NOTE 1, p. 48.
Æolus sits upon his lofty tower
And holds the sceptre, calming all their rage;
Else would they bear sea, earth, and heaven profound
In rapid flight, and sweep them through the air.
—_Virgil’s Æneid_, book i., lines 56–59.
NOTE 2, p. 73.—Only so much of London was represented as was included
in the territory of the Corporation—scarcely more than one square
mile in the heart of the metropolis. The other portions of the city,
Westminster, Southwark, Paddington, Chelsea, etc., were subsequently
enfranchised as individual boroughs.
NOTE 3, p. 73.—The condition of representation in Scotland before the
passage of the Reform Bill was worse than that in England. The county
franchise consisted of what were known as “superiorities,” which were
bought and sold like stocks in open market. The County of Argyll, for
example, with a population of 100,000 had only 115 electors, of whom
84 resided outside the county, and were known as “out voters.” The
city and borough franchise was vested in the town-councillors, who
constituted a close corporation, with the right of electing their own
successors. Edinburgh and Glasgow, the two first cities in Scotland,
elected their representatives in this way, each having a constituency
of thirty-three persons. See May, “Con. Hist.,” Am. ed., i., 284.
NOTE 4, p. 81.—The revolution of 1830 resulted in a complete change in
political affairs both in Belgium and in France. The restoration of
the Bourbons and the doctrines of the Holy Alliance led to the general
policy of repression. This policy culminated in July, 1830, with the
publication of five ordinances issued by Charles X. of France. These
ordinances, which were an audacious violation of the constitution,
suspended the liberty of the press, dissolved the newly elected Chamber
of Deputies, changed the system of election and reduced the number
of representatives, convoked the two Chambers, and appointed a new
Council of State from the extreme Royalist party. The city was thrown
into immediate revolt, and within four days the royal palace was in
the hands of the mob. On the 2d of August the king was obliged to
abdicate in favor of Louis Philippe. The revolution outside of France
made itself felt chiefly in Belgium, where, as the result of a violent
struggle, the friends of liberal government succeeded in adopting a
constitution modelled after that of England.
NOTE 5, p. 86.—Sir Robert Peel, in his argument in opposition to the
bill, had urged that Pitt, Fox, Canning, Brougham, and Macaulay himself
had been brought into Parliament from nomination boroughs.
NOTE 6, p. 87.—There were two memorable instances during the short
political experience of Socrates, to either of which Macaulay may have
referred. In B.C. 406 he was a member of the Senate and one of the
Prytanes, when he refused to put an unconstitutional question to vote
on the trial of the six generals, though all of the other Prytanes
were against him. Amid great political uproar he persisted in holding
out, and thus prevented the required unanimity. The other instance was
his refusal to obey an unconstitutional order of the Thirty Tyrants to
arrest Leon the Salaminian. See Plato, “Apol. Socr.,” c. 20; and Grote,
“Hist. of Greece,” viii., 200.
NOTE 7, p. 88.—Reference is made to the repeal of the Oath of Supremacy
Act, by which, in 1829, Irish Roman Catholics otherwise qualified were
admitted to the rights of franchise. In order to prevent too large an
influx of new voters into political power, the forty-shilling condition
of rating was raised to a ten-pound condition. Mr. O’Connell was twice
elected for Clare before he could be admitted to Parliament.
NOTE 8, p. 91.—Sir Robert Peel, in the early part of his career, had
attached himself to the Tories, and had been elected to the House by
the University of Oxford, with the expectation that he would be the
successful champion of Toryism. When the Irish question, under the lead
of O’Connell, first assumed formidable proportions, Peel was ardently
opposed to the project of emancipation. In the course of the debate,
however, his opposition weakened, and he finally, on coming into the
ministry, became the champion of the cause which he formerly opposed.
Macaulay possibly hoped to draw him into a similar course on the Reform
Bill,—at all events to weaken the force of his opposition to it. He was
not successful; but, as we shall hereafter see, Sir Robert pursued a
nearly identical course in regard to the Corn Laws.
NOTE 9, p. 109.—On the 12th of March, in the preceding year, Cobden had
moved for a select committee to inquire into the effects of protective
duties on agricultural tenants and laborers. His speech on the occasion
is one of great importance, and may be read with profit in connection
with the speech here given. As Cobden himself was a manufacturer, and
as the repeal sought was believed to be especially in the interests
of his class, the remark was made that this new argument came “from a
suspicious source.”
NOTE 10, p. 112.—Mr. Villiars was one of the earliest to advocate the
abolition of the Corn Laws, and in 1839 was a recognized leader. In
1841 he was given charge of the interests of the movement in the House
of Commons, where he annually “brought forward his motion.”
NOTE 11, p. 118.—Quotations in support of the positions taken were here
introduced from speeches of Mr. Pusey, Mr. Hobbes, and Lord Stanley.
NOTE 12, p. 121.—It should not be forgotten by the reader that the
lands of England are very generally owned in large estates, and that
these are rented in portions to the farmers, who usually pay a fixed
rent to the landlords in money. Sometimes the agreement is for a
long term of years, taking the form of a lease, but more frequently,
as Cobden shows, it is simply an agreement for a short term only,
sometimes even for a single year.
NOTE 13, p. 126.—Mr. Huskisson, in the distressing period after the
close of the Napoleonic wars, grew into almost universal favor by the
wisdom of his financial methods. In 1823 he became President of the
Board of Trade, and from that time till he was killed at the opening
of the railway between Liverpool and Manchester in 1830, was the most
eminent financial authority in the kingdom. He was the successor of
Pitt in the advocacy of greater freedom of trade, and the advocate of
methods which it was now Cobden’s work to develop.
NOTE 14, p. 135.—In the debate of March 12, 1844, it had been hinted
that Mr. Cobden, a manufacturer, was in a position to be benefited by
such agricultural distress as his measures were calculated to bring on.
It was urged that by admitting grain free, farmers would be ruined,
laborers driven out of employment, wages would be depressed, and
manufacturers would secure labor at a reduced price.
NOTE 15, p. 136.—This assertion was also made at the debate a year
before.
NOTE 15a, p. 143.—The passage referred to, in what can hardly have been
other than mere playfulness, is the following:
Urit enim lini campum seges, urit avenæ;
Urunt Lethæo perfusa papavera somno.
For a crop of flax burns the land, also of oats; also poppies
impregnated with Lethæan sleep.—Georgics, Lib. i., 77.
NOTE 16, p. 150.—At the time Cobden was speaking it was the custom,
whenever there was a “division,” for those in opposition to the motion
to go out into the “lobby,” and for those favoring the motion to remain
in the House. The official count was then made by two sets of tellers.
At the present time, both the “Ayes” and “Noes” go into lobbies, the
“ayes” to the left of the speaker, the “noes” to the right.
NOTE 17, p. 150.—The repealing bill, it will be remembered, finally
passed the House of Lords June 26, 1846. It was not the report,
however, but what Sir Robert Peel called “the cogency of events,” that
hastened the final action.
NOTE 18, p. 161.—During the whole of Walpole’s career he held the
views here attributed to him. But his love of office was greater
than his love of peace. When, therefore, the nation clamored for war
with Spain, he declared war, though, as Lord Mahon says: “No man
had a clearer view of the impending mischief and misery.” The same
historian writes that when the bells from every steeple in the city
proclaimed the satisfaction of the people over the declaration of war,
Walpole remarked: “They may ring the bells now; before long they will
be wringing their hands.” Walpole knew that the country was utterly
without preparation for war; and yet rather than lose his place, he
was willing to be the instrument of immeasurable mischief and misery.
When the disasters of the war came on, the Opposition forced the
responsibility of it on the Prime-Minister, and drove him from power in
1742.
NOTE 19, p. 163.—The speech of Sir Robert Peel here referred to was
a part of a memorable debate in June, 1850, on what is known as the
“Don Pacifico Affair.” Don Pacifico was a Jew born at Gibraltar (and
therefore an English subject), who settled in Athens. In a riot
his house was assailed and its furniture destroyed. His claim was
presented to the English officials, who at once demanded £500 damages
for Don Pacifico. After some delays the English brought a man-of-war
from Constantinople, blockaded the harbor of Athens, and declined to
allow any vessel to depart till the claim was settled. The French and
Russian governments were thrown into considerable excitement, and the
French ambassador left the English court. A resolution of censure was
introduced into the House of Lords, and was carried by a majority
of thirty-seven. In the House of Commons, however, matters took a
different turn. Mr. Roebuck introduced a resolution of general approval
of the foreign policy of the government, intended, of course, to give
the government a better chance to escape the downfall that seemed
impending. Lord Palmerston, then Minister for Foreign Affairs, defended
the government in a speech of extraordinary power, extending, as Mr.
Gladstone said, “from the dusk of one day till the dawn of the next.”
The opponents claimed that Don Pacifico should have sought redress in
the Greek courts, while Palmerston claimed that the condition of the
Greek courts was such as to make a judicial appeal simply a mockery.
The debate extended over four nights, closing with the speech of Peel
in opposition to the government. The resolution of approval was carried
by a majority of forty-six. The Don Pacifico case was finally submitted
to French commissioners, by whom the amount of damages was fixed. The
speech of Peel was memorable for its pacific and judicial tone, as
well as for the fact that it was delivered only a few hours before the
accident from which he died on the 2d of July. See Peel’s “Speeches,”
vol. iv.; Hansard’s “Debates” for 1850, and “Ann. Reg.,” xcii., 57–88;
Phillimore, “Int. Law,” iii., 76.
NOTE 20, p. 167.—The important assertion here made can hardly be
successfully disputed, though there are many who would be reluctant
to admit its truth. The modern Tories, with Disraeli at their head,
have held that the reform of 1832 tended still further to weaken the
masses of the people. This position, fully elaborated and defended in
Disraeli’s “Defence of the Constitution,” his “Life of Lord George
Bentinck,” and his speech introducing the Reform Bill of 1867, is
touched upon briefly also in the same orator’s speech on “Conservative
Principles” given below. The question is elaborately considered in the
first two chapters of Lecky’s “History of England.”
NOTE 21, p. 168.—This must be regarded as mere conjecture, though
stated as a fact. Even the formidable alliances against Louis XIV. in
the War of the Spanish Succession were not able to prevent the French
king from keeping his heir upon the Spanish throne. If the Bourbons, in
spite of the allied armies with Marlborough at their head, were able
to hold their position, they would hardly have done less if England
had not interfered. To say that a union of the crowns “would have
been impossible in the nature of things,” is to presume that the line
of succession must have been just what it was. But this, of course,
could not have been foreseen. If a disturbance of the balance of power
ever justifies war, it did so in the case of the War of the Spanish
Succession.
NOTE 22, p. 168.—This statement is not quite correct. The English
Plenipotentiaries at Vienna were Lord Castelreagh and Lord Wellington.
Castelreagh died in 1822 and Wellington in 1852; whereas the alliance
between the governments of England and France to prevent the
aggressions of Russia did not occur till August, 1853. On the 12th of
August Lord Aberdeen declared that the four great powers, England,
France, Austria, and Prussia, were acting cordially together; but on
the 20th of the same month Lord Clarendon announced that an offensive
alliance had been formed between England and France. It was this
alliance which made all further efforts in behalf of peace hopeless.
It was the opinion not only of Cobden and Bright, but also of Disraeli
and of the Tories generally, that the act which made the war inevitable
was the abandonment of Austria and Prussia and the formation of this
alliance with France. Such is also the opinion of Mr. Kinglake. See
Hansard’s “Debates,” cxxix., 1424, 1768, and 1826; also Kinglake’s
“Crimean War,” _passim_.
NOTE 23, p. 169.—The so-called doctrine of the “balance of power,”
whatever may be said against it, has been generally held by Europe
ever since it was so energetically advocated by Henry IV., of France,
at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The doctrine may be said
to exercise the functions of a general European police to prevent any
inequitable disturbance of territorial limits. It is difficult to see
what but that doctrine could have prevented France under Napoleon from
getting and holding two thirds of Europe; what would have prevented
Russia long since from destroying Turkey; indeed what would prevent
the strongest power from ultimately absorbing the whole. It did not
prevent the destruction of Poland, partly because there was a general
conviction that Poland was hardly worth saving, and partly because the
partitioning powers were so strong as to make interference at least a
very costly operation. These facts are enough to show that there is
a very important other side to Mr. Bright’s attractive doctrine of
non-interference. The question is not simply whether Europe has been
made better, but also whether she has not been prevented from being
made worse.
NOTE 24, p. 171.—The orator might also have said that the English
people have very largely given up all _desire_ that the national debt
should be paid off. It affords a convenient investment, which restrains
an undue inclination to speculation and affords a steady and certain
income to vast numbers of the people. Its payment would create a
disturbance which no English minister would venture to advocate.
NOTE 25, p. 172.—This statement is undoubtedly true; and yet it can
hardly be denied that the course taken by England in the Napoleonic
wars added very greatly to the importance of England as a power. A
little later, Mr. Bright objects to the policy pursued, because “it
is impossible that we can gain one single atom of advantage for this
country.” His opponents would claim that England has gained immense
advantages from the very influence she has acquired, and as shown by
the very examples given by the orator. They would probably also say
that no other class gained so much as the manufacturers, the very class
to which Mr. Bright belonged.
NOTE 26, p. 174.—The wit of this passage consists in its use of the
expression “out-door relief.” In England the poor laws provide for two
kinds of relief—that afforded in the work-houses and that afforded to
the poor in their own homes. The latter is popularly known as “out-door
relief.”
NOTE 27, p. 175.—When the claim of Denmark to the Duchies of
Schleswig-Holstein came forward, in consequence of the death of the
last ducal peer, England decided that she had no right to interfere,
though the claims of Denmark were earnestly pressed by the Crown
Princess of England, a daughter of the Danish king. The question was
finally taken up by Prussia, in opposition to the claims of Denmark, in
a manner that aroused the hostility of Austria, and brought on the war
of 1866 between Austria and Prussia.
NOTE 28, p. 176.—In 1830 the governments of Great Britain, France,
and Russia entered into a treaty, establishing and guaranteeing the
constitutional monarchy of Greece. This was in effect acknowledging
the independence of Greece from Turkey, and guaranteeing to defend
that independence. Mr. Bright could hardly mean to be understood as
objecting to such a guarantee. A loan, furnished by the Rothschilds,
of £2,343,750 was also guaranteed by the three powers, each being
responsible for one third. As the Greek Government did not pay, the
guarantors were held responsible; and in 1866 the amount that had
been paid by England was £1,060,385. This, of course, was held as
a claim against Greece. In 1866 a convention of the powers agreed
that the Greek Government should pay £12,000 a year till all is
liquidated.—Martin’s “Statesman’s Year-Book for 1873,” p. 285.
NOTE 29, p. 176.—“Animated by the desire of maintaining the integrity
and independence of the Ottoman empire as a security for the peace of
Europe,” is the avowal of the object of the treaty of July 15, 1840,
entered into at London by all the powers except France. The occasion of
it was the revolt of Egypt under Mehemet Ali.—Phillimore, “Int. Law,”
i., 86.
NOTE 30, p. 177.—As indicated in NOTE 22, the diplomatic act which
precipitated the Crimean War was the offensive alliance of England and
France against Russia. The cause of this alliance was the attitude of
Prussia, which at that time was very weak, and was under the powerful
influence of Russia. After the practical withdrawal of Prussia from her
treaty obligations to protect Turkey, Austria decided not to venture
upon war without the coöperation of Prussia, unless her own Danubian
principalities should be threatened. The withdrawal of Russia from the
mouth of the Danube, and the transfer of the seat of war to the Crimea,
left Austria free to decline to act with England and France. Some of
the diplomatic correspondence was spirited, though perhaps it is going
too far to call it either “offensive” or “insolent.”
NOTE 31, p. 177.—It is an established principle of international usage
that no nation is obliged to accept or retain a foreign minister that
is offensive to it, and any nation has a right to request the recall
of a minister who is for any reason offensive to it. In 1789 Jefferson
requested the French Government to recall Count de Moustier because he
was “politically and morally offensive.”—Trescott’s “Am. Dip. Hist.,”
34. America requested the recall of Genet, and France in turn requested
the recall of Morris, in 1794, for political reasons.—Hildreth, 2d
series, i., 477. America also requested the recall of Poussin in
1849.—“Ammaire,” xl., 665. In 1872 the Russian minister Catacazy
engaged in writing political articles for the _New York Herald_
offensive to the government, and his recall was requested. In 1809
the English Government was requested to recall Minister Jackson from
Washington, “for questioning the word of the Government.” The case
alluded to by Mr. Bright was doubtless that of Sir John Crampton, whose
recall was requested in 1856, because he was found to be enlisting
troops in the United States for the Crimean War.—“Am. Reg. for 1856,”
277; “Ex. Docs. Thirty-fourth Congress,” 107. In all these cases the
request was acceded to without delay. According to Phillimore, ii.,
149: “It is in the discretion of the receiving state to refuse the
reception of a certain diplomatic agent.”
NOTE 32, p. 177.—This is a very immoderate statement, certainly not
justified by the facts. Everybody conceded that “Don Pacifico” had a
claim that was not “false.” The only question in dispute was whether
the claim ought not to have been first presented to the Greek courts.
See Note 19.
NOTE 33, p. 177.—In 1856 the conduct of the King of Naples toward
political offenders was so tyrannical as to be a scandal to all
Christendom. The governments of England and France addressed
a remonstrance to the government of Naples “upon the general
maladministration of justice in that country, and upon the danger
thereby accruing to the Italian peninsula especially, and generally to
the peace of Europe.” As the remonstrance was rejected by the King of
Naples, England and France showed their condemnation of the internal
policy of the Neapolitan Government by withdrawing their ambassadors,
as under the law of nations they had a perfect right to do. See
Phillimore, ii., 148, and iii. Preface, ix.
NOTE 34, p. 177.—In 1856 Lord Dalhousie, Governor-General of India,
annexed the kingdom of Oude under the following circumstances: The
East India Company had bound themselves by treaty “to defend the
sovereigns of Oude against foreign and domestic enemies, on condition
that _the State should be governed in such a manner as to render the
lives and property of its population safe_.” Lord Dalhousie found on
investigation that “while the Company performed their part of the
contract, the King of Oude so governed his dominions as to make his
rule a curse to his own people, and to all neighboring territories.”
McCarthy (“Hist. of Our Own Time,” Eng. ed., iii., 61), though an
extreme Liberal in his sympathies, speaks of Lord Dalhousie’s act as
“not only justifiable, but actually inevitable.” The act was only one
of many causes of the Sepoy rebellion. The language of the orator seems
altogether extravagant and unwarranted.
NOTE 35, p. 178.—The “Opium War” of 1839, and the “Lorcha Arrow War”
of 1856, are now generally and justly condemned. But to say that “no
man with a spark of morality in his composition,” or “who cares any
thing for the opinion of his fellow-countrymen,” “has dared to justify
that war,” is scarcely less than an absurd and amusing exaggeration.
The election of 1856 turned expressly on the justification of Lord
Palmerston in the “Lorcha Arrow War,” and it was Bright’s opposition
to the war which caused his defeat at Birmingham, and obliged him to
take a seat for Manchester. The causes of both of these wars are given
with admirable spirit in McCarthy’s “History of Our Own Time,” chapters
viii. and ix. Cobden also lost his seat for opposition to the war.
NOTE 36, p. 179.—At the conclusion of the Chinese War in 1858 there
were some who desired a foothold in Japan. Lord Elgin went to the
Japanese capital and succeeded in negotiating a treaty of “peace,
friendship, and commerce,” the first concluded by Japan with any
Western power. This treaty, signed Aug. 26, 1858, and ratified July 11,
1859, is given in “Am. Reg.,” ci., 216, 268.
NOTE 37, p. 182.—This statement is very difficult to understand. The
exports of British produce have varied not very greatly during the
past twenty years. In 1873 the exports amounted to £255,164,603.
This amount declined with considerable regularity till 1879, when
it was £191,531,756. It then began to increase, and in 1883 reached
£241,461,162. Martin, “Statesman’s Year-Book, for 1884,” 264. It seems
impossible to reconcile these figures with Mr. Bright’s statements,
unless he means _profit_ instead of “trade.”
NOTE 38, p. 182.—The facts do not justify this statement. At the time
of the Peace of Paris, in September, 1815, the national debt of Great
Britain was £900,436,845. In March of 1855 it had been diminished to
£808,518,448, £91,918,397 having been paid off. The two years of the
Crimean War increased the debt by £30,399,995. But since March, 1857,
the decrease has been £82,541,924, leaving the debt March 31, 1883,
£756,376,519, a diminution of £144,060,326 since 1815. By a law of 1875
provision was made for the gradual extinction of the debt by means of a
sinking fund to be annually provided for in the budget. In 1883 a bill
passed providing still further for a series of terminable annuities,
by which, in the next twenty years, £173,000,000 will be paid.—Martin,
“Statesman’s Year-Book, for 1884,” 230.
NOTE 39, p. 186.—This is not quite accurately stated. At the time of
the _coup d’état_ Lord Palmerston was Minister of Foreign Affairs.
He did indeed in a conversation with Count Walewski, the French
Ambassador at London, express his approval of the course of the French
Government, but so far from speaking “ostensibly for the cabinet, for
the sovereign, and the English nation,” he offered simply his private
opinion. The English Government formally determined upon a course of
the strictest neutrality; and when it was found that Palmerston’s
approval had been sent by Walewski to France, the message was not only
disavowed, but Palmerston was summarily dismissed. See McCarthy, ii.,
chap. xxii., 148–154, Eng. ed. The _coup d’état_ was in December, 1851;
but there was no alliance till August of 1853, long after the people of
France had given their sanction to the empire.
NOTE 40, p. 192.—This hardly accords with what the orator said a
few moments ago of India—“a vast country which we do not know how
to govern.” The East India Company’s power was broken by the Sepoy
rebellion, and the government was transferred to the crown in 1858.
The government of Canada was made substantially what it now is, on the
recommendation of Lord Durham, in 1839.
NOTE 41, p. 195.—The aggregate number of paupers has changed but
slightly during the last twenty years. In 1874 the total number in
England and Wales was 829,281; in 1883, 799,296. But in Ireland the
number has increased from 79,050 in 1874 to 115,684 in 1883. In
Scotland the number has diminished from 111,996 in 1873, to 95,081 in
1882.—Martin, “Statesman’s Year-Book, for 1884,” 253, 257, 261.
NOTE 42, p. 223.—The daily political duties of the Queen are described
somewhat in detail in Ewald’s “The Crown and its Advisers,” where
the influence of the crown is held to be much greater than it has
sometimes been supposed to be. In 1850 the question was very fully
considered by the government, and the requirement of the Queen, that
no important action should be taken that had not first received her
consideration and sanction, was set forth in a “memorandum” written to
the Prime-Minister. Because of a violation of the principles set forth
in this memorandum, Lord Palmerston was dismissed in the following
year. The details of the controversy, which ended in the more complete
establishment of the constitutional principle, are given in McCarthy,
“History of Our Own Time,” chap. xxii., Eng. ed., vol. ii., pp. 124–163.
NOTE 43, p. 224.—The ablest and most suggestive discussion of this
important topic is to be found in Bagehot’s volume on “The English
Constitution.” In the second chapter the author, with characteristic
ability, traces “how the actions of a retired widow and an unemployed
youth became of such importance” to the English people.
NOTE 44, p. 224.—Reference is here made to Sir Charles Dilke’s speech
at Nottingham adverted to in the sketch of the orator.
NOTE 45, p. 226.—The salaries of English ministers are fixed not
by Parliament but by the ministers themselves. This subject was
considered at length in 1831, and again in 1834, when it was held in
Parliament that the determination of salaries of executive officers is
an executive and not a legislative function. The salaries, therefore,
are fixed by the government, and are included in the budget presented
to the Commons. The ministers, of course, act in full view of their
responsibility; but the estimates for salaries have never, except in
one instance, been modified. The salaries of ministers in England
are generally £5,000, though that of the Lord Chancellor, who is at
the head of the Department of Justice, is £10,000. The salary of the
President of the United States was $25,000 until 1872, when it was
fixed by Congress at $50,000. On the salaries of English officials, see
Todd, “Parliamentary Government in England,” i., 396–420. Members of
Parliament, as such, receive no salaries whatever.
NOTE 46, 231.—In Bagehot’s “English Constitution,” chap. iv., is a very
brilliant and suggestive discussion of the several political as well
as social functions of the House of Lords. In this chapter, p. 100,
Eng. ed., is to be found a remarkable letter of Lord Wellington to Lord
Derby on “managing” the House of Lords. Bagehot argues that a second or
revising chamber, to perform its work well, must have “independence,”
“leisure,” and “intelligence,” and that on the whole these qualities
are found in large measure in the House of Lords. Though many of the
lords are ignorant of political affairs, the ignorant ones generally
are so good as to remain away from the House and leave matters in the
hands of those who are not ignorant.
NOTE 47, p. 232.—The question of raising persons to a life peerage
has often been considered in England. In 1856 Lord Wensleydale was
summoned “for and during the term of his natural life,” in imitation
of what had been done four hundred years before; but the measure
awakened violent opposition on the part of the House of Lords, which
held that the independence of the House was thereby imperilled. The
House decided that although the crown had the right to create “life
peers,” such peers had no right to sit and vote in the House of Peers.
After this decision, Lord Wensleydale did not attempt to take his seat,
until shortly afterward he was created an hereditary peer as Baron
Parke.—Hansard clviii. 1457, 1469; Todd, i. 368. In this same year a
committee of the House of Lords was appointed to further consider the
question, and reported recommending a statute “to confer life peerages
upon two persons who had served for five years as judges, and that
they should sit with the Lord Chancellor, as Judges of Appeal.” A bill
founded on this recommendation passed the Lords, but was thrown out
by the Commons. The principle was revived, however, in the “Appellate
Jurisdiction Act of 1876,” by which provision was made for the constant
presence in the House of Lords of four “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary,”
to rank as Barons. They are selected from those who have held “high
judicial office” and their dignity “does not descend to their
heirs.”—Amos’ “Fifty Years of the English Constitution.” 19.
NOTE 48, p. 233.—This suggestion probably had its origin in the
organization of the Roman Senate, which was made up of persons
appointed for life from those who had been elected to the higher
offices in the state.
NOTE 49, p. 235.—The period referred to was that immediately after
1832. The reformed parliament was strongly Liberal, and several
measures were proposed to alter the constitution of the House of Lords.
The headlong rate of the reformers was checked by the accession of the
opposite party in 1835; but O’Connell was still clamorous for reform
of the Lords, and in May of 1836 he introduced a resolution to make
the Upper House elective, but the motion was received with universal
derision.—Martineau, “Hist. of the Peace,” iii. 552.
NOTE 50, p. 238.—After the Reform Bill of 1832 was passed it was
soon evident that it would have to be supplemented. Again and again
attempts were made to carry a measure that would extend the franchise
on the same principles as those acted on in 1832. But the nobility and
the middle classes appeared to have no further interest in reform.
Meantime there were others who had thought of reform in a different
method. As early as 1821 Lord Durham had proposed the establishment of
electoral districts, essentially according to the custom in America.
In 1859, when Derby and Disraeli were in power, Disraeli introduced a
bill enlarging the suffrage and essentially modifying the methods of
determining qualifications. But this, too, failed. Another reform bill
was introduced by Palmerston’s government in 1860, and still another
by Gladstone in 1866. But all were unsuccessful till Mr. Disraeli’s
bill of 1867. This was founded on the principle that the franchise
should depend on permanency of interest, rather than amount of tax
paid.—McCarthy, iv., 94–117; Molesworth, iii., 303–347.
NOTE 51, p. 248.—On the question here raised, there is a great variety
of opinion, but the best authorities will accept the statement of
the orator as substantially correct. The most careful consideration
of the question has been presented in “Six Centuries of Work and
Wages,” by Professor Thorold Rogers, who has devoted many years to
the subject, and is unquestionably the highest living authority. On
p. 522 (Am. ed.) he says: “Through nearly three centuries the condition
of the English laborer was that of plenty and hope; from perfectly
intelligible causes it sunk within a century to so low a level as to
make the workman practically helpless, and the lowest point was reached
just about the outbreak of the great war between King and Parliament.
From this time it gradually improved, till in the first half of the
eighteenth century, though still far below the level of the fifteenth,
it achieved comparative plenty. Then it began to sink again, and the
workmen experienced the direst misery during the great continental
war. Latterly, almost within our own memory and knowledge, it has
experienced a slow and partial improvement, the causes of which are to
be found in the liberation of industry from protective laws, in the
adoption of certain principles which restrained employment in some
directions, and, most of all, in the concession to laborers of the
right, so long denied, of forming labor partnerships.”
NOTE 52, p. 257.—The rate of increase in the population of Great
Britain is such that there need be no especial alarm. In 1879,
according to the official statistics, the number of births in Great
Britain and Ireland in excess of the deaths was 436,780, while in
France it was only 96,647. To every 10,000 inhabitants in Great Britain
the annual addition is 101, while in France it is only 96. In Germany
it is 115; in the United States (largely through immigration, of
course) it is 260. The number of births per 1,000 in France is annually
26; in Switzerland, 30; in Denmark, 31; in Belgium, 32; in England,
35; in Austria, 38; in Saxony, 40; and in Russia, 50.—Raoul Frary,
“Le National Peril”; also “Bradstreet’s” for Oct. 27, 1883, on “Vital
Statistics,” 259.
NOTE 53, p. 257.—The question most prominently before the English
people at the time of the fall of Disraeli’s government in December of
1868 was the bill for disestablishing the Irish Church. This was the
real issue at the election in November, and is what Disraeli called the
policy of “violence.” The local reference was doubtless to the fact
that Mr. Gladstone and Lord Hartington were both defeated in Lancashire
as candidates for the House of Commons. Gladstone, however, accepted a
seat for Greenwich.
NOTE 54, p. 258.—Lord Mayo, in consequence of his successful
administration of the affairs of Ireland, was appointed by Disraeli’s
Ministry Viceroy of India. He was assassinated early in 1872. His
administration was such as to win the admiration of all discriminating
men of all parties.
NOTE 55, p. 259.—When Mr. Gladstone came into power in 1868, one of his
early measures was bill for the disendowment of the Irish State Church.
The controversy over the measure was one of great earnestness, but it
was finally carried and went into effect January 1, 1871. This was
followed by the Irish Land Bill, which aimed to overthrow the doctrine
of the landlord’s absolute and unlimited rights, and to recognize
certain property of the tenant in the land. This doctrine was carried
still further in the Irish Land Bill of 1882.—McCarthy, chap. lviii.
NOTE 56, p. 260.—This subject is well presented in McCarthy’s chap.
lix., “Reformation in a Flood.” For a list of the most important of
these measures, see the Introduction to Mr. Gladstone.
NOTE 57, p. 263.—The “Captain” was a six-gun turret-ship, which, with
a crew of five hundred men, foundered at sea on the 7th of September,
1870. The court of enquiry found that the disaster was owing to faulty
construction of the vessel, which had been built “in deference to
public opinion, as expressed in Parliament and through other channels,
and in opposition to the views and opinions of the Controller of the
Navy.”—“Ann. Reg. for 1870,” 107, 119. The “Megara” was an iron screw
troop-ship that was run aground in a sinking state at St. Paul’s,
Ireland, June 19, 1871. The commissioners of enquiry into the causes
of the disaster reported their “decided opinion that the state and
condition of the ‘Megara’ was such that she ought never to have been
selected for the voyage.” After giving the details that led to their
conclusion, the commissioners said: “It is with reluctance and pain
that we express unfavorable opinions with respect to the conduct of
officers and the management of a great department.”—“Ann. Reg. for
1881,” 96, and for 1882, 257, 260.
NOTE 58, p. 263.—This had been suggested by Mr. Lowe, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer.
NOTE 59, p. 266.—Mr. Cobden was of the same opinion. In 1854 he said:
“I look back with regret on the vote which changed Lord Derby’s
government; I regret the result of that motion, for it has cost the
country a hundred millions of treasure and between thirty and forty
thousand good lives.”—Morley’s “Life of Cobden,” Eng. ed., ii., 151.
NOTE 60, p. 267.—During the Civil War Mr. Gladstone as well as Lord
Russell had inclined to favor the Southern cause by a recognition of
the Southern States. To this Mr. Disraeli and Lord Stanley (the present
Lord Derby) were strenuously opposed. During Mr. Disraeli’s first
administration Lord Stanley was Secretary of State for Foreign affairs.
NOTE 61, p. 268.—This statement is not quite justified by the facts.
At the conclusion of the Civil War, intense feeling of indignation
pervaded the United States against Great Britain, for three reasons:
first, for a premature recognition of the belligerency of the
Southern States; secondly, for the direct aid and supplies furnished
the Southern States in British ports; and thirdly, for allowing
the fitting out of cruisers in British ports to prey upon Northern
commerce. The people of the United States held that Great Britain
through her government had disregarded the obligations of neutrality
imposed upon her by the law of nations. The United States Government
remonstrated with the British Government, demanding reparation for
past wrong, and cessation from a continuance of the wrong. But so
long as Lord John Russell was in power (through whose negligence or
misjudgment the wrong had been done) no progress was made toward a
settlement. The Derby-Disraeli government succeeded that of Russell
in 1866, with Lord Stanley as Minister of Foreign Affairs. About the
end of 1866 Lord Stanley, through Sir Frederick Bruce, offered to
submit the Alabama Claims to arbitration. To this Mr. Seward assented
“on condition that the whole controversy between the two governments
should be deferred.” Lord Stanley asked for information as to what
was meant by the expression “the whole controversy,” but the answer
was not free from ambiguity, and was supposed to refer to damages for
“premature recognition of the Confederacy.” As Lord Stanley had refused
to submit this subject to arbitration, negotiations were broken off.
The matter rested till March 6, 1868, when it was brought up in the
House of Commons, and was fully debated. This was followed by a debate
March 20th in the House of Lords, both in excellent spirit. It was
in the following November that negotiations were again opened with
a view to submitting the differences to arbitration. A preliminary
agreement was reached and signed November 10th, by Lord Stanley and
Mr. Johnson, the American minister. It was not, however, acceptable to
Mr. Seward, who telegraphed November 26th: “Claims Convention unless
amended is useless.” In a long despatch of the same date sent by mail
the objections were duly pointed out, the most important of which were
in regard to Article IV. of the Protocol, and were stated in these
words: “While the Convention provides that the United States claims
and the British claims shall be settled and determined by a majority
of the Commissioners, this Article IV. _requires entire unanimity of
the Commissioners for a derision upon any of the Alabama Claims_.”
Other objections were given, but this was the most important one why,
as Mr. Seward said, “the United States are obliged to disallow this
Article IV.” On November 28th Mr. Johnson had an interview with Lord
Stanley, when the latter said he had received a despatch from the
British minister at Washington, which stated “that it was understood
that all the cabinet disapprove of it.” On the 5th of December Mr.
Johnson wrote to Mr. Seward that he just had an interview with Lord
Stanley, who “expressed no willingness to change the mode of appointing
the arbitrator who is to decide the question of the liability of
this government for the Alabama Claims.” In the same letter Mr.
Johnson announced the resignation of the Disraeli government, and the
necessity of postponing all further negotiations. On the whole subject
see “Diplomatic Correspondence,” 3d Sess., 40th Cong., vol. i., pp.
361–391. Soon after the Gladstone-Clarendon government came into power
the subject was again taken up, and a Protocol was agreed upon between
Mr. Johnson and Lord Clarendon, providing that “_all claims_ should
be submitted to arbitration.” This treaty was submitted to the Senate
of the United States, and April 19, 1869, was rejected with but one
dissenting voice. The grounds of objection were that the Alabama Claims
were so obscured by minor matters that they would not receive due
attention. The Johnson-Clarendon treaty is given in the “Diplomatic
Correspondence” and in “Ann. Reg. for 1869,” p. 282. The subject was
not again renewed till the outbreak of the Franco-German War, in regard
to which see note 63.
NOTE 62, p. 270.—At the conclusion of the Crimean War the great powers
in the Treaty of Paris agreed to impose and enforce the neutrality of
the Black Sea. The waters and the ports were “perpetually interdicted
to the flag of war of either of the powers possessing its coasts,”
excepting certain small armed vessels to act as a sort of maritime
police. As was not unnatural, Russia chafed under this interdiction.
The Franco-German War broke out in July of 1870. In October of that
year, when France and Germany were so occupied as scarcely to be
able to protest, Prince Gortschakoff addressed a circular despatch
to the European powers, stating that Russia no longer recognized
the obligations of the Treaty of 1856. This despatch called forth a
courteous but firm reply from Lord Granville, in which the obligatory
nature of the treaty was insisted upon. It was feared that Prussia
had secretly assented to the claims now put forward by Russia, in
compensation for grants made to Prussia on the Baltic. Accordingly
Mr. Odo Russell was sent to the German head-quarters at Versailles
to ascertain the attitude of the Prussian Government. Count Bismarck
assured the English ambassador that Prussia had given no sanction to
the step, and proposed that the whole question should be submitted
to a conference of the powers, to be held at London. This proposal
of Prussia was assented to by England and Russia, and the conference
took place in January of 1871. The result was the neutralization of
the Black Sea was abrogated. The prediction of Beaconsfield, that “the
entire command of the Black Sea will soon be in the possession of
Russia,” has been amply justified by subsequent history.—“Ann. Reg.,
1870,” 109; 1871, 3–17.
NOTE 63, p. 271.—The Washington Treaty of June 17, 1871, provided
for referring five important questions in dispute to a Committee
of Arbitration, consisting of one member appointed by the Queen of
England, one by the President of the United States, one by the King of
Italy, one by the President of the Swiss Confederation, and one by the
Emperor of Brazil. The sixth article of the treaty provided that the
Arbitrators should be guided in their decision of the “Alabama Claims”
by “three rules” which were given in the article, and which virtually
acknowledged the responsibility of England for allowing the “Alabama”
to be fitted up in a British port, and allowing her to escape. The
adoption of these “three rules” unquestionably gave the United States
great advantage and made, it nearly certain that the case would be
adjudicated in their favor. But the opposition in England steadily held
that the “three rules” that were made the basis of the arbitration
were not justified by the requirements of international law. This view
has since been held by many prominent publicists, American as well as
European. The rules are of at least questionable advantage, and have
not been assented to by any other powers than England and the United
States. The result of the arbitration, which was held at Geneva in 1871
and 1872, was to award “the sum of $15,500,000 in gold as the indemnity
to be paid by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction
of all claims referred to the consideration of the tribunal.” The
treaty and the award are printed at length in Cushing’s “Treaty of
Washington,” pp. 257–280. What made England willing to adopt the “three
rules” for the sake of speedily reaching a final settlement, was the
condition of affairs in Europe. In case England had become involved in
war, her commerce would have been at the mercy of American privateers.
But the treaty and the award were very unpopular in England. Mr.
McCarthy (iv., 347) says: “What most of the English people saw was
that England had been compelled, in homely phrase, to ‘knuckle down’
to America.” This unpopularity of the measure and the good use made of
it by Lord Beaconsfield had not a little to do with bringing on the
downfall of Gladstone’s government.
NOTE 64, p. 272.—Reference is here made to the so-called “indirect
claims” which the United States Government insisted on having
considered by the Arbitrators, but which the English as strenuously
refused to submit. The claim was in substance that the “Alabama” and
other cruisers had not only directly destroyed much of our commerce,
but had indirectly prolonged the war, and that for this prolongation
the United States should be paid. Though this doctrine was presented in
the so-called “American Case,” which, as Beaconsfield amusingly says,
was translated into all languages and sent into all European courts,
it was not formally objected to until the Arbitrators met at Geneva.
The question there seemed likely to bring arbitration abruptly to an
end. But finally the Arbitrators, in an informal manner, declared that
“in case the indirect claims _should_ come before them, they should be
obliged to reject them,” whereupon the Americans said that all they
insisted on was a _decision_, not necessarily a decision in their
favor. The difficult question thus happily disposed of, other matters
were settled with substantial unanimity.
NOTE 65, p. 275.—It is not difficult to understand the great influence
of passages like this in stirring the national feeling of Great
Britain. Lord Beaconsfield knew how to move the British heart as no
other modern statesman except Palmerston has done.
NOTE 66, p. 288.—In 1879 the people of England were confronted with
problems which a long succession of good harvests had caused them
to forget. The failure of four successive crops had brought about
unexampled distress. The cry for protection was revived, and in the
spring of 1879 was brought in various forms before Parliament. Lord
Beaconsfield, the Prime-Minister, in a succession of quite remarkable
speeches, took the ground that “the country had settled the question in
another generation,” and that the distress was not to be relieved by a
return to the former policy. Among other interesting things shown by
the Prime-Minister, was the fact that the loss to the nation from bad
harvests had been in four years not less than about 80,000,000 pounds
sterling.—Beaconsfield’s “Speeches,” i., 327.
NOTE 67, p. 289.—Mr. Gladstone’s praise of Mr. Playfair’s
qualifications was not extravagant. Playfair first became eminent as
a chemist, having been a successful student under Liebig at Giessen,
and subsequently Professor of Chemistry in the Royal Institution at
Manchester and in the University of Edinburgh. In 1844 he was appointed
chairman of a commission to examine into the sanitary condition
of English towns, and in 1851 was sent by the government into the
manufacturing districts to prepare a classification of the various
objects of industry. At the World’s Exposition he was placed in charge
of the department of jurors, and so well did he perform his work
that at the next World’s Exposition, in 1862, he was entrusted with
the selection of the jurors, some six hundred in number, to be drawn
from the most eminent men of all countries. In 1874 he prepared the
elaborate scheme for the reorganization of the English civil service,
a work which he was well fitted to perform by reason of his labors in
1873–4 as Postmaster-General. During his visit to the United States
he delivered an important address in Boston on the civil service in
England as compared with that in the United States.
NOTE 68, p. 293.—The development of Manitoba has quite justified the
predictions of Beaconsfield, which Mr. Gladstone seemed to make light
of.
NOTE 69, p. 297.—In the second Mid-Lothian speech, Mr. Gladstone had
spoken at length on the tenure of land and the land laws. Among other
statements, he said concerning the law of entail and settlement: “I
believe that you view that law with disapproval, as being itself one
of the most serious restraints upon the effective prosecution of the
agriculture of the country. Gentlemen, I need not dwell upon that
matter. I heartily agree with you on the point at issue. I am for
the alteration of that law. I disapprove of it on economic grounds.
I disapprove of it on social and moral grounds. I disapprove of the
relation which it creates between father and son. I disapprove of
the manner in which it makes provision for the interests of children
to be born. Was there ever in the history of legislation a stranger
expedient? * * * The law of England is wiser than the Almighty; it
improves upon Divine Providence.”—Gladstone, “Speeches in Scotland,”
83.
NOTE 70, p. 306.—In the preceding April, Lord Bateman had moved in
Parliament “That, this House fully recognizing the benefits which would
result to the community if a system of free trade were universally
adopted, it is expedient, in all future commercial negotiations with
other countries, to advocate a policy of reciprocity between all
inter-trading nations.” The policy was opposed by Lord Beaconsfield,
because, as he said, he was convinced it was “a proposition which can
lead to no public benefit.” Lord Salisbury, the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, in the course of the summer appeared to favor it.
NOTE 71, p. 315.—The first census of Great Britain was taken in 1801,
when the population was found to be as follows: England, 8,331,434;
Wales, 541,546; Scotland, 1,599,068; army and navy, 470,598; total
in Great Britain, 10,942,646. The first census in Ireland was taken
in 1813, but the returns were so imperfect as to be valueless. In
1821 Ireland had a population of 6,801,827.—Porter, “Progress of the
Nation,” 8.
NOTE 72, p. 327.—The events alluded to in this and in following
passages may be thus summarized. The war between Russia and Turkey
terminated in the treaty of San Stefano, in the spring of 1878. Turkey
had been overwhelmed by the war, and was now practically reduced to
a cipher by the treaty. In the opinion of the English Government,
Lord Beaconsfield being then in power, the interests of England in
the eastern Mediterranean were imperilled by this aggrandizement of
Russia. Russia was required by the British Government to submit the
treaty of San Stefano to a European Congress. This Russia at first
declined to do, whereupon the English Government at once moved an
address requesting the Queen to call out the Reserves. This vigorous
measure was at once followed by the still more decisive step of
bringing up a division of the British army in India to the island of
Malta. The right of the crown to employ Indian troops in European war
was questioned, and gave rise to animated debate; but the measure was
at least successful on diplomatic grounds. Russia at once lowered her
pretensions, and arrangements were soon made for a General Congress
at Berlin, in June of 1878, where the interests of Great Britain were
represented by Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury. The result of the
Congress was a modification of the treaty of San Stefano, by which
the independence of Turkey was once more restored, and the dependent
provinces were put on a substantial footing. The outcome was regarded
as a great diplomatic triumph of Lord Beaconsfield. The agreement
between Lord Salisbury and Count Schouvaloff is treated more fully
later in the speech.
NOTE 73, p. 332.—This statement, while substantially correct, is a
little misleading. The provinces alluded to were all more or less
dependent on Turkey, and England was at no time quite willing to adopt
a military policy in their defence. Neither was any other government
of Europe, excepting Russia, and Russia was willing simply because it
opened the way for her own advance toward the south.
NOTE 74, p. 335.—In 1877, Lord Derby had resigned the post of Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, and had been succeeded by Lord Salisbury.
NOTE 75, p. 337.—The “needless and mischievous armaments” were the
calling out of the Reserves, and the bringing to Malta of the Indian
army. Mr. Gladstone’s adjectives can only mean that in his opinion the
Berlin Treaty was not desirable, since without the military movements
the treaty would have been impossible. The statement of the orator
as to the agreement between Salisbury and Schouvaloff is not quite
correct. There was no pretence to making a treaty or settling any
question whatever, but simply an understanding as to what England
demanded, and what she desired to submit to a Congress. After this
conference, which Mr. Gladstone criticises with so much severity,
Count Schouvaloff went to St. Petersburg, pausing at Berlin for an
interview with Prince Bismarck. At St. Petersburg he appears to have
convinced the Czar that nothing short of a submission of the question
at issue to a General Congress would satisfy England. Soon after the
Count’s return to London, the Prussian Government invited the powers
to a Congress at Berlin; and Russia not only accepted the invitation,
but agreed to submit to the powers, all the terms of the Treaty of San
Stefano. During the whole of these negotiations English public opinion
was wrought up to the most intense excitement and anxiety. The course
of the government was assailed and defended with the utmost vigor,
everybody supposing, meanwhile, that peace or war between the two great
nations hung upon the issue. In the “Ann. Reg. for 1878,” all the
official papers are given, and on pp. 40–64 is to be found an abstract
of the discussions in Parliament.
NOTE 76, p. 339.—The reader perhaps hardly needs to be reminded that
the cases were not parallel. Russia had overwhelmed her weak foe, and
now proposed to dismember her fallen enemy as a reward for her trouble.
This was not only in clear violation of the principles set down by the
Treaty of Paris in 1856, but also obnoxious to the traditional policy
of Great Britain, as held by Pitt. But neither international obligation
nor British usage offered any objection to a peaceful and voluntary
treaty between England and Turkey, by which for a just consideration
the one should cede a bit of territory to the other.
NOTE 77, p. 341.—On the 9th of November, 1879, Lord Beaconsfield, at
the Lord Mayor’s banquet, had expounded his imperial policy, and in the
course of his speech had used the words “_imperium et libertas_.” The
speech attracted great attention as an authoritative exposition of the
Prime-Minister’s views on domestic and foreign affairs.
NOTE 78, p. 344.—With this position Lord Beaconsfield would probably
have heartily agreed. He might even have asked Mr. Gladstone, “Was
it not to prevent just such aggrandizement as you condemn that we
objected to the Treaty of San Stefano, and insisted upon a Congress?”
More than that, he might have asked: “How do you reconcile your plea
for the independence of the smaller states with your denunciation of
the Congress of Berlin, brought about by ‘needless and mischievous
armaments,’ by which alone the independence of Turkey could be saved?”
To these questions Mr. Gladstone would probably have replied: “Yes; but
you ought to have accomplished all this by preventing the war between
Russia and Turkey in the beginning.” How Mr. Gladstone thought this
might have been done and ought to have been done he pointed out in the
first of the Mid-Lothian speeches, delivered at Edinburgh.