
LIKE
1934
Bithrafenfit
19
WOLLBOX
SAM
PUSRECESS
of the Clan-na-Gael, which thus obtained-and subsequently kept-control of the
entire Land League movement in America.
20
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
The following instructive circular was shortly afterwards issued by the
Executive Body of the Clan-na-Gael :—
"Headquarters F.C., V.C.,
"5th May, 1883.
"For the more perfect security of the interests of the organization the
following rules are published, and it is made the duty of S.G.'s (senior guardians),
officers, and members of D's (camps) to see that they are rigidly enforced :—
"1. Hereafter no member shall by interview or in any manner appear in the
public press, or speak or write to anyone not a member, of any matter,
person, or event engaged in or arrested for Jsji (Irish) revolutionary
operations.
"2. S.G.'s shall, in their sound discretion, or by direction of F.C., have
power to publish information calculated to deceive the enemy.
"3. D's may, when it is deemed prudent, change their present names and
locations for others less suspicious, without attracting public attention
to the change.
"4. No person who is not a member for at least three years, and whose
antecedents, prudence, and courage is not fully known, shall be
accepted or sent forward for any work of a revolutionary character.
"5. In localities favourable to the work, D's shall institute schools for the
manufacture of explosives and other warfare.
"6. D's shall procure, as far as possible, the names, photographs, and
residence of detectives, and keep a list of the same.
"7. All books and papers, when the same cannot be satisfactorily secured,
must be destroyed or cancelled.
"8. It is made the duty of every D to utilize every availabic method of
raising funds for the Special Fund, by picnics, balls, parties, and
fairs, and contributions from outside confidential sources.
"Fraternally,
"The F.C. (Executive Body)."
These dynamite plots did not end in mere talk. An attempt was made to blow
up London Bridge, in which it is believed that the perpetrator, Loomasney, met
his own death. A terrific explosion occurred at the office of the Local Govern-
ment Board, in Whitchall, close to the Houses of Parliament; a man was scized at
Liverpool in possession of two infernal machines, and other arrests followed at
Birmingham. The evidence that a widespread conspiracy was already at work
was held sufficient to justify Sir William Harcourt, the Home Secretary, in
bringing in, on April 9th, a stringent measure, which was passed through all its
stages in the House of Commons in less than two hours, and became law the
next day. Circulars were issued by the Home Office impressing the necessity
of special vigilance on the police authorities throughout the kingdom. It was
fortunate that the trial of the prisoners arrested at Birmingham resulted, at the
Central Criminal Court, on June 14th, in the conviction of four of them. Dr.
THE FATE OF JAMES CAREY.
21
Thomas Gallagher was the chief of the gang, and, with three men named
Whitehead, Wilson and Curtin, was sentenced to penal servitude for life. Some
attempt has been made by Nationalist politicians to discredit the evidence on which
these men were condemned, but, apart from the breakdown of the arguments they
have advanced in Parliament, no doubt can be entertained of the fairness of a
trial presided over by three Judges so strong as the late Lord Chief Justice.
Coleridge, The Master of the Rolls (Lord Esher), and Mr. Justice Grove.
This example of Police vigilance and Judicial severity was in some degree
counteracted by the fate of the informer Carcy. An unapproachable scoundrel,
he had done good service to the State, and, if only pour encourager les autres,
he ought to have been rewarded and protected. Society owes quite as much
to the treachery of criminals as to the cleverness of detectives. It was impossible
to turn Carey loose in the streets of Dublin-he would have been killed at sight.
For some time he was lodged for safety in Kilmainham Prison, but presently an
attempt was made to smuggle him out of the country. In the very ship in which
he travelled with his wife and family to the Cape sailed a man deputed to murder
him. On July 29th, on reaching Port Elizabeth, he was shot dead by Patrick
O'Donnell, who was at once arrested and brought back to England. He was
executed in Newgate on December 17th, and his name has been added to the
list of Irish Martyrs. On the following day a man named Poole suffered the
same penalty for the murder of another informer.
When Parliament met on February 15th, 1883, Ministers once again alluded
in the Queen's Speech to an "improvement in the social condition of Ireland,”
agrarian crime had recently diminished, and the law had everywhere been upheld.
For this result, so far as it was real, they were indebted to the firm and courageous
conduct of Lord Spencer, who was at this time the main target of Nationalist abuse.
Nor did Mr. Trevelyan, who as Irish Secretary enforced with all possible zeal and
energy the coercive powers he had demanded, escape without a fair share of Irish
obloquy. In the Debate on the Address in the House of Lords, Lord Salisbury
gave a trenchant review of the situation in Ireland. Formerly the landowners had
been powerful to assist the English Government and maintain the connection
between the two countries. Their power having now been weakened, a greater
strain was laid on the Central Government.
In the presence of the rising popular feeling in Ireland, Lord Salisbury said
the Government were without a settled policy. Lord Derby wanted to spend a
million or so in emigration: Lord Hartington said that such a scheme was opposed
to Irish sentiment. Mr. Herbert Gladstone was in favour of Home Rule: Mr.
Evelyn Ashley would not listen to such an idea. Mr. Chamberlain believed that
Ireland would never be contented until it had a real measure of local self-
government, and Mr. Gladstone was reported in a conversation with M. Clemenceat:
to have used similar language: but Lord Hartington had ventured to doubt the
pacifying effect of such a remedy, and held that "it would be madness to give
Ireland greater local autonomy unless some assurance could be obtained from the
Irish people that the boon would not be used for purposes of agitation.'
""
22
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY..
Lord Salisbury's reference to Mr. Herbert Gladstone's declaration in favour of
Home Rule--an incident that would possess no importance unless it could be
taken as an indication of the Prime Minister's attitude-was taken up in the
House of Commons by Mr. Gorst, but any interest attaching to such speculations.
was dwarfed by the encounter between Mr. Forster and Mr. Parnell. The late Irish
Secretary charged the Nationalist leader, not indeed with complicity in murder and
outrage, but with standing by while Agrarian terrorism was practised, with reaping
the political advantage, and with taking no steps to check the evil. Whether he
did or not inquire into the action of those with whom he was associated, "he was,"
Mr. Forster declared—“ and is responsible for them. The only ground on which
he can escape responsibility is utter ignorance of their conduct, and if there was.
an utter ignorance it was a careless, and, I may say, a reckless ignorance. I
cannot believe in his absolute ignorance." Mr. Parnell hotly repudiated the impu-
tation at the moment it was made, but showed no inclination to refute it by argu-
ment. When he was at last got on his legs he evaded the issue he was asked to
face, and tried to distract attention by making a bitter attack on the Government.
It may be worth while to recall Mr. Parnell's views of Lord Spencer and Mr.
Trevelyan as well as of Mr. Forster.
Ι
66
'Why," Mr. Parnell asked, "was he (Mr. Forster) deposed-he, the right hon..
gentleman who had acquired experience in the administration of Ireland, who,
according to his own account, knew everything, though he was invariably
wrong? Why was he deposed and the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Trevelyan)-
a 'prentice, though a very willing hand-put in his position? I feel that the
Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant must say with the Scriptures, 'I am not
worthy to unloose his shoe latchet.' It would be far better if you are going to pass.
an Act of this kind, and to administer it as you will be obliged to administer it—
up to the hilt-it would be far better to have it administered by the learned
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
to look after the secret inquisitions in Dublin Castle. Send him to distribute the
taxes which an unfortunate and starving peasantry have to pay for crimes not
committed by themselves." Later in the Session Mr. Parnell brought forward a
Bill to "amend" the Land Act of 1881. The measure was too extreme for the
Government, and, on Mr. Chaplin's motion, was rejected by 250 votes against 63,
Mr. Gladstone declaring that the Irish farmers were not only not unable, they
were also not unwilling, to pay the rents now in force, and adding that the
Government would give no encouragement to further schemes of change.
The arrest and imprisonment of Irish Members of Parliament were now so
frequent and familiar that they attracted little attention in England. It was
a necessary qualification for popularity-a proof of sincerity-in a Nationalist
to spend a little time in prison. Mr. Biggar was prosecuted early in 1883 for a
specially violent attack on Lord Spencer; he was duly committed for trial, but
allowed out on bail, and the matter then dropped. Other proceedings were
instituted, and pressed to a conviction, against Mr. Davitt and Mr. Timothy Healy,.

1
moto
DUBLIN CASTLE, THE PICTURE GALLERY.
24
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
who were ordered either to give securities for good behaviour or go to prison for
six months; of course they preferred the latter alternative. Mr. William O'Brien,
editor of United Ireland, was committed for trial on account of a libel on Lord Spencer
published in his newspaper. Two days afterwards—in the full flush of martyr-
dom—he was returned for Mallow, a seat previously held by a supporter of the
Government, and on this occasion contested by their Solicitor General. When
'O'Brien came up for trial, the jury disagreed, and the proceedings were not
renewed. Mr. Timothy Harrington, who had spent part of the previous year in
gaol, had to undergo a second term of six months in 1883, for having published
in the Kerry Sentinel certain Proclamations which purported to proceed from the
Invincibles. In March Mr. Dillon carried out the threat of retirement which he
had held out in 1882, either because the state of his health was really unsuited for
Parliamentary life varied with occasional imprisonment, or because Mr. Parnell's
policy-the English aspect of it was too mild for his own thoroughgoing
Nationalism.
The relations between the Roman Catholic Church and the Nationalist leaders
had long been watched with interest, as there is hardly any political principle to
which the Vatican is more deeply pledged than the condemnation of every form
of secret association. The question was how would the parish priests in Ireland
reconcile their obedience to Papal authority with the demand of the peasantry
that they should throw themselves into the Agrarian and political agitations which
were so largely dependent on underground organisation. At the beginning of 1883,
Pope Leo XIII. addressed a letter to Archbishop McCabe, in which he warned the
Irish clergy against any connection with Secret Societies—an utterance which
amounted in effect to a denunciation of Land League methods. The clergy had to
choose between disobedience to ecclesiastical authority and the imputation of being
bad patriots. As a body they decided to yield to the pressure which was nearer
and more urgent. And in disregarding the command of the Vatican they were
supported by the example of prelates like Archbishop Croke. One priestly
politician was summoned to Rome, and it is said that he received a severe rebuke
for his contumacy. But the popular demand was too strong for the priests to defy:
they have succeeded in seeming to lead Irish opinion only when they have acted on
the principle of shouting with the larger crowd.
Many of the priests fully sympathized with the agitation of a peasantry from
which they had themselves sprung. The rest, who would fain have stood by their
ecclesiastical duty, were helpless or timid. When in May the Pope followed up
his previous declaration by an emphatic circular, enjoining the Bishops not to
subscribe to the Testimonial which had been started for the benefit of Mr. Parnell,
the command of the Holy See, issued under the authority of Cardinal Simeoni and
Monsignor Domenico Jacobini-the Prefect and the Secretary of the Sacred
Congregation de Propaganda Fide-was plainly and flatly disregarded. A few
priests, no doubt, held aloof from the movement, but not enough to produce any
effect on their congregations. The Nationalist leaders—most of them ardent Roman
Catholics-denied the authority of the Pope's declaration on such a matter; Mr.
DRIVING AWAY CAPITAL.
25
Davitt wrote from gaol to express his hope that the effect of this condemnation
would be to increase fourfold the tribute to Mr. Parnell; and Mr. Healy-also in
prison-who is known as a most devout Son of the Church, got out of the
difficulty by asserting that there was an English conspiracy at the Vatican. He
referred, of course, to the confidential Mission to Rome, undertaken at this period
by Mr. (afterwards Sir George) Errington. His object was to lay before the
Pope, on behalf of the English Government, a true account of the state of affairs
in Ireland, or, as the Nationalists said, to poison the Pope's mind against their
Cause.
It is certain that the action of the Vatican did nothing to check the flow of
subscriptions to the Parnell Testimonial, which soon reached more than double the
amount that the promoters had intended to raise. On Dec. 11th, a Banquet was
held in the Rotunda, Dublin, and the Irish leader was presented with a cheque for
more than £38,000. In his speech of acknowledgment he made a bitter attack
on Lord Spencer and Mr. Trevelyan, as agents of the coercive policy of the English
Government. (C
Beyond a shadow of doubt," he said, "it will be for the Irish
people in England—separated, isolated as they are-and for you independent
Irish members, to determine at the next General Election whether a Tory or
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." Such was the gratitude which Mr. Gladstone's Government had earned
by their policy of Agrarian concession-a policy which, apart from the
injustice inflicted on the landlords, was not likely to bring material advantage to
the tenants. In a speech delivered at the City Carlton Club, on November 22nd,
1883, Lord Salisbury quoted the recent opinion of Lord Grey, that "under the
Land Act of 1870 and 1881 confiscation had taken place on a scale unparalleled in
any civilized nation in modern times." What had been the result in Ireland?
"Its effects," Lord Salisbury said, "in Ireland had been bad enough. You have
there a population suffering from great misery. What is the remedy for that
misery? Either to bring capital to employ them, or to induce them to go
elsewhere. But that issue is closed by the Government by their unhappy policy
with respect to the land. Capital is not deceived by the specious phrases with
which the introduction of the Land Acts was covered, or by those appeals to
justice that have been invented for a purpose and in order to suit the exigencies
of the existing crisis. And until the impression of this unhappy legislation has
worn away, and till we find by experience that the Government are animated by
a better mind, capital will sooner go to Honduras than to Ireland. Well, the
other remedy is emigration; but what hope have we to induce men to emigrate as
long as they believe they have a fair and specious ground for believing that if they
will only squeeze the Government they can obtain a great deal more than they have
yet obtained. As long as there is more to be got by the practice of agitation and
of outrage at home, they will not adopt that which is a healthy remedy for every
population that cannot find sufficient excrcise for its energies and sufficient support
for its members at home-seeking new fields where better opportunities exist."
26
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
*
In another speech, delivered a few days before at Reading, Lord Salisbury had
referred to Sir Stafford Northcote's recent political tour in Ulster, and to the
enthusiastic reception he had received in the north of Ireland. In these remarks
on the resolute loyalty of Ulster to the British connection, Lord Salisbury brought
out the argument, which, if all others were explained away or got over, would
still lay an imperative veto on any scheme of Home Rule.
"One of the most remarkable events of the present year has been the splendid
reception which my friend Sir Stafford Northcote received in various towns in the
north of Ireland. Much, no doubt, of that enthusiasm was due to his personal
qualities and his services to the Conservative party; but much of it was also an
expression on the part of the Irish of the northern Province of their unalterable
determination that their fate should continue to be linked with that of England.
This demonstration of theirs has thrown a new light-at least a light that to
many will be new-upon the Irish question and the question of Home Rule.
What does it mean? It means giving over the northern Province of Ireland to be
governed by the other three Provinces. It means that those who are kinsmen in
blood or co-religionists in faith shall be abandoned to men who have many high
qualities indeed, but among whom disaffection to this day has made terrible and
fearful progress. If you give them Home Rule, retaining, of course, a nominal
connection with this country, an external alliance; and if these men defend
themselves-these inhabitants of the north of Ireland-and if they are oppressed,
if any outrageous measures of confiscation are pressed against them after you have
granted Home Rule, the legal right will be in the followers of Mr. Parnell as
against them, and you will be called upon to support Mr. Parnell against your own
blood and kindred. Is it possible that the people of this country should ever
consent to an arrangement such as this?'
""
CHAPTER II.
THE deceptive calm in the affairs of Egypt, which set in with the accession of
Tewfik, in June, 1879, had been disturbed, as we have seen, by a military revolt
that broke out in February, 1881. It arose from the not unnatural jealousy with
which the Arab Officers in the Khedive's Army regarded the favouritism extended
to their Turkish and Circassian colleagues. A Colonel who had ventured to make
a formal complaint was, by the order of the Minister of War, given on the advice
of his Council, placed under arrest. Acting upon instructions previously concerted
by the arrested officer, two battalions of his regiment marched to the prison, broke
it open, and carried him back to their quarters. Not only did they insist on his
reinstatement, but they demanded that the Minister of War should be dismissed.
So weak was the Khedive's authority, and so wide-spread the mutinous spirit, that
his advisers-including the English and French Consuls-General-recommended
him to submit; and mutineers who ought to have been most rigorously punished
were allowed to dictate to their Sovereign his choice of Ministers.
As if to destroy any spirit of discipline that might yet linger in the Army,.
and to proclaim that insubordination was the short cut to reform, this condonation
of misconduct was followed by increasing the pay in all ranks, and by appointing-
a Commission to inquire into all grievances real and alleged. Here was the very
opportunity for a military adventurer, and Ahmed Arabi Bey, Colonel of the
Fourth Regiment of Infantry, was not slow to seize it. He soon became the
recognised leader of the malcontents. Practising on the strained relations between
the Khedive and the Ministry of Riaz Pasha, he began to play the part of
a military dictator. On September 9th, 1881, he bluntly informed the Minister
of War that at three o'clock that afternoon "the Army" would present itself
before the Palace of Abdin. The programme-the pronunciamiento, rather—which
he put forward included the immediate dismissal of the Riaz Ministry, the con-
vocation of the Chamber of Notables, and the execution of all the recommenda-
tions of the Military Commission. The Khedive turned for advice to Mr. Colvin,
and Mr. Cookson, our Controller-General and Consul-General; they told him to
hurry to the Palace and throw himself on the loyalty of the first and second
regiments. He was received by these troops with every demonstration of fidelity.
Had he put himself at their head and waited for Arabi's threatened advance, this
chapter, perhaps, need not have been written. It is possible, of course, that Tewfik
might have brought about a bloody conflict in which he would have lost his own
}
28
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
life. But it is more likely that, abandoned by the mutineers, Arabi would have
been laid by the heels, and that Tewfik-avoiding the perils he was now to
encounter and a scarcely less humiliating deliverance—would have become the
governor of his own people; independent, for all practical purposes, alike of his
nominal Suzerain at Constantinople and of a Dual Control fast expiring from its
own weakness. Both England and France were sick of their muddling Condo-
minium, and would have been glad, at this time, to leave almost to his own
resources a Ruler who was both resolute and honest.
At this critical moment Tewfik lost his nerve. Always a man of compromise
and expedients—a man of scruples-he thought he would do best to make terms
with the insurgents. Besides, he was in sympathy with one of their demands, the
dismissal of Riaz. He drove off to Abanich to talk things over with Arabi, and
told his Ministers to wait at the Palace for his return. When he got to Abanieh
he found that Arabi had left, and, when he returned to the Palace, that Arabi
had again been before him—had drawn off the faithful regiments who were to
defend the Royal authority. It was by a back door that Tewfik entered his own
Palace, which was surrounded in front by four thousand infantry, with cavalry
posted in the centre, and eighteen guns pointed to his own windows. In that
trying moment he showed indeed no lack of physical courage. Accompanied
by three officers of his Household, he went out to confront the mutineers. At
his word of command, Arabi and Abdullah Bey dismounted and sheathed their
swords, but when he reminded them that he was their master, the former replied
with a verse from the Koran, that the Ruler is one who is just, and he who is not
just is no longer Ruler. The Khedive thereupon withdrew to the Palace, and
Mr. Cookson was sent to negotiate with the Rebel leader. The result of that
conference was that Arabi, postponing the two other articles of his pronunciamiento,
insisted only upon the dismissal of Riaz Pasha, and the selection of Cherif Pasha
to succeed him as Prime Minister. The demand was granted by the Khedive, for
whom the mutineers then gave a cheer, and the disgraceful bargain was sealed
by their soliciting and his according a gracious pardon.
After some further difficulty and delay Cherif Pasha succeeded in persuading
the rebels to leave Cairo, and to permit him to choose his own time for bringing
forward the other reforms they demanded, though it was understood that the
recommendations of the Military Commission should be carried out forthwith.
The pledge was duly redeemed by the Prime Minister. Matters were now further
complicated by the interference of the Sultan, who despatched two of his Pashas
on a special mission to Cairo-a demonstration of authority on the part of the
Suzerain which was at once answered by the arrival of an English and a
French ironclad, with orders to stay until the envoys of the Porte took their
departure. The hint was sufficient: as the British vessel steamed into the harbour
of Alexandria the Turkish man-of-war was steaming out.
In the following month (November, 1881) Lord Granville penned a conciliatory
Despatch to Sir Edward Malet, in which he declared, as has been shown else-
where, that the British Government regarded the connection between Turkey and

THE REBELLION OF ARABI.
Egypt as the best safeguard against foreign intervention, and the only event that
would induce us to alter that view would be the outbreak of anarchy in the
latter country. The desire of the English, and, as he believed, of the French
Government also, was to promote the advance of Egypt in the path of tranquil
and legitimate progress. The optimism of Mr. Gladstone's Foreign Secretary was
no doubt gratified by the intelligence that on Christmas Day Tewfik had opened
the first Session of the Egyptian Parliament, and that the most unexceptionable
ARABI PASHA.
29
O
sentiments had been exchanged between the Khedive and the President of the
Chamber. Everything was to be perfectly regular and constitutional, on the most
approved European model. The revolt of the Army-it was a forgotten episode.
Having once tasted politics, Arabi had no idea of quietly going back to the
duties of Colonel in the Army, and in the first week of the new year (1882) he
was appointed Under Secretary of War. But he was no longer content to play
the part of a military reformer; he now came out as a full-blown statesman,
30
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
the head or the mouthpiece of a Nationalist Party which set up the cry of
"Egypt for the Egyptians "-a direct menace to the Dual Control. The
English and French Governments replied with an Identical Note, insisting on the
maintenance of the established régime. This, no doubt, was intended as a strong
hint to the Khedive not to associate himself with the policy of Arabia policy
which was being prompted, so it is understood, from Constantinople. With or
without the secret approval of Tewfik, but with the open support of the Sultan,
the newly convoked Chamber of Notables asserted its claim to regulate the
National Budget, and thus to set at nought the financial control of England and
France. Not caring to deal with the scrisis which thus arose, Cherif resigned,
and was succeeded as Prime Minister by Mahmoud, who advanced Arabi to the
office of Secretary of War.
On the part of France, M. Gambetta was ready to take strong measures, but
just at this moment he was replaced as Premier by M. de Freycinet, who seemed
inclined to follow a more temporising policy, a course in which Lord Granville,
wise in council but timid in action, was only too ready to concur. Arabi was now
dictator in Egypt. A plot against his life was conveniently discovered, and a
number of Circassian officers were secretly tried and condemned to exile for life.
Acting on the advice of Sir E. Malet, the Khedive commuted the sentences, and
placed the incriminated officers on half-pay. He was now at open issue with Arabi
and Mahmoud, who defied his authority by convoking the Chamber without
asking his permission.
At this point, when the agitation against foreigners seemed to menace their
personal safety, a squadron of English and French ironclads were ordered to
Alexandria. On May 15, the day on which their sailing was telegraphed to
Cairo, the Egyptian Ministry-seeing that the Dual Control meant business—
submitted themselves to the Khedive. The English and French Consuls now
advised the Khedive to grant a general amnesty, but to demand that Arabi,
Mahmoud, and three other Pashas should retire from the country for twelve
months. Hereupon the Ministers resigned in a body, but, after a vain attempt by
Cherif to construct a Government, Arabi was reinstated on May 28th. The peril
of the situation was proved not only by the panic which at once set in among
the Europeans in Egypt (many of whom now hurried out of the country), but by
an express warning sent by Consul Cookson to Lord Granville. During the
twenty-four hours between the 26th and 27th, he wrote, the town of Alexandria
was in danger of being stormed by the soldiery, who had actually had cartridges
served out to them. The small squadron in port would be able to silence the
forts, but not to protect the residents.
The weakness of the forts was realised by Arabi, who now set himself to
strengthen them. In spite of orders, given both by the Khedive and the English
Admiral, to desist from warlike preparations, Arabi protected the entrance of
the harbour with long lines and earthworks, and posted round the town the
regiments on which he could most confidently rely. He was encouraged at this
moment by the arrival of Dervish Pasha, a Special Commissioner from the
BOMBARDMENT OF ALEXANDRIA.
31
Sultan, who was naturally jealous of any authority but his own being established
in Egypt, and was eager to pay out Mr. Gladstone's Government for the bad turn
they had done him in the Greek and Montenegrin delimitations.
That Arabi, whether he was a blundering patriot or merely a reckless soldier
of fortune, was a danger and a nuisance to his country, is shown by the fact that,
when he was at the very summit of his influence, he could not control the forces
he had called into operation. There is no reason to believe that Arabi had any
complicity in—that he did not feel regret for—the bloodshed and havoc which were
now to ensue. Excited by his bellicose attitude, the rabble of Alexandria began
one of their riots. Consul Cookson was dragged from his carriage and badly
injured, the French Consular Dragoman was killed, and about sixty other Euro-
peans lost their lives, including several British and French subjects.
The patience of the British Admiral, Sir Beauchamp Seymour (Lord Alcester),
was now pretty well exhausted. On July 7th he intimated that the town
would be bombarded if the works were proceeded with, and three days later he
delivered an Ultimatum to that effect and demanding that the forts should be sur-
rendered to the British. No satisfactory reply having been received, at nightfall the
vessels of the British fleet, eight ironclads and five wooden gun-boats, proceeded to
the positions which the Admiral had assigned them. The first division, consisting of
the Monarch, the Invincible, and the Penelope, were stationed in the outer harbour
opposite Fort Mex, and the newly-constructed earthworks at Marsa-el-Karral; the
second, outside the harbour, comprised the Alexandra, the Sultan, and the Superb,
and were to attack Fort Ada, Pharos Castle, and the works at Ras-el-Tin; the
Inflexible and the Temeraire were to be held in reserve, the gun-boats being kept
in readiness for any service that might be required. The total force contained
about 3,500 men and 102 guns. It is important to remember that the French
ships took no part in the events of the next few days. Not being permitted to
engage in the operations which were about to ensue they withdrew on the evening
of the 10th to Port Said.
At seven o'clock next morning the first shot was fired by the Alexandra into
the Hospital Battery. The forts replied with vigour, and a general action lasted
till 10.30, when the ships of the second division, hitherto under way, came to
anchor, and, assisted by the Inflexible, silenced, two hours later, most of the guns
at Ras-el-Tin, though a desultory fire was kept up from Fort Ada. At 1.30 the
Superb blew up the magazine and drove the garrison out. Then, reinforced by
the Temeraire, they turned on Fort Pharos, which was silenced in due course.
But it was not till 5 o'clock that the artillerymen in the Hospital Battery were
compelled to leave their guns, under the fire of the off-shore squadron assisted by
the Inflexible. The batteries and lines of Fort Mex were reduced by the first.
division with the help of the reserve ironclads. In a special report, prepared for
the United States Government by Commander Goodrich, and published in the
following year, the American officer declares that, in spite of the damages inflicted
on the forts, Mex was the only one which could not have resumed action on the
following day, and that "the British, while surprised at the tenacity of their
32
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
opponents, were the first to confess that men of a stamp similar to their own would
have accepted the gage thrown down the next day and renewed the fight." It was
fortunate for the British that the Arabists took no such resolution, since it is now
known that our store of ammunition was nearly exhausted. The Admiral had been
compelled to insist on economy in the use of shell, though "a fair proportion of
reserve ammunition" was coming up in the Humber. The Egyptians, on the
other hand, were "abundantly, even lavishly, supplied."
The successful bombardment of July 11th was not followed by the immediate
surrender of the forts and city. When Lieut. Lambton came on shore with a
flag of truce, the Military Commandant, Toulbeh Pasha, declared that he could
not comply with the British Admiral's terms until he had received the authority
of the Khedive—who, by the way, had been shut up in Ramleh Palace. He was
practically a prisoner in Arabi's hands.
Since the Egyptians would not agree to a formal capitulation, there was
nothing for it, the Admiral thought, except to renew the bombardment. But the
firing was desultory and almost formal, and in the course of the afternoon it was
discovered that the whole line of fortifications had been abandoned. There can
be no doubt that, if Sir Beauchamp Seymour had followed up the successful action
of his ships by despatching a small landing force, the city might have been
occupied without difficulty, almost without resistance. The military critics went
further and declared that he might have cut off the retreat of Arabi, and forced
him to surrender. To that, the British Admiral's answer was that he had no men
readily available for such a service. But when the rebel troops had withdrawn,
and with them had disappeared such authority as still existed in Alexandria, it
became his duty to preserve order. For two days the mob had been left to work
their will. The prison-doors were thrown open, and the convicts joined the
populace in the murder, pillage and arson. About two thousand Europeans
(chiefly Greek and Levantines) lost their lives, the city was set on fire in several
places, and the destruction of property was enormous. For two days this anarchy
was permitted to go on under the guns of the British Fleet, as though it were no
business of ours to interfere. When at last the blue jackets and marines were
sent ashore, they made short work of the rioters.
We were now fairly committed to an active policy in Egypt. Having burnt
their boats behind them, Ministers showed no lack of vigour-behind the
wavering figure of Lord Granville stood the more masterful spirit of his Under
Secretary, Sir Charles Dilke. On July 20th an expedition was ordered "for the
restoration of order and the Khedive's authority, with or without the co-operation
of other countries." On the 24th, Mr. Gladstone moved for a Vote of Credit for
£2,300,000 for the Army and Navy. In the House of Lords, on the same day,
Lord Granville made a statement admitting that France had declined to take any
part in the forthcoming military operations; at the same time volunteering a
declaration that this country desired no monopoly of privilege or prestige, and that
the other Powers trusted to our loyalty to that principle. Lord Salisbury—
following the plain rule of patriotism-promised that the Conservatives would

THE VOTE OF CREDIT.
assist the Government in upholding the honour of the country. They would not
54
ZIZINIA
THEATRE
namm
AUSSAHWHERERS
LEAVEORIOS
P
Yuph
CELOPER CARES
22738
33
cl
Tiltr
embarrass the Executive at a time when action was required. But this co-operation
VOL. IV.
D
ALEXANDRIA-GENERAL VIEW.
34
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
was not to imply any approval of the Ministerial policy or an abandonment of the
Opposition rights of criticism.
Let us turn now to the land operations. After the evacuation of the forts,
Arabi withdrew to Kafr-el-Danar, a point a few miles distant, upon a ridge of
land which divides the beds of two lakes, and along which the railway from Cairo
and the canal supplying the town with water approach Alexandria. Here he
entrenched himself, his forces constantly growing. Within the town, the marines
and seamen had gradually restored order, and on the 17th of July a British line
regiment, with some engineers and additional marines, arrived from Cyprus and
Malta. Sir Archibald Alison took command. Four days later, a portion of the
Army Reserve in England was called out, and Sir A. Alison was informed that
two divisions, ready for service, would be despatched to Cyprus and Malta.
To occupy Cairo, the administrative capital of the country and the key of the
sources of water supply to the towns upon the Canal, would be manifestly the aim
of any expedition. The only question was of the point from which it would be best
to advance. Cairo stands at the head of the Nile Delta above the point where the
branches of the river diverge. Till recently the natural lines of approach to it lay
along the courses of these branches. It was along the Rosetta branch that the French
army at the end of last century made its advance. But in the present instance the
objections to this line were great. The rising of the Nile and modern irrigation
works would render the progress of an invading army within the Delta exceedingly
slow, if it were possible at all, while outside the Delta to the west the desert is
composed of soft sand, over which artillery could scarcely pass. To river expedi-
tions, moreover, the bars at the mouths of both branches presented great difficulties,
and in any of these cases the defender holding the railways would be free to move
his forces rapidly and with ease, and could, with advantage on his side, maintain a
galling and effective guerilla warfare. With the piercing of the isthmus of Suez a
different line of approach became possible. It was no longer necessary to advance
along either arm of the river. By seizing the Canal a base of operations could
be formed upon its bank nearer to Cairo by many miles than is Alexandria; the
intervening stretch of desert to be traversed is hard, and for the most part level,
and Arabi, if he intended to strike any blow in defence of the capital, would be
forced to fight in open country, unaffected by the rise of the Nile, and should
he then be defeated a rapid push might seize the city. From the first it had been
foreseen that such a line of advance combined the chief advantages, and it was
such a line which Sir Garnet Wolseley subsequently followed. It will thus be seen
that the occupation of Alexandria formed no part of the main plan of the campaign.
Reconnaissances and small operations there were continued, but they were not in-
tended seriously, and had for their object the distraction of the enemy's attention
from the real direction of advance. With the same purpose the transports convey-
ing the British troops made their rendezvous here. The entire expeditionary force
consisted of about thirty-five thousand men of all arms. Of these, some fifteen
thousand were dispatched from Great Britain, while a proportion came from various
foreign stations. Before the formation of the expedition a certain force had been

SIR G. WOLSELEY'S EXPEDITION.
1879
collected in Cyprus, to be within striking distance of the Canal. These troops were
now in Alexandria, and the Indian Government furnished a strong contingent.
Fate, when not called blind, is said to be ironical. So it was that the Cabinet
of Mr. Gladstone, in suppressing a popular movement, had to employ Indian
troops out of Asia, and bear unwilling testimony to the value of the acquisition of
Cyprus.
Sir Garnet Wolseley was in supreme command. His infantry force was com-
M
35
SIR CHARLES DILKE.
posed of two divisions commanded by Generals George Willis and Sir Edward
Hamley, and the Indian troops under Sir H. Macpherson. The last-mentioned were
landed at Suez, which had been seized. Up to the arrival of the Commander-in-
Chief, Sir Archibald Alison had been endeavouring to put Alexandria in a state of
defence, and to keep Arabi at Kafr-el-Danar occupied by constant alarms. In this
he succeeded. Every indication was made that an advance would take place from
that quarter. Friends as well as foes shared the belief, and when about the middle
36
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
of August the bulk of the troops sent out were landed, then the point was regarded
as established.
Sir Garnet Wolseley arrived on the 15th, and took command. The forts at
Aboukir, a few miles distant from Alexandria, still held out, Arabi maintained
communication with them, and the British force had an enemy both in front and
on one flank. Before an advance could be made, it seemed necessary to dispose of
the danger on the flank, and on the 19th Sir Garnet, re-embarking with one
division, proceeded to attack Aboukir. The forces remaining in' Alexandria were
to co-operate. At about 4 P.M. of that day the fleet anchored in Aboukir Bay,
and by the time darkness fell, some commencement of a bombardment had been
made. The next day Europe was startled to hear that, by a well-concerted plan,
executed simultaneously at different points, the Canal throughout its length had
been seized by naval forces during the night, and that the Commander-in-Chief and
a considerable portion of his troops had entered it.
Ismailia, a town on the shores of Lake Timsah, through which the Canal way
passes at about equal distances from the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Suez,
was the point where Sir Garnet Wolseley had decided to form his new base.
Here terminated one division of the Sweet-Water Canal and the railway communi-
cating with Cairo, both of which were, in a few days, seized for several miles of
their courses.
Disembarkation and the collection of stores proved tedious and
trying, but went steadily on. In less than three weeks, both men and supplies
were accumulated at Kassassin-the farthest point to which our posts had been
pushed. The Highland brigade, which had been left in Alexandria, was brought
round by Sir E. Hamley, and preparations for an advance had neared completion.
It was known that at no great distance in front the enemy was in force.
Near the Canal, in the vicinity of a village called Tel-el-Kebir, there was an
Egyptian military station. Before leaving England, Sir Garnet Wolseley had
expressed his belief that Arabi would make his principal stand here. At this
spot occur rises in the ground which, when protected by earthworks, would afford
a strong position. Not far from the railway station, which, again, was close to the
Canal, works of extraordinary length had been thrown up, extending in a straight
line northwards, and running nearly at right angles to the course of the Canal.
Though not uniform in strength or character, they were, in parts, formidably
armed with artillery. The plan was designed with considerable engineering skill,
and shows upon what great resources of labour Arabi could depend. The force
within was fairly strong but scarcely adequate for the extent of the lines. At the
time of the bombardment of Alexandria, the Egyptian Army had consisted of ten
thousand men with the colours, but on the calling out of the reserves, the numbers
rose to sixty thousand. By recruiting, the strength was increased to one hundred
thousand, and Bedouins coming in served as additional irregular troops. This
army was distributed at various stations and within the lines of Tel-el-Kebir there
seem to have been only some twenty thousand men.
It is possible that the fortifications might have been captured several days
before the general assault was delivered. Arabi had attempted, on the 9th Sep-
BATTLE OF TEL-EL-KEBIR.
37
tember, to attack the camp at Kassassin; a sharp action had occurred, and in the
pursuit of the Egyptians which followed, the works could no doubt have been
taken. But information had been received that Arabi intended, if disaster over-
took him, to burn Cairo and retire up the river, and Sir Garnet was anxious not
only that any great engagement should be, if possible, decisive, but that it should
be followed up by a rapid advance which might save the capital. To this advance
the forces engaged in the action at Kassassin were not equal, and the close of day
would have made it impossible to push on with such speed as would have achieved
the object in view. The troops were therefore withdrawn, and preparations were
made for an attack upon the morning of the 13th.
As the approach to such formidable works in open daylight, and over level
country, would have exposed our men to a murderous fire, it had been decided
to march across the desert under cover of the darkness, and to endeavour to
surprise the enemy by assaulting him immediately before daybreak. As night fell,
on the 12th September, the troops moved out of camp and assembled in the desert
some four miles from the Egyptian works. The advance was to be made in three
divisions—the Indian contingent, marching on the south or far side of the Canal,
was to attack the position in flank, and prevent the retreat of the enemy on that
side. The two divisions of British infantry, between which moved the artillery,
were to advance direct upon the works, and the cavalry moving more to the north,
were to turn the Egyptian line, which there ended, and attack upon the opposite
flank to that assailed by the Indian contingent. Observation had shown that the
centre of the line was, beyond comparison, stronger than other parts. On this
point, the second division under Sir E. Hamley was to be directed, while the first
division was designed to attack simultaneously farther to the north.
The expedient of a night march is one to which Sir G. Wolseley is particularly
inclined. The level expanse of desert contained neither roads nor landmarks.
recognisable in the dark, the stars alone afforded a means of guidance, the risk of
confusion arising among the troops was great. There was, indeed, a point where
the wings of one division, mistaking their direction, came into collision, and but
for the energy of the officers might have marred the enterprise by firing on
each other and rousing the enemy. The dangerous operation was, however,
successful, and exactly as the first signs of approaching dawn appeared the
second division came upon the works.
The outposts driven in gave the alarm, and in a moment the line of earthworks
blazed with fire. The leading brigade of the division, composed of Highland regi-
ments, and led by Sir Archibald Alison, charged with magnificent gallantry. The
centre of their line, with an impetuous rush, burst over the first entrenchment; but
the flank battalions on each extreme, falling on severer work, were held back. The
enemy's riflemen were good, his resistance stubborn, and the small force that had
surmounted the parapet, enclosed in an angle of fire, began to give way. The
moment was critical, but the General of the division, Sir Edward Hamley, coming
up and throwing himself before the men, led them on again, and the advance
within the lines was made good. Other works on this side remained, which were
38
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
C
f
gradually silenced, but the centre of the enemy's position being thus split by the
Highland brigade, his defence was weakened at all points.
:
While the second division had thus penetrated the outer fortifications, and were
attacking the inner lines, which existed only at this spot, the first division, who
had been delayed in the darkness, came up to assault farther to the British right.
The parapet there was not considerable, but day had by this time broken, and the
resistance was determined and well maintained. For a time little impression was
made, but on the Cavalry sweeping round to the north and charging within the
enemy's works, and the Artillery coming into play, the Infantry renewed their
attack. The enemy assailed in front and on one flank, and fearful that on the
other flank their retreat to the railway and Canal was being cut off by the rapid
advance of the second division, broke into a mass of fugitives, which the cavalry
riding through them sought to disperse. Meantime, the Highlanders, pushing in
small bands along the interior retrenchments, which were disputed at every step,
came up upon high ground, from which the Egyptian camp was visible below.
The men were spent with their gallant fight, and the leading groups struggling up
without formation to the crest of the ridge amounted to no more than a few
hundred men of different regiments. It would have been natural, as was previously
intended, to pause here for the co-operation of other troops. But it could be seen
that in the enemy's camp all was confusion, the battalions held in reserve, as well
as the men driven out of the works, all flying to the railway station and crushing
into the trains that stood ready to start. The most necessary thing was clearly to
prevent the re-formation of any portion of these forces, and Sir Edward Hamley
decided at once to pursue. Small as the numbers of Highlanders were, they swept
down through the camp now almost deserted, captured the station with about one
hundred carriages in it, and occupied the bridge over the Canal. The division had
thus carried the only works of the enemy. which were really strong and heavily
armed, and the leading portion of it had penetrated the entire length of his position.
On the south side of the Canal, the Indian contingent had silenced all the works
which they encountered, and not long after the capture of the station, Sir H. Mac-
pherson reported the successful carrying out of his orders.
The victory had been complete, and not merely was it complete, but Sir
Garnet Wolseley had attained in full that object with which he had laid his plans
for the battle, viz., to administer such a defeat as would break up and annihilate
the force opposed to him, and permit of a further dash upon Cairo. This last
purpose had now to be carried into effect. From the field the cavalry started for
the city. This they reached in the evening of the 14th. The strength of the
British force could not be observed in the darkness and was exaggerated. The
citadel surrendered, the troops holding it marched out and were subsequently dis-
armed, and Arabi gave himself up. Though no evidence was forthcoming of any
attempt to destroy the town, it is likely that the extreme rapidity of the British
movement in rushing on the place before Arabi had time to recover from confusion
and concert plans may, in reality, have saved it.
The administration of the country in the Khedive's name was resumed, the

RESTORATION OF ORDER.
remaining garrisons throughout Lower Egypt were at once brought to surrender;
by the end of the month the victorious army paraded in triumph before the re-
instated Prince, and the war was concluded. An English force of ten thousand men
was left in Egypt. The remainder of the expeditionary army was quickly with-
drawn. On the 21st October, a few days more than two months after landing at
Alexandria, Sir Garnet Wolseley sailed from the same port for England.
The vigorous action of the British Government, in the military and naval
operations described above, had come as a surprise upon Egypt, upon Turkey,
leures
39
SIR E. HAMLEY.
From a photograph by Fradelle & Young.
upon France, and, above all, on England and the Liberal Party. Lord Granville's
original purpose was honestly defined, in November, 1881, in the despatch to Sir
E. Malet, as being to maintain the Condominium of France and England over the
financial affairs of Egypt, to preserve the nominal suzerainty of the Sultan, and to
support the practical authority of the Khedive. In this scheme of action or
inaction he had the concurrence of France, except that M. Gambetta was, as shown
by a despatch from Lord Lyons, in December, determined to "cut short intrigues
at Constantinople," and not to tolerate any undue interference by the Porte.
The jealousy of our action displayed at this time in Berlin, Vienna, and Rome
40
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
was not directed against ourselves, but arose from our association with France in the
Dual Control, and these Cabinets were resolved that this Power should not acquire
a predominant influence in the Valley of the Nile and increase its power on the
Mediterranean. The Porte, on the other hand, professing to regard Egypt as an
appanage of Turkey, protested warmly against the claim of the Western Powers
to regulate a matter that pertained exclusively to itself. M. Gambetta, though not
in the least impressed by Turkish rights, since he knew that there was no Turkish
force to back them up, thought it might be convenient to play off the Sultan against
the three Powers of central Europe. But as his eventual object was to elbow both
England and Turkey out of Egypt, he was by no means ready to assent to the
proposition put forward by Lord Granville at the end of January, 1882.
British Government had a strong objection to the occupation of Egypt by themselves.
They saw arguments of equal strength against a joint occupation by England
and France. But with regard to a Turkish occupation, though they admitted it
would be “a great evil," they thought that, if only of a temporary character, and
under the control of England and France, it would be the least objectionable
mode of using force.
The
It was when the negotiations had reached this perplexing pass that the
control of French policy passed from the hands of M. Gambetta to those of
M. de Freycinet, who was strongly opposed to any form of armed intervention.
Among the subsequent Despatches exchanged between the European Courts, we
find an admission by Prince Bismarck that England and France had acquired a
"diplomatic status" that ought not to be interfered with. The meaning of
his generosity was that Germany had no special interest in Egypt, and that if
England and France were only left alone he thought they would be sure to quarrel
about it, though he subsequently repudiated, with a sort of left-handed candour,
the imputation that he cherished any such idea. In spite of Lord Granville's
persistence in recommending a Turkish intervention-an intervention strictly
limited to “moral influence ”—M. de Freycinet remained sceptical about the value
of threats which were not to be followed up by deeds. His plan was to despatch
a joint squadron to Egyptian waters, that the Porte should be told not to interfere,
and that a conference of European delegates should be held at Constantinople. This
was accepted by Lord Granville, and expounded by him in the House of Lords on
May 15th. In commenting upon it, Lord Salisbury expressed his hope that the
Radical maxim, "Force is no remedy," would not be applied to foreign affairs.
If the Egyptians were to be influenced by any language we might hold to them,
it would only be if they believed that we were prepared to back it up with action.
While admitting the necessity of co-operation with France, he declared that, in the
event of an appeal to the sword, the interests of this country required that the
sword of France should not be paramount.
In justice to Lord Granville-whose policy always was to put off action-
it must be remembered that the Government were greatly embarrassed by the
peace-at-any-price Radicals. When they plucked up courage to demand that
the Khedive should dismiss Arabi and his fellow agitators, they were called to
MR. BRIGHT'S RESIGNATION.
account by Sir Wilfrid Lawson in the House of Commons, and Mr. Gladstone had
to employ all his art of ambiguity so as to imply that there was no danger of the
Government having to resort to force, without giving any pledge that they would
not do so. Before many days had passed, the rioting had broken out in
Alexandria, and the panic among the Europeans in that city and in Cairo proved
that vigorous measures could not long be delayed. We have now reached the
point at which the invitations to the long-projected Conference at Constantinople
were despatched to the different Powers. The Delegates had assembled, June 23,
but while they were deliberating, the question had been taken out of their hands
by the events, already described, which led to the bombardment of Alexandria,
and the subsequent operations on land. On the very day when the British Admiral
opened fire on Arabi's forts, we find Lord Granville inditing a Despatch in which
he argued that, the use of force having become essential, it was "most in
accordance with the principle of international law and usage" that the force so
employed should be that of the Sovereign Power-Turkey.
On July 12th, Sir Wilfrid Lawson delivered a bitter indictment of what he
called an act of international atrocity, and accused Ministers of acting in subser-
vience to bondholders and Cotton Jingoes. In reply, Mr. Gladstone put forward
an ingenious argument, to the effect that these "operations" we had undertaken
did not constitute acts of war. We were not fighting against the people of Egypt,
but protecting them from a military tyranny. It is possible that the purpose of
this contention was to case the conscience of Mr. John Bright, who, as a Quaker,
could not consistently remain Member of a Cabinet which had gone to war with
another country. He had consented, of course, to the policy which resulted in
the bombardment, hoping, perhaps, the threat would be enough. But when it had
to be carried out, Mr. Gladstone's distinction between war and military operations
was too refined for the robust common-sense and moral earnestness of his colleague.
On July 15th, Mr. Bright announced his retirement from the Cabinet. He
frankly explained that the only reason why he had deferred taking a step
which he saw to be inevitable was his profound regard for Mr. Gladstone and his
anxiety to remain with him to the very last moment. The excuse was not,
perhaps, quite logical, but the feeling Mr. Bright confessed with such manly
simplicity was perfectly natural. Nor did he quite deserve the taunts levelled
against him, at a moment of political excitement, because he had deliberated a
few days before he made up his mind to fulfil a painful obligation. Conscien-
tiousness in politics is not so general that we can sneer at one who does what
he believes to be right, even if it takes a little time to think about it.
By the middle of September the authority of the Khedive had been firmly
re-established, and on the 25th, he made a triumphant entry into Cairo. On the
30th, an imposing demonstration was held at the Abdin Palace, where 18,000
British troops marched past the Ruler they had restored. But their work would
have been promptly undone if they had left him to his own resources. Sir
Archibald Alison was left at the head of a "temporary" garrison, while General
Valentine Baker was appointed Commander of a new Egyptian Force, con-
41
42
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
sisting of about 10,000 men, a sort of gendarmerie, which he was to drill
and organize into an effective fighting force. Arabi had been handed over
to the Khedive, but Lord Granville insisted that he should have a fair and
public trial.
While denying any complicity in the firing of Alexandria, he could
not resist the accusation of having rebelled against his Sovereign, and (sub-
sequently) pleaded guilty to that charge. He was sentenced to death by the
Court Martial, but the penalty was at once commuted by the Khedive to one of
perpetual exile. The clemency of Tewfik-adopted, of course, on English advice—
was so offensive to Riaz Pasha that he resigned with his colleagues and was
succeeded by Cherif Pasha. Arabi, with some of his leading confederates, was
deported to Ceylon, where he still lives in a sort of honourable captivity.
More important than the fate of this reckless, if not altogether ignoble
adventurer-the instrument of a more subtle will and agent of a policy he did
not quite comprehend—was the work of re-organizing the country he had thrown
into confusion. On November 7th, Lord Dufferin arrived at Cairo on a special
mission from the British Government. The first fact that faced him was the
impossibility of reviving the Dual Control.
That arrangement had given reason-
able satisfaction so long as Turkey was content to acquiesce in the financial
control of Egypt by England and France; but the dead-set against the interests
of the Ottoman Porte in Europe, with which Mr. Gladstone's Government
inaugurated their accession to power, gave the statesmen of Constantinople a
motive for thwarting it elsewhere. They had played on the ambition of Arabi
Pasha, and hoped that, as a consequence of the general disturbance, an end would
be put to the Condominium in the Valley of the Nile. And so it was-but not in the
manner they anticipated. Nor was it effected without a certain awkwardness
between England and France, the latter being naturally annoyed-though it was
the direct result of its holding aloof from the naval and military operations-at
finding itself practically ousted from its position in Egypt.
In the Report which was published by Lord Dufferin in February, 1883, the
idea of annexing Egypt and governing it as a Dependency of the British Crown
was set aside, as plainly inconsistent with the views of Mr. Gladstone's Ministry.
The only remaining alternative, he said, was to establish a stable and self-
sufficing Native Government, giving it such protection as it might require against
external intrigue and internal weakness. How the various reforms now to be
instituted under English auspices worked out, and how far and for what reason
it was found necessary to depart from Lord Dufferin's scheme, and to strengthen
and assert our predominant influence in Egypt, may be found described in Sir
Alfred Milner's interesting book.
For the present, the centre of interest shifts from Cairo to the Soudan.
Even in 1881 there had been rumours of danger from the South, where a "False
Prophet" had stirred up a religious movement and was preparing to advance upon
Khartoum, and presently to threaten the security, if not the existence of the more
civilised authority of the North. Mohammed Ahmed, we learn from Major Win-
gate's work, "bore externally all the marks of a well-bred gentleman." His power

THE MAHDIST RISING.
was only displayed when he began to preach. He dwelt on the iniquities of the
500
BRI
KUTY
201
43
g
tax-gatherer, on the corruptness of the Pashas, on the miseries of the people. All
CAIRO-THE CITADEL,
44
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
!
this wretchedness which had fallen on the land was due to God's anger against sin.
But a Deliverer was coming. When would he come? "The hot wind roamed
from desert to plain of withered grass, from mountain range to sandy valley,
and whispered Mahdi' as it blew; all nature joined. How childish! yet how
effective!"
We must pass over the rapid growth of the Mahdi's military power. Although
the attempts to dislodge him at Abba failed, he thought it wise for the present to
retire from such close proximity to Khartoum. He withdrew to the south of Kor-
dofan, and made alliance with the Baggara Emirs-he, a sort of spiritual Pope,
they supplying the temporal power. Early in 1882, he had won several important
victories over Egyptian commanders in that Province, and in the autumn he was
laying siege to El Obeid and Bara; so numerous were his followers that, in
an attempt to take the former town by storm, he could afford the loss of 10,000
men. He was less successful in the Province of Darfur, where his lieutenant was
twice repulsed from Slatin Bey's zareba, though that gallant officer thought
it advisable to retire to the Darra. Equally vigorous was the resistance
offered in Bahr-el-Ghazal by Lupton Bey, who had succeeded Gessi, the Lieutenant
of Gordon. In Equatoria Emin Bey reported at the end of 1882 that all was
quiet, but with the exception of that Province the whole country south of
Khartoum was at this date, Major Wingate shows, in open revolt.
The authority of the Khedive, such as it ever had been in the Soudan
Provinces, was now destroyed by reports of the Arabist rebellion and of the
British intervention, and in January, 1883, Colonel Stewart, who had been
despatched on a special mission to Khartoum, reported on the dangers of
the situation. The fall, first of Bara, and then of El Obeid, was followed
by a manifesto to the inhabitants of Khartoum in which the Mahdi summoned
them to join him in his Holy War. The Egyptian Government decided to
send reinforcements to their officers, and on March 4th, at the head of
10,000 troops, consisting mainly of Arabi's disbanded force, Hicks Pasha
marched into Khartoum. After a month's vigorous drilling he and his nine
European officers had got their rabble into sufficient discipline to venture upon
taking the field. In a victory at Marabieh on April 25th, he cleared the country
as far as Sennar, and on September 9th, having triumphed over the intrigues
against his authority in Khartoum, he started on his expedition for the relief of the
Province of Khordofan. The events of the march and the necessity, explained
by Hicks Pasha in his last Despatch, of abandoning his posts and maintaining
communication with Duem, are matters of purely military interest. For general
readers it is enough to say that his advance was awaited by the Mahdi at Shekan,
and that the great battle which ensued resulted in the total destruction of the
Egyptian force. The whole army was wiped out; not one of th European
officers, or the three correspondents of London newspapers who had accompanied
the expedition, escaped from the slaughter.
Disastrous as was this engagement in Khordofan, it occasioned less anxiety to
the Egyptian Government than events nearer home. The garrisons at Suakim,
1
6
INDECISION OF THE CABINET.
45
Tokar, and Sinkat had been shut up by Osman Digna, the Mahdi's lieutenant, and
their communications were cut off. It was imperative to reopen the route between
Suakim on the coast and Berber on the Nile, and with that object General Baker
was ordered to place himself at the head of a relief body of his gendarmerie.
The Government had finally decided to abandon the Soudan, but in honour it
was bound at least to rescue its outposts. On Christmas Day, 1883, General Baker,
who had reached Suakim with between 2,000 and 3,000 troops (including a
hundred Europeans), reviewed his little army, and on January 17 started
from Trinkitat for the relief of Tokar. His cavalry was attacked at El Teb
by a strong force of Arab spearmen, and put to flight. When ordered to form
square, two of his three infantry battalions, struck by panic, refused at first to
move. The irregular formation which was afterwards achieved by the energy
of the European officers was again thrown into confusion by the disorderly return
of the routed cavalry. The enemy, concealed in the bush, now rushed in force on
the straggling square; the English officers were unable to restore order, and eleven
of them died at their posts. The defeat was now complete, and it was with great
difficulty that General Baker succeeded in taking 1,400 of his men back to
Trinkitat.
This was the state of affairs on the eastern coast of the Soudan; nor was the
outlook more cheering elsewhere. Kassala was closely besieged. In the Province
of Darfur, the gallant Slatin, after fighting innumerable battles, gave up hope
when he heard of the defeat of Hicks, and capitulated at Darra. He was sent as
prisoner of war to the Mahdi, then on his way to besiege Khartoum. He was
kept in chains for eight months, and suffered almost intolerable hardships, the
story of which, with his final escape from the Mahdi's successor, he narrated in
London last July.
More serious than these reverses and embarrassments was the investment
of Khartoum, which had commenced in July, 1883. The defences had been put
into such order as was possible, under the direction of Colonel de Coetlogon, one
of Hicks's officers, who had avoided the fate of his colleagues through having been
left behind in charge of the depôt. The country around was swarming with
Mahdists. The situation had now become hopeless from a military point of view.
The garrison must be relieved, or they would ere long be forced to surrender, and
either made slaves or put to the sword.
Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues were being dragged in different directions.
Their Conservative opponents to whom they looked for support when they ventured
upon any display of energy were insisting on the need for prompt action, while
the extreme Radicals thought England would discharge its duty if it washed its
hands, Pilate fashion, of the embarrassment in which the Egyptian Ministry were
involved, and allowed the Khedive to accept the bloodguiltiness either of prose-
cuting the war against the Mahdi, or of permitting his Soudan garrison to be
slaughtered. So far as there was a policy in Downing Street it was expressed
in the decision of a Cabinet Council held in January, 1884, that the troops in
Khartoum should be withdrawn, that the limits of the Khedive's authority should
46
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
be fixed at Wady Halfa (350 miles to the north), that English aid should be
extended up to that point, and should also be available for protection of the ports
on the Red Sea.
This was an intelligible, if not a very spirited, policy. But how was it to
be executed? It did not commend itself to the Ministry of Nubar Pasha, and
could only be carried out-though in the name of Tewfik-on English responsibility
and by English force. In their perplexity Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet turned to
General Gordon, and asked him to withdraw from an engagement he had made
with the King of the Belgians in connection with the Congo State. He told the
Government plainly that their scheme was not feasible; the garrison and
Christian population of Khartoum (some 6,000 persons) could not be brought
away through hostile territory. The Western Soudan and the provinces of
Kordofan and Darfur, he said, should be abandoned, but Khartoum must be
held with the Provinces between the White Nile and the Red Sea, north of
Sennar. They so far deferred to his advice that they agreed to hold the ter-
ritory lying between Massowah and Suakim on the coast, and stretching up to
the White Nile. On January 18th he started upon his mission-to “rescue and
retire."
The reference made in the Queen's Speech to the amended and revised policy
led to Lord Salisbury throwing some doubt on the sanguine expectations pro-
fessed by Ministers. He reminded them that they could not divest themselves
of their responsibility for the disasters which had occurred, and the confusion
that was prevailing in Egypt. But as experts in "scuttling out," he admitted
that they were competent to advise the Khedive with regard to such a movement.
He pointed out that his Highness had no right to surrender any part of his
territory without the consent of the Sultan and the Powers who had guaranteed
the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Lord Granville, in reply, dwelt on the
expense of reconquering the Soudan, and argued, fairly enough, that it would be
wrong to engage in such an enterprise unless we intended to put under an efficient
administration the country we had brought back to subjection. And this, again,
would cost money. Here we have, in fact, the clue to the whole policy of the
Government-that timidity in spending at the proper time, which leads to
multiplied outlay in the future. The affairs of the Empire were administered
from year to year with the single object-turning out a good Budget in the fol-
lowing spring.
The Government never made so great a mistake as in sending General
Gordon to Khartoum-not because he was not the best man for the work, the one
man who might accomplish what he declared himself to be impossible, but because
he was a popular hero, a survival of saintliness and knight-errantry in a genera-
tion not yet so debased with materialism as to have lost the power of admiring a
nobler type of humanity. It was soon realised that, whatever lack of interest
the public might have displayed hitherto in the complicated problems of the
Soudan, the appearance of General Gordon on the stage had fixed public attention,
and aroused an almost painful sympathy with his adventures; that, if a hair of

THE VOTE OF CENSURE.
47
Gordon's head were hurt, the Ministry who had sent him out would be called
sharply to account.
A formal Vote of Censure, the day after the Government had at length resolved
to despatch troops for holding Suakim and relieving Tokar, was proposed by
Lord Salisbury. Ministers, he said, had followed three policies. First, they
accepted the Soudan as an integral part of Egypt, since they did not attempt
to stop the military operations then in progress. Next, they behaved as if its
concerns were no concern of theirs-the policy of Epicurean gods. Finally,
they had just stepped in with a command to abandon the territory south of Wady
Halfa. "We can remember," he said, "when those who now hold office were very
strong on the subject of responsi-
bilities. We can remember when
they insisted on every platform
that those who were in power were
responsible for the acts of the
Turkish Government, over which
they had no material hold or
control whatever. Now, having
absolute material hold and control
over the action of the Egyptian
Government, they try to persuade
us that these terrible calamities,
which they allowed the Egyptian
Government and the gallant de-
fenders of their fortresses to incur,
do not involve their own respon-
sibility at all.
"We can remember another
occasion when the honour of
England was at stake, and the
Government of this country re-
fused to do what every other
Government that ever existed would have done-refused to avenge a defeat lest it
should involve blood-guiltiness. Is there not blood-guiltiness here? In this resolute
renunciation of responsibility-in this abandonment of gallant men to an inevit-
able doom, in thus giving up a thousand women and children to all the hideous
horrors of an Oriental victory-is there no blood-guiltiness here? My Lords, it is
on all these things I ask your verdict. I am told that it is of little avail. Per-
haps we may hope to infuse some vigour and some energy where there was none
before-to wake the Government to their real responsibilities, to induce them to
cast aside the screen of a sham Egyptian responsibility, behind which they are
sheltering themselves. But we may not be able to do so. It
It may not be possible
for us to affect the philosophy to which they have pledged themselves, and the
promises by which they are bound. If it be so-if we cannot induce them to
EMIN PASHA.
From a sketch by Dr. Felkin.
48
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
reconsider their course-at least a duty remains for us to perform. They may
take refuge behind their constitutional powers. They may shelter themselves
behind the Caucus. Weak in argument, but strong in wire-pulling, they may
defy the opinion of England and the civilised world. But at least, my Lords,
we will discharge our responsibility. We will place on record the convictions of
this House, and of that large and influential community whose opinions are
reflected here. We will not allow this miserable apathy, this timid repudiation of
responsibility, to pass without a protest of indignation. We will, at all events,
not be accomplices in this dishonour."
Lord Granville, in reply, contended that the Government had only advised
Egypt to abandon the Soudan when it became mathematically clear that she could
not retain it. He produced a telegram from General Gordon announcing his
assumption of supreme power in the Soudan, and his hope of conciliating the
province of Berber. After speeches from Lord Cairns and Lord Dunraven in
support of the Censure, and from Lord Selborne, Lord Derby, and Lord Kimberley
against it, the Motion was carried by 181 against 81. In the House of Commons a
similar attack was repelled by a narrow majority-311 against 292, 34 Home
Rulers voting against the Government. Sir Stafford Northcote's indictment was,
briefly, that Hicks's operations had been conducted with full knowledge of the
Government, and that on his defeat they ought at once to have assumed control
of Egyptian policy, while, by breaking up the Ministry of Cherif Pasha, they
had struck a fatal blow at the Constitution they had themselves set up. Mr.
Gladstone's explanation was that they had not prohibited Hicks's expedition,
because that would have been to assume responsibility for the Soudan—and for this
they had "received no commission from Europe." The situation changed with
his defeat, and they had required Egypt to give up the Soudan; but they had not
stopped Baker's expedition for the relief of Sinkat and Tokar, because they were
told it would be successful. The delay in despatching Gordon was due simply
to the reluctance of the Egyptian Government to avail themselves of his aid..
It was not thought that the military operations, now undertaken with the object
of relieving Tokar, would interfere with the success of his mission. The Prime
Minister was followed later in the Debate by Sir Charles Dilke, who made out the
best possible case for the Government by stating that at the three most critical
positions they were now served by three of the ablest men who ever served the
country-by Sir Evelyn Baring at Cairo, Admiral Hewett at Suakim, and
General Gordon at Khartoum. "We ask," he said, "and we follow, the advice
which these men give us."
That statement might have been satisfactory if it had been in accordance
with past acts, and was likely to be borne out by future performances. In point
of fact, the Government had already rejected Gordon's advice. His mission was,
in Major Wingate's words, to collect the garrisons of the Soudan, establish what
Government might be possible, and return with the troops, while General Graham,
who parted company with him at Korosko, went off to fight Osman Digna on the
Eastern Coast. Gordon, with Colonel Stewart, had arrived at Berber on

GORDON AT KHARTOUM.
February 11th, and at Khartoum a week later. Accepted by the beleaguered
uvan.
49
Date/Tim
inhabitants as a deliverer, he lost no time in announcing his policy. The
VOL. IV.
E
SUAKIM.
50
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Western Soudan was to be abandoned, and the Mahdi was to be recognised as
Sultan of Kordofan, and the ancient sultanate of Darfur was to be revived.
As for Khartoum, half the taxes were to be remitted, and the slave-trade, since it
could not be abolished except by direct government from Cairo, was to be per-
mitted. But what of Khartoum when Gordon left it? The essential thing was to
place it under a capable ruler. There was one man on whom Gordon at once
pitched-a "quiet far-seeing thoughtful man of iron will, and a born ruler of
men." He had conquered Darfur, and was a power in the Soudan. If the
turbulent tribesmen had not accepted his authority, he would soon have found
means to reduce them to submission. But it was only a strong man who could
save the position. The rebels, encouraged by their successes and by their knowledge
that the British authorities had insisted on the retirement of the Egyptian troops,
were ripe for mischief, and could not be checked except by instant and vigorous
action. Quick to read the barbarian mind, and unrivalled in the art of using native
material, Gordon applied to the English Government for leave to invest Zubeir
with full powers. But Zubeir had been engaged in the slave trade, and Ministers
lived in fear of Exeter Hall. They rejected Gordon's advice, and expressed their
pained surprise that he should have made such a suggestion. They were in fact
prepared to legalise the institution of slavery at Khartoum, but not to employ the
only man who could regulate it within tolerable limits. It was so tempting an
opportunity to read General Gordon a lesson in humanity.
A further statement of policy was extracted from Lord Hartington early in
April-Gordon meantime having been compelled, owing to the cowardice of his
troops and the hostility of the surrounding country, to give up the hope of with-
drawing the garrison, and to settle down for prolonged operations.
The
Government, Lord Hartington informed the House of Commons, did not intend to
send an expedition to relieve Khartoum. But there was no question of abandoning
Gordon. And he understood that he must accomplish his mission with the
resources on the spot! On grounds of "public policy" the Government carefully
kept to themselves the communications received from Gordon, and were thus able
to denounce as "irresponsible" the fears that were expressed as to his safety.
When Lord Napier of Magdala declared that an expedition was quite practicable
from Suakim to Khartoum, Lord Granville twitted him with the expenses of the
Abyssinian War. But Lord Salisbury expressed the general feeling of Englishmen
when he asserted that Ministers were drifting along without a definite policy, and
that in the case of Khartoum, as in other instances, help would be sent too late.
It had, in fact, become clear-though the Government would not face and admit the
necessity—that a relief expedition would have to be despatched; it was almost
equally manifest that if it did not start at once it would fail of its object. Yet,
on April 24th, Mr. Gladstone asserted in his place in the House that there was
"no mutiny or other danger in Khartoum."
What had been happening there? Gordon's troops had been routed in the
field; his Bashi-Bazouks had mutinied. He had been summoned by the Mahdi to
surrender. Thercon he appealed to an assembly of the chief townsmen, and their
PROCRASTINATION OF MINISTERS.
51
answer was that they put their trust in him. It was because of this confidence that
he considered himself bound in honour to stand by them to the end. In the
Eastern Soudan the state of affairs was even more menacing. After a stubborn
resistance in Sinkat, Mohammed Tewfik had spiked his guns and fought his way out,
only to be annihilated by the overpowering forces of the enemy. The Mahdists
were, however, held in partial check on the arrival of General Graham, with 4,000
British troops at Suakim, and the desperate battles at El Teb (February 29th), and
Tamai (March 13th), proved that the fighting qualities of the Egyptians, if assisted
by regular discipline and superior arms, could prevail against the superior num-
bers and desperate bravery of the Arabs. But in spite of these successes it was
not held feasible to relieve Berber and keep the road open to Khartoum. The
former, then commanded by Hussein Pasha, was closely invested, and towards the
end of May it was carried by storm, the massacre of the garrison lasting two days
and a-half. The loss of this important position still further reduced the chance of
Gordon's success in holding out, and great anxiety was felt as to the attitude of
the Mudir of Dongola. He was ordered from Cairo to evacuate the Province, but
refused on the ground that if he did so Gordon's retreat would at once be cut
off. But the doubts expressed as to his loyalty proved unfounded, and late in
the year (September), he inflicted at Korti a memorable defeat on the Mahdi's
adherents.
Gordon, meantime, was losing patience with the Government. He appealed
to the "Millionaires of England and America" to supply him with money to
raise 2,000 or 3,000 Turkish troops, who would quickly settle affairs at Khartoum
and smash the Mahdi. In reply to Lord Granville's suggestion that he had
discretion either to remain at Khartoum or retire by any route available, he dwelt
scornfully on the "indelible disgrace" which would attach to the British name if
the garrisons of Sennar, Kassala, Berber, and Dongola were left to their fate.
These facts were brought out in Parliament by Sir M. Hicks-Beach, but Mr.
Gladstone persisted in saying (May 12th) that Gordon was not in danger. It
would be tedious to follow out in detail the warnings which Ministers received
from experts like Sir Samuel Baker as to the need for prompt action, or to repro-
duce the excuses they offered in reply to the entreaties and rebukes addressed to
them by politicians of every shade of opinion. Mr. Forster and Mr. Goschen
were not less severe than Lord Salisbury on the fatal procrastination they were
practising.
Their only excuse is that they relied on Gordon's resourcefulness—on the
chapter of accidents-the hope that something would be done or something might
turn up which would suddenly alter the situation. In the heat of party strife, and
in the natural indignation which arose when the consequences of their wavering
policy were revealed, they were accused of wilfully betraying the soldier they had
called to their assistance. Probably it would be unfair to charge them even with
indifference to his fate. Their fault was a certain obdurate hopefulness, a concerted
refusal to adopt the advice of men with local knowledge, and an honest unwillingness
to spend English money on enterprise abroad. So they drifted unwillingly, almost

52
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
unconsciously, into an expenditure far in excess of what they would have incurred
if they had taken bold measures at the beginning.
در
Gordon, though he lost hope, never lost heart. His plans for breaking through
the investing hordes were matured by the end of August, and Mohammed Ali-his
"fighting Pasha -achieved some considerable successes. But they were more
than counterbalanced by the crushing defeat at El Fun. Gordon now decided to
take advantage of the Nile flood in order to despatch a steamer which could carry
the Government authentic information of the desperate straits to which the garrison
were reduced. But on September 18th, eight days from Khartoum, the Abbass ran
upon a rock, and Colonel Stewart with his party, who had landed at Hebbeh, were
trapped and murdered. Before the end of the year, the Mahdi had himself come
up to the siege of Khartoum and
Omdurman, and summoned Gordon
to surrender. The answer was that
no communication would be held
with a rebel. In spite of his own
difficulties, Gordon, by means of
his steamers, attempted to supply
Faragallah Pasha, the commandant
of Omdurman, with provisions, but
the enemy got wind of his purpose,
and Faragallah wrote to the Mahdi
offering to capitulate. The garri-
son of Khartoum were now reduced
to extreme privation, and some of
the soldiers began to desert. At
the beginning of the new
year
(1885), a Khartoum merchant
relates that, pitying the sufferings
of the population, Gordon gave them
facilities for leaving the town and
joining the enemy. He was still hoping that some advance portion of the
Relief Expedition would arrive before his stock of provisions actually gave out.
Every day he would say, "They must come to-morrow." If only two soldiers
of the British force could be paraded on the walls, he would not, he said, fear the
enemy's attack. But the townsmen were beginning to lose faith in him, and
he lived in peril of treachery. On December 29th, 1884, he had sent a message
that he "could hold Khartoum for a year;" before another month had passed
-the agony of prolonged suspense had worn his men out-the place had been
taken. A large body of the rebels had crept up under cover of night to a
point between the White Nile and the Merralamieh Gate; and the alarm was not
sounded till twenty minutes before the attack was delivered. The Arabs were over
the ditch and up the parapet before the surprised garrison were able to oppose
them. Mohammed Bey Ibrahim drew his men into a square and fought on till he
LORD CHARLES BERESFORD.
Aport Sleigh

THE FALL OF KHARTOUM.
53
and they were cut to pieces. Similar gallantry was displayed by other officers,
but only to encounter the same fate. Farag, however, took to flight, cutting down
the sentry at the Merralamieh Gate, and making his escape to join the rebels, by
whom he was executed three days afterwards.
The noise of the fighting had aroused Gordon at the Palace. Putting on his
white uniform he came down, an undrawn sword at his side, and a revolver in his
hand, to meet the enemy. He was instantly killed. "I should say," the merchant
goes on," he must have intended to use his revolver only if he saw it was the
intention of the Arabs to take him prisoner alive." His head was cut off and sent
to the Mahdi at Omdurman, and his body was given over to the insults of the
savage conquerors. Slatin
Pasha, at the International
Geographical Conference held
in London last year (1895),
related how Gordon's head was
mockingly exhibited to him as
he lay in chains. Most of the
inhabitants of Khartoum were
killed; those who survived
were put to torture, in order
to make them reveal where
treasure was concealed. The
only exception made was in
favour of girls and comely
women-but not out of com-
passion. They were distri-
buted as prizes among the
Mahdi's followers.
There is no need to linger
over the history of the fruit-
less Relief Expedition. Smart
as was the management, and
creditable as were some of its
achievements, it had started
too late. The body of 14,000 men commanded by Lord Wolseley were to
proceed by the Nile route. At Korti a column was to be despatched across
the Desert to Metammeh, where the force would be within twenty miles dis-
tance (by water) from Khartoum. In order to expedite the advance, the ex-
pedition was accompanied by a large number of small steamers, sailing vessels,
and gunboats, whalers worked by Canadians, while a Camel Corps was organized
for the march across the Desert. Lord Wolseley left for Wady Halfa on October
5th, 1884, and reached Khartoum December 16th. By the first day of the New
Year Sir Herbert Stewart with 11,000 men and 1,800 camels had started for the
Gakdul Wells. His next advance was to Abu Klea, where, while General Earle
SIR CHARLES WILSON.
54
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
was working his way along the Nile, the British had their first serious engagement
with the Arabs on their way to the wells, which they found occupied by nearly
10,000 of the enemy. Stewart drew up his men in a square formation, and came
within a quarter of a mile of their position. Not being able to pursue any longer
the harassing tactics with which they had commenced, they made a regular onset
upon the little square, and succeeded in breaking into it. But though the Gardner
gun jammed just when it would have been most effective against the dense host of
assailants, the coolness of the officers and the gallantry of the men finally resulted
in beating the Arabs back with heavy loss-estimated at one-tenth their original
strength. But we had lost nine officers (Colonel Fred. Burnaby among them) and
more than fifty soldiers, while eighty-five others were more or less severely
wounded.
The defeat of the Arabs was not, however, so decisive as the British had hoped.
On renewing the march to Metammeh, Stewart was attacked next day, and
himself received a wound from which he afterwards died. He was succeeded in
the command by Sir Charles Wilson, and once again the heavy fire of the
British drove the enemy off. They were now able to make their way to the Nile
and take up an entrenched position at Gubat. At this point they were met by
four of Gordon's steamers; on January 24th Sir Charles Wilson, accompanied
by three officers and twenty men, steamed for Khartoum. On their way up the
river they were informed by natives that the town had already fallen. That
report was too plainly verified when they found a heavy fire opened on them from
both sides of the river and saw the Mahdi's flag floating from the Palace only a few
days before occupied by Gordon. The return journey was accomplished with the
greatest difficulty, their steamers running aground and being wrecked. They
managed to escape to one of the rocks in mid-stream, from which they were
rescued in a steamer brought up by Lord Charles Beresford.
The capture of Khartoum, the massacre of the garrison, and the death of
Gordon, removed the object for which Lord Wolseley's expedition had been sent
out. Mr. Gladstone's Government had been warned by Gordon that if the
Mahdi's power were not broken up at once, it would have to be done later, and at
an increased expense. They preferred to put off the evil day. The order was given
to withdraw our troops from the more advanced positions, and retire upon Dongola.
The Gubat column was taken back by General Buller. The column commanded by
General Earle had made good way along the Nile, and fought a successful engage-
ment at Kirbekan. Unfortunately, General Earle, with several other officers, was
killed, the command passing to Colonel Brackenbury. As there was no longer any
use in forming the proposed junction with the Desert column, the force was
now ordered back to Korti.
More active operations were projected in the Eastern Soudan, under General
Graham, who, the year before (1884) had won the brilliant, if strategically un-
important, victories of El Teb and Tamanieb. The plan now projected was to
construct a railway from Suakim to Berber, the plant for which, with a number
of workmen, was promptly sent out by a firm of English contractors. The troops

EVACUATING THE SOUDAN.
under whose protection this engineering work was to be carried out consisted of
PimmiTWIRANPRESTRATEGITIMISTOT
55
NEW
British and Indian soldiers, and included a small contingent of Australian
KHARTOUM-GENERAL VIEW,
56
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
SALISB
Volunteers, sent out at the expense of the Colony of New South Wales. On
March 20th, General Graham fought a sharp little battle with Osman Digna's
Arabs, whose attack he repulsed with considerable loss. Another success was
more dearly purchased two days later, when General McNeill's brigade, conveying
stores from Suakim along the road from Tamai, was attacked-perhaps surprised
—by a strong force of Arabs. They forced their way into the zariba, hamstrung
the baggage animals, and killed many of the camp followers. But the soldiers
quickly rallied from the first confusion and drove off their assailants.
The Government had turned and twisted so many times in their policy that
one more instance of vacillation scarcely attracted attention. The plan of construct-
ing a railway from Suakim to Berber, about which such a flourish of trumpets
had been raised, was suddenly abandoned. The position at Suakim, indeed, was
still held by a small British garrison, but orders were given to withdraw the
rest of our troops to Upper Egypt. There was no longer any talk of Egypt
smashing the Mahdi-the only doubt was whether the Mahdi would smash
Egypt. But, just as we had decided that his power was too strong for us to
destroy, it began to break up of its inherent weakness. His troops, disappointed
of the rich plunder on which they had counted, were falling away: and his
own energy had been enfeebled by the voluptuous excesses in which the possession
of despotic power had tempted him to indulge. He died in June (1885), and
was succceded by the present Khalifa Abdullah, whose authority, as Slatin Pasha
testifies, is supported not by Soudanese, but by the Western Arabs. At the
time when the Mahdi was at the height of his power, the whole region was
Dervish, and the moving spirit was fanaticism. That state of things has now
passed away. The Khalifa's authority is a purely military one, and is exercised
with a grinding tyranny over the unfortunate inhabitants. The tenets of
Mahdism are nominally in force, but they have lost their vigour. From his
headquarters at Omdurman he sends expeditions into Equatoria to collect ivory
and slaves, but his power is, at most, stationary, and, in the opinion of those who
speak with special knowledge, it would not be a difficult or prolonged enterprise
to clear him out of the region where he exercises a detested sway.
The mismanagement, the alternate backward and forward movements, then
backward again, of the Gladstone Government with regard to Egypt and the Soudan,
but, above all, the national indignation at the fate of General Gordon, contributed
in no small degree to the defeat they were about to encounter. The prevalent feeling
of Englishmen, as proved by the events, was expressed by Lord Salisbury in a
speech delivered in the House of Lords on February 26th, 1885, in proposing a
Vote of Censure. His Motion declared that the deplorable tailure of the Relief
Expedition had been due to the indecision and culpable delay of the Government
in commencing operations, and that the abandonment of the Soudan was dangerous.
to the peace of Egypt, and inconsistent with the interests of the Empire. There
had been, he said, alternate periods of slumber and of rush. The rush, however
vehement, had been too unprepared and too unintelligent to repair the damage
done by the slumber.

GEORGE J. GOSCHEN.
From a photograph by The London Stereoscopic Ca
CONDUCT OF MINISTERS.
57
""
After a detailed account of events in Egypt, "We are not," Lord Salisbury said
in conclusion, so strong as we were. At first all nations sympathised with us,
but now they look on us coldly, and even with hostility. Those who were our
friends have become indifferent, and those who were indifferent have become our
adversaries; and if our misfortunes and disasters go on much longer we shall have
Europe saying that it cannot trust us, that we are too weak, that our prestige is too
low to justify us in undertaking this task. My Lords, these great dangers can only
be faced by a consistent policy, which can only be conducted by a Ministry capable
of unity of counsel and decision of purpose. I have shown you that from this
Ministry we can expect no such results. They
They can only produce after their kind.
They will only do what they have already done. You cannot look for unity of
counsel from an Administration that is hopelessly divided. You cannot extract a
resolute policy from those whose purpose is hopelessly halting.
"It is for this reason, my Lords, that I ask you to record your opinion that from
a Ministry in whom the first of all qualities-the quality of decision of purpose-
is lacking, you can hope no good in this crisis of our country's fate.
And if you
continue to trust them, if for any Party reasons Parliament continues to abandon
to their care the affairs which they have hitherto so hopelessly mismanaged, you
must expect to go from bad to worse; you must expect to lose the little prestige
which you retain; you must expect to find in other portions of the world the
results of the lower consideration that you occupy in the eyes of mankind; you
must expect to be drawn in, degree by degree, step by step, under the cover of
plausible excuses, under the cover of highly philanthropic sentiments, to irrepar-
able disasters, and to disgrace that it will be impossible to efface."
↓
The defence of the Government in the House of Lords was taken up by Lord
Kimberley and Lord Granville, but the Vote of Censure was carried by a large
majority. More damaging to Ministers than this reverse in the Upper House
was their narrow escape in the Commons, where a similar Motion proposed by Sir
Stafford Northcote was only lost by fourteen votes-302 against 288. A few
dissatisfied Liberals, by abstaining from the Division, saved the Government
from absolute defeat. Mr. Goschen, Mr. Forster, and ten other members of the
Party had voted with the Opposition, whose ranks were increased on this occasion
by forty Home Rulers. It must not be imagined, however, that the Irish
Nationalists were concerned with any zeal for the honour of England abroad. They
were just "against the Government"-any Government that would not grant
Home Rule. Indeed, it is worth mention that a certain section of the Nationalists.
were proved to have been in friendly communication with the Madhi. In 1884
Olivier Pain had been sent by the Irish in Paris on a mission to El Obeid, and
some of the less prudent agitators had ventured, even on British soil, to express their
sympathy with the Mahdi, and their hope that he would inflict defeat and disgrace
on the British Armies.
༢
CHAPTER III.
In the present chapter an attempt will be made to summarise those portions of our
political history under Mr. Gladstone's Second Administration which have not bee
covered by the preceding accounts of events in South Africa, in Afghanistan, in
Ireland up to the end of 1883, and in Egypt and Soudan from the Arabist rebellion
to the fall of Khartoum, and the return of the Relief Expedition. These successive
departures from strict chronological order have been made in the hope of sim-
plifying an unusually complicated, but always interesting, period. The pages
immediately following are intended to supplement and combine those scattered
narratives.
When Parliament met on February 7, 1882, the greater part of the Queen's
Speech dealt with matters excluded from the present chapter, but the opening
paragraph was read with special interest by the country. It referred to the recent
betrothal of Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, and her Serene Highness the
Princess Helen of Waldeck and Pyrmont. But the popularity of the Duke did
not prevent the Radicals from resisting the Grant proposed by the Government,
and it was noted at the time, almost as an ominous sign, that Mr. Labouchere
succeeding in carrying as many as forty-two Members of the House of Commons
into the Opposition Lobby. The legislative programme put forward by Ministers
comprised a scheme of self-government for the English and Welsh counties, a re-
adjustment of Imperial and Local Taxation (in relief of the latter), for the whole
of Great Britain, and a reform of the "ancient and distinguished Corporation of
the City of London." It is unnecessary to dwell upon these proposals because-
chiefly through Irish business and Nationalist Obstruction-the Government was
prevented from carrying them into effect. Other projects related to a much-needed
reconstruction of the Bankruptcy Law system, corrupt practices at Elections, the
conservancy of Rivers and prevention of Floods, codification of the Criminal Law,
amendment of the Patent Laws, and, by way of a peace offering to Scotland and
Wales, it was stated that proposals relating to the law of Entail and Educational
Endowments in the former country, and to improved means of education in the
latter, would be brought before the House.
It as an excellent programme. But little or nothing was undertaken. When
the House rose for the Easter recess, of the seventeen sittings at the disposal of
the Government, three had been given up to the Debate on the Address, four to the
Lord's Committee of Inquiry with regard to the Land Act of the previous Session,
and five others were accounted for partly by the exigencies of Supply and
CHANGES IN THE GLADSTONE ADMINISTRATION.
59
partly by the discussion of the New Rules of Procedure which Mr. Gladstone
declared to be necessary for rendering the legislative machine able to perform its
work. The time before Easter having been frittered away on technicalities, triviali-
ties, and the necessary routine business, there was no hope for original legislation
before the end of the Session. Even the Corrupt Practices Bill, which had been
pressed to a Second Reading, was dropped. The only result the Government had to
show consisted of the two Scotch Bills, which became law before the end of
the Session; the Parcels (sic) Post Bill carried by Mr. Fawcett, and Mr. Cham-
berlain's Electric Lighting Bill—the latter providing that Municipalities wishing
to adopt the new illuminant need only obtain the consent of the Board of
Trade, being thus spared the expense and trouble of promoting a special Act of
Parliament in each case. But these two measures-like the Married Women's
Property Act, introduced by the Lord Chancellor (Selborne), and the Settled Land
Act, by the ex-Lord Chancellor (Cairns)—lay outside the range of political conten-
tion, such credit as they deserve belonging to neither Party, but to Parliament
itself.
Even the Budget produced by Mr. Gladstone aroused no interest. Trade was
languid, and no prospect was open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer either of
reducing expenditure or taking off taxation. The Surplus for distribution amounted
to no more than £305,000, which would be eaten up by the promises relating to
Highway Rates and the relief of Local Taxation. To meet this charge, the carriage
duties were increased from two to three guineas on four-wheeled vehicles and from
fifteen shillings to a guinea on two-wheeled ones. But on July 24th, Mr. Glad-
stone had to ask for a Vote of Credit, £2,300,000, in connection with the affairs of
Egypt, and to raise this sum it became necessary to increase the Income Tax from
5d. to 6 d. in the £.
The House rose on August 17th for the recess, an Autumn Sitting being
required for consideration of the twelve New Rules already proposed by Mr. Glad-
stone. On the re-assembly of Parliament on October 24th, they were carried, though
not without considerable modification, and an experiment, hardly less important
than these provisions against deliberate obstruction, was started by the estab-
lishment of two Grand Committees-one on Trade, the other on Law-for the
consideration in Committee of Bills involving a large amount of technical details.
By the end of 1882, a Ministry, formed only in 1880, had been largely re-
constructed. Short as had been the existence of Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet, he had
already managed to "shed" several of his most distinguished and most generally
trusted colleagues. The first to leave him had been the Duke of Argyll, who
could not stomach the Irish Land Act; Mr. Forster and Lord Cowper had revolted
against the “Kilmainham Treaty" and the latest new departure in Irish policy;
and Mr. Bright had reluctantly felt himself compelled to protest against the bom-
bardment of Alexandria and the military operations which it involved. The
Duke of Argyll had been replaced as Lord Privy Seal by Lord Carlingford (Mr.
Chicester Fortescue), Mr. Forster as Chief Secretary, and Lord Cowper as Lord
Lieutenant of Ireland, by Mr. George Trevelyan and Lord Spencer; and Mr.
}
60
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Bright as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by Mr. Dodson (Lord Monk
Bretton). But other changes had been rendered necessary. The Parliamentary
strain of 1881 and 1882 had told severely upon Mr. Gladstone's health, and he
found it no longer advisable to combine the offices of First Lord of the Treasury
and Chancellor of the Exchequer. The latter position was therefore assigned to
Mr. Childers, who was succeeded at the War Office by Lord Hartington. The
vacancy thus created in the India Office was filled by Lord Kimberley, whose
place as Colonial Secretary was taken by Lord Derby, now formally identified with
Gladstonian Liberalism. Mr. Dodson's exchange of the heavy departmental duties
of the Local Government Board for the sinecure recently held by Mr. Bright
gave Mr. Gladstone an opportunity of recognising the administrative capacity of
Sir Charles Dilke and admitting him to Cabinet rank. The under-secretaryships
vacant at the Foreign and India offices were filled early in the New Year by the
promotion of Lord E. Fitzmaurice and Mr. J. K. Cross, one a Whig and the other
a Radical.
Mr. Gladstone did not return from his holiday abroad for the opening of
Parliament on February 15th, 1883. The measures promised in the Queen's
Speech consisted chiefly of remanets from the unfulfilled programmes of pre-
vious Sessions-Codification of the Criminal Law, a Court of Criminal Appeal,
amendment of the Bankruptcy and Patent Laws, Prevention of Corrupt Practices
at Elections, Local Government in English and Welsh Counties, Reform of the
London Corporation, the Conservancy of Rivers, Welsh Education, and Scottish
Universities. Something of a novelty was the proposal to provide tenants in Eng-
land and Scotland with more effectual compensation for agricultural improvements.
Ireland was reminded that she had already received a liberal share of Parlia-
mentary attention, but the hope was expressed that time would be found for deal-
ing with her legislative requirements.
The Debate on the Address in the House of Lords turned chiefly on affairs in
Egypt and Natal, Lord Salisbury twitting Ministers with the intentional obscurity
of the declaration. The Queen's Speech was like the ordeal by fire--a number
of burning questions were lying about, and through these red-hot ploughshares
the Speech moved with delicate steps, touching scarcely one. In the House of
Commons, proceedings began as usual with the Bradlaugh question, but the crisis
was postponed for a time on Lord Hartington's announcement that the Attorney-
General would bring in an Affirmation Bill. The Debate on the Address-con-
tinued for eleven nights-dealt with the Government's policy in Egypt, with
agricultural depression, and with the state of Ireland, the last subject leading to
a warm exchange, already described, of personalities between Mr. Forster and
Mr. Parnell.
In the House of Commons a stinging indictment of Ministers was delivered
by Mr. Forster. The Bechuanas, he said, had stood loyally by us, in spite
of Boer threats. And when these threats were put into execution, it was
proposed that we should abandon our allies to their fate. It was a dangerous
policy to let it be thought that England was too weak to protect her allies.
WHIGS AND RADICALS.
61
Carried out logically, it meant the conversion of the Cape into a mere naval
station and the abandonment of India. Mr. Gladstone showed his accustomed
skill in reply. The real question, of course, was the conduct of his own Ministry,
in consenting to an unfair Convention. But that he put aside. What, he asked,
did Mr. Forster and his friends mean? Did they mean to go to war with the
Transvaal? If not, what did they mean by talking about being in earnest in
our remonstrances?
It was in futile, though animated, discussions of this kind, and in the
necessary business of Supply, that the time of Parliament was mainly spent
before Easter. Mr. Chamberlain, however, had succeeded in getting his useful
Bankruptcy Bill through its Second Reading, on the understanding that it should
be referred, in due course, to the new Standing Committee on Trade. It was
during the Easter Recess that Lord Salisbury, speaking at Birmingham, made an
amusing attack on a Government distracted between the Whig and the Radical
policies of its associated members. "The result," he said, "is a movement of
perpetual zigzag. At one time, you move in the direction indicated by the mode-
rate Liberals, at another time you move in the direction indicated by the Radicals.
It is rather like one of those Dutch clocks which we used to see in our infancy,
where an old woman came out at one time and an old man at another: when the
old man came out it was fine weather, and when the old woman came out it was
the reverse.
I would not, for a moment, attempt to instance who is the old man
or who is the old woman, but we may safely say that the mechanism of our
political system is this-that when it is going to be fine weather Lord Hartington
appears, and when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain appears you may look out for
squalls."
Turning to the Irish question, Lord Salisbury next admitted that Mr. Gladstone
had recently given a very satisfactory reply, when he refused to take up Mr.
Parnell's Bill for further amending the Land Act of 1881. "In the words of the
ordinary phrase, he has put his foot down, but it seemed to me that he put it
down as a gouty man puts his foot down-with a great desire to lift it up again."
Even more characteristic was Lord Salisbury's reference to Mr. Dodson's announce-
ment that the Government intended "to clear their conscience" with regard to
Ireland. "I did hope," he said, "that the Liberal conscience was cleared by this
time. We always know what that clearing of the Liberal conscience means.
Surely the most scrupulous and saintly men might be satisfied by this time. They
have taken 25 per cent. from the landlords, who are usually Tories, and have
given 25 per cent. to the farmers, who are usually Liberals. Surely any con-
science might be satisfied with that!"
This was not the only occasion on which Lord Salisbury criticised the
Radicalism of which he treated Mr. Chamberlain as the leading exponent, and
the Caucus of which he was the guiding spirit. To the taunts directed
against the latter institution, Mr. Chamberlain had an effective reply—that the
Conservatives were compelled to imitate it. Their copy he described as consisting
of associations without members, treasurers without subscriptions, and delegates
62
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
without constituents. There was, it must be admitted, a certain amount of truth
in the sneer, but the Conservative Party has since profited by, if it has not
bettered, the example set by a statesman who at this time was, next to Mr.
Gladstone, their most formidable adversary.
It was on March 31st, 1883, that Mr. Chamberlain-entering with zest into
the duel to which he had been challenged-declared that Lord Salisbury had no
sympathy with the bulk of the Irish nation. How should he care for the oppressed
and suffering tenants when he himself belonged to a class who "toil not, neither
do they spin." This was very good invective, but the point of it was rather
blunted when Mr. Chamberlain went on to complain that Lord Salisbury would
not recognise the success which had attended the Government policy in Egypt !
Weakened as Ministers had been by their blunders abroad, they were still free
from any fear of the Opposition. The Conservatives were not united in any
common policy, and their Parliamentary discipline was impaired by the intrigues
promoted by Lord Randolph Churchill. While we admit that he was to do good
service to the Party in the subsequent electoral struggle, and that its success was
largely due to his popularity as a platform orator, and to the public belief in his
qualities as a statesman, we must also remember that the weakness and discredit
which now attached to the Party were chiefly caused by his restless scheming and
impatient ambition. It had been arranged that Sir Stafford Northcote should
unveil the statue erected to Lord Beaconsfield at Westminster. About a fort-
night before the date fixed for the ceremony (April 19th), a public controversy
was got up as to the rival claims of Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote to
the still vacant leadership of the Conservative Party. Lord Randolph declared
that if the Party was in a negative mood, it would accept Sir Stafford; if in a
cautious one, Lord Cairns; if an English one, Lord Salisbury. The epithets were
sufficiently plausible, nor was the inference quite unjust. But it was bad policy
and bad manners to bring into open competition two men who had worked together
in practical harmony and with mutual good-will. Nor was it true to suggest that
Sir Stafford Northcote was less ready than Lord Salisbury to adopt such progressive
reforms as were compatible with Conservative principles. The fact was that Lord
Randolph's officious interference at this point was not wholly disinterested. He
had, it is true, more sympathy with the vehement and caustic methods of Lord
Salisbury than with the milder manner of Sir Stafford, and he honestly believed
that the Liberals could only be defeated by a vigorous attack. But his real motive
for the preference so inopportunely declared was his belief that if he could only
get Sir Stafford shelved, and the Leadership definitely conferred upon a Peer, the
practical power would lie with himself as the predestined chief of the Party in
the House of Commons. In that capacity he would, he fancied, make such a pro-
digious success that Lord Salisbury also would soon be compelled to retire or accept
a subordinate position. Lord Randolph did not know his man, and, for want of
that knowledge, wrecked a career of brilliant selfishness.
For the present it seemed as if he would succeed. He certainly did not feel
abashed by the dignified rebuke he drew from Mr. W. H. Smith, one of the two
10414
·
Statesmen whom he delighted to describe as "Marshall and Snelgrove." All he
cared for was to damage Sir Stafford's authority, so as to make for himself the
vacancy he believed suitable to his gifts.
In an article which appeared in the Fortnightly Review, on the first of the
ww
RQU
TEXT
TIL!
$ AB
YN
INTRIGUES OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL.
!¡\,
Maplin
H
WAN
bewither
The
ایی از کا
JL
§ 10 ja
S
de bat han imp
miy
จง
..
Asheren
JO
NEW
TOPLAM
n)})
Chuk
1
**
C
P
***
SUEL
matmau
………………………
*****
-
"m
ஆணிமாணம்
ROMBOE
CUSSTÄTTASUJ
31ftehandl,
READING
MIDN
DAUNA
CHEERA
Wev
BIRMINGĦAM CONSERVATIVE CLUB AND BURNABY MEMORIAL.
..
W.H.M.
63
following month, Lord Randolph took it upon himself to complain that an
"unknown master of the ceremonies had reserved to Lord Salisbury "the very
secondary function" of moving a Vote of Thanks to Sir Stafford Northcote for
having unveiled the statue. The "Dual Control" was considered by some persons,
he admitted, to be a source of strength to the Party. "We are invited by
64
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Sir Stafford Northcote to believe that there has never been the slightest difference
between himself and Lord Salisbury; and, no doubt, as long as Sir Stafford
Northcote is enabled to occupy the foremost place at public ceremonies, it will be
convenient and pleasant to him to persist in this assertion, although it awakens no
responsive echo in any quarter. It is just possible, however, that the utmost
harmony may exist between the principals, and certainly there is no direct
evidence to the contrary; but Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote have each
of them adherents, and between the two bands of adherents something very far
removed from the utmost harmony prevails.
""
The writer then went on to argue that for the Conservatives it was an
advantage to have their leader in the House of Lords, since that Assembly was the
nucleus of the Tory Party-especially when they were in Opposition. "Under
present circumstances, it is to the House of Lords alone that the Conservatives in
the Commons and in the country look for the maintenance of their principles; for
the rejection or modification of existing legislation; and for an effective control
of a Government which is believed to aim at great constitutional changes. And it
is in the House of Lords that the genius and experience of the Tory Party
are concentrated. The large Tory majority in the Upper House, well and wisely
handled by a Statesman possessing the full confidence of the entire Party in and
out of Parliament, can fulfil these duties with safety and success. These duties,
however, are in many respects delicate, sometimes full of political danger,
and require for their discharge considerable tact and courage. Nothing can be
more destructive of these qualities than the existence in the House of Commons
of a Leader of co-ordinate authority with the statesman who may be leading the
House of Lords."
<
So much for Lord Salisbury. Then came something for Lord Randolph
Churchill: "The expression Tory Democracy' has excited the wonder of some,
the alarm of others, and great and bitter ridicule from the Radical Party. It has,
unfortunately, been subjected to some discredit by having been used by Mr.
Forward, the Conservative candidate at the last Liverpool election, who did not
know what he was talking about. But the Tory Democracy' may yet exist; the
elements for its composition only require to be collected, and the labour may
possibly be effected by the man, whoever he may be, upon whom the mantle
of Elijah has descended.”
6
Ministers had a narrow escape in connection with a Resolution moved by
Mr. Albert Pell calling on them, on behalf of the farmers, to give effect to their
promises to relieve the burden of Local Taxation. Mr. Gladstone refused to enter-
tain a suggestion that would upset the Budget arrangements for the year,
but though he undertook to deal with the subject in the future he only gained a
majority of twelve, the Home Rulers choosing on this occasion to vote with
the regular Opposition. It was, no doubt, to conciliate the farmers, to whom
the Liberals had been considerably indebted at the previous General Election, that
the Government now decided (May 10th) to bring forward and press on their
Agricultural Holdings Bill-a measure which proved to be different in many
NEED FOR SOCIAL LEGISLATION.
success.
particulars from the original draft of the Tenant Right Bill for England and
Scotland. The original proposals had been considerably modified in order to
disarm opposition which in so congested a Session would have been fatal to their
The main feature of the Bill now put forward was to entitle the tenant
to compensation for any unexhausted improvements effected by himself (such
compensation being estimated by their value to the incoming tenant), and to
prevent contracting-out-a compulsory enactment as distinguished from the Per-
missory Act of 1875. Existing contracts were brought within the new scheme
except in cases where compensation was already secured either by a written agree-
ment, or by custom, or by the previous Act. And the Landlord's right of distress,
though not abolished, was limited to the recovery of one year's rent. The Bill
got its Second Reading in the Commons, and the only important modification was
inserted on the Motion of Mr. Arthur Balfour, who carried against the Govern-
ment a proposal that, in cases where the landlord's consent was not required for
an improvement, the compensation awarded should not exceed the sum laid out.
Even this concession was, however, rescinded at the Report stage. In the Lords,
the Second Reading was carried by fifty-five votes against nine, in spite of Lord
Wemyss's protest against what he regarded as an interference with freedom of
contract.
65
In the Committee stage Lord Salisbury carried an Amendment that no com-
pensation should be required in contravention of any existing agreement between
the parties; the Duke of Richmond, one which provided that any part of an
improvement due to the inherent capacities of the soil should not be reckoned as
part of the tenant's improvement; and Lord Exeter, another which extended the
right of distress to the recovery of two years' rent. After ten days' consideration,
Mr. Gladstone announced (August 21st) that the Government would not accept
Lord Salisbury's or Lord Exeter's Amendments, but would practically adopt the
one proposed by the Duke of Richmond. When the Bill came back to the Peers,
Lord Carlingford suggested, by way of compromise on Lord Salisbury's Amend-
ment, that compensation should be excluded when it had been varied by special
agreement. In order to avoid the appearance of dealing with the measure in an
unconciliatory spirit, the Duke of Richmond was willing to agree to this arrange-
ment. On persisting in his own proposal, Lord Salisbury was only supported by a
majority of one vote, and declined, therefore, when the Bill came back to the Peers
a second time, to offer any further resistance. The Corrupt Practices Bill, after a
dilatory discussion in Committee, had reached its Third Reading in the Commons
on July 13th, passed the House of Lords almost without discussion, and with Mr.
Chamberlain's Bankruptcy and Patent Acts, and the Agricultural Holdings Act,
constituted the solid legislative work of the Session.
We have already noticed several occasions and others will occur — in
which Lord Salisbury and Mr. Chamberlain came into oratorical conflict. But
in view of the political alliance which has subsisted for ten years between men
once so strongly opposed, it is interesting to show that upon one point-which
is still a chief bond of union between them-there was substantial consensus,
VOL. IV.
F
p
-
66
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
if not outward harmony. Speaking at Birmingham, in June, 1883, Mr. Chamber-
lain said: "I do not often agree with Lord Salisbury, but I did agree with him
when he said in Birmingham, and again in Southwark, that social reform was
the great problem of our time, and that two of the most important branches of
that reform are the better provision of dwellings for the working-classes in large
towns and an improvement in the condition of the agricultural labourers in the
counties." At this point, however, he diverged to argue that "the so-called rights
of property" stand in the way of such an ideal, until we can rise to a higher
conception of them, and realise how they are limited by the duties of property.
Lord Salisbury took up the challenge without loss of time. Adverting to
the celebration of the twenty-fifth year of Mr. John Bright's first election in Bir-
mingham, he reminded an audience of working-men at Kingston-on-Thames
that Mr. Bright had been compelled to leave the Government.
"Turn your
eyes," he said, "to what is taking place at Birmingham. They are celebrating
the praises of the great advocate of Peace-the denouncer of all wars.
I am
not surprised they do so, for I admit the genius which Mr. Bright has displayed,
the splendid qualities which have adorned his career, the fidelity and conviction
which, under all circumstances, whatever you may think of his opinions--and we,
most of us, differ from them very widely-tend to the honour of the Constituency
which he represents. But you cannot look at that celebration without remember-
ing that these very opinions of Mr. Bright, for which he left the Government,
were among the strongest recommendations of that Government to the Electors in
1880. It was precisely because that Government denounced what they called the
warlike policy of Lord Beaconsfield; it was because they held language which was
pleasing to the advocates of Peace-at-any-Price; because, without committing
themselves to that doctrine in its entirety, they allowed it to be believed that their
tenure of office would be marked by no such military expenditure and military risks
as those which had marked the Government of their predecessors-it was for this
reason they were accepted by vast bodies of Nonconformists in this country. What
is the result? They have annexed, or practically annexed, far more than the
denounced Government of Lord Beaconsfield; they have entered upon far larger
responsibilities, in the way of governing men of other races and religions, than we
ever did; and in the very country where they most denounced us for our action—
in South Africa-they have succeeded in producing, by the policy which they
substituted for ours, a universal reign of anarchy and blood."
The domestic policy of the Government was no better than their foreign.
The only two Parties in the State which deserved mention, said Lord Salisbury,
were the Radicals and the Conservatives. As for the Whigs, he did know what
their opinions were. His impression was that a Whig was a person who
denounced in private the measures which in public he supported. The most
dangerous tendency of Radicalism was to invest the majority with power to
dictate to the minority. It would be, he said, a perfectly intolerable piece of
class legislation if the poor man was forbidden to consume alcoholic liquors on a
Sunday, while a richer man is allowed to do it to his utmost pleasure. Sobriety
((

LIBERALS AND DISINTEGRATION.
is a very good thing, philanthropy is a very good thing; but freedom is better
than either."
67
The same line of argument was developed in a platform speech delivered at the
end of June: "The Party that calls itself Liberal has nothing in common-it has
far less in common than we have-with the Party which called itself Liberal fifty
years ago." Party watchwords were losing their meaning; principles which
Liberals, in common with Conservatives, used to profess to value were now left for
Conservatives to defend and Liberals to condemn. The Liberals of the past had
ARTHUR J. BALFOUR.
been keen defenders of individual freedom; they had been staunch defenders of the
rights of property. These had now become open questions with the Liberal Party,
and everything was sacrificed to the "one dogma that a big crowd may deal with
a smaller crowd exactly at its discretion."
In an article published at this period in the Quarterly Review, and by universal
consent attributed to Lord Salisbury's pen, we find a warning against what the author
regarded as the danger of the time-Disintegration. Half a century ago the
first feeling of all Englishmen was for England. Now the sympathies of a
powerful Party are instinctively given to whatever is against England. It may
66
68
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
be Boers or Baboos, or Russians, or Afghans, or only French speculators-the
treatment these receive in their controversies with England is the same. Whatever
else may fail them, they can always count on the sympathies of the political Party
from whom, during the last half-century, the rulers of England have been mainly
chosen.'
""
The tendency towards Disintegration was even more obvious in domestic policy.
"It is an unfortunate circumstance that, just at the time when the House of
Commons is attaining to a supremacy in the State more decided than it ever
possessed before, it should appear to be entirely losing one of the most necessary
attributes of a Ruler. Our Ruler is no longer an impartial judge between classes who
bring their differences before him for adjustment; our Ruler is an assembly which is
itself the very field of battle on which the contending classes fight out their feuds.
The settlement by Arbitration has given way to the settlement by Civil War-only
it is Civil War with the gloves on. This is not the Parliamentary Government
under which the Nation lived a century ago, when the position of a strong Minister
was secure from the sudden revulsions of feeling in the House of Commons; but,
on the other hand, where his action was controlled by the still vigorous powers of
the Aristocracy and the Crown."
The concession of Home Rule, as a whole, Lord Salisbury believed in 1883
was still impossible, even to the advanced section of the Liberals. The danger was
that, under guise of legitimate indulgences, concessions would be made which
would render Home Rule inevitable. "The resolution to refuse it by instalments
(he wrote, reading too truly the signs of the times), "will vanish from the minds
of bargaining politicians when votes are scarce," and "a final clearance sale of
English rule in Ireland may at any such moment be thrown on the market." The
air was full of rumours of new negotiations and successful bargains. Another
"deed without a name " would place the Irish vote at the disposal of the Govern-
ment for the purposes of a Reform Bill. Lord Salisbury showed how instinctively
he had divined, or how accurately he had been informed of, the intentions of
some of Mr. Gladstone's colleagues. In return for Irish complaisance as to electoral
alterations in England, a Bill, he suggested, would be brought forward for the
establishment of "Local Government in Ireland, which would be conducted
by Elective Councils." The question was, whether the Whigs, who had accepted
so much, would agree to this arrangement also. The inquiry, which at the time it
was thus uttered, seemed almost academic, was soon to be practical and urgent.
""
Towards the end of 1883 the Radicals were busily engaged on their periodical
task of getting up the steam for an agitation against the House of Lords. They
were now feeling their way to the new Reform Bill by which they hoped to
enfranchise the agricultural labourer and bind him to their own Party. It
was, indeed, because they were committed to this enterprise that Mr. Goschen,
though still a Liberal, had declined to join the Ministry. Mr. Gladstone was
sure of his House of Commons, but knew that the real battle would begin when
his measure came before the Peers. It was already understood that they would
not meet the proposal with a blank negative, but would insist that the contemplated
"

REFORM AGITATION.
increase of the electorate should be accompanied by an equitable redistribution of
seats. This would upset all the calculations of the Caucus managers, who imagined
that by flooding the old Constituencies with a mass of inexperienced and presumably
grateful electors they would, at the ensuing General Election, gain another com-
manding majority. Between them and their object stood the House of Lords, so
they resolved to see what could be done by their favourite device of a Grand
Moral Demonstration. The successful Dulcigno experiment was to be repeated at
home. The big guns were mounted on their platforms. Unfortunately, their
adversaries were quite aware that there was no supply of ammunition.
In reply to Mr. Bright's thunder, Lord Salisbury quietly observed, in a speech
BEDD
WHITTINGHAME"-MR. BALFOUR'S RESIDENCE.
69
*****
AS
delivered at Reading in October, that the very same proposals had been made,
half-a-century before, by Daniel O'Connell-yet nobody was a penny the worse.
Mr. Bright had admitted that--unless the feeling of the country rose to the
revolutionary point-the Lords could not be " swept away" until their own assent
had been obtained to such a measure. It was possible, perhaps, to influence that
House to pass other measures by the threat of abolishing it, but by no threat what-
ever could it be induced to vote its own abolition. "Fear of death will induce
men to do other things, but it has never yet induced any man to commit
suicide."
Another passage from the same speech may be cited here because it calls to
mind the most gratuitous of the many mistakes in foreign and Colonial policy
70
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
committed by the Government-the restoration of the unhappy Cetewayo to a
position he was no longer able to hold. "So far as I can understand," Lord
Salisbury said, "he was sent out to that country for no other reason than because
it gave the opportunity of reversing the policy of the late Government, and also
of showing the great contempt of those now in power for any promises or pledges
given by those who preceded them. We have affronted those who have supported
us. We brought Cetewayo back here-I believe in order that by the sight of all
that this country has to show he might be deeply impressed with British majesty
and power. I should like to enter into his mind now, and see what his conception
of British majesty and power is at this moment. We hear to-day that his neigh-
bours, the Transvaal Government, are also in process of having explained to them
the reality of British majesty and power. A deputation has come over here to
receive the abandonment of the Convention-that Convention which you will
remember was adopted in fulfilment of a pledge given by the Government that they
would restore the Queen's authority in the Transvaal. That Convention is the
solitary obstacle that prevents the forty thousand white people in the Transvaal from
trampling on the rights and property of the half-million blacks who inhabit that
country and the numberless tribes on the frontier, and you know that that Conven-
tion will be abandoned as readily as the former claims of England were."
Lord Hartington had recently reproached the Conservative Ministry with not
keeping up friendly relations with the French Republic. Lord Salisbury did not
admit the charge-the two Governments had remained on amicable terms. But what
sort of success had been attained by Lord Hartington's colleagues? It should
here be mentioned that the French intrigues in Madagascar had this year led to
an open breach with the Hovas. War-ships had arrived there in February.
Majunga was bombarded on May 24th, and Tamatave, though it offered no resis-
tance, was treated with similar roughness. This, however, was a matter between
the Hovas and the French, and, after our exploits at Alexandria, it did not behove
us to say much on the score of humanity. But Admiral Pierre thought proper—
or erroneously believed that he was instructed-to order the British Consul to
remove his flag within twenty-four hours; and, on his refusal, it was hauled
down by the French. Captain Johnson, of H.M.S. Dryad, was forbidden to
communicate with the shore. The mail steamer Taymouth Castle was boarded by
the French, and the outgoing Consular Despatches were demanded by the Admiral.
He was only prevented from taking them by Captain Johnson, who put them
on board the Taymouth Castle and escorted her to sea through the French Fleet.
Finally, an English Missionary, Mr. Shaw, was arrested and kept in confine-
ment.
These outrages on international comity, amounting, indeed, to acts of war,
were too flagrant to be condoned by the French Government. Admiral Pierre
was recalled, Mr. Shaw was released and compensated, and a sort of apology was
tendered to Great Britain. "We are carefully informed," said Lord Salisbury,
"that the French Government has apologised in a stiff and uncourteous spirit, and
it appears that our Government has replied in a similar tone." Was Lord

THE ILBERT BILL.
-
Hartington satisfied with such a result? Nor had the Government been
more successful in other negotiations with the Republic. They had been
unable to renew the Treaty of Commerce; they could not get decent terms
for the extension of the Suez Canal; from Tonking to Madagascar, from the
Congo to Newfoundland, we were involved in difficulties with our impulsive
neighbours.
In view of the revived agitation against the Corporation of the City of London,
it may be interesting to read some of the remarks which, twelve years ago, Lord
Salisbury made upon the subject at the City Carlton Club. "It is absurd," he
said, "to think of it as if it were a question of Self-Government. Nobody
grudges the various communities which exist in the Metropolis the most complete
forms of Self-Government which they can desire. The question is not between Self-
Government and no Self-Government,
but whether you are to have a vast
heterogeneous, ill-compacted area, or
whether each community is to have
the privilege of governing itself. We
are told that nothing can be done
until the present anarchy of London is
relieved; but if it is anarchy that
Finsbury should not be governed by
the same Municipality as that which
governs the City of London, I do not
see where the matter is to stop. The
Metropolis is an enormous aggregation
of human beings, and no Municipality
in the country can be cited as a guide
for its future organization. It differs
from other Municipalities in every
respect; even from the largest towns
in the country. It has not grown up,
as they have, from a common centre by a common law of growth. Greenwich and
London were not originally united, as some people seemed to imagine; they have
grown up separately, and have been included for certain purposes in a common
area, but there is no community of citizenship or of social life between them, and
there is scarcely any community of interest between those who inhabit the extreme
West and the extreme East of this vast Metropolis. What will be the effect of
putting them all under one Municipality? There seems to be an idea that you
make municipal power in proportion as you make a large Municipality. The truth
is the other way.
If you do make it large, you, in proportion, diminish its power
of doing business."
The Indian frontier was somewhat disturbed this year by internal dissensions
in Afghanistan, and by the continued excesses of King Theebaw of Burmah.
But the most serious- and most wanton-disturbance in the affairs of our
71
CETEWAYO.
72
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
greatest Dependency was caused by the introduction of the measure which came to
be known as the Ilbert Bill.
Not content with his efforts to elevate the masses in India, by introducing
western principles of Representative Government, Lord Ripon, early in 1883,
blindly adopted a proposal for making Indians still more like Europeans by
depriving the latter of the cherished right of being tried by Judges of their own
race. Down to the year 1872, no Englishman in India could be deprived of life
or liberty on a criminal charge, unless he was convicted by a Jury of his fellow-
countrymen. When, in that year, it was proposed to render Englishmen liable to
be sentenced for certain offences without the verdict of a Jury, the Anglo-Indian
community not unreasonably asked for, and presently obtained, the right of being
tried by English Judges in cases wherein before this time they had a right to
trial by Jury. This was part of the personal law of Anglo-Indians, just as the
rules in regard to searching Zenanas form part of a personal law for natives. In
Lord Ripon's opinion, however, the compromise of 1872 involved an invidious
distinction between the two races. In order to remove it, the Bill to amend
the Criminal Procedure Code was drafted and brought before the Legislative
Council. The formal motion, asking for leave to introduce the measure, was moved
on February 2nd, 1883, by Mr. Courtenay Ilbert, the Legal member of Council.
In the storm of indignation that followed, ill-feelings between Englishmen and
Indians were generated which it will take another generation to appease. The
mistake made by Lord Ripon might have been condoned had he recognised it in
time; but he lacked the discretion that would have enabled him to retreat with
dignity from a false position. The unofficial element in the English population,
planters, merchants, tradesfolk and others first raised the cry of opposition. They
were, more or less, openly supported both by the Army and the Civil Service,
Public meetings were held all over India, Defence Leagues were started, and it was
even whispered that a conspiracy was on foot for kidnapping the Governor-General
and sending him back to England under escort! The end of all the commotion
was another compromise. The Bill, as amended and passed, rendered Europeans
liable to be tried by a native Judge, but gave them the right of asking for a Jury
of Europeans.
The political interest of the year 1884-all that was not distracted by anxiety
about the fate of Gordon-was centred on the struggle over the Reform Bill.
The issue was broad and intelligible; both Parties were in deadly earnest; and
the contest soon assumed a personal character. Lord Salisbury now came forward
as the fighting leader of the Conservative Party. As in 1880 the protagonists had
been Mr. Gladstone and Lord Beaconsfield, so in 1884 they were Mr. Gladstone
and Lord Salisbury; and the Liberal veteran found-with surprise and perhaps
with pleasure that he had to deal with an adversary not less determined and
resourceful than the one with whom he had so often divided the honours of war.
On Mr. Gladstone's side was a majority in the House of Commons, practically un-
impaired, well disciplined, and in domestic policy confident of their cause; while
Lord Salisbury's supporters were, if the truth must be told, weakened by internal

REFORM AGITATION.
73
dissension, influenced many of them by Tory Democrats who wished to buy popu-
Slow.
larity by outbidding Radicalism, and by fatalists and mere time-servers who wanted
AMBOHIMANGA. HOLY CITY OF THE HOVAS.
74
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
to sit down and "accept the inevitable." The strength of Conservatism lay in its
second line of defence-in the House of Lords. Though that body was not likely
to shrink from the responsibility that seemed about to be imposed on it, Lord Salis-
bury realised that it would be bad generalship to allow a conflict to be brought
about between the two Houses on the question of electoral reform. That was the
ground on which the Liberals at this juncture were anxious to offer battle, and all
his strategy was employed in drawing the enemy, so far as he might, out of what
they naturally regarded as a favourable position.
Since he could not take part in the Debates in the House of Commons, and was
unwilling, as we have seen, to reserve his energy for the House of Lords, Lord
Salisbury, whose sympathies and prejudices are so widely separate from those of the
demagogue, devoted himself to the public platform. If there must in the end be a
quarrel between the popular and the hereditary Chamber, the country should
hear both sides: argument be met with argument, agitation with defiance, and
invective with satire. He lost no time in defining his attitude. On January
16th, 1884, he declared at Dorchester that he should oppose the Government
scheme. The Bill had not yet been presented to Parliament, but the main pro-
visions were matters of common knowledge. In the shape in which Ministers
then contemplated bringing it forward-as an extension of the Franchise without
a Redistribution of Seats-he expressed an ominous belief that it would not pass
in the current year, and he especially protested against lowering the electoral
qualification in Ireland. We should be placing in the hands of the disaffected a
weapon the blows of which Parliamentary Government had no armour strong
enough to repel.
The apprehension thus expressed was, it should be mentioned, justified by the
revival of disorder in that country, and, in the mind of many prudent politicians,
this consideration outweighed the odium which would be incurred by treating the
Irish as if they stood on a lower level of intelligence than the other inhabitants of
the United Kingdom. On the meeting of Parliament, the Queen's Speech simply
described the chief measure of the Session as one for enlarging the Occupation
Franchise throughout the United Kingdom. The early days of the Session were
taken up with repeated attacks on the Government policy in Egypt, and it
was not till February 29th that Mr. Gladstone obtained an opportunity of
explaining his proposals. He took his stand on the broad principle "that the
enfranchisement of capable citizens, be they few or many-and if they be
many so much the better-is an addition to the strength of the State." Who
then were capable citizens? The question had been settled in the case of towns by
giving a vote to every householder. The Government proposed to put the county
population on the same footing. The Bill was, in fact, one for the enfranchisement
of the agricultural labourer.
So far as it professed to go, the measure was, it must be admitted, thorough.
But, while largely altering the electoral balance in every County Constituency, it
made no attempt to rearrange the political divisions so that representation should,
as far as possible, be governed by population. It remedied one anomaly, and
THE CONSERVATIVE ATTITUDE.
75
created another, probably of greater magnitude. Mr. Gladstone admitted that
Redistribution ought to follow in the next Session. But he declined to incor-
porate it with his present scheme. Nor would he state in what way the Govern-
ment intended to deal with the second problem. That was a trap he declined to
be drawn into!
He had no objection to explaining his personal views. He did not favour the
idea of Equal Electoral Districts; he believed in retaining the existing distinction
between Boroughs and Shires; he would respect the individuality of Constitu-
encies; he would not give to large and concentrated populations, like that of
London, as high a proportional share of power as to rural and dispersed popu-
lations; he would not reduce the representation of Ireland. He thought that
many of the Boroughs in the South of England would have to give up seats for
the benefit of London, the Counties, and Scotland and the North of England.
Finally, these changes would involve "a certain limited addition" to the number
of members. This statement must not, however, be taken as binding on Mr.
Gladstone's colleagues; it was merely an expression of his own views at the
present moment. Indefinite as it was, it revealed quite enough to justify the
Conservative Party in fighting, tooth-and-nail, an arrangement which would be so
disastrous to their own interests. It was a coincidence, of course, not an instance
of design. But it did so happen that the changes which Mr. Gladstone favoured
would strengthen the Radicals, while those he discountenanced would be likely to
assist the Conservatives.
What the Opposition were now invited to submit to was that the Government
should swamp the old Constituencies with a flood of new Electors in 1884, and
in 1885 rearrange them to suit their own convenience. If the House of Lords
accepted the Franchise Bill of 1884, they would be powerless to resist any kind
of Redistribution Bill which Ministers chose to put forward in 1885.
If they
rejected the latter, the Liberal Government would threaten to dissolve Parlia-
ment on an Electorate they had just packed with men whom they regarded
as bound to themselves by a sense of gratitude. It was to defeat this ingenious
calculation that Lord Salisbury took up and maintained the attitude which his
adversaries found so embarrassing. To the Enfranchisement by itself he declined.
to say
either Yes or No. He would agree to it if it were combined with Redistri-
bution; otherwise he would advise his colleagues in the House of Lords to
reject it.
Those were the terms he offered Mr. Gladstone. If Mr. Glad-
stone did not like them, he knew what to do he could dissolve Parliament,
and appeal to the country against the Peers. But that was precisely the course
Mr. Gladstone did not wish, and did not intend, to follow. It might be a very good
cry to denounce the House of Lords for rejecting Enfranchisement, but no capital
could be got by complaining that they insisted on Redistribution. The position
taken by Lord Salisbury was too strong, both in logic and rhetoric, to be carried
by storm; the word was accordingly given that he was, if possible, to be driven
out of it by menace. An organized attempt was made to intimidate the Peers by
vague threats of what could be done to them if they resisted the will of the people
;
76
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
-meaning by "people" the Liberal Party. But Lord Salisbury was quite aware
of a distinction which was overlooked by the Caucus enthusiasts, and his nerves
were too steady to be shaken by volleys of blank cartridge.
Speaking at Lillie Bridge, soon after the introduction of the Franchise Bill,
he declared that the Conservative programme could be summed up in four words.
-Appeal to the People. In fact, he dared the Ministry to go to the country on the
measure they were now trying to force through Parliament. Acting on this policy,
Lord John Manners brought forward, on the Second Reading Debate, an Amendment
declaring that the House declined to proceed with the Franchise Bill until it had
before it the full details of the Government scheme of Parliamentary Reform. It was
not expected that this proposal would detach many of the normal supporters of the
Ministry. Mr. Goschen and Sir John Ennis were the only Liberals who voted
with the Opposition, and the Amendment was defeated by a majority of 130-340
against 210—the Home Rulers going with the Government in consideration of
Ireland being included in the Bill. The Liberals were so exultant at these figures,
that Sir William Harcourt, in a speech at Derby, ventured to prophesy that the
Lords would not throw out a Bill backed by so preponderant a majority in the
House of Commons.
Lord Salisbury retorted, at Manchester, that the only explanation of the great
majority gained by Ministers was that they had squared the Irish. The bid was
somewhat barefaced, the bargain somewhat naked, but, the end having been gained,
the less said about it the better. It was to the Conservatives a matter of life and
death that the proposed Enfranchisement should be accompanied by an equitable
scheme of Redistribution, and they had, he added, good reason to distrust the
intentions of the Government. He ridiculed the suggestion that the Lords would
make themselves unpopular by insisting upon an appeal to the country, and taunted
the Liberals with being afraid of a Dissolution.
The Bill had not passed through Committee at Whitsuntide, and before the
House rose for the Recess, Mr. Gladstone found it necessary to declare that the
Government would not accept any Amendments which would extend or reduce
their proposals. "We must go straight to our point," he said, "and we must
decline to deviate either to the right or the left for the sake of introducing
theoretical improvements.'
""
The Third Reading Debate was reached on June 26th, and Mr. Gladstone
seized the occasion to utter a few last words of caution for the benefit of the
Peers. He drew loud cheers and counter-cheers by assuming that the attitude
of Ministers was expressed in the words, "Beware of entrance to a quarrel;
but, being in, bear't that the opposed may beware of thee." A collision
between the two Houses of Parliament on such a question would open up a
ospect more serious than any he remembered since the first Reform Bill,
and though he had no fear of the result he looked forward to the consequences
with the gravest apprehension. Sir Stafford Northcote made light of these
veiled menaces, and Mr. Arthur Balfour, who had already risen to a prominent
place as a debater, declared that it would no longer be worth lifting a finger
THE BILL REJECTED BY THE PEERS.
77
to defend the House of Lords if it were to be considered incapable of giving
an opinion on a great constitutional innovation. Shortly afterwards, the Bill
was read a third time in the House of Commons, and on the next evening was
introduced into the House of Lords.
On the Second Reading an Amendment, similar in effect to that of Lord John
Manners in the other House, was moved by Lord Cairns-that the Peers, while
ready to concur in "a well-considered and complete scheme for the extension of
the franchise," could not assent to the present Bill, which did not provide for
"the full and free representation of the people," and was not accompanied by any
adequate security that it should not come into operation except as an entire
scheme."
There was no doubt that, constitutionally, the Lords would be acting well
within their rights by insisting upon such a guarantee as was suggested by Lord
Cairns, but the general opinion at the time was that they had miscalculated their
strength, and would be forced in the end to accept the Bill as it stood. This view
was maintained by Peers like the Duke of Argyll and Lord Cowper, Liberals who
had seceded from Mr. Gladstone but still adhered to their old principles, the former
arguing that to reject the Bill would be interpreted as hostility towards Reform,
and the latter suggesting that they might be accused of wishing to force a Dissolu-
tion. These timid counsels were repudiated by Lord Carnarvon, a statesman whose
repeated failures in administration did not impair his reputation for political
insight. He laughed at the "monotonous, stupid, and ridiculous threats" uttered
against the House of Lords. He did not believe the country would be angry
with them for rejecting the Bill. The political clubs might be angry, but it was
to the decision of the country that the House wished to refer the question. He
taunted a Government which professed to be popular with its fear of appealing
to "the source of its strength," and plainly suggested that this extraordinary
reluctance could only be accounted for by their consciousness of the dissatisfaction
caused by their Foreign Policy. Lord Rosebery strongly advised the Peers not to
meddle in a matter which primarily concerned the Commons. They had much to
lose and nothing to gain by accepting Lord Cairns' Amendment. He expressed
his belief that they would have to accept the Bill if it were presented to them a
second time, and on that occasion the Leader of the Opposition might find his
army fading away from him. He reminded the House that Lord Salisbury knew
what it was to lead a storming party and find himself alone in the breach. The
Bill was further supported by Archbishop Tait, who declared that the Church
trusted the people.
C
Lord Salisbury retorted that the Episcopal bench had no monopoly in admira-
tion of the working-man, or in the desire to secure his political advancement.
Throughout his speech he refused to adopt the solemn tone of those who believed
that a great crisis was impending. He dwelt on the details of the Franchise Bill
itself, as if no question had been raised affecting the House of Lords, and pointed
out that, in their references to a future scheme of Redistribution, Lord Selborne and
Lord Derby had shown no intention of pressing it with vigour. Nor would it
78
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
avail to consent to a Second Reading and insert Amendments in Committee-
they had already had considerable experience of the value of passing Amendments
in Committee. As for the Ministerial promise to introduce a Redistribution Bill
in 1885, what the Conservatives wanted was not merely a Bill, but the power of
modifying an unjust one. If the Government wanted they could end the
difficulty at once. All they had to do was to insert a clause providing that the
Act should not come into operation without Redistribution. If they refused to
take that course, the whole responsibility for what might happen rested with them-
selves. In conclusion, he made fun of the heroic tone adopted by some adherents
of the Government, Lord Rosebery in particular, and laughed at reminiscences of
the rioting in 1832, and at the legend that the Houses of Parliament were built
by the side of the river in order that the Conservatives might escape by penny
steamboats if the people should arise against them. He referred with malicious
humour to the Archbishop of Canterbury of that day having to get away by a
back-door because he had voted against Reform—a circumstance which, perhaps,
accounted for the alacrity with which his successor had supported the present
measure.
The Debate was wound up by Lord Granville, and the Amendment, which
amounted, of course, to a rejection of the Bill, was carried by 205 votes against
146. The result was no surprise. But what was to follow it? The Liberals had
dared" the Lords to throw the Bill out. What was to be done now that the
challenge had been taken up? The natural alternatives before Mr. Gladstone
were to drop the Bill, to send it back to the Peers at a special Autumn Session, to
dissolve Parliament and appeal to the country, or finally, to meet the views of the
House of Lords, and bring in a joint scheme for extending the Franchise and
redistributing the Constituencies. The last course was not to be thought of—at
least, not for the present. None of the other three quite commended themselves
to the mind of Ministers. Was there not any other way out of the difficulty?
So long as Lord Salisbury stood to his position, and was supported by a majority
in the Upper House, the Government were impotent. But was there no means of
detaching some of his supporters ?
An ingenious device was hit upon. A meeting of the Liberal Party was held
at the Foreign Office on July 10th, at which, after a general criticism of the recent
action of the Peers, Mr. Gladstone came to the real gist and object of his speech.
For the first time he now revealed that on the second evening of the Debate,
while the fate of the Bill was in suspense, a compromise had been offered to Lord
Salisbury on behalf of the Government, and that it had been rejected by him.
The proposal, Mr. Gladstone explained, was "to pass an identical Resolution in
both Houses declaring that each House had passed the Bill in reliance on the
promise of the Government to introduce a Redistribution Bill next Session, and to
embody this Resolution in an Address to the Crown, so that all three elements of
the Legislature would be in possession of this pledge." Lord Salisbury, Mr.
Gladstone said, had rejected the compromise on the ground that he "was not
going to discuss the Redistribution Bill with a rope round his neck.”
((
•

"SECRET NEGOTIATIONS."
The offer had, in fact as was shown by subsequent explanations made in both
Houses-been communicated, on behalf of Mr. Gladstone, by Lord Granville to
Lord Cairns. In order to avoid any mistake, Lord Cairns had asked Lord Gran-
ville to put his proposal in writing, and later in the evening had returned the
paper, having shown it to Lord Salisbury, with the observation that the offer was
not satisfactory. What the Conservative leader would accept would be an Amend-
ment "either (1) that the Bill should come into operation on a day to be named in a
subsequent Act of Parliament, or (2) should come into operation on January 1st, 1886,
unless an earlier date was named in an Act of Parliament to be passed next Session."
This counter proposal Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville interpreted as a refusal
of their own proposal, and there, for the time, the matter dropped.
Why was it disclosed at the Liberal meeting on July 10th? We need not go
into the question whether the communications were originally intended to be con-
COVENTRY
FREECE
FREE
79
THE FOREIGN OFFICE.
da
fidential. They had been so regarded by Lord Salisbury and Lord Cairns, the
latter of whom declared that he would sooner cut off his hand than speak of
them to anyone without permission, while Lord Salisbury complained that the
fight against the Peers was being conducted with "poisoned weapons." We may
fairly assume that on this point there was an honest difference of opinion between
Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville on one side, and Lord Salisbury and Lord
Cairns on the other-especially as Lord Granville confessed that, after his offer
had been rejected by Lord Cairns, he had shown it to another Conservative Peer
who was anxious not to vote against the Bill, but who had declined the proposed
compromise as insufficient. There is no reason to suppose that, in making a public
disclosure of these personal communications, Mr. Gladstone had wilfully committed
a breach of confidence.
He was certainly inaccurate in the language he attributed to Lord Salisbury,
80
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
who characterised as an
utter fabrication " the statement that he had refused to
"discuss Redistribution with a rope round his neck," and in this emphatic
disclaimer he was borne out by the positive recollections of Sir Stafford North-
cote and Lord Cairns. This, however, was a minor question, though it caused
some heat at the time. The intention of Mr. Gladstone, in his speech at the
Foreign Office, was to suggest that the Government had offered a reasonable com-
promise, and to excite odium against the Conservative Leaders for having rejected
it. It was well known that in the House of Lords there were many timid Con-
servatives who, though certainly opposed to the Bill, were looking out for an
excuse for not voting against it. If they could be won over by a show of Minis-
terial moderation, or by charging the Opposition Leaders with obstinacy, the Bill
might be presented, a second time, with a better chance of passing.
Besides this tactical object, legitimate in its way, was the probability that
some of Lord Salisbury's followers in the Upper House would resent the fact that
he had ever entertained the proposal of Mr. Gladstone; some who would complain
that it had not been submitted to their own consideration; and others who would
blame him for not having accepted them forthwith. Outside critics often say
that Lord Salisbury is a dictator in the House of Lords, but, as a matter of fact,
no Conservative Leader in that assembly has anything approaching to the
authority wielded by a Prime Minister over his supporters in the House of
Commons. The Peer on the front bench, or the Peer who wishes to sit upon it, is,
no doubt, subject to the same political motives as an ambitious politician in
the other House; but the rank and file of the Peers on either side are absolutely
impervious to the ordinary influences of political life, the instruments of Party
pressure, and the exigencies of Party discipline. They are most of them wealthy
men: their social position is assured: they have no constituents to gratify or to
offend. They can be led only by those who succeed in convincing them of their
interest or their duty, and they are apt, many of them, to rebel against any
semblance of interfering with their personal independence. They give their votes
as seems good to them, and often repudiate even the mildest form of that pressure
which is obeyed, as a matter of course, by the more disciplined" members of
an elective assembly.
(6
To explain the real facts about the "secret negotiations" between the leaders
of the two Parties, as distinguished from the incomplete account given of them by
Mr. Gladstone at the Foreign Office on July 10th, it has been necessary to antici-
pate the full elucidation subsequently obtained. We may now return to the
historical sequence of events. On July 11th, having done his best to discredit the
official chiefs of the Conservative Party, Mr. Gladstone, in a speech at the Eighty
Club, made an ingenious bid for the support of their wavering followers.
Ministers, he said, would endeavour to avoid raising "any ulterior question of
organic change"-an agitation, i.e., against the House of Lords-"until and
unless (which God forbid) experience shall finally prove that a hard and irresistible
necessity compels it." They wished to have the Bill reconsidered, not to have it
carried by "storm and tempest." He hinted that many of the Peers who had
INTRIGUES AND DEMONSTRATIONS.
81
voted against it had done so with serious misgivings, and he wished to provide
them with a locus penitentia.
The manœuvre proved Mr. Gladstone's consummate mastery of Parliamentary
tactics. It tickled the Englishman's natural taste for compromise; it conceded
the shadow and withheld the substance; and it was so far successful that Lord
Wemyss at once declared his intention to move a Resolution to the effect that
the House of Lords "being now in possession of full knowledge of all that has
passed with reference to the Franchise Bill," and having already "accepted its
principle," is of opinion that it should be reconsidered "with a view of its being
passed in the present Session." It was further suggested that Parliament should
be assembled in October to consider the Redistribution Bill promoted by the
Government. The terms actually adopted by Lord Wemyss were ultimately some-
what different, but as they amounted to a practical surrender Lord Salisbury, on
July 14th, intimated that he would resist the Motion, and at a meeting of the
Conservative Party held the next day he impressed his policy upon the bulk
of those who attended it. When Lord Wemyss brought up his Resolution
on the 17th, it was rejected by a majority of 50-182 against 132—and
the fate of the Franchise Bill was sealed for the Session. One or two further
invitations were given to Ministers to reconsider their attitude, the Conservatives
offering every facility for dealing with a joint scheme of Franchise Extension and
Redistribution of Constituencies. But Lord Granville was allowed to repeat that
the Government still insisted on priority being given to the former Bill before
the latter could be introduced. And a similar intimation was subsequently made
by Lord Kimberley.
The fact was that Ministers, or the Party managers, had determined to see
what could be done by a popular agitation. A Grand Monster Demonstration
was convened for July 21st, the procession assembling on the Thames Embank-
ment and marching along Parliament Street, Charing Cross, Pall Mall, and
Piccadilly, to Hyde Park. The numbers were estimated by enthusiasts as any-
thing between 100,000 and 250,000; by sceptics at 20,000 or 30,000. The
display was nominally got up in the interest of the agricultural labourers, and it
appeared that some representatives of that class were really included in the Dele-
gates from the Home Counties. But though this performance was, on a smaller
scale, repeated many times in other parts of the country, it was not considered
to throw much light on the constitutional question. It did not disturb the
equanimity of level-headed Conservatives.
VOL. IV.
Speaking at Sheffield on July 22nd, Lord Salisbury ridiculed Mr. Gladstone
for throwing aside all the labours of the Session just because he had failed to force
his Franchise Bill through Parliament. It was like the conduct of a man who,
having been involved in some domestic quarrel, "broke all the crockery to show
how much he felt it." The Lords had only done their duty in preventing the
Government from so manipulating the Constituencies as to secure their perpetual
retention in office. The House of Commons was the most servile ever assembled
at Westminster-most servile to the Prime Minister, most servile to the Caucus.
Ꮐ
&
82
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Ministers dared not appeal to the country on their quarrel with the House of Lords,
because they would have to face a reckoning in all their mismanagement at home
and abroad-deluded hopes, broken promises, unnecessary bloodshed, injury to
national power and prestige, a distracted Empire, and a discontented Ireland.
They were now descending to the streets and asking for processions. They
imagined that 30,000 Radicals going to amuse themselves in London on a given
day would be taken as the opinion of the country. A Party might speak by
processions and demonstrations, but a nation could only speak at the polling
booths. Any attempt to substitute a counterfeit voice manufactured by the
Caucus would be indignantly repudiated when the people had an opportunity of
using their real voice.
The position of the Government was forcibly stated at Manchester by Lord
Hartington and Mr. John Bright, the former complaining that the action of the
Peers amounted to a claim to dictate when and at what time a Dissolution of Parlia-
ment should take place. The claim has never been put forward-it has been
frequently repudiated by Lord Salisbury; but the charge does, it must be
admitted, contain a certain plausibility. As a matter of fact, what does happen
when the Lords reject a measure to which the Government of the day attach
importance is that the Prime Minister is placed between two alternatives: either
he must drop the Bill or he must appeal to the country. But this is only
another way of saying that the Lords have a Veto on legislation, and that they
will withdraw it on receiving a distinct expression of the national will. There is
no claim, direct or indirect, to hamper the discretion of the Prime Minister in the
exercise of the Crown's prerogative.
،
The case for the Opposition was carried on by Lord Salisbury, in a series of
addresses which he delivered in Scotland in the early autumn. At Glasgow, on
September 30th, he replied to Mr. Gladstone's recent allegation, that the present
issue between the two Houses would not have been raised if Lord Beaconsfield had
been alive. <<
Mr. Gladstone," he said, “ is very fond of quoting Lord Beaconsfield's
authority, now that Lord Beaconsfield is no more. I remember the first thing.
that Mr. Gladstone said directly Lord Beaconsfield was dead: he said that the
opposition to the Irish Land Bill was the consequence of the death of Lord
Beaconsfield.' I had in my possession at that moment a letter from Lord Beacons-
field, written a few months before his death, in which he said that nothing could
have induced him to accept the three F's-the principle of the Irish Land Act.”
"It was just the same," Lord Salisbury added, "in the present instance. He had
frequently conversed on the very subject with Lord Beaconsfield, because he had
always foreseen that the Liberals would try to play this trick,' and he always
warned us that we must resist to the utmost, with every means in our power, the
attempt to separate Franchise from Redistribution."
،
The effect of Lord Salisbury's declarations, supported as he now was by prac-
tically the whole Conservative Party, was to convince the Liberal leaders that he
meant to fight the matter out. The first sign of the coming Ministerial surrender
was given in a speech delivered by Lord Hartington at Rawtenstall. Referring
THE GOVERNMENT SCHEME PUBLISHED.
""
83
to Lord Salisbury's demand that a Redistribution Bill should be introduced next
Session, Lord Hartington said that such a course was "not impossible " if-on seeing
the draft and being satisfied that it was founded on fair principles-the Peers
would reconsider the Franchise Bill, and then join with the Government in deal-
ing with the Redistribution Bill. The suggestion, Lord Hartington addel, was
quite unofficial, but in such an arrangement he could see "some of the elements of
a compromise.'
Mr. Chamberlain followed on the same line. Like Lord Hartington, he declared
that the Government would never yield to Lord Salisbury's demand, and then
proceeded to show exactly how far they were prepared to climb down. "Unless
we produce a Redistribution Bill which is satisfactory to him, Lord Salisbury says
he will refuse to allow the Franchise Extension Bill to proceed, and he will
endeavour to force a Dissolution upon us." To yield to so arrogant a proposal
would not be compromise-it would be surrender. "As long as Lord Salisbury
maintains his present attitude, any transaction with him is impossible." But
there were moderate men in the Tory camp who could no longer follow Lord
Salisbury if they were satisfied that the Redistribution Scheme was a fair one. Το
the views of such politicians, Mr. Chamberlain thought, "every attention should be
paid." The Government would give every assurance and every information that
was fairly required to satisfy their doubts. But they could not jeopardise their
Franchise Bill. "The prime condition must be, the Franchise Bill shall be passed.
We cannot play with the rights of two millions of people. We cannot tamper
with the hopes which have been exerted. It is said that the Lords will not give
way. Then, I say, neither will the people submit."
This, then, was the position. The Government would give general informa-
tion, but nothing would induce them to show the draft of their Bill, which they
had under lock and key. The Peers replied that they would see that mysterious
draft before they committed themselves to the Franchise Bill. To all appearances,
the two Parties were as far as ever from coming to an agreement. At this point
a strange thing happened. The Ministerial scheme of Redistribution, drawn up
by a Committee consisting of Lord Hartington, Sir Charles Dilke, and Mr. Shaw-
Lefevre the document which was never to see the light until the Peers gave
way-was, the very morning after Mr. Chamberlain's declaration, published in
The Standard; not a mere outline of the plan, but the plan itself, with its details
set out in extenso. Technically, of course, it was not the Government Bill, since it
had not yet been formally presented to the Cabinet. But any doubts as to the
authenticity of the document were set at rest by the terms in which it was officially
disclaimed. It was, in fact, as afterwards became evident, an accurate reproduc-
tion of the scheme which the Government had in hand.
A good deal of vain curiosity was exercised in conjecturing how and why the
publication came about. But the effect of it was undoubtedly convenient to
the Government. Ministers were now relieved from the necessity of continuing
their struggle with Lord Salisbury. He had got all he wanted, but he had got it
without their giving. Thus was their honour saved. Their indignation at the
84
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
divulgation of their plan was modified, perhaps, by the practical convenience of
being enabled to get out of the awkward fix they had brought themselves into-of
retiring from the field without confessing defeat.
It is unnecessary here to give more than a brief summary of the Ministerial
scheme. Briefly, it merged in the Counties 72 Boroughs with a population below
10,000 in each case; it took away one member from 40 Boroughs with a double
representation, whose population was below 40,000; it gave 54 new members to
the Counties, and 47 to various large towns (25 to London); it created 7 new
Boroughs, 2 with double and 5 with single representation; it extinguished all the
three-cornered Constituencies except the City of London; and it divided into
wards, each returning 2 members, all Constituencies which returned 4 or 6
members. The plan was afterwards so largely modified that there is no need to
discuss what its political effects would have been except to mention that, in Lord
Salisbury's opinion, it would have "effaced those rural populations which suffered
too much disadvantage under the existing system, and were not represented at all
in proportion to their numbers." In the same speech (at Kelso) he expressed his
belief that the House of Lords would adhere to their position about the Franchise
Bill, and refuse to pass it unless it was accompanied by a fair Redistribution Bill.
"We are asked," he said, "to give the Government a blank cheque, and in
exchange for it they will give us a cheque without a signature." Lord Hartington
retorted at Chatsworth that the Conservative demand amounted to saying, "Give
us a Redistribution Bill which shall be to the advantage of the Tory Party or you
shall have no Franchise Bill."
The war of words was carried on by Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain,
and Sir Charles Dilke on one side, and by Sir Stafford Northcote and Lord Ran-
dolph Churchill on the other. The agitation of the Recess was wound up, on the
day before the meeting of Parliament for the Winter Session, by Lord Salisbury
at Dumfries (October 22nd). Ministers, he said, were trying to treat the people
of England" as if they were babies in arms. Those who have domestic experi-
ence may know that the way of making a baby take medicine is to pinch its nose
and to insert a drenching-spoon into its mouth, and in that way the baby is made
to take the medicine to which it would otherwise object. That is precisely the
process her Majesty's Government propose to apply to the House of Commons.
They propose, by means of this Parliamentary drenching-spoon, to force down the
throats of the House of Commons the medicine which they know very well, if the
House of Commons had the opportunity of unbiassed judgment, it would decline
to accept."
-
In spite of the strong feeling displayed on the platforms by both sides, it
became clear, when Parliament met on October 23rd, that a compromise would be
eventually arranged, and that the Leaders were only standing out on details.
Though the Queen's Speech made no reference to any but the Franchise Bill, Lord
Salisbury, in quoting the sentence which asked for "calm consideration" of that
measure, thought himself justified in inferring that the Opposition had made
converts in the Government, and that a Redistribution Bill would be " 'pushed

STEPS TOWARDS COMPROMISE.
forward." Mr. Gladstone, however, in the other House, persisted that the majority
in the Commons must prevail against that in the Lords. The next day he intro-
duced the Franchise Bill in its original form, and on November 7th the Second
Reading was carried by a majority of 140. This success in the House em-
boldened Ministers and led Mr. Gladstone, who had previously thrown out vague
hints of conciliation, into adopting his most hectoring tone, while the Conserva-
tives were encouraged by a striking victory at a bye-election in South Warwick-
shire.
When the Bill had got through its final stages, and was formally introduced
(November 13th) in the House of Lords, its prospects seemed little better than
in July. On the 17th, however, Lord Granville announced that the Govern-
ment would make their Redistribution Bill a subject of friendly communication
HADIR & OPINAT
Kanigh
Wochenstupa Warne
KELSO.
WORTH t
85
红牛
​MuW
with the Opposition, if the latter would give an assurance that the Franchise Bill
should pass at an early date in the Session; and a similar statement was made by
Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons.
This was a step forward. But it was not enough. In order, however, not to
interpose unnecessary misunderstanding, Lord Salisbury deputed Mr. Arthur
Balfour to see Lord Hartington. The result was most important. The Govern-
ment now agreed to go into consultation on Redistribution. This, as Lord
Salisbury explained, would enable the Opposition, if an agreement were reached,
to give an assurance as to the Franchise Bill. If none were reached, things would
be just as at present. But he did not anticipate any such contingency, as the
Opposition would reciprocate the spirit already shown by the Government. He
believed that they would receive adequate security for the passing of a Redistribu-
86
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
tion Bill early in 1885. This impression of Lord Salisbury was confirmed by Lord
Granville, and the Franchise Bill was then read a second time in the House of
Lords without a Division.
The striking success achieved by Lord Salisbury was best attested by the
desperate efforts made by the minor Ministerialists (like Mr. Mundella) to prove
that the Government had not given way. The Radicals were more candid, and
Mr. Labouchere, in the House of Commons, openly taunted Mr. Gladstone with
having to retreat before the Lords. Though the Resolution which he moved,
having for its object a readjustment of the relations between the two Houses,
was defeated by 147 votes against 73, the majority did not include either Mr.
Chamberlain or Sir Charles Dilke, who walked out of the House without
voting.
There had been, of course, a little give-and-take on both sides. Lord Salisbury
had given way in his contention that the Franchise Bill and the Redistribution
Bill should be considered pari passu, but he had obtained, what the Government
had so obstinately refused, an adequate guarantee that the Peers' acceptance of
the former measure should be conditional on the latter being framed on equitable
principles, and brought into force with all possible expedition. He was too
wise, as he was on the point of entering into friendly consultation with his.
opponents, to crow over his victory. In a speech delivered next day (November
19th) to a deputation of Essex Conservatives, he referred with satisfaction to the
altered state of affairs. "The crisis, or so-called crisis, is passing away; and the
Government have, I think, conceded as much in the way of arrangement as.
might be anticipated if the crisis was to be settled by concession and arrange-
ment with the Government.
The arrangement which has been made
no doubt depends for its execution in some of its most important particulars
on the pledged word of our opponents. I have heard that fact quoted as
a ground for dissatisfaction with what has been done. To my mind it is no
ground for such dissatisfaction. Though we are dealing with our opponents
we are dealing with English gentlemen, and I am quite sure that any palter-
ing with the pledged word which they have passed would be as repugnant
to their natural instincts as it would be fatal to the position of any political
leaders who could bring themselves so low. I do not think there is the slightest
ground for uneasiness or disturbance on that head. I have no doubt that our
opponents and ourselves will do our best, each according to our separate lights,
to secure that the coming measure, if we can agree upon it, shall do justice to
all interests, and especially that it shall do justice to the rural interest, which,
from its geographical position, is always liable, unless care is taken, to be denied
its true, proper, and sufficient weight in Parliamentary representation.”
The next fortnight was spent in businesslike consultation between Lord.
Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote, as representatives of the Conservative Party,
and the delegates appointed to act for Mr. Gladstone's Cabinet. That many ques-
tions presented themselves upon which strong difference of opinion would arise, we
can casily understand, but on both sides the negotiations were conducted in a
CONSULTATION OF PARTY LEADERS.
The result-the main features of the Glad-
spirit of reasonable accommodation.
stone-Salisbury Scheme-was announced by the Prime Minister in the House of
Commons. The points of difference between the original proposals of the Govern-
ment, and the plan as modified by the Opposition, are neatly tabulated in the
Annual Register for 1884-
THE MINISTERIAL DRAFT.
72 boroughs under 10,000 popu-
lation
6 agricultural boroughs (2 mem-
bers each) .
Macclesfield
(2 each)
and Sandwich
40 boroughs between 10,000 and
40,000
2 counties (Rutland and Here-
ford).
Libs. Cors. H.R.
30
S
2
34
4
DISFRANCHISED.
8
27 11
0
2 U
2
PARTIALLY DISFRANCHISED.
CI
THE GLADSTONE-SALISBURY COMPACT.
0 2 0
72 boroughs under 10,000 popu-
lation
19 boroughs between 10,000 and
15,000
6 agricultural boroughs (2 each)
Macclesfield and Sandwich
(2 each)
8 boroughs (2 each)
•
27 boroughs between 10,000 and
40,000
8 boroughs between 40,000 and
50,000
2 counties
London City
·
Libs. Cons. H.R.
30
10
8
2
10
34
5/1/20
0
6
4
87
2
6
1/1/
122
8
Со
17 8 2
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
The total effect of the two Schedules was to extinguish 160 existing Con-
stituencies, while 6 which had been temporarily extinguished would now be
revived; 96 of the available seats were to go to Counties (64 to English Counties),
and new Boroughs which would get 8 seats were created out of Counties. Though
the City was to lose 2 seats, the representation of the Metropolis would be increased
by 37, and additional members would be given to the following great towns:
Liverpool 6, Glasgow 4, Birmingham 4, Manchester 3, Sheffield 3, and Leeds 2.
Yorkshire was to have 16 new members, Lancashire 15, Middlesex 5, Cork 5,
Durham 4, and Lanarkshire 4.
The number of members in the House of Commons would be raised from 652
to 670. As amongst the different portions of the United Kingdom, England
would gain 6 additional seats and Scotland 12, but no difference would be made
in the representation of Wales or Ireland. As between Counties and Boroughs,
it was arranged that the same principle should be applied to all the electoral
areas of the country: Counties would be treated exactly like Boroughs, and every
County or Borough in England and Wales exactly like those in Scotland and
Ireland.
The main principle of the scheme the chief innovation it contained, and
what seemed at the time to be the nearest practicable approach to Equal Elec-
toral Districts-was the institution of the single-member system on the most
extensive scale. The double representation was retained, however, in the case of
the City of London, and in boroughs with populations between 50,000 and
165,000. But in towns where the latter limit was exceeded, the plan of sub-
88
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
dividing them into single-member constituencies was put into force. The defect
of the system was pointed out by Mr. W. L. Courtney, who resigned his position
as Secretary to the Treasury rather than associate himself with a scheme which
tended, as he thought, to diminish the already insufficient representation of the
views of a local minority. In a double-member Constituency—and still more
easily in a three-cornered one-it is possible for a strong minority to get a share
in the representation; but where only one seat is to be filled it is sure to be
captured by the majority, however small it may be. From this, Mr. Courtney
argued—and his prophecy has, no doubt, been realised by subsequent General
Elections-that the Parliamentary preponderance of the one or other Party may
be much greater than is warranted by the ascendancy of its adherents throughout
the country.
But though the advocates of Proportional Representation have
produced several schemes which, if they were understood by the people and
worked with intelligence, would, no doubt, ensure a more equitable result, no
plan has yet been invented which gains the confidence of the ordinary unarith-
metical man. For the present, at least, the Leaders of both Parties agreed to
content themselves with a ruder, but fairly equitable, system. It has been so
far justified by results that, although the winning side in the last four national
contests has gained more seats than it was logically entitled to hold, in no case
yet has it happened—or is it likely to happen--that the statesman brought into
power has been unsupported by a majority of the whole Electorate. And it is
undoubtedly for the advantage of the country that the Government of the day,
whether Conservative or Liberal, shall be reasonably strong in the House of
Commons. Otherwise we enter on a period of Parliamentary anarchy.
The system now in force, though not an ideal one, is admitted roughly to
reflect the prevalent opinion of the people, and may be relied upon to give effect
to any decisive change of national sentiment. It must be remembered, also, that
the anomalies complained of by advocates of a defeated Party depend upon
computations which are themselves inexact. It is simple enough to add up the
number of votes cast for the two sides; but the element of uncertainty—almost of
guess- -work-is introduced when any attempt is made to take account of the
Constituencies where no contest has taken place. Some statisticians claim the
total Electorate for the candidate who has enjoyed a "walk-over"; others are
content with two-thirds of that body; while a third set prefer to count the
figures scored at the last previous occasion on which a contest was held. It
may be said, of course, that any of these methods is likely to be fair to both sides.
It may be so at one General Election, and unfair at another. It is all a matter
of conjecture. But the whole point of such criticisms on the existing system is
that they shall be exact. To paraphrase Aristotle, we must part company with
the statistician when he begins to deal in probabilities.
The merit of the scheme in which the Conservatives claim joint authorship
with the Liberals is that it modifies the electoral anomalies which would have been
intensified by the mere extension of the Franchise originally proposed-and
obstinately persevered in-by Mr. Gladstone's Ministry. It was a hard and long
1
4.
battle which Lord Salisbury had fought for what he believed to be just in itself, and
advantageous to the Conservative Party. It would never have been won had he
not displayed, to the surprise of his opponents, a coolness of judgment with which he
had not hitherto been credited by all his own supporters. There had been a general
belief that Mr. Gladstone was not quite without warrant in describing him as "a
reckless leader," and it was thought that his supposed absorption in foreign
affairs had prevented him from getting a clear insight into domestic policy—that
he did not understand the feelings of Englishmen or the constitutional duties of
a Conservative statesman. His adroitness was now proved in detaching his Party,
at an early stage of the controversy, from any opposition to the principle of
Urz
JOKIOVIC)
THE HONOURS OF WAR.
"
MER
EN
THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
CUM
11.
FERON
C
T.:
89
Electoral Reform, in identifying it with a fuller and fairer scheme than had been
put forward by the Liberals, and in declining to be moved from the attitude he had
taken up, either by the menaces of his adversaries or the timid counsels of
fatalistic supporters. He knew exactly how much Mr. Gladstone would do and
dare; that the demonstration against the House of Lords was a feint; and refused
to be drawn into battle except on ground of his own choice. And when the talk
of fighting was all over-since the Liberal Leader never meant to proceed to
extremities-Lord Salisbury showed himself moderate in arranging the terms of
peace. Having stood out for all that was essential, he was ready to give way on
the unessential. Recognising that, if an average is taken over an extended period
•
90
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
of time, public feeling in England fluctuates with something like fairness between
Liberalism and Conservatism, he consented to, and helped to develop, a system which
should give free play to the successive movements of national opinion.
The compact once concluded between the Party Leaders, no time was lost in
giving effect to it. The Conservatives had showed good humour and the Liberals
kept good faith. The Redistribution Bill was promptly introduced in the House
of Commons, and on the day when it passed its Second Reading the sus-
pended Franchise Bill was taken in Committee by the House of Lords, and on
the following day (December 5th, 1884) passed its remaining stages. But it
was not-for reasons that will hereafter appear-till May 12th, 1885, that the
Redistribution Bill could be got through the House of Commons and brought up
in the House of Lords. It was read a third time there on June 12th, but by that
time the Government under whose auspices it was introduced had ceased to exist.
Before describing that not unexpected catastrophe, it will be as well briefly
to summarise the other events of 1884 and 1885 which have not already been
mentioned in these pages.
Unlike most philanthropic controversies, the one which had been started on
the Housing of the Poor was brought to a practical conclusion. On February
22nd, 1884, Lord Salisbury moved in the House of Lords for the appointment of
a Royal Commission to inquire into the whole subject. He pointed out that,
with regard to the actual structure of houses, the Act known by the name of
Sir Richard Cross had done no little good; but it had been partially defeated
by the scale of compensation required by landowners in the Metropolis. The
main difficulty lay in overcrowding, and this was only intensified by pulling
down buildings declared to be insanitary. Lord Salisbury's proposal was accepted
by the Government, and on the following day the Royal Commission was gazetted,
the Chairman being Sir Charles Dilke, and amongst its members were the Prince
of Wales, who had manifested a practical interest in the question, Cardinal
Manning, Lord Salisbury himself, Lord Shaftesbury, the Bishop of Bedford, and
Mr. Broadhurst, M.P.
The discontent, already described, which was felt in some sections of the Con-
servative Party against the dual leadership of Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford
Northcote, found open expression at the beginning of 1884, not only in the great
provincial towns, but in London itself. The leader of the agitation, and the
person who was expected to profit by it, was, of course, Lord Randolph Churchill,
the inventor and promoter of Tory Democracy. Sometimes he supported his
titular leaders in Parliament and on the platform; sometimes he made a direct
bid for Radical votes by advocating such a measure as the Enfranchisement of
Leaseholds, which meant that a tenant who had bought a term of years was to be
presented with the freehold belonging to his landlord; sometimes he endeavoured
to conciliate the Irish Nationalists; he even found a good word to say for the
Egyptian followers of Arabi. But while he played fast and loose with Conservative
principles, in one policy, at least, he was consistent. He never remitted the vigour
of his attacks on Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues. Indeed, the one purpose of
LORD RANDOLPH AND THE NATIONAL UNION.
91.
his somewhat tortuous manœuvres was to illustrate how an Opposition ought to be
conducted, and how much better he could discharge the responsibility than those
to whom it was entrusted. Certainly, he carried out the maxim of “ showing
plenty of sport" to those whom he wished to make his followers.
The movement came to a head on July 23rd, at the annual conference of the
National Union of Conservative Associations, held at Sheffield.
Lord Percy,
though he had sometimes acted in Parliament in connection with the Fourth
Party, was now put forward as representing the official Leaders of the Party,
but when the ballot was taken for the election of members of the Council for the
ensuing year he was found eighth on the list, with 260 votes, while it was.
headed by Lord Randolph Churchill with 346. With the pardonable exaggera-
tion of friendship, Mr. Escott in a pleasant memoir, recently published, describes
this success of his hero as incomparably his greatest triumph, and suggests—what
was, indeed, believed by many politicians at the time-that no Conservative Ministry
could afford to dispense with the energetic chairman of the National Union.
It is unnecessary here to inquire into the motives which, within a few days,
induced Lord Randolph to retire suddenly from the position he had worked so
hard to attain, and resign in favour of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, a statesman
who contrived to steer a fairly even course between the real Conservatives and
the Tory Democrats with some occasional leaning towards the latter. On
August 9th we find Lord Randolph at Manchester, on the same platform as Lord
Salisbury and Sir Richard Cross.
Another slight reconstruction of an ever-changing Ministry was effected in
1884, by removing Mr. Dodson to the House of Lords under the title of Lord
Monk Bretton, and conferring his office upon Mr. Trevelyan, as a recognition of
the spirit and ability with which he had administered Irish affairs—a duty in
which he was now succeeded by Mr. Campbell Bannerman, whose promotion
from the Admiralty left a Secretaryship vacant. This was bestowed upon Mr.
W. S. Caine, whose invitation to join the Ministry was intended to be taken by
the Teetotallers as an intimation that Mr. Gladstone was ready to make some
return for the support he had received from their Party.
We may mention that on November 18th, Mr. Forster, accompanied by Lord
Rosebery, the late Sir John Macdonald (Canadian Premier), and other influential
Colonial administrators, presided at an inaugural meeting of the Imperial
Federation League. It was time that something should be done for England
beyond the Seas. The disturbed state of Bechuanaland had long been a scandal
to our policy in South Africa, and on November 13th Lord Hartington had to move
for a vote of £675,000 for Sir Charles Warren's expedition to expel Dutch free-
booters from Montsioa's territory. This outlay-so reluctantly incurred by the
Government-compelled the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he brought.
forward his Supplementary Budget, to raise the Income Tax from 5d. to 6d. in
the pound. The arrival of Sir Charles Warren, with an adequate force at
his back, brought the Boers to reason. A convention with President Krüger was
concluded before the end of the year, under which Montsioa was to be replaced
92
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
in his grazing lands, and the British Protectorate, already declared, was to be
practically asserted by a military occupation. In Basutoland, which in the
previous year had been taken over from Cape Colony by the Imperial Government,
but had since been harassed by the warfare of rival chieftains, some kind of order
was restored by Sir Hercules Robinson, who issued a Code of Regulations for the
government of the Colony. In the disturbed annals of Zululand, the most
fortunate event was the death (February 8th) of the long-superfluous Cetewayo.
The warfare between Usibepu and the Usutus was terminated for a time by the
assistance given to the latter by the Boers, who recognised and installed Dinizulu,
son of Cetewayo, as King of Zululand. The cool defiance of British authority
marked by this step was followed by further hostilities, which seemed to threaten
the security of Natal itself. By the end of August the Dutch adventurers had
induced Dinizulu to proclaim a Boer Republic in Zululand, and to put himself
under its protection. But the delegates from the new State, who were despatched
to Sir H. Bulwer in Pietermaritzburg, were plainly informed that their Govern-
ment would not be recognised, and it soon became apparent that Dinizulu was
already tired, after a very short experience, of the "protection" he had been so
eager to claim.
The growing ambition of the Germans for an extension of their Colonial posses-
sions brought us into conflict with them at several points on the African Continent.
The Natal Government happily forestalled them by hoisting the British flag over
St. Lucia Bay, where an enterprising gentleman from Bremen had acquired certain
concessions from the usurper Dinizulu. On the other side of Africa, Prince Bis-
marck was naturally weary of the vacillation shown by Lord Granville, who would
not say definitely whether the British Government did or did not claim sovereignty
over Angra Pequena. The German Chancellor cut the matter short by annexing
it to Germany. A blunder of the same character, but more important since it caused
grave
offence to the Australians, was committed by Lord Derby at the Colonial Office.
The Home Government had been warned at the Sydney Convention that "further
foreign territorial acquisitions in the Western Pacific would be highly detrimental
to the safety and well-being of Australia," and Lord Derby had so far realised the
fact that, in the previous year, he had declared in the House of Lords that "
"any
attempt of a foreign Poweto settle on the coast of New Guinea would be regarded
as an unfriendly act." Nevertheless, the British Government did but proclaim a
limited Protectorate over the southern part of New Guinea and the adjacent islands.
This gave the Germans an opportunity they were not slow to scize, and their flag
was promptly hoisted over the northern part-a step which was followed by the
annexation of New Britain and New Ireland. The Australian protest was unavail-
ing, but, if it was in this way that their interests were to be looked after in
Downing Street, the Young Australian Party might well be excused for thinking
that they might perhaps do better for themselves by "cutting the painter." A
few more years of Lord Granville and Lord Derby would have prepared the self-
governing Colonies for independence-would have driven them to demand it.
In the hottest period of the Reform controversy, when a conflict between the
-

REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
93
two Chambers was apprehended by timid politicians, Lord Rosebery-then
rapidly rising into notice on the Liberal side-thought that he had found an oppor-
tune moment for discussing in the House of Lords a reform of the Constitution of
that body. Nothing, he said, was represented there except the Church, the Law,
and the Hereditary Principle. His desire was to see all classes and all interests
represented-Medicine, Science, Art, Literature, Commerce, and Labour. He
considered also that India and the Colonies should have their views more directly
expressed than was at present the case, and finally he suggested that the Select
Committee, which he asked for, should be instructed to consider the question of Life
Peerages, and whether, on special occasions, the House should be empowered to in-
vite the attendance and advice of persons who were not Peers. Cold water was
thrown upon the proposal by
Lord Granville. He would not
admit the inference, suggested
by the nomination of such a
Committee, that the House of
Lords was inefficient, and he
believed that the inquiry pro-
posed would be merely a fish-
ing one. Lord Salisbury,
supporting Lord Granville in
his general views, declared
that he was by no means
opposed to any reasonable plan
of reform. He had himself
brought forward a proposal for
the creation of Life Peerages,
but even without improvement
he regarded the House as an
efficient Chamber. An Amend-
ment, proposed by Lord Gran-
ville, which would have re-
stricted the scope of the inquiry by adding the words "by Life Peerages or
otherwise," was rejected, as was Lord Rosebery's original Motion.
A sense of national loss as well as of personal sympathy with the Queen was
evoked early in the year by the death of Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany, a man
of high and varied qualities of intellect and most amiable character. He had been
staying at Cannes for the benefit of his always delicate health, but on March 28th,
he slipped on leaving the Club Nautique, and so severely injured himself that he
died a few hours later. His remains were brought home by the Prince of Wales,
and interred at Windsor. The State Funeral was attended by the Queen, and by
representatives of all the Crowned Heads in Europe. A year of mourning in the
Royal Family was, however, brightened before its close by the announcement that
Princess Beatrice was betrothed to Prince Henry of Battenberg, and the country
SIR JOHN MACDONALD, G.C.B.
.94
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
...
was rejoiced to learn that the marriage, which was to take place next year, would
not deprive Her Majesty of the society of her daughter, as the young couple had
agreed to live in England. In the political world the death of Professor Fawcett,
Postmaster-General, was mourned by men of all parties. He had earned general
respect by the transparent sincerity of his convictions, as well as by the display of
unsuspected powers of administration.
The relations of the European Powers had been reasonably pacific in 1884, the
attention of the French being occupied elsewhere. The forward policy in Tonkin
was being carried out by their commanders, who succeeded in winning a series of
victories that flattered the national pride, though a good many of the Deputies were
already frightened by the expenditure on that rather unpromising enterprise. The
Triple Alliance—though, in fact, it had been for some time in force—between
Germany, Austria, and Italy, had not yet been announced as formulated, and was
scarcely yet regarded as a menace either by France or Russia. Indeed, it was
believed, by some who professed to be behind the scenes of the international drama,
that a reconstruction of the old Dreikaiserbund was not impossible-an augury they
drew from the friendly meeting held in a small Polish town early in the Autumn,
by the Emperors of Russia, Germany, and Austria.
The year 1885 opened badly for the Ministry, both at home and abroad.
Irritated by the prolixity and the vacillation of Lord Granville's numerous
Despatches, and annoyed at having a march stolen on him by the Governor of
Natal with regard to St. Lucia, Prince Bismarck took his revenge by throwing all
his weight against us on the Egyptian question. The fall of Khartoum and the
death of Gordon had weakened our authority at Cairo, which was openly flouted
by a French journal called Le Bosphore Egyptien, kept up to propagate anti-
English policy and circulate injurious and frequently fictitious news. The
attacks became so scurrilous that a Decree was issued for its suppression, and was
carried out by Captain Fenwick of the Cairo Native Police. A protest was at once
entered by the French Consul-General, which was backed up in Paris, and in the
end the Egyptian Government, acting upon our "advice," had to withdraw its
Decree, reinstate the printer in his office, compensate him for his loss, and
apologise to France!
If the Liberals were discredited abroad, they were distracted at home. Vague
hints were thrown out that Mr. Gladstone was once again thinking of retirement-
as a menace to insubordinate followers. But the advanced wing of the Radicals
were not deterred from putting forward their own opinions. Mr. Chamberlain, in
particular, declared that the whole Party stood in need of reorganization, and
advocated various schemes of legislation, especially with regard to land, which
created alarm and indignation among the old-fashioned Liberals. But even while
he stood by his famous "Doctrine of Ransom "-which was merely an extreme
way of asserting that property has duties as well as rights-he repudiated
any taint of Communism; he did not believe that the conditions or capacities of
men could be equalised, but he did maintain—while the strong and able would
always be first in the race-that "the community, as a whole, co-operating for

"THE RADICAL PROGRAMME."
95
the benefit of all, might do something to add to the sum of human happiness,
something to make the lives of all its citizens, especially the poorest of them,
somewhat better, somewhat nobler, somewhat greater, and somewhat happier."
These views, which were interpreted by his opponents as approximating to
State Socialism, were developed by Mr. Chamberlain in a speech at Birmingham.
Among the articles of faith he professed were Manhood Suffrage and the Payment
of Members of Parliament, as means to his main objects-which he defined as
distributing the burden of taxation according to the ability of the taxpayer and
increasing the productiveness of land. The first he would attain by equalising the
Death and Succession Duties on Real and Personal Property, by a Graduated Income
Tax, and by giving the poor
man a Free Breakfast-table.
The latter was to be accom-
plished by cheapening the
cost of land transfer, by doing
away with settlement and
entail, and finally by creating
anew the "old class of yeomen,
who were at one time the most
independent and the most pros-
perous class of the commu-
nity." The criticism which
Mr. Goschen lost no time in
delivering did but express the
views of many thoughtful
Liberals. Nationalization of
the land he called a "crude
panacea." In reference to Mr.
Chamberlain's statement that
he would not shrink from ex-
tending the "Three F's "
from Ireland to Great Britain,
Mr. Goschen protested against
dom.
the idea of setting up a Land Court to fix rents in every part of the United King-
"Let us try freedom," he said, "before we try interference of the State. In
all the points I propose to touch, I want to plead the cause of freedom against
that of State interference-and that is one of the old Radical doctrines."
SIR CHARLES WARREN, K.C.M.G.
The failure of the Liberal Ministry either to conciliate or overawe the Physical
Force section of Irish Nationalists had been unpleasantly attested in 1884 by
attempts to blow up several of the chief railway stations in the Metropolis. The
conspirators determined to signalise the New Year with a still more striking
demonstration of their enmity towards Englishmen. On January 24th, an infernal
machine was deposited and exploded in the Tower of London. The plot was so far
successful that two young women and three children were injured, and some
96
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
damage was done in the large Hall and the passage to St. John's Chapel. The
outer gates of the Tower were immediately closed, and among the visitors thus
detained, the police picked out a man named Cunningham, who, with an accomplice
arrested a few days afterwards, was put on trial and sentenced to a term of penal
servitude. The dynamiters had more reason to congratulate themselves on the
results of the crime brought off almost at the same hour of the same day, in the
Palace of Westminster. A suspicious package, lying in the crypt, was observed by
a lady visitor, and was pluckily picked up by police-constable Cole. He managed
to reach the top of the stairs, but was then compelled by the overpowering heat of
his burden to fling it to the ground. The dynamite exploded, blew a hole in
the pavement, six feet in length by three in width, and threw Cole to the ground,
as well as another constable named Cox, who had come to his assistance. A few
moments later a second explosion was heard, and it was discovered that another
infernal machine had been placed in the House of Commons, and that much havoc
had been done in the Strangers' and the Peers' Galleries.
It was noticed that in the speech which Mr. Parnell delivered in Clare a day
or two afterwards he did not think proper to condemn these crimes. Indeed, the
leading members of the Nationalist Party went out of their way, at this time, to
preach hatred of England. The most extravagant expressions were, naturally,
uttered by Mr. William O'Brien. In February, for instance, he gloated on the
Fall of Khartoum-there was not, he said, a Capital in Europe where the news had
not been received with joy and exultation, and "with a great wish and prayer of
'more power to the Mahdi and his men.' This loyal and humane sentiment he
expressed in a still more pointed manner in the following April, when, at a meeting
in County Cork, he declared that for one man in that assembly who would raise a
cheer for the Prince of Wales there were ten thousand whose hearts went out to
“the brave Arabs of the Soudan, who had driven two armies of English invaders.
back in disgrace." Another remark of the same character was that if the Russian
General Komaroff (who had been giving us trouble in Central Asia) were to go on
as he had been doing, he would become a more popular man in Ireland than the
Mahdi himself.
The perplexities, the feuds, and the misfortunes with which Mr. Gladstone
and his colleagues were harassed and distraught when (February 19th) Parliament
reassembled in 1885 must, under ordinary circumstances, have led to an early
defeat of the Ministry. But if the Liberals were despondent the Conservatives.
were almost equally deficient in confidence. They had faith in their cause, but
not much in their Leaders, and none in themselves. They quarrelled with the
terms of the Vote of Censure moved by Sir Stafford Northcote with regard to the
Egyptian policy of the Government, and though, so far as argument went, the
Debate had been all in their favour, it was thought advisable that Lord Salisbury
should wind the Party up for the Division by an address at the Carlton Club. He
assured the hesitating members of the Party-what they had previously doubted-
that, in the event of beating the Government, he and his friends would not shrink
from accepting office.

MR. GLADSTONE'S DWINDLING MAJORITY.
The result was not quite so good as Lord Salisbury had a right to expect.
The Government escaped defeat in the Lobby by a majority of fourteen votes-
302 against 288. The Conservatives had been reinforced by forty Home-Rulers,
ATTNIN
ELEKTRO
97
AL
and by Mr. Goschen and Mr. Forster, with twelve other Liberals, while fourteen
of Mr. Gladstone's regular supporters absented themselves from the Division. The
margin of strength on which the Ministry could now rest was so narrow that
VOL. IV.
H
THE TOWER OF LONDON-THE COUNCIL CHAMBER IN THE WHITE TOWER.
98
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
a Dissolution was believed to be imminent. But, still relying on the weakness of
the Opposition, they decided to hang on a little longer, in the hope of finding a
more favourable opportunity for appealing to the country. They were tided over
their immediate embarrassment by a national danger-by what seemed the very
close prospect of a war with Russia—which rendered the moment inopportune for
a change of Government.
To explain the crisis which so suddenly sprang up on the borders of Afghan-
istan, it is necessary to mention that in February, 1884, the Foreign Office learned
that the Czar had accepted the allegiance proffered to him by the Merv Turko-
mans, and that, to meet the new situation thus created, Lord Granville had agreed
with M. de Giers for the appointment of a Joint Boundary Commission. In the
following July, Sir Peter Lumsden had been nominated to act for the British, and
General Zelenoi for the Russians, while the Ameer had been requested to appoint
an official to assist them in their work of delimitation. The excellent and
authoritative monograph on the Ameer Abdur-Rahman, recently issued by Mr.
Wheeler, shows that the Afghan Ruler was then determined to fight rather than
permit the Russians to take "a piece of a fragment from the ruins of his frontier."
A party of native levies were sent forward to garrison Penjdeh, and Russian troops
were advanced to Yulatan. Nothing but the most exemplary discretion on both
sides could have averted a conflict between armed forces placed in such close
proximity.
There was, however, no discretion on cither side; no desire, perhaps, to avoid
the conflict. When Sir Peter Lumsden arrived at Penjdeh he found that the
Afghan and Russian officers had exchanged insulting messages. The strongest
and most explicit warning had been delivered to the Ameer by the British Com-
missioner that a war would probably ensue if he insisted on moving up his troops,
and he repeated the caution to the Afghan representative on the spot. By the
beginning of 1885, the Russians still pressing their advance on the disputed
territory, and the Afghans being prepared to resist it, the hope of a pacific settle-
ment had almost passed away. On March 26th, Captain Yate, at Penjdeh,
reported that the Afghans had put their guns in position, and four days later the
bulk of their force had crossed the Kushk river, when the Russians were at once
led to the attack. The conflict was unequal; since "the poor Afghans, with their
Enfields and smooth bores, their caps and the powder in the supplies damped by a
night spent in the rain," could do little against the volleys of the Russian breech-
loaders. Two companies were destroyed in the entrenchment, and their total
loss was put at five hundred, while the casualties on the other side were not more
than forty.
The humiliating thing was that British officers had to stand by while the
troops of our Ally were being shot down. It is true that we had advised the
Afghans to retire from the left bank of the Kushk; that we had warned them
that if they fought the Russians on this occasion they must expect no assistance
from us; and that, to emphasize his caution, Sir Peter Lumsden had withdrawn
from the spot, only leaving a couple of officers to report the progress of events.

THE RUSSIANS AND PENJDEH.
Wurze
The headstrong arrogance of the Afghans was alone responsible for the
disaster; yet it reflected discredit upon ourselves, and brought us within measurable
distance of a great war. Even before this unfortunate encounter, the gravity of
the situation had been fully realised by the Government, though the questions
addressed to Ministers were put off with more or less reassuring answers.
But it
was known that the Government of India were busy in making military prepara-
tions. Two army corps were ordered to be mobilized in India, and supplies were
got ready, while offers of assistance were received from Scindiah, Holkah, and the
99
M. DE GIERS.
Nizam. On March 26th, Lord Kimberley in the Upper and Lord Hartington in
the Lower House brought down a Message from the Queen; Parliament was
informed that "a time of emergency had arrived," and the First-Class Army
Reserve and Militia Reserve were to be called out. When further inquiry was
made by Sir Stafford Northcote, Lord Hartington declined to give any information,
and-wisely enough, at a moment of extreme popular excitement-the House was
allowed to separate for the Easter Recess. The news of the conflict between the
Russians and Afghans had not yet reached London, and, as if to give further assur-
ance of pacific intentions, the Queen left England for a holiday on the Continent.
100
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
On April 8th, the day fixed for the reassembling of Parliament, the Penjdeh.
incident became public property, and Mr. Gladstone at once made a public state-
ment. Measuring his words, in "circumstances of great gravity," he declared
that the attack bore the appearance of an “unprovoked aggression." A panic had,
of course, set in on the Stock Exchange, Consols falling three points, and Russians.
nine; and the troops sent to Egypt for service in the Soudan were stopped at Suakim,
while orders were given out for the prompt supply of arms and ammunition. On
April 13th, the account given by General Komaroff was received in England, but
the comments added about a week later by Sir Peter Lumsden seemed to show
that the Russians were entirely in fault. Further explanations were required by
the British Government from St. Petersburg. We know now, by the light of cool
investigation after the event, that the Afghans were quite as much to blame as their
assailants; but at the time it looked as if the Czar's Government had no kind of
excuse. The technicalities of the North-West Frontier it was not given to ordinary
Englishmen to understand, but it seemed clear that our honour had been insulted
by a wanton attack upon an Ally whom we were bound to protect.
The climax of excitement was reached when Mr. Gladstone (April 21st)
informed the House of Commons that he would ask for a Vote of Credit for Eleven
Millions sterling. It was true that he made no direct reference to Russia in his
speech, but contented himself with saying that it had become necessary to review
our military position, not only in reference to the Soudan, but also in reference to
the general condition of public affairs and the possible demands on the military
resources of the Empire. The reticence was quite as significant as the most out-
spoken declaration, especially as he went on to explain that of the huge sum
demanded only four-and-a-half millions would be wanted for the Soudan—the rest
being required for special preparations.
The announcement was received with a general cheer from the House of
Commons, and Sir Stafford Northcote got up to say that if the time had been
fitting he would have entered on a criticism of the Government policy with regard
to Egypt, but did not consider the moment opportune. The scene in the House is
described by Mr. T. P. O'Connor in one of his sketches of Parliament: "The
House," he writes, "soon showed how deeply it was conscious of the vast
importance of the news it had just heard. It divided itself into groups, and
conversation sprang up everywhere, so that it was almost impossible to hear a
word-in fact, I have rarely, if ever, seen the House of Commons so noisy and
distracted. In the midst of all this confusion the Speaker left the chair, and Sir
Arthur Otway endeavoured in vain to attract the attention of the House to the
Seats Bill. It was the unlucky lot of Mr. Healy to have to face this crowd
of noisy disputants, and for a while he found it impossible to make himself heard.
At last, in the interval of lull, it was possible to discover that he was indicting
the action of the Boundary Commission in County Kerry.”
In a general criticism of the foreign policy of the Government, Lord Salisbury,
speaking at Wrexham on the same evening, hinted some doubts (confirmed by later ·
information) as to the wisdom of selecting Penjdeh as the point on which
WAR OR PEACE?
<
101
to oppose the Russian advance. "My idea of dealing with Russia," he declared,
“is not to extract from her promises which she will not keep; but to say to her:
There is a point to which you shall not go, and if you go we will spare neither
men nor money until you go back.' I do not say what that point should be.
I say that is a matter for strategists to decide. I have doubts whether I should
have selected Penjdeh as the place to fight, because it is so inaccessible. That is
a point upon which certainly no one who has not access to military advice can
venture to give an opinion. But what I would wish to insist upon is that, if you
desire to keep that empire over the natives which is the secret of your power
in India, and to retain that trust of Princes upon which your power reposes; if
you wish to keep alive in their minds the belief that the English rule is permanent,
and that it is to their interest to keep and maintain that rule; if you wish these
things, you must not allow yourselves to be driven from point to point; you must
not allow yourselves to be deceived by cunningly contrived assurances. You must
make it clear, not only to your own minds, but clear to them and the world, that
there is a point where you mean permanently to resist, and that beyond that point
it will be impossible for Russia to go."
The storm which had loomed so heavy suddenly cleared away—the relief
coming from an unexpected quarter. It had been assumed in England that not
only did Penjdeh lie undoubtedly within the Ameer's dominion, but that he
attached the highest importance to retaining it. Such, indeed, had been the
evident tenour of his previous communications with Sir Peter Lumsden. But at
the time when the news of the fight reached him, he was staying at Rawulpundi,
on a visit to Lord Dufferin, who had fortunately replaced Lord Ripon as Viceroy
of India. He received the defeat of his troops with surprising equanimity, and,
Lord Dufferin testifies, though he expressed himself determined to resist any
invasion of Afghan territory, "was not prepared to insist that Penjdeh did rightly
belong to him." The fact was that he could not depend on the loyalty of the
Sarik Turkomans, and he would prefer to accept, as more defensible, a frontier
which could be arranged for him by the British Government, provided that it lay
north of Maruchak, Zulfikar, and Gulran.
Such being the views of Abdur-Rahman himself, it became easy to enter into
negotiations with St. Petersburg. It was agreed that Penjdeh should be
exchanged for Zulfikar, and the Liberal Government-who never erred from
excess of warlike spirit-were only too glad to ignore the Penjdeh “incident."
In September, 1885, the Protocol was signed-Lord Salisbury having then come
into office—and a line of boundary pillars was to be erected by Sir West Ridgeway
acting in co-operation with the Russian Commissioner. The work was not
brought to an end until July, 1887. The Ameer was fairly contented with the
arrangement which had been made on his behalf, and which has, on the whole,
been respected, Mr. Wheeler says, by the Russians. Any misunderstandings that
have arisen have been speedily removed. But it must be remembered that the
line thus drawn from Heri-Rud to the Oxus only settled the Afghan frontier for a
distance of some 400 miles along the North-West and that the delimitation in the
102
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
The controversy about the
North and East still remained unaccomplished.
Pamirs, however, belongs to a later date.
The condition of the British Navy had been for some time the subject of a
skilfully conducted and thoroughly reasonable agitation. It must be confessed
that both Parties had been in turn to blame for permitting our naval strength to
fall far below the requirements that would be laid upon it in time of war.
If we
had enough ships, guns, and men to protect our shores from invasion, we certainly
had not enough to defend our Colonies and Dependencies abroad, or even to guard
the trade routes on which we rely for the supply of food for the United Kingdom.
The movement had already borne some fruit in December, 1884, when the Liberal
Ministry—anxious as they were to retrench expenditure, especially in material of
war-had consented, in addition to the current Estimates, to lay out a sum of
three millions sterling on contract work. This money would provide one ironclad,
five belted cruisers, ten torpedo rams, ten scouts, and thirty torpedo boats. But
besides this it was considered advisable to vote £1,600,000 on Naval Ordnance and
£825,000 on Coaling Stations. It had been hoped that the Northbrook programme,
which-in view of the deficiencies revealed-could not be called immoderate, would
have been of a still more comprehensive character. But the proposals of the
Government, as explained by Sir T. (now Lord) Brassey (on behalf of Lord North-
brook) in moving the Navy Estimates, were at least a good beginning, and the
Liberal Party are entitled to all credit for the good example they set. But
insufficient, tentative as they were, they showed that the Admiralty and the
Government were at last alive to the danger to which we should be exposed in the
event of being suddenly engaged in war with a first-rate European Power.
Sir Thomas Brassey did not pretend that the Estimates were sufficient-
all he could say was that they compared favourably with the sums voted in
other countries. "We are making a great step in advance," he declared, “in
response to a strong popular demand. It will be for the Parliaments of the
future to provide for those continuous efforts by which alone a great Navy can
be maintained." Indeed, it would have been somewhat unreasonable to expect
a House of Commons now approaching its statutory term, and a Ministry that
seemed to have lost its hold on the country, to embark on any complete
scheme such as the experts with one accord declared to be necessary. Nor would
it have lain in the mouths of the Conservative party to blame the Liberals for a
remissness of which they had themselves been guilty when in office. They had at
different times made spasmodic attempts to put matters on a sounder footing, but
there had been no "continuous effort" such as Sir T. Brassey now desiderated.
The past complicity of the Conservatives in this neglect was so far fortunate that
it prevented the question from being made a Party cry. In a short time, Liberals
and Conservatives-who had both been dominated by a belief that the taxpayers
would resent any increase to the Navy Estimates-together realised the fact that
the country not only accepts such a burden cheerfully, but insists that it shall be
laid upon its shoulders. All it asks is that the money shall be efficiently spent ;
and it may fairly be said that no Ministry since the date of our Naval Renaissance
•

CONSERVATIVE RECALCITRANTS.
Hal
has lost a single seat on account of any Vote demanded for strengthening national
defences.
The fortunes of the Redistribution Bill have been already described, but it may
be worth while here to refer to an awkward incident in connection with that
The arrangement arrived at by the Conservative Leaders was by no
means acceptable to all their followers, and the discontent which was perhaps
justified by some of the terms of that compromise had been fed and fostered by the
politicians who had made up their minds to get rid of Sir Stafford Northcote. At
a meeting held at the Carlton Club, on March 16th, he complained, somewhat
weakly, that on every important Division he had been deserted by members of the
Party. The Ulster Conservatives were particularly strong in denouncing a Bill
which, they argued-and the result has verified their fears-would strike an almost
103
RAWULPUNDI.
fatal blow against the Party prospects in Ireland. Some of the malcontents seem to
have expected that, though their Party was in a minority, they ought to have got
as favourable a settlement as a majority could have insisted upon. Lord Salisbury
attempted to reassure them and to restore harmony. But the proceedings in the
House of Commons in the following evening showed how wide-spread was the spirit
of indiscipline. On the proposal to increase the House by adding twelve new
members, a hostile Amendment, moved by Sir E. Wilmot, was supported not only
by refractory members of the rank and file, but by so prominent a Front-bench
man as Sir M. Hicks-Beach. The Amendment was, of course, defeated by a com-
bination of the supporters of the Government with the official Opposition, but the
incident proved that, if the Ministerialists were disunited, their adversaries were
in no better position-a fact which was brought into yet stronger relief two days
later, when Mr. G. C. Bartley, an influential organiser of the Conservative Party,
104
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
announced his resignation, and gave as his reason that the Leaders were not in
harmony and touch with the great body of Conservatives.
How would the tangle be untied? Things might have gone on indefinitely in
this unsatisfactory way, the Government might have survived the Session, and
perhaps have begun another, had it not been that they sealed their own fate by the
announcement which Mr. Gladstone made, on May 15th, as to the course of
business. Among the measures to be pressed through Parliament he now included
a Coercion Bill for Ireland, which was demanded by Lord Spencer. In the hope
of conciliating some of the Liberals—some members of his own Cabinet, who
strongly objected to such a measure being brought forward on the eve of a
Dissolution—the Prime Minister agreed, a few days later, to introduce a Land
Purchase Bill for Ireland, but this expedient only had the effect of irritating a
section of the Moderate Liberals.
The new split among the Ministerialists gave fresh heart to the Opposition,
and during the Whitsuntide Recess, which followed shortly on Mr. Gladstone's
announcement, they seem to have pulled themselves together for a combined
assault on the Government. Such an opportunity as they would most have
desired was presented by the Budget proposals of Mr. Childers. Amongst them
was an increased Duty both on spirits and on beer. A hostile Amendment was
moved by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and, after an animated Debate, was carried by
264 votes against 252-a majority of 12 against the Government. Thirty-nine of
the Home Rulers, in revenge for the threat of Coercion, went into the Opposition
Lobby, and, though only six Liberals acted with the Conservatives, 76-many of
them unpaired-had absented themselves from the Division. When the figures
were known there was a wild scene of excitement. Lord Randolph Churchill
mounted on his seat, waved his hat in the air, and led the cheers, in which he was
joined by many of the younger Tories. The Parnellites vented their exultation in
cries of "Buckshot!" "Coercion!" and (as if that were a still more hateful word)
Spencer!" Mr. Parnell and Mr. Gladstone were alone unmoved in the tumult,
the triumphant Nationalist smiling in his self-contained manner, and the defeated
Liberal Chieftain writing his usual letter to the Queen as if nothing particular had
happened. When the uproar had partially subsided, the Prime Minister got up to
make the expected announcement; but his rising was only the signal for a fresh
outbreak of cheers and counter-cheers. On silence being restored, he simply said
that it was incumbent on the Government to make a "dutiful communication to
her Majesty," and moved the Adjournment of the House till the following Friday
(June 12th). The formalities of resignation were not yet complete; but the end
had now been reached of Mr. Gladstone's Second Administration, and the career
of what Mr. Bright once described as the best House of Commons that had ever
been elected had, for all practical purposes, been brought to a termination.
66
CHAPTER IV.
Ir was on June 8th, that Mr. Gladstone's Ministry were defeated in the House
of Commons. The next day Sir Stafford Northcote went to see Lord Salisbury,
and urged that, having beaten the Government, the Conservatives were in honour
bound to accept office. Otherwise, as he writes in his Diary, they would expose
themselves to the reproach that they "had no men and no policy." There was
no difficulty as to men, not much as to policy; but it was by no means agreed
that with an adverse majority in the Commons they would act prudently in taking
up the succession. It was impossible to dissolve Parliament at once-the natural
and proper course under ordinary circumstances-because the Redistribution Bill
had not yet passed its final stages. At a subsequent interview with Lord Salisbury
(June 11th), Sir Stafford still pressed the view he had maintained three days
before, but admitted that there was some force in Sir Michael Hicks-Beach's
argument that they must make it quite clear to the world that they had no
alternative. This, Sir Stafford thought, would bear on the question which might
arise as to "dissolving on the old franchise," in case the new Ministry were
unfairly thwarted" in the routine business of winding up the interrupted
Session.
.66
Such hesitation as may have been felt during the first few days of the crisis—
very strong views were expressed on both sides at the Carlton Club and other
coteries of London Conservatism-disappeared in face of the evident expectation
of the Party throughout the country. If this opportunity of getting rid of Mr.
Gladstone and his colleagues were thrown away it was uncertain when another
would present itself. If there was any force, any sincerity, in the Opposition
attacks on the Liberal mismanagement of our foreign affairs, it was a public duty
to put better men in the places of her Majesty's present advisers. It was for
the Conservative Leaders to find a way out of the difficulties which undoubtedly
lay in their path, but on no account to expose the country to the risk of another
year of the maladministration they had so unsparingly condemned. Besides, a
sort of pledge had been given at the Carlton that they would not shrink from the
results of a victory. There was no evading a responsibility which they had brought
on themselves. It is true that by taking this course they might, perhaps, play into
their adversaries' hand. Mr. Gladstone's Government, it was said in some quarters,
had neither been annoyed nor surprised by the adverse Vote on the 8th. The defeat
had been mainly caused by the absence of regular supporters who, it was sug-
gested, might casily have been brought up, and the Whips had failed only because
106
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
they did not wish to succeed. The moment had been nicely calculated; the Con-
servatives were unanimous in nothing but their dislike of the Government, and such
union as they were able to keep up would be destroyed as soon as the loaves and
fishes of office had to be distributed. The new Ministry would have place without
power, and would carry on only upon the sufferance of their adversaries. Finally-
and this was the chief consideration-on them would fall, whether in the current or
ensuing year, the onus of dissolving Parliament and of appealing to the Electors
with a Parliamentary record that must be meagre and unsatisfactory. Mr. Disraeli
once declared that the best cry to go to the country on was "That Govern-
ment!" By giving up office at this particular moment the Liberals would obtain
that liberty of unmitigated vituperation which is the traditional privilege of an
Opposition. Instead of attacking the blunders and exposing the failures of the
Gladstone Administration, the Conservatives would have to stand on defence, and
measure their words with a view to official responsibility, while the Liberals would
be able to make any promises, and swallow any pledges, that seemed likely to win
them votes.
All these drawbacks and some others were present to Lord Salisbury's mind
when he started for Balmoral and obeyed the Queen's command to construct an
Administration. The personal difficulties of the undertaking were not incon-
siderable. What was to be done with Sir Stafford and what with Lord Randolph ?
His first intention was, we know, to disturb as little as possible the arrangement
under which the leadership of the Party had been shared between himself and
Sir Stafford. The proposal which he originally made was, the latter should become
First Lord of the Treasury and Leader of the House of Commons, while he com-
bined in his own person the duties of Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. The
scheme did not commend itself to Sir Stafford, who objected to the separation
of the Premiership from the First Lordship, and was inclined to demand that as
Leader of the House of Commons he should be entitled to see all the Foreign
Office despatches. But it is not likely that either of these difficulties would have
proved insurmountable as between colleagues so loyal to each other as Lord
Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote.
The real friction arose from a group of Conservatives, active in the Lobbies
and indispensable at Election time, who had made up their minds to push Sir
Stafford out of the House of Commons, and to instal Sir Michael Hicks-Beach
in the Leadership as "warming pan
warming pan" for Lord Randolph. Either they would
have their way or they would plunge into open revolt. Their intentions had been
made sufficiently manifest soon after the House of Commons had re-assembled
when, on a question of Procedure, Sir Michael and Lord Randolph broke away
from Sir Stafford and led about thirty Conservatives into the Opposition Lobby.
It was plain that Lord Salisbury must either meet the views of his recalcitrant
followers or give up the hope of forming an Administration. There was, indeed,
something to be argued in favour of the latter course, and of throwing the
responsibility for failure on those who would have caused it. This, however,
would have been to sacrifice what was at this time the paramount object of the

SIR STAFFORD AND LORD RANDOLPH.
whole Party-to interrupt, if not to terminate, the disastrous Gladstonian régime.
The dead-set against Sir Stafford was an ungrateful return for a lifetime of good
100
107
WOW
BALMORAL.
a photograph by Messrs. Valentine, Dundee.)
(From
work; it was harsh, and it was not altogether unselfish. But it had this justifica-
tion, that for the rough work of an agitated period Sir Stafford was now unfitted,
by failing health as well as by his amiability of character.
108
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
The inner history of these few days has yet to be written. The materials are
still locked up in the records and memory of those who are alone acquainted with the
whole truth. But one fact is known-has been known all along-that Sir Stafford
made no claim, and did not stand on his rights. On June 15th, the day of the Par-
liamentary demonstration, he offered-so he writes in his diary—to do whatever
Lord Salisbury thought best. "I have not much heart in the matter. This has
apparently been my last night in the House of Commons. I have sat in it rather
more than thirty years, and it has become part of my life."
There is a gap of four days in his diary, but in the meantime it had been settled
—though not publicly announced—that he should be raised to the House of Lords
as Earl of Iddesleigh, and join the Cabinet as First Lord of the Treasury. On
June 19th he went down to the House of Commons for the last time, when he met
with a most remarkable reception. "It was difficult," he writes, "to say which side
cheered me most. Speaker read Bradlaugh's letter. I asked Gladstone what
counsel he meant to give on it. He replied, 'None—at least, none at present.' I
might then have moved the renewal of the Orders excluding Bradlaugh from
precincts of the House; but I did not like to mark my last appearance by the
exclusion of another member." Next day he was able to treat his disappointment
humorously, and suggested that his butler should inform the reporters who thronged
the door that, after much consideration, the Cabinet had offered him the post of
Private Secretary to Lord Randolph Churchill.
Besides Lord Salisbury and Lord Iddesleigh, most of the other members of the
Cabinet had served with Lord Beaconsfield. Lord Cranbrook, as Lord President
of the Council; Lord Harrowby, as Lord Privy Seal; Lord George Hamilton, at the
Admiralty; Mr. W. H. Smith, at the War Office; Mr. Stanhope, at the Board of
Trade; and Lord John Manners, at the Post Office, were all safe and unexception-
able selections. Nor could serious objection be made to the promotion of Sir Har-
dinge Giffard (as Lord Halsbury) to the Lord Chancellorship, or Mr. Gibson (as Lord
Ashbourne) to the Irish Chancellorship. The nominations which seemed to bear a
more experimental character were those of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach to be Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of Commons; Lord Carnarvon,
Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland; and Lord Randolph Churchill, Indian Secretary.
The most important members of the Administration not admitted to the Cabinet,
were Mr. Arthur Balfour (who had already given proof of great Parliamentary
gifts, but was not yet credited either with industry or ambition) at the Board of
Trade; Sir William Hart Dyke as Irish Secretary; Sir Henry Holland (now Lord
Knutsford) as Vice-President of the Council; Mr. David Plunket as First Com-
missioner of Works; Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Stuart-Wortley as Under Secretaries
respectively at the Admiralty and at the Home Office; Mr. Akers Douglas as
Whip; and Sir Richard Webster and Sir John Gorst as Attorney-General and
Solicitor-General.
The re-elections of Ministers, opposed only in three cases, were completed on
July 6th, on which day Lord Salisbury made, in the House of Lords, a brief
statement on behalf of the Government. He dwelt chiefly on the negotiations

WH SMITH
(Died 2017
From a photo by Lombardi & l.
LONDON, J.S.VIRTUE & CO LIMITED.
COERCION SUSPENDED.
100.
with Russia in regard to the Afghan frontier, on the complicated state of the
Egyptian problem, and on the necessity of bringing the Session to as speedy
a close as possible, adding that Parliament would not be asked to proceed with
any measure of importance. The significance of the last announcement was.
brought more fully out by Lord Carnarvon, the new Lord Lieutenant, who quoted
official statistics with the object of showing that crime had so diminished in
Ireland that no need was felt for exceptional measures of repression. It will b
remembered that one of the last decisions of the retiring Government, one which
partly caused their defeat, was-on Lord Spencer's urgent demand-to bring in
a new Coercion Bill in place of the one about to expire. It was, therefore, a bold,
a perilous, not a very scrupulous course on which the Conservatives had thus:.
entered. The soundest excuse put forward by the Government was, that under the
special circumstances it was impossible either to renew the existing Act or to pass.
a new one so as to bring the Session to an end at a reasonable date. The real
reason was, of course, that on the eve of a General Election, Ministers were not
willing to alienate the Nationalist vote in England. It was hoped and believed that
in order to spite the Liberals the Irish were ready to support the Conservatives.
They must be humoured for a time, and led to imagine that they would get some-
solid return for the support which they had withdrawn from Mr. Gladstone.
It is true that Lord Carnarvon, in announcing the Irish policy of the Govern-
ment, had described it as merely an experiment, and hinted that if it proved a
failure the Coercion to which they might be driven would take the form of a general
and permanent Act of Parliament. But for the present the Lord Lieutenant pre-
ferred-in spite of the opinion of his predecessor, declared with a full sense of
official responsibility-to "trust the people of Ireland." Parliament had just
refused to exclude Ireland from the extended franchise conferred upon the United
Kingdom, and there seemed to be something illogical, something futile, in resorting
to legislation which might restrict in a measure the personal liberties of men whom
we so recently admitted to the political rights of the most complete citizenship.
This apology now became prominent in the platform oratory of Conservative
politicians. It was the most plausible they could plead, though we must also
remember that Ministers would have had great difficulty, without a majority in
the House of Commons, in getting a new Coercion Bill through Parliament. But
would it have been impossible, in face of the fact that Mr. Gladstone and his
colleagues had pledged themselves to bring in a similar measure? Some of the
Radicals would, no doubt, have fought on the Nationalist side, but the official
Liberals would have been compelled, in common decency, to support the Govern-
ment. The obstacle which deterred Ministers was not the chance of Liberal
Obstruction; it was the fear of making a split in their own Party, the advisability
of not openly disowning the bargain which Lord Randolph Churchill and some of
his associates, acting on their own account, had struck with the Nationalist leaders.
In taking Lord Randolph over they took him with all his engagements.
Even less excusable, though begun with the best intentions in the world, was
the arrangement for a secret interview, held in July, 1885-but not disclosed
110
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
till some time afterwards-between Lord Carnarvon and Mr. Parnell. There is
no doubt that the Lord Lieutenant was genuinely anxious to learn from the Leader
of the Nationalist agitation the real feelings of the country. But if that was all,
why was it done in the dark? The attempted secrecy was by itself enough to
create the subsequent scandal. Even if we concede that Lord Carnarvon was
justified in making such overtures on his own account, we cannot acquit him of
foolishness in relying on Mr. Parnell's good faith. Mr. Parnell was a man to be
dealt with at arm's length; Lord Carnarvon treated him as one in whom con-
fidence might be reposed.
Mr. Parnell did not scruple, in June of the following year, to assert that the
Conservative Leaders had offered, in the event of their obtaining a majority at the
then impending General Election of 1885, to propose a Statutory Parliament for
Ireland, with power to protect Irish industries, and to bring forward an extended
scheme of Land Purchase. Challenged by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach to name the
person from whom such a suggestion had originated, Mr. Parnell declined on
the ground that his mouth was closed by honour. But the murder was already
out, as he intended it should be. A few days later Lord Carnarvon in the
House of Lords repudiated, in the most categorical terms, the statement that he
had conveyed to Mr. Parnell any such offer on the part of the Conservative
Government. The whole truth is that, acting for himself only-or for himself
and Lord Randolph-without any authorisation from the Cabinet, he did hold
more than one interview with the Irish Leader. Before the first meeting took
place he had expressly made three stipulations: first, that he was acting on his
personal initiative and simply on his own responsibility; secondly, that the con-
versation was merely to get information, not to be the basis of "any agreement,
however shadowy"; and thirdly, that as the Queen's servant he would not say or
hear one word that was inconsistent with the Union of the two countries. These
conditions Mr. Parnell accepted; but they did not prevent him from giving,
nearly a year later, an exaggerated and misleading account of Lord Carnarvon's
overtures—the crowning indiscretion of a politician who was induced, by his con-
siderable intellectual powers, to believe that he could become a leader of opinion. If
Mr. Parnell was to blame for the invention, Lord Carnarvon was responsible for the
opportunity. It is true that at this time the shifty character of the Irish Leader
had not been so fully exposed as it was by subsequent events. But it is the business
of a statesman to understand the persons he trusts. Lord Carnarvon trusted Mr.
Parnell first, and understood him afterwards. But it is no longer doubtful that
Lord Carnarvon led Mr. Parnell and some other Irish Members to believe that he
would himself support a modified form of Home Rule and press it on his colleagues.
In one more instance did the Conservative Government show the evil result of
that trafficking with the Irish Party in which Lord Randolph and some others had
indulged while they were in Opposition. On July 17th, 1885, Mr. Parnell called the
attention of the House of Commons to the conduct of the Irish Executive, with refer-
ence to the Barbavilla and Maamtrasma murders, and moved a Resolution censuring
Lord Spencer, and demanding a full inquiry into all the evidence, with a view to
(

PER
THE IRISH VOTE.
the relief of innocent persons. Though the Motion was rejected, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer stated that Lord Carnarvon was willing to receive a memorial on
the subject, and inquire into all the circumstances-just as he would into any
other case that might be brought before him. This was regular and proper
enough, but Lord Randolph Churchill thought fit to say that the new Adminis-
tration divested itself of all responsibility for the acts of the late Government,
and thus exposed himself to a telling retort from Lord Hartington. It would be
00
111
SIR JOHN GORST.
a disastrous thing, he said, if the idea got abroad that a change of Government
implied a change in the administration of criminal law in Ireland. The same
view was also expressed from the Conservative benches, where much resentment was
felt at what looked very like an attempt to make Party capital out of the unpopu-
larity which Lord Spencer had incurred by his just and unflinching assertion of
the law.
The mistake was promptly recognised by Lord Salisbury. Four days afterwards
112
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
he seized an opportunity of dissociating himself from such ungenerous action and
of paying to Lord Spencer, in the House of Lords, the public compliment
which he had so thoroughly deserved. Occupying a position in Ireland which
lifted him above Parties, Lord Spencer had, Lord Salisbury testified, acted up to
the dignity of that office. He had shown high and manly courage, and that he
had been actuated by the fairest and most equitable intentions was quite as fully
recognised on the Ministerial side of the House as it was on the Opposition benches.
The business which gave the Prime Minister an occasion for these remarks was
the discussion, in Committee, of Lord Ashbourne's Bill for facilitating the sale of
land in Ireland to occupying tenants. It provided for the advance of five millions
sterling, which was to be used in giving more generous terms than those imposed
by the Act of 1881. Those who had borrowed three-quarters of the purchase
money under that Act would get the loan at four per cent., and the period of
repayment would be spread over forty-nine years. Future borrowers would be
enabled to obtain the whole of their purchase-money, but one-fifth of that sum
would be retained by the Irish Land Commission until a sum equal to that fifth
had been repaid by the purchasing tenant. In order to protect the State against
any loss that might arise from these transactions, the Surplus of the Disestablished
Church Fund would be taken as a guarantee-not an ideal arrangement perhaps,
but the best that could be made. The Bill passed through both Houses of
Parliament almost without alteration, and was important as inaugurating the larger
scheme of Voluntary Land Purchase which was subsequently to be carried out by
a Conservative Administration. The Labourers' Bill-also an Irish measure-
was also passed into law. It was an inoffensive legacy from the late Administration,
as was the Secretary for Scotland Bill, which was also enacted before the Prorogation
of Parliament. The office was conferred upon the Duke of Richmond with, of
course, a seat in the Cabinet.
The speech in which her Majesty was made to review the work of a
"protracted and eventful" Session, concluded with an announcement that the
Dissolution of Parliament would not be long delayed. But the electoral cam-
paign had already begun. The Conservative orators had an easy task so long
as they dwelt on the disunion manifested in the ranks of their opponents.
emphasised in some of their public utterances while they insisted on the
urgent need for harmony, by which each section meant that the other should
surrender its own particular views. Mr. Chamberlain once again repudiated any
Communistic views as to private property, but the apology was accompanied with a
reference to "false and pedantic notions of Political Economy" which reawakened
the disquietude of the hard-shell Cobdenites. It was in obvious answer to
doctrines entertained by or attributed to his late colleague in the Cabinet that
Lord Hartington spoke of "reformers who were not satisfied with the abolition
of primogeniture," but wished to introduce into this country the French system
of the compulsory division of an estate among all the members of the family.
He was equally opposed to the compulsory purchase, whether by the State or by
Local Authorities, of land to be subdivided among yeomen, tenant-farmers, and

agricultural labourers.
he would not agree to
of the Liberal faith.
THE GENERAL ELECTION, 1885.
He did not object to the full discussion of such projects, but
their being accepted off-hand and laid down as articles
He pointed out that any principles of this kind which
7777
VISCOUNT PEEL, LATE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(From a painting by W. E. Lockhart.)
113
might be applied to land would in time be extended to other kinds of property,
and that the best hope for improving the condition of the people lay in the induce-
ments that could be given to the accumulation and profitable employment of capital.
VOL. IV.
I
114
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Lord Hartington, in fact, would not swallow the "Radical Programme,
which, in the course of this year, was expounded under that name in a volume
issued under Mr. Chamberlain's auspices. But it is only fair to add that in
the Preface which he contributed to that famous little publication he expressly
refused to pledge himself to all the proposals which it contained. The attitude of
the Radicals as distinguished from the Liberals a distinction which Lord
Rosebery openly deplored, since he was, he said, content to stand under “Mr.
Gladstone's umbrella "-was watched with special interest in regard to the
Church of England. They did not conceal their desire for Disestablishment and
Disendowment. Here Mr. Gladstone put down, not both his feet, but one of them.
The public mind of England was not prepared for so tremendous a change, and
"no man," he said, "now breathes the air of Parliament who will carry the
measure into effect.' Even with regard to the Church of Scotland he was not
prepared to support a Resolution in favour of Disestablishment. But if he were
twenty years younger he was not sure that, on some future occasion, he would not
urge the electors of Midlothian to give that question the first place in their
thoughts and actions.
C
""
در
Although a "plébiscite was taken of the views of Liberal candidates on the
question, and a large preponderance declared in favour of Disestablishment, it
does not seem that the supporters of the Church regarded the menace as serious, or
exerted themselves in its defence as they have done on a more recent occasion
when the attack had become real. On the other hand, it is certain that the whole
power of the Nonconformist congregations was placed at the disposal of the Liberal
Party. The Liberationists were bent, even if they had no hope of carrying their
proposal in the next Parliament, on bringing their programme forward and pressing
it on the attention of the Party Leaders. While Churchmen as Churchmen
remained neutral at this crisis, the political Dissenters "went in solid" for
Mr. Gladstone.
The one point upon which Radicals and Moderate liberals were in agreement
was in refusing Home Rule to Ireland. At a banquet in Dublin on August 24th
Mr. Parnell had formulated the Nationalist demand. The Parliament he asked for
should have absolute powers in Ireland (including the right of protecting native
industries); nor was there any hint of subordination to the Imperial Assembly at
Westminster. Mr. Parnell even objected to an Irish House of Lords. There was
no mistake about what the Irish wanted, nor was there any ambiguity in the
replies it evoked. Not unfavourable to the principle of Home Rule, if accompanied
with certain safeguards, Mr. Chamberlain refused to countenance such propositions
as those now advanced by Mr. Parnell. They were, he said, a great extension of
anything previously known as Home Rule. If the present claims were conceded
Englishmen might abandon the hope of maintaining a United Kingdom. We
should be establishing a new foreign country, and not a friendly one, within a few
miles of our own shores. Even Mr. John Morley, who in some respects represented
a more advanced Radicalism than Mr. Chamberlain, declared (September 16th) that
Separation would be a disaster to Ireland and a disgrace to England. Lord
THE NEWPORT SPEECH.
115
Hartington, of course, had spoken in the most uncompromising terms, and pointed
out that what Mr. Parnell asked for was not only a separate, but an independent
Parliament. If Mr. Gladstone was less concise, he could not fairly be accused of
equivocation in his voluminous Address (September 18th) to the Electors of Mid-
lothian. "In my opinion, not now for the first time delivered," he wrote,
"the
limit is clear within which any desires of Ireland, constitutionally ascertained,
may, and beyond which they cannot, receive the assent of Parliament. To main-
tain the supremacy of the Crown, the unity of the Empire, and all the authority 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 averting it, and is in the
nature of a new guarantee for increased cohesion, happiness, and strength." These
words were taken to mean, and could only have been intended to mean, that the
Liberal Party were ready to give Ireland a very extended system of Local
Government, but would not entertain the idea of a separate Parliament. In
defining Mr. Gladstone's attitude in the autumn of 1885 towards the Nationalist
programme it has seemed desirable, as a matter of history, to quote these measured
and deliberate phrases in preference to the more picturesque and impassioned
denunciations in which he had indulged on other occasions.
It has been pretended that Lord Salisbury at this time led the Irish Party to
believe that they might expect from the Conservatives a more favourable con-
sideration of their programme than the Liberals would accord them, and the
speech which is referred to-though not cited-with this object, is the one he
delivered at Newport on October 7th. It may, therefore, be well to quote his
exact words. The opening passages related to Foreign Affairs, reform of Local
Government, the Rating question, Sunday Closing, and Licensing of Public-
Houses. He expressed his readiness at this time to place the power of licensing
in the hands of the local authorities to the extent to which it was then possessed
by the Magistrates, because he believed that "the terror of having to provide fair
compensation" to dispossessed publicans, at the expense of the neighbourhood,
would be a guarantee for wise and cautious moderation. "You will probably
ask me,” he said, "how far I am inclined to carry this extension of local authority,
and to say how far are you inclined to make it general; how far are you inclined
to extend it to Ireland? That is a very difficult question, I admit. Our first
principle, on which we have always gone, is to extend as far as we can to Ireland
all those institutions that we have established in this country.
But I fully
recognise that, in the case of local institutions especially, there is one limiting
consideration which in the present state of Ireland you cannot leave out of
account. A local authority is more exposed to the temptation, and has more of
the facility for enabling a majority to be unjust to the minority than is the case
where the authority derives its sanction and extends its jurisdiction over a wider
area. That is one of the weaknesses of local authorities. In a large central
authority the wisdom of several parts of the country will correct the folly or the
¿
116
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
mistakes of one. In a local authority that correction to a much greater extent is
wanting, and it would be impossible to leave that out of sight in the extension of
any such local authority to Ireland. The fact is that the population is, on certain
subjects, deeply divided, and it is the duty of every Government in all matters of
essential justice, to protect the minority against the majority.
"With respect to large organic questions connected with Ireland, that have
been often mentioned, I cannot say very much about them, though I can speak
emphatically. I have nothing to say but that the traditions of our Party are, on
this subject, clear and distinct, and that you may rely upon it our Party will not
depart from them. We look upon the integrity of the Empire as a mátter more
important than almost any other political consideration that you can name, and
we could not regard with favour any proposal which, directly or indirectly, menaced
that which is the condition of England's position among the nations of the world.
If I had spoken three days ago I should not have said anything more upon the
Irish matter, but I observed, I think it was yesterday, in the newspapers a
remarkable speech from the Irish Leader, in which he referred in so marked a way
to the position of Austria and Hungary that I gathered his words were intended
to cover some kind of new proposition, and that some notion of Imperial
Federation was floating in his mind. In speaking of Imperial Federation as
entirely apart from the Irish question, I wish to guard myself very carefully. I
consider it to be one of the questions of the future. I believe that the drawing
nearer of the Colonies of this country is the policy to which English patriots must
look who desire to give effect in the councils of the world to the real strength of
the English nation, and who desire to draw all the advantage that can be drawn
from that marvellous cluster of Dependencies which distinguishes our Empire above
any other Empire which ancient or modern times record.
✓
"Our Colonies are tied to us by deep affection, and we should be guilty not
only of coldness of heart, but of gross and palpable folly, if we allow that senti-
ment to cool, and do not draw from it as much advantage for the common weal
of the whole of the English race as circumstances will permit us to do. I know
that the idea of Imperial Federation is still shapeless and unformed, and it is
impossible for any man to do more than to keep his mind open to a desire to give
effect to aspirations which bear the mark of the truest patriotism upon them, and
therefore I wish to avoid any language that may seem to discourage the plan in
which perhaps the fondest hopes of high Imperial greatness for England in the
future may be wrapped. But, with respect to Ireland, I am bound to say that I
have never seen any plan, or any suggestion, that will give me at present the
slightest ground for anticipating that it is in that direction that we shall find any
satisfactory solution of the Irish problem. I wish that it may be so, but I think
we shall be holding out false expectations if we avow a belief which, as yet, at all
events, we cannot entertain. To maintain the integrity of the Empire must,
undoubtedly, be our first policy with regard to Ireland.”
After defending, with such success as was possible, the policy of his Govern-
ment with regard to Coercion, Lord Salisbury passed on to the various schemes of
A

"THREE ACRES AND A COW."
117
Land Reform which had been aired on Radical platforms. Tory landlords were not
afflicted with any monstrous passion for paying long lawyers' bills. They had the
best of reasons for wishing to reduce the costs of transfer. But people who talked
about making the transfer of land as cheap as that of Consols, probably knew more
about Consols than they did about land. There were two difficulties in the former
case you must indicate exactly what bit of land you wish to sell, and must prove
your title to dispose of it. Lord Salisbury was quite willing to support any registra-
JOHN MORLEY.
tion scheme that might be recommended on sufficient legal authority, though he
was sceptical as to the result. How little some enthusiastic reformers-inventive
cockneys, Lord Salisbury called them-understood about the Land question, might
be seen from the proposal that any person who was in possession of land which
had been common land within the previous fifty years should be compelled to prove
his title on pain of being dispossessed. If that scheme was adopted by Parliament it
would, Lord Salisbury said, double the cost of transfer in every part of the country.
118
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
;
It was said that there was a great demand for small parcels of land. So far as
it was real, it ought, no doubt, to be satisfied. Lord Salisbury suggested that one
way of gaining this object would be to permit the clergyman, the patron of a
living, or the trustees of a charitable society, to get rid of their land (without the
consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners), and invest the proceeds in Consols.
The land thus put in the market would generally be found lying in a position
specially suitable for gardens, allotments, and small holdings. At the same time,
Lord Salisbury was very doubtful of the wisdom of artificially stimulating the
revival of the yeoman class. The small cultivators had been reduced in numbers
because the Corn Laws were repealed. Wheat-growing had become an unprofit-
able occupation. If men with capital, horses, and machinery failed to make a
living, was it likely that men without those advantages would be more successful?
Agriculture is only profitable if you can average bad years with good ones. The
man with capital can stand a bad season, a series of bad seasons.
But the poor
man is driven by the first year of loss to the money-lender, and is ruined for life.
It was by such homely and businesslike arguments that Lord Salisbury endeavoured
to undo the mischievous efforts of the Agrarian agitation, which had been got up
to win the votes of the new agricultural electors. It is hardly likely that any
candidates were so mad or so unscrupulous as actually to promise every labourer
that the Liberals would give him "Three Acres and a Cow." But Radical agents
did undoubtedly contrive to spread the impression abroad, nor did the Radical
Leaders trouble to correct it.
Lord Randolph Churchill (who was doing splendid service on the platform)
put the matter with his accustomed vigour and bluntness in a speech delivered at
King's Lynn. He was speaking of the "intense dishonesty" and "
" and "flagrant
immorality" of the Radical Party:-"Their leaders are allowing-not only allow-
ing but encouraging, not only encouraging but absolutely paying-speakers to go
about the country to persuade the agricultural labourer that the result of placing
the Radical Party in power will be to give him three acres and a cow, when they
know perfectly well that such a project is utterly hopeless, utterly absurd, utterly
ridiculous, and could not be undertaken with any more chances of success than a
project for colonizing the moon. Now, not only are the leaders of the Radical
party immoral, as I hold-politically immoral and dishonest—but they positively
boast of their immorality, and in any Radical circle in London, or any large town,
you will find the Radical party in a state of the greatest possible exultation, and it
is everywhere repeated, 'We shall smash the Tory Party in the country, because
Mr. Jesse Collings has carried the labourer with Three Acres and a Cow.' That is
Radical morality. For my own part, I have a much greater opinion of the
intelligence of the agricultural labourer and of the rural population. I think it is a
gross insult to the common-sense of English voters to imagine that you can take
them in for long by such a frivolous and utterly ridiculous scheme. These schemes
only require to be explained, to be worked out by some of you gentlemen who make
yourselves so active and energetic in election contests, before rural audiences, in
order to be repudiated by the agricultural mind. I do not believe that the labourer

MR. CHAMBERLAIN AND HIS COLLEAGUES.
119
will allow himself to be led into such a morass of political ruin by such political
will-o'-the-wisps as Mr. Jesse Collings."
On October 15th Lord Salisbury undertook to defend his Ministry from
the attacks made upon its foreign policy by Mr. Chamberlain. One charge was
that the Tories in office had done nothing for the garrisons in Equatorial Africa,
about which they had in Opposition expressed so much concern. The accusation
was untrue, Lord Salisbury replied, and pointed to Major Chermside's operations at
MANDALAY.
Kassala and the relief effected by the Abyssinian army under Ras Alula. It was
true, as Mr. Chamberlain complained, that the Berber Railway had not been
completed. But that project had never been supported by any member of the
Government. It was true, again, that the retirement from the Soudan, against
which the Conservatives had protested, had now been carried out by them. But
why was that? Because, when they came into office, the whole region up to
Dongola had already been evacuated, and 12,000 of the inhabitants of that Province
120
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
had fled to Upper Egypt as a refuge from the Mahdi's vengeance.
One rear-
guard had been left at Debbeh with provisions for a single week, and that rear-
guard had, of course, been ordered to retire. It was the late Government who
were responsible for the evacuation, and it had been stopped by the present
Ministry at the first point at which, on military principles, it was capable of
being stopped.
Mr. Chamberlain made it an accusation that the Conservatives had carried
out a financial agreement with Egypt, which he had described as muddled and
inadequate. Well, it was an agreement to which England had set her hand,
and she could not tear it up because there had been a change of Government.
"I do not like to say," Lord Salisbury remarked, "what name would be applied
to such a proceeding in private life. What would you think of a man who,
through his agent, had come to a certain agreement, and when the agent went away
and another agent came said, 'I have changed my agent, and therefore I shall
treat the agreement as having never taken place'? There is no term of contempt
and opprobrium which you would think too strong for such a man.'
""
With regard to Burmah, it was incorrect to say that the Government had
allowed French influence to be established there. They had, on the contrary,
called the attention of the Paris Government to the anti-English intrigues which
were being carried on there by certain speculators, and that Government had,
in the most straightforward manner, disavowed complicity. Again, on the Afghan
boundary and in Zanzibar, the Government had pursued a policy which they
would not themselves have instituted, but which was imposed on them by the
engagements of their predecessors.
"Mr. Chamberlain speaks of Lord Hartington as a Rip van Winkle and of
Mr. Goschen as a skeleton at a feast. Under these circumstances, the position of
Whig orators is a little difficult, and you may observe that their speeches are
usually framed upon this model. As a kind of homage to etiquette, they always
begin by advising me; but when they have got over that necessary point, they
proceed to devote several columns to demolishing arguments of Mr. Chamberlain,
and their difficulty in attacking us is one with which it is impossible not to
sympathize. They cannot attack us because, unfortunately, they agree with us.
Lord Hartington fully admits that in many of his opinions he is much nearer to us
than he is to the extreme members of his own Party. Mr. Goschen objects to
Liberal measures prepared in a Conservative kitchen. So that they are prepared
in a Liberal kitchen they are all right, but he determines his value of the dinner
that is set before him, not by the quality of the meats. but by the nature of
the kitchen in which these meats were prepared."
On November 4th, Lord Salisbury attacked the Liberal politicians who had
refused to take part in the Royal Commission on Trade Depression. "It is," he
said, “of the first necessity that we should, so far as we can, combat this depression,
find out the causes from which it arises, so far as a Government can, and that we
should apply the powers of Parliament and Government to remedy those evils.
That is the deep conviction with which we took office, and one of our first measures
}
THE HOLY DOCTRINE OF FREE TRADE.
121
was to recommend to the Queen that a Royal Commission should issue to investi-
gate this depression and to find out what legislative modification of it can be
discovered. It seemed to us that that was so elementary, that it would so go to
the heart of all who could feel for the sufferings of their fellow-subjects in this
exceptional time, that we should meet neither with opposition nor with criticism,
but that all Parties and all classes would heartily join in such an undertaking for
the good of the whole country. We were bitterly disappointed. We found that
our political opponents did their best, did all that was in their power, to make that
inquiry an impossibility and to prevent us from ascertaining where the causes of
this depression lay, or how it could be mitigated.”
This was because they were afraid that some question might be raised by heretics
about the "Holy Doctrine of Free Trade." On the meaning of the term there
was, and still is, a good deal of confusion. It is no violation of that principle to
arrange your own tariff in such a way as to induce other nations to open to you
the markets which they have previously closed. Free Trade is, Lord Salisbury
said, the negation of Protection-it consists in abstaining from raising domestic
commodities to an artificial price by excluding foreign goods of the same kind from
the home market.
"But," he pointed out, "that has nothing to do with raising the duties in our
own tariff for the purpose of influencing the action and legislation of other
countries. Let me give you an example. Now it must be a hypothetical example.
I will suppose that Spain is treating our manufactures very badly. You must allow
me to call that hypothetical, because if I called it actual I might draw a diplomatic
correspondence on my head, and I do not say it is actual because the case is very
complicated; but as a hypothetical illustration it will enable me to show you what
I mean.
Spain, let us say, treats our manufactures very badly and excludes them,
while she admits the manufactures of other countries. If we were able to say to
her, 'if you continue in that course we shall be obliged to raise the Duty on your
wines,' it is very possible that after a little time a new light might break upon her
reflections. But we cannot do that. We are forbidden to do it because Retaliation
is a mortal sin under this doctrine of Free Trade. I utterly deny that the true
doctrine of Free Trade has anything to do with it.”
Nor would it be any infraction of the Free Trade principle to alter our duties in
favour of our own Colonies, to bring them nearer to ourselves by abolishing, so far as
might be, the custom-houses that separate the two. "I do not put it before you
as a matter that is free from difficulty. I do not deny that in many points you
will find every obstacle hard to overcome. But what I demur to is that you
should be forbidden from entertaining the idea of Differential Duties in favour of
the Colonies as though it were an economical heresy. Why, to narrow down the
internal custom-houses which separate one province from another has always been
looked upon as the first duty and the earliest triumph of Free Trade. What
difference does it make if these custom-houses happen to stand upon the sea-shore?
It would be a happy thing-I do not say it would be possible, but it would be a
happy thing-if we could recognise the United Empire by destroying the separation
1
122
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
1
by custom-houses between its component parts just as it has been destroyed
between England and Ireland."
With reference to the doctrines of "Ransom" and "Restitution," with which
Mr. Chamberlain's name was associated, Lord Salisbury said he was not speaking
for the rich man. "He will defend himself, and you will find him a very hard
nut to crack." Lord Salisbury was thinking of the interests of the whole com-
munity, and in particular those of the working-man. "Now, what," he asked, "is
the effect of these doctrines of Ransom and Restitution? What is the effect of
turning you back to divide again the fragments that remain of wealth that has
been already earned? Why, the effect is that every capitalist, be he large or
small, more or less tends to button up his pocket. Well, his money is still with
him. He can do with it what he pleases. He can take it into some foreign land,
where Mr. Chamberlain's doctrines are still unknown, and Mr. Chamberlain's
doctrines, remember-do not groan at them-they are the unique possession of this
country, and would not be tolerated by any other country on the surface of the
globe. But so long as the capitalist has the money in his own hands he is safe,
and he is safe if he takes it abroad. If he invests it in this country, no matter
how, in manufactures, in railways, in the deepening of a dock, in the improvement
of the land, in the building of houses, from that moment he is exposed to the
action of any Legislature that may arise that may be under Mr. Chamberlain's
guidance, and he knows the risk he runs. These doctrines of Ransom and Restitu-
tion," Lord Salisbury sarcastically added, "are not new-they are the common
property of every barbarous and uncivilized Government."
On the doubts and hesitations of the Whigs, as expressed by Lord Hartington,
Lord Salisbury remarked that there was something quite pathetic in their
perplexity. "Lord Hartington discusses all the possible alternatives that could
present themselves to him, and he dismisses them with despair. He begins by
saying that he is afraid that he and his friends could not well form a Party by
themselves. Well, I suppose his friends are Lord Derby and Mr. Goschen. I am
sure that that would be one of the most remarkable Parties which English history
has yet presented. There was at the beginning of this century a Ministry known
as 'the Ministry of All the Talents,' and this would be a Ministry of All the
Irresolutions.' Can you fancy their inner councils-the Egyptian skeleton and
Rip Van Winkle trying to make up each other's minds, and Lord Derby steadily
pouring cold water upon both ?"
On November 21st both Mr. Gladstone and Lord Salisbury-the former in
Scotland, and the latter at the St. Stephen's Club-wound up the argument, each
for his own side, and on the same day Mr. Parnell issued a manifesto in which he
called upon all Irish Nationalists in Great Britain to vote against the Liberal
Party—against the men who had coerced Ireland and deluged Egypt with blood,
who were menacing religious liberty in school and freedom of speech in Parlia-
ment, and who promised to the country generally a repetition of the crimes and
blunders of the last Liberal Administration. This was the one advantage which
the Conservatives enjoyed in the appeal, now begun, to the electorate. And even
0
G

THE GENERAL ELECTION, 1885.
this was of doubtful value, since it probably alienated, among Moderate Liberals
PROLARENSION
123
na
"A TAYLOR
who would otherwise have opposed a Party which had so grievously mismanaged
ZANZIBAR.
124
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
our foreign affairs, as many votes as it won from the Irishmen in England. It
was recognised on both sides that the scale would be turned by the newly
enfranchised voters, and it was to gain them over that the Radical organizers had
laid so much emphasis on the policy of "Three Acres and a Cow."
The extent and character of the constituencies-urban, rural, and semi-rural
--had been, between 1880 and 1885, so altered by extension of the Franchise and
Redistribution of Seats, that it would be futile to enter on any detailed com-
parison between the results of the two General Elections. But it seems probable,
if the Liberals had now had to appeal to the same voters who had put them into
power, that their defeat would have been exemplary. In the English Boroughs,
where they had obtained a great ascendency in 1880, they were in 1885 reduced
to something less than equality. But this was only what the Party managers had
reckoned on, and provided against. This is why they had been so urgent in their
Reform scheme: they wished to appeal from the old voters to the new-to escape
condemnation by adding to the tribunal a number of judges not accustomed to
weighing evidence.
Their confidence was not misplaced. As soon as the returns began to come in
from Scotland and the English Counties it became clear that Lord Salisbury's
Government would be beaten, and the only anxiety felt was as to the dimensions
of Mr. Gladstone's majority. The Liberal Leader never lost heart, and at this
critical moment-the fact is most important in view of what was to happen before
the end of the year-exhorted the unpolled Constituencies to give his followers
such a preponderance over Conservatives and Parnellites combined, that he might
settle his Irish policy without regard to the Irish vote. But decisive as was the
Liberal victory in the counties-thanks to "Three Acres and a Cow"-it was
not so sweeping as he desired. The net result of the General Election was, in
fact, just the one which had been deprecated on both sides. The Liberals had
won half the seats in the new House of Commons-not enough, if the Speaker
were to be elected from their own side, to have even a majority of one over the
Conservatives and the Nationalists. The Liberals numbered 335; the Conserva-
tives, 249; and the Nationalists, 86.
Things were now at a deadlock, and, for a time, each Party waited for the
other to make the first move. Had Mr. Gladstone obtained a clear majority
without the Nationalists-who ostentatiously held aloof from both Parties—
it would have been Lord Salisbury's interest, though not a constitutional obli-
gation, to offer his resignation at once, without waiting for the meeting of
Parliament. But as things were, it was clearly his duty to hold office until
he had been deposed by a formal vote of the House of Commons. He had
not long to wait before seeing which way the wind was blowing. On
December 12th, the Daily News flew an ominous kite, and suggested that a
"small Committee " should be formed, on which Liberals, Conservatives, and
Parnellites should all be represented not to consider whether Ireland
ought or ought not to receive Home Rule, but what sort of domestic Legis-
lature it would be wise and safe to give her. It accepted, as a conclusion,
:
THE PARTY-DEADLOCK-FIRST KITES.
125
not to be any longer controverted, that "some such arrangement" had to be
made.
The excuse for this inference was that the Home Rule Party now held 85 seats
in Ireland, and one in Liverpool; whereas, in 1880, they had numbered only
61, and in 1874 only 51. The Liberal seats in Ireland had, in the mea
eantime,
been reduced from 20 in 1874 and 17 in 1880 to none in 1885, and the Con-
servatives from 32 in 1874 and 25 in 1880 to 18 in 1885. The bald and
awkward fact that the Liberals were wiped out of the Irish constituencies, and
had no hope in that country except from joining hands with the Home Rulers,
was put in diplomatic and democratic language by Mr. Chamberlain on De-
cember 17th. "We are face to face," he said, "with a very remarkable demon-
stration of the Irish people. They have shown that, so far as regards the great
majority of them, they are earnestly in favour of a change in the administration of
their Government, and of some system which would give them a larger control
of their domestic affairs. Well, we ourselves, by our public declarations and by
our Liberal principles, are pledged to acknowledge the substantial justice of their
claim."
There was no mistaking these words. They contained a clear intimation that
the speaker was willing to give a favourable consideration to the principle of
Home Rule, but no suggestion that he would accept any particular scheme which
had yet been put forward. The same morning a notable announcement had been
made in the Standard. Not only was it stated that Mr. Gladstone had taken up
Home Rule, but the main lines were described on which his scheme had been
drawn up.
The unity of the Empire and the supremacy of Imperial Parliament
were, it was said, to be maintained; but an Irish Chamber was to be created,
which would have full powers, both administrative and legislative. There was to
be an equitable distribution of Imperial charges, and the representation of
minorities was to be secured, amongst other means, by the nomination of certain
Irish members by the Crown.
The denial which Mr. Gladstone telegraphed did not solve the puzzle.
Probably it was not intended to do so. "The statement," he wrote, "is not
an accurate representation of my views, but is, I presume, a speculation upon
them. It is not published with my knowledge or authority; nor is any other,
beyond my own public declarations." He meant, in fact, to keep his counsel a
little longer, but he did not appear to be greatly annoyed by somebody's
indiscretion.
The scheme was promptly repudiated by Lord Hartington, and Mr. John Morley
(December 21st) dismissed the statement as the conjecture of some "enterprising
newspaper gentleman." But the latter politician-a leading Radical who was cer-
tain to be included in Mr. Gladstone's next Administration—plainly indicated that
Home Rule would have to be conceded. "It will stir deep passions," he said at
Newcastle; "it will perhaps destroy a great Party." It was the latter consideration
which kept Mr. Gladstone still in suspense. He was above everything anxious
not to identify the fortunes of Liberalism with those of Irish Nationalism. He
?
126
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
was quite aware of the powerful weapon he would be placing at the disposal of
his opponents. His policy was to tie their hands by involving them in a joint
responsibility or—if the phrase be preferred—of giving them a share in the common
honour.
While other politicians were distracted with doubts and searchings of heart,
Mr. Gladstone was paying a quiet visit to the Duke of Westminster at Eaton Hall,
where he held a friendly conversation on Irish matters with Mr. Arthur Balfour.
He dropped the remark that if the Nationalists did not get what they wanted
there might be a renewal of Irish outrages in England. On this Mr. Balfour
remarked, "In other words we are to be blown up and stabbed if we do not grant
Home Rule by the end of the Session." Mr. Gladstone replied with a laugh, “I
understand that the time is shorter than that." It would be unfair to insist too
strongly on words that were spoken with an obviously humorous intention, but
the remark is worth quoting because it suggests that at least, at this time-
Mr. Gladstone believed the Parliamentary Nationalists and the outrage-mongers
to be working in co-operation, and that the disappointment of the one class would
be avenged by the other.
On December 20th, Mr. Gladstone wrote to Mr. Balfour:-" On reflection, I
think that what I said to you in our conversation at Eaton may have amounted to the
conveyance of a hope that the Government would take a strong and early decision on
the Irish question. For I spoke of the stir in men's minds, and of the urgency of the
matter, to both of which every day's post brings me new testimony. This being so,
I wish, under the very peculiar circumstances of the case, to go a step further, and
say that I think it will be a public calamity if this great subject should fall into
the lines of Party conflict. I feel sure the question can only be dealt with by a
Government, and I desire, specially on grounds of public policy, that it should be
dealt with by the present Government. If, therefore, they bring in a proposal for
settling the whole question of the future government of Ireland, my desire will
be, reserving, of course, necessary freedom, to treat it in the same spirit in which
I have endeavoured to proceed in respect to Afghanistan, and with respect to the
Balkan Peninsula.'
""
Mr. Balfour replied, two days later, that he had not yet submitted Mr. Glad-
stone's letter to Lord Salisbury. He added, after some polite expressions :—
"If the ingenuity of any Ministry is sufficient to devise some adequate and
lasting remedy for the chronic ills of Ireland, I am certain it will be the wish of
the Leaders of the Opposition, to whichever side they may belong, to treat the
question as a national and not as a Party one, though I fear that, under our
existing parliamentary system, this will not prove so easy when we are dealing
with an integral portion of the United Kingdom, as it proved when we were con-
cerned with the remote regions of Roumelia and Afghanistan.
Next day, Mr. Gladstone wrote that he did not propose to give any public
expression of his own views-his desire being that the Government should act.
No doubt! But if Mr. Gladstone is an "old hand," Lord Salisbury is not
absolutely an innocent, nor was this the first diplomatic correspondence in
""

PROPOSAL TO POOL HOME RULE.
which he had been engaged. He was he asked Mr. Balfour to say-very sen-
sible of Mr. Gladstone's courtesy and conciliation, but did not think it advisable
to make any communication before the meeting of Parliament. Mr. Gladstone, of
course, was perfectly satisfied, and disclaimed the idea of inviting any premature
disclosure.
127
Though Mr. Gladstone practised so much reserve, and postponed as long as
possible the announcement that would finally sever him, as he now realised, from
some of his most important colleagues, it was generally understood, before the
end of 1885, that, on returning to power early in the following year, one of his
first actions as Prime Minister would be to bring in a Home Rule Bill. The only
EATON HALL.
CORLEAN
475333
doubt was as to the extent of the concessions to be extorted from him by
Mr Parnell; whether he would stand out for safeguards that might reassure
the public mind of Great Britain; and how many of his present supporters would
desert him when the issue was definitely raised in Parliament.
Before relating the subsequent phases of the Home Rule adventure, it
may be
well to summarise briefly the other main events of the year. In Ireland itself, as
we have already seen, though other political crimes had been kept within bounds,
Boycotting had become an established system for the ruin of any person who acted,
or was believed to act, against the interest of tenants who had a dispute with their
landlord. But even more striking an indication of Irish disaffection was the
attitude taken up by the Nationalists when it was announced in April that the
128
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
1
Prince of Wales would pay a visit to Lord Spencer. They resented what they
considered an attempt to whitewash "The Castle "an institution whose fair fame
had recently been smirched by misconduct which had no connection with politics.
The more moderate men would have been contented to ignore the presence of
Royalty, but at some places, at Mallow and Cork in particular, demonstrations
were organized which showed the Prince that his Irish tour was unwelcome to the
people. The American-Irish denounced his Royal Highness as an "alien deserving
of death," and one patriotic journal published a letter in which a reward was
offered for his body "dead or alive."
The history of the few months during which Lord Salisbury held office in
1885 includes an important addition to the British Empire. The extravagant
behaviour of King Theebaw has already been mentioned, and his high-handed
treatment of British merchants in Burmah led, in October, to the intervention of
Lord Dufferin as Viceroy of India. An Ultimatum was despatched in which the
King was required to accept a British Resident at Mandalay in order to settle the
dispute, and on the expiration of the term of grace (November 10th) orders were
given for an expeditionary force, already mobilised for action, to advance on the
capital. The British troops met with slight resistance along the Irrawaddy, and
on November 27th the flotilla anchored off Ava. On the following day General
Prendergast effected, without opposition, the occupation of Mandalay, and the
King, with his harem and suite, was sent off first to Rangoon and afterwards to
Madras. More serious trouble than had been caused by the native troops was
given by the bands of dacoits-some of them, no doubt, soldiers from the defeated
arıny— and order was not thoroughly restored when the year came to an end. But
this excellently managed little campaign was so far completed that on January 1st,
1885, a Proclamation was issued under which the dominions of King Theebaw were
formally annexed by the Crown.
If the Liberals were still undecided in their Irish policy, the Conservatives had
now defined their attitude. They were prepared to reform the system of Local
Government in Ireland, but that was the limit of their concessions. On the other
hand, they were convinced that the attempt to govern the country under the
ordinary law must be given up; the experiment had been given the promised trial,
and had proved a failure. The hands of the Government were, however, freed
by the resignation of Lord Carnarvon, who was believed to favour a progressive
indulgence to Nationalist demands, with that of the Chief Secretary, Sir William
Hart Dyke. Without a majority in the House of Commons, and with the practical
certainty of being defeated soon after the meeting of Parliament, Lord Salisbury
was still bound to make provisional arrangements for the government of Ireland,
and to give an indication—if no more were permitted—of the policy he intended to
adopt. The following confidential letter to Mr. W. H. Smith put the whole
situation very frankly :—
“HATFIELD HOUSE, Dec. 17, '85.
"MY DEAR SMITH-As you know, —— has refused the Lord Lieutenancy. But
now comes a new complication. Last night Dyke came to Beach, and afterwards

1]
THE IRISH SECRETARYSHIP.
to
me, and explained that he did not want to go on as Irish Secretary.
Now it is possible to go on without a Viceroy by the help of Lords Justices,
but it is not possible to go on without an Irish Secretary. Are you disposed
75349
MY
7777777
111
雙
​TO
129
DUBLIN. THE CHAPEL ROYAL AND CASTLE.
to take it? supposing, of course, that we are not immediately turned out. I
need not tell you how much confidence such an appointment would give to the
Party and the country. It is not a question whether the acceptance of this pro-
VOL. IV.
K
130
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
posal would be an advantage to the country-of that there can be no doubt-but
whether you will take it. It is the post of difficulty now, and therefore the post
of honour.
The difficulties are formidable: I am afraid you are the only
person who can avert them.-Ever yours very truly,
"SALISBURY."
The request was flattering to Mr. Smith, not only because of the terms in
which it was conveyed, but because it showed that the writer knew he could count
on the self-sacrifice of the recipient. For a statesman so averse as Mr. Smith was
from any approximation to severe measures it cannot have been pleasant to have
his name associated with a revival of Coercion, besides being asked to exchange
a Department (the War Office) in which his business experience was likely to win
him success, for a post which had destroyed the administrative reputation of many
previous incumbents.
On the opening of Parliament (January 12th, 1886), the Queen's Speech-
intended more as a statement of Conservative policy than as the outline of an
actual session's work was found to contain an uncompromising declaration in
favour of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, and an equally plain
hint that a Coercion Bill would shortly be introduced. In the Upper House
Lord Salisbury explained why, on their first accession to office, the Govern-
ment had not proposed a renewal of the Crimes Act. But he admitted that the
attempt to dispense with exceptional powers had broken down, though Lord
Carnarvon had given it every chance. "The worst part of the failure," Lord
Salisbury held, “was due to declarations which were believed to have been made in
favour of Home Rule. Do not tell me," he said, "that when a man in the
position of Mr. Gladstone has attributed to him opinions at variance with all the
opinions of his life and fatal to the Constitution of his country-do not tell me
that he is at liberty to skulk behind ambiguous denials and not say boldly before
the country whether the opinions which-apparently, with authority—are attri-
buted to him are really his or not."
Mr. Gladstone, in the other House, still maintained the reserve which he
believed to be statesmanlike, and still attempted-as if there was every prospect of
success-to draw the Conservatives into partnership in his adventure. He was
unwilling, he pleaded, to bring the Irish question into the category of Party
controversics. He waited for the proposals of the Government, and meantime
reserved his own liberty of action.
"I do not intend, as far as lies within my power, to have it determined for
me [he said] by others at what time and in what manner I shall make any
addition to the declaration I laid before the country in the month of September.
I stand here as a member of this House, where there are many who have taken
their seats for the first time on these benches, and where there may be some to
whom possibly I may avail myself of the privilege of old age to offer a recom-
mendation. I would tell them of my own intention to keep my counsel and
reserve my own freedom, until I see the occasion when there may be a prospect of
1
MR. GLADSTONE'S THIRD CABINET.
131
public benefit in endeavouring to make a movement forward, and I will venture to
recommend them, as an old parliamentary hand, to do the same.
""
The Debate on the Address wandered, as usual, over a variety of subjects, and
after three nights it almost seemed as if Ministers might survive this stage. But
on January 26th the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that on the 28th
Mr. Smith (who had paid a flying visit to Dublin) would bring in a Bill to
suppress the National League and other dangerous associations, to prevent
intimidation, and to protect life, property, and public order in Ireland. The
effect of this declaration was to put the 86 National votes at the disposal of the
Liberal Whip, and all that had to be done, in order to turn the Government out,
was to find an excuse for bringing the alliance into action. The opportunity was
provided in Mr. Jesse Collings' Amendment, which expressed the regret of the
House that no measure had been announced for providing agricultural labourers
and others in rural districts with "Allotments and Small Holdings on equitable
terms as to rent and security of tenure."
This was, in effect, the "Three Acres and a Cow policy "-the cry on which
the Liberals had won so many seats in the English Counties. It was formally
endorsed by Mr. Gladstone as well as by Mr. Chamberlain. On the other hand, it
was repudiated by Lord Hartington, who protested against false hopes being
excited in the minds of the agricultural labourers-the first open and quasi-
official confession of a split in the Liberal Party, a split that was independent
of the Home Rule question, and which divided those who were hereafter to be
known respectively as Liberal and Radical Unionists. For the present, however,
there was a solid Opposition majority, and on a Division being taken the Govern-
ment were beaten by 79 votes. Eighteen Liberals went against their party,
among them being Lord Hartington, Mr. Goschen, Sir Henry James, and Mr.
Courtney, while Mr. Bright and Mr. Villiers were included in the absentees. Mr.
Gladstone had thus won a complete tactical triumph, since he had defeated Lord
Salisbury without giving any definite indication of his own Irish policy.
On Thursday, January 28th, Lord Salisbury went down to Osborne, and ten-
dered his resignation to the Queen. The project of forming a Coalition Ministry,
supported by Conservatives and Unionist Liberals, was entertained, but aban-
doned. The time had not yet come for such a combination. On Friday night,
Mr. Gladstone received the expected summons, and on the following Monday
it was announced in both Houses that he was engaged in constructing an Adminis-
tration.
-
The new Cabinet was equally remarkable for its omissions and admissions.
Lord Hartington, Lord Selborne, Lord Derby, Lord Northbrook, Mr. Forster, and
Sir Henry James stood aside; but among the Liberals who were prepared to accept
Home Rule were Lord Spencer, lately the object of the most furious Nationalist
invective, and Sir William Harcourt, who had signalised himself by the most
bitter attacks on that Party. The most significant appointment was that of
Mr. John Morley as Irish Secretary, since he was understood to favour the largest
possible concessions to Mr. Purnell. On the other hand, the acceptance of office
132
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
by Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan implied that some attempt would be made
to preserve the "integrity of the Empire" and the "supremacy of the Crown."
The other members of Mr. Gladstone's third Cabinet were Lord Herschell,
Mr. Childers, Lord Granville (removed from the Foreign to the Colonial Office),
Lord Rosebery (who succeeded him in the more important Department), Mr. Camp-
bell-Bannerman, Lord Kimberley, Lord Ripon, and Mr. Mundella.
On the meeting of Parliament on February 18th, Mr. Gladstone fixed on
March 22nd as the date on which he would produce the whole or some part of his
scheme—a date which was ultimately altered to April 8th. The intermediate
proceedings of the House of Commons may be omitted. The interest of the great
struggle lay out of doors. Lord Randolph Churchill, who made a trip to Belfast,
declared that against a Dublin Parliament, "Ulster would fight, and Ulster would
be right"; and in a speech at Manchester, he invited Liberals who would not
follow Mr. Gladstone to join the Conservatives, and form a Unionist Party.
"If
Lord Hartington, Mr. Goschen, and Sir Henry James would consider his offer
they would be met more than half-way. The Conservatives would support them
if they formed a Government of their own, would co-operate in a Coalition
Ministry, and, finally, if there were among the Conservatives some with whom the
Whigs did not wish to serve, those persons could cheerfully stand aside." In
making that proposal, which involved the sacrifice of his own ambitions, Lord
Randolph may fairly be held to have atoned for all the other vagaries of his
carecr―future and past. He did a minor service to the Unionists by inventing
for their adversaries the description of Separatist-a nickname equally offensive,
accurate, and adhesive.
In a brilliant attack upon "this Cabinet of Compromise and Concealment,”
Lord Salisbury, at the Crystal Palace, admitted that this ambiguity had a peculiar
advantage for the head of the Government. "You may have seen in the shops
garments which have the advantage of being usable either in fine weather or in
foul. They bear the name of "reversible." Now if, in our changeable English
climate, it is advantageous for a man to have a reversible garment about him, in
our changeable English politics it is useful to have a reversible programme. When
Mr. Morley calls upon him, Mr. Gladstone is dressed in the garments of Home
Rule, and Mr. Morley goes away convinced of the sincere and, I may say, holy
attributes of the Minister with whom he has been conversing. When Mr. Glad-
stone converses with Lord Spencer or Lord Kimberley, or a great number of other
Peers whose opinions have always been adverse to Home Rule-and I may add
Mr. Chamberlain-then he assumes the other dress. He turns the coat inside out.
The reversible garment is exposed on its other face, and they go away convinced
of the splendid integrity of the Defender of the Unity of the Empire. That is
as far as we have got in contemporary history. We know that Mr. Gladstone
has persuaded two sets of people, of precisely opposite opinions, that he agrees
with both of them, and that is all we know."
The respite obtained by postponing the Home Rule Bill was devoted to
talking over the scruples of Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan, and with

D
LÄ Ä Ä Ä ÄÄ
COMPROMISE AND CONCEALMENT.
the former at least the negociations were so far hopeful that he had submitted
counter-proposals of his own. But it was known that such qualified concessions
60
!!!!
mwing
H
Con tanta. Bonthronting Samma
Tammu
RMPHITEC
THOT
HEADE
學​層
​DOREMIXrd fraud teed unfulf Lege
興​店
​RASPINE
ソバム​100
1 // = 1) //
VAAT
133
OSBORNE HOUSE.
would not satisfy either the Nationalists or their representative in the Cabinet, and
Mr. Gladstone-having to make the choice between the President of his Board
134
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
of Trade and his Chief Secretary-determined to stand by the latter. On March
26th, therefore, Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan resigned, and their places.
were at once filled by Mr. Stansfeld and Lord Dalhousie. The only important
respect in which the Prime Minister consented to modify his scheme, in deference
to Liberal hesitations, was in refusing Mr. Parnell's demands that the Irish customs.
should be transferred to the control of the Dublin Parliament. The danger of
protective duties being imposed by that body on English manufactured goods had,.
it was said, alarmed the Free Trade conscience of Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Childers,.
and Mr. Mundella.
It did not require the stately peroration with which Mr. Gladstone wound up the
explanation of his Home Rule Bill, to draw enthusiastic applause from the Nation-
alist benches. They were now offered nearly all they had asked for, far more than
they expected. They cared nothing for the "safeguards" and "securities" invented
by the Prime Minister. With the power of the purse, and without any Imperial
Voto, the Dublin Parliament would soon make itself supreme in Ireland, and usurp
those powers which were formally denied it. Nor did they care to criticise
seriously the fantastic scheme of the Two Orders. Give them an independent
Parliament and they would soon find means to fashion it to their own liking.
There is no occasion here either to describe the measure or to repeat the argu-
ments, made familiar by iteration during the last decade, which were employed
on this occasion by the leading statesmen on both sides of the House; but it may
be mentioned that in winding up the discussion Mr. Gladstone intimated that the
door would not be closed against reconsideration of the proposal to exclude Irish
representatives from the Imperial Parliament. Of his plan as a whole he admitted
that it might be improved by the wisdom of the House, but, speaking of it as a
plan, he said it held the field. It had many enemies, it had not a single rival. This.
argument and the respect due to the Prime Minister's position so far prevailed that
leave was given to bring in the Bill, and the Second Reading was fixed for May 6th
-the anniversary of the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke in
Phonix Park.
The first effect of Mr. Gladstone's statement and the criticisms which it pro-
voked was that the secession of Lord Hartington and Mr. Goschen, Lord
Selborne and Sir Henry James, Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Trevelyan, was followed
by that of several minor members of the Administration. Lord Morley (Chief
Commissioner of Works) and Mr. Heneage (Chancellor of the Duchy of
Lancaster) retired from their posts, while several officers of the Household only
agreed to retain office until due arrangements could be made for filling the
vacancies. Outside Parliament the general feeling was one of amazement
that Mr. Gladstone had not produced a more acceptable measure. The diffi-
culty of the undertaking was at last realised when it was seen that the only
statesman whose constructive genius might have been supposed equal to the task
had produced a scheme which his own supporters presently admitted to be unwork-
able. Nor can he be justly blamed for his shifting attitude with regard to the
exclusion or retention of Irish representatives at Westminster. To exclude them.
-

L
THE HOME RULE BILL.
was to confess that Ireland was separated from Great Britain, that her new posi-
tion was analogous to that of a self-governing colony like Canada, not to that of a
state in the North American Union; to retain them was to deprive the Home
Rule Bill of the one practical advantage which it offered to representatives of
other portions of the United Kingdom, that they would henceforth be able to
get on with their own business without Irish let or hindrance. Mr. Gladstone's
friends have complained that Unionists, in first bringing forward one objection
SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN.
135
fre Sugh
and then the other, are inconsistent with themselves. There would be more
point in the charge if it did not assume-what is the very point at issue-that
Home Rule is inevitable. The real bearing of these contradictory objections is to
show no such scheme can properly be entertained, since it must land us in one or
other of two objectionable alternatives. The attempt to discover a middle course by
admitting Irish representatives to some of the proceedings of Imperial Parliament
and shutting them out from others is condemned beforehand by Mr. Gladstone's
absolutely correct declaration that it "passes the wit of man" to lay down any
136
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
working distinction between what matters are Imperial and what are purely
local.
The introduction of the Bill led to the formal creation of the Unionist Party,
signalized at the great meeting held on April 14th at Her Majesty's Opera House.
The Conservatives were represented by Lord Salisbury and Mr. W. H. Smith, the
Liberals who had parted company with their Leader by Lord Hartington and Mr.
Goschen, while the chair was taken by Lord Cowper, who had once been Mr.
Gladstone's Irish Viceroy. Lord Hartington expressed the feelings of the Liberal
Unionists as a body when he said that neutrality was no longer possible, and Mr.
Goschen, hitherto known as one of the most thoughtful and discriminating states-
men on either side of the House, displayed an unsuspected power of imparting to
others the enthusiasm of his own profound conviction. From Lord Salisbury's
speech on this memorable occasion-the most impressive because the most practi-
cally efficient platform meeting of the generation—it is enough to quote the
weightiest, and most criticised, passage. "There is no middle term," he said,
“between government at Westminster and independent and entirely separate
government at Dublin. Federation, of course, is conceivable. We know that it
exists in Germany, Austria, and America. But we know also that the conditions
which are necessary for it are wanting in this country. It is not within our
political horizon
My belief is that the Government of Ireland does not
involve any unmanageable difficulty, for the people of this country will be true to
the Empire to which they belong. We want a wise, firm, continuous administra-
tion of the law. But you must support it, or it will not take place. We want a
steady policy-that no considerations of weariness or difficulty at Westminster,
that no considerations attaching to the manifold ties of Party Government under
which we live, shall drive aside from its strong course the policy on which the
people of England have now decided.”
The drift of public opinion was already clear. The most thoroughgoing
supporters of Mr. Gladstone-his most enthusiastic companions in conversion
-admitted that the mind of England was not yet "ripe" for the great change he
advocated. It was more because he was determined to unfold his whole Irish
programme than with any hope of its gaining acceptance in Parliament, that on
April 16th he rose in the House of Commons to explain his scheme of Land
Purchase the scheme on which he had relied to conciliate the opposition of the
Peers, and, let us do him this justice, to modify the hardships to which the Irish
landowners would otherwise be subjected, by giving them an option of being
bought out at a reasonable price. The Bill was read for the first time, and dis-
appeared from public notice.
It was given up as a bad job, and its main effect was to strengthen the dislike
entertained to its companion measure. Between the First Reading of the Land
Bill and May 10th, the (amended) date fixed for the Debate on the Second
Reading of the Home Rule Bill, the country was flooded with platform speeches
and written Manifestoes. Those who have least sympathy with Mr. John Morley's
object must admit that about this period he made a deserved reputation by the
FATE OF THE HOME RULE BILL.
argumentative skill and eloquent fervour with which he pleaded Mr. Gladstone's
cause-- -the cause he had thrust upon his Leader. But the country was not much
concerned about the details of the two Bills; what it wanted to know was how
many Liberals were going to vote against the Government. There was not much
doubt that Lord Hartington would be followed by a good many of the Whigs.
But what about the Radical Unionists? Were they a solid group or only a
clique, and would they stand by the opinions they had professed? Up to this
point it must be remembered that Lord Hartington and Mr. Chamberlain had by
no means made up the political differences emphasised at the General Election, and
conducted their respective campaigns against Mr. Gladstone from two separate
bases. The Ministerialists thought apparently that Mr. Chamberlain might safely
be defied, since the "Caucus "the National Federation of Liberal Associations-
had a few days before inflicted a defeat on his followers, and voted confidence
in Mr. Gladstone's policy. It was now believed by Ministerialists that Mr.
Chamberlain might be disregarded, and no attempt was made to meet his latest
and final overtures of reconciliation.
137
(C
The fate of the Home Rule Bill was decided not so much by the long and fre-
quently interrupted debate on the Second Reading, as by the interludes enacted out
of doors. In opening the discussion the Prime Minister announced the readiness of
the Government to consider the views of those who objected to the exclusion of
Irish representatives from Westminster. But that vague intimation did not satisfy
the scruples either of the Liberal or the Radical Unionists. Separate meetings of
the two groups were summoned by Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Hartington (on
May 12th and 14th) to decide on their respective courses, and it was now
arranged that both sections should vote against the Second Reading. On the
following day Lord Salisbury addressed the delegates of the National Union of
Conservative Associations, making use of two phrases which have since-either
wantonly or ignorantly-been frequently misrepresented by his adversaries. He
did not compare the Irish with the Hottentots, nor did he propound "twenty
years of coercion" as his sole remedy for Irish troubles. What he did say was
that there were races which, "like the Hottentots and the Hindoos," were
incapable of self-government, and what he did propound was an alternative policy
to granting Home Rule. My alternative policy," he said, "is that Parliament
should enable the Government of England to govern Ireland. Apply that recipe
honestly, consistently, resolutely for twenty years, and at the end of that time you
will find that Ireland will be fit to accept any gifts in the way of Local Govern-
ment or repeal of Coercion Laws that you may wish to give her. What she
wants is government-government that does not flinch, that does not vary;
government that she cannot hope to beat down by agitation at Westminster;
government that does not alter in its resolution or its position according to the
Party changes which take place at Westminster.'
A Bill for the renewal for two years of the Coercion Act of 1881 was
introduced on May 20th, and hurried through all its stages so that it received
the Royal Assent on June 4th. With regard to the Home Rule Bill the policy
در
—
:
138
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
of Ministers was to postpone the Division to the latest possible date, so as to
give the Caucus time to bring all its pressure to bear on revolting members of
the Party. On May 27th Mr. Gladstone convened a meeting of his supporters
at the Foreign Office. The Government, he said, must persist in demanding a
Second Reading for the Home Rule Bill-just to affirm its principle. Those who
voted for it would not be bound to any of its details, or to the Land Purchase
Bill. He added that, if the Second Reading were carried, no further steps
would be taken with the Bill that Session. This announcement was an admission
that the House of Commons would be discussing, not a legislative proposal, but
merely an abstract proposition-that the Bill was to be dropped.
Four days later a joint meeting of Lord Hartington's and Mr. Chamberlain's
followers was convened by Mr. Caine, and a letter was read from Mr. Bright,
in which he announced that he should vote against the Bill. Mr. Chamberlain's
personal preference was still for abstaining from the Division, but in the end
it was agreed that a solid opposition should be offered to the Government, and on
the next day he emphasised his now defined attitude by an uncompromising
speech in Parliament. On June 7th, the Division, which could no longer be
deferred, was at last taken. In spite of the eloquent argument with which
Mr. Gladstone wound up the Debate, no serious impression had been made
on the scruples of the Liberal and Radical Unionists, and the Second Reading
was rejected by a majority of 30-343 against 313. It was found that 94
Liberals had voted against the Government, that ten had abstained, and that one
Conservative (the late Sir Robert Peel) had supported Mr. Gladstone.
The defeat of the Government was not followed by their resignation. Mr.
Gladstone decided to appeal to the country on the Home Rule issue. The
decision was equally honourable to his courage and his constitutional con-
science. Tactically, it was a mistake. He did not understand the depth of
the alarm, the extent of the repugnance, excited by the proposal he had sprung
on the country. For that miscalculation the responsibility lay with his election-
eering advisers. The meeting of the Cabinet held after the defeat of the
Government was attended by Mr. Schnadhorst, the chief Party manager, and
Ministers were assured that they had a good chance of getting a majority—that
the Caucus could wipe out the Liberal Unionists. Acting on that advice, Mr.
Gladstone and Lord Kimberley, on June 10th, announced in both Houses that the
Queen had consented to dissolve Parliament. It was intended, therefore, to aban-
don all contentious business, to wind up the necessary business of the Session, and
to take enough money to carry on the public services to the end of October. On
June 25th Parliament was prorogued, and the next day it was dissolved in order
(as had been declared in the Queen's Speech) to "ascertain the full sense of the
people" on the proposal to " establish a legislative body in Ireland for the manage-
ment of Irish as distinguished from Imperial Affairs." It was a straightforward
question that Mr. Gladstone put to the electors, nor was there any ambiguity in the
answer it was about to receive.
-
CHAPTER V.
IN approaching the record of events which are comparatively fresh in the memory
of the reader, no apology is required for describing them with less ampli-
tude of detail than those which preceded the great Home Rule split. That
incident so materially altered the relations of Liberalism and Conservatism that it
has been possible, one may hope, to deal with the previous epoch in something
like the spirit of an historian, but it becomes more difficult to avoid partizanship
as soon as one touches on subjects of still current controversy. Nor has the time
yet come--so honourably is the tradition of reticence observed in English public
with regard to the inner side of politics-when it would be safe to attempt
much more than a record and summary of outward facts.
If any hope had been seriously entertained by Liberal tacticians about the
appeal to the country in July, 1886, they were dissipated before the month was
many days old.
In almost every part of the United Kingdom except Ireland—
which, as judge in its own case, reaffirmed its verdict in favour of Home Rule
—the supporters of Mr. Gladstone were hopelessly defeated. In the London and
Birmingham districts, and in the South of England, they were almost extin-
guished; in Scotland and even in North Wales, in Lancashire and Cheshire, their
ascendency was shaken, and it was chiefly in Yorkshire, Durham, Northumber-
land, Cumberland, and Westmoreland that they held their own. The result was
as below, Mr. T. P. O'Connor sitting as Home Rule Member for a Liberal
Division of Liverpool :-
Conservatives
316 | Gladstonians
Liberal and Radical Unionists 78
78 Parnellites
191
85
If the two Unionist Parties continued to act together, they would have an
overwhelming majority against the Government, and as there was no immediate
prospect of any other contingency, Mr. Gladstone lost no time in facing the situa-
tion. Before the last return came in, he had called together his leading colleagues,
and at a Cabinet Council on July 20th it was decided to resign without waiting for
the meeting of Parliament. The Queen at once sent for Lord Salisbury, but, as
he had no majority in the House of Commons without the Liberal Unionists, he
renewed the provisional offer which he had made to Lord Hartington before the
General Election-either to stand aside in his favour or to serve with him in a
Coalition Government. But Lord Hartington decided—and decided wisely-that
the time had not yet arrived for a complete fusion of Parties. The value of the
support given to the cause of the Union by himself and Mr. Chamberlain would
;
140
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
SALIS
have been diminished in the country if their opponents had been able to taunt
them with having turned Conservative-a conversion which, however desirable,
had not as a matter of fact been accomplished. Another personal reason for the
decision of Lord Hartington and his colleagues was that, having broken with Mr.
Gladstone on high grounds of policy, it would not be expedient to seem to profit
by their actions.
It devolved on Lord Salisbury, therefore, to construct a purely Conservative
Administration which would depend in the House of Commons on the support of
the Liberal Unionists, and would, of course, be bound, alike by honour and self-
interest, to frame its policy with due attention to the views of those outside friends
with whom it was neither willing nor able to dispense. It must be remembered,
in criticising the action of the 1886-1892 Government, that in effect, though not in
name, it was a Unionist, not a purely Conservative, Administration, and that its
occasional deviations from the principles of the Party to which its members
belonged were due to the just and admitted claim of the Liberal Unionists to
influence-though not, of course, to dictate-its line of action.
-its line of action. During that
period we were, in fact, governed by a Coalition, though the Liberal Unionists
assumed no official responsibility for advice which was both given and solicited.
The chief difficulty which Lord Salisbury experienced in the distribution of
offices lay in dealing with the respective claims of his old colleague Lord
Iddesleigh and his energetic lieutenant Lord Randolph Churchill. To the former he
allotted the second most important place in the Cabinet-the Foreign Office. The
latter he made Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach
becoming Chief Secretary for Ireland-Leader of the House of Commons. The
influence of Lord Randolph was further displayed in the choice of Mr. Henry
Matthews (now Lord Llandaff) to be Home Secretary. In other respects the
Cabinet of 1886 did not greatly differ from that of 1885: Lord Halsbury as Lord
Chancellor, Lord Cranbrook as Lord President of the Council, Mr. W. H. Smith
at the War Office, Lord George Hamilton at the Admiralty, and Lord Ashbourne
as Lord Chancellor of Ireland, returned to their old Departments, while Lord
Stanley of Preston took the Board of Trade, Mr. Stanhope the Colonies, Lord Cross
the India Office, Mr. Arthur Balfour the Secretaryship for Scotland, and Lord
John Manners (Duke of Rutland) the Duchy of Lancaster. Other important
members of the new Administration were Lord Cadogan (Lord Privy Seal), Lord
Londonderry (Lord Lieutenant of Ireland), Mr. Raikes (Postmaster-General), Mr.
Ritchie (Local Government Board), Sir Henry Holland, now Lord Knutsford (Vice-
President of the Council), Mr. David Plunket, now Lord Rathmore (First Commis-
sioner of Works), and Sir John Gorst as Under-Secretary for India. Sir Richard
Webster became Attorney-General, and Sir Edward Clarke Solicitor-General, while
Mr. Akers Douglas resumed the duties of Chief Whip. Mr. Chaplin had refused
the Board of Trade because the office of that post was unaccompanied with admission
to the Cabinet.
Ca
The new Parliament met on August 5th, when the re-election of Mr. Peel to
the Speakership was unopposed. On the same day Lord Hartington invited

HENRY MATTHEWS.
From a photograph by The London Stereoscopic Cr
AIN
OF
cè
1

THE NEW PARLIAMENT.
Liberal Unionists in both Houses to a meeting at Devonshire House. He still
looked forward to the day when the Liberal Party would be reunited, but this
could only happen if Home Rule were abandoned. Meantime he promised to
support Lord Salisbury's Administration, since by opposing the Conservatives the
Liberal Unionists would only assist their own defeat on the very issue on which
they had fought the General Election. Similar views were expressed by Mr.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH.
141
Anders Sigh
Chamberlain, who now made the significant announcement that he should hence-
forth regard Lord Hartington as his own Leader. Such was the formal foundation
of the double coalition between Liberal and Radical Unionists on one side and
Conservatives on the other. Two days later the National Liberal Federation issued
a Circular declaring that the Liberal Party had "finally committed itself" to Home
Rule the Irish question was one of those "unfinished questions which have no
pity for the repose of nations." On the 11th Lord Salisbury attended the Lord
142
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Mayor's Banquet to her Majesty's Ministers, and recalled his prediction of the
year before that next time the toast was proposed it would be responded to by a
Conservative Prime Minister. After complimenting the City on its Conservatism
and paying a graceful tribute to Lord Rosebery's conduct of foreign affairs, he
referred to the Irish question—the "skeleton in our cupboard." But the present
Government had one advantage over their predecessors. "We come back," he
said, “as the bearers of a mandate from the people of this country, deciding, in
my belief irrevocably, the question which has wrecked the peace of the neigh-
bouring island.”
In the Debate on the Address in the House of Lords the Duke of Argyll
made a lively attack on Mr. Gladstone, quoting against him his previous expression
(1871) that "we were not going to disintegrate the great capital institutions of
this country for the purpose of making ourselves ridiculous in the sight of
mankind." Lord Salisbury made some passing allusions to foreign affairs, and
explained the Unionist policy with regard to Ireland. But as the Session had
only been convened for indispensable business—i.e., voting the money required for
the public services-no promise of legislation had been made in the Queen's
Speech, and even in the Lower House the chief interest that was felt in the pro-
ceedings was to see how Lord Randolph Churchill in his new position of Leader
would succeed against the attack of Mr. Gladstone. It was announced that Sir
Redvers Buller would be sent to Ireland, as directly responsible to the Chief
Secretary, in order to put an end to the reign of terror prevailing in the west
and south-west; that a Royal Commission would be appointed to inquire into
the working of the Land Acts of 1881 and 1885, and to report how the latter
could be extended; and that another Royal Commission would inquire into the
material resources of the country and advise whether they could be developed by
the outlay of public money. Mr. Parnell moved an Amendment to the Address,
declaring that the fall in agricultural prices rendered it impossible for Irish
farmers to pay the Judicial Rents so recently settled. This gave an opening for
a renewed Debate on Ireland, in which the Government were attacked by Mr.
Gladstone and defended by Mr. Chamberlain. Finally Mr. Parnell's Amendment
was rejected by a majority of 123, and after others had been disposed of-not
without many violent altercations-the Address was agreed to, though two more
nights were spent on the Report stage. It was not till September 3rd that the
House settled down to the Estimates. In answer to the criticisms made on the
administration of the Ordnance Departments during the previous five years and
the complaints against "guns which burst, bayonets which bent, and cartridges
which jammed,” Mr. Smith announced that a Committee would be appointed to
inquire into the whole matter.
In the discussion of the Irish Estimates, Mr. Parnell, assuming once more his
well-known pose of moderation, asked the Government to find time for a Bill he
had prepared that provided for the inclusion of leaseholds in the Act of 1881, for
the revision of rents at brief intervals in accordance with the price of produce, and
for vesting the Courts with a power of staying ejectments in the case of tenants
THE "PLAN OF CAMPAIGN.”
143
who had paid 75 per cent. of their Judicial Rent. Lord Randolph Churchill
agreed to find the time for the discussion, but held out no hope that the
Government would accept the proposals. The draft as introduced went somewhat
further than its author had suggested-50 per cent. being substituted for the
75 cent. The Tenants' Relief Bill, as it was called, was, in effect, a measure
for the reduction of rents by one-half, and the Second Reading was refused by a
majority of 95 (297 against 202).
per
On September 25th Parliament was prorogued, and in the Queen's Speech
special reference was made to the "mutiny in a portion of the Bulgarian army,'
and the consequent abdication of Prince Alexander. It was in such politely
evasive terms that Her Majesty was made to describe the iniquitous conspiracy
carried out by agents of the late Czar Alexander III.—a crime in which he was
at least an accessory after the fact, since he exerted himself to protect those who
had carried it out. To stigmatise it in the terms it deserved, to lay the guilt at
the right door, was impossible for an English Prime Minister unless he intended
to involve this country in a war with Russia. But at the Guildhall, on November
9th, Lord Salisbury spoke of the mutinous officers having been "debauched with
foreign gold," and of the diplomatic efforts made to save them from the doom
they merited. Encroachment after encroachment had been made on the rights
of a free and independent people, but the Bulgarians, Lord Salisbury said, had
behaved well, and there might yet be a brilliant history before them. The duty
of defending Bulgaria was one not incumbent on England alone. But we were
prepared to do our part in this respect, and generally in maintaining the Treaty
of Berlin, if the other Powers, or any "considerable portion of them," would act
with us.
The first interest in the Balkans was that of Austria, and the policy of
that country would largely contribute to shaping our own. This declaration
was cordially accepted in the three countries belonging to the Triple Alliance,
while Russia and France-not yet united in any formal entente-agreed in hostile
در
comment.
The rejection of the Tenants' Relief Bill was made the excuse for a new move-
ment in Irish politics-best known as the Plan of Campaign. Its object was to
effect, by agreement among the tenant debtors, that reduction of rents which
Parliament had refused to concede by Statute. The credit of the conception,
with the responsibility for its results, is shared between Mr. Harrington, Mr.
Dillon, and Mr. O'Brien. The design was first explained by Mr. Dillon in a
speech at Workford, and afterwards (October 23rd) formulated by the letter in
United Ireland. The tenantry on every estate were to hold a meeting and decide
whether they should or should not combine against the payment of the rent
demanded. They were to appoint a Chairman-the priest for choice—and then
to decide what proportion of the rent they wished to knock off. They were to
elect a Managing Committee, and pledge themselves to abide by the decision of
the majority, to hold no private communication with the landlord or his agent,
and to accept no settlement not accorded to every tenant on the estate. On the
day when the rent was due, the tenants were to march in a body to the agent's
;
114
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
office, and tender him the proportion which they had agreed was equitable. If
he refused to accept it in full discharge, they were to pay him nothing, but hand
the money over to the Managing Committee "to fight the landlord with," and
support tenants who were turned out of their holdings.
The naked dishonesty of the proposal that one party to a contract should be
enabled to wipe out as much as he liked of his own liability, and the iniquitous
methods by which it was to be enforced, would have disgusted most of the
English sympathizers with agrarian trouble in Ireland, if the promoters of the
Plan had not been able to point to some estates where exorbitant and absentee
landlords were putting their legal rights to an oppressive use. Piteous tales of
extortion, and harrowing accounts of evictions, were drawn up-partly from
imagination, partly from fact. There was just enough of the latter to carry off
the former, and, because some authentic instances of hardship could be verified
from this or that estate, it was assumed by excited partisans that the landlords
as a body were wanting in consideration, even in common humanity. As a
matter of fact, the great majority of them, before the Plan of Campaign was
heard of, had offered voluntary reductions on the ordinary, even on the Judicial
rents—amounting in some cases to 50 per cent. The few who stood out for their
strict legal rights had the strongest moral pressure, it is known, brought upon
them by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and his agents to make some reasonable
compromise with the tenants (in view of the exceptionally low prices of agri-
cultural produce), and at least to suspend evictions until the winter was over.
But it was no good for the Government to appeal to the good-feeling of land-
lords if they were to be menaced at the same time with the Plan of Campaign.
The Anti-Rent meetings, held under the auspices of the National League, were
proclaimed on November 26th by the Executive; and notices were served on
Mr. Dillon and O'Brien to give securities for good behaviour. On December
16th they were both arrested, with Mr. Matthew Harris, at Loughrea, where they
had opened an office to receive the rents of Lord Clanricarde's estate; the books
and money were carried off by the police; and, two days later, the Plan of
Campaign was proclaimed as an unlawful and criminal conspiracy.
Most of the official Liberals revealed by their reticence the dislike with which
they regarded the latest Irish departure. They did not wish to have it cast in their
teeth that they sympathized with crime and fraud. The most enthusiastic of the
English advocates of Home Rule, such as Professor Stuart and Mr. Stansfeld,
deplored the illegality of the course into which their Irish allies were being
drawn, and contented themselves with pleading that there was "moral justice"
below it. Lord Salisbury did not lose the opportunity thrust into his hands.
Speaking in the City, at a meeting of Conservatives, on December 8th, he de-
scribed the new policy of the National League, which was now openly associated
with the Plan of Campaign, as a policy of fraud. Did the Home Rulers, he
asked, believe that the great work they had in hand-that of " making a nation "
-could be founded on a "basis of organized embezzlement "?
Exciting as was the Irish situation at the close of 1886, it was dwarfed in

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL RESIGNS.
public interest by a sudden crisis in the new Ministry. It was announced on
December 20th that Lord Randolph Churchill had resigned, and that the reason
he gave for this step was his unwillingness, as Chancellor of the Exchequer,
to find the money demanded for the national defences by the War Office and the
Admiralty. The excuse was so far consistent with his expressed convictions that
it could be taken as the logical sequel to a speech he had delivered in the pre-
vious October, when he had referred to some comprehensive scheme for reducing
the public expenditure. But he could hardly have chosen a more unfortunate point
on which to proclaim his difference with his colleagues; nor could he have brought
it forward at a less opportune moment. The Conservatives, as a Party, and most
དེ︽༠༥སོ་ོའཛ།
RE
G. J. GOSCHEN.
145
Liberals, were at last convinced that more money, not less, was wanted to protect
our possessions abroad, perhaps to save our own country from invasion. If
any need existed, or opportunity could be found, for economy, it must be carried
out not by reducing the outlay, but by seeing that we got better value for our
money. Nor was it a time for reorganization-which must mean temporary dis-
organization-when the Eastern Question seemed likely to be revived by Russian
interference in south-east Europe.
It was due to Lord Randolph's reputation to say that the reason he gave for
his resignation was but a pretext. The real explanation was that he had failed to
make himself master of Lord Salisbury's Cabinet. It had not been once or twice
VOL. IV.
L
146
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
that he had threatened to retire. The concessions which had been made to avoid a
rupture, and in the hope of retaining his undeniably great talents in the service
of the Party, had not satisfied-they had only fed his ambition. His
colleagues and his Chief were tired of an apparently endless series of ultimatums,
and they cut it short by taking him at his word. Mr. Escott thinks Lord Randolph
was surprised at this decision. He was also a little astonished, we may conjec-
ture, to find that he was not followed and supported by other members of the
Administration whom he had regarded as his own men. What he had expected
to be a rupture of the Ministry became merely the retirement of an individual.
He may have believed-so inordinate was his self-confidence at this period, so
cxtravagant were the flatteries addressed to him by time-serving politicians—that
Lord Salisbury would throw up the reins and he would himself be asked to mount
the box. He was promptly and cruelly undeceived. Full preparations had been
made for the blow he had so long threatened. Great as was the consternation out
of doors there was no fluster in the Cabinet. Lord Salisbury at once took the
steps on which he had decided in his own mind beforehand. He renewed to Lord
Hartington the offer he had already made of forming a Coalition Government, and
once again intimated his readiness to serve in a Cabinet presided over by the Liberal
Unionist Leader.
The result was to bind the Liberal Unionists to Lord Salisbury's support by
ties even stronger than those which would have come into force if Lord Hartington
had seen his way to accepting it. It showed how sincere was the alliance between
the two co-operating Parties, and what sacrifices the Conservative Leader was
prepared to make in the cause of the Union. It was also a dexterous stroke of
policy, because it convinced Lord Randolph and those who were inclined to act
with him that they were not indispensable. If they chose to break loose no effort
would be made to detain them—the Liberal Unionists could be counted on to keep
the Government in power. Nor was Lord Hartington's refusal to join Lord Salis-
bury absolute except as regarded himself. Mr. Goschen, one of those moderate
and discriminating Liberals who are almost Conservatives, was invited to become
Chancellor of the Exchequer. "I had forgotten Goschen," was Lord Randolph's
disgusted exclamation when, within a week of his own resignation, he heard that
his place had been filled by a statesman whose financial ability was so much greater
than his own. It was
"like a cold-water douche to his back," he said. Nobody
realised more quickly than Lord Randolph what a mistake he had made, and pro-
bably he concurred in the posthumous verdict delivered by his otherwise admiring
biographer that his action was "an unhappy exhibition of petulant self-will.”
Before parting with 1886, it is necessary to mention the disturbance of
European peace threatened by the aggressive action of Greece. Taking advantage of
the critical situation created by the declaration of the Union between Bulgaria and
Eastern Roumelia, M. Delyannis, then in power at Athens, claimed compensation
for his country if the balance of power were disturbed in the Balkan Peninsula. On
December 17th, 1885, the Chamber had voted four millions sterling for the Army
and Navy, and active preparations were made for war against Turkey. Lord

DEATH OF LORD IDDESLEIGH.
147
Salisbury promptly intervened, and on January 18th, 1886, proposed that a Collec-
tive Note should be addressed to Greece by the Powers, warning that Kingdom that
it would not be permitted to begin hostile operations. In spite of the change of
Government, the policy thus inaugurated on behalf of Great Britain was continued
by Lord Rosebery; and Mr. Gladstone, whose name was highly honoured in
Greece, wrote a letter to the People of Athens imploring them to accede to the
views of the Powers. But the War Party would not listen to any expostulations;
mobilisation was pressed on; the Ultimatum delivered by the Powers was dis-
regarded in spite of the benevolent intervention of France, and, as Greek troops
were still being sent to the front on May 7th, it was considered necessary the next
day to notify and enforce a blockade of the ports. The resignation of M.
Delyannis on the 9th was followed by a short political crisis, but it was clear that
the War Party were for the time beaten, and
on the 24th, M. Tricoupis, a statesman of
more prudence if equal patriotism, resumed
office. A week later the King signed a decree
for disarmament, and the politicians of
Athens settled down for a time to intestine
wrangles and to the task of rectifying-so
far as they might-the financial disturbance
brought about by their policy of aggrandise-
ment. They have since taken their revenge
on Europe for baulking their political ambi-
tion by defaulting in their financial obliga-
tions.
The indirect results, which showed
themselves early in the New Year, of Lord
Randolph Churchill's resignation were more
painful and not less important than those
which had immediately ensued. A partial
reconstruction of the Cabinet became
necessary, and in the spirit of self-sacrifice which was an essential part of his
exalted nature, Lord Iddesleigh had offered to give up his own post. The generous
proposal was accepted by Lord Salisbury, not because he wished or intended to lose
so valuable a colleague, but because the threatening state of affairs on the Continent
required at the Foreign Office a statesman of more nerve, more audacity, and more
diplomatic training. By an unfortunate accident an intimation that Lord
Iddesleigh's offer was to be accepted was published in the newspapers before he
received, on the same day (January 4th), an announcement to that effect from the
Prime Minister himself. The news, if not a surprise, came as a shock to a man
suffering from advanced disease of the heart, but it is mere nonsense to pretend
-as was maliciously suggested-that his death was accelerated by that event.
Two days later he was invited to become President of the Council, but, as Mr.
Lang records, "not being anxious to have 'more political bother' immediately after
LORD IDDESLEIGH.
148
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
resigning duties in which he was interested, he declined, and continued to decline
after receiving a kind letter from Lord Salisbury.'
(
"""
That the sudden news of January 4th left no permanent ill effects on his health
is shown by the fact that three days later he presided at a large county meeting in
Exeter. On the 11th he went up to London to speak at the Mansion House in
support of the Prince of Wales's scheme for an Imperial Institute to commemorate
the Queen's Jubilee. Next morning he visited the Foreign Office and had a long
conversation with Sir James Fergusson, saying that he hoped his separation from
his cld colleagues would not be permanent. He intended to return at six in order
to discuss with Mr. H. M. Stanley the proposed expedition for the relief of Emin
Pasha. On leaving the Foreign Office he crossed Downing Street and called on
Lord Salisbury at No. 10. He walked up-stairs as far as the ante-room, and then
sank into a chair, where Mr. Henry Manners and Lord Walter Lennox found him
breathing with great difficulty. He was dead in twenty minutes. Describing the
sad event in a letter to one of his daughters, Mr. W. H. Smith mentions that just
before hearing of it he had received "a really touching letter from Salisbury on
one I had sent him, enclosing a letter from Harry Northcote about his father and
himself." "It will be," Smith wrote, of "historical value," because it "proves
conclusively how tenderly Lord Salisbury wished to deal with his old friend and
colleague.
The reconstruction of the Cabinet was hardly completed-Mr. Smith becoming.
First Lord of the Treasury, Mr. Stanhope succeeding him at the War Office, and Sir
Henry Holland coming to the Colonial Office-when a new question arose which
might indirectly affect the relations of the two Unionist parties. Indeed, before
the negotiations between Lord Salisbury and Lord Hartington had resulted in
Mr. Goschen joining the Ministry as Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Chamber-
lain had thrown out a strong hint that reunion might be accomplished between
the Liberal Unionists and the Home Rule Liberals. On the very day when Lord
Randolph's resignation was announced, Mr. Chamberlain--believing perhaps that
the Conservative Ministry could not long hold together, and considering that
without Lord Randolph there was no guarantee against their pursuing a
"reactionary policy”—declared at Birmingham that there were plenty of points.
in which both sections of the Liberal Party were agreed. Why should they not
carry out their common programme instead of fighting over the only point on
which they differed? Mr. Gladstone jumped at the idea, and in a letter to Sir
William Harcourt gave his express sanction to the proposal for the Round Table
Conference. The subsequent collapse of that undertaking, and the recriminations.
which ensued, fall outside the proper scope of this chapter, since a satisfactory
account would of necessity be a lengthy one.
When Parliament assembled on January 27th, it was explained in the
Queen's Speech that, while deploring the events in Bulgaria which had led to
the retirement of Prince Alexander, the Government did not think it expedient
to interfere in the arrangements for the election of his successor until they
reached the point at which her Majesty's assent would be required under the
""
MR. BALFOUR AS CHIEF SECRETARY.
149
Treaty of Berlin. Our work in Egypt had made substantial progress, but was
not yet accomplished, and in Upper Burmah our troops had been so successful in
suppressing the dacoits that we might now look for a general pacification of the
country. In regard to Ireland, the last few months compared favourably with the
preceding year in point of "grave crimes," but it was intimated that certain
"reforms in legal procedure" would be demanded by the Government in order to
deal with the organized attempts to incite tenants to combine against the fulfilment
of their obligations to their landlords. Reference was then made to the two
Commissions dealing with Irish affairs. Bills were promised for the improvement
of Local Government in England and Scotland and—possibly—in Ireland; for
amending the process of Private Bill legislation; for cheapening the Transfer of
Land, for providing Allotments, and for the readier sale of Glebe Lands. Other
subjects that would receive attention were the Report of the Commission appointed
in 1885 to inquire into the causes of industrial and agricultural depression, the
reform of Scottish Universities, the powers of the Secretary for Scotland, and
criminal procedure in that country, Railway Rates, and Merchandise Marks.
At a conference of Conservative members of both Houses, held on February
21st, Lord Salisbury insisted on the necessity for reforming procedure in the
Commons. The Government had only undertaken the question under the pressure
of absolute necessity, while with regard to Ireland they could do no more until
their existing powers were enlarged. In the afternoon Mr. Smith proposed the
first of his New Rules. The discussion that ensued was the best justification for
so drastic a proposal. It was not till March 18th that, after some modifications,
it was made a Standing Order. It provided that any member might move the
Closure unless it appeared to the Chair to be an abuse of the Rules of the House or
an infringement on the rights of the minority. Nor was the motion considered to
be carried unless either it was supported by 200 members, or it was opposed by
less than 40 and supported by more than 100. When the Closure had thus been
carried, and the questions consequent thereon had been decided, any further Motion
might be made-the assent of the Chair not being withheld-which might be
requisite to bring to a decision any question already proposed from the Chair; and
if a Clause were then under consideration a Motion might be made-still with the
assent of the Chair—that the question that certain words stand part of the Clause,
or that the Clause stand part of or be added to the Bill, be now put. Such motions
are to be put forthwith and decided without Amendment or Debate. The Rule
can only be put in force, however, whenever the Speaker or Chairman of Ways
and Means is in the Chair, not by a casual Chairman; and the old Closure Rule
was to remain in force. There is no need to describe here the other Rules
originally proposed by Mr. Smith, since they were all postponed—to make way
for more urgent business-and eventually dropped for the Session.
The way being thus now cleared for legislation, the Government brought
forward the measures they had promised with regard to Ireland. But an acute-
though, fortunately, only a temporary-affection of the eyes had rendered Sir
Michael Hicks-Beach unable to attempt the severe labours which would thus be
150
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY..
1
imposed on the Chief Secretary, and that office was accepted by Mr. Arthur
Balfour. It is a post which has ruined more rising reputations than it has made;
but to the young politician, chiefly known hitherto as a thoughtful and incisive
speaker when he took the trouble to intervene in Debate, it was to give an oppor-
tunity of displaying his talent for statesmanship.
On March 7th Mr. Balfour had started for Dublin, and two days later, when
scrious rioting had already occurred and more was apprehended, at Youghal, he
instructed Captain Plunket to telegraph the famous message to the District
Inspector of Constabulary: "Deal very summarily with any organized resistance-
to legal authority. If necessary, do not hesitate to shoot." This was the spirit in
which the new Chief Secretary entered on his task. It was, he believed, more
effective in the present, and in the long run more merciful, to let the agitators
understand that the authorities must not be trifled with. One or two sharp-
examples would teach the necessary lesson. The trouble at Youghal arose because
the mob had been incited to protect a priest from arrest. He was wanted to
give evidence in a case at Dublin; but chose to pretend that other information
might be extracted from him which would be prejudicial to his parishioners. He
was surrounded by a crowd of peasantry, who pelted the police when they came
to take him. Nor were they put to flight until a charge was made with fixed
bayonets. The priest was then arrested and taken off to Dublin, but, when put
into the witness-box, declined to answer questions on the ground that they related
to secrets he had heard in Confession. He was accordingly sent to prison and
became a popular martyr.
This was fairly typical of the difficulties which the Nationalists interposed in
the way of those who had to administer the law. It was not a specially flagrant
case, but if it were overlooked would destroy any respect for authority in the
district where it had occurred. The further powers required by the Government
were not, however, to be conceded without a prolonged struggle in Parliament. The
progress of the Crimes Bill was hindered by every remaining device of Obstruction.
Mr. Gladstone himself led the opposition to Mr. Smith's proposal that the measure
should have precedence over other business. This was discussed four nights and
carried by 349 votes against 260-the Gladstonians voting with the Nationalists.
On March 28th Mr. Balfour rose to explain his Bill. It provided that magistrates
should be empowered to hold inquiries in cases of agrarian crime, even though no
person had been charged-a most valuable provision in districts where the inhabi-
tants did everything they could to baulk the police, and one of which Mr. Morley
himself, when he afterwards came to be Chief Secretary, made effective use. Trial
by jury was to be given up in cases of criminal conspiracy, boycotting, rioting,
offences under the Whiteboys Act, assaults on the police, forcible and unlawful
possession, and inciting to such offences. Jurisdiction was given to two magistrates,
who would be enabled to impose a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment.
In more serious charges-murder, arson, firing into dwelling places — the accused
might, on the certificate of the English and the Irish Attorney-General, be brought
over to England for trial The proposed Act was not limited in time, but was

210
11
THE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS IN HIS SEAT IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A&S
152
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
only to be applied to districts which had been "proclaimed" by the Lord
Lieutenant. A provision was inserted in the Bill under which the Lord Lieutenant
could make it a penal offence to be associated with attempts to interfere with the
administration of the law and the maintenance of law and order. Even more
important was his power to "proclaim" an Association, the only restriction in this
discretion being that he was required to lay his Proclamation for seven days before
Parliament. If Parliament were not sitting at the time it was to be specially
summoned, and an Address from either House would avoid the Proclamation.
Almost simultaneous was the introduction of the Land Bill by Lord Cadogan in
the House of Lords. It was based on the Report of the recent Royal Commission,
known as Lord Cowper's, but did not embody their recommendation that the
Judicial Rents which by the Act of 1881 had been fixed for fifteen years should be
revised every fifth year, and that the rents should be settled in proportion to the
price of agricultural products. Lord Cadogan pointed out that no treatment of the
Land Question in Ireland would be final until the Ashbourne Act, passed by the
previous Conservative Administration, had been extended and developed until a
great scheme of Purchase had got rid of the dual ownership so disastrously created
by Mr. Gladstone's Act. Meantime, the Government proposed to allow leaseholders
-150,000 in number-to go into court and obtain a judicial revision of their
rents, while those who had sublet their lands would be enabled to throw up their
leases. In order to reduce the number of evictions, by rendering them in most
cases unnecessary, a landlord who had got judgment would be empowered-
without executing it-to turn his tenant into a "caretaker."
"caretaker." The County
Court judges would have an "equitable jurisdiction "to hear the complaints of
tenants, to allow time for payment, and to give relief—as in bankruptcy-to those
who were really insolvent, and in proper cases to reinstate them at a fair rent.
Finally, landlords who could not get their rents would be excused the payment of
rates.
The Bill was, in fact, intended to make good the deficiencies and carry out the
policy of the Act of 1881, not because the Conservatives approved that measure, but
because, until they could mature a more comprehensive scheme of their own, they
were bound to make the best of the existing system. But before the Bill became
law it was to be greatly enlarged, as we shall see, at the instance of their Liberal
Unionist allies. Even in its original draft it was sufficient proof that the Con-
servative policy to Ireland was not one of mere Coercion, and, on the day when it
was introduced, Lord Salisbury convened a meeting of his followers to urge on
them the paramount duty of passing the Crimes Bill. A simultaneous meeting of
Liberal Unionists was held at Devonshire House, at which Lord Hartington and
Mr. Chamberlain concurred in the necessity of supporting the Government, the
latter stipulating that the remedial measures which were to be concurrent with
Coercion should be found adequate.
There is no need to linger over the debates on the First and the Second Read-
ing of the Crimes Bill. In the former stage, on an animated scene arising when
the Closure was moved, Mr. Gladstone enjoyed the doubtful compliment of being

Burton
EDWARD SAUNDERSON.
From a photograph by Elliott & Fry.
LONDON:J.S.VIRTUE & CO LIMITED.
UMIY
OF
#7¢*
THE "PARNELL LETTER."
cheered by the same members who had just been hooting the Speaker. On the
latter occasion, Colonel Saunderson charged some prominent Nationalist members
—who were on the Executive of the Land League-with associating with persons
whom they knew to be murderers. Mr. Healy then called him a liar, and, on
Colonel Saunderson repeating the accusation, Mr. Sexton repeated the epithet.
This was on Friday, April 15th. On the following Monday The Times published
the facsimile of what purported to be a letter written by Mr. Parnell a few days
after the Phoenix Park murders:
“15/5/82
153
"DEAR SIR,
"I am not surprised at your friend's anger, but he and you should know that
to denounce the murders was the only course open to us.
To do that promptly was
plainly our best policy.
"But you can tell him, and all others concerned, that though I regret the
accident of Lord F. Cavendish's death, I cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no
more than his deserts.
“You are at liberty to show him this and others whom you can trust also, but
let not my address be known. He can write to House of Commons.
"Yours very truly,
"CHAS. S. PARNELL."
The document had (The Times said) been submitted to minute scrutiny, and the
conductors of that journal were, it was obvious, honestly convinced that the
signature—at the top of the fourth page—was authentic. The accusation, start-
ling as it was, did not include complicity in the crime or previous knowledge of it.
All it amounted to was that the Irish Leader did not regret the murder of Mr.
Burke, and that his public condemnation of it had been hypocritical. That was
all-certainly it was not a little-that could be read into the letter which created
so violent a sensation; but quite as much had been said by his English opponents
(by way of blame) and by his American supporters (by way of praise) a thousand
times before. The real gravamen of The Times' charges against Mr. Parnell and
most of his Parliamentary associates was that, while promoting a constitutional
agitation in the light of day, they were secretly engaged in an'illegal conspiracy.
That accusation-which we now know to be absolutely true-had been unfolded
in a series of articles entitled Parnellism and Crime, and it was brought to a head
by what seemed to be conclusive documentary evidence that the Leader of
the Parliamentary Party looked without disapproval on the action of the most
advanced group of the Physical Force section-the Irish Invincibles being, if
anything, a trifle more violent than the dynamite fraternity in America.
On the meeting of the House of Commons Mr. Sexton denounced the letter
as a forgery, and, in reply to a pointed challenge from Lord Hartington and Mr.
Balfour, Mr. Parnell himself made an emphatic repudiation. It was, he said,
a villainous and barefaced forgery, and it had been published with a view of
influencing the Vote that was to be taken that evening. "I never had the slightest
notion in the world," he said, "that the life of the late Mr. Forster was in danger,
154
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
or that any conspiracy was on foot against him or against any other official in
Ireland or elsewhere. I had no more notion than an unborn child of such a con-
spiracy as that of the Invincibles, and no one was more astonished than I when
that bolt from the blue fell upon us in the Phoenix Park murders. I knew not
in what direction to look for that calamity. It is no exaggeration to say that if I
had been in the Park that day I would gladly have stood between Lord Frederick
Cavendish and the daggers of the assassins, and, for the matter of that--(cries of
'Burke !')—between their daggers and Mr. Burke."
On a Division, the Second Reading of the Crimes Bill was carried by 370 votes
against 269. We may pass over the Committee stage-though it abounded with
exciting incidents—which was prolonged beyond the middle of June. It was only
brought to a conclusion by the Government adopting an expedient for which the
only excuse is that they believed it to be unavoidable. On June 10th, Mr. Smith
proposed that, if on that day week the Bill had not been reported, the Chair-
man should put the question forthwith on any Amendment or Motion already
proposed from the Chair. He was to go on in the same way with the other
Clauses, not permitting any Debate to be raised or any Amendment to be moved,
and allowing no member, except those in charge of the Bill, to move or report
Progress, or for the Chairman to leave the Chair. The resort to this arbitrary form
of the Closure by the Unionist Party set an evil precedent, which their adversaries,
when they in turn obtained a transient majority, were not slow to follow. Fair
warning was given them at the time by Sir William Harcourt when-with more
approach to accuracy than perhaps he thought-he imagined a Liberal Minister,
with 340 supporters and 330 opponents, standing at the table of the House, and
saying, “I shall introduce a Home Rule Bill to-morrow, and I shall accompany it
by a declaration that the Third Reading shall be taken this day fortnight."
That there was no practical hardship inflicted on the Opposition, that the Bill
which had been so shamelessly obstructed was demanded by the state of Ireland,
that the tax on the Ministers, on their followers, and on the officers of the House.
was growing beyond human endurance-all this is quite true. As Lord Salisbury
had said at the Merchant Taylors' Hall on May 20th, the House was being
paralyzed by the obstructive tactics of a minority. If things were to go on much
longer in the same way, it would be necessary to "provide a steam Irish Party,
an electric Ministry, and a clockwork Speaker." It is also true that many of the
Gladstonians were growing weary of the discreditable proceedings in which they
were involved by their association with a group of alien Members, and allowed
Mr. Smith's proposal to be carried by an overwhelming majority-295 against
93. It was put into force on the day named, and the Nationalist Party left.
the House without voting. The Sixth Clause was at the time before the House,
and was carried by 332 votes against 163. The Gladstonians then left the House,
and the other fourteen Clauses were passed without opposition. The same tactics
had to be employed on the Report stage, but on July 9th the Crimes Bill passed
its Third Reading, and on the 18th it had gone through all its stages in the House
of Lords, and received the Royal Assent next day.

EXCITEMENT ABOUT THE LETTERS.
HNERDMULLER
Animated as were the proceedings in connection with this measure, the most com-
plete yet most elastic and least oppressive of all Coercion Acts, public interest was
concentrated all the time on another question--the authenticity of the "Phoenix
155
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE.
Park Letter." If Mr. Parnell's disclaimer was not believed-even by all his
personal friends-he had nobody but himself to blame, and if his Parliamentary
colleagues were associated in the odium, they were themselves in fault. If that
particular document was forged and if the more general charges in Parnellism
156
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
and Crime were substantially untrue, there was clear ground of action, whether
civil or criminal, against the persons responsible for the publication. They had a
right to ask for swinging damages, and The Times, they knew, could pay the
money. It was because the persons who said they had been calumniated refused
to punish the traducers and vindicate their own character, and also because
Englishmen knew that the conductors of that newspaper were incapable of bringing
forward such accusations unless they honestly believed them to be true, that each
and all of the counts in that formidable indictment were at the moment-so
generally believed.
The Land Bill obtained its Third Reading in the House of Lords on July
4th, and was introduced in the House of Commons on the same day. During
the Debate on the Second Reading, it was accepted by Mr. Chamberlain as an
honest attempt to redeem the pledges given by the Ministers, as generous to a
degree, and as going further than any previous Government had attempted to go.
But it did not in all respects proceed quite as far as was desired by those Unionists
who were also Radicals, and he pointed out various alterations which he regarded
as improvements. The attitude of Mr. Chamberlain, who on this point could
count upon sufficient followers to place Ministers in a minority, or at least to
reduce their minority to a dangerously low figure, created some little embarrass-
ment. Lord Salisbury had to choose between offending the Irish Landlord
Party (or some of its extreme advocates) and his Radical allies.
The concessions demanded by the latter did indeed considerably exceed what
would be approved by a purely Conservative Ministry. But it must be remem-
bered that Lord Salisbury held office not merely by the votes of his own followers,
but depended on the support of Unionists outside his own Party. At a special
meeting of the Conservative members of Parliament he said that, to avert Home
Rule it was necessary to preserve the understanding with their Unionist friends.
Nor was it only Mr. Chamberlain's English followers who demanded modifications
in the Land Bill—they were supported by the Loyalist farmers of Ulster. What they
required was that all except the perpetuity leaseholders should be included in the
right to have their rents revised; the abandonment of the bankruptcy Clauses; the
restraint of all creditors from employing fi. fa. against tenant-right and agricul-
tural produce; the revision of judicial rents, the reductions being regulated by
the local cost of produce, and only operating for three years till a Purchase Bill
could be passed. Though reluctance was expressed in some quarters to depart so
widely from Conservative principles of legislation, the strongly preponderant feel-
ing was that the Unionists had a right to demand large concessions, and that, for
the sake of the benefits arising from the alliance, the sacrifice should be cheerfully
accepted. That is the simple explanation of the volte face with which some Radical
ritics, nicely careful of genuine Conservatism, have charged the 1886-1892
Administration. The settlement thus effected was carried out, and the Bill was
read a third time in the Commons on August 6th.
-
The programme of Irish legislation being now completed, it remained for the
Chief Secretary to make use of his administrative powers. Mr. Balfour lost no
ALARMS ON THE CONTINENT.
157
time in having the National League proclaimed as a dangerous association. This
act was arraigned by Mr. Gladstone, who, on August 26th, moved an Address to the
Crown praying that the Proclamation be revoked. The League was praised for
what it had done to reduce rents in Ireland, and censured very gently for the
Boycotting by which its decrees were enforced. In fact, the system of "exclusive
dealing"-such was Mr. Gladstone's incomparable euphemism-might be to a
great extent excused where it was practised by the poor! Mr. Balfour in
reply pointed out that the National League was now being suppressed in the same
way as the Land League had been suppressed by Mr. Gladstone's Government in
1881, and for similar reasons. The Motion was rejected by 272 votes against 194.
men.
In striking at the leaders of the Plan of Campaign rather than at their
ignorant dupes, the Government had the sympathy of most cool-headed English-
Mr. William O'Brien and Mr. Mandeville were sentenced to imprisonment
for their action with regard to the Kington estate. Some amusement was created
by Mr. O'Brien's announcement that he would not wear prison dress-he was a
political offender, not a common malefactor. He made good his word by lying in
bed until-by some unexplained agency-a new suit of ordinary clothes was.
smuggled into his cell. Other prominent agitators who suffered for the Cause were
Mr. Wilfrid Blunt, an English Roman Catholic, and Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Lord
Mayor of Dublin.
The prolonged activity of the House of Commons, which sat this year for 160
days, but did very little political work till the end of the Session, left the Members
of the other Chamber in comparative leisure. Lord Salisbury delivered a consider-
able number of platform specches, to some of which reference has been made above,
dealing mainly with the Irish Question. But his chief labours were in connection
with the Foreign Office. The movements and counter-movements of Russian and
Austrian troops on the Galician frontier were recognised as something more than
pacific manœuvres, and it is now known that the two Powers were only saved from
collision by the resolute statesmanship of their Rulers. The election of Prince
Ferdinand of Coburg as Prince of Bulgaria had given deep umbrage at St. Peters-
burg, and the Czar absolutely declined to treat him as anything but a usurper,
while Count Kalnoky, though withholding formal recognition on the part of
Austro-Hungary, regarded him as a de-facto ruler, and intimated that the day for
foreign intervention at Sofia was now over. The words were meant as a warning:
they were taken as a menace, and the Russian Military Party, sometimes more
powerful than the Government, were clamouring for war.
Nor was this the only symptom of international disquietude. The somewhat
arbitrary arrest of M. Schnäbele, a French commissary of police, by the German
authorities, provoked great and not unjust irritation in Paris. But the incident
was one that might easily have been arranged if M. Flourens had been left to deal
with it alone. Unfortunately he was encumbered by the advice of General
Boulanger, a showy but popular officer who was already regarded as the man who
should accomplish the revanche. As Minister of War he thwarted the diplomatic
action of his colleague at the Foreign Office by the ostentatious despatch of troops
;
158
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
to the frontier, and menacing arrangements for mobilization. He was supported
by a noisy faction of Chauvinists led by M. Deroulède, and by the Radical Party
under M. Clemenceau. Fortunately, the tact and coolness of M. Flourens and the
conciliatory action of the German Government in releasing a prisoner whom they
had little excuse for arresting, allowed a friendly settlement to be effected, and the
General was for the time suppressed.
A Ministerial crisis, resulting in the retirement of M. Goblet and the accession
of M. Rouvier to office, gave temporary relief to a strained situation. The General
was shelved by the Government and despatched to a command at a distance from
the Capital. When his supporters tried to make a demonstration on his depar-
ture the nuisance became disgusting to sober-minded men, and the Pretender was
formally repudiated by M. Clemenceau. But the fact that Frenchmen were
openly looking about for some Saviour of Society showed their discontent with
the existing order, a spirit which was intensified by the Decorations Scandal.
It was shown that the President's son-in-law had trafficked in public honours as
well as in more lucrative concessions, and, though M. Grévy's own hands were
believed to be clean, he was involved in the disgrace of his household. For some
time he refused to resign, and while he held out it was feared that the Boulangists or
the Communists might get up a successful Revolution in the streets of Paris. If
power were once to be grasped, though it were but for a few weeks, by inex-
perienced hot-heads, the peace of Europe would be imperilled, probably it would be
broken. At last, however (November 24th), M. Grévy summoned M. Ribot-who
had meantime succeeded M. Rouvier as Premier-and offered to resign the Presi-
dency of the Republic. But the haggling over the terms in which the announce-
ment should be made was carried on to the end of the month, and it was not till
December 2nd that the Message was read. The chief candidates for the vacant
place were M. Sadi Carnot, M. Jules Ferry, General Saussier, and M. de Freycinet,
but the Congress assembled for the election made, no doubt, the best choice in
taking the unambitious statesinan who was afterwards to meet so tragical a fate.
It was while the Presidential crisis was still agitating Paris and the Chancel-
leries of Europe were strained with anxiety about the relations of Austria and
Russia that Lord Salisbury was called upon to make a speech at the Guildhall
(November 9th), in which he was expected to deal chiefly with Foreign Affairs.
At a moment when a few indiscreet words from the Prime Minister of this country
might have precipitated a general war, it is no wonder that Lord Salisbury confined
himself—at risk of disappointing the Quidnuncs-to reassuring generalitics. But
his congratulations on the "improved prospects of peace" showed how real had been
the danger—a danger not yet past. He gave no hint one way or the other as
to the authenticity of the rumours that, in the event of a general war, we were
pledged to defend the coast of Italy, and he was severely criticized, on this as on
some other occasions, because he did not sufficiently take the country into his con-
fidence with regard to Foreign Affairs. But he knows, like Prince Bismarck,
that if there are times when candour is permissible, there are moments—and this
was one of them-when reticence is the first quality of statesmanship.

THE DRUMMOND WOLFF CONVENTION.
159
Among the incidents of the year should be mentioned the British evacuation
of Port Hamilton, a position which had been occupied two years before, but was
now considered to be of doubtful value. But in restoring it to the Coreans, we
stipulated with China, as suzerain of the Peninsular Kingdom, that no other Power
should be permitted to occupy a port in that region. In case that condition were
broken, whether with or without the consent of Pekin, our rights to Port
Hamilton would be automatically revived.
A more important arrangement was attempted by Lord Salisbury when he sent
Sir Henry Drummond Wolff to confer with the Sultan as to our eventual evacuation
THE EMPEROR OF RUSSIA.
of Egypt. There was no question of immediately withdrawing our troops. But it was
recognised that Lord Granville and others had used expressions which were inter-
preted in some quarters as binding us to give up our somewhat informal Protecto-
rate. To prove our good faith and, so far as possible, to oblige the French
Republic, Sir Henry was empowered early in the year to propose that the indepen-
dence of Egypt should be recognised, the Sultan retaining his Suzerainty; that
some of the extra-territorial privileges enjoyed by foreigners should be modified;
that the territory should be neutralised under the guarantee of the Great Powers,
who would in return have the right of moving their troops either by land or by
the Canal; that we should nominate the majority of officers in the Egyptian
160
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Army; and, finally, that we should reserve the right of re-occupying the country
in case of necessity.
On these conditions being accepted by the Powers and by the Sultan England
would be ready to terminate her occupation. The offer, however, did not satisfy
either the French Government or the Porte; Sir Henry, therefore, was further
authorised to fix the date of our evacuation as within three years, and to define
what we should regard as a contingency that would give us the right of re-occupa-
tion. This was the furthest point to which we could stretch our complaisance, but the
Sultan-encouraged by French agents-still held out for better terms. On July
16th, as no satisfactory answer could be obtained, Sir Henry left Constantinople,
and the proposed Convention was torn up. To the overtures made for a renewal
of negotiations, Lord Salisbury declined to listen. He was contented to allow
French and Turkish diplomatists to exult over their supposed rebuff of the British
Government. What he had done sufficed to show that England had been willing
to carry out what were regarded as her obligations, that she had made a bonâ-fide
attempt to meet the views of the Porte and the Quai d'Orsay, and that, as this
had been rejected, there was no further occasion--and none was likely to arise—
for repeating the proposal. We had done our best to arrange for going out of
Egypt. It only remained for us to stay there.
M. Flourens was so disgusted with his own success in destroying the Con-
vention that he issued an explanatory Circular to the Powers in which he
attempted to prove that France had been actuated by nothing but a sense of duty
to herself and to Europe. He showed his repentance in a more practical way by
falling in with our proposal that the two Powers should guarantee, and invite the
other Powers to co-operate in securing, the neutrality of the Canal. Even in time
of war it was to be a free waterway, but belligerents were forbidden to embark or
disembark troops or war material in the Canal and its ports of access. The primary
obligation of taking the steps necessary for maintaining this neutralisation would
eventually rest with the Khedive, and in the event of his being unable to carry
them out recourse might be had to the Porte.
A scheme satisfactory to the Powers most immediately interested in the Canal
and advantageous to all the rest was obstructed both by Russia and Turkey, and
it was not till nearly the end of the following year that it was accepted by the
Sultan and ratified by the Powers. Another cause of dispute between France
and England—of minor importance to this country, but one on which the
Australians felt very keenly-was removed by Lord Salisbury this year. The
military stations formed by French troops in the New Hebrides were a standing
violation of International Law, but hitherto the French Government had evaded
their duty of removing the grievance. It was now settled in a friendly Con-
vention that the troops should be withdrawn, and Lord Salisbury was justified
when, in reply to impatient questioners, he affirmed his trust in the good faith
of the Republic. In March, 1888, the arrangement was duly carried out.
The attitude which Lord Salisbury takes up with regard to Imperial Federa-
tion-an object with which all patriotic Englishmen sympathize, though hitherto
-
THE OXFORD RESOLUTION.
no feasible plan has been propounded—was explained in a speech he delivered
(April 4th) at a Conference of Delegates from all the self-governing Colonies. He
would not have anything to say to any." ambitious schemes of constitution-making."
There was at this time, it may be mentioned, some idea that Home Rule might be
conceded to Ireland under cover of a more comprehensive arrangement a notion
which could receive no support from a Unionist statesman. The time had not even
come for formulating a Zollverein, or Customs Union within the British Empire.
The more present need was for a Kriegsverein, or combination for purposes of
defence.
The great event of 1887 was one which had no connection with Party politics
-the celebration of the Jubilee of the Queen's reign. On June 21st, her Majesty,
accompanied by the Royal Family and by many foreign potentates who were her
guests, went in state from Buckingham Palace to attend a Thanksgiving Service in
Westminster Abbey.
/
161
Early in the new year (1888) Lord Salisbury delivered a series of striking
speeches in Liverpool. In the first-so perverse were the misrepresentations to
which he had been exposed-he thought it necessary to repudiate the gloss laid
upon the famous Newport speech, and showed that he had never encouraged any
hope that he might be induced to support Home Rule. In special reply to Mr.
Gladstone, and with reference to the Oxford Resolution,* he affirmed that, though
the Conservative Party might dislike some of the doctrines sheltered under the
"broad mantle " of Free Trade, it was no part of their programme to disturb the
existing fiscal system. In another speech the Prime Minister admitted that
England had in the past committed many crimes against Ireland, but her greatest,
crime had been that of vacillation. A period of resolute action, stained sometimes
with appalling cruelty, had again and again been succeeded by one of indifference and
neglect, and any good that might have followed from the strictness had been undone
by the subsequent laxity. A matter more urgent and perhaps more delicate was
boldly dealt with. He reminded the Conservatives once again that they were not
masters of a Parliamentary majority, and must not complain if the measures intro-
duced by the Government bore the colour which was lent them by the support of
the Liberal Unionists.
:
The Queen's Speech (February 9th), after a brief reference to foreign affairs,
dwelt on the need for improving the defence of our ports and coaling-stations, and
for sanctioning a scheme for providing a special squadron to protect Australasian
commerce, the cost being partially borne by the Colonies themselves. It was stated
that in Ireland agrarian crime was decreasing, and that a measure would be pro-
posed for increasing the number of the proprietors of the soil. But the most
important Bill would be that for the reform of Local Government in England,
which would involve some readjustment of the relations between Local and
Imperial finance. Among the subjects that would receive legislative treatment
M
* At the Annual Meeting of the National Union of Conservative Associations, held the previous
November, a Resolution had been carried, through Colonel (now Sir) C. Howard Vincent's influence, in
favour of "speedy reform of the policy of the United Kingdom as regards foreign imports and the
influx of foreigners."
VOL. IV.
162
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
were mentioned Land Transfer, Tithes, Technical Education, Railway Rates, and
Employers' Liability.
Something like a revolution in House of Commons procedure was effected by
the New Rules adopted this Session at the instance of the Government. The hour
of meeting was fixed for three o'clock on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and
Fridays, except when there should be a morning sitting, and no opposed business
was to be taken after midnight unless a Bill originating in Committee of Ways
and Means was under consideration. In that case the Adjournment was fixed for
one o'clock. The Closure Rule was amended by reducing the majority required to
carry it from 200 to 100. Further powers were conferred on the Speaker or
Chairman, who were now entitled to call upon a disorderly Member to withdraw; to
deal with tedious or irrelevant repetition by requiring the Member to resume his
seat; and to refuse to put a merely dilatory Motion. The Government received
greater facilities for arranging their business. The Speaker was enabled to call
on Members to rise in their places instead of going through the prolonged process
of a Division. The Committee and Report stages of the Address were abolished,
as was the old practice of requiring Bills on Religion and Trade to originate in
Committee of the whole House. The Grand Committees were re-established, and
the evening sitting, on a day when there had been a morning one, might be pro-
longed to one o'clock.
Great credit was gained for the Government by their Unionist recruit, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer. His Bill for "converting" the Three per Cents.,
and reducing the interest payable on the National Debt, was applauded by Mr.
Gladstone. The Stocks to be dealt with were £166,000,000 "New Threes,"
£323,000,000 Consols, and £69,000,000 Reduced. His plan was to create a new
stock at Two-and-Three-Quarters, descending automatically in fifteen years to Two-
and-a-Half, which rate would be guaranteed for the following twenty years. It
should be mentioned that Mr. Childers had attempted a similar operation four years
before and had offered more liberal terms. His comparative failure did but illustrate
Mr. Goschen's success. That the operation was started at a favourable moment in
the Money Market, and that certain modest inducements were offered to the brokers
and bankers as well as the holders of Stock to accelerate the process, shows that
Mr. Goschen understood human nature as well as the Money Market. The saving
to be effected he reckoned as £1,400,000 a year from 1889, and twice that annual
amount as from 1903. Within a fortnight of the Bill being passed (March 27th)
four-fifths of the whole amount had been converted, and by the end of the year
the
operation had been completed. It was approved by everybody who could under-
stand it, except, perhaps, by investors who believed-wrongly but not unnaturally
—that it increased their difficulty in getting a sound security which paid a tolerable
rate of interest.
In introducing his Budget, Mr. Goschen was able to announce an estimated
Surplus of £2,377,056 sterling. But it was necessary, as hinted in the Queen's
Speech, to readjust Imperial and Local taxation, and a large part of the Surplus
would be absorbed in a grant to the Local Authorities. By putting on certain

11
new taxes, some of them important, he would restore his surplus to £1,537,000.
This he employed in taking another penny off the Income Tax (now reduced to
6d. in the £), and by making allowances with regard to that impost in favour of
ITE
THE WHEEL AND VAN TAX.
(税
​w
234 PRES
ARTI
163
BUCKINGHAM PALACE THE THRONE ROOM.
farmers who had made no profit on their land, by revising the Carriage Tax, and
taking the duty off hawkers' licences. All this was sound and popular finance,.
but a great agitation was set up against the Wheel and Van Tax which (along
164
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
with one-half of the Probate Duty and other minor contributions) Mr. Goschen
proposed as a subvention to the Local Authorities. The scheme had first to be
modified and afterwards abandoned altogether.
-
On March 9th Lord Rosebery asked the Peers to appoint a Committee to inquire
into the constitution of their House. This Lord Salisbury opposed, but was willing,
he said, to extend the experiment of Life Peerages which had answered so well in
the case of the Law lords. He would not, however, give up the hereditary
principle. The Commons would be jealous of an Assembly which, like themselves,
rested on an elective basis. It was the hereditary principle which rendered those
who were thus qualified for legislative functions ready to take up a tolerant
attitude and indifferent to slight humiliations, and saved them from identifying
their political position with their personal self-esteem. On April 26th a Bill to
amend the Constitution of the House of Lords was brought in by Lord Dunraven,
which embodied most of Lord Rosebery's suggestions, with some ideas of his
own. In opposing it, Lord Salisbury declared against introducing the Represen-
tative System in the Second Chamber, but promised himself to propose a scheme
for creating Life Peerages. This pledge he redeemed-it may here be mentioned
—on June 15th. The Bill provided that her Majesty should have power to create
by letters patent five Life Peers in a year, but the total number in the House
should be limited to fifty. Though Lord Salisbury doubted whether the evil with
regard to "black sheep" was so serious as was sometimes alleged, he proposed
that the Sovereign, on an Address from the House of Lords, should be enabled to
deprive any Peer of his right to receive a writ of summons. But this disability
her Majesty, on the advice of her Ministers, would have the right of removing.
The Bill was given a Second Reading, but in the subsequent congestion of Parlia-
mentary business it was not thought worth while to press a measure which did not
satisfy the Radicals.
<
The great work of the Session was the Local Government Act for England
and Wales. The general effect of this was to introduce into rural districts the
same popular control over local administration as already existed in the urban
municipalities—to transfer to elective County Councils all the non-judicial func-
tions hitherto exercised by the Justices in Quarter Sessions. It was hardly
suggested that the country gentlemen had not done their work cheaply and
efficiently, nor could it be imagined that under either of these heads there would
be any improvement brought about by the new system. The reason why the
Conservative Party took up this project, to which they had on several occasions
pledged themselves, was their fear that if it were left to the Liberals a more serious
revolution would be effected than if they carried out a scheme of their own. It
was as a matter of policy rather than principle that they gave almost free play to the
innovating ambition of Mr. Ritchie.
For the purposes of this Act, it should be mentioned that the word "county
is invested with a special and abnormal meaning, and includes such places as Bir-
mingham and Croydon. In these cases the fiction is convenient and harmless
because the largest of these districts is not too large to retain the sense of a
":
*

C.T.RITCHIE.
From a photes by the London Sterescopic C
LONDON, J.a.VIRTUE & C LIMITED.
THE COUNTY COUNCILS ACT.
165
common interest and a corporate existence. But by some evil genius-perhaps by
that haunting desire to anticipate the Radicals which has inspired so many Con-
servative innovations-the Government were induced to imagine a "County of
London," and to call the London County Council into existence. They were so far
alive to the dangers of creating a powerful elective body at the heart of the Empire
that they imposed certain statutory restrictions upon it. The police have been with-
held from its control, and the area of the old City has been exempted from its
jurisdiction. Yet these very limitations did but excite the ambition of a body
which, instead of confining itself to the administrative routine for which it was
intended, at once assumed the importance of a little Parliament, and set up all the
paraphernalia of Westminster-including Party Government and Party Whips.
Before parting with the Local Government Act, it should be mentioned that
the original draft invested the County Councils with certain powers in connection
with the licensing of public houses. Each County was to be divided into Districts
with a Committee for each district, which would be able to refuse the renewal of a
licence or to close the premises on Sundays, Good Fridays, and Christmas Days.
But where a renewal was refused compensation was to be given to the disappointed
applicant―an amount based on the difference between the value of the premises
with and without a licence. In the first instance this charge would be imposed on
the County Fund, but ultimately it would come out of the District in which the
licence had been extinguished. In order to provide the money without unduly
burdening the ratepayers it was proposed that the licence duty should be increased
by twenty per cent.-so that the cost of compensation granted to a dispossessed
publican would, in great part, be borne by the fellow tradesmen who profited by
his loss. The scheme may not have been perfect; it is easy to suggest points in
which it would have worked inefficiently or unfairly. It was not, however, against
this particular scheme of compensation, but against any scheme at all, that the
Temperance Party declared war. Rather than risk the loss of the whole Bill by
protracting the discussion to the extreme limits of the Session, it was decided
to abandon the Licensing Clauses. A similar fate befell that portion of the
Bill in which it had been proposed to create District Councils governing
smaller areas than the County Councils, and superseding the local boards and the
urban and sanitary authorities, but making no alteration as to the Poor Law
areas or the Election of Guardians.
-
It would be tedious to follow the various attacks which were made, and the
replics that were given to them, on Mr. Balfour's unflinching administration of
the Crimes Act. He steadily adhered to his system of bringing to justice, when
they made themselves amenable to legal process, not the dupes and agents, but
the leaders and organizers, of the Plan of Campaign. It was hoped that the formal
condemnation which the Pope had pronounced on April 27th upon that illegal
conspiracy would soon destroy its influence with the Irish peasantry. His
Holiness declared that it was unlawful to break voluntary contracts; that the
tenants might have recourse to the Land Courts; and that the funds collected
for the Plan had been extorted from the contributors. The practice of Boycotting
166
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
}
was said to be against the principles of justice and charity, and had been used as
an instrument of persecution.
CC
The charges brought by The Times in the previous year against Mr. Parnell
and his associates-which Unionists might be excused for accepting as absolutely
true since no attempt was made to disprove them—were again forced into public
notice when Mr. F. H. O'Donnell brought an action against that newspaper,
claiming £50,000 damages. The defence was that the plaintiff was not personally
attacked, and had not suffered any injury.. As he did not go into the box to
substantiate his own claim, the jury gave their verdict to The Times. But
counsel for the defendants took the opportunity of repeating the charges made in
Parnellism and Crime," and of reading the famous "Phoenix Park Letter" and
several others of the same character. This was on July 5th.
The next day Mr. Parnell made a statement in the House of Commons
emphatically repudiating the correspondence attributed to him, and a few days
later he asked for a Select Committee to inquire into the authenticity of the
letters. Mr. Smith replied, on behalf of the Government, that such a tribunal
would be unsuitable, but offered that a Commission should be appointed by Act of
Parliament to inquire into all the allegations made against Members of Parliament
in the case of O'Donnell v. Walter. The first idea, no doubt, was that this was
an offer which the Nationalists could accept or reject, and that in the latter case
the proposal would be withdrawn. But the more the Irish members hung back
from the notion of a general investigation the more eager were the Unionists to
force it on them, and to include "other persons" besides members of Parliament
in the scope of inquiry. The intention now was to open up the whole secret
history of the Nationalist movement both in America and in the United Kingdom,
and against this the Irish members and their English allies protested with
suspicious warmth. The Bill to constitute a Commission was brought in by Mr.
Smith on July 16th, and the Second Reading was moved on the 23rd, when he
announced that the judges proposed for this special Tribunal were Sir James
Hannen, Mr. Justice Day, and Mr. Justice Smith. The Bill was read a third
time on August 8th, and the Special Commission, after a preliminary meeting on
September 17th, adjourned till October 22nd. It sat for more than twelve months,
and its report was not presented to Parliament till February 13th, 1890. But it
will not be necessary in these pages to follow its proceedings in any detail, since
the broad results of its laborious research are embodied in the chapters relating to
the rise and progress of the Irish Movement.
Among the measures introduced but not carried to completion in 1888 may
be mentioned the Bill for establishing a Board of Agriculture, and two Bills,
which Lord Salisbury got through the House of Lords, for regulating the collec-
tion of Tithe. A Bill introduced by Mr. Balfour on November 18th provided a
second sum of £5,000,000 in further extension of the Ashbourne Act. Mr. Glad-
stone met this proposal by suggesting that there should be substituted for it a
measure empowering the Land Court to reduce or cancel arrears of rent. Mr.
Parnell, more plausibly, asked that both benefits should be conferred together, but
-
FOREIGN AFFAIRS IN 1883.
167
Mr. Balfour persisted in the policy he had announced, and, though some Amend-
ments proposed by the Opposition were added to the draft, the Bill became law.
Affairs on the Continent, though less disquieting than in the previous year,
had made the post of Foreign Secretary an anxious one. The Boulanger bubble
had not yet been pricked in France, and it was known that, if that adventurer
were to establish himself as Dictator, or only became the confidential Minister
of a restored Monarchy, the attention of the people would be withdrawn
from domestic innovations by plunging the nation into war; perhaps with
Germany, to recover the lost Provinces; perhaps with England, to rob us of our
Colonial Empire. Germany, meantime, was an uncertain element in the European
situation. The death of the Emperor William I., the brief reign of Frederick III.,
and the accession of William II. a young Prince whose prepossessions were
known at this time to be decidedly anti-English-had seemed likely to detach us
from our friendly approximation to the Powers of the Triple Alliance.
The good relations with Germany which Lord Salisbury had now established in
regard to East Africa were testified to by Count Herbert Bismarck in the Reichstag
on December 15th. He described the wasteful cruelties practised by the Arab
Sheiks in their slave-hunting expeditions, and Germany had been joined by
England in a blockade that would, it was hoped, destroy the market for human
chattels. Count Herbert spoke of confidential consultations with our Govern-
ment, and the obliging spirit in which the German policy had been supported in
London. But though there was this friendly co-operation for a common object,
the rivalry between the two colonizing Powers in East Africa was becoming
more and more intense-the Governments of the two countries being insensibly,
if not altogether willingly, drawn into the competition between the British and
German Companies. It was becoming clear that, if a serious misunderstanding
was to be avoided, the whole question must receive a comprehensive settlement.
One of the most regrettable incidents of the year was the insult put upon the
British Minister at Washington. Lord Sackville-who certainly ought to have
known better—had been drawn into replying to a correspondent who had asked
for advice as to the Presidential contest. Believing that his letter would be
treated as confidential, he recommended the recipient to vote for Mr. Cleveland
as the Democratic candidate. As a matter of fact, a trap had been laid by one
of the electioneering agents for the Republicans, and our Ambassador's letter was
at once published. The object was to discredit Mr. Cleveland as being the friend of
England; and to clear himself of that painful imputation the President, who was
working for re-election, displayed-or allowed Mr. Secretary Bayard to display-
quite an exaggerated zeal for diplomatic etiquette. The end of the shabby
intrigue was that Lord Salisbury was asked by Mr. Phelps, the United States
Minister in London, to recall Lord Sackville. This demand Lord Salisbury had
no alternative but to accede to. He could only mark his sense of the rudeness
shown in this country by refusing to appoint a successor, and leaving our Lega-
tion at Washington in the charge of the Senior Secretary.
The Autumn Session of 1888, chiefly occupied with a tedious discussion of

168
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
the Estimates, was brought to a close on Christmas Eve, when Parliament was
prorogued by Royal Commission. The proceedings of the year had borne out Lord
Salisbury's remark that
the wisdom and the
eloquence of the House
was very great, but
the eloquence was get-
ting in the way of the
wisdom. Among the
subjects mentioned in
the Queen's Speech, not
referred to in the pre-
vious pages, were the
Convention with regard
to Sugar Bounties nego-
tiated by Baron H. de
Worms; certain dis-
turbances on the Indian
frontier (in the Black
Mountain and Sikkim);
and the rebellion of
Dinizulu and other Zulu
chieftains who, however
had been captured, and
were at this time await-
ing trial.
The fourth Parlia-
нурбедност
THE LATE FREDERICK III., EMPEROR OF GERMANY.
ment of Lord Salisbury's Second Administration was opened on February
21st, 1889. But the attention of the public was for a time withdrawn from
Westminster by the dramatic exposure of the witness Pigott before the
Special Commission. He was a man of notoriously infamous character, but
contrived, through the agency of other persons, to palm off on The Times the
letters which that journal had, in all good faith, attributed to Mr. Parnell. On
Friday the 22nd it was clear that The Times case had broken down so far as it
rested on these documents, and the Commission adjourned till the following Tues-
day. On its reassembling, Pigott did not answer to his name, and it appeared that
on the 23rd he had met Mr. (now Sir) George Lewis and the late Mr. G. A. Sala
at Mr. Labouchere's house, and executed a written confession that he had himself
forged the letters. On these disclosures being made in court, Sir Richard Webster,
as counsel for The Times, expressed the "sincere regret" of his clients that they had
published the letters, but denied and all sensible persons accepted the denial-
that there had been any conspiracy behind Pigott. They had been "misled and
imposed upon." Pigott succeeded in getting out of the country, but a few days
later it was discovered that he was in hiding in Madrid. He was on the point of

THE EXPOSURE OF PIGOTT.
being arrested by a Spanish policeman when he contrived to cheat justice by shoot-
ing himself.
169
It was but human nature that politicians who had identified themselves with
Mr. Parnell's programme should make the most of this collapse of the more
striking portion of the evidence against him. Because he was proved not to have
written these letters they assumed that he would come triumphantly out of the
whole ordeal, and they pretended to attach no importance to the future proceed-
ings of the tribunal. They chose to forget that the letters-whether genuine or
forged-were but evidence offered in support of the allegation that some of the
leaders of the Irish Parliamentary Party stood in compromising relations with the
advocates and agents of Physical Force. If other evidence, more substantial if
less sensational, could be produced in support of that allegation, and if it were not
broken down, the accused persons would have no title to the popular exculpation
now claimed for them. What they had a right to was sympathy in having been
forced to contend against fabricated testimony.
There is no occasion-nor is there space-here to reproduce or to examine the
charges-wild but, in the excited state of public opinion, not altogether unnatural-
which were brought
against The Times of
complicity with
Pigott, and against
the Government of
complicity with The
Times, and the still
more ridiculous accu-
sations made against
Sir Richard Webster.
They were honestly
believed by some who
indulged in them, but
they came oddly from
a Party who were
complaining of libel.
As Mr. Balfour neatly
put it, they revelled
in libel themselves-
libel was their daily
bread. Nor is it
necessary to revive
the controversy as to
the treatment which
was received by the
"political prisoners"-i.e., offenders against the law, arrested, tried, and sentenced
by legal process-for which the Chief Secretary was called to account in
VOL. IV.
M
Dini Yenders
WILLIAM II., EMPEROR OF GERMANY.
170
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Parliament, and on which, in deference to the Liberal Unionists, he finally gave
way.
Even so moderate a politician as Lord Granville thought it his duty as Liberal
leader in the House of Lords to insist on these imaginary hardships. In a con-
temptuous reply Lord Salisbury confessed his inability to preserve a tragic air
over Mr. O'Brien struggling for his smallclothes or Mr. Harrington mourning
over his moustache. Irish politicians seemed to have lost the national sense of
humour, and to have no idea when they were making themselves ridiculous.
The whole business was a theatrical display, got up for platform use at bye-.
elections. Meantime the firm administration of the law had reduced the number
of agrarian crimes below what it had been at any time during the existing
agitation.
In a comparatively quiet Session, the most controversial topic was provided by
the Naval Defence scheme, already foreshadowed by Lord Salisbury, and now
explained in Parliament by Lord George Hamilton on March 7th. It was pro-
posed to add 70 ships to the Navy within the next four years. They were to
consist of 8 first-class and 2 second-class Battleships; 9 first-class, 29 second-
class, and 4 third-class Cruisers; and 18 torpedo-boats. This was to be done at a
cost of £21,500,000. Of this sum £10,000,000 were to be issued out of the Con-
solidated Funds in the seven years ending March 31st, 1896, and £11,500,000
out of money provided by Parliament during the five years ending March 31st,
1894. The main and most plausible objection to these proposals was that, by
embodying them in the Government Bill, the present House of Commons might
be tying the hands of its successor, and that it was a violation of the custom that
the needs of the year should be met by the Votes of the year. But these theoretical
objections did not prevail against the importance of establishing a continuity of
policy and of allowing the Admiralty to practise greater economy, in the way of
getting more value for money, when it had clearly laid down before it a scheme
of work extending over a term of years. Though the Bill was hotly criticised at
every stage, it was only on the financial question raised by Mr. Childers in the
Second Reading Debate that the majority sank below the normal Government
figure. In the House of Lords the Bill encountered no opposition, and became law
on May 31st. While we must give the Conservatives all credit for boldly entering
on the increased scale of expenditure which has given us the increased sense of
national security that we now enjoy, it is only fair to add that the Liberals have
profited by the example, and that Lord Spencer in the late Administration was not
less impressed than his predecessor had been with the importance of keeping our Navy
above serious risk from any probable hostile combination.
On July 2nd, Mr. Smith brought up two Royal Messages, the first asking the
House of Commons to provide for the honourable support and maintenance of Prince
Albert Victor, and the second announcing the betrothal of the Princess Louise of
Wales to the Earl (now Duke) of Fife. It was proposed by Mr. Smith and seconded
by Mr. Gladstone that a Select Committee should deal with the whole question of
grants to the Royal Family, and, acting upon the Report finally prepared by that

WORK OF THE 1889 SESSION.
171
body, the Government, with the concurrence of most of the leaders of the Opposi-
tion, brought in a Bill under which a sum of £36,000 per annum would be allotted
from the Consolidated Fund for the benefit of the Prince of Wales's children. A
hostile Amendment was moved in Committee by Mr. John Morley and supported,
of course, by such Radicals as Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Samuel Storey, whom Mr.
Chamberlain, in the course of the discussion, described as the "Nihilists of English
politics." The Bill was read a third time on August 5th, and passed the House of
Lords four days later.
Though the Government were, on the whole, successful in the Session of 1889,
PRESIDENT CLEVELAND.
they encountered some vexatious rebuffs. It was considered by some of their
Conservative followers, as well as by some of their Liberal Unionist allies, that the
Sugar Bounty Convention, negotiated the year before by Baron H. de Worms,
savoured of the Protectionist heresy. Anyhow, the Radicals were making effective
play with that outcry. The Government, they said, was getting in the thin end
of the Protection wedge, and Ministers thought it advisable to drop the Bill.
Another success was scored by the Opposition in getting rid of the new Tithes Bill
introduced by the Home Secretary.
The Scotch Local Government Act was originally introduced in the shape of
172
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
two Bills that were afterwards consolidated, and received the Royal Assent on
August 26th. Five Bills were introduced by Mr. Balfour dealing with Arterial
Drainage and the construction of Light Railways in Ireland. But so much oppo-
sition was aroused by the four measures relating to the former object that they were
withdrawn. The Light Railways Bill became law on August 30th, an Amendment
having been defeated in the House of Commons which declared that no money
should be given or advanced for Irish railways unless it were under the direction
and responsibility of popular elected bodies—the object being to postpone remedial
measures for the country until the Government had brought in a scheme of Local
Government. An Act was passed this Session for doing what had been promised
in the last—to establish a Board of Agriculture, which could take over the functions
of various bodies that dealt with special aspects of that industry.
Mr. Chaplin
was appointed first President, and admitted to the Cabinet. The London Coal
Duties were formally extinguished by an Act passed for that purpose.
Though Mr. John Bright had for some little time withdrawn from any active
part in politics, his death in the early part of 1889 removed a great name and a
great influence from public life. It would be absurd to pretend that he was a states-
man, since he had never proved, or desired to test, his capacity for administration.
But he was in the highest and noblest sense of the word a great Demagogue—a
man who could rouse the emotions and control the passions of a people, and who
never consciously exerted his powers to any purpose which he did not believe to
be useful or honourable. The vacancy created by his death in the representation of
West Birmingham led to an unseemly controversy between the Liberal Unionists
and Conservatives as to the right of succession. But the quarrel, subsequently
made up, was almost personal between Mr. Chamberlain and Lord Randolph
Churchill, and need not be discussed in these pages. The Gladstonians at one
time entertained some hope of profiting by the Unionist split, but Mr. John Albert
Bright was elected by a majority of more than 3,000 votes.
The visit of the German Emperor to this country-which had been somewhat
ostentatiously left out of the European tour he made soon after his accession to the
throne—and the compliment which her Majesty paid her grandson by appointing
him honorary Admiral of the British fleet, modified for a time the anti-English
views with which he had been imbued by Prince Bismarck, and which—through
family disputes long ago removed he had been only too ready to adopt. Even
with France, in spite of the standing quarrel about Egypt, we remained on amic-
able, if not cordial, terms. A period of comparative calm had supervened in the
troubled politics of the Republic. At the beginning of the year it seemed as if
Boulanger and his League of Patriots, his Revisionists, and his Royalists might
overthrow the Republican system. His electoral successes seemed to show that the
people were ready to accept the dictatorship of a bold and capable usurper. What
might have happened had Boulanger taken up the sword it is impossible to conjec-
ture. The best judges believed at the time that he could make himself master of
France. But he had neither brains nor nerve, this feeble voluptuary, and fell
into the trap laid for him by M. Constans, Minister of the Interior.
A hint was
५
ALLIANCE OR FUSION?
173
dropped-quite in confidence—that the General was to be arrested next day. The
news was carried-as it was meant to be carried-to Boulanger by one of his spies,
and next day the intending Dictator had vanished. He was tried in his absence,
and condemned for malversation. It did not matter whether the charge was true
or false. The accused dared not return to meet it, though for some time he main-
tained a sort of shoddy Court, first in Brussels and afterwards in London. He
issued occasional Manifestoes, and kept up the pretence of one day coming back as
the Saviour of France. But he disappears now from politics. After a time the
money gave out, the ladies of Paris ceased to regret him, and he tried-theatrical
to the last to revive interest in a sordid career by shooting himself on the grave
of a woman who might be called worthless, had she not been too good for her
paramour.
In the speech delivered to the Unionist Conference at Nottingham, Lord
Salisbury referred to the proposal for amalgamating, under the name of a
National Party, the Conservative and Liberal sections of the Unionist combination.
He said that he would further such an arrangement, but best indicated its practical
difficulty by suggesting that it might be more easily carried out if his position
were occupied by some other Statesman. The protests with which this suggestion
was met, showed not only the popularity and esteem he had gained in the last few
years, but also proved that the day for fusion had not yet arrived.
In nomen-
clature and in organization the two Unionist Parties were still to stand aloof in prac-
tical policy, but the coalition was becoming almost complete. Earlier in the year
Mr. Chamberlain had pronounced in favour of Free Education, and now in Novem-
ber we find the Conservative Prime Minister admitting that item to his provisional
programme. He preferred to call it by the name of Assisted Education. In
apologising for so bold a departure from strictly Conservative principles, he pointed
out that four years ago he had admitted that when you compel a parent to send
his children to school you incur a certain obligation to relieve him of the burden-
to make it as easy for him as possible. But the gift of Free or Assisted Education
was, in the first place, a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer; in the
second, it must be given in such a way as not to interfere with the religious liberty
—the opportunity of religious teaching-afforded by the Voluntary Schools.
it were to suppress the Denominational Schools, Free Education would be," the
Prime Minister said, "not a blessing but a curse."
"" If
•
G
G
The year 1890, a year of excitement and disturbance in almost every part of
the world, was the most eventful of those covered by Lord Salisbury's Second
Administration. Abroad it witnessed such stirring events as the dismissal of
Prince Bismarck by the German Emperor, and that energetic young Ruler's
attempt to inaugurate a permanent and universal settlement of the questions at
issue between employers and employed by holding an International Labour Con-
ference in Berlin; the confirmation of Signor Crispi in power in Italy by a
General Election which gave him a majority of four-fifths of the Chamber, thus
endorsing his adherence to the Triple Alliance, and showing how little the warn-
ings of Outidanos (Mr. Gladstone) were regarded by the nation to whom they were
174
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
addressed; a demonstration, got up by the French Socialists for Labour Day
(May 1st), and intended to threaten the very foundations of Society and Govern-
ment, but suppressed by the same firm and wily Minister of the Interior who had
wiped out the Boulangist revolution; the trial and execution of Major Panitza for
conspiracy against Prince Ferdinand of Bulgaria, and a General Election which
strengthened M. Stambuloff's already predominant position in the State; the
revival by the Czar of the severe Edicts against his Jewish subjects; a rising in the
Argentine Republic against the corrupt rule of President Celman, followed first
by his deposition, then by attempts to restore him, and finally by a financial crisis
at Buenos Ayres, which helped to bring about the heavy depression of South
American securities, the collapse of the Barings, and a panic in the City of
London; and the adoption at Washington of a rigorous measure of Protection,
the McKinley Tariff Act, aimed directly at the destruction of European and espe-
cially of British export trade with the United States. Most of these incidents had
direct or indirect effect on the interests and policy of the United Kingdom, yet
even without their occurrence, the domestic history of the year would have been
important. The fact which perhaps came home most closely to ordinary folks was
the continued prevalence of the influenza, and among the many public men who
were seized by the epidemic was the Prime Minister.
The subject which called most urgently for his attention as Foreign
Secretary at the opening of the year was our dispute with Portugal. On
January 6th he instructed Mr. Petre, our Minister at Lisbon, to demand
an immediate declaration from the Portuguese Government that their forces
in East Africa would not be permitted to interfere with British settlements
on the Shiré and Lake Nyassa, or the country of the Makololo, or the country
under the government of Lobengula, or any other country. declared under our
protection, and that there would be no attempt to exercise Portuguese juris-
diction over any portion of those countries without previous arrangement
between the two countries. The policy which Major Serpa Pinto had been carry-
ing out with no little energy was to "rush" the disputed regions by a colour-
able military occupation and improvise vague Treaties with native chieftains, so
that the Lisbon Government, when proposing to bargain with us on the plausible
basis of uti possidetis, would be found, when the time came, to be already in con-
structive possession of every place worth having. A similar scheme was being
simultaneously carried out in another part of East Africa by the German adven-
turer, Dr. Carl Peters, who had disappeared into the Hinterland, and allowed the
news of his own death to be circulated in Europe in order that he might carry on
his negotiations without interruption. His return to life was announced after the
conclusion of the Anglo-German Convention had rendered his patriotic labours
futile. But neither by Dr. Peters nor Major Pinto, nor by the Governments in
Berlin and Lisbon, was Lord Salisbury to be beguiled into giving up our pos-
sessions and prospects in this part of the Dark Continent, the importance of
which as markets for our manufactures had just been impressed on Englishmen
by the return of Mr. Stanley from his expedition for the relief of Emin Pasha.
-

MISUNDERSTANDING WITH PORTUGAL.
The story of his explorations, and the flourishing accounts he gave of the unde-
veloped possibilities of the Interior, especially in the neighbourhood of the Great
Lakes, aroused this year an interest in East and Central Africa which had never
been felt before either in this country or on the Continent. Every Power which
could plead a reason or a pretext for interference joined in the international
scramble, and in a short time Lord Salisbury found that this country had a separate
African question with Germany, France, and Italy, as well as with Portugal-not
to mention the outstanding issues in Egypt, in the Soudan, and at half-a-dozen
points in South Africa.
If there are two quali-
ties which distinguish Lord
Salisbury as Foreign Secre-
tary from his predecessors,
they are, first, his eagerness
to settle any controversy
which might, if neglected,
become acute; and secondly,
what one may call a passion
for making bargains. For
Arbitration in the abstract
he entertains the greatest
respect, but it so happens
that in most cases where
we have resorted to that
method of adjusting differ-
ences we have been unfairly
treated by the tribunal, or
when we have nominally
gained the award have failed
to realise any practical
advantage. Like most men
of business - and Lord
Salisbury is one of the best
men of business of his time,
whether in the management
of his own affairs or of matters entrusted to his care-he believes that the proper
persons to settle a dispute are the parties to it. Generally, in public or in private
quarrels, it is pride or temper rather than dishonesty on either side which prolongs
a misunderstanding, and it is partly to modify such disturbing influences that all
the elaborate mechanism of Diplomacy is maintained.
In the case of Portugal, it was at first impossible to apply the rational method.
The reply sent from Lisbon to Lord Salisbury's demand of February 6th was
polite but evasive, and on the 11th Mr. Petre was instructed to present an
Ultimatum. That Great Britain was in earnest was proved by the orders given to
HENRY CHAPLIN.
BE
Madh
Jan
175
sel
6.174
176
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
the East African squadron to sail for Mozambique, while the Channel squadron
started to take up positions off the Tagus, the Cape de Verde Islands, and the Azores.
This display of force was necessary in order to provide the Lisbon Court and
Government with an excuse for yielding. The Monarchy and the whole Constitu-
tion were at this time menaced by revolution. The disorder into which the
national finances had fallen, the accession of a young King not yet known to have
any governing power, the recent deposition (1889) of Dom Pedro in Brazil—a
Prince of the House of Braganza in what was once a Portuguese possession—all
these facts had so encouraged the Republican Party that the King and Ministers
dared not do anything which might be imputed to lack of courage and patriotism.
It was a painful and inglorious necessity for a great Power like England to
apply coercion to a small one like Portugal, but the thing had to be done,
especially as the Lisbon Chauvinists, encouraged by the malicious suggestions
of Anglophobe Paris journals, believed that they might, in the last resort,
count on the material support of France. If Lord Salisbury had given way at
this moment, he would have been accused of trying to bully a weak nation, and
retreating before the menace of a strong one. But in face of an Ultimatum
delivered as they saw-in earnest, the Portuguese Government agreed to send
to the Governor of Mozambique "the orders exacted by Great Britain." The
ground was now cleared for reasonable negotiations. It cannot be said, however,
that the Portuguese displayed any conciliatory disposition. The seizure of the
Delagoa Bay railway by their local authorities in March was a high-handed act,
for which compensation was afterwards exacted. The Convention, again, which
had been concluded between London and Lisbon was rejected by the Cortes
because it seemed too complete a surrender of the national claims. The incon-
venience was, however, only temporary. On November 14th, a Modus Vivendi
was signed by Lord Salisbury and the Portuguese Minister, fixed, in the first
instance, for six months, but afterwards extended, and finally leading up to the
definite Treaty of 1891.
The exposure of Pigott in the previous year left The Times without any legal
defence to the action for libel brought against them by Mr. Parnell. Indeed,
they admitted their liability by paying forty shillings into court. The plaintiff
had put his damages at £100,000, but on February 3rd a compromise was arranged,
under which he agreed to accept £5,000. But his success on this point, The
Times remarked next day, in no way affected the larger question on which the
Commission was about to publish its Report. Meantime, it was for cool-headed
observers to reserve their judgment. But this was exactly what the Opposition
tried to prevent. Every attempt was made, at the opening of Parliament on
February 11th, to snatch a decision on the conduct of Mr. Parnell and his col-
leagues, before the whole case had been presented. Sir William Harcourt argued
that The Times had committed a breach of the Privilege of Parliament, and thus
obtained precedence over the Debate on the Address. In the warm discussion
that ensued, Mr. Parnell made his excuse for not having taken earlier proceedings
against The Times-that he wanted to know first from whom they had "got that
REPORT OF THE PARNELL COMMISSION.
177
letter." He suggested the insertion of "forged " before the word "letters" in the
amended Resolution moved by Sir John Gorst-a suggestion promptly accepted
by Mr. Smith. But the Opposition were not satisfied with this concession, and,
on pressing Sir William Harcourt's motion to the vote, were defeated by a majority
of 48.
There is no need to summarise the Report here. The main points were that
Mr. Parnell was acquainted of the charges personal to himself, but that the
Nationalist members as a body were found guilty, amongst other things, of belong-
ing to a "criminal conspiracy," the object of which was to promote an Anti-Rent
agitation and to impoverish and expel the landlords who were styled the English Gar-
rison. The publication of this document led to a Debate in the House of Commons,
which lasted for seven days and stopped all other business. Mr. Smith moved a
Resolution adopting the Report and entering it in the Journals of the House, and
thanking the Judges for their impartiality. To this Mr. Gladstone proposed an
Amendment, expressing reprobation of "the false charges of the gravest and most
odious character, based on calumny and forgery," brought against Members of the
House, and particularly against Mr. Parnell. If Mr. Smith's Motion was defective
because it contained no reference to the accusations disproved, Mr. Gladstone's
Amendment made no allusion to those which had been established. It would
have been more politic, perhaps, since the English interpretation of fairplay is for
the stronger side to be generous, if the Government had proposed some expres-
sion of regret with regard to the Letters. Though it is not true that these
documents made the whole case against the respondents, it is pretty certain that
but for their publication the Commission would never have been appointed or
demanded. Logically, however, Ministers could hardly be blamed for simply
adopting the Report of the Judges, and in thinking that persons against whom
some charges had been established were not entitled to any special amende
because others had broken down. Still, by their cold though correct attitude,
they left an opening to Lord Randolph Churchill and other "sympathetic
politicians to pose as exemplars of noble sentiment. But it must be admitted that
Lord Randolph-like many other prominent Conservatives—had privately pro-
tested against the appointment of a Special Commission, and represented that, in
taking this step, Ministers had been over-persuaded by the Liberal Unionists.
About a month of the Session had been spent-one can hardly say wasted-
on this topic, when Parliament was once more seriously enabled to address itself to
the programme laid down in the Queen's Speech. Among the subjects mentioned
for legislation had been Land Purchase and Local Government in Ireland, Land
Transfer in England, Scotch Private Bills, Tithes in England and Wales, Scotch
Crofters, Employers' Liability, Public Health and Working Men's Dwellings in
London. But more controversial matter than any contained in this list was pro-
vided by the Licensing Proposals contained in Mr. Goschen's Budget. The object
was to raise a fund, by special taxation of liquor, for the gradual extinction of
licences. It was approved by the Church of England Temperance Society and
many of the moderate reformers; but it was opposed by the United Kingdom
VOL. IV.
N
""

178
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Alliance and by the Liberals as a Party. The result was that the most useful part
of the Session was thrown away, and, on June 26th, Mr. Smith had to announce
that the Ministers would withdraw the scheme, while the money set apart for what
the Radicals called the "endowment of publicans," was given to the County
Councils with permission to use it for Technical Education.
Ministers had been outgeneralled, and, by persisting in a scheme that met with
warm support in no part of the House, had done nothing but make an elaborate
demonstration of their real desire to promote Temperance Reform. But their
good intentions were not put down to the credit side of their account, and it was
generally admitted that they had courted the worst rebuff they had experienced
since they came into office. That their scheme was honest, moderate, and efficient
PRINCE FERDINAND OF BULGARIA.
did not count against the fact that it had been defeated, and it was evident that,
if they wished to retain the good opinion of the country, they must show a good
record in other matters.
But even up to this point the Session had not been quite barren. Good pro-
gress had been made with the Allotments Bill, amending the previous Act of
1887, and enabling the latter to be more easily put in force, by allowing an appeal
to be made to the County Council from a Sanitary Authority which had failed to
provide the required accommodation, and giving the former body the right to act
in place of the latter. This useful measure received the Royal Assent on August
18th. For the Housing of the Working Classes Act great credit was given to
Mr. Ritchie. It did not make many important changes in the existing law,

HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES.
179
but it consolidated previous Statutes, and made them intelligible and workable.
The chief alterations it introduced were to simplify the procedure required for
the demolition of "rookeries," to guard against excessive and prohibitory com-
pensation being required by obstructive property-owners, to diminish the expenses
of arbitration, and to provide tenants suddenly ejected from insanitary dwellings
with a slight allowance at the expense of the offending landlord, and generally to
strengthen the hands of the local authorities. It was, in fact, one of those measures
SIGNOR CRISPI.
for which the Conservative Party-not being expected to embark on elaborate con-
stitutional innovations-have more leisure, if not more inclination, than their
rivals; and it went a long way to restore the damaged Parliamentary reputation of
the very able politician who had called the London County Council into existence.
Another necessary measure, postponed from 1889, was the Act investing the
Colony of Western Australia-the only state in the Island Continent still governed
by the Crown-with the powers of Responsible Government. On the other hand,
the Tithes Bill-similar in its provisions to others proposed in previous Sessions-
180
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
*
once again met with bitter opposition, and, after being read a second time, had to
be withdrawn.
If Ministers had done little inside Parliament, the period had been full of
accomplishment for the Foreign Secretary. The Anglo-German Agreement,
signed in July, put an end to misunderstanding as to territories and spheres of
influence in the African Continent. The most important concessions made by
Berlin were the recognition of our Protectorate over Zanzibar, the abandonment
of German claims with regard to Witu, and the delimitation of the Hinterland in
such a way as to secure for Great Britain the fullest rights with regard to
Uganda, and to give us free access to the Great Lakes at the source of the Nile.
The last was not the least important point, because the Lakes form a great part of
the natural connection between Egypt and the Zambesi district-a waterway that
flows along territory which is now either British or within British "influence,"
except for one short piece where the "wasp's waist," as it was called, is intersected
by a strip of land held on one side by Germany and on the other by the Congo
State. It is known that Lord Salisbury fought hard to complete the chain of
British connections. The Germans were open to a deal, but the conditions they
asked were too high. They would take nothing but Walfisch Bay, an isolated
British port in the region on the South-West that lies within the German sphere.
To us the place has no intrinsic value, but the possessors of it would be able to
enter into commercial rivalry with the Cape, and if we had given up Walfisch
Bay the discontent in that Colony would have done more harm than could be com-
pensated by acquisitions in East Africa. Even for these we had to pay a price
which some Englishmen considered excessive-by transferring Heligoland to
Germany.
This was one point in the Agreement which came in for serious criticism. The
island had been extremely useful to us as a depôt for merchandise at a time when
Bonaparte attempted to cripple us by blocking our trade with the Continent.
Nor did William II. conceal his delight at being able to incorporate in his
Empire an Island which had been an eyesore to German patriotism ever since it
passed into British hands. If he was so glad to get it, the argument ran, he
ought to have been made to give more for it than the undeveloped possibilities of
Central African commerce. That opinion, strongly expressed at the time, has
been somewhat modified now that we have begun to understand, and seriously
attempted to develop, our "great estate" in the region of the Lakes. And it is
certain that if we had kept Heligoland we should not have obtained the undisputed
right to territory which is envied and regretted by the Colonialmenschen of Berlin.
It is worthy of mention that the onc other respect in which the Treaty of 1890
failed to give satisfaction in England-the severance of the "Wasp's Waist"
was dealt with by the late Liberal Ministry. With the laudable ambition of
improving Lord Salisbury's work, Lord Rosebery and Lord Kimberley entered into
a confidential arrangement with the King of the Belgians as Sovereign of the
Congo State, and, in return for certain solid considerations, obtained from him a
lease of the strip of territory that would complete the British route from the

63355
THE ANGLO-GERMAN AGREEMENT.
000
00000
B
FALHAUGE
ا
181
MAPHARD
BUENOS-AYRES CONGRESS BUILDING.
182
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Lakes to Egypt. But, no sooner was the arrangement published, than Germany
and France stepped in, and protested—with more vigour than courtesy—that they
would not recognise the bargain. The international position of the Congo State—
a creation of the European Powers-made such a concession on the part of King
Leopold ultra vires, and we had to give up what we had bargained and paid for,
while that astute monarch kept the price. The fact was that in this affair Lord
Rosebery and Lord Kimberley had acted with more zeal than knowledge. If they
had troubled to inquire into what had happened in 1890 they would have dis-
covered how hard Sir W. Mackinnon, on behalf of the British East Africa Com-
pany, had worked for a similar arrangement with the German Chancellor, and that
Lord Salisbury only abandoned the point because he saw it could not be carried.
Jealousy is not among Mr. Gladstone's failings, and in the House of Commons
he gave "unqualified credit" to Lord Salisbury for his work. There was but one
mistake he detected—that the consent of France had not been obtained beforehand
to our Protectorate in Zanzibar. The defect thus pointed out was, in fact, already
being repaired, and a week before Parliament rose Lord Salisbury had the
pleasure of announcing the terms of an Anglo-French Convention.
It so
happened that any objection which the French might raise to our new position
in Zanzibar could be met by a similar one with regard to their relations with
Madagascar. The two Governments had therefore agreed to exchange recognitions.
At the same time an arrangement had been made as to the Algerian Hinterland,
and a line was drawn to separate the French sphere of activity from that of the
British Niger Company, reserving the kingdom of Sokoto to the latter. The under-
standing was at present, Lord Salisbury explained, somewhat inchoate, since it
related to districts so imperfectly explored, and it would have to be worked out in
detail by Commissioners appointed on behalf of the two Governments. The result
was that French rights were recognised to a large tract of land in that region—
some of it, as Lord Salisbury said, consisting of "rather light soil."
Among other foreign matters settled this year, or provisionally disposed of, was
an arrangement for the government of Swaziland. The domestic independence of
the native king, as recognised in the 1884 Convention, was reaffirmed, but a Com-
mittee of three persons-one nominated by the Swazis, and one each by the British
and the Boers-was invested with jurisdiction over white settlers. Provision was
made as to the limitations of right of the Transvaal and the British South Africa
Company respectively, and with regard to concessions for purposes of railway con-
struction. It was also agreed that the South African Republic should enter into
a Customs Union-on terms to be drawn up subsequently-with Cape Colony, the
Orange Free State, and Bechuanaland. With regard to the affairs of Samoa,
which had been much troubled by civil wars between native chieftains, as well as by
the rather domineering methods of some European officials, a Conference was held
at Berlin, and a Treaty was concluded, under which Great Britain, Germany,
and the United States were declared to have equal rights in these Islands.
An attempt to settle the tiresome question of French fishing rights in the
British Colony of Newfoundland was made in a Modus Vivendi, concluded between
C
TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS.
183
London and Paris. The claims of the French were recognised, without prejudice
as to a final arrangement, for twelve months, but even against this reasonable
and temporary concession the Colonists protested indignantly, and two Delegations
were despatched to lay their views before the Government. Another old question
of the same kind, but of greater commercial importance, which arose with
regard to the respective rights of Great Britain and the United States in the
Behring Sea, became this year positively acute; but Lord Salisbury had
offered President Harrison to submit the whole dispute to Arbitration, and it was
hoped that eventually a friendly understanding might be reached.
The course of public business in the ensuing Session-fixed to begin on No-
vember 25th of the same year-was to be expedited by circumstances which
neither Lord Salisbury nor any other politician had foreseen. It had long been
known by all who cared to inquire, or did not insist on keeping their ears
shut, that Mr. Parnell had no real defence to the divorce action in which he had
been cited as co-respondent. The relations he kept up with the lady whom he subse-
quently married were of old standing and notoriety. Some persons ignored them
because they considered that the private life of a public man was no concern of
theirs; others, because it would have been inconvenient to admit that they were
politically associated with a man of loose morals. But it was hypocrisy, pure and
simple, to assume the airs of virtuous astonishment when (November 17th) the
decree nisi was pronounced which formally proved that Mr. Parnell had been guilty
of systematic adultery with the wife of an old Parliamentary colleague.
His retirement from public life was at once insisted on by the English Non-
conformists, and they were strong enough to impress their views, first upon Mr.
Gladstone, then on the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops, and, finally, on the majority
of the Nationalist Party. The political associates who now repudiated Mr. Parnell
hardly pretended that they were influenced by any consideration but that of
expediency. Mr. Gladstone repudiated him because the English Dissenters would
otherwise vote against Home Rule; the Irish Bishops, because they could not
afford to seem less strict than Protestant divines; the Nationalist politicians
because they were told that otherwise the Liberal Party would throw up their
cause. But the discredited leader had a powerful body of loyal supporters, and
the wrangles of "Committee-room No. 15," where the Irish members held
their consultations, were equally entertaining, scandalous, and inconclusive. But
they had one practical result. They had so engrossed the attention of the Irish
members that no little leisure or energy was left for obstructing the proceedings of
Parliament. Before the year came to an end Ministers had made a substantial
advance with the programme announced in the Queen's Speech. The Irish Seed
Potato Bill, framed to avert the distress consequent on the failure of the crop, was
passed in December, and provided the peasantry with seed potatoes on credit, and,
in order to meet the distress prevailing in certain districts, the Chief Secretary
organized ccrtain relief works of a useful and permanent character, such as the
immediate construction of already authorised railway lines, road making, drainage,
reclamation of land, and afforesting.

184
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
The Tithe Rent Charge Recovery Bill, practically the same measure as those
LESOVED BELOSES
which had preceded it, got into Committee before the end of the year, and
GENERAL VIEW OF ST. JOHN'S.
NEWFOUNDLAND-

IRISH LAND PURCHASE ACT.
185
obtained its Third Reading in the House of Commons on February 12th, 1891,
LANKIT
and a few days later it was piloted by Lord Salisbury through the House of
VOL. IV.
N
NEWFOUNDLAND-PORT OF ST. PIERRE.
186
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Y
Lords. Even more important and encouraging was the success gained with Mr.
Balfour's great legislative achievement, the Purchase of Land and Congested
Districts (Ireland Bill). In order to overcome the mechanical difficulties of deal-
ing with so large and complicated a scheme, the measure of the previous Session
has now been reintroduced in two Bills, the second of which constituted a Land
Department in Ireland, and amended the laws relating to Land Purchase. This
passed its Second Reading on November 27th, 1890, and got into Committee on
December 9th. But in June, 1891, it was considered advisable to withdraw the
Bill and embody (by consent) some of its Clauses in the Turbary and Redemption.
of Rent Bills, which were passed without much difficulty, and received the Royal
Assent on August 5th.
The other of the two Bills introduced by Mr. Balfour on November 27th,
1890, consisted of two parts, dealing with Land Purchase and Congested Districts.
The Second Reading, opposed chiefly on the ground that the credit of the country
was being pledged without the previous assent of the Constituencies, was carried
on December 3rd by 268 votes against 130. After an exhaustive, but not wantonly
prolonged, discussion in Committee, the Third Reading was agreed to on June
15th, a hostile Amendment moved by Mr. Labouchere being rejected by a majority
of 129. After an interesting discussion of two evenings in the House of Lords on
the Second Reading, and some minor Amendments being moved in Committee and
considered by the House of Commons, the Bill became law on August 5th.
The main purpose of the measure was to enable any Irish tenant, treating
with a landlord willing to sell, to become the owner of his holding. The money
was not to be advanced out of the Imperial Exchequer—a proposal against which
the British taxpayer would have protested--though the credit of the Government
was, no doubt, the ultimate security for the loan. The purchase-money was not to
be paid to the landlord in cash, but in guaranteed Land Stock, to the same nominal
amount, paying dividends at the rate of 22 per cent. In order to redeem the whole
debt in forty-nine years, at the end of which period the tenant would become owner
of his holding, he had to pay 4 per cent. per annum; 23 of this amount going for
interest in the Stock, one to form a Sinking Fund for the purchase, and 1 (the
County Percentage) being, subject to charges in connection with the Guarantee
Fund, devoted to local purposes, chiefly to providing labourers' dwelling-houses.
If any deficiency arises under any of these three heads, it is made good for the
moment out of the Consolidated Fund, and to protect that Fund from any loss
there is a Guarantee Fund which consists of a Cash portion and a Contingent
portion. The Cash portion is made up of the Irish Probate Duty Grant (£200,000
per annum), the Exchequer contribution of £40,000, and the County Percentage
The Contingent portion includes the Irish share (£700,000) of the Customs and
Excise Duties, and the following Local Grants:-Rates on Government property,
grants for Model and National Schools, for Industrial Schools, for Workhouses
and Dispensaries, and for Pauper Lunatics. In order to prevent recourse being
had to the Contingent portion when the Cash portion had been used up, the Lord
Lieutenant had power to order a levy to be made by the Grand Jury. Finally, in
FREE EDUCATION.
187
case of default, the Land Commissioners were in every case enabled to retain the
Guarantee Deposit which is to bear one-half of the sum declared to be irrecoverable,
the other half falling on the contribution to local rates. By this at first sight
elaborate, yet in practice simple, system of securities, the money required for an
extensive scheme of Land Purchase was found without the British taxpayer incur-
ring any but a limited and very remote liability.
A special feature of Mr. Balfour's Act was that it provided for those periods
of exceptional distress when it might be difficult or impossible for the tenant to
keep up his payments. In the earlier years of the purchase the annuity payable
was made somewhat higher than 4 per cent. in order to create an Insurance
Fund on which the purchaser can draw in case of need, while a Reserve Fund was
formed by carrying over such part of the £40,000 Exchequer Contribution as was
not otherwise required under the Act, until the amount thus collected should reach
£200,000. In order to supplement the original issue of Land Stock (£33,000,000),
it was arranged that further advances might be made from the Sinking Fund
in a County when twenty-five times its share in the Guarantee Fund had been
accumulated. By this means it was reckoned that there would always be money
available for any purchase on which landlord and tenant were agreed.
Not less important were the Clauses relating to Congested Districts-where the
proportion between the total population of an electoral division and the total rate-
able value was less than £1 6s. 8d. a head. Such districts were formed for the pur-
poses of the Act into separate "Counties," and for that part of the Contingent
portion of the Guarantee Fund which elsewhere depended upon the security of
grants for Model and Industrial Schools was substituted £1,500,000 of the Irish
Church Fund. When a levy had to be made, half only would be made on the
County, the other half falling on the Church Fund. The duties of the Board,
created to deal with such Districts, were to make arrangements for amalgamating
holdings which were individually too small for successful occupation, to assist the
migration of peasants from one neighbourhood to another, or their complete emi-
gration, and generally to develop the industries and local resources of the most
backward parts of the country.
On bringing in the Budget, on April 23rd, Mr. Goschen estimated that for the
ensuing year he would have a Surplus of £2,000,000. For the construction of
barracks £500,000 would be required, and £400,000 for making up the loss
incurred by withdrawing light gold from circulation. The cost of carrying out
the system of Free Education to which Ministers were pledged would be
about £2,000,000 a year, but for the present financial year only half that sum
would be necessary.
Had Lord Salisbury anticipated that Religious Teaching
would be imperilled, or rendered more difficult, by this change, we know that
nothing would have induced him—since his Churchmanship is hardly second to
his statesmanship-to sanction the measure for which he now became responsible.
His belief was—and it was confirmed by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the
House of Lords-that the relative position of the Voluntary and the Board Schools
would remain practically unaltered. Even Mr. Chamberlain-though he looked
188
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
at the question from a wholly different standpoint-confessed, in a speech at
Birmingham, that he shrank from doing anything to destroy Denominational
Education. Under that system accommodation was provided for two-thirds
of the children in England and Wales; to uproot it would involve a capital
outlay of £50,000,000 and an increased annual expenditure of £5,000,000.
The scheme by which Ministers proposed to avoid an admitted danger, was to
give all schools alike a grant of ten shillings per annum on the average atten-
dance of children between the ages of five (subsequently reduced to three) and
fourteen (subsequently raised to fifteen) years of age. This, it was calculated,
would be a fair average compensation for the loss of fees, put at 3d. per week a
head. But by another Clause it was enacted that, in any district where the
accommodation without fees was reported as insufficient, the Department might
order the constitution of a School Board. The effect of this arrangement is
that the Managers of a Voluntary School are at the mercy of the Inspector. If
he is not satisfied with the results of the teaching, or if the structure does not
come up to the latest requirements of Whitehall, they are compelled either to
find money from private subscribers for increased expenditure in teaching and
the construction of new buildings, or they must submit to the competition of a
new school whose resources, being derived from the Rates, will be practically
inexhaustible. The rule imposed by the Act of 1891 was not intended to be
oppressive, nor would it become so while it was worked with discretion. But
it places too much power in the hand of a faddy Inspector or an over-zealous
Minister of Education.
On June 11th, the protracted negotiations between Great Britain and Portugal
were successfully concluded, and the spheres of influence of the two Powers in
South-east Africa were settled by the Convention signed on that date. Besides
the geographical delimitation—which gave Portugal more territory than it is ever
likely to occupy in any effective way—provision was made for the free naviga-
tion of the Zambesi and Shirè, for the transit of British goods through Portuguese
territory, for the construction of railways and telegraphs, and—a Clause that may
some day become important-for reciprocal right of pre-emption in case either
Power proposes to part with any territory in its own sphere of influence.
Pending the Arbitration, now practically agreed on, between Great Britain and
the United States, a Bill was introduced which enabled her Majesty in Council to
prohibit British subjects from catching seals in the Behring Sea, and it was
passed through both Houses without delay. More difficulty arose in connection
with the Newfoundland Fisheries Bill, intended to carry out the agreement for
arbitration between France and England by enforcing the Modus Vivendi previously
arranged. Sir William Whiteway, Premier of the Colony, was heard at the Bar of
the House of Lords to protest against a measure of coercion that violated the rights
of Responsible Government enjoyed by Newfoundland. Lord Knutsford pointed out
that Imperial Parliament had only interfered when the Colonial authorities had
refused to act. Lord Salisbury argued that the Bill must be passed so that we
might fulfil our international engagements. It was read a third time by the
MR. PARNELL AND MR. HEALY.
189
Peers on May 12th, and sent to the Commons, where it was violently denounced by
Sir William Harcourt, though he shrank from the responsibility of voting against
it. The Second Reading was postponed, and, finally, the Bill was withdrawn; Sir
William Whiteway having engaged, rather than have the "Coercion Bill"
passed
over their heads, that the Colonial Legislature should make the necessary enact-
ment at St. John's. This was done on May 26th.
Of the feud in the Irish Party, the gross vituperations exchanged between the
leaders, and the blackguardly ruffianism of their followers, Lord Salisbury (April
21st) spoke with tolerant contempt. "Their methods of warfare," he said, “are not
the methods we adopt in this country. I have no sympathy with the man who
plasters lime in Mr. Parnell's eyes, but neither have I any sympathy with the
man who drives spectacle-glasses into Mr. Tim Healy's eyes. I can but look on
from a respectable distance at those unusual methods of propagating political
opinions." If he wished to describe the character of Mr. Parnell he would use
the language of Mr. Healy, and if he wished to describe the character of Mr.
Healy he would use the language of Mr. Parnell. The important point was,
however, that these conflicts, these methods of warfare, and these mutual
exposures had taken the gloss off the Irish Parliamentary Party. A little
time ago, language was used about them that would have been extravagant if
applied to Cavour, or Washington, or William Tell. But the English people had
now seen the seamy side of Irish heroism, and they knew the character of the men
to whom they were asked to hand over their friends and brothers in Ulster.
The chief disturbance in Indian affairs this year arose from the decision of the
Governor-General to interfere in the affairs of Manipur, and put an end to the
disorder and intrigue caused by a Prince known as the Senaputty. In order to
effect his removal, Mr. Quinton, Chief Commissioner of the adjoining state of
Assam, entered Manipur with a small force on March 22nd, but as the Senaputty
declined the summons to a Durbar, Colonel Skene was sent on the 24th to his house
to arrest him by force. The house was captured, but its master had made his
escape. Meantime an army of some 6,000 Manipuris had been collected round the
Residency and opened artillery fire upon it. Negotiations were now opened by
Mr. Quinton who, with Mr. Grimwood (the Resident), Colonel Skene and others
trusted himself, unarmed, in the hands of the men whom he wished to deport.
The party were taken prisoners and murdered. The attack was renewed on
the Residency, which soon became untenable, and the garrison, accompanied
by Mrs. Grimwood, decided to retreat across country towards the party
advancing under Captain Cowley. This they successfully accomplished. On the
27th, Lieutenant Grant, having volunteered to relieve the captives, whose fate was
still uncertain, started with eighty native soldiers from Tamu, entrenched himself
at Thobal, and held out for a week against 3,000 Manipuri, whom he kept thus
occupied while General Graham was bringing up an overwhelming force to
Manipur. When they got to the town they found it unoccupied and the Palace
blown up. The Regent, the Senaputty, and other authors of the massacre, were
captured early in May, and sentenced to death on June 20th, though the capital

190
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
penalty was, in the cases of the Regent and a younger brother, reduced to
transportation for life to the Ardaman Islands.
The renewal of the Triple Alliance, which was to be further strengthened at
the close of the year by Commercial Treaties amongst the Powers which adhered
to that "League of Peace," was answered by an open declaration of intimacy
between France and Russia. Whether any arrangement had been put into
writing between the President and the Czar was not known, but the ostentatious
fraternisation of the French
and Russian sailors at Cron-
stadt was accepted and in-
tended as a sign that there
was in Europe a Dual as
well as a Triple Alliance.
What should be the attitude
of England as between these
openly opposed Leagues? It
was believed that the German
Emperor had made overtures
-the real object, said Con-
tinental gossips, of his visit
to Lord Salisbury at Hatfield
House to include us in his
bond with Austria and Italy.
It was to assert the indepen-
dence of British policy at
this rather threatening mo-
ment that Lord Salisbury
invited the officers and men
of the French fleet, on their
way home from Cronstadt, to
pay a ceremonial visit to
Portsmouth. If there was
no political cordiality in the
interchange of national greet-
ings, the two greatest mari-
time nations in the world have, in the past history of their Navies, the best of
reasons for mutual respect and chivalrous admiration.
By the death of Mr. W. H. Smith, on October 6th, the Conservative Party in
the House of Commons was deprived of a Leader, who, once he had got accustomed
to a position he had never sought, succeeded beyond expectation. His simplicity
and fairness, combined with a quiet resoluteness of character, had gradually won
him the liking and respect of his adversaries. The succession to his office was
not a difficult matter to decide, and any doubt that may have existed in Lord
Salisbury's mind was removed by the generous willingness of Mr. Goschen and
MRS. GRIMWOOD.
From a photograph by C. Vandyk.

W. L. JACKSON.
From a photograph by the London Stereoscopic b
LONDON: J.S. VIRTUE & CO LIMITED.
DEATH OF MR. PARNELL.
191
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach to withdraw any claims they might have based on the
length and the value of their Parliamentary services. The choice fell, as public
opinion demanded, on Mr. Arthur Balfour, and the only regret felt at his
promotion was that he would have to leave the office in which (as Mr. Goschen
generously said) he had "driven away the Irish spectre." Before retiring from
the Department in which he had made his reputation, he had the pleasure of
announcing that over the greater part of Ireland, it would now be safe to relax
the Coercion Clauses of the Crimes Act. Mr. W. L. Jackson, Financial
Secretary to the Treasury, succeeded him as Chief Secretary. Other changes
in the Ministry were the appointment of Sir James Fergusson to the Post Office,
vacated by the death of Mr. Raikes; of Mr. J. W. Lowther to succeed the former
as Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whilst Sir John Gorst, whose gift of
ironical humour had brought him into a temporary misunderstanding with his
chief, was replaced at the India Office by Mr. George Curzon, and was advanced
to the position previously held by Mr. Jackson.
If the premature and sudden death of Mr. Parnell (October 6th) was a grief
to the Irish nation, it was a relief rather than a blow to the Irish Parliamentary
Party. The cause for which his life had been given was lost before he was taken
away. His revolt against Mr. Gladstone, his appeal to the "hill-side men," as
embodying those wilder forces which he had once endeavoured to keep in subjection
to his constitutional agitation, his open confession of that hatred to England which
was the animating influence of a chequered, if not ignoble, career had made him
an embarrassment to the more pliable colleagues who believed that the Liberal
Party might be "managed with kindness."
We who are wise after the event can see that it was a mistake not to dissolve
Parliament before the close of 1891. If the Session of 1890 had been almost a
failure, the recollection of it had been handsomely wiped out by the achievements
of its successor; and the English Home Rulers were visibly disconcerted by the ever-
widening split between the two Nationalist factions. Nor could Ministers expect
to put much legislation to their credit in 1892. In the Session which immediately
precedes a Dissolution it is difficult to secure the regular attendance of members.
If their duties are at Westminster, the thoughts of those who will soon have to
seek re-election are with their Constituencies, while those who intend to retire from
public life are sometimes indifferent to the summonses of the Party Whips, so
that the Government of the day stands in hourly danger of being defeated on a
snap Division.
Ministers thought, however, that they were bound to propose a
measure of Local Government for Ireland, and the Liberal Unionists were specially
urgent about this obligation. It was thought also that it would be good policy
to let the electors feel the full benefits of Free Education, and to pass the promised
Bill for establishing Small Holdings. Influenced by these considerations of
principle and expediency, the Government resolved to enter on another Session.
The Budget introduced by Mr. Goschen was uninteresting. Though the past
year had realised the substantial Surplus of £1,067,013, the Estimates of Revenue
and Expenditure for 1892-3 were so nearly even that the balance on the right
-
192
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
side would probably be less than a quarter of a million sterling. Free Education
to England and Wales had to be followed by an equivalent grant to Scotland and
Ireland. In spite of opposition by the Liberal Leaders, a Vote of £20,000 was
passed in aid of the cost of preliminary surveys for the projected railway from
Mombassa, on the coast of British East Africa, to Lake Victoria Nyanza to join
communication across that sheet of water with our recent acquisition, Uganda.
The Indian Councils Act, which Mr. George Curzon, newly enlisted in the
Ministry, piloted through the House of Commons, aims at admitting the non-
official classes and natives to take more part in the work of government. The
right of financial criticism in the Supreme and Provincial Councils, and the right of
interpellation were recognised, while the number of their members was increased.
The Small Holdings Act, for which Mr. Chaplin obtained a Second Reading
without a Division, was blamed by Radicals because it did not sanction the com-
pulsory purchase of land. The proposal, inserted after a discussion in Committee
of the House of Commons, to treat a Small Holding as personal property, was
struck out by the Peers, and the elimination was accepted by the Lower House.
One of the eventual results of such a scheme would have been, in a class where
intestacy is the rule and not the exception, to promote that minute sub-division of
estates, so graphically illustrated by M. Zola in La Terre, which is one of the
chief economical drawbacks to a system of Peasant Proprietary.
The Local Government Bill for Ireland, which had been proclaimed as the
piece de résistance of the Session, was introduced by Mr. Balfour on February 18th.
So far from commending itself to any fraction of any section of the Nationalist
Party, this measure united them in violent resistance, and they were joined by
English Radicals like Mr. John Morley, who called it a "monstrous imposture,"
and challenged Ministers to go to the country on it. If they did not succeed in
laughing the Bill out of Parliament, they did show that to persevere in it, with
the object of satisfying or even conciliating Irish sentiment, would have been mere
futility. Ministers, however, pressed it to the Second Reading, which they carried
by a substantial majority. Having done enough for honour, they announced
on June 13th that the Bill was to be withdrawn. On June 28th Parliament was
prorogued in a speech which, besides reference to the legislative work of the
Session, announced that the Arbitration Treaty with the United States with regard
to the seal fisheries in the Behring Sea had at last been ratified, and that the final
Act of the Brussels Conference for the Suppression of the Slave Trade had now
been completed.
The political events outside Parliament which attracted most attention in the
early part of 1892 were two utterances made by Lord Salisbury, one about Ulster,
on May 6th, at the annual meeting of the Grand Demonstration of the Primrose
League, and the other at Hastings about Free Trade, twelve days after. On the
former occasion, having pointed out that, if Home Rule were granted, everything the
Irish Protestants held dear would be in the hands of Dr. Walsh and his political
friends, Lord Salisbury said they knew the fate in store for them, and were
prepared to meet it. He had been very much edified by the doctrines of

PLATFORM SPEECHES.
193
"unrestricted passive obedience" which flowed from "orthodox Liberal lips."
He was a Tory, yet he could not accept these doctrines in all their width. The
title of Kings and Parliaments to obedience was that they should observe the
fundamental laws and the fundamental understandings of the compact by which
they ruled. "Parliament," he said, "has a right to govern the people of Ulster ;
it has not a right to sell them into slavery. I do not believe in the unrestricted
VOL. IV.
0
SANDRINGHAM.
(From a photograph by H. Bedford Lemere.)
194
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
right of Parliament any more than I do in the unrestricted right of Kings." Recal-
ling the resistance which James II. met with from the men of Ulster, he declared
his belief that they had not lost their love of freedom or their detestation of
arbitrary power. Whether they desired to put themselves against the rest of
Ireland, and whether if they did they would succeed, was a matter for their own
consideration. Some persons, however, had suggested that the military force of
England would be used to subjugate them. Political prophecy is always
uncertain," added Lord Salisbury, "but I think I may venture to prophesy that
any attempt on the part of any Government to perpetrate such an outrage as this
would rend society in two."
،،
The Radicals were furious at this remorseless exposure of the fatal defect in
any possible scheme of Home Rule. They could not answer his argument, so
they went about saying that Lord Salisbury had incited the people of Ulster to
rebellion (this was Sir William Harcourt's gloss), and offering" distinct encourage-
ment" to Civil War (this was Mr. Gladstone's interpretation), while Lord
Rosebery considered it "a dark and desperate appeal." They formulated for the
occasion a doctrine of constructive treason which made it criminal to suggest that
any law passed or decree made by any future and contingent authority might
properly be resisted. Where would Liberalism, where would Democracy be, if that
had always been the faith of its advocates and founders? But what particularly
exasperated the Prime Minister's critics was that his view of the feeling and
attitude of Ulster was so amply borne out by the great Convention held in Belfast
on June 17th, when it was made quite clear that resistance would be offered-had
already been organised—against the dictation of any Dublin Parliament.
Not less animated were the criticisms passed upon Lord Salisbury's remarks at
Hastings about the difficulties under which a Free Trade Government laboured in
its dealings with Protectionist States. Foreign nations, he said, were one after
another building a brazen wall of tariff round their shores, and were doing their
best to kill English trade. In this great commercial war England had deliberately
stripped herself of her armour and weapons. In an age of "commercial treaties"
how could she hold her own unless she were able to inflict on the nations which
injured her the penalty of refusing access to her own markets? This was not to
advocate Protection, it was not even to recommend Retaliation. It was simply to
point out that the advantages of Free Trade are accompanied by undeniable draw-
backs. The subject is one in which it seems almost impossible to escape mis-
construction. If a public man ventures to pass a criticism on the workings of our
fiscal system, the Free Traders denounce him as an apostate, while the Pro-
tectionists go about saying that he is coming round to their own way of thinking.
•
CHAPTER VI.
THE Writs for the General Election were issued on the evening of June 28th.
Mr. Gladstone's Manifesto had already been published; roughly, it accepted and
developed the Newcastle Programme, giving equal importance, apparently, to all
the multifarious items of that famous document, but putting Home Rule for Ireland
in the first place. As the etiquette of Parliament forbids a Peer to interfere
directly in any particular Election, Lord Salisbury published a Letter to nobody
in particular, but everybody in general-to the Electors of the United Kingdom.
A sound system of finance and a pacific policy had, he claimed, enabled his
Ministry to mitigate taxation and to deal with difficult social questions, and to
provide our fleet and armaments with a strength they never possessed before, but
not too great for our needs. But the one vital question was whether Home
Rule should be granted or withheld. For the loyal minority in Ireland the crisis
was supreme. It was for the Electors to decide whether that rash experiment,
that dangerous novelty, should be tried. Lord Salisbury, in fact, like his Con-
servative colleagues and his Liberal Unionist allies, asked for a plain verdict,
Yes or No, on the Home Rule issue; while the Radicals confused the issue by
putting before the country the whole contents of the Newcastle Programme.
They did it deliberately, and with a full warning that the Unionists, if beaten,
would not treat the answer as conclusive or as one which bound the minority
to submit to the will of the majority.
Before the first week was over, it became clear that Mr. Gladstone would be
returned to office, and probable that he would not obtain a majority of serious
dimensions. The Unionists went to the country with a majority of 68 (304 Con-
servatives and 65 Liberals), while the Gladstonians numbered 301 (215 British
and 86 Irish). The Unionists altogether lost 81 seats and gained 26, so that the
net Gladstonian gain was 55, which placed the Party in a majority of 42. The
final returns were as below:
HOME RULERS.
English Gladstonians
Irish Nationalists
275
181
UNIONISTS.
Conservatives.
Liberal Unionists
. 268
46
-
356
The majority of 42 was, however, reduced to 40, through the judicial trans-
ference of the seat at Greenock from the Gladstonian to the Liberal Unionist
candidate. Nor could it fairly be reckoned even at that moderate figure, since it
314
196
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
was known that the Parnellite section of the Nationalists, under Mr. Redmond,
were very loose in their allegiance to the Liberal Party, though unwilling to break
with Mr. Gladstone personally. A transference of their 9 votes-they had gone
into the contest 30 strong, would leave the Liberals in a majority of only 20.
The various groups combined against the Unionist Government had so few
points in common, except obedience to Mr. Gladstone, that Lord Salisbury thought
it proper not to resign until turned out by a Vote of the new House of Commons.
The meeting of Parliament was held on August 4th, and four days later, after
Mr. Peel had been re-elected Speaker, and the members had been sworn in, the
Queen's Speech was read and the announcement made that no legislative or finan-
cial business would be attempted till the Session of 1893. Mr. Asquith, who had
recently made himself inconveniently prominent by asking for details of the Home
Rule Scheme, was invited, on behalf of the Gladstonians, to move the Amendment
which if carried would bring the Party into power, and himself, presumably,
into office. After an animated Debate on both sides, the Division was taken on
the 11th, and, as everybody "voted straight," the Ministry were defeated by 40
votes.
On August 15th, Lord Salisbury placed his resignation in her Majesty's
hands, and she accepted it "with much regret.'
""
Mr. Gladstone was at once summoned to kiss hands as Prime Minister, and
announced the formation of his previously arranged Cabinet. Most of the posts
had already been assigned by conjecture to the politicians on whom they were
actually conferred. Mr. Gladstone himself became First Lord of the Treasury
and Lord Privy Seal; Lord Rosebery went to the Foreign Office, and Lord Ripon
to the Colonies; Mr. Campbell-Bannerman to the War Office, and Lord Spencer
to the Admiralty; while Sir William Harcourt and Mr. John Morley, as matter
of right, became Chancellor of the Exchequer and Chief Secretary for Ireland.
Other inevitable members of the Cabinet were Lord Kimberley (India), Lord Her-
schell (Chancellor), Sir G. Trevelyan (Scotland), Mr. Arnold Morley (Post Office),
Mr. Mundella (Trade), Mr. H. H. Fowler (Local Government), and Mr. Shaw-
Lefevre (First Commissioner). Mr. Bryce was contented with the sinecure
office of the Duchy of Lancaster; but it was understood that he would assist Lord
Rosebery, whose health was not altogether equal to the duties of the Foreign
Office. Mr. Asquith, promoted from the rank of a private member to a seat in
the Cabinet, became Home Secretary; and Mr. Arthur Acland, as a determined
enemy of the Voluntary Schools, received a similar compliment as Vice-President
of the Council.
The most important administrative action of the new Government before the
close of the year was taken by Mr. John Morley in appointing "a small Commis-
sion," not to inquire whether the Evicted Tenants in Ireland should be restored to
their holdings, but to report "what means should be adopted" to bring about that
end. This petitio principii vitiated the whole inquiry, nor was the manner in
which the proceedings were conducted by the learned Judge who presided such
as to restore confidence. The scathing language used by Lord Salisbury at a

MENACES AGAINST THE PEERS.
meeting of Nonconformist Unionists in London on November 10th did not go
beyond the facts of the case. Referring to the "intoxicating air of Dublin," he
remarked that a "decorous English Judge" had suddenly become an "eager Irish
partizan."
MESALDIATLEEDULE
With regard to the vague menaces uttered against the House of Lords if they
ventured to reject the coming Home Rule Bill, Lord Salisbury, in an article
published in the National Review, pointed out there were two ways of dealing with
that Assembly. One would be to compel the Peers to efface themselves, as in
1649, which presupposed the use of armed force. The other way was to swamp
them, as had pleasantly been suggested, by "elevating five hundred sweeps to the
DOUD
197
ANTO
SWEARING-IN THE COMMONS.
Peerage." But to this alternative there was the objection that the Crown might
refuse its assent, and that, though it might be coerced by the Commons declining
to vote Supplies, such pressure would not avail against the House of Lords if they
declined to admit the contemplated addition to their ranks.
When Parliament was opened on January 31st, 1893, it was found, to the
amazement of experienced members on both sides of the House of Commons, that
Ministers proposed, in the Queen's Speech, to carry in one Session all the most
substantial and contentious items in the Newcastle Programme. In addition to
the Home Rule Bill they put down, as subjects for legislation, the reform of
Registration, shortening of the duration of Parliaments, and One-Man One-Vote;
198
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Employers' Liability, Hours of Labour for Railway Servants, and the law of
Conspiracy in regard to trade disputes; enlargement of the powers of the London
County Council; the prevention of new vested rights being created in the Welsh
and Scotch Churches; Local Veto, and "other measures of public utility." There
was something here to gratify every group in the Gladstonian combination
except, perhaps, the Radicals who acted with Mr. Labouchere. They were solaced
with the news that a Commissioner had been appointed (the late Sir Gerald
Portal) to proceed to Uganda, and to report on the best means of dealing with
that country with a view to the "approaching evacuation." This, perhaps,
was intended to console the "Little Englanders" for their grievous disappoint-
ment with regard to Egypt. So far were the Government from acting on Mr. John
Morley's views as to retiring without delay from the Valley of the Nile that they
had given orders for increasing the British Army of Occupation.
This decisive action, which Lord Rosebery, supported by some of the Whig
members of the new Cabinet, had carried against the opinion of Sir William
Harcourt and Mr. John Morley, had been rendered necessary by the wilful conduct
of the young Khedive. Influenced by evil counsellors in the harem, by French
instigation, and by a pardonable spirit of patriotism and self-reliance, Abbas Pasha
had dismissed his Premier, Mustapha Pasha Fehmy, who was friendly to British
authority, and replaced him by Fakhri Pasha, who was notoriously hostile to us.
Acting on instructions received from Lord Rosebery, and expressed in the most
vigorous language, Lord Cromer (Sir Evelyn Baring) informed the young Ruler
that such changes must not be carried out without the previous consent of our repre-
sentative at Cairo, and that we would not accept his nominee. Abbas had the
sense to submit when he saw that change of Government in London meant no
alteration in our policy at Cairo, and professed his anxiety to work in harmony
with England. He did not quite act up to his words, and encouraged Anti-
British demonstrations; but he agreed to dismiss Fakhri Pasha, and accept Riaz
Pasha in his place.
The spirit displayed by Lord Rosebery with regard to Egypt was unfortu-
nately not maintained with regard to the Siamese imbroglio, which began in
April with a collision between the troops of the King and an expedition des-
patched by M. Lanessan, the French Governor of Indo-China. If Lord Rosebery
had taken the line that our interests in Siam, proportionately great as they
were compared with those of France, were still not worth the risk of an open
rupture, the position would have been intelligible. In that case he should have
said nothing; but it was absurd to lodge protests and interpose objections while
he made it clear that he was not prepared to back them up with action. Mean-
time, a furious campaign was carried on in the French press against England,
and such insults were heaped on our Ambassador that he was compelled to
ask for indefinite leave of absence-as the only reply which his position
admitted. The truth is that the French "bounced" us all through this un-
pleasant affair, and that Lord Rosebery-who had not yet recovered from
his serious illness-failed at a critical moment to show the nerve required
THE SECOND HOME RULE BILL.
199
in a Secretary for Foreign Affairs. We escaped war, it is true, but had to
undergo the open scorn and exultation of Paris. Nor was our humiliation
redeemed by the subsequent negotiations for constructing a "buffer state" on the
Upper Mekong between English and French territory—a hopeless project, which
has since been abandoned.
It was on February 13th, that Mr. Gladstone rose to explain the provisions
of his second Home Rule Bill. At so short a distance of time from the events
it would be tedious to describe the discussions which occupied eighty-five
sittings of the House of Commons; to mention the numerous Amendments pro-
posed, accepted, withdrawn, and rejected; or to dwell on the frequently stormy
scenes which arose. The First Reading Debate covered four days; the Second
Reading, after twelve days, was carried, on April 21st, by a majority of 43 votes
(347 against 304). The Committee stage was begun on May 8th, but on June
28th Clause 5 was still under consideration.
At this rate, it was clear that no other business could be accomplished before
the end of the year; and doubtful, whether even this measure could be completed.
On June 29th, therefore, Mr. Gladstone moved the Resolution for Closuring by
Compartments—the Guillotine, as it was called in Westminster slang. He pro-
posed that, whether the discussion was finished or unfinished, Clauses 5 to 8
should be put to the vote at 10 P.M. on July 6th; 9 to 26 at the same hour on
July 13th; 27 to 40 on July 20th, and the new and postponed Clauses on
July 27th. A hostile Amendment being defeated by 27 votes, the Resolution
was passed by 299 votes against 267. The subsequent proceedings, though
full of animation, and varied with disorderly interruptions, had no practical in-
terest. By cutting short the discussion of the Bill, Ministers had-most
reluctantly, we know—provided the Peers with an excellent excuse for reject-
ing it.
It was on September 5th that the Bill, considerably altered in Committee as to
details, but substantially consistent with Mr. Gladstone's draft, came up for
Second Reading in the House of Lords. A notable offer was made by Lord
Rosebery. Let the Peers pass the Second Reading sub silentio, and when they got
into Committee manipulate the Bill to their liking. This, as he knew, was tan-
tamount to killing the measure, for the limitations and safeguards on which the
Unionist majority must insist would make it unacceptable to the Nationalists.
But it would have satisfied Lord Rosebery-and Mr. Gladstone, too, at this time
-if the House of Lords would only commit themselves to the principle. This
was just what they had no intention of doing. Nor, if Lord Salisbury and
other occupants of the Front Bench had agreed to such an arrangement, could
they have induced the Unionist majority in the House of Lords to sanction it.
No such thought, none so inconsistent with his principles and his expressed views,
ever crossed the Conservative Leader's mind. In a grave but vigorous speech,
delivered on September 5th, he asked for the rejection of the Bill, and he was
supported on that memorable evening by 419 against 41 Peers.
The dimensions of the adverse majority in the House of Lords were no surprise
200
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
to the Gladstonians, but what did apparently astonish them was that, nowhere in
the United Kingdom, not in Ireland itself, was there any serious demonstration
of disapproval. The whole thing fell flat. If an agitation was to be got up
against the Peers, some other grievances must be discovered, since on the question
of Home Rule it was plainly impossible to end, to mend, or to bend the House of
Lords.
The leading feature of a necessarily humdrum Budget-Ministers were too
busy just now to essay financial innovations—was an estimated Deficit of £1,574,000.
This Sir William Harcourt proposed to meet by putting another penny on the
Income Tax. On the Army Estimates, Mr. (now Sir) Henry Campbell-Bannerman
announced that the War Office had given up the Army Corps system (it had broken
down) for reliefs for service abroad, and that in future a special force of 20,000
men would be kept ready for immediate embarkation. With regard to the Navy,
Lord Spencer in the House of Lords, and Sir U. K. Shuttleworth in the other
House, declared that the present Board were anxious to carry on the policy of
their predecessors. In the year 1893-4, it was proposed to lay down in the
Government yards two new Battleships, three second-class Cruisers, and two
Sloops, and to put out for contract one first-class Cruiser and fourteen Torpedo-
boat Destroyers.
Among the ineffectual proposals of Ministers in a Session prolonged-with a
brief holiday in the autumn-from January 31st, 1893, to March 5th, 1894, may
be mentioned the Welsh Suspensory Bill (Mr. Asquith); the Local Veto Bill
(Sir W. Harcourt); the Registration Bill (Mr. H. H. Fowler); the Equali-
sation of Rates (London) Bill (Mr. Fowler); and the Vaccination Bill (Mr.
Asquith). The Employers' Liability Bill, also introduced by Mr. Asquith, had
a longer career. It abolished the doctrine of Common Employment (which
prevents a workman from obtaining compensation from his master for injuries
arising from the fault of a fellow workman), and proposed other changes
beneficial to the working classes. But it had two faults. The one was that it made
no provision for by far the most numerous class of accidents-those where no real
negligence can be proved on the employer's part. The other fault of the Bill was
that it prohibited those working-men who, with their masters, kept up a Mutual
Insurance Society from contracting themselves out of the Act. It was not likely
that an employer would consent to make regular contributions to a voluntary
insurance fund while he remained liable to an action-at-law from the beneficiaries.
If passed in its present form the Bill would be fatal to such thriving organiza-
tions for self-help, and an Amendment to permit "contracting out" under
certain conditions was, though resisted by the Government, only defeated by a
majority of 18.
When the Bill came before the House of Lords, it obtained its Second Reading
without a Division, but Lord Dudley carried, by 145 to 25, an Amendment which
protected any existing agreement for Mutual Insurance, where it should be con-
firmed by two-thirds of the workmen voting under rules made by the Board of
Trade, and every future agreement which should be similarly approved, and under

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL AND PARISH COUNCILS.
which the Board of Trade were satisfied that reasonable compensation was provided,
and provided out of a fund to which the employer was a contributor. On the
Bill being returned with this Amendment to the House of Commons, Mr. Asquith
assented to Lord Dudley's proposal as to existing Societies, but moved that
the provision as to the future ones should be omitted. This was carried by
a majority of 22. This Amendment of the Commons Lord Ripon moved that
the Peers should accept, but a large majority decided to stand by Lord
Androigh
SIR H. H. FOWLER.
201
Dudley's original Amendment, though some verbal modifications were introduced.
On this the Government-persuaded by their wirepullers that a good case had
been made for agitation against the Peers-decided to abandon the whole Bill.
The failure of the Government in their more important projects was in some
small degree redeemed by the Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) Act. But
the chief achievement of the Session was the Local Government (popularly
called the Parish Councils) Act. It was mainly to carry this measure that the
202
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
exhausting Session from January to September was renewed in November, and
continued into the following March. On the general policy of extending Local
Government, Conservatives were agreed with Liberals, and to the principle of
the Bill, as explained by Mr. Fowler, they made no objection.
But there were two points in which resistance must be offered. The Clauses con-
ferring on the Parish Councils the power of administering local charities must not
be made a means of robbing the Church of England of some of its most ancient
endowments; and it was a vicious and dangerous principle that the persons
entrusted with the regulation and distribution of Poor Law relief should be elected
by a popular vote. It was on these points, then, that the Conservatives concen-
trated their action.
On January 26th Lord Salisbury convened a meeting of Conservative Peers to
discuss the course to be adopted with regard to the Employers' Liability (still
under consideration) and the Local Government Bills. The general opinion was
that, while holding firm to Lord Dudley's Amendment to the former Bill, they
should make certain concessions on the latter. Nevertheless, the Amendments
introduced were numerous and important. In fact, Lord Salisbury set himself to
turning the Bill inside out, not because he imagined that the bulk of the Peers'
alterations would be accepted in the Commons, but because he believed—and the
result showed he was right-that in order to make a tolerable bargain with the
Radicals in their present temper, it was necessary to ask for a good deal more
than he expected to obtain.
Among the Amendments carried was one raising the population qualification
for a Parish Council from 200 to 500; one for limiting the purposes for which the
new Councils could demand the use of rooms belonging to a Voluntary School,
and others requiring that the compulsory powers exercised for acquiring Allotment
grounds should be confirmed by Parliament, and preventing the choice meadow
land from being appropriated, without which some large holdings would be almost
valueless. The "Cobb " Clause was cut out, which enabled the existing trustees.
of a charity to be swamped by elected ones. The late Lord Selborne carried an
Amendment which would disqualify those not personally rated from service on
Parish Councils or Boards of Guardians, and Lord Balfour of Burleigh one which
excluded London from the Bill.
The more Radical members of the Government were loud in defiance of the
Peers. Mr. Acland said the Commons would reject all the Amendments, and
Sir William Harcourt prophesied that the House of Lords would be thoroughly
alarmed, and would give way when it saw the people would stand no nonsense.
When the Amendments were considered in the Commons, most of them, accord-
ingly, were thrown out. The Lords then agreed to make certain modifications.
These were again considered, and most of them rejected by the Commons.
Finally, on February 28th, the Lords once again formulated their policy. The
points they still insisted on were that the population qualification for a Parish
Council should be raised from 200 to 300; and that the "Cobb Clause" as to
parochial charities should be so altered that it should be optional, not com-
MR. GLADSTONE'S RETIREMENT.
pulsory, for the Parish Council to appoint trustees not exceeding twice the
number allowed by the Charity Commissioners.
203
(C sorrow-
It was March 1st (1894), when Mr. Gladstone rose in the House of Commons
to announce the course proposed by the Government. Would he submit to the
Peers or defy them? He decided to do both. He disapproved of the Amendments,
and his impulse was to advise their rejection. Still, the Commons had better
But he must make a
accept them. Otherwise the Bill would be lost.
ful declaration" that the relations between the two Houses as developed in that
year had raised a state of things which could not continue. The issue had long
been postponed by the "discretion, circumspection, and reserve" displayed by
former leaders in the House of Lords. But the age of circumspection and reserve
had passed away. The appeal lay, not to the House of Commons, which was a
party in the dispute, but to the authority of the people. "The time when that
judgment is to be invited [concluded Mr. Gladstone] and the circumstances under
which it is to be invited, of course, is a question of the gravest character, and one
which the Executive Government of the day can alone consider and decide. My
duty terminates by calling the attention of the House to the fact, which it is really
impossible to set aside, that in considering these Amendments, limited as their
scope may seem to some to be, we are considering a part, an essential and insepa-
rable part, of a question enormously large, a question which has become pro-
foundly acute, which will demand a settlement, and must at an early date receive
that settlement from the highest authority."
!
These vague and ominous, but not undignified, words were the last which
Mr. Gladstone was to utter in the House of Commons. The first hint of his
retirement had been given on January 31st, 1894, by the Pall Mall Gazette.
On the evening of the same day a telegraphic dementi was received from Sir
Algernon West, his private secretary, who was then with him at Biarritz; but
the terms were so vague that, had it not been for the reappearance of the
Liberal Leader in his accustomed place, and for the vigour which he displayed
in regard to the Parish Councils Bill, people not within the inner ring of
Liberal councils would have believed that the announcement of his intentions, if
unauthorised and premature, did at least correspond with the fact. Just when
people had almost come round to believe that he meant still to stand by his Party
(March 2nd) it was made known that Mr. Gladstone had definitely retired.
On the next day he was given a private audience by her Majesty, to whom
he tendered his resignation, and Lord Rosebery was summoned to take his
place, assuming the office of Lord President of the Council, along with that of
First Lord of the Treasury. From that date Mr. Gladstone-except so far as his
occasional utterances on the Armenian Question are concerned-disappears from
political controversy.
On March 5th, 1894, the overlapping Session of 1893 was brought to an end.
Among the events of the year to which these ineffectual labours of Parliament
more properly belong must be mentioned, in the first place, the collapse of most
of the chief banking establishments in the Australasian Colonies, a large propor-

THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
tion of the shareholders and depositors being Englishmen. It was altogether a
204
吃
​1407
FEAA
ABLATISEST
Con
year of commercial disasters: the failure of the Liberator and other allied Socie-
HONOLULU.
THE MATABELE WAR.
205
ties, promoted by Mr. Jabez Balfour, a prominent person in Radical and Non-
conformist circles, spread distress among the middle-class, while the default of the
Greek Government, and the continuing disturbances in South America caused a
feeling of insecurity in financial circles.
Our relations with the United States were somewhat clouded by the disappoint-
ment felt by the Americans at the award given by the arbitrators in Paris in the
Behring Sea dispute, the most substantial questions at issue being decided in
favour of this country.
But the election of Mr. Cleveland in succession to
Mr. Harrison, and the death of Mr. James G. Blaine, who had always followed
an exasperatingly anti-British policy, tended to a more friendly understanding.
This was especially shown in regard to the Sandwich Islands, where there had,
for some time, been a keen rivalry for influence between English and American
residents. The insurrection of a handful of planters, anxious to annex the
islands to the United States so as to evade the M'Kinley Tariff, had resulted in
the forcible deposition of the Queen Liluokalani by a so-called Provisional
Government. This revolution had been countenanced by United States officials,
and assisted by troops landed from the U.S. warship Boston. A Protectorate
was declared, and a Treaty for Annexation presented by President Harrison to
the Senate, but one of the first things done by President Cleveland, on entering
the White House, was to withdraw that document. Mr. Cleveland, however,
shrank from his avowed purpose of restoring the monarchy which had been
upset by United States interference, and ultimately recognised a republican
system quite alien to the wishes and needs of the Hawaiian natives.
The opening of the Natal Parliament by the first Ministry on October 7th under
the Act conferring Responsible Government on that Colony would, perhaps, have
attracted more attention in England if those whose thoughts turned to South
Africa had not been occupied with the operations against Lobengula. The
only serious check in the advance of the Imperial and Chartered Company's forces
occurred when the campaign had practically been concluded by the admirable
organisation of Dr. Jameson. The unfortunate loss of Major Wilson and his
party cast a gloom on the series of brilliant engagements by which the strength of
a warlike and aggressive race was broken, the peaceful Mashonas protected from
future aggression, and Matabeleland itself brought within the British Empire.
Before it was formally announced that Lord Rosebery was to succeed Mr.
Gladstone, a section of the Radical Party had intimated to Lord Tweedmouth
(then Mr. Marjoribanks) that they entertained the strongest objection to being
led by a member of the House of Lords. But the question had already been
settled in a series of Cabinet Councils held before Mr. Gladstone's resignation.
The physical and nervous weakness under which the Prime Minister was still
labouring made it impossible for him to go on with the duties of Foreign
Secretary. But with the functions of First Lord of the Treasury he com-
bined those of Lord President of the Council, Lord Kimberley going to the
Foreign Office, and being succeeded at the Indian Office by Mr. H. H. Fowler.
The latter was replaced at the Local Government Board by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre,
-
206
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Mr. Herbert Gladstone being appointed First Commissioner of Works. Other
changes in the personnel of the Ministry may be mentioned in this place: the
resignation of Mr. Mundella, under somewhat unfortunate circumstances, caused
Mr. Bryce to be promoted to the Board of Trade, which office he held, in conjunction
with the Duchy of Lancaster, until Mr. Marjoribanks, by the death of his father,
was removed from the House of Commons, and, as Lord Tweedmouth, admitted to
the Cabinet, to discharge the double but not onerous functions of Lord Privy Seal
and Chancellor of the Duchy. He was succeeded as Chief Whip by Mr. T. E.
Ellis. Sir Charles Russell was appointed, in May, Lord of Appeal, and subse-
quently, on the death of Lord Coleridge, Lord Chief Justice of England.
With praiseworthy zeal the Government decided that they must only give
themselves a week's holiday after the prolonged Session of 1893-4, and Parliament
was summoned to meet again on March 12th. Most of the Bills mentioned in
the Queen's Speech were old favourites; they related to the Evicted Tenants,
Registration, One-Man One-Vote, Welsh and Scotch Disestablishment, Equaliza-
tion of London Rates, Scotch Local Government, the Local Veto, Conciliation
of Labour Disputes, and Regulation of Factories and Workshops. As Lord Salis-
bury remarked in the Peers' Debate on the Address, Ministers might have saved
themselves the trouble of composing a Queen's Speech, and simply said “New-
castle Programme as usual." He taunted them with shrinking from an appeal to
the country on Home Rule, and reminded them that that measure could never be
carried so long as the English people were unwilling. In reply Lord Rosebery
made what he called "a considerable admission." He agreed with Lord Salisbury
that before Home Rule could be granted by the Imperial Parliament, England, as
"the predominant partner," must first be converted.
The long-delayed report of Sir Gerald Portal-published April 11th, about
a fortnight after the death of that gallant and accomplished public servant
-proved to be a strong condemnation of the idea of evacuation; suggested
that the country should be taken over from the East Africa Company and
governed from Zanzibar; and urged the construction of a railway from the coast
to the Lake.
The most contentious, if not the most important, proposal of the Government,
was contained in the Evicted Tenant's Bill, brought in by Mr. John Morley, and
giving effect to most of the recommendations of Sir James Matthew's unfortunate
Commission. A court of arbitration was to be established, to which the tenant
might apply for reinstatement, and if they thought he had made out a good case,
they could compel the landlord to take him back at the old rent-until a "fair" one
was fixed by the Arbitrators or by the Land Commission. Unionists would have
been quite ready to support a measure facilitating a voluntary arrangement
between landlord and tenants. But this compulsory scheme they resisted vigor-
ously. The discussions in Committee were so long, and the Amendments pro-
posed so numerous, that on July 31st, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved a
Resolution that the Committee stage should be closed on August 7th. Mr. Balfour
and Mr. Chamberlain at once intimated that if the Motion were carried they would
THE EVICTED TENANT'S BILL.
207
take no more part in the proceedings. Mr. Courtney intervened in the familiar but
not ingratiating character of a friend of both parties who thinks that each is wrong.
Acting up to the word of their Leaders the Unionists abstained from the subsequent
proceedings, until the Third Reading was moved. It was carried by 199 to 167
votes. But a measure thus forced through the House of Commons, stands no
chance of acceptance by the Peers. Its rejection was moved by Lord Balfour of
Burleigh, and it was thrown out by 249 to 30 votes. Up to the last moment it
had been hoped that Ministers would be induced-negotiations were in progress-
to turn their measure into a voluntary one. But a compromise of this kind,
though it would have benefited the Evicted Tenants who were the nominal objects
of the Bill, would have equally offended the Irish Extremists and those English
Liberals who believed in the policy of making the Peers throw out as many Bills
as possible-"filling up the cup." The speech delivered by Lord Salisbury was
one of his happiest efforts in satirical argument. Conciliatory it was not intended
to be; the time for that had passed by.
Yet it had its uses, this unfortunate scheme. It took up so much time in the
Commons that Mr. Asquith had to give up any expectation he might once have
cherished of getting his Welsh Disestablishment Bill through the House of
Commons. On April 26th he had had the satisfaction of introducing it in a
speech which had only one fault-it was so lucid that none of the iniquities of his
scheme were disguised. The object of the Equalisation of Rates Act was to assist
the poorer London parishes, at the expense of the richer ones, in providing for
expenditure of common burdens. It was passed through the Commons on August
13th, and in the House of Lords it was admitted by Lord Salisbury to do justice
—though very rough justice. Under this Act a general rate of sixpence in the
pound is levied on all metropolitan parishes according to rateable value, and
distributed back according to their population.
But the measure on which the Government relied for popularity was the
Democratic Budget promised by Sir William Harcourt. The scarcely concealed
object being to lay as heavy a load as possible on the middle and upper classes,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was for once quite willing to accept the increased
Naval Estimates demanded by Lord Spencer. Exclusive of the ships under the
Naval Defence Act (which Sir William regarded as the most unfortunate financial
experiment ever made) the Vote for construction for 1894-95 would be more
than three millions in excess of that for the current year, without the expenditure
of about half a million on armament.
On the current year there had been a deficit of £170,000; for the year
1894-5 he had to meet an estimated Imperial expenditure of £95,458,000 with a
Revenue of £90,956,000, in addition to providing £7,250,000 for local expenditure.
The Income Tax would be raised from 7d. to Sd., but a certain number of ex-
emptions, total or partial, in favour of persons of small means, would reduce the
total profit from the extra penny to the inconsiderable sum of £330,000. The
bulk of the increased expenditure was to be met by a radical alteration of the
Death Duties, which would be accomplished by the two principles of Aggrc-

208
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
gation and Graduation. Under the former, realty would be lumped with
personalty for the purposes of a new Estate Duty chargeable on the "principal
value "-the price at which it would sell in the market. Under this rule, land which
already bears the chief burden of the local Rates is also forced to contribute an equal
share of the Taxes, and this at a time when in many districts farmers who got
their land free of rent could hardly make both ends meet at the end of the year.
The principle of Graduation is put in force as to the rate at which the Succes-
sion Duty is payable. Where the "principal value" does not exceed £100 it is
LORD CHIEF JUSTICE RUSSELL.
paid at 1 per cent. ; at £10,000 it rises to 4 per cent.; at £1,000,000 to 8
per cent.
In criticising these proposals, objectionable as they are to those who
fall under them, it must be remembered that the Chancellor had, from one source
or another, to provide a very large sum of money, and that, the Income Tax having
been stretched to nearly the furthest point, and indirect taxation having got out of
fashion with popularity-hunting Chancellors of the Exchequer, Conservative and
Liberal, Sir William was practically bound to turn to the Death Duties for relief.
His scheme is chiefly open to criticism because it was oppressive to the landed in-
1
LORD ROSEBERY AND THE PEERS.
209
terest at a time when all classes who depend on agriculture were equally distressed,
and because, in regulating the amount which the State is to levy on a dead man's
property, account is taken not of the amount received by each legatee, but only
of the total value of the estate.
The assassination of President Carnot at Lyons on June 24th by an Italian
Anarchist, Caserio Santo, had caused a deep emotion throughout Europe, and both
Houses voted an Address to the Queen asking her to express their sympathy with
the Government and people of France. The fact that London is the headquarters
of this international conspiracy-a fact which was perfectly notorious-was
mentioned by Lord Salisbury when his Aliens Bill came up for Second Reading,
and he was sternly rebuked by Opposition orators for making an admission which
foreign Governments might use against us! Lord Rosebery said that these
desperadoes were kept under close observation, and no complaint on this head had
been received since the Government came into office. That was true enough.
The police are sufficiently active, but the powers given them by the existing laws
are, as Lord Salisbury retorted, insufficient. That was why, in a measure the
original purpose of which was to give the Board of Trade the power of excluding
immigrants likely to become a public charge, he had inserted Clauses which
enabled the Home Secretary to expel any foreigner who was a danger to the
public peace here, or likely to promote the commission of crime elsewhere. The
Bill was dropped after the Second Reading.
In the Queen's Speech at the Prorogation (August 25th), reference was made
to the unfortunate encounters between British and French troops in West Africa.
Friendly negotiations were, it was said, "in progress." An Act had been passed
at Westminster to give effect to the Behring Sea award. The outbreak of the war
between China and Japan was mentioned, and it was intimated that this country
would observe a strict neutrality. The Session had thus come to an end with-
out an attempt to "deal with the Peers." What, then, was the Government
plan of campaign? Lord Rosebery went to Bradford to explain it (October
27th). Ministers would move a Resolution in the House of Commons. It
would stand for ever recorded in the Journals of that Assembly. No Govern-
ment would be bold or cynical enough to reverse it. It would be a new Charter,
a Constitutional Amendment, the first Act of a great Drama. Having passed
that Resolution, the Government would go to the country. This was Lord
Rosebery's response to the demand of the National Liberal Federation, in
conference at Leeds on June 20th, where a Resolution had been carried calling
on the Government to introduce, during the existing Parliament, a measure for
the abolition of the Veto of the House of Lords upon measures passed by the
House of Commons.
But the country was impressed neither with the Leeds Conference, to which
the Prime Minister had said that the Government looked for guidance, nor with
the plan of operations he had sketched out at Bradford, and Lord Salisbury,
speaking at Edinburgh on October 30th, treated them with something like
contempt. Such a Resolution as suggested would have no value-no Court of
VOL. IV.
P
210
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Law could take cognisance of it. Nor would it require any great cynicism in a
future Minister to propose to cancel a "foolish Resolution."
The year 1894 had been affected by many disturbing influences abroad. The
already-mentioned hostile encounters between France and England in West Africa
seemed at one time likely to breed something worse than bad blood, and the Quai
d'Orsay showed itself so unaccommodating that a war panic had almost set in.
Another cause of disquiet was the collapse of the ill-armed, unorganised, and badly
led forces of China, both on sea and land, before the scientific skill, the con-
temptuous audacity, and the modern armaments of Japan. It was feared that
the disturbance of the status quo ante bellum in the Far East would lead to a
diplomatic, perhaps to a forcible, intervention of the great European Powers
whose interests would be more directly affected. Another great shock to the peace
optimists was the death of the Czar, Alexander III., at Livadia on November 19th.
The two dark blots on a career of strikingly blended honour and perfidy, humanity
and oppression, had been his unscrupulous behaviour towards Prince Alexander
and the Bulgarian Nation and his relentless persecution of his own Jewish
subjects. But against these public crimes, of which he cannot be acquitted by
laying the blame on his agents and advisers, must be set the fact that he never
wearied in the anxious task of preserving peace on the Continent-which, but for
him, would have been broken at any one of the half-a-dozen crises in his reign.
It was considered a good omen, however, that his successor, Nicholas II., whose
wedding had been hurried on with pathetic eagerness by the dying Emperor, had
chosen for his bride the Princess Alix of Hesse, one of the Queen's grand-
daughters, and English in sympathy as well as by training.
It was in the highest degree disquieting that at this time the conscience of
England-the Power which is primarily responsible for the continued existence
of the Ottoman authority-should be shocked by accounts of systematic cruelties,
murder and outrage and robbery, committed by Turkish troops, regulars and
irregulars, on the Armenian inhabitants of Asia Minor. That the victims were
not blameless, that they had been tempted into disorder and rebellion by political
agitators, that their own conduct was no better than that of Kurds and Circassians
wherever, for a time, they got the upper hand-all this was true, but it was no
excuse for the savage measures of repression sanctioned, if not directed, by the
Sultan. Surrounded by a clique of worthless favourites in Yildiz Kiosk, deaf to
the occasionally sound advice given by his Ministers at the Porte, believing that
he could avert the joint interference of Europe by playing off the Powers one
against another, Abdul Hamid-in spite of warning and menace-revived the
worst traditions of Ottoman misrule, and made it impossible for friends of the
Turkish Empire to say a word in his defence. The stories of atrocity when
tested were, indeed, shown to be exaggerated and over-coloured, but there was
below them a solid basis of truth, which formed a heavy indictment against the
governing clique at Constantinople.
On January 24th the thoughts of Englishmen were, for a time, withdrawn
from Party strife by common regret for the death of Lord Randolph Churchill.
-
WORDS OF WARNING.
211
It was not in mere obedience to the generous conventions of English public life
that the Service held on the day of his funeral was attended by Lord Salisbury,
Mr. Arthur Balfour, the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Rosebery, and Lord Spencer-
to name only a few of the old colleagues and adversaries who came to mourn the
premature termination of a brilliant career.
At the meeting of Parliament on February 5th, it was found that the Queen's
Speech was yet more comprehensive than the "business programme" recently put
forward by the Prime Minister. Bills were promised relating to the Law of
Landlord and Tenant in Ireland (together with relief for 'Evicted Tenants); the
Church Establishment in Wales; popular control of the Liquor Traffic; the
abolition of Plural Voting; payment of charges of Returning Officers; unification
of the Government of London; Light Railways; Conciliation in Trade Disputes;
amendment of the Factory Acts; and County Government in Scotland.
More important than promises, which nobody believed, of domestic legislation
were the Ministerial references to foreign affairs; to the conclusion of an agree-
ment with the French Republic as to the delimitation of the Sierra Leone frontier;
to the continuance of the war between China and Japan; and to the excesses com-
mitted by Turkish troops on some of the Armenian subjects of the Porte. The
Sultan, however, had professed anxiety to punish the malefactors, and had sent
a Commission, accompanied by European Delegates, to inquire on the spot into
events which had shocked and disgusted public opinion in England.
But the question was how far we were prepared to go in redressing the injuries
with which we sympathized. And on this point Lord Salisbury, realising the
gravity of a situation that might be created by rash interference in the internal
affairs of Turkey, spoke some words of warning. Advice, remonstrance, caution—
these were very well. But were we ready to act? "I have nothing to say in
challenge of the action which her Majesty's Government have taken" (Lord
Salisbury said), "but with respect to the future I will, in as cautious words as I can
use, venture humbly to submit one recommendation to them. It is to remember
that they are dealing with the most thorny of all problems, with the most irritable
of all subjects-a community divided to its base by difference of race and of
religion; and if they give to either side of that community an impression that
their particular claims are to receive support from outside, they must remember
that they will incur an immense responsibility if they hold out any hopes which
they have not made up their minds to fulfil. There are many policies which may
be pursued in respect to these unhappy cases, but the worst policy of all is to give
any section of those Eastern populations the impression that a great support is to
be given to their particular prejudices and aspirations and then to leave them when
the crisis comes with a few consolatory phrases to meet as best they can the excited
irritation of their opponents.'
On February 8th the Division was taken in the House of Commons on Mr.
Jeffreys' Amendment to the Address, in which attention was called to the
depressed condition of agriculture and the failure of the Government to propose
any effective measures of relief. The question raised was one of Confidence, and
""
(
212
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Ministers were fighting with their backs to the wall. The Amendment was not,
indeed, carried, but the majority of 12 by which it was rejected was hardly less
damaging than a defeat. It was clear to all who cared to read the Parlia-
mentary signs that the Ministry would not survive the length of a normal Session.
The narrow escape of the Ministry on the 8th was followed on the 15th by a
still closer shave. Mr. Chamberlain had moved an Amendment to the Address
complaining that the time of Parliament was being occupied in the discussion of
measures which, as Ministers themselves admitted, had no prospect of passing
into law, while proposals involving grave constitutional changes had been
announced, on which the judgment of Parliament should be taken without delay.
This was in effect a challenge to the Government to drop their legislative pro-
gramme, to bring forward their resolution against the Peers, and go to the country
on that issue. The Amendment was defeated by only 14 votes-an Amendment
that struck at the very heart of the Ministerial policy. But worse was in store.
On the Chancellor of the Exchequer moving the Closure the Government majority
dropped to eight!
On March 4th the Irish Land Bill was introduced by Mr. Morley. Of that
comprehensive measure, since it was to be involved in the common ruin of the
Ministerial projects, it is enough here to say that it proposed to do away with
the limitations on the Act of 1881, introduced by the judgment in Adams v.
Dunsheath, and to deal with the case of the Evicted Tenants. On March 5th
Mr. Bryce, President of the Board of Trade, obtained leave to bring in his well-
intended, and, in some respects, not impracticable Bill for promoting Conciliation
in Trade Disputes—one of those measures which the House, if not distracted by
contentious business, might have threshed out into a useful piece of legislation.
The Second Reading of the Welsh Disestablishment Bill was moved by Mr.
Asquith in an explanatory and argumentative speech. It was, indeed, on this
proposal that the Ministry scored the most imposing success of the Session,
since the Second Reading was carried on April 1st by a majority of forty-four,
and amongst those who voted for the Bill was Mr. Chamberlain. On April 8th
Sir William Harcourt made good his pledge to the Teetotallers, and, disregard-
ing the fears and remonstrances of his colleagues, introduced into the House
of Commons his Local Veto Bill. Nobody paid much attention to the scheme
which he explained as conscientiously as if it was intended to become law.
It was known-the Radicals themselves had at last begun to admit that no
measure would be accepted which did not provide some compensation for the
persons whose licences were to be extinguished, and it was equally notorious that
the Chancellor of the Exchequer was precluded, by his own utterances as well as
by the insistance of the Prohibitionists, from making any such offer to the
Trade.
The resignation of Mr. Peel-shortly afterwards made a Viscount in recogni-
tion of his distinguished services as Speaker-was followed by a not uninteresting
intrigue as to the nomination of his successor. It was suggested on behalf of
Ministers that Mr. Courtney should be elected. But it was at once evident that

THE SPEAKERSHIP DISPUTE.
213
he would be opposed by many members on both sides of the House. Mr. Campbell-
Bannerman then put forward claims which the Unionists were quite ready to
acknowledge. But Ministers were equally unwilling to part with an able colleague
and to face the trouble of a Cabinet reconstruction.
THE LATE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE COLERIDGE.
From a photograph by H. J. Whittock, Birmingham.
Meantime, they had pitched on a new candidate-or, rather, he had been
found for them by Mr. Labouchere. They had so often disgusted that candid
and conspicuous supporter that on this occasion they decided to gratify him
in the hope that he might hereafter abate some of the rigour of his too logical
214
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Radicalism. The nomination of Mr. Gully took the House by surprise. He was
known by reputation as an able lawyer, and as a man of cultivated tastes and
agreeable manners. But he had never displayed much interest in the business of
Parliament, and by many members he was not even known by sight. It was hardly
to be expected that the Opposition would concur in such a selection. They
decided to run a candidate of their own, Sir Matthew White Ridley, and when it
came to the voting it was only by a majority of 11 (285 against 274) that Mr. Gully
(on April 10th) was declared elected. The contest had been purely partizan, and
the Opposition gave fair notice, as the Government-with a General Election
close at hand-had chosen to make so uncompromising a use of their power,
that the Unionists, if they obtained a majority, would not feel bound by any
honourable obligation to continue Mr. Gully in the office into which he had been so
unscrupulously foisted. There is no doubt that they intended at the time to act up
to their words, nor could they have been blamed for making such a reply to the
provocation they had received. But when the time came for them (last August)
to decide on their course of action, their great victory had put them in such good
humour that the idea of retaliation was abandoned.
1
On the reassembling of Parliament (April 22nd), after the Easter Vacation,
Mr. Asquith moved the Second Reading of his Factories and Workshops Bill,
the one important measure which was destined to be passed into law. The
provisions are too technical to interest ordinary readers, but the general purpose
was to extend and develop the system of Government inspection, to reduce the
dangers incident to the use of machinery, and to raise the legal standard of
sanitation and comfort. The Bill was accepted as non-contentious, and, after the
defeat of the Ministry who introduced it, was carried to completion by the
Unionists, and passed without modification through the House of Lords.
Among the abortive proposals of the Government may be mentioned the Scotch
Crofters Bill, and Scotch Local Government Bill, introduced by Sir G. Trevelyan,
April 25th; the Bill to prohibit Plural Voting, and to provide for taking all the Polls
on one day, introduced on May 1st by Mr. Shaw Lefevre; and-supported, though
not introduced by, Ministers-Mr. Knox's Bill to repeal the Coercion Act of 1887.
While the House of Commons was thus blocked with a throng of new measures, none
were got ready for consideration in the House of Lords. Lord Salisbury, therefore,
felt himself at liberty to visit Bradford, where he delivered a couple of speeches
which summed up the whole political situation from the Unionist point of view.
On May 22nd he rallied the Liberals on their passion for reconstructing the
Constitution every three or four years-it was to them a ship that was always in
dock, or a watch that was always under repair. He pointed out that other Ministers
-including Mr. Gladstone himself before he took up with Home Rule-had not
attempted "organic changes" unless with strong majorities behind them. The
old plan had been to propose measures because they were believed to be wise and
expedient; now they were brought forward just to attract recruits. Sir William
Harcourt was like a medieval monarch who hired mercenaries when he went to
war.
Besides the Radicals he had now an Irish contingent, a Welsh contingent,
·

SIR M.WHITE RIDLEY, BART.
From a photo by R. E. Ruddocks. Newcastle on Tyne
LONDON JS VIRTUE & CU LAMIVED
RADICALISM AND PUBLIC CREDIT.
215
a Local Veto contingent, and a Scotch contingent. All of these had to be kept in
good humour, and they were all paid in measures if not in money. Parliament,
which ought to be passing measures for the social amelioration of the people, had
been turned into a mart for votes. No attempt was made to face the social
problems of the time.
"You know," said Lord Salisbury, "how the difficulty of the Unemployed is
rising. In the south there are vast masses of men who have no evil will, against
whom no harm can be stated, who have only this one wish, this one demand—that
the labour which they are prepared to give should be accepted and bare sustenance
given them in place of it. Everywhere, especially in the East of England, you
hear of farms being abandoned, lands uncultivated, labourers unemployed, poverty
and misery increasing. Is that no subject for the consideration of Parliament ?
Is it not more important than these organic questions on which we have spent so
much time? Is it not more important that we should save men, well-to-do men
from ruin, and working-men from starvation, instead of bringing forward measures
whose only effect can be to hound class against class and creed against creed in our
country?"
After referring to some specific and practical grievances which had long been
neglected, "Do not tell me," he said, "that these are Socialist sentiments.
Nothing would induce me to adopt the Socialist remedies, but the Socialistic
cries convince me that there is an evil, and that Parliament is deeply responsible
for not giving its whole time to it." For the distress prevailing in the country
part of the responsibility lay with the disturbing projects of the Ministry. "Do
not misunderstand me to say that the want of confidence to which I refer is
entirely due to the action of statesmen in this country. The question is a very
complicated one. What I want to say is that it is largely due to the action of
statesmen of this country that money left this country and went to Brazil,
Argentina, and other parts of the world, with the result that there was a general
breakdown and bankruptcies in all these interesting communities, and that distress
and fear has settled upon the whole of the business communities in recent years.'
No Conservative politician-except Lord Beaconsfield—has been more bitterly
attacked than Lord Salisbury, and none of his utterances have been more sharply
criticised than those quoted above. Their sting lay not only in their truth,
but in the deadly effect they produced. It was this argument repeated on a
thousand platforms-this undoubted fact that Radical statesmanship not only had
not "done anything for the country," but had even made things worse by driving
English capital abroad-which decided many voters to give the other side a chance.
Special credit, however, is due to Lord Rosebery's Cabinet-or to that section of
it which prevailed against the publicly declared views of Sir William Harcourt-in
regard to Uganda. In February, when Lord Stanmore had pressed Lord Kimberley
for a definite undertaking as to the projected railway from Lake Victoria to the
coast, he had only elicited a vague and dilatory reply. Lord Salisbury charged
the Government with dealing too lightly with an important question, one in which
time was all important unless we were to be forestalled by eager rivals for the
""
216
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
trade of that region. He hinted that the delay arose from the hostile spirit of
the Treasury. This, no doubt, was part of the explanation; but the Government
were also anxious to purchase the rights of the Imperial British East Africa
Company before they did anything to improve the value of property which was
still the subject of negotiation. It was nearly six weeks later before a basis of
settlement was arrived at; two months before the Company notified its acceptance
of the Government's offer-£250,000 in all. Of this sum Parliament was to pay
£50,000 for surrender of the Charter; the Sultan of Zanzibar giving £150,000
for the concession, and £50,000 for the assets of the Company. The bargain was
perhaps a little hard on a Company which had done so much service to the State
during the anxious period preceding the Anglo-German Convention, but the chief
promoters and investors could hardly complain since the late Sir William Mackinnon
had declared in their name that they must expect to "take out their dividends in
philanthropy." It was not till June 13th that Sir E. Grey formally announced
in the House of Commons that the Government intended to construct that railway
which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had so mercilessly derided. In addition
to the £50,000 required for the Company he asked for £30,000 to provide, for
the present, for the administration of the district through which the line would
run, and for the amount due to the Sultan of Zanzibar. The declaration was
regarded by the Unionists as going so far towards meeting their own views that
they supported the Government against the Radical group led by Mr. Labouchere,
and gave them a majority of nearly 200 votes (249 against 51).
The treatment of the natives of Swaziland has not been a matter in which
either Party has a perfectly clean record, nor is it fair to saddle Lord Ripon with
exclusive responsibility for practically handing over to the Transvaal Boers
a tribe which had done us good service at a time of anxiety and peril. In
reply to the remonstrances urged by friends of the Swazis, Lord Ripon and
Mr. Sydney Buxton pleaded the Convention concluded with President Krüger in
1894, the necessity of carrying it out,, and the inadvisability of encouraging the
natives to obstruct a "peaceful settlement" unless we were prepared to fight in
their defence. There the matter seemed to be at an end. The Swazis were
abandoned, and with them, it was thought, our power of impeding the Boers from
access to the sea-coast. But some surprise was created by an announcement
made in the House of Lords on May 4th by Lord Ripon, from which it appeared
that we had quietly acquired-no Treaty standing in our way-the territory of
two chieftains lying to the north of Zululand and between Swaziland and the
sea. The Boers had calculated on being able to "jump" this country, but we
were quite within our rights in anticipating that summary method of extension.
The storming of the Malakand Pass in the Chitral Campaign, the victory in the
Amandara defile, the passage of the Swat River, and the other gallant feats of
arms performed under Sir Robert Low, Colonel Kelly, and Colonel Gatacre, had
quickly resulted in the overthrow of Umra Khan and the relief of our beleaguered
officers. Once again a Liberal Ministry seemed bent on the old disastrous policy
of "Rescue and Retire," and it had been decided the order had indeed been

THE CHITRAL CAMPAIGN.
given-that Chitral, so painfully gained, should be immediately abandoned. This
DILHO
217
invell
PRING
TOO!
was resolved upon, be it remembered, against the opinion of the Indian Govern-
ment, and against the advice of the best military strategists. But in fairness to
BIRD'S-EYE VIEW OF NAGASAKI, JAPAN.
218
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
Mr. Fowler it should be added that some distinguished authorities were not in
favour of advancing our frontier at this point. Whatever the origin of the evacua-
tion policy, and whatever may be its military and political justifications, it was
reversed by the Conservatives almost as soon as they came into office.
The Budget for 1895 was tame, and, as compared with that of 1894, unobjec-
tionable. While Ministers were existing on Parliamentary suffrance, the Oppo-
sition were every day gaining fresh strength and confidence. The "Union of
the Unionist Party" was on June 14th significantly attested by the presence
of the Duke of Devonshire and Mr. Chamberlain as the principal guests at a
banquet held in London by the National Union of Conservative and Constitutional
Associations.
On January 21st, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman—an easy-going Minister, who
had made things pleasant for himself by quietly falling into the ways of the War
Office-brought off what he intended to be the grand coup of his administrative
career. With decent expressions of regret, but with evident exultation in his
combination of tact and firmness, he announced that the Duke of Cambridge
was about to relinquish the position, which he had held for thirty-nine years,
as Commander-in-Chief of the Army. The retirement of his Royal Highness
would enable the Government to carry out the scheme of War Office reform
which had been recommended by the Hartington Commission, and Mr. Campbell-
Bannerman explained at some length the changes which were forthwith to be
instituted.
Before the flutter and glory of this statement had subsided, Mr. St. John
Brodrick dragged the War Secretary down to petty details, and, declaring that
the store of Small Arms Ammunition was inadequate for any sudden emergency,
not more than enough to meet the current wants of the year, moved to reduce his
salary by £100. The disquieting statement was promptly contradicted by Mr.
Campbell-Bannerman on the authority of his responsible military advisers. But
the official assurance was too vague to satisfy critics who demanded facts and
figures, and on a Division being taken the reduction of the Vote was carried by
132 votes against 125-a majority of seven against the Government.
What would Ministers do? It was open to them to reverse the Vote, and
reinstate their War Secretary in the confidence of the House.
The only
obstacle was that Mr. Campbell-Bannerman declined to be so rehabilitated. The Vote,
he chose to assume, was a personal affront to himself. His word had been doubted,
and he should certainly resign. As a matter of fact, there had been no question
of the War Secretary's veracity. What the House declined to accept was the
opinion of his military advisers. But as he chose to raise a point of honour
his colleagues were bound to resign with him, since—as appeared in connection
with the Speakership - they dared not face the task of reconstructing the
Cabinet.
There was, indeed, another course open to them. They might have wound up
the routine business of the Session, dissolved Parliament, and appealed to the
country for a general verdict on their conduct, or some issue-Home Rule, Welsh

DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT.
219
Disestablishment, Local Veto, the House of Lords, any or all-by which they chose to
stand or fall. But they believed, it would seem, that some tactical advantage was
to be gained by throwing on their successors the onus of winding up business
and the supposed unpopularity of dissolving Parliament. By going into opposi-
tion they would enjoy that liberty of speech which is so useful in attack, and
impose on their adversaries the embarrassment of Ministerial reserve. At a
Cabinet Council held on Saturday the 22nd, they decided, therefore, to give
up office, and on the following Monday, the Queen, having accepted Lord
Rosebery's resignation, sent for Lord Salisbury. Before proceeding to Windsor,
Lord Salisbury held a short consultation with the principal leaders of the
Unionist Party, and it was agreed-with only the slightest hesitation-that it
was the interest and duty of the Conservatives to accept office. If they declined
WINDSOR.
the responsibility at this moment, they might not get another opportunity during
the Session. Even if they were to inflict another defeat on the Liberals, they
could not insist on their resignation. The moment for assuming power was cer-
tainly not a good one. There was a good deal of financial and other business to be
completed before Parliament could be prorogued, and meantime the Unionist
Government, not having a majority in the Commons, would be somewhat at the
mercy of their opponents. Nor could they count upon any binding assurance from
the other side that no Obstruction would be practised. They could only rely on the
good sense and good feeling of the Liberal Leaders to discourage, if they were
unable to prohibit, any merely vexatious behaviour on the part of their followers.
Some of the defeated Party did at first indulge in splenetic menace, but, when the
first ill-humour had subsided, it was evident that they would not really discredit
220
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
themselves for the sake of a merely factious self-indulgence. Their self-respect
was at stake as well as their popularity.
It may be worth passing mention that there was never a moment's question
as to the chief position in the Unionist Party being held by Lord Salisbury. He
was designated Prime Minister not only by Lord Rosebery's recommendation or by
her Majesty's selection, but by the opinion of Liberal Unionists and Conservatives
alike in Parliament and outside it. He had on a previous occasion proposed
to stand aside for Lord Hartington, and serve under him as Foreign Secretary; but,
that offer having been declined, there was no expectation that it would be repeated.
Nor had there ever been even a scintilla of probability in the suggestion, busily put
about at the end of 1894 and early part of 1895, that he would make way for his
nephew, Mr. Balfour, as Prime Minister, and content himself with the Foreign
Office. Mr. Balfour himself had no desire for such a sacrifice on his uncle's part,
nor did Lord Salisbury ever intend to play the part of "dowager."
Lord Salisbury was at once challenged by Liberals to produce his " programme.'
That he declined to do, but he took an early occasion of laying down the main lines
on which a Unionist Administration would proceed. For the lamentable condition
of agriculture he professed to have no panacea, but something might be done to
relieve the excessive and anomalous pressure of taxation upon land. There might
also be further legislation with regard to tenure, the carriage of farm products,
allotments and small holdings, and means of locomotion. Something might be
done in other industries to alleviate the sufferings of those who were thrown into
undeserved distress by the vicissitudes of trade. Administration of the Poor Law
might be revised, and working-men might be assisted to purchase their
dwelling-houses. These were examples of the policy on which a Unionist Govern-
ment would embark in preference to entering on revolutionary changes in
ancient institutions. A similar declaration, though in different terms, was made
on behalf of the Liberal Unionists on the same day by Mr. Chamberlain at
Birmingham.
""
On July 8th the Queen dissolved Parliament by Proclamation, and at five
o'clock the issue of the writs was proceeded with. There is no need to tell over
again the recent and familiar story of the Radical defeat. The general result,
announced just as Parliament met for a brief Session on August 12th, was
that Lord Salisbury was started on his Third Administration with a majority
of 152.
It is to be observed that the Liberal Unionists, who had been reduced to 45 at
the 1892 contest, have now risen to 72—almost equal to the number (77) they
reached in 1886. No kind of friction occurred in the 1895 election between the
two Unionist Parties. The lesson of Leamington had been laid to heart, and the
Compact of 1886 was interpreted with mutual concessions and consideration for
local feelings. Three doubtful seats were ceded by Liberal Unionists to Conserva-
tives, and two by Conservatives to Liberal Unionists. What has been done in
electioneering matters may be continued in questions of policy. Radicals who
hug the hope of a future quarrel between the allied Parties are but indulging

LORD SALISBURY PRIME MINISTER.
The
their imagination, since nothing has yet occurred that would warrant the fear.
"The wish," said Mr. Chamberlain, "is father to the thought." That there must be
LUTAT
221
EMITRYN GAI
CONSTITUTIONAL CLUB.
give-and-take on both sides is as clear as that the chief concessions must proceed
from the group who number little more than a fifth of their associates. That is
to say, the Liberal Unionists must agree not to support movements, such as that
222
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
for Church Disestablishment, on which Conservatives feel quite as strongly as
on Home Rule. On the other hand, Conservatives will not refuse to further
schemes of social reform which may be somewhat in advance of their own views
and principles. It is not an ideal situation, but there is this advantage about it,
that the pedants of politics must either conform to the facts, or condemn them-
selves to obscurity. It is idle to dream of a Coalition without compromise. But
with good sense on both sides, no question is likely to arise during the next five
or six years on which a cordial understanding is not practicable. And there is
this special guarantee for a businesslike arrangement, that Lord Salisbury and
Mr. Chamberlain are both good hands at a bargain, and that each is well aware,
supposing he were to cherish such a hope, that it would be very difficult indeed
for either to get the better of the other.
Another influence which makes for harmony between the two groups is that the
Liberal Unionists no longer stand outside the Ministry-advisers without respon
sibility, as from 1886 to 1892. They have now joined the Government, and,
equally with Conservatives, are bound by the theory of collective responsibility.
From the appended list of the new Cabinet it will be seen that they have gained
at least their fair share of the places at Lord Salisbury's disposal.
Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary
Lord Chancellor
Lord President of the Council
Lord Privy Seal
First Lord of the Treasury
Chancellor of the Exchequer
Home Secretary
Colonial Secretary
Secretary for War
Secretary for India
First Lord of the Admiralty
Lord Lieutenant of Ireland
Lord Chancellor of Ireland
Secretary for Scotland
Chancellor of the Duchy
President of the Board of Trade
President of Local Government Board
President of Board of Agriculture
First Commissioner of Works
Marquis of Salisbury.
Lord Halsbury.
Duke of Devonshire.
Viscount Cross.
Mr. Balfour.
Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.
Sir Matthew White Ridley.
Mr. Chamberlain.
Marquis of Lansdowne.
Lord George Hamilton.
Mr. Goschen.
Earl Cadogan.
Lord Ashbourne.
Lord Balfour of Burleigh.
Lord James.
Mr. Ritchie.
Mr. Chaplin.
Mr. Walter Long.
Mr. Akers-Douglas.
Nor have they been less favourably treated in the allotment of Ministerial
offices outside the Cabinet. But it is admitted by all Conservatives-and by none
more cordially than by Lord Salisbury-that at the three General Elections of
1886, 1892, and 1895 they not only held or gained many seats in which they
returned a representative of their own colour, but also that in many more they
turned the scale in favour of the Unionist cause.
At this point it seems advisable to break off the narrative of Lord Salisbury's
public career, rather than to enter on any of the unsettled questions of public
POSTSCRIPT.
223
In
policy which have been raised, or revived, since his last accession to office.
conclusion it may be observed, by way of explanation rather than apology, that no
attempt has been made in the preceding pages to offer a personal picture of the
man as distinguished from the politician. One reason is that such an undertaking
with regard to a living man could not be quite devoid of impertinence, and that
it would be eminently distasteful to a statesman who has almost jealously main-
tained the privacy of his home life, who neglects the arts of popularity, does not
much believe in the social devices of the political salon, and even holds aloof from
intimate association with his colleagues in the Ministry. It may be said that Lord
Salisbury loses something by a reserve which certainly arises from no pride of
rank and ancestry, but simply from his love of domestic retirement and his pursuit
of scientific studies. He gains authority, on the other hand, by the dignity of a
seclusion which has been surpassed by no popular leader since the time of Pericles.
Nor can it be denied that, in the last few years, he has acquired in general esteem
a weight which at one time seemed impossible of attainment to a politician who
was best known-apart from his diplomatic work-as the most vehement of
controversialists. It was not without misgivings amongst some of the more
experienced Conservatives that he was elected to the Leadership of the Party,
and more than one revolt was raised against his authority. Not only has he
reassured the sceptics and suppressed the malcontents in his immediate following,
but in the yet more difficult task of managing a Coalition he has succeeded
where a popularity-hunter or a mere professor of tact and the art of managing
men would probably have failed. It is in no slight degree due to his impartial
holding of the scales, to his cool perception and good-humoured toleration
of the weaknesses of political humanity, that the temporary arrangement
between Conservative and Liberal Unionists was at first maintained by the
skilful balancing of diverging, if not adverse, interests, and is now solidified
into a definite and friendly understanding. Nor is it amongst his own country-
men alone that Lord Salisbury enjoys an almost unquestioned ascendancy.
His achievements as a diplomatist, past and present, have always been decried by
partisan critics at home, but in every Capital on the Continent he is regarded with
respect, not only because he is the one still vigorous survivor of the group of
statesmen who arranged the Treaty of Berlin, but also because it is recognised
that no adversary, however wily or overbearing, has been able to score against him
a point that could fairly be made for England. One reason why he has made so
few failures in his conduct of our foreign relations-we have not always been in
the right, or always in a position to maintain our interests-is that he has never
played for the applause of the moment or bowed his knee to the great goddess
Publicity. As to methods, he expects to be trusted by the country, and is content
to be judged by the results-if not by this generation, then by the next. There
is, indeed, in the Prime Minister who has just been invested by a democratic vote
with an almost unexampled majority in Parliament, a curious blend of the
medieval and the modern mind. His personal preference is undisguisedly for the
political system which existed in his youth, when the government of the country
224
THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY.
was shared between a privileged Order and representatives of the middle-class ;
but he has known how to adapt himself to the requirements, and to utilise the
vigour, of an almost perfected Democracy. And it is by virtue of a similar power
of reconciling what many regard as opposing influences that we find in Lord
Salisbury a votary of unrestricted scientific research who-as was shown in his
recent Presidential Address to the British Association-yet accepts and maintains
every substantial principle and tradition of the faith of the great majority of the
English people.
INDEX.
ABBAS Pasha, Khedive, iv. 198
Abdul Aziz, deposition and suicide, ii. 45, 46
Abdul Hamid II., accession, ii. 46; threatened
deposition and intended flight, 116; and the
Armenian question, iv. 210
Abdul Kerim and the invasion of Bulgaria, ii. 94
Abdurrahman ii. 174, 189, 195-198; iv. 98, 101
Abercorn, Duke of, and the Arrears Bill, iv. 14
Aberdare, Lord, i. 115, 169, 189, 204; ii. 32
Aberdeen, Lord, i. 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, 46-48, 49, 51
Abyssinian Expedition, i. 103, 104, 190
Achmet Agha, and the slaughter of Batak, ii. 50, 51
Acland, Mr. Arthur, iv. 196, 202
Acolias, capture of, by the Russians, ii. 94
Acton, Lord, and Papal Infallibility, i. 219
Adam, Mr., i. 87, 88; ii. 237
Adderley, Sir Charles. See Norton, Lord
Adullamites, the, i. 82, 88-90, 115
Affirmation Bill. See Bradlaugh, Mr. Charles
Afghanistan, its boundaries, and Russia's advance
towards India, i. 191; India and the Independence
of, ii. 22; relations of Great Britain with, 164-
166; claimants to the throne of, 174, 189, 194,
195; British policy towards, 174; Russia and,
174, 175, 188; strained relations between Great
Britain and, 175; the second Afghan War, 176,
188; death of Shere Ali and succession of Yakoob
Khan, 189; peace arranged, 190; massacre of Sir
L. Cavagnari and escort, 190; General Roberts's
march on Cabul, 193, 194; abdication of Yakoob
Khan, 194; the Candahar revolt and its relief,
195, 198; recognition of Abdurrahman, 195, 196;
vote of thanks by Parliament, 199; mistake in
the Afghan War Estimate, iii. 121; dissensions
in, iv. 71; conflict with Russia concerning the
frontier of, 98, 100, 109, 120
·
Agra, incident in Lord Lytton's Viceroyalty at, ii. 156
Agrarianism, ii. 30; iii. 172
Agricultural depression, iii. 60; iv. 60
Agricultural distress, in England, ii. 231; in Ire-
land, 234
Agricultural Holdings Acts, ii. 5; iv. 64, 65
Agriculture, Royal Commissions of Inquiry into the
state of, iii. 192; Lord Salisbury on the Report of
the Royal Commission for Ireland, 193; the
Liberal Party and, iv. 118, 211, 212
Ahmed Aja, Bulgarian leader, arrest of, ii. 46
Alabama Claims. i. 92, 152; arbitration on, ii. 158
Albert, Prince Consort, death of, i. 70
Albert Edward, Prince of Wales, ii. 9, 10, 14, 16,
32; iv. 90, 93, 96, 128, 148, 170
Albert Victor, Prince, iv. 179
Alexandria, the bombardment of, iv. 59, 70
Alexander II., of Russia, and the alienation of
Roumania, i. 58; repudiates the Black Sea
Clause, 148, 150; and the Khiva Expedition, 190;
mediates between Germany and France, ii. 35;
and Lord Augustus Loftus at Livadia, 60; his
reply to Lord Beaconsfield's Guildhall speech, 61,
62; at the siege of Plevna, 96, 97; Nihilist
attempt on his life, 238; assassination of, iii. 154
Alexander III., of Russia, and the Bulgarian
throne, iv. 143; death of, 210
Alice, Princess, of Hesse, death of, ii. 201
VOL. IV.
૨
Aliens Bill, iv. 209
Allon, Dr., on Russia and England, ii. 67, 68
Allotments and Parish Councils, iv. 178, 202
Alsace, its cession to Germany, i. 142
Anarchism and the Aliens Bill, iv. 209
Andersen, Hans Christian, death of, ii. 35
Andrassy, Count, ii. 44, 45, 94, 71, 106
Angra Pequane, annexed by Germany, iv. 92
Anne of Cleves, relic of, at Hatfield House, i. 12
"Annual Register," the, quoted, ii. 82, 126, 170
Anti-Corn Law League, i. 32
Antonelli, Cardinal, the will of, ii. 170, 171
Arab slave-dealers suppressed, iv. 167
Arbitration, International, i. 152-154
Arceuil, Communist excesses at, i. 144
Arctic exploration, Captain Nares' expedition, ii. 37
Ardahan, capture of, ii. 94
Argentine Republic, crisis in the, iv. 174
Argyll, Duke of, i. 38, 50, 66, 109, 115, 118, 189,
192, 205; ii. 83, 102, 164, 216, 217; iv. 59, 77, 142
Armenia, the Turks and, ii. 94, 216; iv. 203, 210. 211
Armstrong, Sir William, his 100-ton gun,
ii. 158
Army, the, Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman and, iv. 200
Army Act, the, object of, ii. 210; the " flogging
clauses," 211, 212
Army Purchase (Abolition) and Regulation Bills,
i. 154-157, 164
Army Reform Bill, Mr. Childers', iii. 134
Arnim, Count von, feud with Bismarck, ii. 37; his
trial and condemnation, 37
Arrears Bill, iv. 4, 11, 12, 14, 16
Arterial Drainage (Ireland) Bill, iv. 172
Artisans' Dwellings Act (1875), The, ii. 3, 4, 6
Ashantee War, the, i. 170, 176, 198-202
Ashbourne, Lord, political career, i. 56, 62; iv. 108,
112, 140, 222
Ashbourne Act, iv. 152, 166, 167
Ashley, Mr. Evelyn, ii. 158; iv. 21
Asia, Russian operations of war in, ii. 92-94, 97
Asquith, Mr. Henry, iv. 196, 200, 201, 207, 214
Assake, battle of, ii. 157
Attorneys' and Solicitors' Remuneration Act, i. 133
Augustenburg, Duke of, i. 72
Australasia, visit of Lord Salisbury to, i. 22, 23; the
Australia Constitution Bill and its defects, 24;
gold discovered in, 24, 25
Australia, and German Colonial Extension, iv. 92;
and French military stations in the New Heb-
rides, 160; her naval squadron, 161; bank failures
in, 203, 204
Austria, and the Eastern question during 1853-
1858, i. 42, 50, 58; strained relations with France,
58; at war with the latter, 63; declares war
against Denmark, 74; at war with Prussia, 92,
135; its effect on her constitution and position as
a European Power, 149, 150; and the Treaty of
San Stefano, ii. 106; intervenes in the Servo-
Bulgarian war, 128; her alliance with Germany,
239, 240: Mr. Gladstone on the foreign policy of,
iii. 63; Mr. Gladstone's apology to, 76; friendly
relations of, with Italy and Germany, 154; and
the Triple Alliance, iv. 92, 190; and the Bulgarian
question, 157; strained relations with Russia, 157,
158
226
INDEX.
Ayoob Khan, and the Candahar revolt, ii. 195, 198
Ayrton, Mr., parliamentary career, i. 169,178,180,182
Azim, and the Afghan throne, ii. 174
Baden, joins Prussia against France, i. 135
"Bag and Baggage" policy of Mr. Gladstone, ii. 85,87
Bagehot, Mr. Walter, death of, ii. 172
Baggallay, Sir Richard, i. 186
Baker, General, ii. 193
Baker, General Valentine, ii. 96
Balfour, Mr. Arthur James, i. 16; ii. 217, 230; iv.
65, 76, S5, 108. 126, 140, 150, 153, 156, 157, 165-
167, 169, 191, 192, 205, 211, 220, 222
Balfour, Mr. Jabez, iv. 205
Balfour, Mr. James, i. 16
Balfour of Burleigh, Lord, iv. 202, 207, 222
Balkan Peninsula, The, rife for revolution, ii. 46
Balkans, Austria and the, iv. 143
Balkh, flight of Shere Ali to, ii. 188
Balla Demonstration, The, ii. 236, 237
Balliol College, Oxford, education at, ii. 147
Ballot, the. i. 158, 159, 164, 176
Bank Holidays Bill, i. 133
Bankruptcy Act, iv. 61, 65
Barba villa Murders, the, in Ireland, iv. 110
Baring, Sir Evelyn. See Cromer, Lord
Barings, commercial failure of the, iv. 174
Baroda and the Baroda Commission, ii. 16, 18, 20
Bartley, Mr. G. C. T., iv. 103, 104
Bashi-Bazouks, the, and the Bulgarian atrocities, ii.
48, 50
Basing, Lord, i. 186; ii. 200
Basutoland, iv. 92
Batak, the slaughter of, ii. 50
Bateman, Lord, on Reciprocity, ii. 231
Bath, Lord, votes for the Irish Church Bill, i. 119
Batoum, Russian defeat at, ii. 92-94
Battenberg, Prince Alexander of, prince of Bulgaria,
ii. 126-129; iv. 143, 148, 210
Battenberg, Prince Henry of, ii. 129; iv. 93, 94
Bavaria and the Franco-German War, i. 135, 144
Bayard, Mr. Secretary, iv. 167
Bayreuth, the Wagner festival at, ii. 158
Bazaine, General, i. 136, 138, 140, 141
Beaconsfield, the Earl of, relic of, at Hatfield House,
i. 12; his Imperial policy adopted by Lord Salis-
bury, 24; his attitude towards Lord Palmerston
in 1852, 36; as a Parliamentary leader, 36; his
Budget, 38; on coalitions, 38; chagrin at refusal
of Lord Derby to form a Ministry during Crimean
War, 48; supports Mr. Roebuck's resolution, 51;
votes in favour of Cobden's motion on the China
War, 53; Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1858,
56; his Reform Bill of 1859, 61, 62; and the
Schleswig-Holstein question, 73, 74; his motion
of censure on Lord Palmerston's Government
defeated, 75; and the division on the 1866 Reform
Bill, 86; offers leadership in Commons to Lord
Stanley, 90; retains leadership of Commons and
becomes Chancellor of the Exchequer, 92; his
Reform Resolution and Bill and Lord Salisbury's
opposition to it, 94-102; becomes Premier, 106;
resigns after Conservative defeat at General Elec-
tion, 115; approves of Archbishop Tait's action
on Irish Church Bill, 117; and the Irish Land
Act of 1870, 127, 128; denounces Mr. Gladstone's
Irish University Bill and Irish policy, 166; re-
fuses office, 167; his manifesto in 1874, 175-177;
victory of his party at the polls, 178; oratorical
castigation of Mr. Lowe, 182, 183; forms a
Ministry, 183; his relations with Lord Salisbury,
181, 185; composition of his Ministry, 185, 186;
views on the Home Rule movement, 187: his
influence with the masses, 188; and the Public
Worship Regulation Bill, 214-216; receives free-
dom of the City, 218; his 1875 Administration,
ii. 4, 5; his prophecy regarding Mr. Gladstone,
30; National Trades Union Congress on his labour
legislation, 32; relations with Lord Salisbury on
the Eastern Question, 38, 39, 64, 132; drawbacks
in his character, 39; on the crisis in the East, 40;
his flippant treatment of the Bulgarian atrocities,
51, 52; his greatest service to England, 52, 54 ;
defiant speech at Russia, 57; baseless imputations
concerning, 57, 58; speech on Servia, the Secret
Societies of Europe, 58; bitter retort on Mr. Glad-
stone, 58-60; threatening speech at the Guildhall,
61; controversy on the subject, 62; graceful
tribute to Lord Salisbury on his appointment to
the European Conference, 64; blamed for the
failure of the European Conference, 74; on the
coercion of Turkey, 83-86; his vindication of
Lord Salisbury, 86; his relations with Lord Car-
narvon, 100, 102, 103; his defence of the Govern-
ment, 101; eulogy of Lord Derby, 107, 108; Mr.
Gladstone's rule of conduct towards, 104; an-
nounces the calling out of the Reserve Forces, 107,
108; on the British Empire, 114; and the order-
ing of Indian troops to Malta, 118; on the duties
of the Opposition, 118; Plenipotentiary at Berlin
Congress, 119; foreign opinion on the diplomacy
of, 124-126; its chief mistake, 126; return of,
from the Berlin Congress, 132; triumphant re-
ception of, 132; "Peace with Honour" speech,
132; invested with the Order of the Garter, 132:
banquet to, 132-136; memorable rally of, against
Mr. Gladstone, 132-134; the freedom of the City
bestowed on, 136; and the Royal Titles Bill, 143-
146; on Dissenters and Parish Churchyards, 150;
created Earl of, 170; speech on a "scientific
frontier for India, 178; in justification of Go-
vernment policy towards Afghanistan, 186-187; on
the "
peace-at-any-price" principle, 187; Mr.
John Bright on his government, 218; repudiation
of Reciprocity, 231; Letter to the Duke of Marl-
borough, iii. 53; on agricultural depression, 60 ;
comparison between Mr. Gladstone and, 67; mani-
festo of the Home Rule party against, 72; resig-
nation of. 72; on the Compensation for Disturb-
ance (Ireland) Bill, 108; on the policy of the
Liberal Government, 126; illness, death an
funeral of, 138; Mr. Gladstone on, 138; Lord
Granville on, 140; Lord Salisbury on, 141; his
warlike and Liberal peace policy compared, iv. 66;
his probable action regarding Liberal measures,
82; his election cry, 106
Beatrice, Princess, ii. 129; iv. 93, 94
Bechuanaland, iv. 60, 91, 182
Behar, the famine in, i. 191
""
Behring Sea Fisheries dispute, iv. 183, 188, 192, 205,
209
-
Belfast, College in, i. 165; sectarian riots at, ii. 156
Belgium, her independence threatened, i. 144-146
Belgrade, reception of Prince Alexander at, ii. 129
Belleville, Communist headquarters, i. 140-144
"Belmullet Massacre," the, iii. 216
Beltcheff, M., assassination of, ii. 130
Bengal, famine in, i. 191, 194; cyclone disaster in,
ii. 160
Benson, Archbishop, and free education, iv. 187
Bentinck, Lord George, death of, i. 34
Berber Railway, Lord Salisbury and the, iv. 119
Beresford-Hope, Mr. A. J. B., i. 16
Berlin Congress, the, ii. 119, 124
Berlin Memorandum, the, ii. 54, 55, 101
Besika Bay, i. 42, 43; ii. 102, 103
Bessarabia, i. 58; the retrocession of, ii. 131
Biggar, Mr. J. G., ii. 32, 160, 212; iv. 22
Bismarck, Count Herbert von, on German relations
with Great Britain, iv. 167
Bismarck, Prince von, and the Franco-German
War, i. 134, 137, 151; and the Eastern Question,
151; his feud with Count von Arnim, ii. 37, 51,
71, 74, 122, 124; his advice to England re-
garding Egypt, 202, 203; his policy in Africa and
Australia, iv. 92; hostility to England, 94; charac-
teristics of, 158; and the German Emperor, 173
Black Mountains, Disturbance in the, iv. 168
Black Sea, the, i. 43; the neutrality of, 50, 147-151
Blaine, Mr. James G., death of, iv. 205
INDEX.
Blignières, M. de, Egyptian appointment, ii. 204, 230
Board of Agriculture established, iv. 172
Board Schools and free education, iv. 187
Boers, the, and the Zulus, iii. 1; agitation and
rebellion against British rule, 23-26; and the
Bechuanas, iv. 60; Radical sympathies with, 68;
their intrigues in Natal and Zululand, 92; the
Swazis and, 182, 216
Bokhara, works ou, ii. 158
Booth, Mr. Sclater. See Basing, Lord
Bosnia, ii. 60; under the Treaty of Berlin, 216
Bosphorus, the, proposed demonstration in, ii. 60
Boulanger, General, iv. 157, 158, 167, 172, 173, 174
Bourke, Hon. Robert, i. 186; ii. 214
Bouverie, Mr. E. P., and the Abolition of Purchase
in the Army, i. 157; on the 1874 Conservative
victory, 180; and the University of Cambridge
Bill, ii. 150
Bowyer, Sir George, and the Reform Club, ii, 144
Boycott, Captain, the treatment of, iii. 175
Boycotting, sanctioned by Mr. Parnell, Mr. Dillon,
and Mr. J. W. Walshe, iii. 174: the Land League
and, 176; of Jeremiah Hegarty, 176; the Judges
of the Parnell Commission on, 178
Boyton, Capt., crosses the English Channel, ii. 37
Bradlaugh, Mr. Charles, and the Oath question, iii.
95, 98, 100, 102, 103, 134, 135; iv. 60, 108
Brady, Joseph, and the Phoenix Park Murders, iv. 17
Braniley-Moore, Mr., and the Brazilian difficulty, i. 70
Brand, President, and the Transvaal, iii. 35
Brand, Mr. Speaker. See Hampden, Viscount
Brassey, Sir Thomas, iv. 102
Brazil, deposition of Dom Pedrɔ, iv. 176
Brazilian Difficulty, the, i. 70
Brett, victim of Fenian outrage, i. 105
Bright, Dr. Franck, i. 179, 180
Bright, Mr. John, political and ministerial career,
i. 54, 115, 123, 169, 180, 188, 189; ii. 64, 99,
118, 217, 218, 233, 234; iii. 64, 187; iv. 59,
60, 66, 69, 82, 104, 131, 138; death of, 172
British East African Company, iv. 182, 206, 216
British Niger Company, iv. 182
British South Africa Company, iv. 182
Broadhurst, Mr. Henry, and the Housing of the
Poor, iv. 90
Brodhurst, Mr., his description of the Marble Hall,
Hatfield House, i. 10
Brodrick, Mr. St. John, iv. 218
Broglie, the Duc de, resignation of, ii. 168, 169
Browne, General Sir Samuel, ii. 188
Bruce, Mr. Sce Aberdare, Lord
Brussels Conference on the Slave Trade, iv. 192
Bryce, Mr. James, iv. 196, 206, 212
Buckstone, Mr. John, death of, ii. 239
Bulair, the lines of, the occupation of, ii. 106
Bulgareni, repulse of Osman Pasha at, ii. 96
Bulgaria, i. 58; Rebel Council in, ii. 46; outbreak
of hostilities, 46; proposed Russian occupation of,
60; Russian invasion of, 94; Abdul Kerim and,
94; unnatural constitution of, 126; election of
Prince Alexander, 126; union of Eastern Rou-
melia with, 127, 128, 146; revolution and abdica-
tion of Prince Alexander, 128, 129; relation of
principality with Russia. 129, 130; plots and
rebellions, 130; election of Prince Ferdinand, 130;
under the treaty of Berlin, 214; Russian intrigue
in, iv. 143, 148; Prince Ferdinand and the throne
of, 157; general election in, 174; the Czar and, 210
Bulgarian atrocities, the, ii. 45-52, 68, 175
Bulgarian Horrors," Mr. Gladstone's, ii. 58
Buller, Sir Redvers, iv. 142
""
227
Bulmer, Sir Henry, iii. 1, 4; iv. 92
Burgers, President, and the annexation of the
Transvaal, ii. 166
Burghley, Lord (William Cyssell or Cecil), i. 1-5, 8, 12
Burial Service, The, Mr. Austin Holyoake's version
of, ii. 153
Burials Bill (1877), The, ii. 162, 163; iii. 115
Burke, Mr. T. H., murder of, iv. 6, 7, 134, 154
Burmah, iv. 120, 123, 149
Burnaby, Colonel F., his "Ride to Khiva," ii. 158
Burne-Jones, Sir E., ii. 172
Burrows, General, and the Afghan War, ü. 195
Butt, Mr. Isaac, i. 186; ii. 147, 156, 160, 201; his
death, 239
Buxton, Mr. Sidney, and the Swazis, iv. 216
Byrne, Mr. and Mrs. Frank, iv. 18
Cabul, Russian and British missions to, ii. 174, 175;
massacre of Sir L. Cavagnari and escort at, 190;
avenged by General Roberts, 194, 195, 198
Cadogan, Lord, ministerial career, iv. 140, 152, 222
Caffrey, and the Phoenix Park murders, iv. 17
Caine, Mr. W. S., iv. 91, 138
Cairus, Lord, parliamentary career, i. 56, 106, 109,
110, 119, 124, 162, 163, 186; ii. 212; iv. 59, 77,
79, 80
Calice, Baron, ii. 75
Callan, Mr. Philip, ii. 147
Cambridge, George, Duke of, ii. 30; his retirement,
iv. 218
Cambriel, General, i. 138
Cameron, Commander, in Africa, ii. 36, 37
Campbell, Lord, i. 62
Campbell, Sir George, i. 192, 193; ii. 68
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry, political and
ministerial career, iv. 91, 132, 196, 200, 213, 218
Canada, Fenian raid on, i. 152; the Marquis of
Lorne Governor-General of, ii. 204, 205
Candahar, the British and, ii. 190, 195, 197, 198;
iii. 120, 126
Canning, Lord, i. 50
Canterbury Settlement (New Zealand), i. 26
Cape Colony, and Walfisch Bay, iv. 180; and the
South African customs union, 182
Cape of Good Hope, the, cable laid to, ii. 238
Cardwell, Lord, parliamentary career, i. 38, 154-157
Carey, James, informer, iv. 17; his doom, 21
Carlingford, Lord, i. 178; iii. 197; iv. 59
Carlyle, Thomas, on political economy, i. 129; on
Russia and "The unspeakable Turk," ii. 69, 70
Carnarvon, Lord, i. 92, 95, 109, 119, 160, 184, 186;
ii. 33-35, 100-103, 163; iv. 77, 108-110, 128
Carnot, President, iv. 158; assassination of, 209
Carrington, Lord, accident to, in India, ii. 14
Catholic Defenders, i. 43
Cavagnari, Sir L., mission to Cabul, ii. 175, 190
Cave, Mr. Stephen, his mission to Egypt, ii. 29, 30
Cavendish, Lord Frederick, Chief Secretary for
Ireland, iv. 6; murdered, 7, 134, 154
Cecil, Lady Frances, i. 16
Cecil, Lady Gwendolen, i. 80
Cecil, Lady Maud, i. 80; ii. 70, 71
Cecil, Lady Mildred, i. 16
Cecil, Lord Edward, i. 79
Cecil, Lord Eustace, i. 16
Cecil, Lord Hugh, i. 0
Cecil, Lord Robert (son), i. 79
Cecil, Lord Robert (brother), i. 22
Cecil, Lord William, i. 79
Cecil, Sir Robert, Baron, and 1st Earl of Salisbury (q.v.)
Celman, President, and the Argentine crisis, iv. 174
Central Africa, iv. 175
Central Asia, Russia in, ii. 22, 163, 238; works on,
on, 158
228
INDEX.
Cetywayo, and Zululand, iii. 2, 6, 7, 16, 20, 21; iv.
70, 92
Ceylon, visit of the Prince of Wales to, ii. 10.
Chalmers, Dr., and the Free Church, i. 205
Chamberlain, Mr. Joseph, political and ministerial
career, i, 178; iii. 64; iv. 4, 9, 10, 21, 59, 61, 62,
65, 66, 83, 84, 86, 94, 95, 112, 114, 119, 120, 122,
125, 131, 132, 137-139, 141, 148, 152, 151, 170,
172, 173, 187, 206, 211, 218, 220, 222
Chamberlain, Sir Neville, mission to Cabul, ii. 175
Chanzy, General, defeat of, i. 141, 142
Chaplin, Mr. Henry, political and ministerial career,
ii. 86, 91, 231; iv. 22, 140, 172, 222
Charasiab, battle of, ii. 194
·
Charitable Institutions, taxation of, i. 70-72
Charles I. and the second Earl of Salisbury, i. 13
Charles, Prince of Hohenzollern, i. 58
Charlotte, Empress, her residence burnt, ii. 239
Chartism, revival of, i. 19, 20
Chassepot rifle, the, i. 135
Chaudordy, Comte de, ii. 75
Chefoo Convention, ii. 35, 157
Chelmsford, Lord, parliamentary and official career,
i. 36, 54, 56, 136; ii. 206; iii. 6, 9, 10, 17, 20
Cherif Pasha, Prime Minister of Turkey, ii. 230
Chester Castle, Fenian designs on, i. 104
Childers, Mr. Hugh C. E., i. 86, 115, 169; iii. 134;
iv. 60, 104, 132, 134, 170
China, and Port Hamilton, iv. 159; at war with
Japan, 209, 210
China War, the, i. 52, 53
Chislehurst, Napoleon III. at, i. 143; funeral of the
Prince Imperial at, iii. 18
Christchurch, N.Z., University settlement at, i. 26
Christian IV., of Denmark, at Theobalds, i. S
Christian, Prince, of Glücksberg, i. 72
Church of England, the, i. 17, 18, 110, 130-132,
176, 204-218; iv. 114
Church of Scotland, The, iv. 114
Church of Scotland Patronage Bill, i. 205, 206
Church Rates, Bill for their abolition, i. 105, 106
Churchill, Lord Randolph, iii. 100, 106; iv. 62-64,
84, 90, 91, 104, 106-110, 118, 132, 140, 142, 143,
145-148, 172, 177; his death, 210, 211
"Circassians," the, of the Liberal party, ii. 222
Citium, the Greek Bishop of, and the British ad-
ministration of Cyprus, ii. 213, 214
-
City Corporation, the, Lord Salisbury on, iv. 71
City of Glasgow Bank, the failure of, ii. 205
Clan-na-Gael, the, or United Brotherhood, iii. 162;
iv. 18-20
Clanricarde, Lord, and Plan of Campaign, iv. 144
Clarendon, Lord, political and ministerial career, i.
33, 50, 79, 89, 109, 114, 115; death of, 133
Clarke, Sir Edward, iii. 48; iv. 140
Clayden, Mr. P. W., cited, i. 182, 218; ii. 39, 40
Clémenceau, M., iv., 21, 158
Cleopatra's Needle. crected in London, iii. 206
Clerkenwell Gaol, Fenian outrage at, i. 105
Cleveland, the Duke of, ii. 147, 150
Cleveland, President, and Ld. Sackville, iv. 167, 205
Closure, the, iv. 149, 154, 160
Cluseret, Communist leader, i. 143, 144
Coal Mines Bill, the, i. 164
Coalitions, Mr. Disraeli on, i. 38
Cobden, Mr. Richard, i. 32, 37, 53, 54; ii. 99, 231
Coercion, iii. 184, 185; iv. 109, 116, 130, 137
Coffin-ships, Mr. Samuel Plimsoll on, ii. 4
Coleridge, Lord, i. 115; ii. 152; iv. 21; death of, 206
Colley, Sir George, and the Transvaal, and death,
iii. 30, 32, 34
Collier, Sir Robert. See Monkswell, Lord
Collings, Mr. Jesse, iv. 118, 119, 131
Commons, the House of, conflict with the House of
Lords, i. 63-68; reform of procedure, ii. 212;
dynamite outrage, iv. 96
Commune, the, i. 140-144
Compensation for Disturbance Bill, iii. 104
Conciliation of Trades Disputes Bill, iv. 206, 211, 212
"Concurrent endowment," ii. 201, 212
Congo State, the, and the "Wasp's Waist," iv. 180;
its position and the European Powers, 180, 182
Connaught, the Duke of, his marriage, ii. 204, 238
Consols, conversion of, by Mr. Goschen, iv. 162
Conspiracy, laws of, iv. 198
Conspiracy to Murder Bill, .i. 56
Constans, M., iv. 172-174
Constantinople, proposed Russian occupation of, ii.
100, 102, 106; panic at, 116
Coomassie, the expedition to, i. 200
Cooper's Hill Engineering College, ii. 20
Corea and the evacuation of Port Hamilton, iv. 159
Cork, college in, i. 165; disloyalty at, iv. 128
Corn laws, the repeal of, i. 32; ii. 233, 234
Corrupt Practices Act, The, ii. 210; iv. 58, 64
County Franchise, Mr. Disraeli on the extension of,
i. 176
County Franchise and Redistribution of Seats Bill,
iv. 74-90, 103
County Government Bill, the, ii. 203
Courtney's, Mr. Leonard, political career, ii. 166;
iv. 88, 131, 107, 212
Cowley, Captain, and the relief of Manipur, iv. 189
Cowper, Lord, iv. 6, 7, 77, 136
Cowper Commission, the, iv. 152
Cranborne, first Viscount, i. 6
Cranborne, Viscount (brother), i. 16, 79
Cranborne, Viscount (James Cecil), i. 22, 79
Cranbrook, Ld., political and ministerial career, i. 92,
160, 186, 214; ii. 30, 104, 180, 196; iv. 108, 140
Cranmer, his "Treatise on Councils at Hatfield
House, i. 12
""
Crete, i. 40; ii. 214
Crimea War, the, sketch of events leading up to,
i. 40-43; beginning of hostilities and other parti-
culars concerning, 46, 47, 50, 51, 52, 150; ii. 100
Crimes Act, the, iv. 150, 152, 154, 165, 214
Crispi, Signor, and the Triple Alliance, iv. 173
Croke, Archbishop, iv. 17, 24
Cromer, Lord, ii. 48-50; iv. 198
Cromwell and the second Earl of Salisbury, i. 14
Cross, Mr. J. K., iv. 60
Cross, Lord, i. 186; ii. 3, 4, 32, 91, 92, 161, 200; iii.
52; iv. 90, 91, 140, 222
Cruickshank, George, death of, ii. 206
Cunningham, dynamiter, iv. 96
Curley and the Phoenix Park murders, iv. 17
Curtin, dynamiter, trial of, iv. 21
Curzon, Mr. Geo., parliamentary career, iv. 191, 192
Customs union between Great Britain, her Indian
possessions, and Portugal, ii. 238
Cyclone in Bengal, ii. 160
Cyprus, Great Britain and, ii. 124-126, 202, 213, 214
Cyssell, David, Sheriff of Northampton, i. 1
Cyssell, Richard, Master of the Robes to Henry
VIII., i. 1
Cyssell, William. See Burghley, Lord
Dalhousie, Lord, ministerial career, iv. 134
Danube, the Russian Army of the, ii. 92, 94
Darboy, Archbishop, murder of, i. 144
Dardanelles, the, i. 42, 43; ii. 100-103
Davitt, Mr. Michael, ii. 236, 237; iii. 163, 189; iv.
2, 4, 22, 24, 25
Day, Mr. Justice, iv. 166
Deak, Frank, death of, ii. 158
Death Duties Budget, iv. 207-209
Decazes, the Duke, ii. 71
Declaration of Paris, the, ii. 182
De Giers, M., ii. 184; iv. 98
Delagoa Bay, the, dispute, ii. 35; iv. 176
Delaney, Pat., and the Phoenix Park murders, iv.. 71
•
Delescluze, Communist leader. i. 143, 144
Delhi, the Queen proclaimed Empress at, ii. 166
Delyannis, M., iv. 146, 147
De Mauley, Lord, ii. 163, 164
Denmark, war with Prussia, i. 72-76; Prince Walde-
mar of, and the throne of Bulgaria, ii. 130
Derby, Lord, i. 34, 36, 37, 38, 48, 56, 57, 61, 62, 73,
89, 90, 102, 106, 109, 114, 118, 124
Derby, Lord, i. 33, 56, 57, 74, 88, 90, 92, 186, 218;
ii. 29, 32, 44, 51, 54, 55, 60-62, 68, 75, 77, 82,
87, 88, 100, 107, 108, 114, 138-140, 178; iii. 61;
iv. 21, 60, 77, 92, 122, 131
Dervish Pasha, ii. 42
Devonshire, the Duke of, i. 119
Devonshire, the Duke of, ii. 30-32, 91, 115, 187,
196; iv. 60, 61, 70, 71, 82-85, 111-115, 120, 122,
131, 132, 134, 136-141, 146, 148, 152, 153, 211,
218, 220, 222
Devoy, Mr., iii. 166, 220
Dicey, Mr. Edward, on the Transval, iii. 36
Dilke, Sir Charles, ii. 150, 160; iv. 60, 83, 84, 86, 90
Dillon, Mr. John, iii. 174, 212; iv. 4, 12, 16, 17, 24,
143, 144
Dinizulu, rebellion of, iv. 92, 168
INDEX.
Diseases of Animals Bill, ii. 200
Disestablishment, the Liberal Party and, iv. 114
Dissenters and Parish Churchyards, ii. 150-154. Sec
Burials Bill, the
Dissenting Ministers, Conference of, ii. 118
Dixon, Mr., his Elementary Education Bill, ii. 154
Dodson, Mr. See Monk Breton, Lord
Dom Pedro and the Brazilian throne, iv. 176
Dongola, the evacuation of, iv. 119, 120
Donoughmore, Lord, and the Irish Land Act, iv. 1
Dost Mohammed, the succession to, ii. 174
Douay, General Abel, death of, i. 136
Douglas, Mr. Akers, iv. 108, 140, 222
Doyle, Sir Francis, Ode on Lord Salisbury, i. 124,
125
Dragoman Pass, the, battle at, ii. 128
Dreikaiserbund, the, ii. 40, 41, 44, 45, 52-55
Dublin University, Mr. Gladstone and, i. 165
Dudevant, Madame, death of, ii. 158
Dudley, Lord, and Employers' Liability, iv. 200-202
Dufaure, M., Ministry of, ii. 169
Dufferin, Lord, i. 115; iv. 101, 128
Duke of Teck, the, and the loss of the Princess Alice,
ii. 206
Dulcigno, cession of, to Montenegro, iii. 88
Duleep Singh, and the Duke of Connaught, ii. 238
Dunkellin, Lord, and the Reform Bill, i. 82, 89
Dunraven, Lord, and the House of Lords, iv. 164
Dynamite Plots, iv. 20, 21
East Africa, British, Portuguese, and German
interests in, iv. 167, 174, 175, 180
East India Company, and the government of India,
i. 57, 58
Eastern Question, The, ii. 38-48, 52-57, 60-63, 74-79,
82, 87-89,106-113, 116-124, 132; iii. 78, 82, 126;
iv. 145
•
Eastern Roumelia, ii. 46, 214, 219, 220; iv. 146
Edhem Pasha, ii. 75, 80
Edinburgh, opening of the Midlothian campaign at,
ii. 237
Education, Elementary, Lord Salisbury's interest in,
and legislation concerning, i. 57, 78, 129-132, 175,
178, 182; ii. 154-156
Edward VI. and William Cecil, i. 2; historical relics
of, at Hatfield House, 12
Egan, Mr. Patrick, iv. 18
Egypt, particulars about, i. 40; ii. 29, 30, 202, 203,
204, 230, 231; iv. 60, 61, 74, 94, 109, 120, 149,
159, 169, 175, 180, 182, 198
Ekowe, fortification and relief of, iii. 6, 16, 17
Electric Lighting Bill, iv. 59
Elizabeth, Queen, and the Cecil family, i. 2-5, 8;
historical relics of, at Hatfield House, 11, 12
Elliott, Sir Henry, British Ambassador, at Constan-
tinople, ii. 51, 55, 74, 82, 106, 107.
Ellis, Mr. J. E., Liberal Whip, iv. 206
Elmina, attacked by the Ashantees, i. 200
Emin Pasha, the relief of, iv. 148, 174
Emmanuel Hospital, i. 159
Empire of Sodom," the, Prof. Freeman on, ii. 65
Employers' Liability Bill, iii. 115; iv. 197, 200, 201
Empress of India, the Queen proclaimed, ii. 166
Ems, King William of Prussia at, i. 134
Enchantress, The, Admiralty yacht, ii. 16
Endowed Schools Bill, i. 204, 205
(C
..
Enfield, Lord, defeat of, at 1874 election, i. 178
Equalisation of Rates Bill, iv. 200, 206, 207
Equatorial Africa, Lord Salisbury on, iv. 119
Errington, Sir George, mission to Rome, ii. 25
Erzeroum, the Russians at, ii. 94, 97
་
Esher, Lord, and the dynamite trials, iv. 21
Eton, Lord Salisbury at, i. 16
229
Etropol Balkans, the, daring march over, ii. 116
Eugénie, Empress, i. 136, 137, 142
European Conference, the, ii. 62, 63, 74-79
Evicted Tenants Bill, iv. 206, 207
Evicted Tenants Commission, iv. 196, 206
Ewelme case, the, i. 163, 164, 180
Exclusion Bill, 3rd Earl of Salisbury and the, i. 14
Exeter, the House of, i. 4
Exeter, the Marquis of, i. 26; iv. 65
Exeter College, Oxford, education at, ii. 147
Explosive Substances Act, the, iv. 20´
Factories and Workshops Bill, the, iv. 211, 214
Factory and Workshops Act, the, ii. 200
Factory Legislation, the Radicals and, i. 19; ii. 99
Fagan, and the Phoenix Park Murders, iv. 17
Fakhri Pasha, iv. 198
Farnborough, Lord, his work on Democracy, ii. 172
Farrell, Robt., and the Phoenix Park Murders, iv. 17
"Father of Lies," the, ii. 71, 72
Faversham, Lord, fire at his residence, ii. 238
Favre, M. Jules, i. 136, 137, 142
Fawcett, Prof. Hy., i. 157, 178; ii. 3, 68, 69, 118;
iv. 59, 94.
Federalism, Mr. T. J. Smyth on, ii. 147
Fenianism, in England, America, and Ireland, i.
104, 112, 125, 152; ii. 146, 147; iii, 162, 172;
iv. 95, 96
Ferdinand, Prince, and Bulgaria, iv. 157, 174
Fergusson, Sir James, iv. 148, 191
Ferry, M. Jules, iv. 158
Fieréck, General, i. 138
Fife, the Duke of, betrothal, iv. 170
Fiji, annexation of, ii. 34
Fitzgerald, Mr. Vesey, on gold in Australia, i. 25
Fitzharris, and the Phoenix Park murders, iv. 17
Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond, iv. 60
Flogging in the Army, abolition of, ii. 212
Flourens, M., Communist, i. 140; iv. 157, 158, 160
Food Adulteration Act (1875), the, ii. 4
Forbes, Mr. Archibald, ii. 95, 96; iii. S
Forster, Mr. W. E., i. 78, 79, 115, 129-132, 178,
182, 222; ii. 103, 104, 154-156; iii. 186; iv. 1, 4,
6, 7, 9, 22, 59-61, 91, 97, 131, 153
Fortescue, Mr. Chichester. See Carlingford, Lord
Fortnightly Review, Lord Randolph in, iy. 63-
Forty-one hours' Sitting, the, iii. 188
"Forward policy," the, in India, ii. 175, 176
"Fourth party," the, iii. 100, 116
Fowler, Sir H. H., 6, 200, 202, 205, 218 iv. 19
France, Revolution in, i. 18; the Coup d'Etat in,
35; her religious dispute with Russia, 40; signs
the "Vienna Note," 42; joins England against
China, 52; remonstrates with England regarding
the Orsini conspiracy, 54-56; and the Union of
230
INDEX.
Moldavia and Wallachia, 58, 59; war against
Austri, 63; refuses to interfere in the Schleswig-
Holstein dispute, 74; war with Germany and
the Commune, 129, 133-144; proposal to annex
Belgium, 144-146; effect of the war on the
"Black Sea Clause," 147, 149
147, 149; British attempts
at mediation repulsed by Germany, 151; and the
Eastern Question, ii. 71; political crisis in 1877,
168, 169; her interests in the Mediterranean and
in Egypt, 202-204; resignation of Marshal Mac-
Mahon, 240; the state of parties in, at the close
of 1879, 240; position of affairs in 1880, iii. 118;
her relations with England, 150; takes possession
of Tunis, 152; relations with Great Britain iv. 69-
71; and the Egyptian question, 34; alliance with
Russia, 94; her policy in Tonkin, 94; Lord Salis-
bury and the alleged influence of, in Burmah, 120;
and the Bulgarian question, 143; and the crisis in
Greece, 147; and the Schnäbele incident, 157, 158.;
political crisis, 158; and the Egyptian question,
159, 160, 198; withdraws her troops from the New
Hebrides, 160; and the Boulanger Bubble, 167,
172, 173; Socialism in, 174; her possessions and
sphere of activity in Africa, 175, 182; and the
misunderstanding with Portugal, 176; and the
Newfoundland Fisheries, 182, 183, 188, 189; her
intimacy with Russia, 190; visit of her fleet to
Cronstadt and Portsmouth, 190; dispute with
England concerning Siam, 198, 199; and the
Sierra Leone frontier question, 211
Franklin, Lady, death of, ii. 37
Frederick III., German Emperor, i. 136; iv. 167
Frederick Charles, Prince, of Prussia, and the siege
of Metz, i. 136
Freeman, Prof. E. A., ii. 65, 66, 172
Free Education, iv. 173, 187, 188, 191, 192
Free Kirk of Scotland and the Church Patronage
Bill, i. 205, 206
Free Trade, i. 20, 28, 34, 36, 37,; ii. 231-234; iv.
127, 161, 192, 194
Frere, Sir Bartle, ii. 176; iii. 4-6, 10, 11, 14, 23, 26
Freycinet, M. de, iv. 158
Friendly Societies Act (1875), the, ii. 4
"Friends in Council," cited, ii. 36
Froude, Mr. James Anthony, and the proposed
Federation of South Africa, ii. 34
Gabriel Pasha, a prisoner, ii. 127
Gallagher, Dr. Thomas, dynamiter, trial of, iv. 21
Gallipoli, the occupation of, ii. 100, 101, 106
Galway, University Education at, i. 165
Gambetta, M., i. 133-138, 140-142; ii. 168, 169
Garfield, President, assassinated, iii. 156
Garibaldi, i. 63
Gascoynes, the, i. 15, 16; iii. 136
Gatacre, Colonel, and the Chitral Campaign, iv. 216
Geneva Arbitration, the, i. 152, 154
George I., visit to Hatfield, i. 17
George, King of Hanover, burial of, ii. 206
Germanic Confederation and the Schleswig-Holstein
Question, i. 72-76
Germany, war with France, i. 129, 133-142; effect
of the war on the "Black Sea Clause," 147, 149;
her attitude towards Belgium, ii. 35; her main
object at the Berlin Congress, 122; alliance with
Austria, 239, 240; friendly relations with Italy
and Austria, iii. 154; Colonial policy, iv. 92; her
alliances in 1884, 94; and the Schnäbele incident,
157, 158; relations with Great Britain in 1888,
167; colonial rivalry with the latter in Africa, 174,
175, 180, 182, 216; and Sassoon, 182
Gibson, Mr. Milner. See Ashbourne, Lord
Giffard, Sir Hardinge. See Halsbury, Lord
Ginghilovo, Lord Chelmsford's victory at, iii. 17
Girishk, arrival of General Burrows at, ii. 195
Gladstone, Mr. Herbert, iv. 21, 22, 206
ladstone, Mr. W. E., his share in founding the
Oxford Union Society, i. 20; joins Lord Aber-
deen's ministry, 38; his budgets, 39, 44; his eulogy
on Lord Salisbury's maiden speech, 44; refuses to
join a Conservative ministry during the Crimean
War, 48; and Lord Palmerston's ministry, 49, 51,
53; action as Chancellor of the Exchequer, 62-
68, 70-72; becomes leader of the House of Com-
mons, 79; his Franchise Bill, 80-82; action after
the division, 88, 89; influence of Fenian outrages
on, 105; resolution to disestablish the Irish Church
and Bill to abolish Church rates, 105-107, 111-
115; forms a ministry, 115; his Irish policy,
115-121, 127, 128; unpopularity of his ministry,
154; abolishes army purchase by Royal Warrant,
156; his share in the Collier and Ewelme jobs,
163, 164; his Irish University Bill defeated, 164-
166; resigns, 166; returns to office, 167; re-forms
his ministry and becomes Chancellor of the
Exchequer, 169; his surplus and financial pro-
posals in 1874, 174, 202; candidature for Green-
wich, 174, 175, 178; defeat and resignation of his
Government (1874), 178-183; and the Home Rule
movement, 187; his letter on the leadership of the
Liberal Party, 198, 222; and Sir Stafford North-
cote's budget, 204; and the Public Worship Regu-
lation Bill, 212-215; his controversy on Papal
Infallibility, 218-222; compels withdrawal of the
Savings Bank Bill (1875), ii. 4; his return to public
life, 30; his "Bulgarian Horrors" pamphlet, 58;
his "
bag and baggage" policy, 58, 87; on Lord
Salisbury's appointment to the European Confer-
ence, 65; and General Ignatieff compared, 71;
speeches on the Eastern Question, 82, 83; denounces
the policy of drift, 89; his four resolutions, 90-92;
speech on proposed supplementary estimate for six
millions, 104; his denunciation of Lord Salisbury's
circular, 115; on the ordering of Indian troops to
Malta, 118; on our "insane covenant" with Tur-
key, 132; and the Royal Titles B ll, 143, 146; on
"safe
as against a "scientific frontier for
India, 178, 179; speech on the injustice of the
Afghan War, 186; on Lord Lytton as a military
diplomatist, 187, 188; in support of the Irish
Intermediate Education Bill, 200, 201; criticism
on the administration of Cyprus, 214; his treat-
ment of foreign politics, 217; candidature for
Midlothian, 237; our relations with the Trans-
vaal, iii. 28, 36; his manifesto to the electors
of Greenwich, 54; speech in anticipation of the
General Election, 61-63; Mr. Chamberlain on,
64;
compared with Lord Beaconsfield, 67;
becomes Prime Minister, 73; his apology to
Austria, 76; disagreement with Mr. Parnell on
Compensation for Disturbance Bill, 107; hiɛ
illness, 116; on Lord Beaconsfield, 138; on the
enforcement of the law in Ireland, 179; and the
Irish Land Bill, 209; on proposed inquiry into
the operation of the Irish Land Act (1881), iv. 1;
and the Kilmainham Treaty, 5, 10; and the
Phoenix Park murders, 7; introduces the Arrears
Bill, 11; and Home Rule, 21, 22; and the Irish
Land Act (1881) Amendment Bill, 22; summary
of events during his second administration, 58;
his parliamentary programme, 58, 60; the 1882
Budget, 59; reconstruction of his Cabinet, 59, 60;
and South African affairs in 1882, 61; his party
and Home Rule prospects in 1883, 68; and the
Reform agitation of 1884, 68, 69; and Lord
Salisbury, 72; action regarding the county fran-
chise and redistribution, 78-90; vote of censure on
his Egyptian policy (1885), 96, 97; and the vote
of eleven millions, 100; his announcement regard-
ing coercion and the defeat of his Government,
104; defeat of his ministry in 1885, 105, 106;
views on disestablishment, 114; and Home Rule
""
*)
a
INDEX.
in 1885, 115; and the General Election of 1885,
122, 124; his attitude towards Home Rule after
the election, 124-127, 130; defeats Lord Salisbury's
Government, 131; his administration, 131-133 ;
secessions from his ranks, 134; reception and fate
of his Home Rule scheme, 134-138; dissolves Par.
liament and appeals to the country, 138; defeat
and resignation, 139; the Duke of Argyll's
attack on, 142; speech on the Address (1886), 142;
letter to the people of Athens, 147; and the Irish
Nationalists, 152; and the National League, 157;
and the Ashbourne Act, 167; and the Triple
Alliance, 173; and the report of the Parnell Com-
mission, 177; and the Protectorate in Zanzibar,
182; and the fall of Mr. Parnell, 183; on Lord
Salisbury's "Ulster" speech, 194; his 1892 elec-
tion nanifesto, 195; his majority, 195, 196;
defeats the Unionist Government in the Commons
and accepts office, 196; composition of his ad-
ministration, 196; his second Home Rule Bill,
199; and the Lords' amendments to the Parish
Councils Bill, 203; his retirement, 203; on
Armenia, 203
-
Goblet, M., iv. 158
Gordon, General, fate of, iv. 72, 94
Gormy Dubnik, the capture of, ii. 79
Gorst, Sir John, iv. 22, 108, 140, 177, 191
Gortschakoff, Prince, Russian foreign policy, i. 148,
190; ii. 54, 60, 61, 89, 100, 101, 105, 106, 114, 184
Goschen, Mr. George J., i. 38, 79, 115; iv. 68, 76,
95, 96, 120, 122, 131, 132, 134; 136, 146, 148,
162-161, 177, 178, 187, 190, 191, 222
Gourko, General, ii. 94-97, 116
Graham, General, and the relief of Manipur, iv. 189
Graham, Sir James, i. 34, 38, 49, 51
Grant, General, farewell message of, ii. 158
Grant, Lieutenant, and the relief of Manipur, iv. 189
Grant-Duff, Sir Mountstuart, ii. 192
Granville, Lord, i. 62, 109, 115, 124, 133, 140, 146,
147, 190, 198, 222; ii. 83, 101, 114, 144, 150-152,
162, 214; iii. 80, 140; iv. 1, 7, 10, 11, 78, 79, 81,
86, 92, 94, 98, 132, 159, 170
Great Lakes, the, importance of, iv. 180
Greece, the independence of, i. 146; her relations
with Turkey, ii. 131, 132, 214, 215; iv. 146, 147;
financial default of, 205
•
Greek Church, the, and the Crimea War, i. 40
Greenwich, the representation of, i. 174, 178
Greenwood, Mr. Frederick, and the purchase of
Suez Canal Shares, ii. 26
Grévy, President, and the amnesty of the Com-
murists, iii. 118; his resignation, iv. 158
Grey, Lord, political and ministerial career, i. 33,
109, 117; ii. 120, 122, 176, 180; iv. 25
Grey, Sir Edward, iv. 216
Grey, Sir George, official career, i. 50
Griffin, Sir Lepel, and Abdurrahman, ii. 197
Grimwood, Mr. and Mrs., at Manipur, iv. 189
Grosvenor, Earl, i. 82, 86, 88
Grosvenor Gallery, the, ii. 172
Ground Game Bill, the, iii. 114
Grove, Mr. Justice, ii. 150; iv. 21
Gully, Mr., and the Speakership, iv. 214
Gunpowder Plot, MSS. illustrating the, at Hatfield
House, i. 12
Gurney, Mr. Russell, i. 212
Haggard, Mr. H. Rider, iii. 16, 34
Halsbury, Lord, Lord Chancellor, iv. 108, 140, 222
Hamdi Pasha, appointed Grand Vizier, ii. 116
Hamilton, Lieutenant, murder of, ii. 190
Hamilton, Lord Geo., i. 186; iv. 108, 140, 170, 222
Hankoi, Russian victory at, ii. 95
Hannen, Sir James, iv. 166
Hanover joins Prussia against Denmark, i. 72
Harcourt, Sir William Vernon, i. 169, 214-216; ü.
231
28, 104, 161, 176-178, 192; iii. 95, 114; iv. 11,
20, 76, 84, 131, 134, 148, 154, 176, 177, 189, 194,
196, 198, 200, 202, 207, 208, 212, 214, 215
Hardy, Mr. Gathorne. See Cranbrook, Lord
Hargreaves, Edward, and gold in Australia, i. 25
Harrington, Mr. T., imprisonment of, iv. 24; and
the Plan of Campaign, 143, 170
Harris, Mr. Matthew, arrest of, iv. 144
Harrison, President, iv. 183, 205
Harrowby, Lord. ii. 162; iv. 108
Hart-Dyke, Sir W., official career, i. 186; iv. 108, 128
Hartenau, Countess, marriage of, ii. 169
Hartington, the Marquis of. See Devonshire, Duke of
Hatfield House, the home of the Cecils, i. 8-13
Hawaia and the United States, iv. 205
Hay, Admiral Lord John, and the occupation of
Cyprus, ii. 126
Hayes, Mr., and the Presidency of the United
States, ii. 158
Healy, Mr. Timothy, iv. 22, 24, 25, 100, 153, 189
Hegarty, Mr. Jeremiah, the boycotting of, iii. 176
Heki, Maori chief, i. 26
Heligoland, cession of, to Germany, iv. 180
Helmund, the, crossing of, by Ayoob Khan, ii. 195
Helps, Sir Arthur, death of, ii. 35
Hemming, Mr. G. W. B., Q.C., ii. 150
Heneage, Mr., iv. 134
Henry VI., relic of, at Hatfield House, i. 12
Henry VII., miniature of, at Hatfield House, i. 12
Henry VIII., and the Cecils, i. 1, 2; portraits and
other historic relics of, at Hatfield House, 11, 12;
his dissolution of the monasteries discussed, 21
Herat, its capture by Persia, i. 52; Russian advance
on, ii. 22
Herbert, Mr. Auberon, i. 157
Herbert, Mr. Sidney, i. 38, 49, 51, 62
Herschell, Lord, iv. 196
Hertford, Lord Salisbury's address at, i. 170-174
Herzegovina, revolt of peasantry against Turkey,
ii. 42; under the Treaty of Berlin, 216
Hicks-Beach, Sir Michael, i. 186; iv. 91, 105, 106,
108, 110, 128, 131, 140, 144, 149, 190, 222
Hill, Sir Rowland, death of, ii. 239
Hobart, Pasha, ii. 172, 173
Hödel, would-be regicide, ii. 208
Hohenzollern, Prince Charles of, ii. 92
Holbein portraits at Hatfield House, i. 11
Holkah, ruler of Indore, iv. 93
Holland, and the origin of the Ashantee War, i. 199,
200
Holland, Sir Henry. See Knutsford, Lord
Holstein, Duchy of. See Schleswig-Holstein ques-
tion, the
Home Rule, the question of, i. 117, 173, 183, 186-188;
Mr. Isaac Butt and Mr. T. J. Smyth on, ii. 147,156;
British statesmen's views regarding, iii. 53, 54,
56; opinions for and against, iv. 21; the Liberal
party and, in 1883 and 1885, 68, 114; opinions
and tactics of the Liberal leaders after the 1885
general election, 124-126, 130-134; Mr. Gladstone's
first measure explained, 134-136; the opposition
to it and the division, 136-138; Lord Salisbury
on, 192, 194; the Second Bill, 197, 199, 200; Lord
Rosebery's attitude, 206
Hornby, Admiral, ii. 202
Houghton, Lord, and "the Secret Treaty," ii. 122
Housing of the Poor Commission, iv. 90
Housing of the Working Classes Act, iv. 178, 179 -
Howard, Mr. George, i. 69, 70
Hughenden, visit of the Queen to, ii. 170
Humbert IV., attempts on the life of, ii. 208
Hunt, Mr. Ward, official career, i. 106, 186
Hyde Park, meeting and riots in, i. 93, 91; iv. 81
Iddesleigh, Lord, political and ministerial caleer,
i. 56, 60, 90, 93, 106, 160, 186, 189, 202-204; ii.
232
INDEX.
28, 68, 92, 101, 103, 106, 107, 118, 121, 122, 160,
188, 212, 214; iii. 50, 149; iv. 62-64, 70, SO, 84,
86, 90, 99, 100, 103, 105-108, 140; death, 147, 148
Idle Fellowships. See Prize Fellowships
Ignatieff, General, and the Eastern Question, ii. 56,
57, 71-74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 82, 116
Ilbert, Sir Courtney, his Indian Bill, iv. 72
Imperial, the Prince, i. 136, 142
Imperial Federation, iv. 91, 116, 160, 161
Imperial Institute, the, iv. 148
Income-tax, i. 175, 202
India, Herat the Key to, i. 52; effects of the Mutiny
on the Government of, 57-59; during the Secre-
taryships of Lord Salisbury, 91-93, 98; Lords
Mayo and Northbrooke as Viceroys of, 189; and
Russian aggression in Asia, 191; the famine in,
191-197, ii. 166; visit of the Prince of Wales to,.
ii. 8-16; relations between English officials and
the Natives in, 20, 156; the Russian advance on,
22; Indian troops ordered to Malta, 116-119;
Queen Victoria proclaimed Empress of, 166; the
silver difficulty in, 166; and the Ilbert Bill, iv.
72; and the Penjdeh affair, 99; and Manipur, 189
Indian Councils Act, iv. 192
Indo-China. See Siam
Influenza epidemic, iv. 174
Inkerman, i. 46
Insurrection Act, the, ii. 32
International Labour Conference (Berlin), iv. 173
Invincibles. See Irish National Invincibles
Ireland, the 1848 Rebellion in, i. 18; the cabbage-
garden incident, 19; endowment of the Roman
Catholic priesthood of, 20; the famine in, and the
repeal of the Corn Laws, 32; Fenianism in, 92,
104; Church disestablishment, 105-107; 111-121,
125; the Peace Preservation Bill, 125, 126; the
Land Act of 1870, 127-129; Lord Salisbury on,
171, 173; Distress in, and its relief, iii. 46, 49; the
demand for land reform, 104; Compensation for
Disturbance Bill, 105; Mr. Devoy's visit to, 166;
the No-Rent agitation, 173, 212; Lord Salisbury
on the Royal Agricultural Commission's Report,
193; the hatred between England and, 214; state
of, in 1882, iv. 1, 2, 60; and in 1883, 21; Lord
Salisbury on, 61; Local Government contemplated
in 1883, 68; and the Reform Bill of 1884, 74;
Conservative policy in, in 1885, 109-112, 115, 116;
state of, after 1885 general election, 127; Unionist
policy in, in 1886, 142; suppression of the Plan of
Campaign, 143, 144; Mr. Balfour, Chief Secretary
for, 149, 150
Irish-American National Convention and the Phila-
delphia Convention, iv. 18
Irish Church, i. 105-107, 111-115, 170; ii. 201
Irish Coercion Act (1875), the, ii. 30, 32
Irish Intermediate Education Bill, ii. 200, 201
Irish Judicature Act, ii. 161
Irish Labourers' Bill, iv. 112
Irish Land Acts, i. 127-129, 170, 171; (1870), iii.
159, 160; (1881), iii. 192, 196, 197, 202, 208-210,
213, 214 iv. 1, 22, 58, 82, 152
:
Irish Land Bills, iv. 152, 156, 211, 212
Irish Land League Convention, U.S.A.. iv. 18
Irish Land Purchase Bills, iv. 112, 186, 187
Irish Light Railways Bill, iv. 272
Irish Local Government Bill, iv. 191, 192
Irish National Land League, ii. 234-237; iii. 168,
171, 172, 176, 179, 212, 215; iv. 2, 3, 16
Irish National League, iv. 16-18
Irish National Invincibles, iv. 2, 3, 6, 7, 17, 18, 24
Irish Republican Brotherhood, iii. 162
Irish Seed Potato Bill, iv. 183
Irish Sunday Closing Bill, ii. 201
Irish Tenants' Relief Bill, iv. 142, 143
Irish University Act, i. 164-166, 181, 221; ii. 212
Irish World, the, cited, iii. 221 : iv. 17
Iron Duke, M.M.S., in collision, ii. 35
Isandula, the Battle of, iii. 7, 8
Ismail Pasha, ii. 23, 25, 204, 230, 231
Italy, the unity of, i. 63, 147; and the "Black
Sea Clause," 150; and the Triple Alliance, iii.
154; iv. 94, 173, 190; alleged treaty of defence
with Great Britain, 158; Great Britain and
Italy's possessions in Africa, 175
Jackson, Mr. W. L., iv. 191
Jacobini, Monseigneur Domenico, and the Parnell
Testimonial, iv. 24
Jamaica, the Insurrection in, i. 92
James I. and the Cecils, i. 5, û, 7; relic of, at Hat-
field House, 12
James, Lord, i. 169; iv. 131, 132, 134
Jameson, Dr., iv. 205
Japan, her war with China, iv. 209-211
Jeffreys, Mr., amendment to the Address, iv. 211, 212
Jenkins, Colonel, his victory at Charasiab, ii. 194
Jersey, the Earl of, fire at his residence, ii. 238
Jews, the, i. 58; iv. 174, 210
Jheend, the Rajah of, investiture of, ii. 14
Jhodpore, the Maharajah of, investiture of, ii. 14.
Jingoes, the, satirised by Sir Wilfrid Lawson, ii. 104
Johnson, Captain, and Admiral Pierre, iv. 70
Joint Stock Banks Act, ii. 210
Joubert, Mr., iii. 23, 24, 29, 35
Journal des Débats, Le, ii. 27
Judicature Act (1875), the, i. 168; ii. 5
Kalnoky, Count, and Prince Ferdinand, iv. 157
Kambula, the defence of, by Sir Evelyn Wood, iii. 17
Kars, the investment of, ii. 92, 94
Karyoli, Count, and Mr. Gladstone, iii. 76
Kassala, Major Chermside's operations at, iv. 119
Kaufmann, General, ii. 184, 186, 188, 189, 199
Kaulbars, General, and Bulgaria, ii. 129
Kavanagh, Michael, iv. 17
Kebbel, Mr. T. E., i. 48, 188
Keble College, Oxford, Lord Salisbury, ii. 162
Kelly, Colonel, and the Chitral campaign, iv. 210
Kelly, Dr. Ambrose, murder of, ii. 190
Kelly, Sir Fitzroy, i. 36
Kelly, Tim, and the Phoenix Park murders, iv. 17
Kenealy, Dr., his introduction to Parliament, ii. 1, 2
Kerry Sentinel, The, iv. 24
Kezanlik, Russian occupation of, ii. 116
Khartoum, the fall of, iv. 94, 96
Khelat-i-Ghilzai, relief expedition at, ii. 198
Khiva, surrender of, to Russia, i. 190; Colonel
Burnaby's ride to, ii. 158
Khokand, ii. 22, 157, 158; works on, 158
Khyber Pass, the, under the treaty of Gandamak,
ii. 190
Kilmainham treaty, the, iv. 2, 4, 5, 59
Kimberley, iv. 99
Kimberley, Lord, political and ministerial career, iv.
60, 81, 132, 138, 180, 182, 196, 205, 215
Kizil Tepe, fighting at, ii. 94
Knutsford, Lord, iv. 108, 140, 148, 188
Koffee, King, of Ashantee, i. 200, 202
Komaroff, General, and the Penjdeh incident, iv.
96, 100
Kossuth and Frank Deak contrasted, ii. 158
Krüdener, General, ii. 95, 96
Kruger, President, iii. 23, 29; iv. 91, 216
Kuldha, works on, ii. 158
Kuran, annexation of, ii. 190
Kuran Valley, the, under the Treaty of Gandamak,
ii. 190
Kuruk Dere, battle at, ii. 94
Kushi, interviews between Yakoob Khan and
Generals Baker and Roberts at, ii. 93
Kushk, the, Afghan and Russian conflict on, iv. 98
Labouchere, Mr. Henry, and General Ignatieff
compared, ii. 7.1; political career, iv. 58, 86, 168,
171, 198, 213, 216
-
Ladies' Irish National Land League, iii. 212; iv. 2
Laing's Nek, British defeat at, iii. 30
Lake Nyassa, British settlement at, iv. 174
Lambertini, Countess, and the will of Cardinal
Antonelli, ii. 170, 171
INDEX.
Lambeth Conference, the, on the Irish Church Bill,
i. 117
Lancashire, savage rioting in, ii. 205
Land Laws, Lord Salisbury on the, iv. 117, 118
Land Transfer Act (1875), the, ii. 5, 6
Lanessan, M., and the Siamese imbroglio, iv. 198
Lang, Mr. Andrew, i. 202, 203; ii. 68; iv. 147, 148
Langalibalele, trial of, ii. 34
Lansdowne, Lord, i. 33, 50; iii. 11; iv. 222
Lanyon, Sir Owen, iii. 36
Laon, French Commander, surrender of, i. 137·
Lauenberg, Duchy of, i. 72, 74
Lawrence, Lord, his Indian career, i. 92, 189; and
the Royal Titles Bill, ii. 143; and our relations
with Afghanistan, 166, 174-176, 182-184; death
of, 239
Lawson, Sir Wilfrid, political career, ii. 104, 115, 116
Layard, Sir Henry, ii. 82, 101, 126
Lazaroff, General, defeat of Mouktar Pasha by, ii. 94
Leboeuf, General, i. 135
Le Caron, Major, iii. 217, 220
Lee, "Bishop," relations of Brigham Young with,
ii. 172
Leitrim, the Earl of, murder of, ii. 201
Lemoinne, M. John, on the purchase of Suez Canal
Shares, ii. 27
Lennox, Lord Walter, iv. 148
Leo XIII., Pope, election and coronation of, ii. 207;
on Secret Societies in Ireland, iv. 24; on the Par-
nell Testimonial, 24, 25
Leopold, King, and the Congo State, iv. 180, 182
Leopold, Prince, Duke of Albany, iv. 58; 93
Leopold, Prince, of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, and
the throne of Spain, i. 134
Lesseps, M. Ferdinand de, ii. 23, 27
Lewis, Sir George C., ministerial career, i. 49, 62
Liberation Society, the, iv. 204, 205
Licensing Act, the, i. 164, 180, 204; iv. 115, 177,
178
Lichfield, Lord, and the new Social movement, i. 160
Liddon, Canon, ii. 66, 67
Life Peerages Bill, i. 122-124
Lightfoot, Bishop, ii. 150
Liluokalani, Queen, deposition of, iv. 205
Limited Owners' Improvement Bill, i. 164
Literature-Notable Books and Obituary, in 1876,
ii. 158; in 1877, 172
Little Englanders, the, iv. 198
Livadia, the Czar and Lord A. Loftus at, ii. 60
Llandaff, Lord, Home Secretary, iv. 140
Lobengula, iv. 174, 205
Local Government Act, iv. 164, 165, 201, 202
Local Government Board, outrage at the, iv. 20
Local Veto Bill, iv. 198, 200, 206, 211, 212
Loftus, Lord Augustus, i. 60, 101
London, headquarters of the Anarchists, iv. 209
London Bridge, attempt to blow up, iv. 20
London Coal Dues, iv. 172
London Conference (1871), the, cited, ii. 87, 88
London County Council, the, iv. 164, 179, 198
London University, representation of, i. 182, 183
London, Chatham, and Dover Railway, i. 162, 163
Londonderry, Lord, iv. 140
Long, Mr. George, death of, ii. 239
Long, Mr. Walter, iv. 222
Lords, House of, relations with the Commons, and
proposed reform of, i. 63-68, 157; iv. 68, 69, 74-
90, 93, 164, 197, 199-202
Lorne, the Marquis of, ii. 204, 205
Lorraine and the Franco-German War, i, 138, 142
Louis-Philippe, flight from France, i. 18
Louise, Princess, marriage of, ii. 204, 238.
Low, Sir Robert, iv. 216
Lowe, Mr. Robert. See Sherbrooke, Lord
Lowther, Mr. James, i. 186; ii. 212
Lowther, Mr. J. W., iv. 191
233
Lubbock, Sir John, i. 133; ii. 91
Lumsden, Sir Peter, iv. 98, 100, 101
Lytton, Lord, ii. 22, 156, 175, 176, 182, 190, 196, 199
Maamtrasna Murders, the, iv. 10
Macaulay, Lord, on the Earl of Salisbury, i. 15
McCabe, Archbishop, and Leo XIII., iv. 24
McCarthy, General Sir Charles, i. 200
McCarthy, Mr. Justin, on political and historical
events, i. 105, 150, 187, 221; iii. 104
Macdonald, Sir John, iv. 91
Mackarness, Bishop, and the Burials Bill, ii. 162
McKinley Tariff Act, iv. 174, 205
Mackinnon, Sir W., iv. 182, 216
MacMahon, Marshal, i. 136, 143; ii. 35, 168, 169, 240
Macpherson, General, ii. 188, 194
Madagascar, French relations with, iv. 70, 182
Magdala stormed, i. 103
Magee, Bishop, as a debater, i. 110, 118, 210
Mahdi, the, iv. 120
Mahmoud Pasha, ii. 48
Maine, Sir Henry, ii. 150
Maiwand, the battle of, ii. 195
Majuba Hill, British defeat at, iii. 34
Majunga, the bombardment of, iv. 70
Makololo, the country of the, iv. 174
Malakand Pass, the storming of the, iv. 216
Mallow, disloyal demonstrations at, iv. 24, 128
Malmesbury, Lord, parliamentary and ministerial
career, i. 36, 43, 56, 57, 92, 109, 110, 124, 186
Malta, the ordering of Indian troops to, ii. 116-119
Manchester Chamber of Commerce, the, and the re-
adjustment of the Wine duties, iv. 231
"Manchester Martyrs," the, i. 104, 105
Manchester School, the, i. 19, 24, 29, 34, 44, 53, 189
Mandalay, occupied by British troops, iv. 128
Mandeville, Mr., imprisonment of, iv. 157
Manipur Massacre, the, iv. 189
Manners, Lord John. See Rutland, Duke of
Manners, Mr. Henry, iv. 148
Manning, Cardinal, i. 219; iv. 90
Maoris, the, i. 26
Margery, Mr., murder of, ii. 35, 157
Marjoribanks, Mr. See Tweedmouth, Lord
Marlborough, the Duchess of, ii. 234
Marlborough, the Duke of, i. 117; iii. 53
Married Woman's Property Act, iv. 59
Martin, Sir Theodore, his "Life of the Prince Con-
sort," ii. 158
Martineau, Miss Harriet, death of, ii. 158
Maruchak, the frontier of Afghanistan, iv. 101
Mary, Queen, Lord Burghley and, i. 2, 8; portrait
of and historical MS. concerning, at Hatfield
House, 11, 12
Mary, Queen of Scots, historical documents con-
cerning, at Hatfield House, i. 12
Mary Stuart, portrait of, at Hatfield House, i. 11
Mashonaland, iv. 205
Masterly Inactivity," a policy of, ii. 22, 175
Matabeleland, iv. 174, 205
(C
Matthew, Sir James, iv. 196, 206
Matthews, Mr. Henry. See Llandaff, Lord
Maxwell, Professor James Clarke, death of, ii. 239
May, Sir Thomas Erskine. See Farnborough, Lord
Maynė, Sir Richard, and the Reform Riots, i. 94
Mayo, Lord, i. 165, 189; ii. 8, 14, 174.
Mazra, battle at, ii. 195, 198
Mechin Pass, the, ii. 190
234
INDEX.
Mecklenburg-Schwerin, the Duke of, i. 137
Medical Officers' Superannuation Act, i. 133
Mehemet Ali Pasha and the Shipka Pass, ii. 96
Melbourne, Lord, i. 33; ii. 137, ‍233
Melikoff, General Loris, ii. 94
Menschikoff, Prince, i. 40, 41
Merchant Shipping Bill (1875), the, ii. 4, ♫
Meretinsky, Prince, ii. 96
Merv Turkomans, the, and the Czar, iv. 98
Metropolitan Waterworks Purchase Bill, iii. 52
Metz, i. 136-138, 140-442
Michael, the Grand Duke, ii. 94
Midhat Pasha, ii. 45, 75-78, 80, 173
Midlothian Campaign, the, opening of, ii. 237
Milan, Prince, of Servia, ii. 42, 55, 56
Milford, murder of the Earl of Leitrim near, ii. 201
Mill, Mr. John Stuart, i: 104
Millais, Mr. (Sir John), ii. 172
Mirski, General, ii. 96, 115
Mitchel, Mr. John, death of, ii. 2
Mitrailleuse, the, i. 135
Mohammed Jan, ii. 194
Moldavia, proposed union with Wallachia, i. 58, 59
Moltke, General von, i. 136
Mombassa, iv. 192
Mondania Bay, the British fleet at, ii. 106
Moniteur, Le, and the Orsini conspiracy, i. 54
Monk Bretton, Lord, ministerial career, iv. 60, 61, 91
Montagu, Lord Robert, i. 74; ii. 154
Montenegro, ii. 42, 55, 56, 216; iii. 88
Montsio, African chieftain, and the Boers, iv. 91
Moody and Sankey, Messrs., ii. 37
Morgan, Sir George Osborne, ii. 150, 162
Morley, Lord, resignation of, iv. 134
Morley, Mr. Arnold, Postmaster-General, iv. 196
Morley, Mr. John, iv. 114, 125, 131, 132, 136, 150,
171, 192, 196, 198, 212
Mormonism, rise and fall of, ii. 172
Morris, Judge O'Connor, iii. 160
Morton House, fire at, ii. 238
Moscow Gazette, the, cited, ii. 26, 27
Monkton Pasha, and the Russo-Turkish War, ii. 91
Mountmorres, Lord, murder of, iii. 176
Mozambique, British squadron at, iv. 176
Mulhar Rao, Gaekwar of B»rroda, ii. 16, 18
Mullett, and the Phoenix Park Murders, iv. 17
Münster, Count, ii. 35
Mundella, Mr. A. J., political and ministerial career,
ii. 154; iv. 86, 132, 134, 196, 206
Murad, Sultan of Turkey, ii. 46
Musa Jan, and the Afghan throne, ii. 194
Mustapha Pasha Fehmy, iv. 198
Musuru Pasha, and Lord Derby, ii. 77
Mysore, difficulties concerning, i. 93
Napier and Ettrick, Lord, ii. 143
Napier of Magdala, Lord, i. 103
Naples, attempt on life of Humbert IV. at, ii. 208
Napoleon I., Whig support of, ii. 99
Napoleon III., and the Holy Places, i. 40; on Eng-
land's inaction against Russo-Turkish dispute,
43; attempted assassination of, 54; and the
Schleswig-Holstein question, 74; and the Franco-
German War, 134-138, 142
Nares, Captain, R.N., his Arctic expedition, ii. 37
Natal, Colony of, ii. 34; iv. 92, 94, 205
National Conference on Eastern Question, ii. 64-C9
National Trades Union Congress (1975), the, and
Conservative Labour legislation, ii. 32
National Union of Conservatives, the, Lord Randolph
Churchill and, iv. 91
Naval Defence Act, the, iv. 170, 207
Navy, the, in 1885, iv. 102; Ld. Spencer and, 200, 207
Nedjib Aga, Bulgarian leader, arrest of, ii. 46
Needle-gun, the, i. 92, 135
Nelson, Lord, i. 119
New Britain, acquired by Germany, iv. 92
Newcastle, the Duke of, i. 46, 49, 51, 62; ii. 238
Newcastle Programme, the, iv. 195, 196, 206
Newfoundland and the French fishery claims, iv.
182, 183, 188, 189
New Guinea, ii. 33, 34; iv. 92
New Hebrides, the, and Australia, iv. 160
New Ireland, acquired by Germany, iv. 92
Newman, Cardinal, i. 17, 18, 219
New Social Movement, the, i. 160-162
New South Wales, discovery of gold in, i. 25
New Zealand, Lord Salisbury's visit to, i. 22, 26
Nicholas I., of Russia, and Turkey i. 40-42
Nicholas II. of Russia, his marriage, iv. 210
Nicholas, Grand Duke, ii. 92, 95
Nicopolis, capture of, ii. 95
Nihilists, the, activity of, in Russia, iii. 122, 154
Nikita, Prince, of Montenegro, ii. 42
Nineteenth Century, Midhat Pasha's article in, ii. 77
Nizam, the, proffered assistance from, iv. 99
Nobiling, Dr., his attempt on the life of the German
Emperor, ii. 208
Nonconformists and the Liberal Party, i. 182; iv. 144
"No-Rent" cry, the, in Ireland, iii. 212
Norfolk, the Duke of, his letters on Mary Queen of
Scots at Hatfield House, i. 12
Northbrook, Lord, i. 189, 191-196; ii. 14, 18-22,
156, 166, 179, 186, 187; iv. 131
Northcote, Sir Stafford. See Iddesleigh, Lord
Northcote, Mr. Henry, iv. 135
Northumberland, the Earl of, and William Cecil,
i. 2; official account of his conspiracies at Hatfield
House, 12
Norton, Lord, ii. 4
Nubar Pasha, Prime Minister of Egypt, ii. 204, 230
Number One." See Tynan, P. J.
Oates, Dr. Titus, Lord Derby compared to, ii 140
O'Brien, Edw., and the Phoenix Park murders, ii. 17
O'Brien, Mr. William, iv. 24, 96, 143, 144, 157, 170
Obstruction in Parliament, ii. 160. 201, 212; ini. 50,
116, 118, 188
O'Connell, Daniel, i. 34; iv. 69
O'Connor, Mr. Feargus, i. 19, 20
O'Connor, Mr. T. P., iii. 104, 160, 214; iv. 100, 139
O'Conor Don, the, ii. 212
O'Donnell, Mr. Frank Hugh, and "the Long Sit-
ting," ii. 160; his action against The Times, iv. 166
O'Donnell, Patrick, and the shooting of Carey, iv. 21
O'Gorman, Major, on the rights of man, ii. 147
O'Kelly, Mr. J. J., unconditional release of, iv. 4
One Man One Vote Bill, the, iv. 197, 206
Orange Free States, and the South African Customs
Union, iv. 182
Orissa, famine in, i. 93, 191
Orsini Conspiracy, the, i. 54-56
O'Shea, Cap., and the Kilmainham Treaty, iv. 4, 9
Osman Pasha, his heroic defence of Plevna, ii. 95-97
Otway, Sir Arthur, iv. 101
"Oxford Essays," Ld. Salisbury's share in, i. 5º
Oxford University, Lord Salisbury at, i. 16, 17, 26;
the "Union," 18-22, 44; Parliamentary inter-
ference with, 44-46; Lords Salisbury and Derby
as Chancellors of, 124, 125, 159
Oxus, the," scientific expedition " to, ii. 22, 184
Pakington, Sir John, i. 36, 56, 160
Palikao, General Count, defeated, i. 136
Pall Mall Gazette, the, and Mr. Gladstone's retire-
ment, iv. 203
Palmerston, Lord, joins the Whig Ministry, i. 33;
conduct of Foreign affairs, 34; action regarding
the Coup d'Etat resented by Lord John Russell,
35; refuses to join Conservative Government, 36,
48; gives independent support to Lord Derby, 37;
Home Secretary in Aberdeen Ministry, 38, 39;
INDEX.
his proposals regarding British policy towards
Russia prior to the Crimean War, 42, 43; becomes
Prime Minister, 40, 50; and Mr. Roebuck's
motion, 50, 51; conduct of the Persian and China
Wars, 52, 53; defeat of the Ministry, 53; and the
Orsini conspiracy, 54, 55; his Conspiracy to
Murder Bill defeated, and consequent resignation,
56; on Napoleon III., 58; his Ministry of 1860,
62, 63; not zealous for Parliamentary reform, 63;
general inaction during 1861-2, 69-70; his policy
during the Schleswig-Holstein crisis, 74, 75; Mr.
Disraeli's vote of censure on his Government, 75;
returns again to power in 1865, 78, 79; his death
and its effects, 79; opposed to the Suez Canal
scheme, ii. 23; Mr. Evelyn Ashley's work on, 158
Pamirs, the, controversy regarding, iv. 102
Panitza, Major, execution of, ii. 130; iv. 174
Panizzi, Sir Antonio, death of, ii. 239
Panmure, Lord, ministerial career, i. 50
Paper Duties, abolition of the, i. 63
Parcels Post Bill, the, iv. 59
Paris, during the Franco-German War and the
Commune, i. 136-138, 141-144; the Grand Opera
House at, ii. 37; restoration of the Vendôme
Column, 37; Universal Exhibition at, 208, 209
Parish Councils, the creation of, iv. 201
Park Hall, fire at, ii. 238
Parliamentary Proceedings Bill, the, i. 122
Parnell, Mr. Charles Stuart, his career, ii. 160, 201,
212, 236, 237; iii. 46, 107, 118, 166, 170, 174, 184,
185, 213, 214, 217; iv. 2-5, 7-10, 12, 18, 22, 24,
25, 60, 61, 96, 104, 110, 114, 122, 127, 132, 142,
153-156, 166, 176, 177, 183, 189; his death, 191
Parnell Commission, the, iv. 166, 168, 169, 176, 177
Parnell Testimonial Fund, the, condemned by the
Vatican, iv. 24; its consequent success, 25
Patent laws, ii. 161; iv. 65
"Peace at any Price" and the Liberal Party in
1883, iv. 66, 67
Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, the, i. 125; iii. 191
'Peace with Honour," ii. 132
Pearson, Colonel, and the defence of Ekowe, iii. 6, 16
Pecci, Cardinal. See Leo XIII., Pope
Peel, General, political and ministerial career, i. 51,
56, 57, 92, 95, 96; his death, ii. 239
Peel, Sir Robert, and the Conservative party, i. 20,
21, 31-33; death, 34; his memorandum in 1844
concerning the Christian subjects of the l'orte, 42;
and University extension in Ireland, 165
Peel, Sir Robert (second Baronet), and Home Rule,
iv. 138
Peel, Visc., and the Speakerslip, iv. 140, 196, 212
Peiwar Pass, battle at the, ii. 188
Pelly, Sir Lewis, Resident at Baroda, ii. 16, 18, 164
Penjdeh Incident, the, iv. 99, 100
Penny Postage, death of the originator of, ii. 239
Penzance, Lord, and the Ridsdale judgment, ii. 168
Percy, Lord, political career, iv. 91
"Perish India!" ii. 65, 66
Persia, England at war with, i. 52
Peshawur, ii. 175
Peter the Great, the will of. ii. 88, 89
Peters, Dr. Carl, his policy in East Africa, iv. 174
Petre, Mr., British Minister at Lisbon, iv. 174, 175
Phayre, Colonel, Resident at Baroda, ii. 16-20
Phelps, Mr., United States Minister, iv. 167
Philadelphia Convention, the, iv. 18, 19
Philip of Spain, his dream of Empire, i. 4; portrait
of, at Hatfield, 11
Philippopolis, Prince Alexander at, ii. 127, 129
Philpott, Bishop, ii. 150
Phoenix Park murders, the, iv. 3, 7, 8, 17, 18
Picard, M., i. 137, 142
Picketing, ii. 32
Pigott, and the "Phoenix Park Letter," iv. 168, 169
Pine, Sir Benjamin, ii. 34
Pirot, battle of, ii. 128
Pishin Valley, the, ii. 190
Pius IX., Pope, death of, ii. 206, 207
Plan of Campaign, the, iv. 143, 144, 157, 165
Playfair, Lord, i. 169
Plevna, the defence of, ii. 95-97
Plimsoll, Mr. Samuel, ii. 4; iii. 50
Plunket, Captain, Mr. Balfour's message to, iv. 150
Plunket, Mr. David. See Rathmore, Lord
Plural Voting, threatened abolition of, iv. 211, 214
Political Economy, i. 128; iv. 112
Pollution of Rivers Bill (1875), ii. 32
Poole, informer-remover, execution of, iv. 21
Portal, Sir Gerald, on Uganda, iv. 198, 206
Port Hamilton, British evacuation of, iv. 159
Portugal, the Independence of, i. 146; and the
Delagoa Bay dispute, ii. 35; relations with Eng-
land, 238; iv. 174-176, 188
235
Potchefstroom seized by the Boers, iii. 30
Power, Mr. O'Connor, ii. 234; iii. 104
Prejevalsky, Colonel, in Central Asia, ii. 238
Presse, the Vienna, on the diplomacy of Lords
Beaconsfield and Salisbury, ii. 124-126
Pretoria, British mission to, ii. 166; Convention of,
iii. 35
Prevention of Crimes Bill (1882), the, iv. 7, 11-13
Prim, Marshal, and the Spanish succession, i. 134
Primrose, General, ii. 198
Princes Island, ii. 106
Princess Alice, the, loss of, ii. 205, 206
Prisons Bill, the, ii. 161
Prize Fellowships, ii. 148, 150, 161, 162
Prosecution of Offences Act, the, ii. 210
Protection, i. 20, 28, 33, 37; ii. 231
Protection of Life and Property Bill, iii. 186
Protocol, the, ii. 82
Prussia, her share in the "Vienna note," i. 42; and
the Schleswig-Holstein question, 72, 74; at war
with Austria, 92; and the proposed annexation of
Belgium by France, 144. See also Germany
Pruth, the, crossed by Russian troops, i. 42
Public Health Act (1875), the, ii. 4
Public Prosecutor, appointment of a, ii. 210
Public Works (Loans) Act, the, ii. 210
Public Worship Regulation Act, i. 208-218; ii. 167,
168
Puseyism. See Ritualism
Pyat, Félix, Communist leader, i. 143
Quarterly Review, the, cited, i. 38, 59, 72-74, 79; iv.
67
Queen's Colleges in Ireland, i. 165
Quetta, the occupation of, ii. 179
Quinton, Mr., murdered at Manipur, iv. 189
Radetzky, General, at the Shipka Pass, ii. 96
Raikes, Mr. Cecil, iv. 140; his death, 191
Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) Act. iv. 198, 201
Rampore, the Rajah of, investiture of, ii. 14
Ransom, the doctrine of, iv. 94, 95
"Ransom" and "Restitution," iv. 121
Ras Alula, operations in Equatorial Africa, iv. 119
Rathmore, Lord, official career, iv. 108, 140
Rawulpundi, the Ameer at, iv. 101
Rayleigh, Lord, ii. 150
Read, Mr. Clare, i. 186
Reciprocity. ii. 231
Redesdale, Lord, i. 168; ii. 150
Redistribution of Seats Bill. See County Franchise
Redmond, Mr. John, the Parnellite leader, iv. 196
Reform, Ld. Salisbury's Essay on, i. 59; Hyde Park
riots, 93, 94;. agitation in 1883-4, iv. 68, 69, 72
Reform Bill the, i. 19, 31, 30-86, 93-102, 170, 176
Reform Club, the, and the Royal Titles Bill, ii. 144
Regimental Exchanges Act (1875), the, ii. 30
Registration Bill, iv. 197, 200, 205
236
INDEX.
Regulation of Factories and Workshops, iv. 206
Reid, Sir T. Wemyss, on Mr. Gladstone's successor
in 1874, i. 222; life of W. E. Forster, iv. 4, 6, 7
Relief of Distress in Ireland Bill, üii. 49
Religious Tests in Universities, i. 159
Religious Orders in France, persecution of, iii. 118
Reserves, the, calling out of, ii. 114-116
Rezonville, battle of, i. 136
Riaz Pasha, Egyptian Minister, iv. 198
Ribbonism, and the Irish Coercion Act (1875), ii. 30
Ribot, M., French Premier, iv. 158
Richmond, the Duke of, political and ministerial
career, i. 157, 186; ii. 5, 122, 162, 200; iv. 65, 112
Ridgeway, Sir West, iv. 101
Ridley, Sir Matthew White, ii. 150; iv. 212
Ridsdale v. Clifton, cited, ii. 168
Rio de Janeiro, disturbances at, i. 70
Ripon, the Marquis of, i. 168, 222; ii. 196; iv. 72,
101, 132, 196, 201, 216
Ritchie, Mr. C. T., iv. 108, 140, 164, 178, 179, 222
Ritualism, i. 110, 218
Robat, the Candahar Expedition at the, iv. 198
Roberts, General Lord, and the Afghan Expedition,
ii. 188-199; sent to the Transvaal, iii. 42
Robinson, Sir Hercules, and Basutoland, ii. 92
Rochefort, M., return to France, iii. 118
Roebuck, Mr., i. 46, 47, 50, 51, 178
Roger of Hoveden, historical MS. of, at Hatfield
House, i. 12
Rome, the Italian occupation of, i. 147
Rorke's Drift, gallant defence of, iii. 9
Rosebery, Lord, on Lord Salisbury's visit to Australia,
i. 22; ii. 221; advice to the Lords on the Fran-
chise Question, iv. 77, 78; and the Imperial
Federation League, 91; and the Reform of the
House of Lords, 93, 164; and Mr. Gladstone's
"Umbrella," 114, 132; his conduct of Foreign
Affairs, 142, 147; and the "Wasp's Waist," 180,
182; on Lord Salisbury's Ulster Speech, 194;
position in the 1892 Ministry, 196; his policy in
Egypt, 198; and the Siamese imbroglio, 198;
speech on the Second Home Rule Bill, 199; be-
comes Premier, 203, 205; illness, 205; programme
of his Administration, 206; on Home Rule and
the "
predominant partner," 206; on Lord Salis-
bury and aliens, 209; his revolution by resolution,
209; at the funeral of Lord Randolph Churchill,
211; second Parliamentary programme, 211;
defeat and resignation of his Government, 218, 219
Roumania, i. 58; ii. 92, 95-97, 131, 216
Roumelia, in, ii. 95; 127, 128
Round Table Conference; iv. 148
Rousby, Mrs., Death of, ii. 239
Rouvier, M., French premiership
Royal Titles Bill, the, ii. 143-146
Russell, Lord Charles, i. 222; iv. 206
Russell, Lord John, i. 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 44-45, 49,
50, 51, 53, 62, 63, 70, 79, 89, 109, 118, 122-124;
ii. 206
of, iv. 158.
Russell, Lord Odo, ii. 35, 54, 119
Russell, Mr. Scott, i. 160-162
Russia, and the Christian population of Turkey, i.
40-42; occupies the Danubian Principalities, 42;
at war with Turkey, 43; destroys the Turkish
fleet, 43; active hostilities against, by England,
46; and the union of Moldavia and Wallachia,
58; and the neutrality of the Black Sea, 147-
151; aggressive policy in Asia: Khiva, 190; and
Turkey, iii. 56, 57, 60; at war with Turkey, 87,
92-106, 116; relations with Bulgaria, 129, 130;
and with Khokand, 157, 158; her advance in Cen-
tral Asia, 163; intrigues in Afghanistan, 174,
175, 184-186, 199; the difficulties of Government
in Russia, 184; Nihilist activity, 122, 154;
alliance with France, iv. 94; and the Penjdeh
affair. 98-100; and the Afghan frontier question,
109; and the Bulgarian question, 143; activity
in South-east Europe, 145; the military party
and her relations with Austria, 157, 158; treat-
ment of Jews in, 174; intimacy with France, 190
Rustchuk, reception of Prince Alexander at, ii. 129
Rutland, the Duke of, i. 36, 55, 92, 169, 186; ii.
31; iv. 76, 77, 108, 140
.
Saarbruck shelled by the French, i. 135
Sackville, Lord, and the United States, iv. 167
Sadoullah Bey and the Bulgarian atrocities, ii. 75
Safnet Pasha, President of European Conference,
ii. 75-79; and the Treaty of San Stefano, 116; on
the claims of Greece, 132
Saint Avold, the King of Prussia at, i. 136
St. Leonards, Lord, i. 36; death, ii. 35
Saint Lucia Bay, acquired by Natal, iv. 92. 94
Salar Jung, Sir, and the Prince of Wales, i1. 9
Salisbury, Dowager Marchioness, burnt to death at
Hatfield House fire (1835), i. 10
Salisbury, first Earl of (Sir Robert Cecil), character
and career, i. 4, 5-7, 12
Salisbury, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and
Seventh (first Marquis) Earls of, i. 13-15
Salisbury, Second Marquis of, character, career, and
family, i. 15, 16, 57, 82, 108, 133
Salisbury, Third Marquis of (Robert Arthur Talbot
Gascoyne-Cecil), ancestry, i. 1-16; birth, 16;
public school and university careers, 17-20;
speeches at the Oxford Union, 20-22; visit to
Australia, 22-26; candidature and election for
Stamford, 26-30, 39; enters Parliament-speech
on the Universities Bill, 44; suggestions regard-
ing the Black Sea questions, 50; attitude towards
Lord Palmerston's Ministry, and views on do-
mestic legislation, 51; second return for Stam-
ford, 54; his proposals to amend the system of
voting, 54; marriage to Miss Alderson, 54; ex-
clusion from the Ministry of 1858, 56, 57; views
on the Danubian Principalities, 58, 59; his lite-
rary work, 59; essay and speech on Reform in
1859, 59-62; speech against Mr. Gladstone's
methods of passing Money Bills, 66-68; his
"apology to the attorneys," 68; speeches on
various domestic subjects, 68; and on the Bra-
zilian difficulty-Earl Russell's tariff of inso-
lence," 70; also against the taxation of charit-
able institutions, 70-72; his article on the
Schleswig-Holstein question, 72-74; speech on
Mr. Disraeli's motion censuring Lord Palmer-
ston's Government, 75, 76; attacks the Education
Department, 76, 78; third return for Stamford,
78; becomes Viscount Cranborne, 79; his family,
78, 79; the Times and Mr. Traill on this period
his career, 80; speech on Mr. Gladstone's
Franchise Bill (1866), 80, 86; position in the
Conservative party at this time, 90; accepts
Secretaryship for India in Lord Derby's adminis-
tration, 90; criticisms on the appointment, 91;
conduct in office, 92, 93, 103, 189; disagrees with
his colleagues in their Reform policy, and resigns,
95; action and speeches in the Commons on the
subject, 96-102; speeches on Mr. Gladstone's
Bill abolishing Church rates, and on his Irish
Church proposals, 105-108; succeeds to the Mar-
quisate, 108; position in the Lords, 109; offered
leadership of Conservative party in that house in
1869, 110; first speech there, on Ritualism, 110;-
attacks Mr. Gladstone's Irish Church Suspensory
Bill, 111-113; views on the duty of the Lords,
113, 114; conciliatory attitude towards the Irish
Church Bill, and amendments thereto, 117-121;
efforts to amend Parliamentary procedure, 121,
122; views on life peerages, 122, 123; Chancellor
of Oxford University, 124, 125; speech on the
Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill, 125, 126; share
INDEX.
""
in the Irish Land Act of 1870, and speech on
political economy, 128; interest in the Elementary
Education Act, 129; opposes and defeats the Uni-
versity Tests Bill, 133; active promotion of
social measures at this time, 133; speech on Eng-
land's duties and liabilities as a European power,
146, 147; views on Mr. Gladstone's methods of
securing Abolition of Purchase in the Army,
156-158; action with regard to the abolition of
religious tests in the Universities, 159; and the
proposed confiscation of revenues of Emanuel
College, 159, 160; interest in the labouring classes,
and measures for their advancement, 160; joint-
arbitrator with Lord Cairns in the London, Chat-
ham, and Dover Railway difficulty, 162, 163;
denounces Liberal jobbery in connection with Sir
Robert Collier and the living of Ewelme, 163,
164; his Limited Owners' Improvements Bill,
164; modifies the Judicature Act, 168; address
at Hertford, in 1873, on Liberal policy, 170-174,
184; becomes Secretary for India in the 1874
Ministry, 184, 185; and the famine in India,
192-196, 218; speeches and action on the Public
Worship Regulation Bill, 210-218; freedom of the
City conferred on his Lordship, 218; on "harass-
ing legislation and the Government policy
(1875), ii. 5-7; despatch on the Prince of Wales's
visit to India, 12-14; and the trial of the Gaek-
war of Baroda, 20; views on the treatment of
natives in India, 20, 156; dispute with the
Viceroy of India on the Tariff Act, 20-22; policy
towards Russia on India, 22; his Pollution of
Rivers Bill (1875), 32; his relations with Mr. Dis-
raeli on the Eastern Question, 38, 39, 64, 132;
special delegate to European Conference, 64;
visit to the capitals of Europe, 70, 71; relations
with General Ignatieff, 71, 72-74; at the Con-
ference, 76, 77, 79; his warning to the Porte,
77, 78; vindication of, by Lord Beaconsfield,
86; speech on the duty of England, 98-100;
speech in defence of the Government, 102; Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs, 109; Circular on the
Treaty of San Stephano, 109-113; rebukes Lord
Derby, 114, 115; on Ministers as "Trustees to
the British Empire,' 115; plenipotentiary at
the Berlin Congress, 119; and "the Secret
Treaty," 120, 121; foreign opinion on the diplo-
macy of, 124-126; return from the Berlin Con-
gress-ovations and honours, 132-136; on the
necessity of party discipline, 137, 138; and Lord
Derby, 138-142; and the Royal Titles Bill, 143-
146; and the University of Oxford Bill, 147-150;
on Dissenters and Parish Churchyards, 150, 162,
163; on the Elementary Schools Bill, 156; and
the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, 161,
162; on the disadvantage of "small maps," 163,
164; on the Afghan question, 164-166; attack of
Sir William V. Harcourt on, 178; charge against
and vindication of, 180, 181; on the assent of
Parliament to a declaration of war, 182; eulogy
of Lord Lytton, and criticism of Lord Lawrence's
Afghan policy, 182-184; the" diplomatic iuva-
sion"
of Afghanistan justified, 186; and the
Massacre of Cabul, 192; on natives as India
Government agents, 192, 193; correspondence
with M. Waddington on the Secret Treaty with
Turkey, 202, 203; on the carrying out of the
Treaty of Berlin, 214-216; Mr. John Bright on,
217, 218; on the Bulgarian Atrocity agitators,
218, 219; on Eastern Roumelia, 219, 220; on the
approaching General Election (1880), 220-222;
on the tactics of the Liberal party, 222; speech at
Manchester, 223-230; serious illness, 230; on the
readjustment of the Wine Duties, 231, 232; on
the difficulties created by Free Trade, 232; ou
"Treaties of Commerce, "232; on the com-
""
G
237
mercial policy of England, 232-234; on Mr.
Bright and the Corn Laws, 233-234;
on the
conclusion of an alliance between Germany
and Austria, 239, 240; on the conduct of Sir Bartle
Frere, iii. 12; on the peace with the Transvaal,
39; on Mr. Gladstone's charge against Austria,
77; on the Eastern Question, 78, 82; on the Greek
frontier difficulty, 90; on the Compensation for
Disturbance (Ireland) Bill, 108; on the evacuation
of Candahar, 126; on Lord Beaconsfield, 141;
chosen Conservative leader, 149; on France and
Tunis, 152; on the Irish policy of the Liberal party,
178; on the gravity of the situation in Ireland,
180, 181; on the Report of the Royal Commission
on Agriculture in Ireland, 193; on the Irish Land
Bill, 202; and the action of the House of Lords
thereanent, 208; on Irish land legislation, iv. 2;
and the Phoenix Park Murders, 7; and the Kil-
mainham Treaty, 10, 11; in support of the Pre-
vention of Crimes Bill, 13; on the vital error of
the Government's Irish policy, 13, 14; and the
Arrears Bill, 14-16; on the Irish policy of govern-
ment, 21; on the Government policy of confisca-
tion, 25; on the loyalty of Ulster, 26; on the
Liberal policy (1882), 60, 61; and the dual leader-
ship, 62-64; and the Agricultural Holdings Bill,
65; and Social Reform, 66; his exposure of Liberal
failures in Foreign, Colonial, and Domestic policy,
66-71; his activity as a leader in 1884, 72; action
regarding County Franchise and Redistribution,
74-90; his commission on Housing the Poor, 90;
and the reform of the House of Lords, 93; and the
Egyptian vote of censure, 96; on the Penjdeh
incident, 100, 101; settles the Afghan boundary,
101; and Conservative unity, 103; and the defeat
of Mr. Gladstone, 105; difficulties in forming an
administration, 106; its constitution, 108; eulogy
of Lord Spencer, 112;his Newport speech, 115.
118; reply to Mr. Chamberlain, 119, 120; on the
Liberal party and trade depression, 120, 121; on
the "holy doctrine of free trade," 121; on
"Ran-
som" and "Restitution," 122; and the 1885
General Election, 123; his party in a minority at
the polls, 124, 125; his message to Mr. Gladstone
on Irish policy, 126, 127; letter to Mr. W. H.
Smith, 128-130; on coercion and the attitude of
Mr. Gladstone, 130; resigns, 131; speech on Mr.
Gladstone's Home Rule Government, 132; speech
at the opera-house meeting, 136; his "Hottentot
speech, 137; offer to Lord Hartington, 139; com-
position of his 1886-1892 administration, 140; Lord
Hartington's support to, 141; at the Lord Mayor's
banquet, 142; speech on the Address (1886), 142;
on the Bulgarian question, 143; denounces the
Plan of Campaign, 144; and Lord Randolph Chur-
chill's resignation, 145, 146; renewal of his offer to
Lord Hartington, 146; and Greek activity against
Turkey, 147; and the death of Lord Iddesleigh,
147, 148; reconstruction of the Cabinet, 148; his
programme, 149; on parliamentary procedure,
154; political activity, 157; on foreign affairs,
158; and the British occupation of Egypt, 159,
160; and French troops in the New Hebrides, 160;
and Imperial Federation, 160, 161; speeches in
1888, 161; proposal for the reform of the House
of Lords, 164; and foreign affairs in 1888, 167;
on Irish politicians as prisoners, 170; on fusion
with the Liberal Unionists, 173; and Free Educa-
tion, 173; seized with influenza, 174; and the
misunderstanding with Portugal, 174-176; and the
Anglo-German Convention, 180; and the Protector
rate in Zanzibar, 182; and the Anglo-French
Convention, 182, 188, 189; and the Behring Sea
dispute, 183; and free education, 187; and the
feud in the Irish Party, 189; and the Triple
Alliance, 190; speeches on Ulster and Free Trade,
-
238
INDEX.
192-194; and the 1892 General Election, 195;
defeat of his government and resignation, 196; on
the Evicted Tenants Commission, 196, 197; his
article in the National Review, 197; action regard-
ing the Employer' Liability and Parish Councils
Bills, 202; on Lord Rosebery's programme, 206;
and the Evicted Tenants Bill, 207; on the Equali-
sation of Rates Bill, 207; introduces the Aliens
Bill, 209; on Lord Rosebery's promised Resolution,
209; at the funeral of Lord Randolph Churchill,
211; and the Armenian question, 211; on Sir
William Harcourt's followers, 214; on Socialisin
and Radical domestic policy, 215; criticism of con-
duct in Uganda, 215, 216; accepts office, 219;
Prime Minister, 220; his majority after the
General Election, 220; the composition of his
administration, 222; aim and scope of this account
of his life, 222-224; as a scientist, 224
Salisbury, the Marchioness of, at Constantinople, ii.
70; other references to, 74
Samoa, treaty regarding, iv. 182
Samuelson, Mr., and the Royal Titles Bill, ii. 143
Sandon, Lord. See Harrowby, Lord
Sandwich Islands, the U.S.A. and the, iv. 205
San Juan Island, dispute concerning, i. 152
Santo, Caserio, murders President Carnot, iv..209
Sarik Turkomans and the Queen, iv. 101
Sasulitch, Vera, attempt on the life of General
Trepoff, ii. 20S
Saturday Review, The, Lord Salisbury and, i. 79
Saunderson, Col., and the Irish Nationalists, iv. 153
Saussier, General, iv. 158
Savings Bank Bill (1875), the, ii. 4
Saxony joins Prussia against Denmark, i. 72
Say, M. Léon, ii. 169
Schildner-Schuldner, General, at Plevna, ii. 95
Schleswig-Holstein question, i. 63, 72-76
Schnabele, M., his arrest, iv. 157, 158
Schnadhorst, Mr., and the Liberal Unionists, iv. 138
School Board, the, i. 130, 182
Schouvaloff, Count, and the Khiva Expedit´on, i.
190; and the Eastern Question, ii. 60, 88, 116, 130
Schuyler, Mr. Eugene, ii. 68, 158
Scientific endowments, Lord Salisbury and Dr. Tait
cn, ii. 148-150
"Scientific Frontier" for India, a, ii. 178
Scindia, and the Penjdeh affair, iv. 99
Scotch Church Disestablishment, iv. 198, 206
Scotch Crofters Bill, iv. 214
Scotch Local Government Bill, iv. 171, 172, 206,
211, 214
Scott, Sir Gilbert, death of, ü. 206
Sebastopol, siege and capture of, i. 46, 51
Secretary for Scotland Bill, iv. 112
Secret Societies, in Europe, ii. 58; in Ireland, iv. 2
"Secret Treaty," the, with Russia, ii. 120, 121;
with Turkey, 202, 203
Sedan, the battle of, i. 136
Selborne, Lord, ii. 150. 154; iv. 69, 77, 131, 134, 202
Selwyn, Bishop, and the Irish Church Bill, i. 118
Senaputty, Prince, Manipur, iv. 189
""
CC
Separatist as applied to the Liberal Party, iv. 232
Serapis, The, ii. 9
Server Pasha, ü. 42-44, 226
Servia, relations between Prince Milan and his
Ministers, ii. 42; at war with Turkey. 55-58;
armistice, 101; under the Treaty of Berlin, 216;
war with Bulgaria, 227, 228
Settled Land Act, iv. 59
Sexton, Mr. Thos., and Colonel Saunderson, iv. 153
Seymour, Sir IIamilton, and the Czar Nicholas's
proposals regarding Turkey, i. 40
Seyyed Barghash, Sultan of Zanzibar, ii. 35
Shaftesbury, Lord, i. 109, 111, 159; ii. 68, 200; iv. 90
Shaw, Mr., and the agrarian movement, ii. 234
Shaw, Rev. Mr., imprisoned by the French, iv. 70
Shaw-Lefevre, Mr., iv. 83, 196, 205, 214
Shepstone, Sir Theophilus, and the Transvaal, ii. 166
Sherbrooke, Viscount, i. 22, 76, 78, 81, 82, 88, 115,
120, 169, 180, 182; ii. 103, 104, 146
Shere Ali, Ameer of Afghanistan, relations with
Russia and Great Britain, ii. 174-176, 199
Shere Ali, Wali of Candahar, revolt against, ii. 195
Sherpur Cantonments, the, battle on, ii. 194
Shevket Pasha, and the Bulgarian atrocities, ii. 75
Shipka Pass, the, ii. 96 -
Shiré, East Africa, iv. 174, 188
Siam, dispute with France concerning, iv. 190
Sibi Valley, the, ii. 190
Sierra Leone, the frontier question, iv. 211
Sikkim, disturbance in, iv. 168
Sikukuni, capture of his stronghold, iii. 2
Silver, the value of, ii. 166
Simeoni, Cardinal, iv. 24
Simla Mission, the, ii. 175
Simon, M. Jules, i. 140, 142
Sinope Harbour, Turkish fleet destroyed in, i. 43
Skene, Colonel, his fate at Manipur, iv. 189
Skoboleff, General, and the Russo-Turkish War,
ii. 96, 97, 116, 157
Slaves, Christian, on sale at Constantinople, ii. 74
Slave Circular, Lord Derby's, ii. 32
Slave Trade, Germany and the, iv. 192
Slivintza, battle of, ii. 128
Small Holdings Bill, iv. 191, 192
Smith, Mr. Justice, iv. 166
Smith, Mr. W. H., political and ministerial career,
i. 186: ii. 160; iv. 2, 62, 108, 128-130, 136, 140,
142, 148, 149, 166, 170, 177, 178; death of, 190
Smyth, Mr. P. J., on Home Rule, ii. 47, 156
Socialism in France, Lord Salisbury and, iv. 215
Sofia, ii. 116, 129
Sokoto, and the British Niger Company, iv. 182
Somerset, the Duke of, i. 89; ii. 182
Somerset, Protector, and William Cecil, i. 2
Soudan, the, and the vote of eleven millions, iv. 100,
119, 175
South Africa, attempted federation of, ii. 34, 35;
Liberal policy in, iv. 66; the Liberal Government
and, 91; British difficulties in, 175
South Africa Confederation Bill, the, ii. 160, 166
South African Chartered Company, operations
against Lobengula, iv. 205
South African Republic, iv. 182
Spain, and the Franco-German War, i. 134
Speakership, the dispute over the, iv. 213, 214
Spencer, Lord, iv. 6, 21, 22, 24, 25, 59, 109-111, 128,
131, 170, 196, 200, 207, 211
Spicheren, battle on the heights of, i. 136
Stambuloff, M., ii. 129, 130; iv. 174
Stamford, representation of, i. 26-30, 56, 108, 170
Standard, the, cited, i. 79; ii. 199; iv. 83, 125
Stanhope, Mr. Edw., official career, iv. 108, 140, 148
Stanhope, Lord, i. 117; death of, ii. 35
Stanley, Colonel. See Derby, Earl of
Stanley, Mr. H. M., and African affairs, ii. 206; iv.
148, 174, 175
Stanley of Preston, Lord, iv. 140
Stanmore, Lord, and Uganda, iv. 215
Stansfeld, Mr. James, political career, iv. 134, 144
State Socialism, Mr. Chamberlain and, iv. 95
Stephen, Sir James FitzJames, ii. 176
Stewart, General Sir Donald, in Afghanistan, ii.
190, 194, 195, 198
Stokes, Sir G. G., ii. 150
Strasburg, capitulation of, i. 137
Stratford de Redcliffe, Lord, i. 42
Stroud election in 1873, i. 174
Stuart-Wortley, Mr., iv. 108
Suez Canal, the, ii. 23-29; iv. 160
Sugar Bounties Convention, iv. 168, 171
Sugar duties, abolition of the, i. 204
Sukhum Kaleh, capture of, ii. 94
Suleiman Pasha, attack on the Shipka Pass, ii. 96
Sullivan, Mr. Alexander, iv. 18
Sullivan, Mr. J. D., imprisonment of, iv. 157
Sumatra, war in, i. 200
Summary Jurisdiction of Magistrates Act, ii. 210
Sunday Closing in Ireland Bill, ii. 147
Suppression of Rebellion Act, the, cited, ii. 32
Swat River, the, iv. 216
Swaziland, the Government of, iv. 182
Swazis, the, and the Boers, iv. 216
Sweden, Independence of, i. 146
Switzerland, Independence of, i. 146
INDEX.
Tagus, British squadron at, iv. 176
Tait, Archbishop, and the Oxford Union Society, i.
20; as a debater, 110; action on the Irish Church
Bill, 116, 117, 120; and the Public Worship
Regulation Bill, 208, 210; and Prize Fellowships,
ii. 150; on Scientific Endowments, 150; on Dis-
senters and Parish Churchyards, 152; and the
County Franchise Bill, iv. 77, 78
Tamatave, French bombardment of, iv. 70
Taylor, Colonel Meadows, death of, ii. 158
Taylor, Mr. T. A., and the “flogging clauses" of
the Army Bill, ii. 211
Taymouth Castle, the, boarded by the French, iv. 70
Tchernayeff, General, in command of the Servian
Army, ii. 56
Technical Education, iv. 178
Telis, capture of Turkish positions at, ii. 97
Temple, Sir Richard, and the famine in India, i. 194
Tewfik Pasha, Prince, and the Star of India, ii. 9;
and Ismail Pasha's debts, 201
Theebaw, King, his rule, ii. 238;. iv. 71, 128
Theobalds, the seat of the Cecils, i. 3, 6; exchanged
for Hatfield House, 8
Theodore, King, killed, i. 103, 104
"Theories of Parliamentary Reform," by Lord
Salisbury, i. 59
Thesiger, Sir Frederick. See Chelmsford, Lord
Thiers, M., during the Franco-German War and
the Commune, i. 137, 140, 142, 143; ii. 170. 171
Thirlwalls, Bishop, action on the Irish Church Bill, i.
118, 119
Thompson, Archbishop, and the Burials Bill, ii. 162
Thornycroft, Mr., his statue of Lord Mayo, ii. 14
Three Acres and a Cow," iv. 118, 124, 131
"Three F's," the, iv. 95
•
Tilden, Mr., and the Presidency of the U.S.A., ii. 158
Timbs, John, on the historical documents at Hatfield
House, i. 12
Times, the, and Mr. Parnell, iv. 153, 176; the
"Phoenix Park Letter," 153-156, 166, 168, 169;
"Parnellism and Crime,' " 153, 166; and the
"Parnell Commission," 168, 169, 176, 177
Tirnova, occupation of, ii. 94, 95; Provisional
Government at, 129
Tithe Rent Charge Recovery Bill, iv. 181-186
Tithes Bill, the, iv. 171, 179
Todleben, General, investment of Plevna by, ii. 97
Tonkin, the French in, iv. 94
Tooth, Rev. Arthur, Vicar of St. James's, Hatcham,
ii. 167, 168
Tory Democracy, ii. 64
Tower of London, Fenian outrage at the, iv. 95, 96
Tractarian Movement, the, i. 17, 18, 207
Trafalgar Square Riots, i. 94
Traill, Mr. H. D., i. 22, 59, 61, 80, 128, 129; ii. 121
Transvaal, the, annexation of, ii. 166, 167; affairs
in, in 1882, iv. 61; the Convention, 70; arrange-
ments with, 182
"Treaties of Commerce," Lord Salisbury on, ii. 232
Treaty of Berlin, the, relic of, at Hatfield House, i.
12; terms of, ii. 122-124, 126, 130-132; the
carrying out of, 214; iv. 143, 149
239
Treaty of Gandamak, the, ii. 190
Treaty of London, the, and the Schleswig-Holstein
question, i. 72, 74
Treaty of Paris, the, i. 50, 51, 58, 147-151; ii. 23
Treaty of San Stefano, preliminary, ii. 106, 116
Trepoff, General, attempt on the life of, ii. 208
Trevelyan, Sir George, iv. 11, 12, 21, 22, 25, 59, 91,
132, 134, 143, 149, 196, 214
Trevor, Archbishop, on Archbishop Tait and the
Irish Church Bill, i. 120, 121
Tricoupis, M., and the Crisis in Greece, iv. 147
Trinity College, Dublin, i. 165
Trinity College, Oxford, education at, ii. 147
Tripartite Treaty of 1856, the, cited, ii. 182
Triple Alliance, the, iv. 94, 143, 167, 173, 190
Trochu, General, President of the Provisional Go-
vernment, i. 137, 138
Trojan Pass, the, penetration of, ii. 116
Turkestan, Russian cruelties in, ii. 68; works on, 158
Turkey, Russia's designs against, i. 40-42; declares
war against Russia, 43; her fleet destroyed in
the Black Sea, 43; and the proposals regarding
the Danubian Principalities, 58; her indepen-
dence guaranteed by treaty, 146; and the neu-
trality of the Black Sea, 147, 150; desire for an
active British alliance, ii. 77; and the European
conference, 78, 79; insurrectionary movement in
her Greek provinces, 116; hostility of Greece
towards, iv. 146, 147; and the British occupation
of Egypt, 159, 160; and Armenia, 210, 211
Tweedmouth, Lord. political career, iv. 205, 206
Tynan, P. J., the Invincibles and the Phoenix Park
murders, iv. 17
Tytler, General, and the Afghan War, ii. 188
Uganda, iv. 180, 192, 198, 206, 215, 216
Ulster, and Home Rule, iv. 26, 132, 193, 194
Umballa, reception of Shere Ali at, ii. 174
Umra Khan, Chitral chief, iv. 216
Unification of London Bill, iv. 211
United Ireland and Lord Spencer, iv. 24
United States of America, the, Charles Fox's svm-
pathies with, ii. 99; close contest for the Pre-
sidency of, 158; Lord Sackville and the elections
in, iv. 167; adoption of rigorous Protection in,
174; and Samoa, 182; and the Behring Sea
Fisheries, 183, 188, 192, 205, 209; and the Sand-
wich Islands, 205
University of Cambridge Bill, the, ii. 150, 161
University of Oxford Bill, ii. 147-150, 161, 162
"Unspeakable Turk." the, ii. 69, 70
Utah, the State of, ii. 172
Vaccination Bill, the, iv. 200
Van Dieman's Land, its convicts and the gold rush
in Australia, i. 25
Vatican, the, relations of Irish Nationalist leaders,
priesthood and episcopacy with, iv. 24, 25; Sır
George Errington's confidential mission to, 25
Vatican Decrees, the, i. 218-222
Versailles, during the Franco-German war, i. 138,
142-144
"Vicar of Bray," Lord Lawrence as, ii. 182, 184
Victor Emanuel, King, occupies Rome, i. 147; death
of, ii. 207, 208
Victoria, Queen, and Lord Palmerston. i. 35; and
Czar Nicholas's proposal regarding Turkey, 40;
and Mr. Gladstone's Bill to disestablish the Irish
Church, 116, 117; her warrant abolishing Purchase
in the army, 156, 157; and the Royal Titles Bill,
ii. 146; proclamation of, as Empress of India, 166 ;
attends the funeral of Prince Leopold, iv. 93;
Jubilee of, 161
Victoria Nyanza, Lake, iv. 192
Vienna Conference, the, and the Crimean War, i. 50
"Vienna Note," the, and its failure, i. 42
240
INDEX
Villiers, Mr., and Free Trade, i. 37; and the Home
Rule division, iv. 131
Vincent, Sir C. Howard, and British trade, iv. 161
Vitztham, Count, and the Schleswig-Holstein ques-
tion, i. 72
Voluntary Schools, and the Elementary Education
Act, i. 130-133; and Free Education, iv. 187,
188; and Parish Councils, 202
Waddington, Mr., accepts office, ii. 169; corres-
pondence with Ld. Salisbury on Egypt, 202, 203
Wade, Sir Thos., and the Chefoo Convention, ii. 571
Walewsky, Count, and Lord Palmerston, i. 35
Walfish Bay, annexation of, ii. 238; Germany and,
iv. 180
Wali Mohammed, and the Afghan throne, ii. 189
Wallachia, proposals regarding the union of, with
Moldavia in 1858, i. 58, 59
Walpole, Mr. Spencer, i. 56, 62, 86, 92, 94; ii. 150
Walsh, Archbishop, and Home Rule, iv. 192
Walshe, Mr. John W., on Boycotting, iii. 174
Walsingham, death of (1590), i. 4
War, declaration of, and Parliament, ii. 182
War Office Reform, the Rosebery Government and,
iv. 218
Warren, Sir Charles, in Bechuanaland, iv. 91
"Wasp's Waist," the, iv. 180
Wastrels," the disposal of, ii. 154
Waterford, Lord, and Irish affairs, iv. 10, 14
Watts, Mr. G. F., and the Grosvenor Gallery, ii. 172
Webster, Sir Richard, iv. 108, 140, 168, 169
Welby, Sir Reginald, letter from Sir Stafford North-
cote to, i. 202
Wellington, the Duke of, and Russia's demands
regarding Turkey's Christian subjects, i. 42
Welsh Disestablishment Bill, the, iv. 198, 206, 207,
211, 212
Welsh Suspensory Bill, the, iv. 200
Wemyss, Lord, and County Franchise Bill, iv. 81
Werther, Baron, at the European Conference at
Constantinople, ii. 75
West, Sir Algernon, and Mr. Gladstone's retirement,
iv. 203
West Africa, conflict between British and French
troops in, iv. 209, 210
Westbury, Lord, speech against the Irish Church
Bill, i. 118
Western Australia Act, iv. 179
Westminster, the Duke of, and the Eastern Question.
ii. 68; Mr. Gladstone's visit to, iv. 126
Westminster Palace, Fenian outrage at, iv. 96
Wheeler, Mr., work on Abdur-Rahman, iv. 98, 101
Whigs, the Peelites and the, i. 20, 21; policy of,
29; the Ministry of 1846, 33-36; strength of, in
1854, 43; and Parliamentary Reform, 59; and
their support of Napoleon I., ii. 99
Whistler, Mr., and the Grosvenor Gallery, ii. 172
Whiteboy Act, the, cited, ii. 32
Whitehead, dynamiter, trial of, iv. 21
Whiteway, Sir William, and the Newfoundland
Fisheries dispute, iv. 188, 189
Widdin, battle of, ii. 128
Wilberforce, Bishop, as a debater, i. 110; and the
Irish Church Bill, 119
1.
„Î
Wilhelmshöhe, Napoleon III. released from, i. 143
William I., Emperor of Germany, and the origin of
the Franco-German War, i. 134; takes part in
the campaign, 136; at Versailles, 138; offered
the Imperial crown, 144; his award in the San
Juan dispute, 152; attempts on the life of, ii. 208 ;
iv. 167
William II., Emperor of Germany, his anti-English
feeling, iv. 167,, 172; his dismissal of Bismarck,
173; and the transfer of Heligoland, 180; and
the Triple Alliance, 190
William, Duke of Mecklenburg, and the surre: der
of Laon, i. 137
William of Malmesbury, historical MS. of, at Hat-
field House, i. 12
Wills of Cardinal Antonelli and Erigham Young, ii.
170, 171
Wilmot, Sir E., and the Seats Bill, iv. 103
Wilson, dynamiter, trial of, iv. 21
Wilson, Major, killed, iv. 205
Wilson, Sir Charles Rivers, and Egyptian finance,
ii. 204, 230
Winterbotham, Mr., and the Elementary Education
Act, i. 131
•·
Wissemburg, French defeat at, i. 136
Witu, Germany and, iv. 180
Worth, French defeat at, i. 136
Wolff, Sir Henry Drummond, and the Eastern Ques-
tion, ii. 91; and the evacuation of Egypt, iv. 159
Wolmer, Lord. See Selborne, Earl of
Wolseley, Lord, his conduct of the Ashantee War, i.
200-202; temporary Administrator of Natal, ii.
34; Governor of Cyprus, 126, 213, 214
Wolsey, Cardinal, historical MS. of, at Hatfield
House, i. 12
Worms, Baron Henry de, and Sugar Bounties, iv.
168, 171
Würtemburg, and the Franco-German War, i. 135
Yakoob Khan, and Afghanistan, ii, 174, 188, 189,
193, 194
Yarmouth, the Earl of, fire at the seat of, ii. 238
Yate, Captain, and the Russo-Afghan conflict on
the Kushk, iv. 98
Young, Brigham, career and last will of, ii. 171, 172
Yulatan, Russian troops at, iv. 98
Yunnan, scene of murder of Mr. Margary, ii. 157
Zahidabad, General Macpherson at, ii. 194
Zambesi, the, free navigation of, iv. 188
Zambesi District, the, iv. 180
Zankoff, M., and the deportation of Prince Alexan-
der, ii. 128
Zanzibar, visit of the Sultan of, to England, ii. 35;
Conservative policy regarding, iv. 120; British
protectorate over, 180, 182; and Uganda, 201;
and the British East African Company, 216
Zelenoi, General, and the Penjdeh affair, iv. 98
Zichy, Count, and the European Conference at
Constantinople, ii. 75
Zulfikar, on the frontier of Afghanistan, iv. 101
Zululand, Boer intrigue in, iv. 92; rebellion of
Zulu Chieftains, 168
: THE END.
PRINTED BY J. S. VIRTUE AND CO., LIMITED, CITY ROAD, LONDON.
}
In Four Volumes, cloth gilt, at 12s. 6d. each; or in Twenty Parts at 2s. each.
A NEW AND IMPORTANT WORK
BY
OSCAR BROWNING,
FELLOW OF KING'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, AND UNIVERSITY LECTURER;
AND FELLOW OF THE ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
M.A.,
THE NEW ILLUSTRATED
HISTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES
ΤΟ
The Jubilee of Queen Victoria.
ΤΗ
HIS work is designed as a family and general History of England, written in
a popular style. Every fact or incident of importance in the Social, Political,
and Religious life of the English people, from the earliest times to the present
day, will be chronicled, and full advantage will be taken of the discoveries of
modern scholarship. Whilst sufficiently erudite to be of service to the student,
the entertaining and narrative form in which it is written will attract and interest the
general reader.
It is divided into three parts, the first ending with the Accession of Henry VII.,
the second with the Revolution of 1688, and the third with the events of our own
time. A sketch of the rise and development of the English constitution will be
given at the end of the first part, and a short history of English literature at the
end of the second part.
In the selection of the wood engravings, of which there are several hundred in
the text, care has been taken that they should be of real assistance to the reader.
They consist principally of Portraits of Notable Personages, views of Historic
Castles and places of interest, Costumes and Coins from contemporary drawings,
Maps, and Plans; the chief events in English history will also be fully illustrated
by careful artists. In addition to the wood engravings there is a series of Portraits
of the Kings and Queens of England, engraved on steel.
By the publication of calendars of state papers and other works by the Master
of the Rolls, the knowledge of English history, especially of the early periods, has
been revolutionised during the last thirty years. It is hoped that by the publication
of the present work the results thus obtained may be brought within the reach of all
classes of the English people.
CONDITIONS OF PUBLICATION.
The Work will be completed in Twenty Parts at 25. cach; or in Four Volumes, cloth gilt, at
12s. 6d. each.
Each Part will contain Sixty-four pages of Letterpress, profusely illustrated by Engravings on
Wood, and Two Engravings on Steel; and each Volume will contain about Three Hundred and
Twenty pages of illustrated Letterpress, and Ten Engravings on Steel.
The size of the Work is Imperial 8vo, and it will only be sold to Subscribers.
NO ORDER WILL BE RECEIVED FOR LESS THAN THE ENTIRE SET.
LONDON: J. S. VIRTUE & CO., LIMITED, CITY ROAD AND IVY Lane.
F. - VOL. J.
SUPPLIED TO SUBSCRIBERS
ONLY.
In Two Vols., Quarto, at 21s. each; or in Four Divisions, cloth gilt, gilt edges, at 10s. 6d. each
or in Fifteen Parts at 2s. each.
HER MAJESTY'S ARMY.
A DESCRIPTIVE ACCOUNT
OF THE
VARIOUS REGIMENTS NOW COMPRISING THE QUEEN'S BRITISH REGULAR
AND VOLUNTEER FORCES, FROM THEIR FIRST ESTABLISHMENT
TO THE PRESENT DATE.
BY WALTER RICHARDS.
Illustrated with a Series of Coloured Plates
FROM PICTURES PAINTED SPECIALLY FOR THIS WORK BY WELL-KNOWN
MILITARY ARTISTS.
AT
T the present time, when the country's warlike capacities are being discussed by news-
papers, politicians, and the military profession, an account at once popular and authentic
of the forces which go to make up our "Second Line of Defence," cannot but prove of interest.
Beyond the fact that the Army is roughly divided into Cavalry, Artillery, and Infantry, that
the three branches are divided into 'regiments, and that some of these regiments have
magnificent and picturesque uniforms, it is doubtful whether the general public knows much
about the Army of which it is so proud.
In issuing the present work, the Publishers believe it will supply a long-felt want of a
Regimental History at once authentic and popular, and which to service men and civilians will
be valuable as an interesting and reliable work of reference.
Each regiment has its individuality, its history, its traditions, its legends; and it is the
consciousness of this inheritance that has often turned impending defeat into brilliant victory,
and made the-
Facing fearful odds'
the usual conditions under which British troops fight-and conquer. These histories, legends,
and traditions will form an attractive feature in this work on "HER MAJESTY'S ARMY."
A considerable portion of the work will be devoted to the Auxiliary Forces of the Crown.
An account of the origin and progress of the Volunteer movement, with the history of each of
the regiments which compose our Citizen Army, will be given, and some of the more important
of the suggestions which the present movement of public opinion has called forth will be
recorded.
CC
The coloured plates with which the work is illustrated will delineate the uniforms and
general appearance of the officers and men of the regular and auxiliary forces of the present
time, and the name of the artist is a sufficient guarantee that these illustrations will not be of
the conventional kind painfully familiar to all, but will be of intrinsic merit, not only as works
of art, but as absolutely faithful representations of the subjects they portray.
It is difficult to single out any class as the one to which such a work as “HER MAJESTY'S
ARMY " most forcibly appeals. To all who personally or through relatives are more directly
interested its usefulness is obvious. To the student of politics who sees at work giant forces-
as yet but dimly visible-of whose force and tendency none can be certain, this history of
what strong leaders of men have done by means of organized forces in troublous days of old
will be invaluable. To all who are proud of their country and its history, and who believe
that in the records of the past can be read the promise of the future, it is impossible to mention
any work that will appeal with greater force than "HER MAJESTY'S ARMY.”
CONDITIONS OF PUBLICATION.
The Work is complete in Fifteen Parts at 2s. each; or in Five Divisions at 6s. each; or in Four Divisions
at 10s. 6d. each; or in Two Vols. at 21s. each.
Each Part contains Forty-eight Pages of Letterpress, and Two Coloured Illustrations. Each 6s. Division
contains One Hundred and Forty-four Page, and Six Coloured Illustrations. Each 10. ód. Division, One
Hundred and Seventy-six Pages, and Eight Coloured Illustrations. Each Volume, Three Hundred and Sixty
Pages and Fifteen Coloured Illustrations.
The size of the Work is Demy 4to. The issue is sold to Subscribers only.
No ORDER WILL BE RECEIVED FOR LESS THAN THE ENTIRE SET.
LONDON: J. S. VIRTUE & CO., LIMITED, 26, IVY LANE, AND 294, CITY ROAD.
In Monthly Parts at 1s. 6d. each.
The Art Journal, 1896.
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT.
THE
HE presentation of a large and beautiful copyright Etching to Subscribers to THE ART JOURNAL
having proved acceptable, the proprietors have decided to still further increase the popularity of
the JOURNAL by arranging to PRESENT to all Annual Subscribers for 1896 an impression of a
VALUABLE ORIGINAL COPYRIGHT ETCHING,
FROM A CHARACTERISTIC AND BEAUTIFUL PICTURE BY
L. ALMA
TADEMA, R.A.,
ENTITLED
"THE CONVALESCENT."
This is one of the most complete and careful pictures of the renowned artist, and the Subscribers to
THE ART JOURNAL for 1896 are to be congratulated on the choice and remarkable work which will be
presented to them on the conditions named in the full Prospectus of THE ART JOURNAL.
At the request of Mr. Alma Tadema, the Etching will be prepared by Mr. C. O. MURRAY, who is
well known as a faithful and artistic interpreter of the painter's pictures. The fact that Mr. Alma Tadema
has himself selected the Etcher, is a guarantee of the quality of the work to be produced. THE ETCHING
will be of large dimensions, having an engraved surface of 20 by 12 inches, about the same size as "Hit,"
after the late Lord Leighton, P.R.A., presented to Subscribers for 1895.
While thus devoting itself to the diffusion of high Art in a size suitable for framing, no diminution will
be made in the efforts to supply the cultured public with a FIRST-CLASS monthly publication devoted
specially to artistic work. The following engagements have been made for THE ART JOURNAL for 1896:
Large Plates, Etchings, Photogravures and Tinted Plates.
Caledonia Stern and Wild. Etching after
PETER GRAHAM, R.A., by C. O. MURRAY.
In the Forest. Etching after DAGNAN BOU-
VERET, by G. H MANESSE.
Glen Affaric. Etching after J. MACWHIRTER,
R.A., by R. W. MACBETH, Á.R.A.
Queen Mary's Farewell to Scotland.
Etching after A. C. Gow, R.A., by C. O.
MURRAY.
Forging the Anchor. Photogravure from
the picture by STANHOPE A. FORBES, A.R.A.
Pauvre Fauvette. Photogravure from the
picture by BASTIEN LEPAGE.
AND MANY OTHER LARGE PLATES.
An Eastern Girl. Tinted Plate from the
picture by J. L. GERÔME, H.F.R.A.
Love's Curse. Tinted Plate from the picture
by Mrs. ALMA TADEMA.
THE ILLUSTRATED ARTICLES
will cover a considerable variety of ground, and the subjects will, in all cases, be found to be of interest to
admirers of the Fine Arts.
By
TECHNICAL ARTICLES.
THE PRINTING OF WALL PAPERS. By L. F. Day. | GOLD, SILVER AND
Wall
Gold, SilveR AND COPPERSMITHS.
Miller.
WHITEFRIARS GLASS. By Gleeson White.
WOMEN WORKERS IN THE ART CRAFTS.
Fred. Miller.
JAPANESE CRAFTSMEN. By Ernest Hart.
JAPANESE CARICATURES. By E. F. Strange.
RECENT ARTISTIC STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERY.
By J. M. O'Fallon.
By Fred.
WOOD CARVERS. By Fred Miller.
NORWEGIAN WOOD-CARVING. By Gerald S.
Davies.
BOOKBINDERS AT HOME. By Fred. Miller.
MODERN LACE. By Mrs. Bruce Clarke.
THE DECORATION OF A YACHT. Text and Illus-
trations by G. C. Haité, R.B.A.
LONDON: J. S. VIRTUE & CO., LTD., 294, CITY ROAD, E.C.
SUPPLIED TO SUBSCRIBERS ONLY.
In Fifteen Parts, in specially designed Wrapper, at 25. each; or in Five Divisions at 6s. each; or in
Two Volumes, handsomely bound, cloth gilt, gilt edges, at 21s. each.
THE THAMES
FROM ITS RISE
TO THE
THE NORE.
BY WALTER ARMSTRONG.
ILLUSTRATED WITH NEARLY 400 ENGRAVINGS IN THE TEXT
AND
SIXTEEN ETCHINGS OR STEEL PLATES.
IN
N spite of all that has been written about the Thames, a book was much wanted which
should take a reader to its source, and thence conduct him to the sea, noticing all that is
notable on its banks, or within a short walk of them, and putting into a concise and complete
form the mass of association which has gathered about our noble river. Such a want the
present work is designed to supply.
The writer has put himself in the place of one starting from the rise of the stream in the
Gloucestershire meadows, and has followed its course, first on foot, and then, when it becomes
navigable, in a boat, down to its disappearance in the sea at the Nore; and he is thus in a
position to answer every question likely to be asked, and to direct the attention of all to those
features which can add to the interest of the journey.
He has, therefore, been enabled to produce a work which is at once pleasant to read,
of real practical use to those who take a holiday on the river-whose numbers increase every
year—and will form a beautiful and lasting record of such a holiday, and a special memento
for those who take an interest in the river, its scenery, its history, and associations.
The information obtained by the author on his journey from its source to the sea not
only deals with its historical associations, but describes the river as it at present is.
There are special sections dealing with the Amusements, Sports, Industries, &c., for
which the river is celebrated; notice is taken of the chief historical mansions and palaces
neighbouring its banks; and there is no doubt but that "THE THAMES" will be found to
give more information than any other work on the same subject. Its numerous illustrations
give a special interest and value to the useful and pleasantly written letterpress, and the
book will be found worthy of a place on every table and in every library.
CONDITIONS OF
PUBLICATION.
The Work is published in Fifteen Parts, at 2s. each; or in Five Divisions at 6s. each; or in Two Volumes, hand-
somely bound in cloth gilt, gilt edges, at 21s. cach. Each Part contains Twenty-four pages of Illustrated descriptive matter,
and either One Etching or One Steel Engraving. Each Division contains Seventy-two pages of descriptive matter, and Three
Etchings or Steel Engravings. Each Volume contains One Hundred and Eighty pages of descriptive matter, and Eight Etchings
or Steel Engravings.
The size of the Work is Royal Quarto. It is printed in the finest style, on special paper.
NO ORDER WILL BE RECEIVED FOR LESS THAN THE ENTIRE SET.
LONDON: J. S. VIRTUÈ & CO., LIMITED, 294, CITY ROAD, AND 26, IVY LANE.
ajdodlar makakke al
I
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
AWAUAW
3 9015 07481 2986
!
"
3
I
!
I
i
!
1
か
​