THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (_continued_).
The National Prosperity in 1865--Debate on the Malt Tax--Remission
of Fire Insurance Duty--Mr. Gladstone's Budget--The Army and
Navy Estimates--Academic Discussions of large Questions--Mr.
Lowe on Reform--The Union Chargeability Bill--The New Law Courts
Bill--Debate on University Tests--The Catholic Oaths Bill--Other
Ecclesiastical Discussions--The Edmunds Scandal--The Wilde
Scandal--Mr. Ward Hunt's Motion--Lord Westbury resigns--The
General Election--Mr. Mill and Mr. Gladstone--Result of the
Polls--Fictitious Prosperity of Trade--The Rinderpest--Suggestions
of the Commissioners--Inaction of the Government--Spread of the
Disease--The Fenian Conspiracy--Its Constitution--Lord Wodehouse's
Measures--Raid upon the Office of the _Irish People_--Stephens the
Head-Centre--His Arrest and Escape from Richmond Gaol--The Special
Commission--Trial of Luby--Documents and Informers--Obituary of the
Year--Lord Palmerston and Mr. Cobden.
When Parliament met for the Session of 1865 the Lord Chancellor truly
described in a few words the state of Great Britain. "Her Majesty," said
the Queen's Speech, "commands us to inform you that the general state of
the country is satisfactory, and that the revenue realises its estimated
amount." In truth, the opening of the year was as calm, both at home and
abroad, as could possibly be, excepting the echoes of storm that still
continued to be heard in the West. India was prosperous, save for the
cyclone that broke over Calcutta a few months before. In one only of the
colonies, New Zealand, was anything visibly disturbed, and there the Maori
war seemed to have passed its climax. At home, Lancashire distress had
abated; the harvest had been good; the public purse was full. Everybody,
so far as politics was concerned, was waiting quietly for the dissolution
of Parliament, for which, as Lord Derby said, "all its experienced
advisers could do was to find it some gentle occupation, and take care
that its dying moments were not disturbed by any unnecessary excitement."
In financial matters, before Mr. Gladstone brought forward his Budget,
there had been two important debates in the House of Commons which bore
upon it. The first was that on a resolution moved by Sir Fitzroy Kelly,
afterwards Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer, to the effect, "That in
any future remission of indirect taxation, this House should take into
consideration the duty on malt, with a view to its immediate reduction
and ultimate repeal." The malt duty, from which at that time the revenue
received six or seven millions sterling a year, had always been more or
less of a grievance to the agriculturists; and the representatives of
agricultural constituencies were ever ready to argue against it. Sir
F. Kelly and his supporters--Sir E. B. Lytton, the novelist, being his
seconder--brought forward several plausible arguments for his motion,
principally selected or parodied from the grammar of Free Trade. But
Mr. Neate, the member for Oxford, always notable in the House for the
crotchety cleverness with which he handled questions of political economy,
turned the tables upon the landed interest by an amendment. He moved,
"That considering the immunities from taxation now enjoyed by the owners
and occupiers of land, they are not entitled to any special consideration
on account of the pecuniary pressure of the malt tax; and that if, on
other grounds, that tax should be reduced or abolished, compensation to
the revenue should be sought, in the first instance, by withdrawing from
landed property the advantage it now has in the shape of total exemption
from probate duty, and partial exemption from succession duty and income
tax." This, however, the House of Commons could not stand; it was too
much, at least for an unreformed Parliament. The supporters of the
Government--especially Mr. Milner Gibson, who was its spokesman--contented
themselves with attacking the resolution and left the amendment alone. The
question was met on two grounds--first, that the revenue could not afford
to do without it; and secondly, that though malt was a raw material,
stimulants and their components were fit subjects for taxation. Sir
Fitzroy Kelly's motion was rejected, the previous question having been
carried by a majority of 251 to 170.
The other point in which it was proposed to give an instruction to
the Government as to the disposal of part of the surplus was Mr. R.
B. Sheridan's motion for extending last year's remission of the fire
insurance duty to "houses, household goods, and all descriptions of
insurable property." This resolution was carried by a large majority,
though the Chancellor of the Exchequer opposed it, thinking it rash
to bind the Government to any special course before the exact surplus
was known. The vote secured that Mr. Gladstone should carry out the
reduction in question in his Budget. When the day came for the Budget
to be presented, Mr. Gladstone found himself, as usual, in the presence
of a crowded and eager House. He did not disappoint his hearers. His
Budget speech was, in the words of one of his admirers, one of those
"deliverances, crammed with arithmetic and argument, epigram and
eloquence, figures and fancy," which he and no other Finance Minister
that ever lived in England knew well how to give. In this instance Mr.
Gladstone had an unusual opportunity for effective display, from the fact
of Parliament having arrived at the end of its existence; he had five
previous years spread out before him for review, and could strike out
brilliant comparisons and draw large inferences at his pleasure. Some
of his figures may be given. He said that the actual expenditure of the
year that had just elapsed was £65,951,000, a reduction of £1,514,000
upon the first year of that Parliament and that Ministry, and a reduction
of £6,547,000 upon the year 1860-61, when the alarms consequent on the
Italian War had caused us to spend vast sums upon the army and navy. As
to a comparison between revenue and expenditure, he found himself with
a surplus in hand of £3,231,000. Customs, Excise, and all other great
heads of revenue had given more than their estimated amount, Excise
especially yielding a million and a half of increase. The prosperity of
the country he tested on an even larger scale than this, by a comparison
of annual revenues during the last twenty-five years; and showed that
whereas the average growth of the revenue from year to year, from 1840
to 1852, was £1,030,000, the same growth was, from 1853 to 1859, at the
rate of £1,240,000, and from 1859 to 1865 at the rate of £1,780,000. The
paper trade, in spite of the outcry of the papermakers when he abolished
the duty, was increasing, the amount of raw material imported in 1865
being exactly five times what it had been in 1859. The trade with France,
thanks to Mr. Cobden's Commercial Treaty, had doubled in five years. The
total amount of exports during the year ending September 30, 1864, was
£487,000,000, an increase of £219,000,000 since 1854. In other words, the
export trade of the country had nearly doubled in ten years. To all this
encouraging retrospect Mr. Gladstone added his own gifts for the future.
He had a large surplus to dispose of, and what was he to do with it? As
he said, there are always "crowds of hungry claimants" for a surplus;
everybody who suffers from a tax that his neighbours are exempt from
thinks he suffers an injustice and struggles to get it redressed. It is
enough to say that the malt tax was not touched; and that the duty on
tea was lessened by sixpence per pound, and the income tax lowered from
sixpence to fourpence in the pound. It is needless to add that these
reductions were received with gladness by the House and the country,
though the irrepressible malt tax repealers felt themselves hardly used.
The other two important financial statements were, of course, those made
in moving the Army and Navy Estimates. Of neither is there very much that
needs to be recorded. The Marquis of Hartington showed great clearness
of head and general administrative ability in moving the Army Estimates;
but he had little to say except to move for a reduction of 4,000 men in
the establishment. The alarm of 1860 had passed away, and the alarm of
1870 had not come; so there was neither increase nor re-organisation to
be accomplished. The only difficulty with which Lord Hartington had to
deal was the everlasting gun question, new phases of which were always
demanding full consideration. Similarly with the navy, for which a little
over ten millions were voted, there was to be a reduction, especially in
the coastguard and marines; and fresh ships were also to be built on fresh
models. Lord Clarence Paget, who moved the Estimates, pronounced himself
satisfied with the efficiency and discipline of the service; and the House
generally agreed with him.
Turning from finance to the other departments of public business, one
is not surprised to find that in the last Session of an old Parliament,
with Lord Palmerston still living and directing its course, but little
positive legislation was accomplished. An expiring Parliament is never
fertile: it produces infant measures, but has not the force to bring them
to maturity; and in the consciousness of approaching death, it makes its
peace with the future by recording good resolutions. Lord Palmerston, too,
in the last year of his life, showed no intention of departing from his
well-known home policy--namely, to let things be ever doing, never done.
Thus it happens that the history of the Session of 1865 reads like a table
of contents of the five or six Sessions that followed it. Almost all the
important questions that were afterwards solved, or at least handled,
by the Government of Mr. Gladstone, were brought forward, discussed,
and left unanswered in 1865. The Irish land question was touched upon,
in a debate on a motion of Mr. Pope Hennessy, at the beginning of the
Session, and discussed at length on Mr. Maguire's moving, on March 31st,
for a select committee. The Irish Church question was raised by Mr.
Dillwyn, and the debate which followed was remarkable as extracting from
Mr. Gladstone a clear statement of the views that he afterwards put into
effect. Mr. Berkeley brought forward his Ballot Bill, but in vain. The
Test question was raised by Mr. Goschen. National Education, both in
England and Ireland, was before the House of Commons in two important
debates. The O'Donoghue moved an Address to the Crown referring to the
question of University Education for Ireland. And lastly, Mr. Baines took
the feeling of the House on the question, soon to become all-important,
of Parliamentary Reform. Besides these, which may be called premonitory
symptoms of future legislation, there was, of course, a good deal of
important but unpretending work accomplished, which we may shortly record.
But first it will be worth while to dwell for a moment upon one of the
abortive measures, that of Mr. Baines, the highly respected member for
Leeds.
[Illustration: CONFEDERATE RAID INTO VERMONT. (_See p._ 362.)]
The main object of Mr. Baines' Bill was substantially the same as that
of the Government Bill of the next year--namely, to reduce the limit of
the borough franchise from a rental of £10 _per annum_, where it had
been fixed by the Reform Bill of 1832, to a rental of £6. The measure
was, as we said, abortive; its introduction seems indeed to have been
only intended to stimulate popular interest in the question of Reform;
but the debate has become historical from the great speech in which Mr.
Robert Lowe, member for Calne, in Wiltshire, passed at once and beyond
all question from the second to the front rank of Parliamentary orators.
Mr. Lowe had chosen his opportunity well. In proportion to the popular
interest in the question, in proportion to the shortness of its own
remaining life, was the dislike of the existing House of Commons to the
very name of Reform. Hence from the Whig as well as from the Conservative
benches--from all, in fact, except the benches below the gangway on the
Liberal side--the cheers rang out as Mr. Lowe, the most impartial of
cynics, the narrowest of utilitarians, a Liberal without enthusiasm, a
Tory without prejudices, delivered the first of his famous philippics
against the democracy of the future. The line of argument that he adopted
was, first, to show the vanity of any assumption of an abstract right
of all men to have a share in their own government--in other words, to
establish one standard by which questions of this kind were to be judged,
namely, the standard of public utility; and next, to show that in this
case public utility demanded that the qualifications for the franchise
should remain as they were. "If these abstract rights to a vote exist,"
said Mr. Lowe, "they are as much the property of the Australian savage and
the Hottentot of the Cape as of the educated and refined Englishman. Those
abstract rights are constantly invoked for the destruction of society and
the overthrow of government, but they can never be successfully invoked
as a foundation upon which government may securely rest." This kind of
protest against the doctrine of "abstract rights" was followed by a
series of illustrations, immensely relished by the House, of the evils of
democracy in other countries and of the ruin it would bring upon England.
Mr. Lowe attacked in turn "the sentimental argument," "the fatalistic
argument," and "the argument of necessity;" denying that the franchise,
when made cheap and vulgar, would elevate the working classes; denying
that sooner or later the upper class would have to give way; and denying
that the working classes were "thundering at the gates" of the upper class
and demanding admission with dangerous noise. The rest of the debate is
not specially memorable. Sir George Grey, speaking from the Treasury
bench, expressed the feelings of the Whigs when he declared, almost in
so many words, that the Government had not made up its mind and when he
implied that he at least approached the whole question with reluctance.
But, as we said above, not all the measures proposed in this Session
failed to be carried; one at least of great practical importance became
law. This was the Union Chargeability Bill, brought in by Mr. Villiers,
the President of the Poor Law Board. The object of this Bill was to
improve still further the working of the new Poor Law of 1834. The
principles of the law were, that while all necessitous persons had a
claim to relief, this relief was only to be given on conditions--namely,
in the case of the able-bodied, in exchange for labour, and this labour
to be given, not at the pauper's own home, but in the workhouse. The
increased importance of workhouses led to their being consolidated.
Instead of a separate and, probably, ill-appointed house in each parish,
a large and well-appointed house was established for Unions of parishes,
and these were to be under the control of properly elected guardians and
of a central office. It appeared from Mr. Villiers that, however well
this system had worked in general, much inequality was caused by the
overburdening of some parishes, and the inducement which the landowners
and occupiers in some others had to drive away the poor. Hence followed a
capricious distribution of the burden of the rates. Mr. Villiers proposed
the simple plan--a plan, however, strongly opposed by the strenuous
defenders of the strict parochial system--that the Union fund should for
the future have to support all the poor within the Union, so that where
its administration reached its charges should reach too. This very simple
and just measure, denounced by some and applauded by others as the first
step towards a system of national rating, was a good deal opposed by
members of the Conservative party, but was finally carried both through
the Commons and the Lords by considerable majorities. Mr. Villiers
acknowledged that he proposed it as an instalment towards the removal of
"settlement" altogether--that is, towards allowing a pauper to claim to
be taken in to any workhouse, no matter what his domicile or "settlement"
might be. Few other measures of importance passed into law during this
Session. One at least, however, was important enough: this was the Bill
for the concentration of the courts of justice into one great building,
the site indicated by the promoters being either one on the Thames
Embankment, near the Temple, or the space of ground between the Strand
and Lincoln's Inn Fields. The proposal was received with satisfaction by
the House, the lawyers, and the country; and every sane man was gratified
at the thought that English law would be at last administered in courts
that were properly built and decently ventilated. Only a few objectors,
led by Lord St. Leonards, found fault with the proposal for paying the
cost of the building out of the accumulated "Suitors' Fund" in Chancery.
It was thought, however, that the great public convenience to be gained
amply justified the wrong done to purely imaginary sufferers. The Bill was
passed, and, as all Londoners know, the Carey Street site, between the
Strand and Lincoln's Inn, was decided upon. But, as is equally well known,
beyond choosing the site and demolishing the houses upon it, and selecting
a plan to be modified periodically, nothing was done for many years. In
due course, however, the Royal Palace of Justice was completed and opened
in November, 1882. Greenwich Hospital was also reformed in this Session. A
Public Schools Bill was brought forward, but postponed.
This year was a quiet one in the religious world. In the course of it
several interesting measures relating to religious tests and subscriptions
were brought into Parliament; and though in the end little or nothing was
done towards a practical settlement of the questions raised, still public
attention was kept alive to them and to the importance of the convictions
and feelings at issue. Thus regarded, as steps in an inevitable road,
even abortive Reform Bills and Tests Bills lost in the Commons have
a lasting interest and value. The University Tests Bill of 1865 was
introduced by Mr. Goschen, then one of the members for the City of London,
and the motion for the second reading was seconded by Mr. Grant Duff.
The Bill, said Mr. Goschen, did not propose to admit Dissenters to the
governing body of the University, although it might lead to that result
eventually, but to enable degrees to be conferred without reference to
religious tests. It would also go beyond the Cambridge Act and give a
vote in Convocation; whilst it would admit to certain privileges and
emoluments, to obtain which under the present system the degree of Master
of Arts was an essential qualification. He could not believe that these
concessions would lower the tone or impair the prestige of Oxford. So
far from injuring the University, they would rather widen its basis and
make it more useful and acceptable to the country, for he was convinced
that no system could flourish that practically excluded one half the
population from their traditional seat of learning. In a short effective
speech Mr. Grant Duff gave three reasons for his support of the Bill: (1)
That it would be beneficial rather than hurtful to the Church; (2) that
it was an act of simple justice to the Dissenters, who had been from the
beginning of their history altogether excluded from the higher education
of England; (3) that it would be useful to the University, by enabling it
to understand more fully its duties to the nation and the proper scope
of its influence and training. But the time was not yet come for the
admission of the principle upon which these arguments were based. Lord
Cranborne and Mr. Gladstone, alarmed by certain conclusions advanced in
Mr. Goschen's speech and persuaded that the effect of the Bill would be to
give over the government of the University to Dissenters, offered a warm
opposition to it. The promoters of the Bill, said Mr. Gladstone, openly
avowed their desire to separate education from religion, and that was a
principle to which he was resolutely opposed. Mr. Gathorne Hardy and Mr.
Henley followed suit. Finally, Lord Cranborne's amendment--that the Bill
should be adjourned for six months--was negatived by 206 votes to 190.
But it was felt that with so small a majority it was useless to push the
Bill any farther. If such was the temper of the Commons it was well known
that the Lords would make short work of it and the measure was temporarily
abandoned.
The Roman Catholic Oaths Bill again brought forward the subject of
religious tests, only, however, to afford another triumph to religious
conservatism. The object of Mr. Monsell, its introducer, was to alter
the form of the oath required from Roman Catholic members of Parliament
under the Relief Act of 1829, and to substitute for it the simple oath
of the Queen's supremacy. The oath as administered under that Act
required a Roman Catholic member to swear that he renounced, rejected,
and abjured the doctrine that princes excommunicated or deposed by the
Pope or any authority of the See of Rome might be deposed or murdered by
their subjects or by any person whatever; that he disclaimed, disavowed,
and abjured any intention to subvert the Established Church; and that he
would never disturb or weaken the Protestant religion, or the Protestant
Government in the United Kingdom. Such an oath, it was argued, was not an
anachronism; it was a grievance and a degradation. The oath was, indeed,
a remnant of the state of things before Catholic Emancipation, and there
could be no doubt that the just and liberal course would have been to
oblige all members of Parliament, without exception or variation, to take
a uniform oath. A strong and finally successful opposition, however,
was advanced. Mr. Whalley's and Mr. Newdegate's Protestant consciences
took the alarm; "in the interests of social and political order and the
peace of families," they felt themselves bound to resist the measure. Sir
George Grey, who supported the Bill, was taunted with his Ultramontane
leanings; and, according to Mr. Whiteside, the proposed change affected
the Constitution, the Church, and the property of the country! However,
by the help of Government support, given, said the Opposition, from
electioneering motives, the Bill was read a second time and successfully
maintained in committee. Substantially unaltered, it was sent up to the
Lords, where, however, a night's debate disposed of it. Lord Derby made
a long and powerful speech, appealing to every Tory cry and every Tory
prejudice, till the measure assumed such formidable proportions that it
frightened even its supporters. Lord Harrowby, Lord Chelmsford, and others
followed suit, and, in spite of the efforts on the Liberal side, the Bill
was lost on division by twenty-one votes.
A word of notice is called for by some other Parliamentary discussions
that took place this year on ecclesiastical matters; but as none led to
any practical result, they may be dismissed with a word. Mr. Dillwyn's
motion about the Irish Church has been already mentioned; it called forth,
as we have said, an emphatic declaration from Mr. Gladstone, and to that
declaration is to be traced, in a great measure, his rejection by Oxford
University. Mr. Newdegate attempted, but without success, to substitute
a rate of twopence in the pound on real property for the existing Church
rates. In the House of Lords Lord Lyttelton, with the approval of most
of the Bishops, proposed a resolution in favour of an increase of the
Episcopate--a subject always dear to the High Church party, but considered
by the Evangelical party to be of less importance than a development of
the parochial system. The dioceses of Exeter, Winchester, and London were
pointed to as those that ought to be relieved by the creation of new
bishoprics. The resolution, however, was not put to the vote, nor had it
any legislative result.
The end of the Session of 1865 was troubled by certain transactions
that caused great tribulation to the Government of Lord Palmerston and
proved fatal to the career of one of the highest officers of State. These
transactions are commonly grouped together under the name of "the Edmunds
scandal." The case of Mr. Edmunds was as follows:--In 1833 Lord Brougham,
at that time Lord Chancellor, had appointed Mr. Leonard Edmunds to the
post of Clerk of the Patents, at the salary of £400 a year, afterwards
increased to £600. In 1854 a quarrel took place between Mr. Edmunds and
Mr. Woodcroft, also an official of the Patent Office, and each charged
the other with irregularities, mismanagement, or worse. Two lawyers of
position--Mr. Hindmarch and Mr. Greenwood, both Queen's Counsel--were
appointed to make a full inquiry into the cross-accusations; and their
finding was adverse to Mr. Edmunds. The authorities, however, were lenient
enough to allow him to resign, on his repaying the sums due to the
Treasury. Then arose the question which brought Lord Chancellor Westbury
into his unfortunate position. Mr. Edmunds, as well as being clerk in
the Patent Office, was clerk in the House of Lords; and it was to his
evident interest to resign that post before rumours of his troubles in his
other office should reach the ears of the Parliament Office Committee and
defeat his chance of a pension. Accordingly the Lord Chancellor himself
presented Mr. Edmunds' petition; himself moved that the resignation
should be accepted and that the question of pension should be referred
to a select committee, of which he was to be one; and this without one
word of reference to the grave charges hanging over the head of Mr.
Edmunds. The select committee was appointed and recommended to the House
that a pension of £800 a year should be conferred on Mr. Edmunds; and
this recommendation the House adopted. Meanwhile, the Lord Chancellor
appointed his son, the Honourable Slingsby Bethell, to the post in the
House of Lords vacated by Mr. Edmunds. Before long, however, the floating
rumours about Mr. Edmunds' conduct in the Patent Office had caught the
public attention, and Lord Stanley expressed the general uneasiness about
the affair in some questions that he addressed to the Attorney-General
in the House of Commons. Next night the Lord Chancellor himself took up
the matter and, courting inquiry, moved for the appointment of a select
committee to examine all the circumstances. The committee sat; reported
that the charges against Mr. Edmunds were fully proved by evidence; and,
by a majority of one, gave it as their opinion that the Lord Chancellor
had failed in his duty when he presented Mr. Edmunds' petition without
informing the committee of the facts of the case. But, by way of softening
their censure, the select committee added, "that they had no reason
to believe that the Lord Chancellor was influenced by any unworthy or
unbecoming motives in thus abstaining from giving any information to the
before-mentioned committee."
[Illustration: THE FOREIGN OFFICE, LONDON, FROM ST. JAMES'S PARK.]
Upon this, the House revoked Mr. Edmunds' pension and there apparently
the matter ended. The committee had not condemned the Lord Chancellor;
his position remained as before; and yet everybody felt uncomfortable.
Hence it was in no lenient mind that the public heard rumours of a fresh
scandal, touching the Lord Chancellor still more nearly, in the matter
of certain appointments in the Leeds Bankruptcy Court, which Mr. Ferrand
brought before the House. The appointment of a select committee followed,
and five members were chosen, with Mr. Howes for chairman, to inquire
into the whole affair. The result of their investigations, during which
all the persons concerned, including the Lord Chancellor, were examined,
was to bring to light a most lamentable state of things, the principal
facts being the following:--Mr. Wilde, the Registrar of the Leeds Court of
Bankruptcy, had been charged, in the year 1864, with improperly passing
the accounts of his subordinates, and with borrowing money of them "to
the destruction of his independence and efficiency." The Lord Chancellor,
through Mr. Miller, the Chief Registrar, called upon him, in May, 1864,
to explain the charges; but apparently no satisfactory explanation was
forthcoming, for, on the 26th of June, Mr. Miller, by order of the
Chancellor, wrote to Mr. Wilde, offering him in a peremptory way the
option of resignation, or of appearing in open court to show cause why he
should not be dismissed. But Mr. Miller added, without the Chancellor's
authorisation, that if Mr. Wilde chose to resign upon a medical
certificate, he might perhaps claim a pension; and he took the hint. Mr.
Wilde was allowed to retire on a pension, and Mr. Welch was appointed by
Lord Westbury to the office he had resigned. Now Mr. Welch was a friend
of Mr. Richard Bethell; he was a barrister on the Northern Circuit, and
he had money; Mr. Bethell, on the other hand, had, in the month of May,
been compelled by his father to resign his post as Registrar in Bankruptcy
on account of debt, and money was of importance to him. Here came the
scandal. A certain Reverend George Harding gave his evidence before the
committee to the effect that, in May, 1864, an arrangement had been made
between himself, Mr. Welch, and Mr. Richard Bethell, of the following
nature. Mr. Welch was to give Mr. Bethell £500 for his good influences
with his father, the Lord Chancellor, and a further £1,000 on receipt of
an appointment, one-third of this latter sum to go to Mr. Harding as his
share in the transaction. In February, 1865, after Mr. Bethell had been
for some time abroad, his claims for a new office were pressed on the
Chancellor by Mr. Miller; and hopes were held out that Mr. Welch might be
transferred to London, and Mr. Bethell appointed to Leeds. Presuming on
this, he went down to Leeds on the 24th, and talked to the officials as
if the arrangements were concluded, but meanwhile the Lord Chancellor had
changed his mind, and did not appoint his son. The report of the select
committee acquitted the Lord Chancellor "from all charge except that of
haste and want of caution in granting a pension to Mr. Wilde;" but it went
on to say that the inquiry had been a most necessary one. The newspapers
were immediately filled with criticisms of the Chancellor's conduct; but
Parliament was just about to be prorogued and it was generally supposed
that he was to be left free from authoritative censure. But just before
the prorogation a motion on the matter was put on the notice-book of
the House of Commons by Mr. Ward Hunt, member for Northamptonshire, and
afterwards Mr. Disraeli's Chancellor of the Exchequer. He proposed that
the Lord Chancellor should be compelled to resign; and a lively debate
ensued on the question whether, on the one side, scandalous blunders in
the matter of patronage were to be held a capital offence, or whether,
on the other side, the blunders were to be held venial and condoned by
a comparison of them with the Chancellor's services and successes. The
debate ended in the adoption, after the Government had been defeated on
the question of adjournment, by a majority of 14 in a House of 340, of
an amendment, proposed by Mr. Bouverie, substantially the original vote
of censure clothed in milder terms. The next day Lord Westbury resigned,
and on the day after made a farewell statement in the House of Lords--a
statement in which a genuine contempt for the majority which had condemned
him was veiled by language of the most respectful submission. He passed
from the Woolsack, to be succeeded by Lord Cranworth, Chancellor for the
second time; and the public career of one of the greatest of law reformers
closed in disgrace.
A scandal of this kind was by no means a pleasant end to the life of a
Parliament, and for the Government by no means a pleasant prelude to a
general election. But it cannot be said that public feeling was very
deeply or very generally stirred. There was no question of deciding
upon the life or death of a Ministry; it was a "natural dissolution;"
Parliament had died of old age, and not by the violent hands of a
defeated Minister. So most of the constituencies fought out their battles
quietly and uneventfully; the Liberals making Reform their war cry, and
the Conservatives making answer that Reform was neither necessary nor
expedient. It was generally expected that Lord Palmerston's Government
would have a considerable majority. Only two contests were looked upon
with a very high degree of interest--that for the University of Oxford,
where Mr. Gladstone was opposed by Mr. Gathorne Hardy; and that for
Westminster, where Mr. John Stuart Mill came forward as a candidate. It
was almost the first time, perhaps the very first time, in English history
that a philosophical and economical writer of the first rank had come
forward to ask for the vote of a constituency solely on the ground of his
writings. A large committee was formed, including most of the leading
Liberal names in England, to carry him into Parliament at no expense to
himself. The exertions of his admirers, the novelty of the experience, and
the influence of Mr. Mill's own dignified presence, seen as it was by so
many for the first time, carried him to his seat. But enthusiasm for an
idea does not hold its ground for very long in England, and thus it came
to pass that at the general election of 1868 Mr. Mill was sent back again
to private life.
The other election which concentrated public attention was that for
the Oxford University. Mr. Gladstone had represented that exceptional
constituency for eighteen years, though many attempts had been made to
remove him from his seat, as from time to time his opinions showed fresh
divergence from those of his youth. On this occasion a powerful opponent
was brought forward in Mr. Gathorne Hardy, one of the most influential
members of the Conservative party. The constituency of the University was
composed of the members of its Convocation--that is, of all persons who
had taken a degree not lower than that of Master of Arts, and who retained
their names on the register by certain payments. In this election, for
the first time, it was legal to use voting-papers, which enabled members
to vote without coming up to Oxford to record their votes in person. This
provision, passed only in the last Parliament, was fatal to Mr. Gladstone.
His Liberalism, supposed to be extreme, and believed to favour views
not wholly adverse to the disestablishment of State Churches, cost him
his seat. He was beaten by Mr. Hardy by a majority of 180, the numbers
being--Hardy 1,904, Gladstone 1,724. Mr. Gladstone took his farewell of
the University in an address that expressed his "profound and lasting
gratitude" for its support during the "arduous connection of eighteen
years." The very night of his defeat, he owned, in the Liverpool
Amphitheatre, that he had "clung to the representation of the University
with desperate fondness." That day, the 18th of July, was typical of
the whole of his life. He stood, to use words of his own, between the
"ancient, great, and venerable University" and the "hives of teeming
enterprise." He went from Oxford to South Lancashire, and after a campaign
of magnificent speech-making, was returned by a narrow majority. We shall
have to record, in the history of the next election, his subsequent
loss of the same seat; but that loss mattered comparatively little. The
real turning-point in his political career, and in the history of his
party, was his rejection for Oxford University. From that moment he was,
politically speaking, another man.
The total result of the elections was the return of 367 Liberals and 290
Conservatives--a gain of nearly fifty votes to the former party. It will
be seen, however, that a large number of those who described themselves
as Liberals soon showed their dissent from the policy of the Liberal
Government; so that the majority was in reality very much smaller than
might have been supposed. The political history of the year ends with
the elections. From July to December political passions slept, political
voices were dumb; only the Cabinet were at work on the questions of the
next year--questions which, after Lord Palmerston's death, became more
pressing and important.
Trade and finance were prosperous during this year, though the cotton
market had not quite recovered from the shock of the American War. It
had, however, partially recovered; and to the manner of its recovery,
indeed, is to be indirectly traced much of the disastrous panic of 1866.
The history of that panic will be told in a future chapter; at present
we may remark that the stoppage of the American supplies caused first
of all a stoppage, more or less complete, of English trade; that a new
cotton supply was looked for from India, and that hence new and various
channels were opened for trade; that thus arose all kinds of feverish,
unsteady, and unwise speculation, the newspapers being crowded with daily
advertisements of new enterprises, many of them on a gigantic scale.
For this year, all went well. Two hundred and eighty-seven new "Limited
Liability" companies were started, embracing every kind of undertaking,
from the negotiation of foreign loans to the manufacture of an improved
blacking. Everybody turned investor. The price of Consols went down
from 91³⁄₈ in April to 86³⁄₄ in December, showing that where so many
profitable investments were open, people would not buy stock which would
pay them only three per cent. In a word, everything looked well, and every
one was busy; the crash was as yet far distant, and all had their fortunes
to make.
The general prosperity of the country received, however, a severe blow in
the outbreak of the cattle plague, which first appeared in June in this
year; but by the end of December had carried off more than forty thousand
head of cattle. The disease, which was in a high degree contagious, was
that known in Germany under the name of _Rinderpest;_ and all that was
ascertained of its origin is told in the admirable First Report of the
Royal Commissioners (Lord Cranborne, Mr. Lowe, Dr. Lyon Playfair, and
several others) who were appointed to investigate it. Two English cows,
says the report, were purchased at the Islington Cattle Market on the 19th
of June, and on the 27th a veterinary surgeon first noticed symptoms of
disease in them. They were in the shed of the cowkeeper who had bought
them. Two Dutch cows, bought at the same time and place, were also taken
with the disease in another shed. Immediately afterwards, the plague--for
it had become a plague--broke out in numerous London sheds, and spread
very fast and very destructively. The Islington cowkeeper lost her whole
herd, ninety-three in number. In a very few weeks the disease had passed
out of London to nearly every county in England, and even to Scotland.
It had gone across the sea to Holland with some Dutch oxen that had been
sent for sale to the London market, but which were sent back again,
because they could not be sold at a remunerative price. Now, among the
foreign cattle that had been sold in the Metropolitan Cattle Market about
this time were some oxen from Revel on the Baltic; and it was shown that
some of these were ill at the time of their landing with what afterwards
proved to be the disease. But this, though not improbable in itself, was
considered by the Commissioners to be not proved; and they left it an open
question whether the plague had been imported this way or _viâ_ Holland.
Anyhow there was and is little doubt that the original home of the disease
is the steppe country of Southern Russia. Four times at least in previous
centuries had the plague, or one very similar to it, appeared in England;
the last attack--which continued for the twelve years from 1745 to 1757,
carrying off several hundred thousand cattle--formed a precedent of great
value for the guidance of the authorities in the present visitation.
The Commissioners found the only regulations in force to be certain
Orders in Council, published as a Consolidated Order in September, 1865,
under the authority of an Act of Parliament originally passed in 1848,
which gave to orders of the kind the force of law. This Consolidated
Order appointed inspectors, or caused them to be appointed by the local
authorities, gave these inspectors full power to enter any shed, etc., and
then and there destroy any infected animal; and made strict regulations
forbidding the transit of diseased animals, and closing the Metropolitan
Cattle Market, "except for purposes of immediate slaughter." This order,
as the Commissioners said, was good but insufficient. The report told
the country plainly that difficulties and sacrifices must be expected;
that London must import her meat dead and not alive; that the only way
to get rid of the disease quickly was to prevent the movement of cattle
absolutely. But at the same time such a prohibition would have been a very
serious step; it would have caused a sudden and alarming interruption in
trade and would probably have led to an evasion of the law. Hence the
Commissioners--though a majority of them ventured to recommend the total
stoppage of all movement of cattle as the best course--advised certain
alternative measures in case the difficulties of that course should be
found too great. These alternative recommendations forbade the transit
of lean or store stock, and imposed strict regulations on the movements
of fat stock for slaughter. The report also suggested great restrictions
on the importation of foreign cattle; such as that they should only be
allowed to land at certain ports, that the fat stock should be immediately
slaughtered, and that various forms of quarantine should be imposed upon
the stock not immediately meant for the butcher. For Ireland, where the
disease had not appeared, the Commissioners urged the extreme importance
of being prepared in case it should appear, and of being ready and able to
stamp it out.
These recommendations were, of course, open to the objection that the
measures they pointed to were centralising, imperial--in other words,
un-English. It was in vain that it was answered that it was the disease
which was un-English; that it was against the disease that the objection
lay and not against the recommendations. Lord Russell's Government knew
that the very breath of an Englishman's life is the liberty "to do
what he likes with his own." So the Ministry did what commended it to
the people, and what did less than nothing to check the disease. It
"empowered the local authorities." It gave to mayors of boroughs and to
the county quarter sessions certain powers, apparently extensive, really
very limited, towards hindering the plague. It did not even empower the
justices in quarter sessions to prevent the movement of sheep, or pigs,
or goats from place to place within their jurisdiction. The result was,
that the tradition of English liberty was preserved, and that the disease
spread like wild-fire. The first report of the Commissioners was dated
October 31, 1865; the orders followed very soon; and yet the number of
animals attacked, which had been 11,300 up to October 7, increased by
January 27 to 120,740. To mark the mortality from the disease it may be
observed that of these hundred and twenty thousand, only 14,162 are known
to have recovered. Although the fear of approaching contagion drove the
farmers to send unusually large numbers of cattle for slaughter--and,
therefore, the supply, instead of falling off, increased--the price
of meat rose enormously. Instead of eightpence or ninepence, tenpence
or a shilling became the common price for a pound of meat. With this
increase came a corresponding and more justifiable rise in the price
of milk, especially in London. The 7,000 cattle that had been attacked
in the London district up to the end of the year were almost entirely
milch-cows. Of course, an immediate rise in the price of milk followed
and a dislocation of the London milk trade. The dairymen became importers
instead of producers. The railways began to develop new facilities for
the carriage of milk from the country into London; and then were first
to be noticed on a large scale, trucks loaded with great broad-bottomed
cans bringing up the produce of the country meadows for the use of the
metropolis. No disinterested person can regret this at least among the
results of the plague.
Among the results of the American War, that which came home most rapidly
and strikingly to the English mind was the organisation of the Fenian
Conspiracy. Every American knows well the extent of the "Irish element"
in the United States. The end of the war threw hundreds of Irishmen out
of work. It mattered little whether they had fought for North or South;
hatred of "the Saxon," and the chance of making a display in the cause of
Erin, were strong bonds of union. Hence arose the Fenian Brotherhood--a
military conspiracy, with civil branches, having for its object "the
overthrow of the Queen's government in Ireland, and the establishment of
the Irish Republic." No one seems to know certainly the origin of the
name "Fenian;" but it is probably derived from "Fianna," the ancient Irish
militia. At all events, the name of the organisation was suggested by
John O'Mahony, of New York, a Celtic scholar of some repute, who had to
fly from Ireland, with his life in his hands, in "'48," for an abortive
attempt to excite the Tipperary peasantry to armed resistance. "There is
no time to be lost," wrote one of the leaders (John O'Leary, afterwards
editor of _The Irish People_); "this year--and let there be no mistake
about it--must be the year of action.... The flag of Ireland, of the Irish
Republic, must this year be raised." "I was told," said a witness at one
of the Fenian trials, "that arms were to be given to carry out those
objects.... They told me that the Fenians in Ireland were to be officered
by French officers; and since the war was over in America, that they were
to be officered by Federal officers." Again a Thomas Mooney wrote, "We
have an Irish leader in John O'Mahony, backed by 50,000 veteran Irish
soldiers in America ready for the word." These are a few indications,
taken at random from many documents that were produced at the trials of
various prisoners.
[Illustration: ARREST OF HEAD-CENTRE STEPHENS. (_See p._ 375.)]
In the possession of one of the convicted prisoners, by name Moore, a
blacksmith, was found a pamphlet containing the rules and by-laws of the
Fenian Brotherhood, from which the following passages are extracted. They
are sufficient to show that the abortive Fenian movement was a thing that
had been undertaken in earnest by serious men.
"CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAWS.
"1. _The Fenian Brotherhood._--The Fenian Brotherhood is a distinct and
independent organisation. It is composed, in the first place, of citizens
of the United States of America, of Irish birth and lineage; and in the
second place, of Irishmen, and of friends of Ireland, living elsewhere
on the American continent, and in the provinces of the British Empire
wherever situated. Its headquarters are, and shall be, within the limits
of the United States of America. Its members are bound together by the
following general pledge:--
"2. _General Pledge._--I [...] solemnly pledge my sacred word of honour as
a truthful and honest man, that I will labour with earnest zeal for the
liberation of Ireland from the yoke of England, and for the establishment
of a free and independent Government on the Irish soil; that I will
implicitly obey the commands of my superior officers in the Fenian
Brotherhood; that I will faithfully discharge my duties of membership
as laid down in the constitution and by-laws thereof; that I will do my
utmost to promote feelings of love, harmony, and kindly forbearance among
all Irishmen; and that I will foster, defend, and propagate the aforesaid
Fenian Brotherhood to the utmost of my power.
"3. _Form of Organisation._--The Fenian Brotherhood shall be subdivided
into state organisations, circles, and sub-circles. It shall be directed
and governed by a Head Centre, to direct the whole organisation; State
Centres, to direct state organisations; Centres, to direct circles; and
Sub-Centres to direct sub-circles. The Head Centre shall be assisted by a
central council of five; by a Central Treasurer, and Assistant Treasurer;
by a Central Corresponding Secretary, and a Central Recording Secretary;
and by such intermediate officers as the Head Centre may from time to time
deem necessary for the efficient working of the organisation.
"4. The Head Centre shall be elected annually by a general congress
of representatives of the Fenian Brotherhood, which congress shall be
composed of the State Centres and the Centres, together with elected
delegates from the several circles of the organisation--each circle in
good standing being entitled to elect one delegate."
This document is sufficient to show the kind of organisation and the
nature of the designs of the brotherhood. Although a prosecution had been
resolved upon before it came into the hands of the authorities, enough
was known to make severe measures not only justifiable, but necessary,
if Ireland was to be saved from civil war. Lord Wodehouse (afterwards
created Earl of Kimberley) was Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland at the time,
and the credit or responsibility of most of the measures taken rests
with him. The blow of authority first fell on the press. A paper called
_The Irish People_ had for some time been published in Dublin and widely
circulated, which made no secret that its design was to incite the people
of Ireland to insurrection and to a forcible severance of the union with
England. A Privy Council was held at the Castle on the evening of the
15th of September; Mr. Stronge, the Chief Magistrate, was instructed to
draw out warrants; a strong body of police was told off for sudden duty.
The warrants were given to the police and they were marched to Parliament
Street to the office of _The Irish People_. Ten persons were arrested
in the house, the principal of whom was O'Donovan Rossa; and an immense
amount of letters, printed papers, type, and numerous important lists
of Fenians were seized and carried off to the Castle yard. Very little
disturbance and absolutely no resistance ensued. Nor was any greater
difficulty encountered by the Cork police, who made a descent upon the
Fenians in that city at the same time. Indeed, the Irish police in general
showed themselves very active at this juncture and many of the southern
towns were the scene of interesting captures. Each important arrest led
to more, or gave a direction to the search, from the discovery of papers
compromising other people. One person, for instance, who gave his name
as Charles O'Connell, but whose real name was Rafferty, was arrested as
he entered Queenstown harbour in a steamer from New York. He had been an
American captain and his papers gave an illustration of the aid which
Fenian agents had received from officers of high rank on the Federal side.
There were at this time two Head Centres--one in the United States (John
O'Mahony), and one in Ireland (James Stephens). This latter--a personage
of the highest importance in the brotherhood--was known under many names;
his commonest designations being "J. Powell," and "James Stephens;" though
he occupied his comfortable house in the neighbourhood of Dublin under the
name of James Corbett. Stephens, it ought to be related, had passed three
years in the country previous to the establishment of _The Irish People_.
He had traversed and re-traversed the country in a variety of disguises
and under a cloud of _aliases_, sounding the peasantry as to their
readiness for rebellion and succeeding even in corrupting the loyalty
of small portions of the Irish regiments. He went so far as to try his
capacity for "organisation" by making overtures to the Orangemen of the
North, but his advances were coldly repelled. The movement, however, was
doomed to failure almost from its inception. When the long-threatened blow
was on the eve of being struck, discontent broke out amongst the rank and
file of the insurrectionary battalions. Hundreds of men who had worn the
American uniform were starving in the garrets and kennels of Dublin and
London; whilst the great Head Centre and financial fountain himself was
living in an extravagant manner. Disgusted at their treatment, about fifty
of the immigrants proposed to end the matter promptly by shooting him
and precipitating a rebellion on their own responsibility. Stephens was
warned of the plot and took steps to pacify his infuriated subordinates.
He distributed money amongst them freely and to this sudden outburst of
judicious liberality he probably owed his life. This generosity came
too late, for America unexpectedly ceased to send supplies and the old
murmurings broke out again with redoubled vehemence. This it was that
broke the back-bone of the conspiracy and saved Ireland from the horrors
of civil war. The police discovered that this James Corbett was the man
they were in search of and accordingly surrounded his house early one
morning. They met with little resistance, though Stephens and his friends
were well supplied with arms. In the same house with Stephens three
other prominent Fenians were arrested, one of them being the "Charles J.
Kickham" who had been looked for ever since the razzia upon _The Irish
People_ newspaper. When the prisoners were brought up for examination,
Stephens protested most indignantly against the very existence of the
law under which he was to be tried; he refused to take measures for his
defence and defied punishment. As it happened, and as perhaps he had
guessed beforehand, he never came in want of legal assistance or in danger
of punishment. "Bolts and bars could not hold him." He escaped from
Richmond Bridewell on the night of November 24, and no amount of police
activity or Government reward could secure his recapture. The naked truth
is, that at a meeting of the Fenian Secret Council, held in Townsend
Street, in Dublin, on the morning of November 22, it was decided to spend
£250 in rescuing the imprisoned chief. The service had been offered, the
reward was punctually paid, and the "General," as his followers called
him, was rescued from his gaolers. It was plainly impossible that an
escape of the kind, managed simply by unlocking seven of the prison doors
one after another, could have been effected without collusion with some
official or other. So Government thought, and suspended the governor of
the gaol, and got Byrne, the turnkey, committed for trial. But Stephens
never came back. It was not without reason that he had defied English
punishments.
But even though the Head Centre was lost, there were enough prisoners in
hand to make it necessary to try them by means of a Special Commission.
In this case the judges were Baron Fitzgerald and Justice Keogh--both of
them men of marked ability and neither likely to act with much leniency
towards convicted political prisoners. Their work lasted more than a
fortnight in Dublin; then they went to Cork; and then again returned to
Dublin, where it was several weeks before the work was over. An example
of the mode of trial and of the evidence produced may be found in the
case of Thomas Clarke Luby (a man whose father was a Senior Fellow and
who was himself a student of Trinity College), which was the first that
came before the court. Mr. Luby had been a registered proprietor of _The
Irish People_ newspaper, jointly, it appears, with O'Donovan Rossa.
Indeed, he was the foremost writer in that paper; to which Stephens,
during his entire connection with its _personnel_, contributed only one
sorry article, headed "Isle and Doom." So popular, however, did the
journal become amongst the disaffected classes that the older "National"
organs had reason to tremble for the security of their existence. Luby was
indicted for the crime of treason-felony--a crime newly created by Act
of Parliament. According to the Act that creates it, treason-felony may
consist of either or all of three offences--compassing or intending to
depose the Queen from her Royal authority as Queen of Great Britain and
Ireland; intending to levy war against the Queen in order to induce her to
change her measures; and conspiring to invite foreigners to invade this
realm. It was with these three offences that the prisoner was charged; the
Attorney-General for Ireland (Mr. Lawson) prosecuting him and Mr. Butt
defending him. The trial seems to have been meant chiefly as an exposure
of the nature of the conspiracy and this the evidence certainly effected.
Among the documents, perhaps the most important was a letter or commission
found in the prisoner's house at the time of his arrest, sealed with black
wax and addressed to "Miss Frazer." The police-sergeant who arrested Luby
opened this, though he was told it was "a private matter between Mrs. Luby
and a lady friend;" and he found it to be the following:--
"I hereby empower Thomas Clarke Luby, John O'Leary, and Charles J.
Kickham, a committee of organisation, or executive, with the same supreme
control over the home organisation--England, Ireland, and Scotland--that
I have exercised myself. I further empower them to appoint a committee
of appeal and judgment, the functions of which committee will be made
known to every member. Trusting to the patriotism and abilities of the
executive, I fully endorse their actions beforehand. I call on every man
in our ranks to support and be guided by them in all that concerns the
military brotherhood.
"J. Stephens."
Side by side with this document, which, while it incriminated Luby, threw
further light upon the proceedings of the Fenians, came the evidence of
the two informers, Pierce Nagle and Patrick Power. They were both Fenians;
Power at least had taken the Fenian oath, and Nagle "acted as a member
of the society, but did not take the oath." Nagle told of meetings of
the society, mostly near Clonmel; of intriguing in America, in which he
had had a part; of "swearing in" new brethren; and of Luby's complicity
with all this. He described the way in which the enumeration of members
was managed:--"Papers ruled in squares by means of perpendicular and
horizontal lines; the squares did not extend to the top, but there was a
blank space on which the name of the captain or B was entered; the squares
then showed how the captain, the sergeant or C, and the rank and file
or D, were armed, also the strength of the company.... A 'V' signified
a man armed with a rifle. If it was an inverted 'V,' it signified a man
armed with a gun or pistol. A stroke signified that a man was armed with
a pike. Where there was a circle, it signified a man--captain, sergeant,
or private--not armed at all." Farther on, Nagle described the mode of
enrolling:--"I myself enrolled ten or twelve into the society. The mode
of enrolling a member was, in the first instance, to administer the
oath, which in substance was, that the party should be a member of the
Irish Republic, now virtually established, and should be ready to take
up arms at a moment's notice." Again, "Cornelius Dwyer Keane reported
to Stephens that there were nearly 500 new men in the neighbourhood of
Clonakilty. Stephens said he did not know what he should do with the
number of men he had, there were so many of them." Evidence also was given
as to the manufacture of arms in Ireland, especially pikes. "Give bearer
fifty rods," said a note of the Head Centre; and "rods" was the pleasant
_alias_ of the formidable "pikes." Lastly, one more document was read at
Luby's trial from the packet addressed to "Miss Frazer." It contained
three resolutions, and was signed by the great John O'Mahony himself; the
first two being a pledge on the part of the American Fenians to get the
Irish Republic recognised by every free Government in the world; and a
declaration, "that the national organisation at present existing on Irish
soil is almost entirely owing to the devoted patriotism and indomitable
perseverance of its Head Centre." What was proved, then, in his trial (for
we have given the principal points of the evidence) was the existence of
a widespread conspiracy, having its roots in America and having for its
object the forcible extinction of British rule in Ireland. Luby, also,
was proved to have been a prominent conspirator. He was the first to be
found guilty and was sentenced--as were some others after him, though many
received less--to the punishment of twenty years' penal servitude.
Perhaps a greater number than usual of distinguished persons died in
1865. The names of Lord Palmerston and Mr. Cobden will occur to every
one. Of persons less widely famous, the English army lost one of its
patriarchs in Viscount Combermere, and one of its most distinguished
officers in General Sir George Brown; science lost Sir William Jackson
Hooker; and popular scientific enterprise Sir Joseph Paxton and Sir John
Richardson; the Roman Catholics of England lost their Cardinal Nicholas
Wiseman; and literature lost its distinguished sons Charles Waterton and
Isaac Taylor, and its still more distinguished daughter Mrs. Gaskell.
On the afternoon of the 18th of October in this year, the news arrived
in London of the death of Lord Palmerston, which had taken place that
morning at Brockett Hall, Hertfordshire. Had he lived two days longer,
he would have been eighty-one years of age; but for some months the
strength of the hale old man had been failing, and for a week it had
been pretty well known that the end was near. Lord Palmerston had been
for fifty years a personage of such importance in British and even
European politics, that his death, however much expected, was deeply felt
throughout all classes of English society. All alike regarded it as the
end of a political period. What was to follow, some looked on with hope,
others with dread, none with indifference. Still his genuine if somewhat
cynical patriotism was gratefully remembered. Just six months before his
own death, Lord Palmerston rose in Parliament to call attention to "the
great loss which the House and the country had sustained in the death
of Mr. Cobden." There was something strange and a little jarring in the
words of official praise in which the successful veteran spoke of the
merits of the simple, unobtrusive, yet greater man that was gone, though
he, too, had his limitations. More true, more touching, were the few
sentences in which his friend and brother-worker, Mr. Bright, told of his
own sorrow in Cobden's death; and all who read the words the next morning
felt a throb of sympathy. "Sir," he said, "I feel I cannot address the
House on this occasion, though every expression of sympathy has been most
grateful to my heart; but the time which has elapsed since I was present
when the manliest and gentlest spirit that ever actuated or tenanted a
human form took its flight is so short, that I dare not even attempt to
give utterance to the feelings by which I am oppressed. I shall leave it
to some calmer moment, when I may have an opportunity of stating to some
portion of my countrymen the lesson which I think may be learned from the
life and character of my friend. I have only to say now that, after twenty
years of the most intimate and the most brotherly friendship with him, I
little knew how much I loved him until I found that I had lost him."
[Illustration: RECEPTION OF THE FRENCH FLEET AT PORTSMOUTH. (_See p._
380.)]