MIDLOTHIAN AND THE SECOND PREMIERSHIP
The leadership of the Liberal party had, upon the retirement of Mr.
Gladstone, been turned over to Lord Hartington. His sympathies were upon
the right side on the Eastern question, but he was a calm, slow-moving
man. At the proper time he would have taken the right measures in
Parliament, but the temper of the Liberal party and of the people
demanded present action and emphatic speech, then Mr. Gladstone came to
the rescue, and Lord Hartington found himself pushed aside. Mr.
Gladstone was again in fact the leader of the Liberal party, whose
standard he had carried aloft during those stirring times when the
Eastern question was the all-absorbing topic of debate in Parliament and
among the people of the land. The foreign policy of Lord Beaconsfield in
1878 and 1879 found a sleepless critic in Mr. Gladstone.
The day after the Parliament of 1878 had adjourned for the Easter
recess, it was announced that the Ministry had ordered the Indian
Government to dispatch 7000 native troops to the Island of Malta. The
order occasioned much discussion--political, legal, and constitutional.
It was warmly debated. It was thought that Lord Beaconsfield had
transcended his powers and done what could be done only by a vote of
Parliament. In the House of Commons Mr. Gladstone condemned the
proceedings as unconstitutional, and pointed out the dangers of the
Ministerial policy. Lord Beaconsfield received what he calculated
upon--the support of the House. For a member to differ from his policy
was almost to incur the imputation of disloyalty to Crown and country.
Indeed, Mr. Gladstone was seriously accused of treason by a member of
the House for an article in the _Nineteenth Century_.
Mr. Gladstone undauntedly continued the contest. He addressed a meeting
of Liberals in the Drill Hall, Bermondsey, July 20th, in which he said
that the Dissolution of Parliament could not long be postponed, and
urged the union and organization of all Liberals, and prompt measures to
secure such representation as the Liberals deserved in the coming
Parliament. Speaking of the Anglo-Turkish treaty, he pointed out the
serious obligations which devolved upon England under it. He added,
regarding the Turkish Convention, that, possibly it was necessary to
sustain the credit of the country, but whether that credit should be
sustained at such a price remained for the people to determine at the
polls. He rejoiced that these most unwise, extravagant, unwarrantable,
unconstitutional and dangerous proceedings had not been the work of the
Liberal party, but he was grieved to think that any party should be
found in England to perform such transactions.
A great debate arose in the House of Commons, extending over the whole
range of the Eastern question: The Treaty of Berlin, the Anglo-Turkish
Convention, the acquisition of Cyprus, the claims of Greece, etc. It was
begun by the Marquis of Hartington, who offered a resolution regretting
the grave responsibilities the Ministry had assumed for England with no
means of securing their fulfillment, and without the previous knowledge
of Parliament. Mr. Gladstone's speech during this debate is described as
"a long and eloquent address, unsurpassable for its comprehensive grasp
of the subject, its lucidity, point, and the high tone which animated it
throughout." Mr. Gladstone denied that his strictures upon the
Government in a speech made out of Parliament could be construed as Lord
Beaconsfield had taken them as a personal attack and provocation. If
criticism of this kind is prohibited the doors of the House might as
well be shut. He observed that, "Liberty of speech is the liberty which
secures all other liberties, and the abridgment of which would render
all other liberties vain and useless possessions." In discussing the
Congress at Berlin, Mr. Gladstone said, that he could not shut his eyes
to the fact that the Sclavs, looking to Russia had been freed, while the
Greeks, looking to England, remained with all their aspirations
unsatisfied; that Russia had secured much territory and large indemnity,
with the sanction of Europe; that the English Plenipotentiaries at the
Congress, Lord Salisbury and Lord Beaconsfield, as a general rule, took
the side of servitude, and that opposed to freedom.
With regard to the English responsibilities in Asiatic Turkey put upon
England at the Convention, he called them an "unheard of," and
"mad-undertaking," accomplished "in the dark," by the present Ministry.
Dealing with the treaty-making power of the country, he claimed that it
rested with Parliament in conjunction with the Executive. The strength
and the eloquence were on the side of the opposition, but the votes were
for the Government. The resolutions of Lord Hartington were defeated,
and the "imperial policy" of the Ministry was sustained. The _Spectator_
said, that, "Reason, prudence, and patriotism have hardly ever in our
times been voted down with so little show of argument, and even of
plausible suggestion."
The next step taken by the Ministry was to undertake war with
Afghanistan, in hopes of checking the advances of Russia in that
direction and of redressing grievances. England accomplished her purpose
in part, but greatly suffered for her exploit. Mr. Gladstone could not
remain quiet under the "adventurous policy" of the Premier. He condemned
the ministerial policy which had made the Queen an Empress, then
manipulated the prerogative in a manner wholly unexampled in this age,
and employed it in inaugurating policies about which neither the nation
nor the Parliament had ever been consulted. But arguments were of no
avail. The Conservative majority in Parliament had imbibed the idea that
the honor of England had to be protected. Some thought it had never been
assailed, but Lord Beaconsfield declared it was in peril, and men and
money were voted to defend it. "So the order was given for distant
peoples to be attacked, English blood to be spilled, the burdens of the
people, already too heavy, to be swollen, and the future liabilities of
this country to be enormously increased."
In November, at the Lord Mayor's banquet, Lord Beaconsfield, speaking of
Eastern affairs, said that the Government was not afraid of any invasion
of India by its northwestern frontier; but the frontier was "haphazard
and not a scientific one," and the Government wanted a satisfactory
frontier. Mr. Gladstone, in a letter to the Bedford Liberal Association,
asked: "What right have we to annex by war, or to menace the territory
of our neighbors, in order to make 'scientific' a frontier which is
already safe?"
In the autumn of 1879 Mr. Gladstone, having resolved to retire from the
representation of Greenwich at the next election, paid a farewell visit
to his constituents. At a luncheon given by the Liberal Association he
dwelt upon the necessity of a Liberal union. The Liberals had, owing to
their dissensions, given twenty-six votes to their opponents in 1874,
while the Government had been carried on for years by a Conservative
majority of less than twenty-six, showing the importance of
organization. At night Mr. Gladstone attended a great public meeting in
the Plumstead Skating Rink. On his entrance the whole audience rose and
cheered for several minutes. An address was presented, expressing regret
at his retirement, and the pride they would ever feel at having been
associated with his name and fame. Mr. Gladstone alluded to Lord
Beaconsfield's phrase respecting "harassed interests," and said he knew
of only one harassed interest, and that was the British nation. He
protested against the words "personal government" being taken to imply
that the Sovereign desired to depart from the traditions of the
constitution, yet he charged the advisers of the Crown with having
invidiously begun a system intended to narrow the liberties of the
people of England and to reduce Parliament to the condition of the
French Parliaments before the great Revolution.
Mr. Gladstone threw the whole responsibility of the Afghan war on the
Ministry, and maintaining that England had departed from the customs of
the forefathers, concluded as follows: "It is written in the eternal
laws of the universe of God that sin shall be followed by suffering. An
unjust war is a tremendous sin. The question which you have to consider
is whether this war is just or unjust. So far as I am able to collect
the evidence, it is unjust."
In December, 1878, the following resolution was offered in the House of
Commons: "That this House disapproves the conduct of her Majesty's
Government, which has resulted in the war with Afghanistan." Mr.
Gladstone strongly condemned the war with Afghanistan and the irritating
policy towards the Ameer, and concluded his address with the following
eloquent responses to the historical and moral aspects of the Afghan
difficulty: "You have made this war in concealment from Parliament, in
reversal of the policy of every Indian and Home Government that has
existed for the last twenty-five years, in contempt of the supplication
of the Ameer and in defiance of the advice of your own agent, and all
for the sake of obtaining a scientific frontier." This powerful speech
greatly impressed, for the moment, both parties in the House, but the
vote of censure was defeated, and the policy of the administration was
endorsed. During the debate Mr. Latham made a witty comparison. He said
that the Cabinet reminded him of the gentleman, who seeing his horses
run away, and being assured by the coachman that they must drive into
something, replied, "Then smash into something cheap!"
The Ministry presented a motion that the revenues of India should be
applied for the purposes of the war. Mr. Gladstone observed that it was
the people of England who had had all the glory and all the advantage
which resulted from the destruction of the late administration, and the
accession of the present Cabinet; and hence it was the people who must
measure the _pros_ and the _cons_, and who must be content, after having
reaped such innumerable benefits, to encounter the disadvantage of
meeting charges which undoubtedly the existing government would leave
behind it as a legacy to posterity. England gained her end in the
humiliation of Russia, but there were those who felt that the result of
the English policy would further the advance of Russia in Europe, and
that force would never make friends of the Afghans.
In the sessions of 1879 the Greek question came up in the House of
Commons on a motion, "That, in the opinion of this House, tranquillity
in the East demands that satisfaction be given to the just claims of
Greece, and no satisfaction can be considered adequate that does not
ensure execution of the recommendations embodied in Protocol 13 of the
Berlin Congress." Mr. Gladstone hoped that even in the present House
there would be found those who would encourage the first legitimate
aspirations of the Hellenic races after freedom. The government had
given pledges to advance the claims of Greece that had not been redeemed
at Berlin. Not one of the European powers was now averse to the claims
of the Greek kingdom, whose successful pleadings depended wholly upon
England for favorable answer. But the government objected, and the
motion was rejected. In July, Sir Charles Dilke called the attention of
the House to the obligations of Turkey under the Treaty of Berlin, when
Mr. Gladstone again earnestly enforced the claims of "Greece, weak as
she may be, is yet strong in the principles in which she rests."
December 29, 1879, Mr. Gladstone attained the seventieth year of his
age. His friends in Liverpool, and the Greenwich Liberal Association
presented him with congratulatory addresses. The journals paid him warm
tributes for his long and eminent public services. But few thought that
the veteran that had so successfully gone through one electoral campaign
was destined in a few months to pass through another, still more
remarkable, and yet be fresh for new triumphs. In the autumn of 1879 Mr.
Gladstone resolved upon a very important, and as his enemies thought, a
hopeless step. He had retired from the representation of Greenwich, and
he now boldly decided to contest the election for Midlothian, the county
of Edinburgh. He consequently proceeded to Scotland, in November, where
such an ovation was given him as has never been accorded to any man in
modern times. During the period of three weeks he addressed meetings
numbering seventy-five thousand people, while a quarter of a million of
people, with every exhibition of good-will and admiration, took part in
some way in the demonstration in his honor. In this canvass of
delivering political speeches he performed an oratorical and
intellectual feat unparalleled in the history of any statesman who had
attained his seventieth year. Mr. Gladstone addressed large concourses
of people. When he reached Edinburgh, "his progress was as the progress
of a nation's guest, or a king returning to his own again."
Midlothian, the scene of Mr. Gladstone's astonishing exertions, was one
of the Conservative strongholds, under the dominent influence of the
Duke of Buccleuch, whose son, Lord Dalkeith, Mr. Gladstone opposed in
contesting for the representation in Parliament. Mr. Gladstone said:
"Being a man of Scotch blood, I am very much attached to Scotland, and
like even the Scottish accent," and he afterwards said, "and Scotland
showed herself equally proud of her son." He spoke at Edinburgh,
November 26th, and on the following day at Dalkeith, in the very heart
of the Duke of Buccleuch's own property to an audience of three thousand
people, mostly agriculturists. At Edinburgh he met nearly five thousand
persons at the Corn Exchange, representing more than one hundred
Scottish Liberal Associations. In the Waverley Market Mr. Gladstone
addressed more than twenty thousand people, one of the largest
congregations ever assembled in-doors in Scotland, and met with a
reception which for enthusiasm was in keeping with the vastness of the
audience. December 5th, at Glasgow, he delivered his address as Lord
Rector to the students of the University, and in the evening addressed
an immense audience of nearly six thousand in St. Andrew's Hall. He was
most enthusiastically received, and he dwelt chiefly on Cyprus, the Suez
Canal, India, and Afghanistan. "We had Afghanistan ruined," he urged,
"India not advanced, but thrown back in government, subjected to heavy
and unjust charges, subjected to what might well be termed, in
comparison with the mild government of former years, a system of
oppression; and with all this we had at home the law broken and the
rights of Parliament invaded."
On the 8th of March, 1880, the immediate dissolution of Parliament was
announced in both Houses of Parliament, and the news created intense
political excitement and activity throughout the land. In his manifesto,
in the shape of a letter to the Duke of Marlborough, the Prime Minister
referred to the attempt made to sever the constitutional tie between
Great Britain and Ireland, and said: "It is to be hoped that all men of
light and leading will resist this destructive doctrine. There are some
who challenge the expediency of the Imperial character of this realm.
Having attempted and failed to enfeeble our colonies by their policy of
decomposition, they may now perhaps recognize in the disintegration of
the United Kingdom a mode which will not only accomplish, but
precipitate, that purpose. Peace rests on the presence, not to say the
ascendency, of England in the councils of Europe."
Mr. Gladstone and Lord Hartington issued their counter-manifestoes. Mr.
Gladstone repudiated Lord Beaconsfield's dark allusion to the repeal of
the union and the abandonment of the colonies, characterizing them as
base insinuations, the real purpose of which was to hide from view the
policy pursued by the Ministry, and its effect upon the condition of
the country; and said that public distress had been aggravated by
continual shocks from neglected legislation at home, "while abroad they
had strained the prerogative by gross misuse, had weakened the Empire by
needless wars, and dishonored it in the eyes of Europe by their
clandestine acquisition of the Island of Cyprus."
Mr. Gladstone began the electoral campaign with a speech at Marylebone
on the 10th of March, in which he announced Lord Derby's secession from
the Conservative to the Liberal party; and then he left London to enter
upon his second Midlothian campaign. At various points on the journey
Mr. Gladstone stopped and addressed the people from the cars, and it is
a remarkable fact that wherever he delivered an address the Liberals
gained a seat.
The first address made by Mr. Gladstone on his own account, was
delivered on the 17th of March, in the Music Hall, Edinburgh. After
dwelling at great length upon various questions of foreign policy, he
concluded with the following references personal to his opponents and
himself: "I give them credit for patriotic motives; I give them credit
for those patriotic motives which are incessantly and gratuitously
denied to us. I believe that we are all united, gentlemen--indeed it
would be most unnatural if we were not--in a fond attachment, perhaps in
something of a proud attachment, to the great country to which
we belong."
In his final speech at West Calder Mr. Gladstone drew a powerful
indictment against the administration, and placed the issue before the
country in a strong light. Throughout all the campaign, as the time for
the general election was approaching, only one question was submitted to
the electors, "Do you approve or condemn Lord Beaconsfield's system of
foreign policy?" And the answer was given at Easter, 1880, when the
Prime Minister and his colleagues received the most empathic
condemnation which had ever been bestowed upon an English Government,
and the Liberals were returned in an overwhelming majority of fifty over
Tories and Home Rulers combined. Mr. Gladstone succeeded in ousting Lord
Dalkeith from the representation of Midlothian by a respectable
majority. He was also elected at Leeds, but this seat was afterwards
given to his son, Herbert Gladstone. At the conclusion of the election
all the journals joined in admiring the indomitable energy and vigor of
the orator, who could carry out this great enterprise when he had
already passed the age of three-score years and ten. Edinburgh was
illuminated in the evening, and everywhere were to be witnessed signs of
rejoicing at Mr. Gladstone's victory. The result of the elections
throughout the country exceeded the most sanguine expectations of the
Liberals. So large a proportion of Liberal members had not been returned
to the House of Commons since the days of the first Reform Bill.
Lord Beaconsfield, as soon as the result of the election was known, and
without waiting for the meeting of Parliament, resigned. The Queen, in
conformity with the constitutional custom, summoned Lord Hartington, the
titular leader of the Liberal party in the House of Commons, to form a
cabinet. But he could do nothing. Then the Queen sent for Lord
Granville, who with Lord Hartington, went to Windsor April 23d. They
both assured the Queen that the victory was Mr. Gladstone's; that the
people had designated him for office, and that the Liberal party would
be satisfied with no other, and that he was the inevitable Prime
Minister. They returned to London in the afternoon, sought Mr. Gladstone
at Harley Street, where he was awaiting the message they brought from
the Queen--to repair to Windsor. That evening, without an hour's delay,
he went to Windsor, kissed hands, and returned to London Prime Minister
for the second time.
Mr. Gladstone again filled the double office of Premier and Chancellor
of the Exchequer in the new cabinet, which for general ability and
debating power was one of the strongest of the century. While some of
the cabinet officers were like Mr. Gladstone himself, without title,
others were representatives of the oldest nobility of the land. At the
very beginning the new administration were confronted by perplexing
questions. The Eastern question, chiefly by Mr. Gladstone's influence,
had been settled in accordance with the dictates of humanity and
religion. But there were other difficulties to be overcome. "At home,
his administration did good and useful work, including the extension of
the suffrage to the agricultural laborers; but it was seriously, and at
length fatally, embarrassed by two controversies which sprang up with
little warning, and found the Liberal party and its leaders totally
unprepared to deal with them."
The first embarrassing question which arose when the new Parliament met
was the great deficit of nine million pounds instead of an expected
surplus in the Indian Budget, owing to the Afghan war.
Foremost among the difficulties encountered was the case of Mr. Charles
Bradlaugh, elected a member of Parliament for Northampton. He demanded
to be permitted to make a solemn affirmation or declaration of
allegiance, instead of taking the usual oath. The question created much
discussion and great feeling, and Mr. Bradlaugh's persistence was met by
violence. Mr. Bright contended for liberty of conscience. Mr. Gladstone
favored permitting Mr. Bradlaugh to affirm on his own responsibility
which was finally done, but Mr. Bradlaugh was prosecuted in the courts.
The great difficulty arose from Mr. Bradlaugh's atheism.
A considerable share of the session of 1880 was occupied in the
consideration of the Irish Compensation for Disturbance Bill and other
Irish measures. In consequence of the rapid increase of evictions by
landlords, this protective measure had become absolutely necessary in
the interests of the Irish tenants. After prolonged debate--very
prolonged for so short a bill--thirty-five lines only--the bill was
passed by the Commons, but defeated by the Lords. The result was "seen
in a ghastly record of outrage and murder which stained the
following winter."
Home Rule for Ireland, which movement was started in the "seventies,"
was gaining ground, and every election returned to the House more
members pledged to its support. Those who were bent upon obtaining Home
Rule at any cost used obstructive means against other legislation to
gain their object, but as yet the movement was confined to the members
who had been elected by Irish constituents.
About the close of the session of 1880 the heavy burdens and
responsibilities of public service borne by Mr. Gladstone began to tell
upon him. At the end of July, while returning from home for the House
of Commons, Mr. Gladstone was taken ill. He was prostrated by fever and
great fears for his recovery were entertained by his family, his party
and a host of admirers throughout the country. A great outburst of
popular sympathy was manifested and frequent messages were received from
the Queen and many foreign potentates and celebrities. Distinguished
callers and telegrams continued to arrive at Downing Street for ten days
while the patient was confined to his bed at home. The President of the
United States and the King and Queen of the Belgians were among those
who sent messages of sympathy. "Rarely indeed, if ever, has there been
witnessed such a general and spontaneous expression of the national
sympathy towards a distinguished statesman whose life had been
imperilled by illness."
Mr. Gladstone's large store of vital energy brought him safely through
his dangerous illness and on approaching convalescence he took a sea
voyage round the entire coast of England in Sir Donald Currie's steamer,
"Grantully Castle."
Three years after this voyage around England the Premier visited the
Orkneys on a similar trip, in the "Pembroke Castle," the poet laureate
being of the party on this occasion. From the Orkneys he sailed across
to Denmark and suddenly appeared at Copenhagen, where Mr. Gladstone
entertained the Czar and Czarina, the King of Greece, and the King and
Queen of Denmark, and many others of their relatives who happened to be
visiting them at that time.
A great meeting was held June 21, 1880, in Her Majesty's opera house,
for the purpose of presenting an address from the Liberals of Middlesex
to Mr. Herbert Gladstone, who had made a gallant contest in that country
at the general election. The entrance of the Premier some time after the
meeting began was the signal for an outburst of enthusiasm. Before Mr.
Gladstone appeared, the chairman, Mr. Foster, had paid a high tribute to
the Premier for his great abilities and his self-denial in the public
service. After his son had received the address, the Premier arose to
speak, when the whole audience arose to their feet and welcomed him with
immense cheering.
Mr. Gladstone referred at length to the Midlothian campaign, and paid a
tribute to the spirit and energy of the Liberals of the whole country.
The sound which went forth from Midlothian reverberated through the land
and was felt to be among the powerful operative causes which led to the
great triumph of the Liberal party.
At the Lord Mayor's banquet, November 9, 1880, Mr. Gladstone's speech
was looked forward to with much anxiety, owing to the singularly
disturbed condition of Ireland. Referring to the "party of disorder" in
Ireland, he said that as anxious as the government was to pass laws for
the improvement of the land laws, their prior duty was to so enforce the
laws as to secure order. If an increase of power was needed to secure
this, they would not fail to ask it.
In 1881, at the Lord Mayor's banquet, Mr. Gladstone said that he was
glad to discern signs of improvement in Ireland during the last twelve
months; but the struggle between the representatives of law and the
representatives of lawlessness had rendered necessary an augmentation of
the executive power.
In August, 1881, at Greenwich, the Liberals of the borough presented Mr.
Gladstone with an illustrated address and a carved oak chair as a token
of their esteem and a souvenir of his former representation of their
borough. On the cushion back of the chair were embossed in gold the arms
of Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone, with a motto "Fide et Virtute," and above, in
the midst of some wood-carving representing the rose, the thistle, the
shamrock, and the leek, was a silver plate, bearing a suitable
inscription.
The Parliamentary session of 1881 was almost exclusively devoted to
Irish affairs. Instead of the contemplated Land Act, the ministry were
compelled, on account of the disturbed condition of Ireland, to bring
in first a Coercion Act, although the measure was naturally distasteful
to such friends of Ireland in the Cabinet as Mr. Gladstone and Mr.
Bright. Property and life had become very insecure, and there was a
startling increase of agrarian crime that such a measure was deemed
necessary. But while passing the Coercion Act, Mr. Gladstone accompanied
it by a great and beneficial measure--a second Irish Land Bill, which
instituted a court for the purpose of dealing with the differences
between landlord and tenant.
This bill--one of Mr. Gladstone's greatest measures--became a law August
23, 1881. Mr. Gladstone in his speech remarked that the complaint was
made that the bill was an infringement of liberty in Ireland and was
aimed at the Land League, but no person or body could be touched by the
bill unless they violated the law, and then could only be arrested upon
reasonable suspicion of crime committed or of inciting to crime or of
interfering with law or order. There would be the fullest freedom of
discussion allowed. Dealing with the Land League he said it had been
attempted to compare it with the Corn Laws, but Mr. Bright had
completely demolished that miserable argument. It was compared also to
the trade unions, but they made an onward step in the intelligence and
in the love of law and order among the working classes. They had never
tainted themselves by word or deed which would bring them into suspicion
in connection with the maintenance of law. The leaders of the Land
League were now put forward as martyrs on the same platform as
O'Connell; but on every occasion of his life-long agitation O'Connell
set himself to avoid whatever might tend to a breach of law and order.
Then Mr. Gladstone showed the necessity of the Coercion Act from the
condition of Ireland, where during the past year there had been a great
increase of crime, and the outrages were agrarian, and not connected
with the distress. It was a significant fact that the agrarian outrages
had risen and fallen with the meetings of the Land League. Nothing could
be more idle than to confound the agrarian crime of Ireland with the
ordinary crime of England, or even of Ireland. In regard to general
crime, Ireland held a high and honorable place, but how different was
the case with agrarian crime! He referred to the miscarriage of justice
in Ireland, and said that the bill, if passed, would restore to Ireland
the first conditions of Christian and civilized existence. But it "only
irritated while it failed to terrify."
Mr. Gladstone's was a great speech and showed his mastery of details,
and his power of expounding and illustrating broad and general
principles. He began his exposition by confessing that it was the most
difficult question with which he had ever been called upon to deal. He
concluded with an eloquent invocation to justice.
On the 19th of April, 1881, Lord Beaconsfield died. For many years he
and Mr. Gladstone had been at the head of their respective parties.
"Their opposition, as one critic has well and tersely put it, like that
of Pitt and Fox, was one of temperament and character as well as of
genius, position and political opinions." The Premier paid an eloquent
tribute to him and proposed a public funeral, which was declined. Mr.
Gladstone then moved for a monument in Westminster Abbey to the memory
of the deceased Earl.
In October, 1881, Mr. Gladstone made a visit to Leeds, for which borough
he was returned in 1880, but for which his son Herbert sat. He delivered
several important addresses on subjects which then absorbed the public
attention, especially dealing with the land question local government,
and Free Trade _versus_ Fair Trade. Mr. Gladstone said:
"My boyhood was spent at the mouth of the Mersey, and in those days I
used to see those beautiful American liners, the packets between New
York and Liverpool, which then conducted the bulk and the pick of the
trade between the two countries. The Americans were then deemed to be
so entirely superior to us in shipbuilding and navigation that they had
four-fifths of the whole trade between the two countries in their hands,
and that four-fifths was the best of the trade. What is the case now,
when free trade has operated and has applied its stimulus to the
intelligence of England, and when, on the other hand, the action of the
Americans has been restrained by the enactment, the enhancement and the
tightening of the protective system? The scales are exactly reversed,
and instead of America doing four-fifths and that the best, we do
four-fifths of the business, and the Americans pick up the leavings of
the British and transact the residue of the trade. Not because they are
inferior to us in anything; it would be a fatal error to suppose it; not
because they have less intelligence or less perseverance. They are your
descendants; they are your kinsmen; and they are fully equal to you in
all that goes to make human energy and power; but they are laboring
under the delusion from which you yourselves have but recently escaped,
and in which some misguided fellow-citizens seek again to entangle you.
"I am reminded that I was guilty on a certain occasion of stating in an
article--not a political article--that, in my opinion, it was far from
improbable that as the volume of the future was unrolled, America, with
its vast population and its wonderful resources, and not less with that
severe education which, from the high price of labor, America is
receiving in the strong necessity of resorting to every description of
labor-saving contrivances, and consequent development, not only on a
large scale, but down to the smallest scale of mechanical genius of the
country--on that account the day may come when that country may claim to
possess the commercial primacy of the world, I gave sad offence to many.
I at present will say this, that as long as America adheres to the
protective system your commercial primacy is secure. Nothing in the
world can wrest it from you while America continues to fetter her own
strong hands and arms, and with these fettered arms is content to
compete with you, who are free, in neutral markets. And as long as
America follows the doctrine of protection, or the doctrines now known
as those of 'fair trade,' you are perfectly safe, and you need not
allow, any of you, even your slightest slumbers to be disturbed by the
fear that America will take from you your commercial primacy."
After his return to London Mr. Gladstone received an address from the
Corporation, setting forth the long services he had rendered to the
country. Mr. Gladstone, in his reply, touched upon Irish obstruction,
and announced, incidentally, the arrest of Mr. Parnell. Mr. Parnell, the
leader of the Irish party, having openly defied the law, had been
arrested and imprisoned without trial, under the Coercion Act, passed at
the last session.
On the opening night of the Parliament, of 1882, Mr. Gladstone laid
before the House the proposed new rules of Parliamentary procedure. The
_clôture_, by a bare majority, was to be established, in order to secure
the power of closing debate by a vote of the House.
The House of Lords decided upon the appointment of a Select Committee to
inquire into the working of the Land Act, including the alleged total
collapse of the clauses relating to purchase, emigration, and arrears.
The Prime Minister in the House of Commons introduced a resolution
condemning the proposed inquiry as tending to defeat the operation of
the Land Act and as injurious to the good government of Ireland.
Early in May, 1882, the whole country was startled and terrified by the
news of the assassination of Lord Frederick Cavendish, the new chief
secretary for Ireland, and Mr. Burke under-secretary, in the Phoenix
Park, Dublin. A social revolution was raging in Ireland. Outrages and
murders had been fearfully frequent, and such brutal murders as those of
Mrs. Smythe and Mr. Herbert had filled England with terror. In the
first week of May announcement was made that Earl Cowper had resigned
the Viceroyalty. Rather than share the responsibility of releasing Mr.
Parnell, Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. Forster left the Cabinet. Lord
Spencer was appointed to the Viceroyalty, and Lord Frederick Cavendish
succeeded Mr. Forster, and two days thereafter all England was thrilled
with sorrow and indignation by the terrible news of the assassination in
Phoenix Park. The news shattered the hopes of many concerning Ireland,
and fell with special severity upon Mr. Gladstone, because he and Lord
Cavendish enjoyed the closest friendship. The government presented a
Prevention of Crimes Bill of a very stringent character. In the course
of debate warm discussions arose over an "understanding" called, "The
Kilmainham Compact," but Mr. Gladstone successfully defended the
government in regard to its supposed negotiations with Mr. Parnell. This
bill was directed against secret societies and illegal combinations, and
it was hoped that as the Land League party had expressed its horror at
the Phoenix Park crime, and charged that it was the work of American
conspirators, they would allow the measure speedily to become law. Mr.
Bright declared that the bill would harm no innocent person, and
explained his own doctrine, that "Force is no remedy," was intended to
apply not to outrages, but to grievances. For three weeks Mr. Parnell
and his followers obstructed legislation in every conceivable way, and
were finally suspended for systematic obstruction. The obstructionists
removed, the bill was then passed, after a sitting of twenty-eight
hours. The measure was passed by the Lords July 7th, and the Queen
signed the bill July 12th. A crisis nearly arose between the Lords and
the Commons over the Irish Arrears Bill, but the Lords finally yielded.
[Illustration: GALLERY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.]