COERCION.
Lord Beaconsfield Attacks the Government--The Irish Crisis--The
Coercion Bills--An All-night Sitting--The Arrest of Mr.
Davitt--The Revolt of the Irish Members--The Speaker’s _Coup
d’État_--Urgency--New Rules of Procedure--The Speaker’s
_Clôture_--End of the Struggle against Coercion--Mr. Dillon’s
Irish Campaign--Mr. Forster’s First Batch of “Suspects”--The
Peers Censure the Ministry--Mr. Gladstone’s “Retort
Courteous”--Abolition of the “Cat”--The Budget--Paying off the
National Debt--The Irish Land Bill--The Three “F’s”--Resignation
of the Duke of Argyll--The Strategic Blunder of the Tories--The
Fallacy of Dual Ownership--Conflict between the Lords and
Commons--Surrender of the Peers--Passing the Land Bill--Revolt
of the Transvaal--The Rout of Majuba Hill--Death of Sir George
Colley--The Boers Triumphant--Concession of Autonomy to the
Boers--Lord Beaconsfield’s Death--His Career and Character--A
“Walking Funeral” at Hughenden--The Queen and Lord Beaconsfield’s
Tomb--A Sorrowing Nation--Assassination of the Czar--The
Queen and the Duchess of Edinburgh--Character of the Czar
Emancipator--Precautions for the Safety of the Queen--Visit of
the King and Queen of Sweden to Windsor--Prince Leopold becomes
Duke of Albany--Deaths of Dean Stanley and Mr. Carlyle--Review of
Scottish Volunteers--Assassination of President Garfield--The Royal
Family--The Highlands--Holiday Pastimes--The Parnellites and the
Irish Land Act--Arrest of Mr. Parnell--No-Rent Manifesto.
The year 1881 confronted the Government with four difficulties. The
Irish Question was growing more serious every day. With a heavy heart
England not only saw herself committed to a war of reconquest in
the Transvaal, but heard her most sanguine Imperialists admitting
that Sir Bartle Frere’s scheme for a South African Confederation had
utterly broken down. The Parliament of the Cape Colony would not even
seriously discuss it, and Sir Bartle Frere had been recalled at the
end of 1880. Victory had crowned British arms in Afghanistan, but Lord
Beaconsfield’s policy of holding Candahar, and controlling the rest
of the country by British Residents, was obviously impossible. Lord
Lytton, who now called it an “experiment,” admitted that the murder of
Cavagnari had proved it to be a failure. The claims of Greece to an
increase of territory and a better frontier, had been admitted to be
just by the Powers, but Turkey still refused to accept any compromise
which Europe suggested, and Greece pressed her demands with growing
impatience. The nation was therefore relieved to find that Parliament
was to meet earlier than usual, and when it assembled on the 6th of
January it was soon seen that the Session would be a stormy one. Among
the upper and upper middle classes the Government was denounced with a
bitterness that had no parallel, for permitting Ireland to fall into
“anarchy” under the dominion of the Land League.
In the debate on the Address in the House of Lords, Lord Beaconsfield,
appealing to the prevailing sentiment of disappointment, sought to
show that all these difficulties were due to Mr. Gladstone’s sudden
reversal of the Conservative policy when he came into office. The
speech was pitched in a strange, shrewish note of anger, and it failed
to produce much effect. Men could not forget that only a few months
before Lord Beaconsfield had taunted the Ministry with meekly and
slavishly carrying out his policy. It was not easy to forget that
Lord Beaconsfield had abandoned the Coercion Act and allowed the Land
League to fix its grip on Ireland, that the troubles in Afghanistan
were entirely due to his desire to govern that country without being
at the expense of occupying it, that the alternative policy adopted
by him after the murder of Cavagnari--that of detaching Candahar and
putting it under a Wali, who was to be friendly and independent--ended
in the fall of the Wali and the desertion of his troops to the enemy
which produced the disaster of Maiwand. As for South Africa, even the
_Times_, which had supported Lord Beaconsfield’s policy in that region,
now wrote, “what a miserable business our whole connection with the
annexation of the Transvaal has been from first to last. The original
annexation of the country was a mistake, and it has been the parent
of all the rest.” Knowing that Englishmen would never sanction a war
for the conquest of a free European people who objected to come under
British rule, Lord Beaconsfield’s agents supplied Parliament with no
information on the subject, save that which indicated that the Boers
would welcome absorption in the British Empire as the surest means of
deliverance from native difficulties. The Greek difficulty obviously
was an evil inheritance from the Treaty of Berlin by which Lord
Beaconsfield conferred on England “Peace with Honour.”
But the domestic crisis in Ireland was far too serious to permit men to
indulge in party recriminations, and Lord Beaconsfield showed his sense
in urging his followers not to do anything to weaken the Government.
Unfortunately, neither he nor Sir Stafford Northcote had much control
over the aggressive Tories who were led by the Fourth Party, and the
Fourth Party, when the Session opened, cemented more strongly than
ever their alliance with the Parnellites for purposes of obstructive
opposition. The Tory Party were ably led on two distinct lines of
attack. One wing did what it could to goad the Ministry into scourging
Ireland with coercive legislation. Another wing gave the Irish members
all the help it dared give them publicly in obstructing the domestic
legislation, and embarrassing the Foreign Policy of the Ministry.
Coercion Bills were announced on the first day of the Session, and
the consequence was that it was not till after eleven days’ wearisome
wrangling that the debate on the Address ended on the 20th of January.
On the 24th, Mr. Forster introduced his Protection of Persons and
Property (Ireland) Bill, giving the Lord-Lieutenant power to arrest by
warrant persons _suspected_ of treasonable intentions, intimidation,
and incitement to violate the laws. If he had this power, said Mr.
Forster, he could put under lock and key the “village ruffians” and
outrage-mongers who attacked people that were obnoxious to the Land
League, and then Ireland would be at peace.
The violence with which the Irish Members obstructed this Bill provoked
Mr. Bright to attack them in a speech on the 27th of January, which
rendered him and them enemies for life. Mr. Gladstone followed in the
same vein, and on Monday, the 31st of January, a scene that became
historic was enacted. The debate was prolonged all day and all night,
and on through the dull, grey hours of the morning of the 1st of
February, and still on all night without ceasing, till the enraged
and exhausted House found itself at nine in the morning of the 2nd
of February still in session and with no prospect of release. Then
the Speaker interfered, saying that it was clear to him the Bill had
been wilfully obstructed for forty-one hours. In order to vindicate
the honour of the House, whose rules seemed powerless to meet the
difficulty, he declared his determination to put the main question
without further debate. This was done amidst loud shouts of “Privilege”
from the Irish Members, who left the House in a body, and the motion
for leave to bring in the Bill, a motion rarely obstructed by any
debate, was carried by a vote of 164 to 19. For the first time in
the history of Parliament, a debate had been closed by the personal
authority of the Speaker.
Mr. Gladstone having announced that the Second Reading of the Bill
would be taken that day at noon, the Irish Members returned to the
charge. They attempted to challenge the action of the Speaker, and
moved the adjournment of the House; but in spite of the support which
they received from Lord Randolph Churchill, they were beaten on a
division, though they succeeded in wasting the whole of the sitting.
Next day (Thursday, the 3rd of February) the Irish Members began the
attack by asking if it were true that Mr. Davitt had been arrested.
“Yes, sir,” was the answer of Sir William Harcourt. Then, when Mr.
Gladstone rose to move the adoption of the new Rule of Procedure,
Mr. Dillon rose to a point of order. The Speaker requested him to be
seated, but he refused. He was then “named” for wilfully disregarding
the authority of the Chair, and, in conformity with the Standing Order,
Mr. Gladstone immediately moved his suspension for the rest of the
sitting. The motion was carried by a vote of 395 to 33, and, as Mr.
Dillon declined to withdraw, he was removed by the Serjeant-at-Arms.
After a futile attempt on the part of Mr. Sullivan to dispute the
legality of the Speaker’s action, Mr. Gladstone again rose, whereupon
The O’Donoghue moved the adjournment of the House. The Speaker ruled
that Mr. Gladstone should proceed. Mr. Parnell now moved that Mr.
Gladstone be not
[Illustration: MR. PARNELL.
(_From a Photograph by William Lawrence, Dublin._)]
heard.[169] The Speaker “named” Mr. Parnell, who was then suspended
and removed like Mr. Dillon. Mr. Finigan next repeated Mr. Parnell’s
offence, and was removed in the same manner. On this occasion
twenty-eight Irish Members were reported as refusing to leave their
seats when the Speaker ordered the House to be cleared for a division.
The Speaker “named” them all, and though Mr. Balfour and Mr. Gorst, on
behalf of the Fourth Party, feelingly remonstrated against the vote for
their suspension _en bloc_ being put, the Speaker ruled that this was
a question not of order but convenience, and the vote was carried by
410 to 4. Then the Speaker ordered them one by one to be removed. Five
others, who were not included, procured their expulsion, and, after a
struggle of three hours and a half, “the Speaker’s _coup d’état_,” as
the Nationalists called it, ended.[170]
Mr. Gladstone now, pale and worn out with the excitement, delivered
his speech in support of the new Rules of Procedure. Sir Stafford
Northcote showed that he still shared the hostility of the Tory Party
to any scheme for effectively crushing obstruction; but the conduct of
the Irish Members had so incensed the House, that he had to limit his
opposition to an amendment which but slightly weakened the force of
Mr. Gladstone’s proposal. The Rule finally adopted declared that, when
a Minister moved, after notice, that the state of public business was
urgent, the Speaker was to put the question without debate. If this
motion were carried by a majority of not less than three to one in a
House of 300 Members, then the powers of the House for the regulation
of its business should be transferred to the Speaker, who could enforce
such rules as he pleased for its management, till the state of public
business should be declared by him to be no longer urgent. A motion
could be made by a Member to terminate urgency, but it must be put
without debate. On the 9th of February the Speaker laid before the
House the new Rules which he had drawn up for the state of urgency
in which public business was now declared to be. They adopted the
principle of the _Clôture_, which Sir Stafford Northcote deprecated and
the Fourth Party abhorred, and gave the Speaker power, when supported
by a three-fourths’ majority, to close a debate by putting the question
without further discussion. No debate on a motion to go into Committee,
or on postponing the preamble of a Bill under urgency, was to be
allowed. Opportunities for moving adjournments were curtailed, and the
Speaker was to have power to order a Member to stop talking when he
became guilty of “irrelevance or tedious repetition.” In Committee the
_Clôture_ was not to be applied, but no Members (except those in charge
of Bills or those who had moved amendments) were to be allowed to speak
more than once to the same question.
Even under urgency the debate on the Coercion Bill in Committee
went on slowly, and at one time (owing to Lord Randolph Churchill,
who supported the Bill “with reluctance and distrust,” and Sir John
Holker, who contended that “liberty was more precious than coercion,”
displaying much sympathy with the opponents of the measure) it was
feared that Ministers would lose the support of a large section of the
Opposition. This fear was baseless, but the debate went on till the
21st of February, when the Speaker, on a motion summarily moved by Lord
Hartington, suddenly terminated it under the new Rules. All amendments
not disposed of after seven o’clock on the 22nd were put and divided
on without debate. The measure received the Queen’s assent on the 2nd
of March. A Bill giving the Irish police power to search houses for
arms was introduced by Sir William Harcourt on the 1st of March, read
a third time on the 4th, and passed by the House of Lords on the 18th
of March. The struggle against coercion thus lasted nine weeks, and
the violence with which the Irish Party conducted it is defended by
Mr. T. P. O’Connor on the grounds that it consolidated the Nationalist
Party, and that the scenes in the House so roused the temper of the
Irish people that the Peers were afraid to reject the Land Bill of
1881, as they did the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of 1880.[171]
On the other hand, they permanently alienated from the Irish Party the
sympathies of a large class of moderate Liberals in England, who were
anxious to legislate for Ireland in a sympathetic spirit.
After the Coercion Bill had passed, Mr. Dillon carried on a passionate
agitation against the Government in Ireland, and Mr. Forster retaliated
by imprisoning him and several other Land Leaguers as “suspects”
in May. Mr. Finigan was sent down to Coventry, where an election
was taking place, to canvass the constituency on behalf of the Tory
candidate, Mr. Eaton, a tangible expression of gratitude for the
occasional sympathy that had been extended to the Parnellites by Lord
Randolph Churchill, and some other Conservatives during the Coercion
debates. There was a lull in the storm, however, during which the Peers
censured the Government for refusing to occupy Candahar. A vote of the
House of Commons on the 25th of March reversed this censure, for the
House rejected by 336 to 216 a motion of Mr. Stanhope’s, blaming the
Government for withdrawing from Candahar “at the present time.” When
the Tories refused to commit themselves to the proposition that it was
the duty of the Government to hold Candahar permanently, and merely
demanded its occupation “at the present time,” their attack assumed
the complexion of a party demonstration. If England were to leave
Candahar at all the sooner she left it the better, for the longer her
troops stayed the more difficult it would be to establish the native
government of Abdurrahman in the Province. The Army Discipline Bill,
abolishing flogging, passed through the House of Commons without much
opposition from the Tories, and was read a third time by the House of
Lords on the 7th of April. The Budget was introduced by Mr. Gladstone
on the 4th of April, and on an estimated expenditure of £84,705,000,
and an estimated revenue of £85,900,000, he showed a probable surplus
of £1,195,000. This was reduced by £100,000, consumed in paying off
a loan for building barracks. Mr. Gladstone, therefore, reduced the
Income Tax to 5d. in the pound, and converted the deficit thereby
incurred of £275,000, into a surplus of £295,000, by levying an uniform
surtax of 4d. a gallon on foreign spirits, in accordance with the test
of standard strength applied to wines, and by minor changes in the
Probate, Legacy, and Succession Duties. The most important part of his
statement was that, during the past year, the National Debt had been
reduced by £7,000,000. He also foreshadowed a great scheme for the
extinction of £60,000,000 of debt, by the conversion of one-third of
the short annuities terminating in 1885 into long annuities terminating
in 1906. As this would make Consols scarce, it would put up their
price, and enable him or his successor, in the course of ten years, to
reduce the interest on the National Debt.
[Illustration: GRAFTON STREET, DUBLIN.]
The long-expected Irish Land Bill was introduced by Mr. Gladstone on
the 7th of April. It gave tenants the right to go before a Land Court
and have “fair rents” fixed for fifteen years, a fair rent being one
that would let the tenant live and thrive. During these fifteen years
eviction, save for non-payment of rent, was to be impossible. If a
tenant wished to sell his tenant-right or goodwill, the landlord had
the pre-emptive right of buying at the price fixed by the Court. The
Court was to have power to advance to tenants desirous of buying their
farms three-fourths of the purchase-money, or even the whole if need
be, and these advances were repayable on easy terms. Advances could
also be made to promote emigration. The Bill was well received on the
whole by the country, but the landed gentry denounced it as an act
of socialism and confiscation, and the Duke of Argyll resigned his
office. On the 24th of April long and stormy debates on the Second
Reading began, and it was not till the end of July that the Bill was
sent up to the House of Lords. The Tory Party made a mistake in basing
their opposition to the measure on the ground that it was socialistic,
confiscatory, and
[Illustration: LORD BEACONSFIELD’S LAST APPEARANCE IN THE PEERS’
GALLERY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
(_From a Drawing by Harry Furniss._)]
contrary to the laws of political economy. The principle of arranging
the business relations of landlord and tenant in Ireland by Act of
Parliament having been accepted by the country, the only practical
method of attacking the Bill was to have shown that it would not
arrange them to the mutual satisfaction of the parties interested.
The theory of the measure was, that every Irish farm is owned by two
persons--by the farmer, who owns the improvements he has made on the
soil, by the landlord who owns everything else. The Bill gave the
tenant additional means for protecting his share of the land from
being devoured by the landlord. Did it do this effectively, and if
effectively, in such a manner as to work no injustice to the landlord?
From the Tory point of view, it would have been easy to argue that no
system of dual ownership, which forces persons with hostile interests
into partnership in husbandry, can work smoothly. If prices rise the
landlord’s fixed rent will not rise with them. If prices fall the
tenant will refuse to pay the fixed rent, because it is no longer fair;
and then the old weary path of agrarian warfare has again to be trod.
A great scheme for establishing peasant proprietorship all over Ireland
with the help of the State might have saved the Irish landlords at this
juncture. But the Tories were led not by a Stein, but a Cecil, and the
golden opportunity was lost. From the Irish point of view, the Bill
bristled with weak points. It did nothing for leaseholders. It left
tenants loaded with arrears, and therefore still exposed to eviction.
Although Mr. Healy inserted a clause prohibiting the Courts from taking
a tenant’s improvements into the valuation on which a fair rent was
fixed, the Judges, by a decision in the case of Adams v. Dunseath,
virtually nullified the clause.
It was not till the 29th of July that Mr. Gladstone carried the Third
Reading of the Bill after a desperate struggle. The House of Lords
mutilated it, so that it became worse than useless, and then there
came a deep cry of indignation from the country. Mr. Gladstone sent
the Bill back practically unaltered, and as the tempest of anger in
the country rose the Peers surrendered and let the measure pass. The
Ministry, however, had to drop all their other Bills, except those
abolishing flogging in the Army and Navy. The only private Members who
carried Bills of public interest were Mr. Hutchinson and Mr. Roberts.
Mr. Hutchinson’s Bill protected newspaper reports of lawful meetings
from prosecution for libel, and made it necessary to obtain the
Attorney-General’s sanction before criminal proceedings for libel could
be asked for. Mr. Roberts passed the Act closing public-houses during
Sundays in Wales.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s case, however, again vexed the angry sea of political
strife at intervals during the Session. The law courts ruled that he
could not legally make an affirmation, and so Mr. Bradlaugh resigned
his seat, and again got elected for Northampton. This time he presented
himself on the 26th of April to be sworn as a new Member. Sir Stafford
Northcote objected, and though no precedent exists for preventing a
new Member from being sworn, the Speaker referred the matter to the
House, which decided against Mr. Bradlaugh. Thereupon ensued a shocking
scene, and Mr. Bradlaugh had to be removed by force. Nothing strikes
the reader now as more absurd than the protestations of the Tories,
that to concede this claim was to sanction sacrilege. The course they
objected to was precisely the one which Mr. Bradlaugh adopted when
they were in office in 1886, and which they and the Speaker found it
expedient to permit. A Bill was now brought in to allow all Members to
affirm who could not conscientiously take the oath. This was opposed
and so successfully obstructed that it had to be dropped. After that
Mr. Bradlaugh, on the 3rd of August, cheered by an immense crowd of
sympathisers, attempted to enter the House in defiance of an order
which Sir Stafford Northcote had carried excluding him from its
precincts. There were some of his Radical sympathisers--Mr. Fawcett was
among the number--who did not quite approve of this proceeding. At all
events Mr. Bradlaugh gained nothing by it, for he was flung into Palace
Yard by the police hatless, dishevelled, and with his coat torn in the
fray.
The recall of Sir Bartle Frere did not settle the South African
difficulty. Sir G. P. Colley, in trying to avenge the defeat of
Bronkhurst Spruit, was early in the year beaten by the Boers at
Laing’s Nek and Ingogo. On the 26th of February, reinforced by Sir
Evelyn Wood, he let the Boers out-manœuvre him, and spring upon the
oddly variegated and composite force with which he had rashly occupied
Majuba Hill. Though the enemy’s troops only consisted of raw levies of
irregular sharpshooters, they soon dispersed the British host. It was
a shameful rout, in which a kind fate doomed the luckless Colley to
death. The unfortunate thing was that this fray should have happened
at all. Negotiations were actually going on between the British and
the Boers for a peaceful settlement.[172] Were they to be broken
off? After admitting by opening up these negotiations, that the war
was unjust, was a great and powerful Empire to go on with it for the
sake of _prestige_? And was it, after all, British prowess that would
be vindicated by victory? Was it not rather the fame of Sir George
Pomeroy Colley that had alone been sullied? In other words, was England
justified in slaughtering a few hundred Boer farmers, because Sir
George Colley had let them beat his heroic but mismanaged troops in
battle? It is impossible to say how the nation answered these difficult
questions. But Mr. Gladstone’s reply was an emphatic “No,” although
he had unfortunately declared, immediately after coming into office,
that he would not grant the demands of the Boers, till they laid down
their arms. The end of it was, that the Boers were allowed to set up an
autonomous Republic under a British Protectorate, British interference
being limited to controlling their foreign policy. It is curious to
observe that this was the only act ever done by Mr. Gladstone which the
European and American Press, with cordial unanimity, declared enhanced
the _prestige_ of England, as a State so confident of its giant’s
strength, that it deemed it ignoble to use it like a giant.
In the spring the shadow of mourning fell over the nation. On the
morning of the 19th of April Lord Beaconsfield, who had been ailing
for some days, passed away peacefully to his last rest. Mr. Gladstone
at once telegraphed to his relatives offering a public funeral in
Westminster Abbey, but the executors were compelled to decline the
honour. Lord Beaconsfield’s will directed that he should be buried
beside his wife, and there were also legal obstacles that even the
Queen’s personal wishes could not overcome.[173] His life, to use a
favourite phrase of his own, was “really a romance,” and his career
a long and brilliant adventure. His strength lay in his freedom from
prejudices, in his intellectual detachment from English insularity, in
his consummate knowledge of the foibles of the lower middle class whom
he enfranchised. He achieved success by skilfully avoiding the mistake
of Peel, who led his Party without educating it. Lord Beaconsfield
did both. His fame as a writer of sparkling political burlesques, his
command of invective, his wit, and his audacity won for him the ear
of a Senate which loves men who can amuse it. The defection of the
Peelites left the Tory Party, in 1846, intellectually poverty-stricken,
and though a proud aristocracy long refused to recognise their most
brilliant swordsman as their leader, they had to accept him at last.
At this period of his career the chief obstacle in Mr. Disraeli’s
path was believed to be the hostility of the Queen, who, however,
nobly atoned for it by subsequently loading him with favours. With
the exception, perhaps, of Lord Aberdeen, no Minister of the present
generation has been more sincerely beloved as a friend by his Sovereign
than Lord Beaconsfield. He had the subtle tact and the delicate
refinement of a woman, with the stubborn courage and iron will of a
man. As for his policy and his principles, the time has not yet come to
judge them fairly. He was no more to blame for bringing his generous
democratic impulses to the service of the Tory Party than the eldest
son of a Whig Peer is to blame for limping after the Radicals on the
crutch of Conservative instincts. In the one case it is the tyranny
of chance and opportunity, in the other the accident of birth, that
determines the choice. All through life Mr. Disraeli had to fight
his battle from false positions, and this gave his efforts an air of
gladiatorial insincerity. Not till 1874, when he came to power with
a large majority, was he entirely a free agent; and then it was seen
that, though comparatively indifferent to questions of administration
and questions involving the mere forms of Government, he took an eager
and practical interest in social reform. For nearly two years he was
at the zenith of his power. The House of Commons he managed with
bright urbanity, easy grace, conciliatory dexterity, and a light but
firm touch which had never been seen before. Suddenly and without the
least warning his spell seemed broken. His fine tact disappeared; his
touch grew hard and was felt to be a little irresolute; faint traces
of irritability ruffled the clear surface of his serene intelligence;
and in a sudden emergency he seemed to grow maladroit. The change first
became obvious when he attempted to deal with Mr. Plimsoll’s case
in 1875, and, as it grew, his personal ascendency over the House of
Commons slowly decayed. He seemed to live more and more in dreams, and
to grow less and less sensitive to the pulse of popular opinion. It was
in this mood that he fell into the two disastrous blunders of his life.
[Illustration: LORD BEACONSFIELD’S HOUSE, 19, CURZON STREET, MAYFAIR.]
He tried to solve the Eastern Question by applying to it the obsolete
ideas of Palmerston. When this mistake led him from one embarrassment
to another, he tried to retrieve the situation by applying his own
ideas to it. Unfortunately, when he went to find them he looked, not
into the depths of his own clear intelligence, but into a romance
written by one whom he had known in his youth, and who was styled
“D’Israeli the Younger.” “Yes,” he said to a friend who put the
question to him in those days, “I sometimes do read ‘Tancred’ now--_for
instruction_.” Because the stolid English people grew sick of vainly
trying to shape their destinies according to the Tancredian scheme of
the universe, Lord Beaconsfield fell from power at the moment when he
was most fully persuaded that monarch and multitude were alike under
the spell of his picturesque personality. Had he been ten years younger
when he obtained the majority of 1874, the crash of 1880 would probably
have been averted. There is a strange pathos in the close of this
dazzling career. According to Sir Stafford Northcote, the last words
he was understood to utter were these: “Is there any _bad_ news in the
_Gazette_?”[174]
On the 26th of April a spectacle, at once affecting and beautiful, took
place in the church at Hughenden, where Lord Beaconsfield’s funeral
was solemnised. His body had been transferred from London to High
Wycombe, and thence conveyed to Hughenden Manor, without the slightest
pomp or display of any kind. He, on whose accents the world was wont
to hang breathlessly at supreme moments in its fate, received what
is known in Bucks as “a walking funeral.” Nothing was to be seen of
the ghastly mummery of undertakers. Only one feature in the simple
obsequies gave any hint as to the place which the deceased had filled
in the State. Before the bier walked his faithful servant, carrying
on a cushion of crimson velvet an Earl’s coronet and the insignia of
the Order of the Garter. Thus was he laid, as he wished, beside his
wife. Notwithstanding his desire for privacy, nothing could prevent
vast numbers of persons of wholly unofficial position, and in many
cases indifferent to political partisanship, from attending to pay the
illustrious dead the last homage of affection and respect. Uninvited
guests in serried masses swarmed around the churchyard, and lined
the road to Hughenden Manor. Royalty was present in the persons of
the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Connaught, and Prince Leopold, the
last-named representing the Queen.[175] Behind the Princes came the
Ambassadors and representatives of foreign Powers, the friends of the
deceased nobleman who were his colleagues in the Governments of 1868
and 1874, and the general body of invited friends. Among these Lord
Beaconsfield left not a dry eye behind him. Not since the death of Fox
had any Statesman been so affectionately mourned by the people to whom
he had consecrated the powers of his brilliant genius.[176]
On the 30th of April the Queen and Princess Beatrice visited Lord
Beaconsfield’s tomb, every precaution having been observed to prevent
the fact of the Royal movements from becoming known in the district.
At four o’clock Lord Rowton and Sir Philip Rose, with the Vicar of
Hughenden, completed the arrangements for her Majesty’s reception. At
half-past four her outriders passed through the lodge gate of Hughenden
Manor, being followed rapidly by her carriage, which proceeded to the
wicket gate, and stopped immediately at the entrance to the churchyard.
Here the Queen and Princess Beatrice were received by Lord Rowton,
with whom they walked to the south porch of the church. Her Majesty
proceeded to the tomb, and, with tearful eyes, placed a votive wreath
and cross of white camellias and other flowers beside the other
offerings, which completely covered the lid of the coffin. She then
drove through the grounds to the Manor House, and partook of tea in
the saloon; after which she inspected the late Earl’s study and other
apartments, and left Hughenden for Windsor.
Although diplomatic controversies had created much ill-feeling between
the Governments of England and Russia, the Queen and the Czar had ever
maintained the friendliest personal relations. It was, therefore, with
the deepest pain that her Majesty was informed, on the 14th of March,
of the assassination of Alexander II. The Czar was returning from a
military review near St. Petersburg on Sunday, the 13th of March,
when a bomb was thrown, which exploded behind the Imperial carriage,
killing several soldiers. The Czar jumped out of the carriage to see
to the poor men who were hurt, and it was to this kindly act that he
owed his death. Another bomb was flung at his feet, which exploded and
mangled his body in the most cruel manner. The Queen did what she could
to console the Duchess of Edinburgh, who was prostrated with grief by
her father’s death. The Court was ordered to go into mourning for a
month. Both Houses of Parliament addressed messages of condolence to
her Majesty and the Duchess of Edinburgh. The nation, with hardly a
dissentient voice, echoed the sentiments of their representatives, and
the Press was filled with generous tributes of admiration and respect
for the Czar Emancipator. It was now recognised that Alexander II.
would live in history as one of the most enlightened and humane of
European Sovereigns. The great act of his life, the liberation of the
Serfs, had converted them into communal peasant proprietors, and put
them in a more secure position than any other peasantry in Europe.
His devotion to the highest interests of Russia knew no limits, and
no European Sovereign has, in our time, excelled him in the skill
and wisdom with which he guided and moderated the aspirations of his
excitable subjects. It was notorious that he was forced into the
Turkish War by a current of popular feeling he could not withstand. On
the other hand, when engaged in the war he quitted himself like a man.
Tales of his well-known kindness of heart and sympathy for suffering
spread from the camps and hospitals through Russia, and invested him in
the eyes of the Slav race with the mystic halo of a Divine Figure. His
firmness and
[Illustration: THE PRINCE OF WALES IN HIS ROBES AS A BENCHER OF THE
MIDDLE TEMPLE.
(_From a Photograph by W. and D. Downey._)]
obstinacy in pressing on the war crushed the despondent party, who
would have ended it at any price after the first disaster at Plevna.
When his policy of forcing the Balkan passes triumphed, the same
firmness and obstinacy enabled him to curb those who, flushed with
success, would have abused their victory. It was by his orders that
deference was paid to German and Austrian opinions in the settlement
of peace. It was his moderation and loyal desire to live at peace with
Britain that enabled Count Schouvaloff to build for Lord Salisbury the
golden bridge of retreat which he crossed when he signed the Secret
Agreement, that was afterwards expanded into the Treaty of Berlin.
No foreign despot ever succeeded to the same extent in winning the
personal respect of the most thoughtful portion of the British people.
The assassination of the Czar called attention to the extraordinary
destructive
[Illustration: THE PRINCESS OF WALES.
(_From a Photograph by W. and D. Downey._)]
forces which modern science had placed in the hands of the political
assassin. That the event produced a profound and prostrating effect
on the nerves of the Court was soon seen. The Queen left Windsor for
Osborne on the 6th of April, and the public were somewhat alarmed to
find that for the first time in her career precautions were taken to
protect her life, as if she were a despot travelling amidst a people
who thirsted for her blood. The Royal train was not only as usual
preceded by a pilot engine, but orders had been given to station
patrols of platelayers, each within sight of the other, along the
whole line. Every watchman was provided with flags and fog signals, so
that on the least suspicion the train could be stopped. The time of
the Queen’s departure had been announced for Tuesday. It was at the
last moment altered to Wednesday. When she arrived at Portsmouth, the
_Alberta_, in which it was supposed she was to embark, was discarded
for the _Enchantress_, which was suddenly ordered up; and from these
and other circumstances it was inferred that the Queen was afraid she
might be made the victim of a dark plot like that to which the Czar had
succumbed. Fenianism, indeed, was beginning to raise its head again in
Ireland under the stimulating application of repressive measures. Soon
afterwards attempts which were made to blow up the Mansion House and
the Liverpool Town Hall indicated that there was some justification for
the Queen’s alarm.
Court life was not so dull during 1881 as it had been in previous
years. The Queen was ever flitting to and fro between Windsor and
Osborne, and almost every month during the season she held a Drawing
Room in Buckingham Palace. State Concerts were not infrequent, and
on the 17th of May the King and Queen of Sweden visited Windsor, and
the King was invested with the Order of the Garter. On the 20th the
Queen left Windsor and proceeded to Balmoral; and on the 24th it was
announced that she had determined to revive the ancient Scottish title
of Duke of Albany and confer it on Prince Leopold. It was a title of
evil omen. The fate of the first prince who bore it supplies a dark
and tragic episode to Scott’s “Fair Maid of Perth.” The second Duke
of Albany died on the castle hill of Stirling. When conferred on the
second son of James II. of Scotland it soon became extinct. Darnley
wore it before he was married to Mary Stuart. The second son of James
VI. and the second son of Charles I. bore it. Charles Edward Stuart was
long known as Count of Albany. It was conferred on Prince Frederick,
the second son of George II. Prince Leopold had, by his thoughtful and
sagacious speeches in public, attracted to himself much admiration,
and his feeble health and devotion to his mother had made him the
object of kindly popular sympathy. The announcement of his elevation
was therefore hailed with some expression of regret that he should
be doomed to wear a title that had invariably brought ill-luck or
misfortune to those on whom it was conferred.
On the 22nd of June the Queen returned to Windsor, where she was
visited by the Crown Prince and Princess of Germany and their family
in July. A brilliant Review of 50,000 Volunteers was held before her
on the 9th of July in Windsor Great Park. On the 18th her Majesty lost
one of the most cherished friends of her family, the amiable Dean
Stanley, who died somewhat suddenly of erysipelas. Dean Stanley, it
has been well said, was the impersonation of the “sweetness and light”
which the disciples of Mr. Matthew Arnold strive to impart to modern
culture. His biography of the great Dr. Arnold has an assured place
among the classical works of the Victorian age. His influence on the
Anglican Church was that of a leader at once conciliatory and tolerant,
and singularly susceptible to popular impulses and aspirations. His
relations to the Royal Family were always close and intimate, and,
as the husband of Lady Augusta Bruce, the Queen’s faithful personal
friend and attendant for many years, his career was watched with great
interest and sympathy by her Majesty. Churchmen and dissenters of all
shades attended his funeral in Westminster Abbey, where he was buried
in Henry VII.’s Chapel under a mountain of floral wreaths, one of the
most superb being sent by the Queen. It was through Dean Stanley that
the Queen made the personal acquaintance of Mr. Carlyle, who had died
earlier in the year (the 5th of February), but without leaving behind
him the sweet and sunny memories that cluster round Stanley’s name.
On the 24th of August the Queen arrived at Edinburgh, and took up her
quarters at Holyrood Palace. In the afternoon she visited the Royal
Infirmary, and on the following day she reviewed 40,000 Scottish
Volunteers (who had come from the remotest parts of the country) in
the great natural amphitheatre of the Queen’s Park. The spectacle was
marred by the torrents of rain that fell all day, and the troops had to
march past the saluting-point in a sea of slush and mud which reached
nearly to their knees. The fine appearance and discipline of the men,
the patience and hardihood with which they carried out their programme
through all the miseries of the day, deeply touched the Queen. In
spite of entreaties to the contrary, she persisted in sharing these
discomforts with them, holding the review in an open carriage, in which
she remained seated under a deluge of rain till the last regiment had
defiled before her. From Edinburgh the Court proceeded to Balmoral.
There the Queen received the melancholy news of the death of Mr. James
A. Garfield, President of the United States, who had been shot by an
assassin named Guiteau on the 2nd of July at the railway station at
Washington. The wound was a mortal one, and, after lingering for many
weeks in great pain, the President died on the 19th of September. The
Queen sent a touching letter of sympathy to Mrs. Garfield, and ordered
the Court to go into mourning, as if Mr. Garfield had been a member
of the Royal caste. In this she had the concurrence of the people,
who were profoundly moved by his tragic fate. His career, beginning
in a log-hut in the backwoods of Ohio, and ending in the White House
at Washington, was one of heroic achievement and independence,
illustrating, in its various phases of vicissitude, the best qualities
of Anglo-Saxon manhood.
At Balmoral the Royal holiday was marked by the appearance of the Queen
at some of the local sports. The Prince and Princess of Wales were at
Abergeldie, and the retainers of the two families were frequently in
the habit of playing cricket matches with each other. One of these
took place at Abergeldie in September, when the Queen and her family
and a brilliant suite attended and witnessed the play, her Majesty
taking a keen interest in the varying fortunes of the day, and eagerly
stimulating her own people to strive for victory. After the cricket
match there were “tugs of war.” In this struggle the Abergeldie team,
who had lost the cricket match, retrieved their defeat by conquering
the Queen’s retainers. On the 23rd of November the Court returned to
Windsor, and soon afterwards it was announced that the Duke of Albany
was to be married to the Princess Hélène of Waldeck-Pyrmont. On the
16th of December her Majesty left Windsor for Osborne.
The political movements of the Recess had been followed with growing
anxiety by the Queen. Bye-elections and municipal elections seemed
to show, not only that the hold of the Government on the country was
becoming feebler, but that a working alliance between the Tories and
the Irish Party had been formed. Mr. Parnell’s followers had been
divided in opinion as to how they should treat the Land Act, some
declaring that they should impede its working, others urging that every
advantage should be taken of it. Mr. Parnell, after some hesitancy,
united his Party on the policy of “testing” the Act. The Land League
was directed to push into the Land Courts a series of “test cases,”
that is to say, of cases where average rents were levied, so that a
clear idea might be gained of the practical working of the Act. At
the same time, the Irish people were led to believe that, unless the
Act reduced the rent of Ireland from £17,000,000 to £3,000,000, that
is to say, unless it reduced rent to “prairie value,” it would not do
justice. The tenantry were warned by the Land League not to go into
Court, but to stand aside till the decisions on the test cases were
given. When Mr. Gladstone visited Leeds in the first week of October,
he fiercely attacked Mr. Parnell for interfering between the tenants
and the Law Courts. Mr. Parnell retorted in an acrid and contemptuous
speech at Wexford on the 9th of October. On the 13th of October Mr.
Parnell was arrested in Dublin as a “suspect” under the Coercion Act,
and all his more prominent followers were in quick succession lodged
in Kilmainham Jail. Mr. Healy was in England, and Mr. Biggar and Mr.
Arthur O’Connor escaped the vigilance of the police and joined him.
This _coup d’état_ was somewhat theatrically contrived. It was so timed
that Mr. Gladstone was able to announce it at a municipal banquet at
the Guildhall, where he declared that the enemy had fallen, amidst
rapturous shouts of applause. The Land Leaguers retaliated by issuing
a manifesto to the Irish people to pay no rent whilst their leaders
were in prison--a false step, for, in view of the opposition of the
clergy, a strike against rent was not feasible. The Land League was
then suppressed by Mr. Forster as an unlawful association, and agrarian
outrages began to increase every day. According to the Nationalists,
this was the natural and necessary result of locking up popular
leaders, who could alone restrain the people. Mr. Forster, however,
regarded the growth of the outrages as an act of vengeance on the part
of the League, whose leaders secretly encouraged them. In Ulster,
however, the Land Act worked well, and rents were reduced from 20 to 30
per cent. all round. Every week fresh drafts of “suspects” were lodged
in jail, and as the year closed it became evident that Ireland was fast
falling under the terrorism of the old secret societies.
[Illustration: THE ROYAL FAMILY IN THE HIGHLANDS: TUG OF WAR--BALMORAL
v. ABERGELDIE.]