Thanksgiving Day for recovery of Prince of Wales, II. 415;
the service of, on Jubilee Day, 744
Theebaw, King of Burmah, deposed, II. 723
Thom, Mr. John Nicholls, his religious mania, I. 39;
his murder of a constable, _ib._;
his death, _ib._
Thompson, General Perronet, his “Catechism of the Corn Laws,” I. 83
Thorburn, Mr., his portrait of Prince Albert, I. 159
“Three Acres and a Cow,” II. 726
_Times_, its opinion on the Corn Laws, I. 205;
its attack on the proposed marriage between the
Princess Royal and Prince Frederick of Prussia, II. 663;
its attacks on the Parnellites, 735
Todleben, Colonel, his great ability, I. 610;
his splendid defence of Sebastopol, _ib._
Tokar, Fall of, II. 675
Tractarian Movement, The, 98;
its principles, _ib._;
its leaders, 99;
the “Tracts for the Times,” _ib._;
opposition to its tenets, _ib._;
the term “Anglican,” _ib._;
its effect on the younger clergy, _ib._;
the spirit of revivalism, _ib._;
the apparent cogency of its arguments, 100;
its creditable qualities, 101;
letter by the Archbishop of Canterbury, 178;
Puseyite practices, 179
Trades Unions, their incentives to crime, I. 59
_Trafalgar_, Launch of the warship, at Woolwich, I. 94
Trafalgar Square, Fair Trade meetings in, II. 731;
the riots at, _ib._
Tramways, Act enabling Irish Local Authorities to construct, II. 659
Transvaal, British occupation of the, II. 563;
misrepresentations regarding the Boer wish for annexation, 599;
Mr. Gladstone’s speeches in favour of Boer independence, _ib._;
outbreak of rebellion, _ib._;
proclamation of a Republic, _ib._;
defeat of British troops at Bronkhorst Spruit, _ib._;
futile attempt of British troops to quell the rising, _ib._;
a war of re-conquest by England, 610;
defeat of Sir George Colley, 619;
defeat of the British at Majuba Hill, _ib._;
a Republic under British Protectorate, _ib._
Trevelyan, Mr. (afterwards Sir George Otto), his motion for abolition of purchase
in the army, II. 387;
Irish Secretary, 634;
suppresses “Orange” and “Green” demonstrations in Ireland, 668;
resignation of, 727;
returns to the Gladstonian party, 735
Turkey, the quarrel with Russia, I. 540;
determination to strike a blow at Montenegro, 542;
the quarrel of the monks at Jerusalem, 544;
refuses to agree to the Vienna Note, 552;
the points of contention with Russia, 555;
Turkish modifications of the Vienna Note, 556;
suspected “shuffling” from the conditions of the Treaty of Kainardji, 557;
declares war against Russia, 559;
fleet destroyed by the Russians, 562;
defeats the Russians at Silistria, 582;
treaty with Austria, 586;
the terms of peace with Russia after the Crimean War, 685-687;
mutiny in Bosnia and Herzegovina, II. 494;
the Andrassy Note, 495;
advantages secured by the policy of England, 496;
the Bulgarian atrocities, 504-503;
Lord Beaconsfield’s policy during the Russian difficulty, 511, 523, 526;
the war against Russia, 526;
English neutrality during the war, 527;
the fall of Plevna, 528;
the Anglo-Turkish Convention, 550;
refusal of concessions to Montenegro and Greece, 597;
the British fleet sent to Ragusa, 598
U.
Ulundi, The battle of, II. 566
United States, controversy with England in regard to Oregon, I. 231;
a treaty with England ratified, 232;
the struggle on the Slave Question, II. 111;
decision of the Supreme Court regarding negroes, 114;
the contention between North and South, _ib._;
secession of the Southern States, _ib._;
outbreak of the Civil War, 115;
English sympathy with the North, _ib._;
the battle of Bull’s Run, 116;
seizure of the English steamer Trent by the Federals, _ib._;
settlement of the Trent dispute, 119;
progress of the war, 131;
the fight between the _Merrimac_ and the _Monitor_, _ib._;
the battle of Fredericksburg, 133;
embittered relations between England and America, _ib._;
efforts in England in behalf of the South, 176;
capture of Vicksburg, 177;
continuance of the war, 178;
cruisers built in English dockyards, 211;
Grant’s leadership, 219;
Sherman’s success, 222;
complete defeat of the Confederates, 238;
assassination of Lincoln, 239;
the negotiations regarding the Alabama claims, 342;
celebration of the Queen’s Jubilee in, 747
Upper Burmah annexed to the Indian Empire, II. 723
Utrecht, Treaty of, its stipulations as to the French and Spanish crowns, I. 256
V.
Van Buren, President of the United States, Proclamation of,
regarding the rebellion, I. 33
Varna, The camp of the Allies at, I. 603;
a Council of War, _ib._
Veto Law in the Church of Scotland, I. 102
Victor Emmanuel, his agreement with the French Emperor, II. 29
Victoria, Queen, birth and parentage of her Majesty, I. 4;
her illustrious descent, _ib._;
christened at Kensington Palace, 7;
a previous monarch of her name in Britain, _ib._;
her sponsors, _ib._;
her early surroundings, 10;
her education, _ib._;
grounded in languages, music, &c., _ib._;
her general education entrusted to the Duchess of Northumberland, _ib._;
her affability, 11;
influenced by Wilberforce, _ib._;
her charity and kindness, _ib._;
her appearance in public, _ib._;
false reports regarding her health, _ib._;
anecdotes regarding her studies, 11, 12;
the Regency Bill, 14;
her progress in her studies, _ib._;
her fondness for music, _ib._;
juvenile ball in her honour by Queen Adelaide, _ib._;
additional income of £10,000 granted her by Parliament, 15;
stay in the Isle of Wight, _ib._;
visit to the Belper Mills in Derbyshire, _ib._;
visit to Oxford, _ib._;
visit to Southampton, 18;
her confirmation at St. James’s, _ib._;
an instance of her benevolence, _ib._;
her coming of age, _ib._;
her first Council, 19;
her address on the King’s death, _ib._;
proclaimed Queen, 22;
the period of her accession fortunate, _ib._;
instructed in the theory and working of the British Constitution by Lord Melbourne, 23;
residence at Buckingham Palace, 27;
addresses to the Houses of Parliament, _ib._;
her income fixed at £385,000, 30;
her business precision, _ib._;
her popularity at the beginning of her reign, 35;
foolish imputations against her, 36;
Chartist and other opponents, 38;
her generous disposition, 39;
coronation, 42, 43;
a letter to Sir R. Peel, 55;
affianced to Prince Albert, 62;
informing the Privy Council of her marriage, 63;
domestic life, 75;
fired at by Edward Oxford, 82;
birth of the Princess Royal, 83;
a royal tour, 94;
speech to Parliament, 95;
her dislike to the Tractarian Movement, 102;
birth of the Prince of Wales, 106;
attempts on her life, 110;
visit to Scotland, 126;
her impressions, 127;
departure from Edinburgh, _ib._;
letter to the Lord Advocate, _ib._;
birth of the Princess Alice, 132;
meeting with Louis Philippe, 143;
visit to Belgium, 146;
visit of the Emperor Nicholas of Russia, 159;
birth of Prince Alfred, 167;
visit to Scotland, 171;
residence at Blair Athole, _ib._;
visit of Louis Philippe, 172;
founding of the Royal Exchange, 174;
the purchase of Osborne, 179;
visit to the Continent, 195;
enthusiastic reception in Germany, 197, 198;
second visit to Louis Philippe, 198;
her admirable behaviour at the Corn Law crisis, 211;
her sympathy during the agricultural distress, 218, 219;
the Speech from the Throne in 1846, 220;
her Parliamentary instinct, 226;
letter on Peel’s resignation, 239;
anecdote of her kindness, 248;
anxiety about our foreign policy, 254;
visit to the Isle of Wight, 261;
reception of Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt, _ib._;
birth of the Princess Helena, _ib._;
a letter in regard to the Prince Consort, 262;
yachting cruise in the Channel, 263;
a visit to Cornwall, 266;
visits from German friends, 267;
visit to Hatfield, 268;
her account of the installation of Prince Albert as Chancellor of Cambridge
University, 314;
visit to Scotland, 318, 320;
anxieties in 1848, 357;
birth of the Princess Louise, 364;
visit to Balmoral, 366, 367;
her plan for her children’s education, 403;
shot at by Hamilton, 406;
visit to Ireland, 409;
her Irish policy, 443;
birth of the Duke of Connaught, 452;
assaulted by Lieutenant Pate, _ib._;
birth of Prince Leopold, 567;
review of the fleet at Spithead, 584;
a letter to the King of Prussia regarding the war with Russia, 594;
her anxiety concerning the soldiers in the Crimea, 645;
decorates Crimean soldiers at Chatham Hospital, 646;
visit to France, 656-660;
visit to Aldershot, 692;
reviews the fleet, 693;
reviews the troops at Aldershot, 695;
birth of the Princess Beatrice, 738;
confers the title of Prince Consort on Prince Albert, 743;
visit to Birmingham, II. 19;
visit to the Emperor and Empress of the French at Cherbourg, 21;
visit to the Prince and Princess of Prussia, 23;
visit to Leeds, 25;
project for founding the Order of the Star of India, 40;
reviews the volunteers at Hyde Park, 64;
visit to Germany, 70;
second visit to Ireland, 87, 89;
death of the Prince Consort, 92-96;
letter on the Hartley coal-pit disaster, 138;
her deep sorrow, 143;
visit to Germany, 144;
an address from the ballast-heavers, 179;
visit to Belgium, 180;
her policy at the Danish War, 191;
first appearance in public after the Prince Consort’s death, 227;
visit to Germany, 249;
opens the Blackfriars Bridge and Holborn Viaduct, 353;
opens the hall of the London University, 377;
a garden party at Windsor, 383;
opening of the Royal Albert Hall, 409;
opening of St. Thomas’s Hospital, 410;
illness, 411;
her opposition to French decorations in England, 443;
opens the Victoria Park, 445;
visit from the Czar, 478;
the Royal Titles Bill, 499;
unveils the Scottish National Memorial at Edinburgh, 503;
proclaimed Empress of India at Delhi, 512;
her supposed pro-Turkish sympathies, 531;
visit to Hughenden, 532;
visit to Italy, 579;
cordial reception in Paris, _ib._;
visited at Baveno by Prince Amadeus of Italy, 580;
received by the King and Queen of Italy at Monza, _ib._;
visit from the Emperor of Germany at Windsor, _ib._;
Canning’s policy in India, _ib._;
visit to her relatives in Germany, 604;
arrival at Darmstadt, 606;
visit from the Crown Prince and Princess of Germany, 626;
continuation of her “Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands,” 686;
the tone of her “Journal” reminiscences, 687;
illness, _ib._;
visit to Germany, 692;
present at the marriage of Princess Victoria of Hesse, _ib._;
visit to Balmoral, 694;
troubled as to the issue of the political crisis arising out of the Reform
Bill, 695;
confers the Order of the Garter on Prince George of Wales, _ib._;
her pressure on the Duke of Richmond to accept a compromise
on Mr. Gladstone’s Reform Bill, 697;
her letter to Miss Gordon, 717;
holiday at Aix-les-Bains, 719;
visit to Darmstadt (1885), _ib._;
her objections to Ascot Race Week, 721;
visits the Indian and Colonial Exhibition, 731;
opens the Holloway College for Women, 732;
opens the International Exhibitions at Liverpool and Edinburgh, _ib._;
attends the Garden Party at Marlborough House, _ib._;
visits the Duke of Buccleuch, _ib._;
fixes date for celebrating her Jubilee, 733;
opens the Law Courts in Birmingham, 739;
her holiday at Cannes and Aix-les-Bains, 740;
visits the Grande Chartreuse, _ib._;
opens the People’s Palace, _ib._;
visits the “Wild West” Show, _ib._;
her Jubilee procession to Westminster Abbey, 741;
after the Jubilee service in the Abbey, 743;
reviews the seamen of the fleet, _ib._;
attends the children’s celebration of the Jubilee in Hyde Park, 747;
gives a Jubilee Banquet in Buckingham Palace, 748;
her letter to her people on the Jubilee, _ib._;
gives a Garden Party in connection with the Jubilee, _ib._;
reviews the metropolitan volunteers, _ib._;
the progress which she has seen during her reign, 751
Victoria, Lord Normanby’s resignation of the Governorship of, II. 690;
Prince Leopold’s wish to become Governor, _ib._;
the Queen opposes Prince Leopold’s proposed Governorship, _ib._
W.
Wady Halfa, The British at, II. 718
Waghorn, Lieutenant, his inauguration of the Overland Route, I. 190
Wakley, Mr., his remarks in regard to Sir Robert Peel, I. 238
Wales, Prince of, his birth, I. 106;
title bestowed by letters patent, _ib._;
other titles by right, _ib._;
his sponsors, _ib._;
his first public appearance in a pageant of State, 418;
his stay at Königswinter, 746;
his stay at Richmond Park, II. 19;
a letter from the Queen on his reaching his eighteenth year, 26;
tour in Canada, 66;
his warm reception in the United States, 67;
visit to Germany, 90;
his tour in the East, 136-138;
his marriage to the Princess Alexandra, 144;
takes his seat in the House of Lords, 147;
birth of Prince Albert Victor, 223;
birth of Prince George Frederick, 249;
his illness, 411;
the excitement in London regarding his illness, 412;
his relapse, _ib._;
the probability of a Regency, _ib._;
all the members of the Royal Family summoned to Sandringham, _ib._;
fall in the Money Market securities on account of his serious illness, _ib._;
his rally on the anniversary of the Prince Consort’s death, 413;
addresses of sympathy from Republican societies, _ib._;
his convalescence, _ib._;
a letter from the Queen to the Home Secretary, 414;
Thanksgiving Day, 415;
his popular discharge of royal duties, 442;
his financial embarrassments, 476;
State visit to India, 493;
Mr. Bright’s support of the grant for the State pageant to India, 494;
the argument that his visit might benefit the natives of India, _ib._;
visit to Germany, 606;
visit of, and Princess, to Ireland, 719
Wales, The “Rebecca” disturbances in, I. 138;
removal of the grievances, 139
Walewski, his letter to the British Government regarding the shelter of French
refugees, II. 10;
Palmerston’s impolitic reply, _ib._;
spirited protest by Lord Malmesbury, 14
Walpole, Horace, an anecdote of George III.’s coronation, I. 46
Walpole, Mr., S., his remarks on the Crimean War, I. 687;
Secretary for Home Affairs, II. 257
Ward Hunt, Mr., Chancellor of the Exchequer, II. 304;
his Budget for 1868, 312;
First Lord of the Admiralty, 465
Washington, meeting of a Commission regarding points at
issue between England
and America, II. 390
Waterloo Banquet, The Duke of Wellington’s proposal to dispense with the, I. 3
Wellington, Duke of, his proposal to dispense with the Waterloo Banquet, I. 3;
advises the formation of a Cabinet by Sir Robert Peel, 54;
his advice regarding the address to the Queen after her marriage, 66;
leader of the House of Lords, 97;
visit of the Queen and Prince Albert to Strathfieldsaye, 180;
his sympathy with Peel on Free Trade, 211;
his loyalty to the Queen, 212;
his attitude to the Russell Ministry, 242;
letter to Lord John Russell, _ib._;
his suppression of undue corporal punishment in the army, 248;
his anxiety about the defences of the country, 303;
letter to Sir John Burgoyne, _ib._;
the Queen’s courtesies, _ib._;
his defeat of the Chartist rising, 330, 335;
proposal to instal the Prince Consort his successor as
Commander-in-Chief, 451;
his opposition to the Militia Bill, 499;
his death, 508;
tributes to his memory, 509;
universally mourned, 510;
his lying in state, _ib._;
his funeral, 511;
his character, 513, 514
Westbury, Lord Chancellor, his action in favour of the
Fraudulent Trusts Bill, I. 715;
his statement in regard to the synodical condemnation of
“Essays and Reviews,” 215;
charged with corrupt practices, 242;
resigns office, 243
Westminster Abbey, Scene in, at the Jubilee Service, II. 746
Whewell, Dr., his invitation to Prince Albert to become
a candidate for the Chancellorship of Cambridge, I. 307;
his meeting with the Queen, 315
“White Terror,” The, at Calcutta, II. 7
Wilberforce, Dr. Samuel, his opposition to the Sugar Duties, I. 246, 247;
his account of Prince Albert’s installation as Chancellor
of Cambridge University, 314;
his reply to Lord Chancellor Westbury on “Essays and Reviews,” II. 217
William, German Emperor, his visit to England, I. 70;
his early campaigns, _ib._;
crowned King of Prussia, II. 91
Wilson, Sir Charles, in command of Sir H. Stewart’s column, II. 714;
his operations between Metamneh and Khartoum, 715;
arrives at Khartoum, _ib._;
his steamers fired on by the Arabs, _ib._;
wrecked in the Nile, 716;
rescued by Lord Charles Beresford, _ib._
Windham, Colonel, his bravery at the storming of the Redan, I. 671
Wiseman, Cardinal, his pastoral regarding Roman Catholicism in England, I. 450
Wolff, Sir Henry Drummond-, one of the founders of the Fourth-party, II. 594;
his obstructionist tactics, 601;
his mission to Egypt, II. 708
Wolseley, Sir Garnet, commands the British expedition to Ashanti, II. 461;
enters Coomassie in triumph, _ib._;
efforts to re-establish order in Zululand, 566;
commands the expedition against the Egyptians under Arabi, 642;
celerity of his movements, 643;
the battles of Kassassin and Tel-el-Kebir, _ib._;
created Lord Wolseley, _ib._;
arrives at Korti, 712;
leaves Dongola, 718
Wolverhampton, statue to the Prince Consort inaugurated by the Queen, II. 267;
the enthusiastic reception of the Queen, _ib._
Wood, Sir C., First Lord of the Admiralty, I. 630
Wordsworth, his ode on the installation of the Prince Consort
as Chancellor of Cambridge University, I. 310
Wyse, Mr., British envoy at Paris, I. 427
Y.
Yeh, Commissioner, Capture of, in Canton, II. 5
“Young Ireland” Party, its objects, I. 339;
the leaders of, _ib._
Z.
Zebehr Pasha named by Gordon as ruler of the Soudan, II. 711;
deportation of, to Gibraltar, _ib._
Zulu War, The, II. 563;
defeat of the British, 564;
the battle of Rorke’s Drift, _ib._;
battle of Ulundi, 566
PRINTED BY CASSELL AND COMPANY, LIMITED, LA BELLE SAUVAGE, LONDON, E.C.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Nothing did more to sap and undermine the popularity of the
Government than an evasive statement of Mr. Cardwell’s as to the arms
in store. On the vote for increasing the army by 20,000 men on the
1st of August, 1870, Sir John Hay asked what was the use of voting
the money when the Government “had not 20,000 breechloaders ready for
service for the army, the militia, and volunteers.” Mr. Cardwell, in
reply, said he had 300,000 rifles “in store,” and left the House of
Commons when it rose, under the impression that the weapons were ready
for use as surplus weapons on any emergency. Of these, however, it
was subsequently admitted by Mr. Cardwell in an interview with Lord
Elcho that 100,000 were needed to meet existing demands, and that a
considerable number of the rest were in Canada.
[2] There were also many whose objection to the grant to the Princess
was based on the delusion that the Queen, by living in retirement, had
accumulated savings out of which she could well afford to dower her
daughter.
[3] A Royal warrant fixed the legal price of commissions. But they were
sold in defiance of the law at prices far above the legal ones, and
these were called “over-regulation prices.”
[4] It might be said that promotion could still be kept going on in
the regiment itself. Officers need not have then been transferred for
promotion. But in that case rich officers might have bribed their
seniors to retire. Or, the subalterns might have made up a purse by
subscription to induce one of their seniors to retire and let them each
get a step upwards.
[5] It may be mentioned that this course was suggested as a possible
one in the debate by Lord Derby.
[6] The alternative courses of a creation of new Peers, and a
dissolution, it should be noted, also involved an exercise of the Royal
Prerogative--a fact forgotten by those who denounced Mr. Gladstone as a
“tyrant” for coercing the Peers by the use of Prerogative.
[7] According to Addison, the House of Commons as far back as 1708
began to discuss the Ballot. After 1832 it became a popular cry with
the Radicals, and in the first Session of the Reformed Parliament Mr.
Grote brought in a Ballot Bill which was rejected by a majority of
211 to 106. Year after year Mr. Grote was beaten in his attempt to
carry his measure. To him succeeded Mr. Henry Berkeley, who every year
brought forward a resolution in favour of secret voting, and in 1851
even carried it by a majority of 37 against the opposition of Lord John
Russell and the Whig Government. The odious corruption and scandalous
scenes of violence which were associated with open voting at elections
gradually made Lord John and Mr. Gladstone converts to Mr. Berkeley’s
views. In 1868 the revelations of Lord Hartington’s Committee as to the
manner of conducting elections convinced the country that the Ballot
must be adopted. In 1869 another Committee on Electoral Practices
reported in favour of it.
[8] Philosophical Radicals, like Mr. Mill, disliked the Ballot because
they feared that one influence would always operate on the ignorant
elector’s mind, even in the secrecy of the polling booth--that of the
priest who had threatened him with “the pains of Hell” as a punishment
for voting on the wrong side.
[9] Mr. Disraeli, it is fair to say, had endeavoured to save the time
of the House by suggesting that there should be no debate on the Second
Reading--the discussion of the principle of the measure to be taken
on the next stage--the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. This
arrangement was agreed to by the Government, but it provoked a mutiny
in the Conservative ranks, or rather in the section of the Party
represented by Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. G. Bentinck,
the first-named of whom jeered at Mr. Disraeli’s late Administration as
a “disorganised hypocrisy.”
[10] Mr. Gladstone and the Government supported the first, but opposed
the latter of these proposals, greatly to the annoyance of the
Radicals, who saw in it the most effective check to bribery that could
be devised.
[11] Large numbers of Liberal Peers did not even attend the debate or
the division.
[12] Previous to this Act the Unions were so far without the law, that
they could not even prosecute their office-bearers for stealing their
funds.
[13] This was given by Sir James Hannen in the case of a man called
Purchon, a member of the Glassbottlers’ Union of Yorkshire. Three
members of the Union, professing to believe certain disgraceful charges
against Purchon, procured his expulsion from that body. Then his
employers dismissed him because they were threatened with a strike
if he remained in their service. Purchon sued the three Unionists
who got him expelled from his Union for conspiring to deprive him
of employment. Mr. Justice Hannen ruled that there was an undue
interference with the rights of labour, and £300 damages were awarded
by the jury. The case of Purchon _v._ Hartley proved that though the
Unions had got rid of a limited term of imprisonment for coercion, they
were now punishable by unlimited damages.
[14] Mr. Goschen based his case on the fact that Local Government was
a chaos of areas, rating, and authorities. He proposed (1), that each
parish should have an elected chairman who, aided but not controlled
by it, should be the rating authority; (2), that county rates should
be levied by a financial board, half being elected by justices and
half by parish chairmen; (3), that a new department of State or Local
Government Board should be created to supervise local finance and
administration; (4), that rates should be split between occupier and
owner, and levied on all exempted property, such as Crown property,
charitable property, moneys, and game; (5), that the house duty
(£1,200,000 a year) should be surrendered to the local ratepayers.
[15] His estimated expenditure was £72,308,000, and his estimated
revenue £69,595,000 on the existing basis of taxation, and without any
new duties.
[16] There was to be a halfpenny stamp on boxes of wooden matches, and
a penny stamp on boxes of wax matches or fusees. It was expected that
these duties would yield £550,000 the first year. Mr. Lowe invented
a motto for the stamp--_ex luce lucellum_ (“out of light a little
profit”)--a classical pun, which, however, did not reconcile the people
to his proposals.
[17] Mr. Lowe desirous of not putting more than 1¼d. in the £ on the
income-tax, proposed to calculate it at 10s. 8d. per cent. This novel
method of calculating the tax, which was not necessary when the round
sum of 2d. in the £ was adopted, was unpopular because it was puzzling.
[18] Letters and Journals of W. Stanley Jevons, p. 252.
[19] The British Commissioners were Earl de Grey, whose services on the
Commission were rewarded by his elevation to the Marquisate of Ripon,
Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Montagu Bernard, and two distinguished
Canadians.
[20] One arbitrator was to be chosen by the Queen and one by the
President of the United States. The three others were to be nominated
by the King of Italy, the President of the Swiss Republic, and the
Emperor of Brazil.
[21] Lord Russell, however, took a personal rather than a Party view of
the question. He could not forget that he was individually responsible
for the occurrences and acrimonious despatches that had embittered
Americans against England.
[22] “Not an inch of our territory, and not a stone of our fortresses.”
[23] Bismarck’s personal opinion of the terms of peace was that Germany
asked too much or took too little. She should have either left France
her territory, thereby depriving her of an incitement to revenge,
or she should have broken and crushed her so utterly, that she must
have been paralysed for a century. As it was, in spite of the heavy
war-indemnity which Germany exacted, France in fifteen years recovered
herself sufficiently to render her antagonism formidable, and as a
standing inducement to a war of revenge, she had ever before her eyes
the hope of recovering Alsace, Lorraine, and her lost fortresses.
[24] Bismarck would have let the French keep Metz for a milliard more
of war-indemnity. Then with this money he would have built a fortress
to mask it somewhere about Falkenberg, or towards Saarbrücken. “I do
not like,” he said one day at dinner during the peace negotiations, “so
many Frenchmen being in our house against their will.”--Lowe’s Life of
Bismarck, Vol. I., p. 631.
[25] The terms of peace proposed by Germany to France were an indemnity
of six milliards of francs (£240,000,000), the cession of all Alsace,
including Strasburg and Belfort, a third of Lorraine including Metz.
The German Emperor, however, reduced the fine to five milliards. Von
Bismarck induced the German generals to let France keep Belfort, in
consideration of the French submitting to the triumphal march of the
German troops through Paris as far as the Arc de Triomphe.
[26] The _Agincourt_, an ironclad of 6,000 tons, was run aground on the
Pearl Rock, off Gibraltar, on the 2nd of July. The accident occurred in
broad daylight. The court-martial blamed the captain, staff commander,
and one of the lieutenants, but public opinion condemned Vice-Admiral
Wellesley, whose signals had, it was said, caused the disaster. Mr.
Goschen and the Lords of the Admiralty decided that the Admiral was to
blame for ordering an unsafe course to be steered, and compelled him to
strike his flag. The _Megæra_ was a transport ship which had been sent
to sea with her bottom honeycombed with rotten plates. On the 19th of
June the captain had to beach her to save her crew. Yet the Admiralty
officials had reported her quite seaworthy when her bottom was, as one
of her officers said, “as full of holes as an old tea-kettle.”
[27] The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council had been reorganised
so as to constitute a competent Court of Appellate Jurisdiction for
India and the Colonies. A certain number of judges was appointed to
it, but the Act laid it down that it was necessary for a man to be
a judge before he got one of these appointments. In November, 1871,
Mr. Gladstone was desirous of promoting Sir Robert Collier, then
Attorney-General. The Lord Chancellor accordingly made Sir Robert a
Puisne Judge so as to give him a technical qualification, and then
immediately appointed him to the Judicial Committee. It is only right
to say that personally and professionally Sir Robert Collier was well
qualified for the post.
[28] These were Mr. Peter Taylor, Professor Fawcett, and Sir Charles
Dilke. The vote for it was 352, but half of the House was absent from
the division which Mr. Taylor challenged. Mr. Taylor declared that the
people were getting tired of the Monarchy. Sir Robert Peel suggested
that if more money were granted to the Royal Family, it ought to go
to the Prince of Wales, who was doing most of the Queen’s ceremonial
duties. He had also the bad taste to sneer at the Queen’s alleged
parsimony, and insinuated that she saved for her private purse the
money voted to defray her State expenses.
[29] Some of the comments of the Press on the wedding were instructive.
The Times said: “To-day a ray of sunshine will gladden every habitation
in this island, and force its way even where uninvited. A daughter of
the people, in the truest sense of that word, is to be married to one
of ourselves. The mother is ours, the daughter is ours.” _Vanity Fair_,
a “Society” journal, considered that it was “an additional claim of the
dynasty on our loyalty that means should have been found to enable us
to keep so charming a Princess in the country.” The _Daily Telegraph_,
in describing the history of the marriage, said: “The old dragon
Tradition was routed by a young sorcerer called Love, who laughs at
precedents as heartily as at locksmiths, and has an equal contempt for
etiquette and armour _cap-à-pie_.”
[30] “When the time came for putting on the ring, the bride took off
her glove, which, with the bouquet, the Queen offered to take. The
Princess, however, evidently did not observe the gracious attention,
and handed them to Lady Florence Lennox, who let them drop. May this
be an omen that flowers may strew the ground wherever the Princess’s
future life may lead her!”--(_Standard_, 22nd March, 1871.)
[31] It may be worth while to note the precedents for marriage between
English Princesses and subjects:--Princess Elizabeth, daughter of James
I., and widow of the King of Bohemia, was supposed to have privately
married Lord Craven. Princess Mary, sister of Henry VIII., married
Charles Brandon, who was sent to escort her from France, when her
husband Louis XII. died. Three of the daughters of Edward IV. married
the heads of the families of Howard, Courtenay, and Welles; but though
Henry VI. recognised these alliances, he did not quite recognise the
title of Edward IV. Of the House of Hanover, William Henry, Duke of
Gloucester, in 1766 married the widow of Earl Waldegrave, who was the
illegitimate daughter of Sir Robert Walpole, a match which infuriated
King George III. Henry Frederick, Duke of Cumberland, in 1771 married
Lady Anne Luttrell, daughter of Earl Carhampton, and widow of Mr.
Charles Horton, of Catton Hall, Derbyshire. The Royal Marriage Act was
passed in 1772, after which time there have been some Royal marriages
with subjects in spite of the law: (1), The Duke of Sussex married
first Lady Augusta Murray, daughter of the Earl of Dunmore. After she
died, his Royal Highness married his second wife, Lady Cecilia Letitia
Buggin, daughter of Arthur, Earl of Arran, and afterwards Duchess
of Inverness. (2), George IV., while Prince of Wales, married Mrs.
FitzHerbert. (3), The present Duke of Cambridge married some years ago
Mrs. FitzGeorge.
[32] This gave rise to a curious incident. A clerk by mistake had given
the Minister the message meant for the Lords. When Mr. Gladstone read
out the words “Her Majesty relies on the attachment of the House of
Peers to concur,” the House buzzed with excitement, and the Tories
wrathfully whispered to each other that some new insult had been
devised by Mr. Gladstone for the Hereditary Chamber. Mr. Gladstone had
to explain how the mistake had been made, before tranquillity could be
restored.
[33] Mr. Bruce’s management of this affair did much to bring the
Government into contempt. When the promoters of the meeting defied
him he withdrew his prohibition. On being questioned in the House of
Commons on the subject, he explained that when he issued it he thought
that the meeting was called to petition Parliament, and no meeting can
legally be held within a mile of Parliament for that purpose. But, he
added, having found that the meeting was merely going to discuss the
grant he considered it to be a legal one, and therefore withdrew his
prohibition.
[34] Hodder’s Life of Lord Shaftesbury, Vol. III., p. 303.
[35] Life of Bishop Wilberforce, Vol. III., p. 394.
[36] _Daily Telegraph_, 28th February, 1872.
[37] The boy was said to be a nephew of Feargus O’Connor, and was a
clerk in an oil-shop in the Borough. He had tried to reach the Queen’s
carriage on Thanksgiving Day, but the density of the crowd prevented
him. O’Connor, curiously enough, was not a Fenian or a Catholic, but
a Protestant youth who had turned crazy by reading “penny dreadfuls.”
In April he was tried and sentenced to one year’s imprisonment and
twenty strokes with the birch. The Queen, who had long been desirous
of bestowing medals for long and faithful domestic service in her
employment, found in the attack by O’Connor an opportunity for carrying
out her idea. Her personal attendants were Highland gillies from her
Aberdeenshire estates. They had been most active in protecting her
when she was menaced by O’Connor, and on John Brown, who had been more
prominent than the others, her Majesty conferred this gold medal and an
annuity of £25. Brown had been the Prince Consort’s favourite gillie,
and, though his rough Northern manners were somewhat unprepossessing,
his personal courage, stolid fidelity, shrewd judgment, and blunt
honesty of speech, had rendered him a great favourite in the Queen’s
family.
[38] Life of Bishop Wilberforce, Vol. III., p. 393.
[39] England was admittedly not responsible for the escape of this
vessel. But the Tribunal held that because a British Colony reinforced
her crew at Melbourne after she carried the Confederate flag,
responsibility accrued.
[40] The first Election under the Ballot was at Pontefract, when Mr.
Childers was returned against Lord Pollington by a vote of 658 to
578--the registered Electors being 1,960. The Election was conducted
with unusual order, and there was no bribery or intimidation, and less
violence and drunkenness than usual.
[41] This Bill was, of course, much less drastic than the one which Mr.
Bruce withdrew in 1871. It reduced the hours of sale, strengthened the
hands of the authorities as regards supervision and the granting of new
licences, but as a sop to the Liquor Trade it gave the well-conducted
publican a kind of tenant-right by practically securing to him a
renewal of his licence.
[42] Had an Admiral with good administrative ability been appointed
Permanent Secretary to the department instead of Mr. Lushington, the
collapse of Mr. Childers’ scheme, when he was invalided, might have
been averted.
[43] Sir Massey Lopes desired that the cost of administering justice,
and the Lunacy and Police Acts--then charged on the rates--should be
thrown on the Consolidated Fund, _i.e._, transferred from the ratepayer
to the tax-payer. The county members on both sides objected to the
whole system of rating which fell not on personal, but real property,
and which threw on rates the cost of doing work which was done not
merely for the locality, but for the community at large. The Ministry
maintained that it was impossible to give effect to Sir Massey Lopes’
ideas till the whole question of Local Government and Rating was taken
up and settled on a sound basis.
[44] The limit of abatement was also raised from incomes of £200 to
£300, and the abatement itself from £60 to £80. The duty on coffee
and chicory was reduced, and shops and warehouses were exempted from
house-tax.
[45] This was founded on the 19th of May, 1870, in the Bilton Hotel,
Sackville Street, Dublin. The chief Conservatives present were Mr.
Purdon (Lord Mayor of Dublin), Mr. Kinahan (Ex-High Sheriff of Dublin),
Major Knox (proprietor of the _Irish Times_), and Captain (afterwards
Colonel) King-Harman. Mr. Butt moved the chief resolution, which was
unanimously carried, affirming that “The true remedy for the evils of
Ireland is the establishment of an Irish Parliament with full control
over our domestic affairs.”
[46] Lord Russell in this letter, says:--“It appears to me that if
Ireland were to be allowed to elect a Representative Assembly for each
of its four Provinces of Leinster, Ulster, Munster, and Connaught, and
if Scotland in a similar manner were to be divided into Lowlands and
Highlands, having for each Province a Representative Assembly, the
local wants of Ireland and Scotland might be better provided for than
they are at present.” There was reason to suppose that the Birmingham
School of Radicals in 1886 had almost summoned up courage to adopt the
Home Rule scheme which the veteran Whig statesman propounded in 1872.
[47] Burma, As it Was, As it Is, and As it Will Be. By J. George Scott
(“Shway Yoe”). London: Redway, 1886-7. P. 34.
[48] The British representative at Mandalay, besides complaining of
perpetual encroachments on the Arakan frontier, declared that he was
not allowed to see the King of Burma unless he took off his shoes and
sat before him on the floor in his stockings.
[49] See a letter written by Mr. Hayward to Mr. Gladstone, in the
correspondence of Mr. Abraham Hayward, Q.C., Vol. II., p. 252.
[50] What their motive was for this act has not yet been clearly
stated. It was said at the time that they thought by opposing it to
induce the Protestants to let it pass. Their opposition, however, as
explained by themselves, was (1), The Bill did not endow a Catholic
University. The Tories had promised to do so in 1866, and therefore the
Catholics might profitably wait till Mr. Disraeli returned to power.
(2), The Bill, by endowing Professorships of academical subjects--not
including History and Philosophy--was really one for founding a new
“Godless college.” (3), Other students than those trained in affiliated
colleges--scholars educated by private study, in fact--were admitted
to degrees. (4), As the constitution of the new University stood, the
Catholics would have to wait for many years ere they could command even
a large minority in the new University constituency.
[51] They were Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Horsman, who had approved of the Bill
at first, Mr. Bouverie, Mr. McCullagh Torrens, Mr. Aytoun, Mr. Akroyd,
Mr. Foster, Mr. Auberon Herbert, and Mr. Whalley.
[52] These clauses do not seem to have been essential to the main
object in view, which was to give the Catholics a chance of getting
University degrees of high status, and a fair share of the University
endowments of the nation. The new “Godless” chairs were not needed if
the Catholics did not want them, for the Protestants could always get
their instruction in Trinity College.
[53] Sir William Stirling Maxwell was a representative of the most
popular phase of Toryism, and in a special sense reflected the mind of
his party in hankering after Lord Derby as a leader. Writing to Mr.
Hayward in September, 1872, he says of Lord Derby:--“I know no man
whose daily talk reflects more constantly the good sense and fairness
of his speeches. It is some consolation to those who still believe that
Conservatism may have some backbone left to have a prospective leader
with so much ballast in his character.” The Conservatives did not trust
Mr. Disraeli’s Conservatism even in 1873, just because they suspected
it lacked backbone and ballast.
[54] Mr. Gladstone combined this office with that of the Premiership.
Sir Robert Walpole, Lord North, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Canning, and Sir Robert
Peel had each held the two offices simultaneously.
[55] For example, in 1873 the Public Accounts showed a Postal
expenditure of £5,000,000; but then, on the other side of the ledger,
the nation was credited with £5,000,000 of receipts earned by the
Post-office. The Tory financial critics could not be got to see that
the only right way of comparing the real expenditure of a Government
at any two selected dates is to deduct from the gross sum moneys which
come in aid of outlay, and which are yet not taxes, and then compare
the results.
[56] Mr. Disraeli’s Government need not be blamed too harshly
for letting the Army alone. Till the fall of the Second Empire
Parliament would probably not have voted the money or passed the
measures necessary to put an end to the chaotic confusion and Crimean
inefficiency of the military system under which orators used to declare
“British troops had ever marched to victory.” But Mr. Corry, Mr.
Disraeli’s First Lord of the Admiralty, had no such excuse for his
neglect to build first-class ironclads. Even the Manchester Radicals
would have voted him the money for that purpose had he been courageous
enough to confess what was the truth, namely, that when he took office
the British Navy was behind the age, and as a fighting force pitiably
weak and obsolete. Another costly blunder was committed by Mr. Corry.
He had not firmness enough to silence clamorous claims for commissions.
Hence he over-officered the Navy, till it almost seemed at one time as
if he meant to man his line-of-battle ships with his redundant admirals
and his superfluous captains.
[57] This was due, however, not so much to the action of the Government
as to the falling-in of terminable annuities, which reduced the charges
for the National Debt.
[58] Of course the Queen cannot prevent a man from receiving a
Foreign decoration, and he can wear it in Society without incurring
prosecution, just as he might, if vulgar enough, wear a masonic star
of the cheeseplate order of architecture on his breast. But he cannot
wear it at Court, and the grievance of the British snob is that the
Queen’s objection to his accepting a Foreign Order prevents Foreign
Governments--except semi-barbarous ones--from bestowing it on him.
Queen Elizabeth said that “she did not like her dogs to wear any
collar but her own.” It is not so generally known that the Queen’s
grandfather, George III., whose metaphors were usually of a more
pastoral character than those of the great Tudor Princess, expressed
the same feeling when he said that he “liked his sheep to wear his own
mark.”
[59] Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and
Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, p. 308.
[60] If, for example, the Prince of Wales and his children died,
the Duke of Edinburgh would have succeeded him. The succession to
the English throne, unlike that to most European Sovereignties, is
governed by the same law which regulates the succession to all Scottish
dignities and most of the very ancient English baronies, namely,
descent is to heirs general, male or female; but then all males must
be exhausted ere the right of the females accrues. Thus the Duke stood
before his elder sisters and their families in the line of succession.
[61] Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and
Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, pp. 317 and 318.
[62] This was the letter to “My dear Grey,” in which Mr. Disraeli
accused the Ministry of a policy of “blundering and plundering.” As
they were in power solely because he had refused office, the attack of
course recoiled on his own party.
[63] A Selection from the Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., Vol.
II., p. 254.
[64] It was unjustly said that Mr. Gladstone offered to abolish the
Income Tax as an electoral bribe. The fact was that he was under a
recorded pledge to Parliament to take off the Income Tax when the
finances admitted of its repeal. That was the condition on which he had
been allowed to impose it when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in
1853. As the vast majority of the electors were not Income Tax payers,
the proposal could not possibly be an effective electoral bribe.
[65] Another difficulty for the Independent Elector was that of seeing
how Mr. Gladstone could abolish the Income Tax. Mr. Disraeli, who soon
began to repent his haste in trying to outbid Mr. Gladstone on this
point, suggested that difficulty in a speech at Newton Pagnell. He did
not withdraw from his declaration that he desired to get rid of the
Income Tax. But, he said, “If Mr. Gladstone asks me ‘are you prepared
to repeal the Income Tax by means of imposing other taxes?’ I am bound
to say it is not a policy I should recommend.” Mr. Gladstone never
divulged his plan. It is, however, obvious that he could have easily
got rid of the worst features of the Income Tax by readjusting the
House Duty. A House Duty, Mr. Mill said, is the fairest of all direct
taxes, and a man’s house-rent is--with certain exceptions--a sure guide
to his means and substance. If, for example, Mr. Gladstone had put 1s.
6d. in the £ on all houses above £10 rental, or if he had graduated
the duties from 4d. to 3s. in the £ on rentals of from £10 to over
£300, he could have supplied the place of the Income Tax which yielded
£4,875,000. The difference would have been this--that a man with £200
of income, presumably paying £25 a year for his house, would--less 9d.
of existing house duty--have paid at the 1s. 6d. rate 18s. 9d. a year
of “a means and substance” tax on his rent, instead of the £2 10s. he
then paid in Income Tax. The relief of local rates might have been
obtained by handing over the old House Tax or a portion of it to the
local authorities.
[66] Mr. Clare Sewell Read was made Secretary to the Local Government
Board, of which Mr. Sclater-Booth was made President. Sir M.
Hicks-Beach became Irish Secretary. Sir H. Selwin Ibbetson was
Under-Secretary at the Home Office. Mr. R. Bourke was Under-Secretary
for Foreign Affairs. Lord Sandon was Vice-President of the Council,
Lord George Hamilton was Under-Secretary for India, Sir C. Adderley
President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Algernon Egerton Secretary to the
Admiralty, and Lord Henry Lennox Chief Commissioner of Works.
[67] Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., Vol. II., p. 258.
[68] It was supposed that Mr. Disraeli would prevent the inevitable
grammatical blunder from creeping into the Queen’s Speech. But it crept
in here, greatly to the delight of the pedants. They pointed out that
it was wrong to speak of “the recent Act of Parliament affecting the
_relationship_ of master and servant.” The word cannot be used, they
argued, instead of _relation_, to denote a relative position which is
temporary or official.
[69] To those who had the advantage of taking no personal interest in
these transactions, Mr. Gladstone’s statement reads like the apology
of a Minister who was “riding for a fall.” He was admittedly pledged
to the House of Commons since 1853, to abolish the Income Tax when he
had a sufficient surplus. Instead of redeeming his pledge in 1874 to
the House, he took it to an electorate that had no existence in 1853,
and who, even if they had been competent to the task, could not have
given a fair decision on such a point in the turmoil of elections
which seemed purposely hurried through in a few days. Mr. Gladstone,
moreover, never defended his proposal at length. Had he really desired
to carry it, he would have submitted it to Parliament--for the House of
Lords, whose hostility he affected to dread, could not constitutionally
have meddled with it--and then if, after exhaustive discussion in
the Commons it had been defeated, he could have appealed to a nation
sufficiently instructed by that discussion to pronounce a rational
opinion on the question. As it was, the matter hardly entered into the
election controversies of 1874 at all.
[70] “We find,” said Mr. Hardy, “the stores so full and efficient that
we can dispense with the payment of £100,000 on this head.” As to arms,
he remarked that “in a few weeks the whole of the infantry will, I
hope, have the Martini-Henry rifle. By to-morrow there will be 140,000
Martini-Henry rifles in store, and during the year there will be a
further number of 40,000 provided.” After dilating on the abundance
of ammunition in stock and the sufficiency of the Reserves, Mr. Hardy
said of the Volunteers that the original number of them was 199,000,
“far, however, from efficient men,” whereas the number in 1874, though
only 153,000, consisted of thoroughly efficient men, who were “far
more worth having than what formerly existed.” The fortifications,
he said, were of “the most efficient character.” He even praised the
Intelligence Department, the formation of which had been a favourite
subject of denunciation by the Tory “Colonels.”
[71] The most curious result of this reform was the increase which took
place in pauper lunacy. Sir Stafford Northcote, in fact, offered Boards
of Guardians the strongest temptation to get their senile paupers
quartered on the State as pauper lunatics. All that was necessary for
that purpose was a certificate from a pliable medical officer.
[72] The hours against which the publicans had agitated were twelve
in London, and in other places any hour between five and seven in
the morning, till any hour between ten and twelve at night, as the
magistrates might decide.
[73] Mr. Cross held that the extension of the hours from twelve to
half-past twelve at night was not a real extension. Under the former
rule the publican had “grace” given him to clear his bar. Under Mr.
Cross’s Bill closing was imperative at half-past twelve. Then Mr. Cross
put a stop to certain public-houses being kept open to one in the
morning, which Mr. Bruce had allowed, and the fixing of the hours at
ten and eleven, in very many cases, led to further restrictions.
[74] Life of Norman Macleod, D.D., Vol. II., p. 325.
[75] _Times_, October 1, 1874.
[76] Prince Arthur was the first of his line who took as his superior
dignity a title from Ireland. Several Princes and Princesses of England
bore Irish titles, _e.g._, the Queen herself is Countess of Clare, but
they were secondary ones, and denominated inferior dignities.
[77] Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and
Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, p. 321.
[78] _Times_, May 11, 1874.
[79] _Spectator_, May 23, 1874.
[80] Mr. Carlyle refused the offer, though he had accepted the Prussian
Order of Merit.
[81] England Under Lord Beaconsfield, by P. W. Clayden, p. 120.
[82] Mr. Disraeli was blamed for ungenerous discourtesy to Lord
Hartington on his first appearance as Opposition Leader. But there
was a good justification for the Premier’s contemptuous reply. Lord
Hartington’s taunts were foolishly factious, because he had, in a
speech at Lewes (21st of January), already defended the Tory Government
for not attempting to undo Liberal work, which was, as he put it,
“irrevocable.”
[83] The Bill had these defects: (1), It was permissive and not
compulsory. (2), It forced local authorities to compensate owners of
insanitary dwellings doomed to destruction. The worse the rookeries
the higher the rents, and the more extravagant the compensation, so
that the Bill put a premium on the creation of rookeries. (3), It
enacted that workmen’s houses must be rebuilt on the cleared land.
This rendered it impossible to sell the sites at prices covering the
cost of clearing them, so that local authorities had (_a_) to keep the
land on hand in the hope of getting their price, during which time the
displaced inhabitants were pushed into adjoining neighbourhoods already
overcrowded; or (_b_) after five years to sell the sites by auction at
a loss. On the 4th of July, 1879, the Metropolitan Board of Works sold
some of their sites to the Peabody Trustees at a loss of £600,000 to
the ratepayers of London.
[84] This Act deprived the Peers of their Appellate Jurisdiction.
[85] Hansard, Vol. CCXXIII., p. 1458.
[86] See Hansard, Vol. CCXXVIII., p. 1488. Mr. Heywood got £3,000
compensation.
[87] He complained that the Government had gone to Messrs. Rothschild
for the purchase-money instead of to their regular financial agents,
and paid them a commission equal to 15 per cent. a year on the advance.
He declared that the Khedive would probably fail to pay his 5 per
cent. on the purchase-money, and that England, in any dispute as a
shareholder, would have to sue and be sued in a French court. As
trustee for the nation the Government ought, he said, to insist on low
tariffs. As a shareholder it must, however, insist on high dividends.
The purchase, he held, would give England no real influence at the
Board of Direction.
[88] Mr. Gladstone once cited the Channel as “the silver streak,”
which was the best defence of England against the Continent, and a
justification for a Foreign Policy of isolation.
[89] When a Bill was approaching one of the stages at half-past twelve,
Mr. Biggar or Mr. Parnell would get up and speak so as to protract
debate till the hour came when opposed business must be postponed.
[90] The Parnell Movement, by T. P. O’Connor, M.P. Popular Edition, p.
157.
[91] See Hodder’s Life of Lord Shaftesbury, Vol. III., pp. 367, 371.
[92] Hansard, Vol. CCXXX., p. 1182.
[93] See Macgahan’s Letters and Consul-General Schuyler’s Report to the
United States Minister at Constantinople, cited in the Appendix, pp. 22
_et seqq._
[94] It was not possible that the Czar could have seen a telegraphic
summary of Lord Beaconsfield’s Guildhall speech when he spoke to the
nobles at Moscow.
[95] 160,000 men, and 648 guns.
[96] Sir S. Northcote spoke at Bristol on the 13th of November, and Mr.
Cross at Birmingham a week later.
[97] It was at this time that Tory partisans and Ministerial organs,
in order to encourage the Turks to resistance, began to denounce Lord
Salisbury as a traitor.
[98] A fashionable skating-rink did poor business in 1876 if it did not
return a profit of 300 per cent., and a good patent for a rinking-skate
was worth at least £150,000 to a popular inventor.
[99] See Parliamentary Papers, Turkey (1877), No. 78.
[100] Even in 1877 some of the Tory squires were practising the
old stupid method of obstruction, _e.g._, Mr. Orr Ewing and Sir
William Anstruther put down 250 Amendments to the Scotch Roads and
Bridges Bill--most of which, when not frivolous, were unpopular and
reactionary. Such obstruction was, of course, easy to deal with.
[101] On the 26th of March the House got one of its earliest lessons in
the new art of scientific obstruction. Mr. Parnell had, owing to the
popular lines on which some of his amendments were drawn up, got about
eighteen members at this time to act with him. But even they deserted
him when, at one in the morning, Mr. Biggar moved to “report progress.”
The division showed--Ayes, 10, Noes, 138. Mr. Biggar and his friends
then kept up a series of see-saw motions--for adjournment and reporting
progress, till at three in the morning Mr. Cross succumbed, and having
struck his flag, assented to the rising of the House. Then Mr. Biggar
and his friends pathetically wailed over the scandalous manner in
which the House had had two hours of its valuable time wasted by the
Home Secretary, whose surrender was cited as a justification of their
opposition.
[102] This was fifteen minutes earlier than the hour at which it rose
in the Debate on the Address in 1783. See Clayden’s England Under Lord
Beaconsfield, p. 302.
[103] This was a popular move, for it was generally felt that Ireland
not only had too many Judges, but that they were extravagantly overpaid.
[104] Mr. F. H. O’Donnell actually put down seventy-five amendments to
it.
[105] The motion was moved by Sir George Campbell.
[106] It was never known what Sir Stafford Northcote meant to do. But
it was supposed he would, with the support of Lord Hartington, move the
expulsion of the “obstructives.”
[107] The Estimates for the past year had been closely realised. For
the coming year (1877-78) the revenue was taken at £78,794,000, and the
expenditure at £79,020,000.
[108] Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and
Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, p. 343.
[109] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLIX.
[110] Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and
Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, p. 357.
[111] Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., pp. 206, 273.
[112] See a letter from Mr. Hayward to Mr. Sheridan, dated 3rd
November, 1876. Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., p. 271.
[113] See Mr. Hayward’s Correspondence, Vol. II., pp. 266 and 268.
[114] Mr. Carlyle presumably got his information from the highest
German authorities.
[115] Carlyle’s Life in London, by T. A. Froude, Vol. III., p. 441.
[116] Consols fell three-eighths.
[117] Mr. George Jacob Holyoake was the first to characterise these
patriots as “Jingoes,” deriving the epithet from their own anthem. See
his letter in the _Daily News_, March 13, 1878.
[118] These were (1), Bulgarian autonomy north of the Balkans; (2),
guarantees of good government for the other Turkish provinces; (3),
cession of Batoum, and retrocession of Bessarabia to Russia.
[119] Nobody gave a more vivid picture of the divided state of the
nation at this time than Mr. Trevelyan, who had been one of the most
active of those who forced Mr. Gladstone to withdraw his Resolutions.
Speaking at Galashiels on the 10th of December he said, the desire to
fight “is almost universal amongst idlers, and gossips, fashionable
aspirants, and the habitual frequenters of the London burlesques and
music-halls. The determination to keep at peace is almost universal
among the great mass of the population which produces the wealth of
this country, and which makes us respected and powerful among nations.
My experience is that the division is not, as is generally described,
one of class, but of personal habits and character. If you meet a
man who does an honest stroke of work on every week-day, whether he
be manufacturer, or artisan, or tradesman, or barrister, it is ten
to one that he wishes his country to leave this quarrel to be fought
out by those whom it concerns. If you meet a man who amuses himself
for fifteen hours out of the twenty-four, and sleeps the rest, it
is ninety-nine to one but he thinks we should send an ultimatum to
Russia as soon as she crosses the Balkans, and that he regards Lord
Beaconsfield as a second Chatham, who is robbed of his opportunities
by his more timid colleagues.” It ought to be said that the Liberals
had also their “idlers” and sentimental crochet-mongers, who were
eager to join Russia in fighting the “anti-human” Turk, and who had
the advantage of Mr. Gladstone’s personal leadership. Of course the
partisans of Lord Beaconsfield vied with the partisans of Mr. Gladstone
in pouring forth contempt on the English people, for their sordid
determination to tie the restless and mischief-making hands of these
two enterprising politicians.
[120] One finds in the advertising columns of the _Era_, strangely
enough, a side-light on the Eastern policy of the Court at this period.
A Mr. Charles Williams, who advertised himself as singing “the greatest
war song on record” at four music-halls, added to his advertisement the
following letter:--“Lieutenant-General Sir T. M. Biddulph has received
the Queen’s commands to thank Mr. Charles Williams for the appropriate
verses contained in his letter of the 18th inst., and her Majesty fully
appreciates his motives.” One of the verses ran thus:--
“Bruin thinks we’ve been asleep; but a watch we’ve had to keep,
Knowing well the value of his word;
Look with many a skilful lie how they’ve blinded every eye,
Till the Lion’s grand impatience now is heard;
For every British heart would burn to take a part
To fling the Russian lies back in their face;
And to teach them, as of old, that Briton’s hearts are bold,
And would die to save our country from disgrace.”
--_Vide Era_, February 20, 1878. The song was sung at the Metropolitan
Music Hall, in connection with a ballet called “Cross and Crescent
War.” When the Royal letter was pointed out to Count Schouvaloff, that
easy-tempered diplomatist merely shrugged his shoulders. It may be
mentioned incidentally that a study of the popular songs cf the period
reflects faithfully the shifting moods of the London mob during the
Eastern Controversy.
[121] Turkey III. (1878), No. 1.
[122] Russia in July had pledged herself not to meddle with the
Suez Canal, or with Egypt, or to menace the Persian Gulf. As to
the Dardanelles, the position of the Straits “should,” said Prince
Gortschakoff, “be settled by a common agreement upon equitable or
efficiently guaranteed bases.” Constantinople, in his opinion, “could
not be allowed to belong to any of the European Powers;” and on the
20th of July the Czar further enforced this pledge by telling Colonel
Wellesley that he would not occupy Constantinople merely for military
_prestige_, but only if events forced him to do so.--_See_ Russia II.
(1877), No. 2; and Turkey III. (1878), No. 2.
[123] Hansard, Vol. CCXXXVII., p. 31.
[124] Sir Stafford Northcote gave another reason. Mr. Layard, on the
24th, telegraphed that the question of the Bosphorus was to be settled
between the Czar and a Congress. Next morning, the 25th, it was found
that by a blunder the clerk had written “Congress” instead of “Sultan.”
It was on this account, said Sir S. Northcote, that the orders to the
Fleet were withdrawn. In other words, when on the 24th the Government
believed--if by this time they really believed any of Mr. Layard’s
telegrams--that the question of the Bosphorus was to be settled in
accordance with Russia’s pledges to England, the Fleet was sent to
Constantinople. But when they found this to be a mistake, and that the
Czar was going to settle the question in defiance of his pledges to
England, the Fleet was ordered back to Besika Bay!
[125] His place at the Colonial Office was filled by Sir M.
Hicks-Beach, Mr. James Lowther becoming Irish Secretary.
[126] Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone were, however, among those who voted
against the Grant.
[127] See Sir Stafford Northcote’s statement in the House of Commons,
_Times_, 29th April, 1878.
[128] It is, however, but fair to Lord Derby to say that though all the
Tory speakers and writers assumed this to be his object, his obstinacy
might be due to another and more honourable motive. He probably
persuaded himself that the refusal of Russia implied that she meant to
object to the discussion of Articles that in the opinion of the Powers
affected their interests as well as hers.
[129] Mr. Charles Greville dwells on one of these ebullitions of
patrician rowdyism with much anger. (_See_ Memoirs, Part III.). At
the same time, it is but fair to say that the Peelites had given the
Tories just provocation. Lord Aberdeen had led the Tory leaders to
believe that, whenever they abandoned Protection, they (the Peelites)
would return to the Tory fold, and reunite the Conservative Party.
Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli did abandon Protection, incurring great
obloquy from their followers. But the Peelites declined to fulfil
their part of the implied bargain, and, having got all they wanted out
of the Protectionists--a recantation of their principles--not only
refused to join them, but attacked them with the Whigs. Mr. Gladstone
was supposed to have inspired what Lord Hardwicke, in a letter to Mr.
Croker, denounced as a “disgraceful” manœuvre due to “personal pique
and hatred.”--_See_ Croker Papers; also an article in the _Observer_,
Feb. 13, 1887, p. 3.
[130] It ought to be said that Lord Derby’s ablest apologist, Mr. T.
Wemyss Reid, in an article in _Macmillan’s Magazine_ for June, 1879,
advanced a fair defence for his hesitancy to work zealously with the
European Powers. Mr. Reid asserts, and in a manner which commands
respectful attention, that Lord Derby knew that as far back as 1873
Russia, Germany, and Austria had entered into a secret agreement to
upset the _status quo_ in Turkey. No historian can presume to pass a
final judgment on Lord Derby’s career at the Foreign Office without
carefully studying this remarkable article. It explains much that is
otherwise inexplicable in Lord Derby’s policy, and had it been an
official _communiqué_ it would have been almost conclusive.
[131] Lord Salisbury said, in reply to Lord Grey, in the House of
Lords, that the statements in the _Globe_ were “wholly unauthentic.”
Lord Grey said he could not have believed it to be true that Lord
Salisbury had agreed to the retrocession of Bessarabia. “It appeared,”
he said, “to be too monstrous to be believed that her Majesty’s
Government could have made such a stipulation as was agreed to”--an
observation which Lord Salisbury ratified by his silence.--Hansard,
Vol. CCXL., p. 1061.
[132] The words of Bismarck’s Circular were:--“While addressing this
invitation to the ---- Government, the Government of his Majesty [the
German Emperor] supposes that the ---- Government, in accepting the
invitation, consents to allow free discussion of the contents of the
Treaty of San Stefano in their totality, and that it is ready to take
part in it.” It is curious to notice how persistently Russia refused
to yield even verbally, and after signing the Secret Agreement, to the
English demand. As the Vienna correspondent of the _Times_ said, “the
formula of invitation is a compromise. While doing full justice to the
full demand of England for free discussion of the Treaty of San Stefano
in its totality, it contrives to spare the susceptibilities of Russia.
Germany steps in and supposes that none of the Governments invited will
object to a free discussion. In issuing invitations on this hypothesis,
Germany gives a moral guarantee that it will be so; and Russia, who has
hitherto objected to such a course, is not distinctly asked to withdraw
this opposition, but only gives her consent, like the other Powers,
to a Congress convoked by Germany for the purpose.”--_Times_ Vienna
Correspondent, 4th June, 1878. The effect of this formula was to make
Prince Bismarck absolute master of the Congress after acceptance of
his invitation. He alone had given a guarantee that the Treaty should
be fully discussed. He alone was therefore entitled at every stage to
define what he meant by the phrase, “in its totality.”
[133] Sir M. Hicks-Beach, on the 12th of June, gave his Party and the
country further assurances on this head in a speech at Cheltenham, in
which he said that the main points in Lord Salisbury’s Circular of
the 1st of April would be adhered to by the British representatives
at the Congress. This statement, of course, recoiled on him in the
most damaging manner when, on the 14th, it was found that what the
Ministerialists considered to be main points had been bargained away to
Russia in Lord Salisbury’s Secret Agreement of the 30th of May.
[134] Lord Houghton, as a supporter of the Ministerial Foreign Policy,
said:--“Even if the surrender which we are required to make according
to this document is one to which the country would give its consent,
it would have been better that the fact should have appeared at the
Congress than that it should have been made known by this paper [the
_Globe_]. It now stands before the world that England did not go into
the Congress with free hands, but before going into it had made a
contract, and had, in the main, abandoned some of the most important
points which I and other Members of the House considered it was the
duty of this country to insist upon.”--Hansard, Vol. CCXL., p. 1569 _et
seq._
[135] The proceedings against Mr. Marvin were withdrawn. He pleaded
that copying on paper did not amount to theft, and his legal advisers
threatened a cross-examination of the Foreign Office officials (whose
laxity of administration was obvious), which determined the Government
to retreat.
[136] Afghan Correspondence I., pp. 242, 243.
[137] Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and
Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, p. 375.
[138] The death of the child here alluded to was that of her little son
Fritz, who accidentally fell from one of the palace windows on the 29th
of May, 1873.
[139] Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and
Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, p. 385.
[140] Dr. Sell, a good clergyman of Darmstadt, who was entrusted with
her papers and her correspondence with the Queen, and who knew the
Princess well during the greater part of her Darmstadt life.
[141] _See_ South African Correspondence (C 2220), pp. 136-320.
[142] _Nineteenth Century_, March, 1879.
[143] Sir M. Hicks-Beach censured Frere for not sending his _ultimatum_
home for approval before delivering it. In fact, Frere’s claim was
virtually that a Colonial Governor had the right to declare war without
consulting the Crown or Parliament. The majority that supported the
Government in the Lords was 61. In the Commons Sir C. Dilke’s motion
was defeated by a majority of 60.
[144] Mr. Parnell was not formally elected leader. After Mr. Butt’s
retirement, in 1878, the Irish party elected, not a leader, but a
Sessional Chairman. The office was filled by Mr. Shaw during 1879.
[145] Hansard, Vol. CCXLVII, p. 53.
[146] It must be mentioned that Lord Hartington had in a previous
speech haughtily repudiated all responsibility for the action of
Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Hopwood, and other Radicals who had now allied
themselves with the Parnellites.
[147] These warnings were published at Lahore from Persian newswriters
in Cabul. They showed that even as far back as the 16th of August the
Ameer had implored Cavagnari not to ride about the streets, as he ran
the risk of being murdered. At this time Lord Lytton was assuring
the Government, on the authority of messages which he alleged he had
received from Cavagnari, that all was going on well in Cabul.
[148] Colonel Osborn, in an article in the _Contemporary Review_ for
October, 1879, estimated that a British army 40,000 strong would be
needed to occupy Afghanistan.
[149] His “settlement” of Zululand organised the country into thirteen
provincial governments, a British Resident controlling them all.
Native rights, laws, and customs were to be respected, and Europeans
prohibited from emigrating into native territory.
[150] This is clear from the censure passed by the Duke of Cambridge
on Colonel Harrison, Assistant Quartermaster-General. The Duke blamed
Harrison for not impressing on the Prince “the duty of deferring to
the military orders of the officer who accompanied him.” Of course,
if Carey had been in command, there would have been no need to have
impressed on the Prince (who had graduated in the military school at
Woolwich) the necessity for obeying the orders of Carey, who would, in
that case, have been his superior officer.
[151] The gap torn out of the bridge--the whole length of which was
10,612 feet--measured 3,300 feet. Of the eighty-five spans, the first
twenty-seven from the Fife coast were left intact. Then came thirteen
of which only the stonework remained, everything else being swept away.
This left forty-five spans on the northern side standing. The bridge
had been tested and certified as safe by Government inspectors. An
inquiry was ordered into the disaster, which showed that the bridge
was, in the words of Mr. Rothery, one of the Court of Inquiry, “badly
designed, badly constructed, and badly maintained.” For the mishap the
engineer--Sir Thomas Bouch--was held “mainly to blame.” The bridge,
which from a distance looked like a long plank set up on pipe-shanks,
cost £500,000. It was opened on the 30th of May, 1878.
[152] There were seventy-five adults, and from ten to fifteen children.
The bodies were nearly all washed away by the tide.
[153] Dr. Köller, a Church of England clergyman, employed by the Church
Missionary Society in Constantinople, had engaged Ahmed Tewfik, a
Mohammedan schoolmaster, to help him to translate the Scriptures into
Turkish. Ahmed and the MSS. were seized, and the former adjudged worthy
of death by the Sheik-ul-Islam. For three months Sir Henry Layard had
vainly demanded his release, and the dismissal of the Minister of
Police, Hafiz Pasha, from his post.
[154] Hafiz was one of the savages, whose share in the Bulgarian
atrocities was so patent, that Lord Derby had demanded his punishment.
The answer to this demand by the Turks was the appointment of Hafiz as
Minister of Police at Constantinople, where he and Sir Henry Layard
suddenly fell out.
[155] He had given the Lord-Lieutenancy of a county to Colonel
King-Harman.
[156] Loans to Baronial Sessions for improvement works were virtually
loans to the landlords.
[157] Nobody knew better than Lord Beaconsfield, from his experiences
of 1846, that the potato is the barometer of Famine in Ireland, and
it is impossible to suppose that he would have been satisfied with
Mr. Lowther’s Bill if he had looked into the facts. For these all
pointed to a dreadful failure of the potato crop. In 1876 its value
was £12,464,382. In 1878 it was only £7,579,512. In 1879 it fell to
£3,341,028. In England a crisis like this would have compelled the
Government to take strong measures of relief, and yet in England such
a state of affairs is always eased by the landlords abating or wiping
out rent. But the distress in Ireland was aggravated because the worse
it grew the fiercer became the demand of the landlords for rent.
“Evictions,” writes Mr. J. Huntley McCarthy, “had increased from 463
families in 1877 to 980 in 1878, to 1,238 in 1879; and they were still
on the increase, as was shown at the end of 1880, when it was found
that 2,110 families were evicted.” Moreover, the Irish peasantry paid
part of their rent out of wages earned as migratory labourers during
part of the year in England and Scotland. But English and Scottish
farmers were themselves cutting down their labour bills, and the loss
to the Irish on migratory labour alone in 1877 was £250,000 (Hancock).
See Healy’s “Why is there a Land Question?” pp. 71, 72; O’Connor’s
“Parnell Movement,” pp. 166-7. J. H. McCarthy’s “England under
Gladstone,” p. 103.
[158] The new Rule was to the effect that a Member “named” by the
Speaker or Chairman for obstruction might be suspended for the rest of
the sitting on a motion voted without debate; and if he repeated the
offence three times, he might be suspended for an indefinite period
till pardoned by the House.
[159] These were Barnstaple, Liverpool, and Southwark. At Barnstaple
the Liberal (Lord Lymington) increased the Liberal majority by 60
votes. But Sir R. Carden increased the Tory minority by 99. In
Liverpool Mr. Whitley was returned by a majority of 2,221, though
Lord Ramsay, the losing candidate, polled 3,000 more votes than the
winning candidate had ever polled before. Southwark (vacated by the
death of Mr. Locke, a strong Radical) was carried by Mr. Edward Clarke,
a strong Conservative, by a large majority. Lord Beaconsfield’s
calculations were here faulty. The verdict of Barnstaple, being a
corrupt constituency, went for nothing on either side. In Liverpool
the Tories maintained their ascendency, but not at all with the
proportionate majority they obtained in 1874. Southwark was dominated
by the publican vote, and the Liberal candidate (Mr. Dunn) was not
only a bad speaker, but especially hateful to the working-class,
because he had, by insisting on standing at a former election, ruined
the candidature of Mr. Odger, and, by splitting the Liberal vote, had
handed over the second seat in Southwark to Colonel Beresford, the
Conservative candidate. The bye-elections to which Lord Beaconsfield
trusted afforded no true guidance as to the drift of opinion.
[160] Mr. Cross created a Water Trust, partly representative and partly
nominated, for taking over the business of the water companies. He
had in the previous Session promised Mr. Fawcett that he would not
give the companies a “fancy” price for their property. He now proposed
to hand over a Three and a Half per Cent. Stock to the companies as
compensation for their property. The actual value of that property was
about £19,000,000; but the _Standard_ and the critics of the scheme
complained that Mr. Cross gave the companies £30,000,000 compensation.
Water shares rose 75 per cent. when Mr. Cross’s Bill was produced.
[161] The contest in Midlothian excited the keenest interest. When the
poll had been counted it was found that Mr. Gladstone had obtained
the seat by a majority of 211 votes, the figures being Gladstone
1,579, Dalkeith 1,368. As soon as the result became known the utmost
enthusiasm was aroused throughout the country. In Edinburgh the
excitement was intense and Mr. Gladstone had to address the shouting
crowd, under a fall of snow, from the balcony of Lord Rosebery’s House
in George Street.
[162] Mr. Hayward’s Letters, Vol. II., p. 307.
[163] Mr. Hayward’s Letters, Vol. II., p. 308.
[164] Hansard, Vol. CCLIII., p. 1663.
[165] The origin of the term was as follows:--Captain Boycott, an
agent of Lord Earne, and a farmer at Lough Mask, had served notices of
eviction on the Earne tenantry. Suddenly he found himself “marooned,”
as it were, on his farm. Nobody would work for him, speak to him, do
business with him, or even supply him at any price with the necessaries
of life. Police guards watched over him and his family whilst they did
their own farm and household work. At last some of the Orange lodges
in the North sent down a gang of armed labourers to help him out of
his difficulties. These were called “Emergency men.” Subsequently the
dispute between Lord Earne and his tenants was arranged, and all of a
sudden Captain Boycott found that the leper’s ban had been removed from
his household, and he himself treated as if he had been all his life
the most popular person in the neighbourhood.
[166] The Rifle regiments were not supplied with colours, because in
the old days they were supposed to fight in more extended order than
the Infantry of the Line. Now there is no difference in this respect
between the rifleman and the linesman. Of the cavalry, only the heavy
dragoons carried colours, but they always left them at home when they
went to war.
[167] The Rifle Brigade was originally formed out of detachments from
fourteen different line regiments, and was long known as “Manningham’s
Sharpshooters.” From 1800 to 1802 it was known as the Rifle Corps.
Down to 1816 it got the name of the “Old 95th,” after which year till
now it has been called the Rifle Brigade. The Prince Consort was its
colonel, and in his portraits he is often seen wearing its sombre green
heavily-braided uniform. Hence it got the title of the Prince Consort’s
Own Rifle Brigade. The Prince of Wales became its Colonel-in-Chief till
he was appointed Colonel of the Household Cavalry. He was succeeded by
the Duke of Connaught, who began his meritorious though modest career
as a lieutenant in the 1st Battalion.
[168] Mr. C. D. Boyd was shot by a gang of men with blackened faces
whilst driving on the 8th of August from New Ross to Shanlough. He
was the son of the agent to Mr. Tottenham, and there was reason to
suppose that it was his father (who was with him) who was aimed at.
Lord Mountmorres was waylaid near Clonbur and shot on the 25th of
September. He had only fifteen tenants, had evicted only two of them,
and his household was boycotted. He lived among the people, and was
fairly popular with them, so that his murder is to this day somewhat of
a mystery.
[169] This antiquated form of silencing a Member had not been heard of
for two centuries, till Mr. Gladstone had himself revived it in the
previous Session, for the purpose of silencing Mr. O’Donnell when he
attempted to make a personal attack on M. Challemel-Lacour, who had
come to England as the Ambassador of France.
[170] _See_ Hansard, Vol. CCLVIII., p. 68 _et seq._
[171] The Parnell Movement, by T. P. O’Connor, M.P., Chapter XI.
[172] Colley’s friends allege that Kruger’s letter of reply to him was
delayed so long that he thought he might usefully expedite matters by
attacking.
[173] It was said that the late Mrs. Brydges-Williams, an eccentric
Cornish lady of Jewish extraction, had left Mr. Disraeli a legacy on
condition that she should be buried with him, and on this condition
the legacy was accepted. Perhaps the executors were afraid that claims
might be made on them if the condition were violated.
[174] Speech at Kettering, _Times_, 5th May, 1881.
[175] Her Majesty sent two wreaths to be placed on the bier. One was
composed of primroses, and carried the inscription: “His favourite
flowers, from Osborne, a tribute of affection from Queen Victoria.” The
other was made up of bay-leaves and everlasting flowers, and bore these
words in golden letters: “A mark of true affection, friendship, and
respect from the Queen.”
[176] After Lord Beaconsfield’s death the Tory Party fell under the
“Dual Control” of Lord Salisbury who led it in the House of Lords, and
Sir Stafford Northcote who led it in the House of Commons, when Lord
Randolph Churchill let him.
[177] Mr. (afterwards Sir) Edward Clarke, Q.C. and Tory
Solicitor-General, though he approved of widening summary jurisdiction,
objected to the Bill because it made the Irish Viceroy a despot. Mr.
Ritchie (afterwards President of the Local Government Board in Lord
Salisbury’s Administration) declined to support the Bill because he
had no confidence in the Government. Sir J. D. Hay complained of the
excessive power placed in the hands of the Irish Viceroy. But Sir
Stafford Northcote interfered, and, generously exerting his authority
on behalf of the Ministry, silenced the factious Tories, who were
apparently desirous of embarrassing the Government by obstructing the
Bill. Public opinion was not in a state to tolerate obstructive tactics
at the time.
[178] This loan was raised to wipe out the floating debt then amounting
to £28,000,000. But the money-brokers who floated it imposed such
usurious conditions, that they never really paid Ismail more than
£20,740,077, of which they made him take £9,000,000 in bonds of the
floating debt which the loan was raised to pay off. These they held
themselves, having bought them at 65 per cent. They made the Khedive,
however, take over the £9,000,000 worth which they thrust on him as
part of the loan at 93 per cent.--See Mr. Stephen Cave’s Report on the
Financial Condition of Egypt, and McCoan’s Egypt as It Is (Cassell and
Co.), Appendix 9, p. 396.
[179] This land belonging to the Khedive’s personal estate is referred
to in the report as Daira land.
[180] A search expedition under Colonel (afterwards Sir Charles)
Warren, R.E., brought back their remains, which were buried in St.
Paul’s Cathedral, close by the tomb of Nelson. See Life of Edward Henry
Palmer, by Walter Besant. London: John Murray, 1883, pp. 296-329.
[181] The vote was for an addition of £10,000 a year to the Prince’s
income, which was already £15,000, and a separate income of £6,000 a
year to the Princess during her widowhood.
[182] These intrigues grew so dangerous that in 1879 Prince Bismarck
concluded a Secret Treaty with Austria, which bound each Power to
defend the other if attacked by Russia, or if Russia gave aid to any
other Power which was attacking them. Though Prince Bismarck, as he
said in his speech in the Reichstag (6th of February, 1887) really
acted at the Berlin Congress as the fourth plenipotentiary of Russia,
the Russian War Party were of opinion that he ought to have done
more for them. Their attacks on Germany in the Press were incessant.
Russians of rank like Gortschakoff and Skobeleff, notoriously carried
on intrigues with France for an alliance against Germany. Indeed,
Russian troops began to mass themselves on the German frontier in
1882. Curiously enough, of the four men who could have done most
to thwart Prince Bismarck’s League of Peace with Austria--only one
(Garibaldi) died in circumstances free from suspicion of foul play.
Garibaldi’s death rendered it easier to bring Italy into Prince
Bismarck’s anti-French combination. These four men it is curious to
note passed away most opportunely for Prince Bismarck. Garibaldi died
in June, Skobeleff on the 7th of July, Gambetta in December, 1882, and
Gortschakoff on the 11th of March, 1883. Germany breathed freely after
the death of Gambetta, who, said Prince Bismarck once, worked on the
nerves of Europe “like a man who beats a drum in a sick room.”
[183] The history of this compact is as follows:--After the Treaty of
Berlin was signed Lord Salisbury bought off the opposition of France to
the occupation of Cyprus, first by promising not to oppose an extension
of her influence in Tunis, and secondly, by paving the way for her
sharing with England the control of Egypt. Prince Bismarck also left
on M. Waddington’s mind the impression that Germany was indifferent
to the fate of Tunis, knowing well that French interference there
must brew bad blood between France and Italy. In the spring of 1881
the French discovered that the mysterious “Kroumirs” were menacing
their Algerian frontier. To punish them they invaded Tunis, and though
they never discovered any “Kroumirs,” they compensated themselves for
their disappointment by forcing the Bey to sign the Bardo Treaty.
It converted Tunis into a French dependency. Italy remonstrated
in vain against this violation of the guaranteed integrity of the
Ottoman Empire, and finally sought for safety against further French
encroachments on her interests, in an alliance with the German Powers.
M. Gambetta’s aggressive policy caused King Humbert, on the advice of
Prince Bismarck, to visit the Emperor of Austria at Vienna, in the
autumn of 1881. Prince Bismarck was ostentatious in expressing his
friendliness to Italy, and exchanged effusive compliments with Signor
Mancini. (_See_ Mancini’s Speech in the Italian Senate of December,
1881.) In October, 1882, Count Kalnoky declared that King Humbert’s
pilgrimage of conciliation to the Hofburg had identified Italian and
Austro-German interests, and Signor Mancini announced the existence
of the Triple League on the 11th of April, 1883. On the 17th of
March, 1885, Mancini, when questioned as to his Red Sea policy, told
the Senate that in all his negotiations with England he had made it
“clear that Italy could enter into no engagement which was contrary to
the agreements concluded with the two Empires.” Through negotiations
carried on by the German Crown Prince, Spain was next drawn into the
net of the Triple League, and France utterly isolated.
[184] Though writers like De Tocqueville have laid it down that the
civilisation and development of a State can be always measured by the
social status and independence of its women and the equality of the
sexes before the law, one curious exception may be noted. From various
reasons, the northern kingdom of Scotland has for many centuries
remained appreciably rougher in manners and less polished and refined
in culture than England. The women of Scotland, too, like those of
Germany, have always been compelled to render their families harder
domestic service than English women, who, during the greater part of
the Victorian period, led lives of comparative ease and luxury in most
respectable households. Yet it is strange that in Scotland the law has
always been jealous in guarding the rights of women. For example, it
secured to a woman a third of her husband’s property after his death,
so that he could not disinherit her by will. It enabled her, through a
simple and cheap legal process, to protect her earnings from seizure by
her husband. It was at pains to preserve to women in the direct line
of succession their right to baronies and peerages after the males in
that line were exhausted. The divorce law, too, did not, like that of
England, recognise any inequality in the position of the sexes. The
effect of the improved legal status of women in Scotland was curious.
Though living in a ruder society, and under the pressure of harder
conditions of life than their more luxurious and polished English
sisters, they seem in all ages to have enjoyed by custom a position of
authority in the family, scarcely even yet conceded to their sex in
England. Arduous household service was, however, the price they had to
pay for their privileges. It may also be added that whilst in England,
till very recently, parents were more particular about the education of
their sons than their daughters, such a distinction between the sexes
was rarely made in Scotland at any time in its history.
[185] The occasion was a banquet given to him in the Town Hall in
celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of his connection with
Birmingham. Mr. Bright said:--“And, what is worse, at this moment,
as you see--you do not so much see it here as it is seen in the
House--they [the Conservatives] are found in alliance with an Irish
rebel party (loud and long-continued cheers), the main portion of
whose funds, for the purposes of agitation, comes directly from the
avowed enemies of England, and whose oath of allegiance is broken by
association with its enemies. Now, these are the men of whom I spoke,
who are disregarding the wishes of the majority of the constituencies,
and who, as far as possible, make it impossible to do any work for
the country by debates and divisions in the House of Commons. I hope
the constituencies will mark some of the men of this party, and that
they will not permit Parliament to be dishonoured and Government
enfeebled by Members who claim to be, but are not, Conservative and
Constitutional. Our freedom is no longer subverted or threatened by
the Crown or by a privileged aristocracy. Is the time come--I quote
the words from history--is the time come to which the ancestor of Lord
Salisbury referred three hundred years ago, when he said that ‘England
could only be ruined by Parliament’?”
[186] It enacted that to cause an explosion not leading to loss of
life was a felony punishable by penal servitude for life. The attempt
was punishable with twenty years’ imprisonment. To be found in the
possession of dynamite, failing proof that it was held for a lawful
purpose, entailed fourteen years’ imprisonment.
[187] For an account of this sect, see a curious article in _The
Spectator_, 17th March, 1883.
[188] Brown, it was said in 1883, had left a diary for publication.
This was not quite true, for immediately after his death all his papers
were impounded by Sir Henry Ponsonby on behalf of the Queen.
[189] The Hon. Mrs. Stonor died on the 14th of April in London, from
the effects of a carriage accident. She was a daughter of Sir Robert
Peel, and was married to the third son of Lord Camoys. Few ladies of
the Court stood higher in the favour of the Queen, and she had been
lady-in-waiting to the Princess of Wales since the formation of her
household in 1863.
[190] When England advised Egypt to abandon the Soudan, the Khedive’s
Ministry under Cherif Pasha refused to take the advice. The defeat
of Hicks Pasha caused England to substitute insistance for advice,
and when the Egyptian Government was told it must abandon the
Soudan, Cherif Pasha resigned. Here was an excellent opportunity
for establishing a Protectorate; and it is not generally known that
Sir Evelyn Baring strongly recommended the appointment of English
Ministers for a period of five years. He was overruled, and Nubar
Pasha was made Cherif’s successor. See Mr. Edward Dicey’s convincing
plea for a Protectorate, in the _Nineteenth Century_ for March, 1884.
In passing it may be well to warn the reader that he cannot form any
correct conception of Anglo-Egyptian relations till he has mastered Mr.
Dicey’s numerous papers on the subject, notably his “England and Egypt”
(Chapman and Hall, 1881). The central idea of Mr. Dicey’s policy is
that the true interest of England in the Eastern Question lies in the
Valley of the Nile, not in the Bosphorus; and that the Isthmus of Suez
forms the key-stone of her position as an Imperial Power.
[191] His expenditure he estimated at £85,292,000, and his revenue at
£85,555,000.
[192] The alternative courses were (1), calling in the aid of Turkish
troops; (2), the employment of Zebehr Pasha; (3), the opening up of
communications between Suakim and Berber after Graham’s victories on
the Red Sea littoral; (4), the evacuation of Khartoum in accordance
with a scheme whereby Gordon’s colleague, Colonel Stewart, was to take
the fugitives down to Berber, while Gordon and a picked body of troops
were to retreat up the White Nile in steamers to the Equator.
[193] These persons were in most cases rather incompetent. They
were not boatmen or _voyageurs_ at all, but clerks, shopmen, and
land-lubbers from the Canadian towns, who had palmed themselves off on
Lord Wolseley and his subordinates as experienced Canadian _voyageurs_.
[194] This was not the only case in which Lord Northbrook had
discredited the Administration. It was notorious that Mr. W. H. Smith
had shockingly neglected naval ship-building when, in 1880, he handed
the Navy over to Lord Northbrook. Lord Northbrook had worked hard to
make up arrears, and he had built new ships as fast as he could to
enable the British Navy to rank with that of France. But his best
efforts to correct Mr. Smith’s negligence failed, and yet in July,
1885, he expressed himself quite satisfied with the Navy. When he was
absent in Egypt a violent agitation, demonstrating the feebleness and
insufficiency of the Navy, was raised in the Press. Ere the autumn
Session ended he admitted that £5,000,000 above the ordinary estimates
would be needed to strengthen the Fleet in swift cruisers and torpedo
boats.
[195] Loans already secured on these were to merge in the Preference
Debt along with bonds for Alexandria indemnities. The interest on it
was not to change, but that on the Unified Debt into which Daira Loans
were to merge, was to be reduced to 3½ per cent.
[196] When Ismail abdicated under the pressure of France and England
it was not made clear that he abandoned all his rights as a private
landowner in Egypt. Theoretically the Khedive could not, according
to Oriental usage, own any land in his dominions save as head of the
State, in which capacity he owned all land. Hence, when he ceased
to be Khedive, his private domains reverted to his successor. Hence
Lord Granville always rejected Ismail’s claim. But in 1888 Lord
Salisbury, through the agency of Mr. Marriott, Judge Advocate-General,
commuted all Ismail Pasha’s claims for a lump sum, calculated on the
allowances he was bound to make his family, and which he himself might
fairly demand to support his position as ex-Khedive. Lord Salisbury’s
object was to prevent these claims from being ever made the basis of
operations for diplomacy hostile to England.
[197] The dates are curious:--
17 June, 1884.--Invitations to Egyptian Conference issued.
“ “ Lord Derby promises to stop the action of the Cape
Government in reference to Angra Pequena.
19 “ Lord Granville assures Count Münster that he accedes
to Bismarck’s wishes on the Fiji dispute.
22 “ Lord Granville tells Count Herbert Bismarck that the
Cabinet, on the 21st inst., resolved to recognise
the German Protectorate over Angra Pequena.
28 “ Meeting of the Conference in London.
[198] Speech in House of Lords, February 26th, 1885.
[199] Speech in the Reichstag, March 2nd, 1885.
[200] More Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands. From
1862 to 1882. Smith, Elder & Co., 1884.
[201] _Fortnightly Review_, May, 1884.
[202] The Claremont Estate was bought by the Crown in 1816. It was
granted to the lamented Princess Charlotte and her husband, Prince
Leopold--the Queen’s uncle--with benefit of survivorship. It was a
place full of gloomy associations, but Prince Leopold kept it up pretty
well till 1848, on the £60,000 a year which he had from the nation.
In 1848 the exiled Orleans family occupied it, and were prodigal in
spending money in improving the grounds and gardens, which were almost
as productive as those of Frogmore. On the death of King Leopold of
Belgium, Claremont reverted to the Crown, and Lord John Russell and
Mr. Gladstone passed an Act granting it to the Queen for life. In 1881
Sir Henry Ponsonby, as trustee for the Queen, bought the reversionary
interest of it for her from the State for £70,000, and since then
it has been her private property, like Osborne and Balmoral. That
Claremont is the property of the nation is a strange delusion fondly
cherished by many critics of Royalty.
[203] Prince Leopold lived chiefly at Boyton Manor from the summer of
1875 till the autumn of 1879, when the Queen insisted on his going to
Claremont. It was at Boyton that he was so dangerously ill in 1877
that Sir William Jenner telegraphed for the Queen to come to what was
supposed to be his deathbed. After that her Majesty always objected to
his staying in Wiltshire.
[204] The borough franchises of England and Wales were the old £20
clear annual value qualification of 1832, and the householder and
lodger franchises established in 1867. To these the new Reform Act
of 1885 added the “service franchise,” giving a vote to any man who
inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or
employment. Caretakers, bailiffs, gamekeepers, officers of public
establishments, shepherds, &c., were admitted under this qualification.
It was further provided that every citizen of full age, and not subject
to legal incapacity, who has occupied a house for a year and paid
his rates, can have his name registered as a voter for the district,
whether it be called county or borough, in which he resides. The
property franchises in the counties were in the main left untouched,
but provision was made to check multiplication of faggot votes--_i.e._,
votes of non-resident occupiers on sham qualifications. But four-fifths
of the 5,000,000 electors enfranchised by the Bill were really
qualified as simple householders in town and county.
[205] There were 56 two-member constituencies wholly disfranchised,
and 31 which lost a member apiece. But by Mr. Gladstone’s Bill in
1885, there were 160 seats set free for redistribution, 6 that were in
abeyance were revived, and to meet the claim of Scotland for increased
representation, 12 new seats, despite the opposition of the extreme
Tories like Sir J. D. Hay, were added to the House.
[206] Of this £11,000,000, it must be said £4,500,000 were to pay for
Egyptian expeditions and £6,500,000 for “special preparations.”
[207] M. Lessar, the Central Asian geographer, was now in attendance at
the Russian Embassy as an expert.
[208] See Speeches of Lord Randolph Churchill (Authorised Edition),
edited by Henry W. Lucy (George Routledge and Sons: London, 1885, p.
220).
[209] As a matter of fact it was weaker than it should have been,
but this was due to the neglect of shipbuilding by Mr. W. H. Smith,
whose favourite policy was to make old ships do for new ones by
patching their boilers. Lord Northbrook had pushed on shipbuilding,
and made up leeway so that in first-class ironclads the country was
more than a match for France. But much had still to be done in other
directions--_e.g._, in providing vessels for scouting, and for torpedo
warfare. The armament of the Navy was also obsolete, in fact, when Mr.
Smith handed the Navy over to Lord Northbrook, there was not a single
big breech-loading gun mounted in the Fleet.
[210] Whilst the anti-Coercionists in the Cabinet (Sir Charles Dilke,
Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) were struggling with the
Coercionists, the subterranean arrangements between the Tories and
Parnellites were also publicly ratified in a speech delivered by Lord
Randolph Churchill at the St. Stephen’s Club, in which, amidst ringing
cheers, he condemned the renewal of Coercion. Signs of disorder in
Ireland, he argued, had passed away, and such being the case Government
was bound by “the highest considerations of public policy and
Constitutional doctrine to return to and rely on the ordinary law. They
were all the more strongly bound at that time because they had just
enfranchised the Irish people, and declared them capable citizens fit
to take part in the government of the Empire.”--The Parnell Movement,
by T. P. O’Connor, Chap. XIII.
[211] After he wound up the debate, and during this exciting scene, Mr.
Gladstone had been quietly writing his nightly report to the Queen of
the proceedings of the House, on a sheet of note-paper which he held
on his knee as a desk. Lord Randolph Churchill vainly endeavoured to
rouse his attention by putting up his hand to his mouth as if it were a
speaking-trumpet, and shouting through it mocking taunts of triumph at
the Premier.
[212] H. W. Lucy’s Diary of Two Parliaments, Vol. II., p. 478. (London:
Cassell & Co.)
[213] The controversy between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone was
conducted through memoranda addressed to the Queen dated the 17th,
18th, 20th, and 21st of June. For the text, see Parliamentary Report of
the _Times_, 25th of June, 1885.
[214] The offer, it is odd to notice, was almost an unprecedented
mark of Royal favour. The elevation of Mr. Disraeli to an earldom was
effected in the middle, not at the end of his service as Premier,
and in the moment of his triumph, not of his defeat. It is, however,
worth noting that at the end of his first Administration Mr. Disraeli
accepted a viscountess’s coronet for his wife. Lord John Russell
was not Premier in 1859 when he became Earl Russell; in fact, his
acceptance of the Foreign Office under Palmerston was supposed finally
to put him in the background. Grenville, Liverpool, Wellington,
Goderich, Grey, Melbourne, Derby, and Aberdeen were all Peers before
they became Premiers. When Addington’s Ministry resigned early in
the century, the Premier, it is true, became Lord Sidmouth. Yet it
was not an earldom but only a viscountcy--a rank often conferred on
ex-Ministers who have not been Premiers--that was given to him. Pitt
was not actually First Lord of the Treasury--though no doubt he was the
moving spirit in the Cabinet--when he became Earl of Chatham. In fact,
for the Queen’s offer there was no precedent later than 1742, when
Walpole--the Minister to whom her House owe their crown--was created
Earl of Orford when he resigned.
[215] Mr. Gibson had been elevated to the Lord Chancellorship of
Ireland under this title.
[216] “Lord Northbrook,” wrote the Times, “chose to regard the
criticisms on this blundering way of keeping accounts as a personal
attack on himself, and rested his defence, with more temper than
lucidity, on the propriety of the expenditure incurred, which no one
had thought of challenging.”
[217] The Journals of Major-General C. G. Gordon, C.B., at Khartoum,
printed from the original MS. Introduction and Notes by A. Egmont Hake.
(London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1885, p. 56.)
[218] On this point see an entry in Gordon’s Journal under date the
6th of October, 1884. It was not till the 17th of May, 1884, that Lord
Granville wrote enjoining Gordon to adopt “measures for his own removal
_and for that of the Egyptians at Khartoum_ by whatever route he may
consider best.” But it was now too late to attempt the evacuation of
Khartoum save in co-operation with a relief force.
[219] Metamneh is 176 miles from Korti, but only 90 miles from Berber,
and 98 from Khartoum, from which latter places the Mahdi brought up all
the troops he could spare.
[220] “A cavalryman is taught never to be still, and that a square
_can_ be broken. How can you expect him in a moment to forget all
his training, stand like a rock, and believe no one can get inside
a square?... The sailors were pressed back with the cavalry, and
lost heavily; they get very excited, and would storm a work or do
anything of that kind well; but they are trained to fight in ships,
and you cannot expect them to stand shoulder to shoulder like
grenadiers.”--From Korti to Khartoum, by Sir Charles Wilson, K.C.B.,
K.C.M.G., D.C.L., F.R.S., R.E., late Deputy Adjutant-General, Nile
Expedition. Edinburgh (Blackwood), 1885, p. 36.
[221] Sir Charles Wilson strives hard to defend Lord Wolseley and Sir
Herbert Stewart. He says that Stewart could not march straight across
the Desert for lack of transport, though he admits that an additional
thousand camels, which could have been easily got in November, would
have saved the situation. Why were they not got? Moreover, the blunder
of Lord Wolseley and Sir Herbert Stewart is inexcusable, because they
acted in defiance of Gordon’s last message. “Come,” said he, “by way of
Metamneh or Berber; only by these two roads. Do this _without letting
rumours of your approach spread abroad_.” Stewart’s first occupation of
Gakdul, thirteen days before the Desert column was ready to move, was
simply a gratuitous warning to the Mahdi of the English advance.
[222] This is sometimes called Gubat, and sometimes Abu Kru.
[223] Gordon’s diaries show that even on the 28th of November, 1884,
when his men held Omdurman and the North Fort, Wilson could not have
passed the junction of the Blue and White Nile without a strong land
force to co-operate with his steamers. On the 28th of January, 1885,
however, these positions were in the Mahdi’s hands, and Wilson had no
land force.
[224] Lord Charles Beresford was too ill to proceed up the Nile with
Wilson, and, as he was the only naval officer available, it was prudent
to leave him at Gubat. Had our position there been attacked, he would
perhaps have been able to assist in its defence with Gordon’s steamers.
[225] _See_ an analysis of General Gordon’s Journals by the present
writer in the _Observer_ for the 28th of June, 1885. For criticism of
Wilson’s Expedition, _see_ article, said to be by Sir E. Hamley, in
_Blackwood_ for June, 1885.
[226] _See_ The Letters of General C. G. Gordon. (London: Macmillan,
1888.)
[227] Gordon’s death evoked from the Colonies in America and Australia
profuse and generous offers of military aid. The only one accepted was
that which was made by New South Wales.
[228] When Mr. Gladstone fell from power, and Lord Salisbury’s
Government took office in 1887, this promise was renewed. But in 1888
it was repudiated by Mr. W. H. Smith, the First Lord of the Treasury.
[229] The children of the Prince of Wales will probably be provided
for by the State. The children of the Duke of Edinburgh, owing to the
wealth of their parents, need no provision. The Duchess of Connaught
inherited a large fortune from her father, the “Red Prince.” The
Princess Louise, Marchioness of Lorne, if she were to have a family,
could provide for them as members of the House of Argyll.
[230] The German Crown Prince and the Grand Duke of Hesse received the
Order on marrying daughters of the Queen. But the Marquis of Lorne got
the Order of the Thistle in similar circumstances.
[231] Continental diplomatists and publicists held that the
notification in the _Gazette_ was absolutely illegal, because it was
a violation of an international agreement as to the assumption of
this title arrived at by the Great Powers at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818.
This agreement, which was signed by the Duke of Wellington as the
representative of England, is embodied in the “Protocol Séparé Séance
du 11 Oct., 1818, entre les cinq Puissances,” and it arose out of their
refusal to permit the Elector of Hesse to assume the title of king.
The Powers declared that the title Royal Highness used by the sons of
kings, might be also used by grand dukes and their heirs-presumptive,
but by no one of lower rank in sovereign circles. Prince Henry was
neither a grand duke nor an heir-presumptive to a grand duke.
[232] When Prince Victor married the sister of the Marquis of Hertford,
she was created Countess Gleichen, a title which the Prince also
assumed, the marriage being on the Continent regarded as “morganatic.”
It was held that the Queen’s order raising the lady to her husband’s
royal rank was void and illegal outside the English Court, like the
similar order with reference to the Countess Dornburg.
[233] This intrigue was initiated by Mr. Justin McCarthy, who had
long enjoyed Lord Carnarvon’s personal friendship. Before finally
selling the Irish vote, Mr. Parnell had a personal interview with Lord
Carnarvon, at which the bargain was struck. Lord Carnarvon has denied
various accounts of this interview, but he has never denied that as
Viceroy of Ireland, he told Mr. Parnell that Irish industries must be
stimulated, and that he would give the new Irish Government power to
levy Protective Duties. As taxation and representation go together,
this concession implies that the Irish Government was to be vested with
fiscal powers, which could only be exercised in co-operation with and
under responsibility to an Irish Parliament.
[234] The doctrine of ransom in the counties took the form of a vague
and ambiguous pledge to give every labourer who wanted an allotment
“three acres and a cow,” by purchase-money advanced from the rates.
[235] For a definite statement of Lord Carnarvon’s policy as Mr.
Parnell understood it, _see_ Mr. Parnell’s speech on the Home Rule
Bill. _Times_, June 8, 1886.
[236] The case for the Government, however, was strengthened and made
more conclusive as the debate went on.
[237] As successor of the old abbots, the Dean of Westminster, in the
Abbey, takes precedence of all ecclesiastics except the Archbishop of
Canterbury.
[238] When the children got to the Park Mr. Lawson, like a practical
man, put them in good humour by feeding them. They were taken in squads
to tents, and each child got a bag with a meat pie, a piece of cake, a
bun, and an orange; also a plated medallion portrait of the Queen. A
Jubilee mug of Doulton ware was also given to each boy and girl, and
during the day lemonade, ginger beer, and milk were to be had for the
asking.
[239] Lord Tennyson’s health did not admit of his officiating as
Laureate on this occasion, and Mr. Browning has always declared himself
unable to produce ceremonial odes to order.
[240] History of England, Vol. V., p. 537.