Army Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Cardwell, on the 16th
of February. It abolished the system by which rich men
obtained by purchase commissions and promotion in the army,
and provided £8,000,000 to buy all commissions, as they fell
in, at their regulation and over-regulation value [the
regulation value being a legal price, fixed by a Royal
Warrant, but which in practice was never regarded]. In future,
commissions were to be awarded either to those who won them by
open competition, or who had served as subalterns in the
Militia, or to deserving non-commissioned officers. ... The
debate, which seemed interminable, ended in an anti-climax
that astonished the Tory Opposition. Mr. Disraeli threw over
the advocates of Purchase, evidently dreading an appeal to the
country. ... The Army Regulation Bill thus passed the Second
Reading without a division," and finally, with some amendments
passed the House. "In the House of Lords the Bill was again
obstructed. ... Mr. Gladstone met them with a bold stroke. By
statute it was enacted that only such terms of Purchase could
exist as her Majesty chose to permit by Royal Warrant. The
Queen, therefore, acting on Mr. Gladstone's advice, cancelled
her warrant permitting Purchase, and thus the opposition of
the Peers was crushed by what Mr. Disraeli indignantly termed
'the high-handed though not illegal' exercise of the Royal
Prerogative. The rage of the Tory Peers knew no bounds." They
"carried a vote of censure on the Government, who ignored it,
and then their Lordships passed the Army Regulation Bill
without any alterations. ... The Session of 1871 was also made
memorable by the struggle over the Ballot Bill, in the course
of which nearly all the devices of factious obstruction were
exhausted. ... When the Bill reached the House of Lords, the
real motive which dictated the ... obstruction of the
Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons was quickly
revealed. The Lords rejected the Bill on the 18th of August,
not merely because they disliked and dreaded it, but because
it had come to them too late for proper consideration.
Ministers were more successful with some other measures. In
spite of much conservative opposition they passed a Bill
abolishing religious tests in the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, and throwing open all academic distinctions and
privileges except Divinity Degrees and Clerical Fellowships to
students of all creeds and faiths."
_R. Wilson,
Life and Times of Queen Victoria,
volume 2, chapter 16._
ALSO IN:
_G. W. E. Russell,
The Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone,
chapter 9._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1871-1872.
Renewed negotiations with the United States.
The Treaty of Washington and the Geneva Award.
See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871; 1871; and 1871-1872.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
Rise of the Irish Home Rule Party
and organization of the Land League.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.
Decline and fall of the Gladstone government.
Disraeli's Ministry.
His rise to the peerage, as Earl of Beaconsfield.
The Eastern Question.
Overthrow of the administration.
The Second Gladstone Ministry.
{971}
"One of the little wars in which we had to engage broke out
with the Ashantees, a misunderstanding resulting from our
purchase of the Dutch possessions (1873) in their
neighbourhood. Troops and marines under Wolseley ... were sent
out to West Africa. Crossing the Prah River, January 20th,
1874, he defeated the Ashantees on the last day of that month
at a place called Amoaful, entered and burnt their capital,
Coomassie, and made a treaty with their King, Koffee, by which
he withdrew all claims of sovereignty over the tribes under
our protection. The many Liberal measures carried by the
Ministry caused moderate men to wish for a halt. Some
restrictions on the licensed vintners turned that powerful
body against the Administration, which, on attempting to carry
an Irish University Bill in 1873, became suddenly aware of its
unpopularity, as the second reading was only carried by a
majority of three. Resignation followed. The erratic, but
astute, Disraeli declined to undertake the responsibility of
governing the country with the House of Commons then existing,
consequently Mr. Gladstone resumed office; yet Conservative
reaction progressed. He in September became Chancellor of the
Exchequer (still holding the Premiership) and 23rd January,
1874, he suddenly dissolved Parliament, promising in a letter
to the electors of Greenwich the final abolition of the income
tax, and a reduction in some other 'imposts.' The elections
went against him. The 'harassed' interests overturned the
Ministry (17th February, 1874). ... On the accession of the
Conservative Government under Mr. Disraeli (February, 1874),
the budget showed a balance of six millions in favour of the
reduction of taxation. Consequently the sugar duties were
abolished and the income tax reduced to 2d. in the pound.
This, the ninth Parliament of Queen Victoria, sat for a little
over six years. ... Mr. Disraeli, now the Earl of Beaconsfield,
was fond of giving the country surprises. One of these
consisted in the purchase of the interest of the Khedive of
Egypt in the Suez Canal for four millions sterling (February,
1876). Another was the acquisition of the Turkish Island of
Cyprus, handed over for the guarantee to Turkey of her Asiatic
provinces in the event of any future Russian encroachments.
... As war had broken out in several of the Turkish provinces
(1876), and as Russia had entered the lists for the insurgents
against the Sultan, whom England was bound to support by
solemn treaties, we were treated to a third surprise by the
conveyance, in anticipation of a breach with Russia, of 7,000
troops from India to Malta. The Earl of Derby, looking upon
this manœuvre as a menace to that Power, resigned his office,
which was filled by Lord Salisbury (1878). ... The war proving
disastrous to Turkey, the treaty of St. Stephano (February,
1878), was concluded with Russia, by which the latter acquired
additional territory in Asia Minor in violation of the treaty
of Paris (1856). Our Government strongly remonstrated, and war
seemed imminent. Through the intercession, however, of
Bismarck, the German Chancellor, war was averted, and a
congress soon met in Berlin, at which Britain was represented
by Lords Salisbury and Beaconsfield; the result being the
sanction of the treaty already made, with the exception that
the town of Erzeroum was handed back to Turkey. Our
ambassadors returned home rather pompously, the Prime Minister
loftily declaring, that they had brought back 'peace with
honour.' ... Our expenses had rapidly increased, the wealthy
commercial people began to distrust a Prime Minister who had
brought us to the brink of war, the Irish debates, Irish
poverty, and Irish outrages had brought with them more or less
discredit on the Ministry. ... The Parliament was dissolved March
24th, but the elections went so decisively in favour of the
Liberals that Beaconsfield resigned (April 23rd). Early in the
following year he appeared in his place in the House of Peers,
but died April 19th. Though Mr. Gladstone had in 1875
relinquished the political leadership in favour of Lord
Hartington yet the 'Bulgarian Atrocities' and other writings
brought him again so prominent before the public that his
leadership was universally acknowledged by the party. ... He
now resumed office, taking the two posts so frequently held
before by Prime Ministers since the days of William Pitt, who
also held them. ... The result of the general election of 1880
was the return of more Liberals to Parliament than
Conservatives and Home Rulers together. The farming interest
continued depressed both in Great Britain and Ireland,
resulting in thousands of acres being thrown on the landlords'
hands in the former country, and numerous harsh evictions in the
latter for non-payment of rent. Mr. Gladstone determined to
legislate anew on the Irish Land Question: and (1881) carried
through both Houses that admirable measure known as the Irish
Land Act, which for the first time in the history of that
country secured to the tenant remuneration for his own
industry. A Land Commission Court was established to fix Fair
Rents for a period of 15 years. After a time leaseholders were
included in this beneficent legislation."
_R. Johnston,
A Short History of the Queen's Reign,
pages 49-57._
ALSO IN:
_J. A. Froude,
Lord Beaconsfield,
chapters 16-17._
_G. B. Smith,
Life of Gladstone,
chapters 22-28 (volume 2)._
_H. Jephson,
The Platform,
chapters 21-22 (volume 2)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1877.
Assumption by the Queen of the title of Empress of India.
See INDIA: A. D. 1877.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1878.
The Eastern Question again.
Bulgarian atrocities.
Excitement over the Russian successes in Turkey.
War-clamor of "the Jingoes."
The fleet sent through the Dardanelles.
Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.
See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878;
and TURKS: A. D. 1878.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1881.
Annexation of the Transvaal.
The Boer War.
See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1878.
The Congress of Berlin.
Acquisition of the control of Cyprus.
See TURKS: A. D. 1878.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1878-1880.
The second Afghan War.
See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1880.
Breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1880.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1882.
War in Egypt.
Bombardment of Alexandria.
Battle of Tel-el-Kebir.
See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.
The Act for Prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices at
Parliamentary Elections.
{972}
"Prior to the General Election of 1880 there were those who
hoped and believed that Corrupt Practices at Elections were
decreasing. These hopes were based upon the growth of the
constituencies and their increased political intelligence, and
also upon the operation of the Ballot Act. The disclosures
following the General Election proved to the most sanguine
that this belief was an error. Corrupt practices were found to
be more prevalent than ever. If in olden times larger
aggregate sums were expended in bribery and treating, never
probably had so many persons been bribed and treated as at the
General Election of 1880. After that election nineteen
petitions against returns on the ground of corrupt practices
were presented. In eight instances the Judges reported that
those practices had extensively prevailed, and in respect of
seven of these the reports of the Commissioners appointed
under the Act of 1852 demonstrated the alarming extent to
which corruption of all kinds had grown. ... A most serious
feature in the Commissioners' Reports was the proof they
afforded that bribery was regarded as a meritorious not as a
disgraceful act. Thirty magistrates were reported as guilty of
corrupt practices and removed from the Commission of the Peace
by the Lord Chancellor. Mayors, aldermen, town-councillors,
solicitors, the agents of the candidates, and others of a like
class were found to have dealt with bribery as if it were a
part of the necessary machinery for conducting an election.
Worst of all, some of these persons had actually attained
municipal honours, not only after they had committed these
practices, but even after their misdeeds had been exposed by
public inquiry. The Reports also showed, and a Parliamentary
Return furnished still more conclusive proof, that election
expenses were extravagant even to absurdity, and moreover were
on the increase. The lowest estimate of the expenditure during
the General Election of 1880 amounts to the enormous sum of
two and a half millions. With another Reform Bill in view, the
prospects of future elections were indeed alarming. ... The
necessity for some change was self-evident. Public opinion
insisted that the subject should be dealt with, and the evil
encountered. ... The Queen's Speech of the 6th of January,
1881, announced that a measure 'for the repression of corrupt
practices' would be submitted to Parliament, and on the
following day the Attorney-General (Sir Henry James), in
forcible and eloquent terms, moved for leave to introduce his
Bill. His proposals (severe as they seemed) were received with
general approval and sympathy, both inside and outside the
House of Commons, at a time when members and constituents
alike were ashamed of the excesses so recently brought to
light. It is true that the two and a half years' delay that
intervened between the introduction of the Bill and its
finally becoming law (a delay caused by the necessities of
Irish legislation), sufficed very considerably to cool the
enthusiasm of Parliament and the public. Yet enough desire for
reform remained to carry in July 1883 the Bill of January
1881, modified indeed in detail, but with its principles
intact and its main provisions unaltered. The measure which
has now become the Parliamentary Elections Act of 1883, was in
its conception pervaded by two principles. The first was to
strike hard and home at corrupt practices; the second was to
prohibit by positive legislation any expenditure in the
conduct of an election which was not absolutely necessary.
Bribery, undue influence, and personation, had long been
crimes for which a man could be fined and imprisoned. Treating
was now added to the same class of offences, and the
punishment for all rendered more deterrent by a liability to
hard labour. ... Besides punishment on conviction,
incapacities of a serious character are to result from a
person being reported guilty of corrupt practices by Election
Judges or Election Commissioners. ... A candidate reported
personally guilty of corrupt practices can never sit again for
the same constituency, and is rendered incapable of being a
member of the House of Commons for seven years. All persons,
whether candidates or not, are, on being reported, rendered
incapable of holding any public office or exercising any
franchise for the same period. Moreover, if any persons so
found guilty are magistrates, barristers, solicitors, or
members of other honourable professions, they are to be
reported to the Lord Chancellor, Inns of Court, High Court of
Justice, or other authority controlling their profession, and
dealt with as in the case of professional misconduct. Licensed
victuallers are, in a similar manner, to be reported to the
licensing justices, who may on the next occasion refuse to
renew their licenses. ... The employment of all paid
assistants except a very limited number is forbidden; no
conveyances are to be paid for, and only a restricted number
of committee rooms are to be engaged. Unnecessary payments for
the exhibition of bills and addresses, and for flags, bands,
torches, and the like are declared illegal. But these
prohibitions of specific objects were not considered
sufficient. Had these alone been enacted, the money of wealthy
and reckless candidates would have found other channels in
which to flow. ... And thus it was that the 'maximum scale'
was adopted as at once the most direct and the most
efficacious means of limiting expenditure. Whether by himself
or his agents, by direct payment or by contract, the candidate
is forbidden to spend more in 'the conduct and management of
an election' than the sums permitted by the Act, sums which
depend in each case on the numerical extent of the
constituency."
_H. Hobhouse,
The Parliamentary Elections
(Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Act, 1883,
pages 1-8._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1884-1885.
The Third Reform Bill and the Redistribution Bill.
The existing qualifications and disqualifications
of the Suffrage.
"Soon after Mr. Gladstone came into power in 1880, Mr.
Trevelyan became a member of his Administration. Already the
Premier had secured the co-operation of two other men new to
office--Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke. ... Their
presence in the Administration was looked upon as a good
augury by the Radicals, and the augury was not destined to
prove misleading. It was understood from the first that, with
such men as his coadjutors, Mr. Gladstone was pledged to a
still further Reform. He was pledged already, in fact, by his
speeches in Midlothian. ... On the 17th of October, 1883, a
great Conference was held at Leeds, for the purpose of
considering the Liberal programme for the ensuing season. The
Conference was attended by no fewer than 2,000 delegates, who
represented upwards of 500 Liberal Associations.
{973}
It was presided over by Mr. John Morley. ... To a man the
delegates agreed as to the imperative necessity of household
suffrage being extended to the counties; and almost to a man
they agreed also as to the necessity of the measure being no
longer delayed. ... When Parliament met on the 5th of the
following February ... a measure for 'the enlargement of the
occupation franchise in Parliamentary Elections throughout the
United Kingdom' was distinctly promised in the Royal Speech;
and the same evening Mr. Gladstone gave notice that 'on the
first available day,' he would move for leave to bring in the
bill. So much was the House of Commons occupied with affairs
in Egypt and the Soudan, however, that it was not till the
29th of February that the Premier was able to fulfil his
pledge." Four months were occupied in the passage of the bill
through the House of Commons, and when it reached the Lords it
was rejected. This roused "an intense feeling throughout the
country. On the 21st of July, a great meeting was held in Hyde
Park, attended, it was believed, by upwards of 100,000
persons. ... On the 30th of July, a great meeting of delegates
was held in St. James's Hall, London. ... Mr. John Morley, who
presided, used some words respecting the House that had
rejected the bill which were instantly caught up by Reformers
everywhere. 'Be sure,' he said, 'that no power on earth can
separate henceforth the question of mending the House of
Commons from the question of mending, or ending, the House of
Lords.' On the 4th of August, Mr. Bright, speaking at
Birmingham, referred to the Lords as 'many of them the spawn
of the plunder and the wars and the corruption of the dark
ages of our country'; and his colleague, Mr. Chamberlain, used
even bolder words: 'During the last one hundred years the
House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular
liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the
common weal; and during that time it has protected every abuse
and sheltered every privilege. ... It is irresponsible without
independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without
judgment, and arrogant without knowledge.' ... In very many
instances, a strong disposition was manifested to drop the
agitation for the Reform of the House of Commons for a time,
and to concentrate the whole strength of the Liberal party on
one final struggle for the Reform (or, preferably, the
extinction) of the Upper House." But Mr. Gladstone gave no
encouragement to this inclination of his party. The outcome of
the agitation was the passage of the Franchise Bill a second time
in the House of Commons, in November, 1884, and by the Lords
soon afterwards. A concession was made to the latter by
previously satisfying them with regard to the contemplated
redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, for which a
separate bill was framed and introduced while the Franchise
Bill was yet pending. The Redistribution Bill passed the
Commons in May and the Lords in June, 1885.
_W. Heaton,
The Three Reforms of Parliament,
chapter 6._
"In regard to electoral districts, the equalization, in other
words, the radical refashioning of electoral districts, having
about the same number of inhabitants, is carried out. For this
purpose, 79 towns, having less than 15,000 inhabitants, are
divested of the right of electing a separate member; 36 towns,
with less than 50,000, return only one member; 14 large towns
obtain an increase of the number of the members in proportion
to the population; 35 towns, of nearly 50,000, obtain a new
franchise. The counties are throughout parcelled-out into
'electoral districts' of about the like population, to elect
one member each. This single-seat system is, regularly,
carried out in towns, with the exception of 28 middle-sized
towns, which have been left with two members. The County of
York forms, for example, 26 electoral districts; Liverpool 9.
To sum up, the result stands thus:--the counties choose 253
members (formerly 187), the towns 237 (formerly 297). The
average population of the county electoral districts is now
52,800 (formerly 70,800); the average number of the town
electoral districts 52,700 (formerly 41,200). ... The number
of the newly-enfranchised is supposed, according to an average
estimate, to be 2,000,000."
_Dr. R. Gneist,
The English Parliament in its Transformations,
chapter 9._
ALSO IN:
_J. Murdoch,
History of Constitutional Reform in Great
Britain and Ireland,
pages 277-398._
_H. Jephson,
The Platform,
chapter 23 (volume 2)._
The following is the text of the "Third Reform Act," which is
entitled "The Representation of the People Act, 1884":
An Act to amend the Law relating to the Representation of
the People of the United Kingdom. [6th December, 1884.]
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and
with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and
Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament
assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
1. This Act may be cited as the Representation of the
People Act, 1884.
2. A uniform household franchise and a uniform lodger
franchise at elections shall be established in all counties
and boroughs throughout the United Kingdom, and every man
possessed of a household qualification or a lodger
qualification shall, if the qualifying premises be situate
in a county in England or Scotland, be entitled to be
registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an
election for such county, and if the qualifying premises be
situate in a county or borough in Ireland, be entitled to
be registered as a voter, and when registered to vote at an
election for such county or borough.
3. Where a man himself inhabits any dwelling-house by
virtue of any office, service, or employment, and the
dwelling-house is not inhabited by any person under whom
such man serves in such office, service, or employment, he
shall be deemed for the purposes of this Act and of the
Representation of the People Acts to be an inhabitant
occupier of such dwelling-house as a tenant.
4. Subject to the saving in this Act for existing voters,
the following provisions shall have effect with reference
to elections:
(1.) A man shall not be entitled to be registered as a
voter in respect of the ownership of any rentcharge except
the owner of the whole of the tithe rentcharge of a
rectory, vicarage, chapelry, or benefice to which an
apportionment of tithe rentcharge shall have been made in
respect of any portion of tithes.
(2.) Where two or more men are owners either as joint
tenants or as tenants in common of an estate in any land or
tenement, one of such men, but not more than one, shall, if
his interest is sufficient to confer a qualification as a
voter in respect of the ownership of such estate, be
entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
conditions as if he were the sole owner) to be registered
as a voter, and when registered to vote at an election.
{974}
Provided that where such owners have derived their interest
by descent, succession, marriage, marriage settlement, or
will, or where they occupy the land or tenement, and are
bonâ fide engaged as partners carrying on trade or business
thereon, each of such owners whose interest is sufficient
to confer on him a qualification as a voter shall be
entitled (in the like cases and subject to the like
conditions as if he were sole owner) to be registered as a
voter in respect of such ownership, and when registered to
vote at an election, and the value of the interest of each
such owner where not otherwise legally defined shall be
ascertained by the division of the total value of the land
or tenement equally among the whole of such owners.
5. Every man occupying any land or tenement in a county or
borough in the United Kingdom of a clear yearly value of
not less than ten pounds shall be entitled to be registered
as a voter and when registered to vote at an election for
such county or borough in respect of such occupation
subject to the like conditions respectively as a man is, at
the passing of this Act, entitled to be registered as a
voter and to vote at an election for such county in respect
of the county occupation franchise, and at an election for
such borough in respect of the borough occupation
franchise.
6. A man shall not by virtue of this Act be entitled to be
registered as a voter or to vote at any election for a
county in respect of the occupation of any dwelling-house,
lodgings, land, or tenement, situate in a borough.
7. (1.) In this Act the expression "a household
qualification" means, as respects England and Ireland, the
qualification enacted by the third section of the
Representation of the People Act, 1867 [see comments
appended to this text], and the enactments amending or
affecting the same, and the said section and enactments so
far as they are consistent with this Act, shall extend to
counties in England and to counties and boroughs in
Ireland.