unalterable. The impracticability and futility of such a policy become
more apparent and glaring as discussion and argument proceed. The
insanity of a scheme to create an independent Parliament in an island
inhabited by two races controlled by two religious creeds separated from
each other by an impassable abyss; the insoluble problem raised by such
a scheme as to the representation or non-representation of Ireland in
the British Parliament; the impossibility of guaranteeing effectually,
under any such scheme, justice to the Protestant minority, mainly
residing in Ulster; the endless and bitter conflicts which must arise
again, as they arose before, between the Irish and British Parliaments,
in addition to those which must surely arise between Irish and British
Administrations; the constitutional impossibility of establishing any
tribunal to pronounce authoritatively on the validity of laws passed by
either Parliament; the certain divergence of commercial and financial
policy to be followed by Ireland and Great Britain respectively; all
this Himalayan range of obstacles appears more utterly insuperable the
closer it is looked at, the more attentively it is studied. A conclusive
proof of the truth of these propositions is afforded by the impenetrable
reserve maintained by Mr. Gladstone and by all his colleagues even as to
the general form and outline of their Home Rule legislative project. The
formula which I have more than once expressed, that it is impossible to
put Home Rule into a Bill, is more rooted than ever in my mind; and even
if the Party of Repeal were to be furnished with ever so great a
majority at the coming General Election, that party is, I am convinced,
condemned to political impotence and sterility so long as they continue
to exhaust their energies in solving the insoluble, in accomplishing the
impossible.
After six years of trial and labour the Unionist Party return to the
country with a record of work and action cleaner and less open to
serious attack than any other political party which I have known or read
of in modern times. Ireland, on which country the last General Election
turned, which was pronounced by our opponents to be ungovernable by the
Parliament of the United Kingdom, is now simply and easily governed.
Ireland was agitated in 1886; it is calm in 1892. Ireland was distressed
in 1886; it is prosperous in 1892. No real grievance now oppresses and
irritates the Irish peasant, nor can persons possessing reason and
experience doubt that the energies and sense of a new Parliament, if
this Parliament is swayed by a Unionist majority, will be employed in
constructing a scheme of Local Government for the Irish people so broad
and generous that the last vestiges of difference, inequality,
inferiority (if such there still be), between Ireland and Great Britain
will be swept away.
Facts like these, written so largely on the history of the past six
years, cannot fail to strike and to arouse the common sense of the
British people as a whole; they must serve to dissipate the factious
fury of baffled opponents, to neutralise the allurements of innumerable
reckless and irredeemable promises. British electors at the present
moment are in duty bound to draw largely on their memories and to make a
very practical use of their experience. They cannot afford to forget or
to neglect the lessons they learnt from the anxious and even terrible
times which Ireland passed through during Mr. Gladstone’s former
administration. Remembering how gloomy and hopeless was the outlook, how
frantic were the popular rage and passion which during all those years
distracted and paralysed Ireland, how impotent were the measures of Mr.
Gladstone’s Government either to pacify or control; looking at Ireland
now, tranquil, materially prosperous, crime (ordinary and extraordinary)
reduced to an unprecedented minimum, the British electors must be
compelled to realise that an invaluable period, rarely in history
brighter, more full of justified hope and confidence, has at length,
after infinite difficulty, been attained, and that even to run the risk
of recurrence to former evils and perils would be an act of national
folly difficult to characterise, ominous of Imperial ruin. I do not
doubt but that South Paddington, in common with all other constituencies
where knowledge and political study extensively prevail, will pronounce
without hesitation in favour of the wisdom of the Unionist policy, of
the continuance in power of the Unionist Party.
My views as to the reforms in the public service which public safety and
economy alike urgently call for, are, I think, well known to you; they
have undergone no change, save that I hold them more strongly than ever.
You are also, I imagine, not unaware of my desire to meet with all
legitimate sympathy and good-will the newly-formed but very articulate
and well-defined demands of the labouring classes.
Thus recording my political faith, I trust that you may be willing and
satisfied to dispose of your political confidence as you have done in
former years since South Paddington became a separate borough, and that
I may be enabled again to serve in Parliament our constituency and the
country.
I have the honour to be
Your obedient servant,
RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.
2 Connaught Place, W.: June 21, 1892.
VI
_PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE_
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL’S LETTER TO MR. SPEAKER AND HIS CORRESPONDENCE
WITH MR. GLADSTONE IN 1886.
_Lord Randolph Churchill to the Speaker._
Treasury Chambers, Whitehall, S.W.: Nov. 30, 1886.
Dear Mr. Speaker,--I venture to submit to you for your information
and consideration, the result of the deliberations of the Committee
of the Cabinet on the question of Parliamentary Procedure.
It would be of the greatest possible advantage to me if I could
have the honour of an interview with you, in order to examine and
explain more fully than I could do by letter the effect and object
of the various rules proposed. In case you should be coming to town
before the 22nd or 23rd December and would make an appointment with
me, I would be happy to wait upon you at any time or place which
would be most convenient to you.
Two of the proposed new provisions especially concern the Chair:
1. The Closure of debate. (Rule No. 1.)
2. Motions for adjournment of the House at question time. (Rule No.
6.)
On the first these have been my views: The length of debate is
essentially a question of ‘order.’ The Chair is the only judge of
‘order.’ By the present rule an unfair responsibility is thrown
upon the Chair, in that the initiative with regard to Closure is
thrown upon it, which initiative has to undergo the ordeal of a
vote of the House. It is difficult and almost impracticable for the
Chair to possess the information with regard to the proper time for
the exercise of the initiative, without which action in the
direction of Closure would be unsafe.
The Government propose to give the initiative of any Closure motion
to the House, and a veto to the Chair with respect to receiving and
putting such a motion. The Chair, under this provision, is not only
the protector of fair and orderly debate (its chief function), but
also guards against abuse of the Closure rule from motives of
frivolity, obstruction, haste or tyranny. Nor can the decisions of
the Chair be questioned or overruled, for no question is put to the
House unless with the permission of the Chair.
Further, in the event of the House agreeing to the proposal, the
association of the Chair with the exercise of the closing power
will have been, for a second time, deliberately affirmed. This is a
far better and more durable protection for minorities than any
arrangement of numbers. An extreme and violent Government in
office, supported by a powerful majority, would very soon make
short work of any protective arrangement of proportionate
majorities which might prove embarrassing to them. It would be a
much more difficult matter to dissociate and exclude the Chair from
all connection with, or control over, the Closure after that
Parliament had on two occasions laid down a contrary principle.
Speaking generally, this Closure (as per enclosed) is aimed at
persistent, deliberate, wilful obstruction. The Speaker can at any
time permit an appeal to the House by a member, or a Minister, as
to whether such obstruction is or is not being resorted to. This
Closure is also designed to facilitate and render possible earlier
hours of session and prevent unnecessary, stupid and perverse
‘talking out.’
In respect of Rule 6 (adjournment of House at question time):
After much anxious consideration I see no alternative to total
abolition of the power of moving such adjournment, except the
method proposed in the paper--of making the Chair the judge whether
the subject to be discussed on adjournment motion is of such
cardinal importance as to justify the postponement of the regular
assigned business of the day. I imagine that the expression ‘urgent
matter of definite public importance’ would receive, under the new
arrangement, a strict and proper interpretation, and regard this
matter, as the former one, as primarily a question of ‘order.’
Please excuse this lengthy letter, and
Believe me to remain
Yours respectfully and faithfully,
RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.
The Right Hon. the Speaker.
_Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Gladstone._
_Confidential._
Treasury Chambers, Whitehall, S.W.: December 17, 1886.
Dear Sir,--By the desire of the First Lord of the Treasury I have
the honour to submit to you, for your information and convenience,
the draft of the alterations in the procedure of the House of
Commons which it is the intention of Her Majesty’s Government to
recommend to the consideration of the House next session.
I express the feelings of the Government when I assure you that in
the event of its being within your power, and in accordance with
your wishes, to offer any criticism or comment or suggestion on
these draft proposals prior to the meeting of Parliament, such
would be received and considered by the Government with every
respect and attention.
I may add that in the opinion of the Government the House of
Commons would do well to arrive at conclusions as to the reforms of
procedure before commencing the regular business of the session;
that it is with that object that Parliament has been summoned so
early in the year; and that the Government, as at present advised,
will press this course upon the House of Commons.
I have the honour to be
Your faithful servant,
RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.
The Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P.
_Mr. Gladstone to Lord Randolph Churchill._
_Confidential._
Hawarden Castle, Chester: December 18, ‘86.
My dear Lord,--I have to thank you for your courtesy in apprising
me at this early date of the particulars in which the Government
propose to amend the procedure of the House of Commons and of their
intention to give precedence to the subject.
In the last stages of this important matter, that of the present
year, I had but a minor concern, and I will therefore at once
communicate with Sir W. Harcourt, who represented principally the
late Administration on the Committee. The matter will remain
strictly confidential, and will not go beyond those of my late
colleagues who were specially concerned. In the meantime I do not
trouble you with any observations, but I thank you for your
obliging readiness to consider any suggestion which I may tender to
you.
I remain
Faithfully yours,
W. E. GLADSTONE.
Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
VII
_POLITICAL LETTERS OF LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL_
1884-1893.
_Freedom of Contract._
_Mr. Moore Bayley to Lord Randolph Churchill._
57 Colmore Row, Birmingham: March 22, 1884.
My Lord,--I am a Conservative and an elector of the borough of
Birmingham, and as such hope at no distant period to render your
lordship, as a Conservative candidate for this borough, whatever
political service lies in my power.
But before committing myself further in the compact that arose when
you were accepted as such Conservative candidate I should like to
know, as would a considerable number of political friends, how much
further your lordship’s views on the rights of contract proceed in
the direction expressed in your speech in the House of Commons when
you supported the second reading of Mr. Broadhurst’s Leaseholders
(Facilities of Purchase of Fee Simple) Bill.
The enactments of the present Government have in many particulars
so violated the rights of contract between subject and subject that
I am sure your lordship will not consider my request for
information unreasonable as to the extent you are willing to commit
your supporters in the furtherance of such like principles.
I remain
Yours obediently,
J. MOORE BAYLEY.
_Lord Randolph Churchill to Mr. Moore Bayley._
2 Connaught Place, W.: March 24, 1884.
Dear Sir,--I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the
22nd inst. In answer to your question as to my views on the rights
of contract I beg to inform you that where it can be clearly shown
that genuine freedom of contract exists I am quite averse to State
interference, so long as the contract in question may be either
moral or legal. I will never, however, be a party to wrong and
injustice, however much the banner of freedom of contract may be
waved for the purpose of scaring those who may wish to bring
relief. The good of the State, in my opinion, stands far above
freedom of contract; and when these two forces clash, the latter
will have to submit. If you will study the course of legislation
during the last fifty years, you will find that the Tory party have
interfered with and restricted quite as largely freedom of contract
as the Liberals have done. With respect to the two leading
instances of interference with freedom of contract during the
present Parliament, viz. the Irish Land Act and the Agricultural
Holdings Act, the Duke of Richmond’s Agricultural Commission and
the House of Lords must divide the responsibility for this
legislation with Mr. Gladstone’s Government. The latter had it in
their power to reject this legislation, and did not do so; the
former laid down the principles on which it was founded.
In comparison with legislation of that kind the compulsory
conversion of long leaseholds into freeholds in towns, full and
ample compensation being paid to the freeholder, is, as I called it
in my speech in the House of Commons, ‘a trifling matter.’
You will find the principle of this measure advocated in the
_British Quarterly Review_ five years ago (a very orthodox organ of
Tory doctrine). You will find the principle again contained in the
65th section of the Conveyancing Law and Properties Act, passed by
Lord Cairns in 1881. I may also add that Lord Cairns dealt a very
severe blow at the rights of owners of freehold property when he
gave to the courts of law power to protect leaseholders from
forfeiture for breaches of covenant.
Under all these circumstances I am inclined to think that you will
agree with me that all this outcry against the supporters of Mr.
Broadhurst’s Bill--this gabble about Socialism, Communism, and Mr.
George, &c.--is highly inconsistent and ridiculous, and betrays a
prevalence of very deplorable and shocking ignorance as to the
extent to which the rights of property can be tolerated, and the
relation of the State thereto.
I remain
Yours faithfully,
RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.
_Lord Randolph Churchill on Temperance._
_Private._
2 Connaught Place, W.: November 29, 1888.
My dear Sir,--I am extremely obliged to you for your interesting
letter, with a great deal of the contents of which I am disposed to
concur.
I think it would not be difficult to find a good many Conservatives
willing to make a considerable step towards a restrictive
regulation of the sale of alcoholic liquor.
The party with which you are connected ought, however, in my
opinion, to consider practically the question of compensation in
some form or other to the retail trader. I exclude compensation to
the brewers and distillers as an impracticable and impossible
demand. The retail trader stands on a very different footing, and
any glaring injustice towards him would alienate many who would
otherwise join the Temperance movement.
One good result of buying up retail liquor interests by charges on
the rates would be to give a permanence to any local decision in
favour of largely diminishing the number of or even abolishing
public-houses.
The community would be most indisposed, by any reversal of its
Temperance policy, to run the risk of having again to face fresh
compensation liabilities.
Caprice in popular decisions is a danger to be guarded against.
I shall continue from time to time to urge the importance of strong
dealing with the Licensing Question. I only trust that your party
will not take up the position of ‘everything or nothing,’ but, if
good proposals are made, will accept them--reserving to themselves,
of course, the right to continue their agitation for more.
We shall, however, not effect much against the publicans unless we
act vigorously in the direction of better houses for the poor. As
long as we allow such an immense portion of our population to live
in pigsties, the warmth and false cheerfulness of the public-house
will be largely sought after.
The two questions appear to me to be inseparable.
I shall always be very glad to talk over these matters with you
should you feel disposed for conference.
I am
Yours very faithfully,
RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.
James Whyte, Esq.,
United Kingdom Alliance.
_Lord Randolph Churchill on Home Rule._
2 Connaught Place, W.: February 10, 1891.
Dear Sir,--I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the
4th inst.
I am not at all surprised to learn that you, in common with, I
expect, the overwhelming majority of members of the English Home
Rule party, find yourself puzzled, embarrassed and anxious in
consequence of the recent very interesting disturbance of the
harmony of the Irish Home Rule party.
I have always been of opinion that, however attractive Home Rule
for Ireland might be in theory, it was an absolute impossibility to
put Home Rule into a Bill. You might just as well try to square the
circle.
The dispute between Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Parnell as to what took
place at what you call ‘the notorious interview at Hawarden’ brings
out this fact with exceeding clearness; and if you, and those who
agree with you politically, insist upon shutting your eyes rather
than contemplate a disagreeable truth, it will, I fear, be the sad
fate of your party to waste years of time and strength in fruitless
efforts to arrive at a solution of the hopeless problem ‘How to put
Home Rule into a Bill.’
You ask me, in conclusion, for my opinion as to what would be the
best policy for Ireland.
In reply I would refer you to several speeches which I have
delivered and letters which I have written in recent years, in
which I have declared my conviction that in a large, liberal,
generous and courageous development of Local Government in Ireland
on lines similar to those which have been so successfully followed
in this country and in Scotland, will be found the best and the
only prospect of political tranquillity for the Irish people.
I am
Yours faithfully,
RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.
John Ogilvy, Esq.
50 Grosvenor Square, W.: March 19, 1893.
My dear Sir,--In accordance with your wishes I write a few lines to
you for the County Longford Meeting which is to be held to-morrow.
It is a pleasure to me to offer my congratulations to the Unionists
of Longford on the energy and courage which they display in
publicly demonstrating, among a population apparently hostile,
their firm and tried attachment to the Parliamentary Union between
Ireland and Great Britain and their determination to resist all
efforts to sever that Union.
I used in the foregoing sentence the word ‘apparently’ for indeed I
do not believe that the bulk of the farmers and peasant farmers of
Ireland are by any means confident as to the blessings which are to
flow from Home Rule. I hear from many quarters, some of them of
great authority, that there is arising and spreading in the minds
of the Irish agricultural population an anxious doubt as to what
will be their position under an Irish Parliament and whether the
taxes which that Parliament will be forced to levy on income or on
land, will not be far more onerous and exhausting than the rents
they formerly paid to the landlords.
They will remember and reflect that under an Irish Parliament not
only will they be absolutely cut off, in times of difficulty and of
depression and of failure of crops, from all the sources of relief
which from the Imperial Parliament they can now confidently draw
upon and be assisted by; but they will be in the hands of a
Government which, from sheer financial exigencies, will be
compelled to treat the Irish taxpayer with the utmost rigour and
harshness, to lay upon him imposts heavier than he can bear, and to
exact relentlessly the payment of those imposts to the last
farthing and on the earliest day that they become due.
I think you may well impress upon the farmers and peasant farmers
the perfect security of property which they now enjoy under the
protection of the Imperial Parliament; the perfect freedom which
they possess from oppression of any kind, either from heavy
taxation or from the unjust exactions of a pauper Government and
Parliament; the great advantages in respect of their rentals
secured to them by the Imperial Parliament and the great facilities
afforded for the easy purchase of their freeholds by its
liberality, which opportunities under the Home Rule Parliament
will, from the squalid poverty of its resources, become illusory
and insecure and in time absorbed by the hopeless insolvency of the
Irish Government.
These are the great truths and facts which the loyal minority in
Irish counties can urge upon the farmers and the peasantry. The
Irish people, in respect of their material interests, have always
been bright and quick-witted; they will, with their ready
imagination, quickly discern that though it may be pleasant and
profitable to be represented in the Imperial Parliament by an
independent and numerically powerful party who can extract from the
British Exchequer and legislature no inconsiderable concessions to
Irish wants, necessities and demands, it will be a widely different
state of things when they (the Irish agricultural population) are
handed over, body and soul, tied and bound and without appeal, to
the uncontrolled domination of that ‘separate and independent’
party who--untrained in the art of just and economical government,
eager to enjoy at any cost, and even only for a brief period, the
profits of office and the delights of a reckless exercise of
patronage and power--will have given over to their insatiable
appetites the lives and properties of those who now exist and
flourish, in tolerable prosperity and in perfect safety, by the
cultivation of the Irish soil.
I have always been opposed to what is called ‘Home Rule’ more upon
the grounds that to the Irish people themselves it must bring
distress, poverty, misery and ruin, than on account of the dangers
it will entail upon the British Empire, though those dangers are
exceedingly great.
I trust that you may be able to continue with ardour and success
the patriotic and excellent work among the Irish people which you
inaugurate to-morrow; you may be sure that the full sympathy and
genuine support of a vast majority of the English people will
attend you in the struggle and you may be confident that the dark
and menacing thunder-cloud that now impends over your country,
almost turning Irish day into night, will soon be dissipated by
the brightness of a recurring dawn of a new era of peace and
prosperity for Ireland under the enlightened rule of a United
Imperial Parliament.
Believe me to be
Most faithfully yours,
RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.
J. M. Wilson, Esq.
VIII
_MR. JENNINGS’ ACCOUNT OF HIS QUARREL WITH LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL_
MARCH, 1890.
_Mr. Jennings’ Memorandum._
On Friday, the 7th of March, I called upon Lord Randolph Churchill,
to tell him my opinions with regard to the Resolution proposed by
the Government on the Report of the Special Commission. I told him
I thought some express reference should be made in the Resolution
to the emphatic acquittal of Mr. Parnell and his colleagues on what
I called the ‘murder charges,’ and gave him my reasons. With these
reasons he seemed to be much impressed, and after talking the
matter over he urged me _not_ to speak upon the main question, as I
intended, but to embody my ideas in an Amendment, for then the
Speaker could call upon me and I should have a recognised place in
the debate. Otherwise I might not be called upon at all, and have
no chance of speaking. I said that if any Amendment were drawn up,
it should be in the most moderate terms, so that it might avoid the
faults and disadvantages of Mr. Gladstone’s on the same subject. He
then went to his table and drew up the Amendment, saying, when he
handed it to me, ‘I think no one can object to this--there is not a
single adjective in it.’ We considered it well, and at one o’clock
or so I left him, asking him to turn the subject well over in his
mind before we met at the House and to let me know whether he was
still in favour of the Amendment. At a little after three we met in
the lobby, and he assured me that he was confident the Amendment
was the right thing, and that he did not see how any reasonable
objection could be made to it. I then went into the House, and
after Questions gave notice of the Amendment.
On Saturday night I dined with Lord R. and a party at the Junior
Carlton Club, but we did not have much conversation on the subject
until the end of the evening, when Lord Justice FitzGibbon came up
to us and condemned the Amendment. Lord R. then asked me to go to
his house the next morning, and talk the matter over with ‘Fitz.’ I
said that it was rather too late to ‘talk it over’ on the line
taken up by FitzGibbon, for I was committed to the Amendment and
intended to move it; that I should be very busy the next day, and
would rather be excused going to his house. But Lord R. pressed me
very earnestly to go and accordingly I did so.
On entering his room (Sunday, the 9th), FitzGibbon having been with
him some time before, Lord R. said: ‘I am sorry you put that
Amendment down; it is a mistake; can’t be defended.’ I was
astounded. ‘But,’ I said, ‘it is your own Amendment.’ ‘Yes,’ he
said coolly: ‘but I have changed my mind.’ I was silent a minute or
two, and then asked him to tell me why he had changed his mind.
‘FitzGibbon has been talking it over with me,’ he said, ‘and I am
sure he is right.’ ‘Then,’ I said, ‘I am sorry Lord Justice
FitzGibbon was not here last Friday morning.’ I listened to what
FitzGibbon had to say--it had all been in the papers before--and as
soon as I could, I left. I felt, however, much disheartened at
hearing the author of the Amendment which I had been induced to
move, denounce it as ‘all a mistake.’
The next evening (Monday) Lord Randolph’s brother-in-law (Lord
Curzon) came to me as I was sitting in the House and said he had
something important to say to me about the Amendment. We went
outside into the corridor by the library, and there he told me that
‘Randolph had made up his mind to stand altogether aloof from the
Amendment; he thought it would be best not to support it; he did
not see his way clear to have anything to do with it’--with more to
the same effect. I said: ‘What will people think of him? He has
himself told one of the newspaper correspondents that he intends to
speak and vote for the Amendment.’ ‘Yes,’ replied Lord Curzon,
‘that is the nuisance of his talking to those correspondents.’ I
said: ‘I know what _I_ shall think of his behaviour--first
Birmingham, and now _this_. You cannot doubt what my opinion will
be.’
I should have mentioned that earlier in the day Lord R. C. had
called me to his side in the smoking-room and said: ‘I shall
probably say something to-day on the main question, if I get a
chance.’ I did not quite see what he meant, and when afterwards he
went away (at dinner-time) without speaking I thought he had meant
nothing. Afterwards came Lord Curzon’s message, just referred to.
On the Tuesday, when the Amendment was to be moved, just as I was
going into the House, Lord Curzon again came to me, and said,
‘Randolph will not take any part in the debate unless you are
attacked.’ He added: ‘I cannot support you.’ I said but little, and
went into the House, quite determined to go on.
The House was crowded, and just before Questions were over R. C.
leaned back to me and said: ‘I am going to speak on the main
question.’ I asked him ‘When?’ ‘Now,’ he said. ‘How can you, after
one Amendment has been voted on?’ ‘It is all right,’ he said; ‘I
have arranged it with the Speaker.’ There was no time for
explanation or remonstrance. He was evidently quite determined, and
in a few moments the Speaker called upon him.
He then delivered a violent diatribe against the Government,
accusing them, in effect, of having called the forger Pigott into
existence--‘the bloody, rotten, ghastly fœtus, Pigott, Pigott,
Pigott’--pointing with his finger at the Ministry each time he
mentioned the name. He suggested the possibility of a Pigott being
employed against himself. While he was speaking several friends who
had intended to support me came to me and whispered that they could
not be identified with so outrageous an attack upon the Ministry.
‘You will be linked with it,’ said several of them. ‘Everybody will
believe that the entire programme to-night was arranged between
you.’
Smarting under the deliberate and treacherous manner in which I had
been thrown over, and at the utter want of consideration shown by a
leader for a follower placed _by_ that leader in a very responsible
and difficult position, I determined not to move the Amendment, and
to tell the House why I adopted that course. When R. C. sat down I
informed him that I should do this, and he made several attempts to
dissuade me. I was quite resolved, however, and am glad that I was
not induced to waver, although to throw up the Amendment was the
sorest disappointment I have ever had; and--for the time, at any
rate--the whole transaction has sickened me of political life.
L. J. J.
[I think it right to add to this memorandum the following note by Lord
Justice FitzGibbon.--W. S. C.]
‘Mr. Jennings’ memorandum seems to me to give an unduly unfavourable
impression of Lord Randolph’s action. Lord Randolph told me that when
Mr. Jennings first showed him the draft of the amendment he stated
plainly that he wished to take the whole responsibility for it, and
intended to move it whether Lord Randolph supported it or not.
Afterwards, at Connaught Place, on the day before the debate, the whole
subject was fully discussed by Lord Randolph, Jennings and myself, and
the conversation ended in a distinct statement by Lord Randolph to Mr.
Jennings that, on fuller consideration, he thought the amendment a
mistake, and that although he would not vote against it, he could not
speak in favour of it, but would speak upon the main question if he
spoke at all. His speech was, in substance, an examination of the
constitutional position which he had adopted, and a vindication of his
action in warning the Unionist leaders, two years before, of the dangers
and difficulties into which the Special Commission must lead them. When
I read the report of his speech in the _Times_, it seemed to me that,
but for the sudden loss of self-control indicated in the text, which, as
much by manner as by actual words, made it appear to be a bitter attack
upon the Government, it was conceived in a moderate tone. But, after
what had happened on the previous morning, I cannot understand how
Jennings could have imagined that there was a breach of faith with
him.’
IX
_LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL’S MEMORANDUM ON ARMY AND NAVY ADMINISTRATION_
_Included in the Report of Lord Hartington’s Commission, March 21,
1890._
The Royal Commission desires, I apprehend, to recommend to her Majesty’s
Ministers a system of government and management for the Army and the
Navy which shall appear to secure the _maximum_ of efficiency which can
be reasonably expected from normal expenditure on those services. By the
consent of all, under present arrangements, this _maximum_ has not been
attained.
The present system of administration of the services may be said to
date, for the Army, from 1855, and for the Navy from some twenty-five
years earlier. A Prime Minister forming a government allots to the
different offices members of Parliament of prominence and supposed
capacity. Thus it invariably happens that gentlemen are appointed to
exercise supreme control over the Army and Navy who possess no
experience or knowledge of the military or naval service and profession.
They are expected to decide general and technical questions of naval and
military policy, they are supposed to be held responsible for the
consequences of their decisions, and after a tenure of office, sometimes
of several months, sometimes of a few years, they are succeeded by other
gentlemen who take their places, provided with a similar lack of
experience and knowledge. The duties which these two Ministers are
expected to discharge involve scientific and economical provision for
the defensive and offensive power of an Empire whose possessions are
scattered all over the world and whose subjects number over three
hundred million souls.
It can hardly be a matter for surprise that such a system has not
altogether approximated to a satisfactory standard of combined
efficiency and economy. Governments and Parliaments have been untiring
in their pursuit after reform, but have as yet only succeeded in
progressively increasing public dissatisfaction and, simultaneously,
burdens on the taxpayer. The question seems to present itself whether
the time has not arrived for considering seriously and without prejudice
the expediency of a very radical change in our system of naval and
military administration. The object aimed at is the _maximum_ of
efficiency consistent with the amount of expenditure which the taxpayer
or his representatives will tolerate. Can any practical amount of
efficiency of administration be obtained without professional training
and knowledge? Can it be obtained without direct personal
responsibility? Can direct personal responsibility be reasonably
expected without professional control? The answer to these questions, I
submit, is obviously in the negative. Professional reputation to a
soldier or a sailor is everything next to life itself and the loss of it
equals professional ruin, entailing pecuniary and social loss of a heavy
character. To the ordinary politician under our political system
administrative miscarriage brings little or no evil consequences. His
fate, if unfortunate or unskilful, is in the vast majority of cases to
be transferred to some other office--to a foreign embassy, to a colonial
governorship or, at the worst, to the House of Lords. Neither pecuniary
nor social loss necessarily or ordinarily follows the unskilful and
possibly the disastrous administration of our Ministers for the Army and
Navy. More than this, the professional persons who advise respectively
the Secretary of State for War and the first Lord of the Admiralty
escape all risk of public censure, sheltered as they are by the
fictitious responsibility of the civilian Minister. History and theory
will be found to coincide, in support of the recital set forth above.
Parliament is made the scapegoat for defective administration. The
control of Parliament, the interference of Parliament, the jealousy of
Parliament for its rights and privileges, these are the stock arguments
in favour of an adherence to the main lines of our present system of
naval and military administration.
Personally, and speaking with some experience of the House of Commons
and after several years’ close study of the House of Commons, I put
aside arguments of that kind. I have arrived at the conclusion that,
eliminating great party issues, the House of Commons, with respect to
the transaction of ordinary public affairs, is an assembly mainly
composed of businesslike and reasonable individuals who, having to find
certain funds for certain purposes, desire, in the main, that the
pecuniary demands of Government should not be obviously excessive and
that fair guarantees should be given for economical expenditure of the
funds provided.
With these views I advocate, as an improvement on present arrangements,
that the administration of the Navy and the Army should be entrusted
respectively to members of those professions. That naval training, naval
experience and naval eminence should be the qualifications of our
Minister of Marine. That military training, military experience and
military eminence should be the qualifications for our Minister for the
Army. Superficially, at any rate, this suggestion would seem to be
reasonable and not out of accord with ordinary common sense. It may,
however, be met with the objection that it is unsuited to our
constitutional arrangements and incompatible with Parliamentary control.
I doubt whether this objection will sustain vigorous examination.
Parliament has to provide annually a certain number of millions sterling
for the purposes of Imperial defence, and while Parliament is always
willing and anxious, sometimes even over-anxious, to recognise and
reward the public service of an individual, if at the same time under my
proposed reform Parliament is enabled, without much difficulty, to do
what it cannot do now and what it never has been able to do--namely, to
detect and punish the maladministration of an individual--Parliament
would probably be satisfied.
To this end I suggest that the offices actually in existence of
Secretary of State for War and of the Board of Admiralty be abolished.
In their place I propose that there should be created three new
offices--
I. A Commander-in-Chief or Lord High Admiral of the Navy, having,
subject to the Government, supreme control over and responsibility for
naval administration. Naval training, naval experience and naval
eminence being the qualification for this office.
II. A Commander-in-Chief or Captain-General of the Army, having, subject
to the Government, supreme control over and responsibility for the
administration of the Army. Military training, military experience and
military eminence being the qualification for this office.
For the purpose of securing continuity of administration, and also of
providing from time to time for fresh administrative energy, I propose
that these two offices should be appointments tenable for five years;
also for the purpose of gaining for the Cabinet military and naval
opinion at first hand, I recommend that the holders of these offices
should be created privy councillors and should be summoned to all
Cabinet Councils when military and naval questions are under
consideration, with, while those naval and military questions are under
consideration, an equal position with the other Cabinet Ministers. But
in order to keep the administration of the services free from party
politics I suggest that these two Ministers should take no part in the
discussion or decision of any questions other than those connected with
naval and military affairs.
[A close parallel with the suggestion set forth above may be found in
the position on the Council of the Indian Viceroy of the Indian
Commander-in-Chief.]
For the purpose of bringing these Ministers into immediate contact with
Parliament and at the same time of keeping them free from being
involved in daily party debates and divisions, I advocate that they
should be created members of the House of Lords.
[The feasibility of this suggestion is, I think, to a large extent
illustrated by the positions now held in the House of Lords by his Royal
Highness the Duke of Cambridge and Lord Wolseley. Possibly also in
former days similar positions were to some extent maintained, without
inconvenience, by the Duke of Wellington and Lord Hardinge.]
These two Ministers would each of them be assisted by (among other
officers) (1) a chief of the staff whose duties will be sketched below,
and (2) a financial secretary, with a seat in the House of Commons,
whose duty it would be to explain and, if necessary, to defend in that
assembly naval or military administration in detail.
III. For the purpose of (1) preserving and insuring the financial
control of Parliament and of the Government, of (2) supplying the
much-needed link between the two services, so that one great
object--viz., Imperial defence--should be more completely attained, I
propose that there should be created the office of Secretary of State
and Treasurer for the Sea and Land Forces of the Crown.
This Minister would, according to my view, settle with the responsible
heads of the services the amount of annual expenditure to be submitted
to the Cabinet; he would be charged with the duty of auditing the
accounts of the Admiralty and the War Office, with presenting to and
defending in Parliament those estimates and that expenditure. He would
be charged, further, with a third great duty--viz., with the control,
management of, and responsibility for, the Ordnance Department, and with
the making of the great contracts for the Army and the Navy. He would,
as it were, set up and carry on a great shop from which the military and
naval heads would procure most of the supplies which they needed.
The main outlines of expenditure having been agreed upon by the two
professional Ministers in conjunction with the proposed Secretary of
State, this latter would not interfere nor necessarily be held
responsible for the administration of the services, excepting in so far
as he might have undertaken to provide those services with ordnance and
other supplies and in so far as his duty lay in auditing the accounts
and in testing the stores in hand.
The Secretary of State as proposed would be assisted by (1) a Permanent
Under-Secretary of State, (2) a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
(3) an Accountant and Auditor-General, (4) a Controller of Ordnance and
Supplies, under whom would be (_a_) the Head of the Ordnance Factories,
(_b_) the Director of Contracts.
The control and interference now exercised by the Treasury over Army and
Navy expenditure would, under the proposed scheme, cease and determine.
So also would the audit of the Controller or Auditor-General. I suggest
that the Secretary of State, or his Accountant and Auditor-General would
personally explain to Parliament and to the Committee of Public Account,
Army and Navy Expenditure.
The relations between the proposed Ministers for the Army and Navy on
one hand, and the Government on the other, would be closely analogous to
the well-understood relations which now exist between the Home
Government and the Viceroy of India or the Ambassador at a Foreign Court
or a Colonial Governor. The Ministers for the Army and Navy might be
dismissed by a new Government coming into office, but such a dismissal
would be a grave Ministerial action requiring defence and explanation in
Parliament.
The relations between the Ministers for the Army and Navy and the
Secretary of State for the Sea and Land Forces of the Crown would be
those of perfect equality and constant communication. The heads of the
Army and Navy would bring to the Secretary of State in very
authoritative form the views of their respective professions. The
Secretary of State would bring to the heads of the Army and Navy the
views of the Government and the House of Commons on the political
circumstances of the time. The three would examine in concert the
general requirements of Imperial defence from a point of view embracing
and balancing one against another all the exigencies or supposed
exigencies of the services. Where the claims or the views of the Army
and Navy might conflict, the Secretary of State would probably be found
an authoritative and acceptable arbitrator. In the event of the
Ministers for the Army and Navy disagreeing, either singly or jointly,
with the Secretary of State, recourse would be had to the Cabinet. In
the event of the Cabinet supporting the Secretary of State against the
Ministers of the Army and Navy, either singly or jointly, those
Ministers would have to consider whether their professional
responsibility or reputation would admit of their continuing to hold
office. In the event of the resignation of either or of both,
Parliamentary discussion must ensue, and a Parliamentary decision must
be taken. In the event of the administration of the heads of the Army
and Navy being questioned by Parliament, the Secretary of State first,
and the Government as a whole next, would have to consider whether they
could or could not support in Parliament the administrative action
arraigned. In either case, Parliamentary discussion and decision follow.
Under the arrangements suggested above in almost every conceivable
circumstance, I submit that not only in a very large measure (possibly
as great as is practicable) is direct personal responsibility actually
established, but also that the control of Parliament, far from being
diminished, is considerably increased and made much more effective. The
suggestions set forth above are, while probably open to much objection
and criticism, also probably capable of much improvement and
development, and in arriving at a judgment upon them, the Commissioners
should bear in mind that the evidence before us discloses in many
particulars a state of things more seriously unsatisfactory and possibly
more pregnant with danger than Parliament or the public imagine; and the
admitted defects of the present system of administration ought to be
balanced by the Commissioners against the suggested defects of proposals
for reform.
INDEX
Abergavenny, Marquess of, i. 315, 320
Admiralty expenditure, attack on, ii. 316
Affirmation Bill Speech, i. 252;
_Punch_ cartoon, 255
Afghanistan, Policy in, ii. 362
Alcester, Lord, i. 262
Alfred Churchill, Lord, i. 19, 52
Algiers, Italy, &c., Journey to, ii. 287, 289
Althorp, Lord, ii. 125
Arabi Pasha, i. 226, 261, 289
Argyll, Duke of, i. 224
Ashbourne, Lord, i. 128, 213, 214, 220, 393, 408, 409, 445; ii. 34, 78,
290
Ashley, Mr. Evelyn, i. 232
Ashmead-Bartlett, Mr., i. 311
Aston Riots, i. 361, 365
Balfour, Mr. A. J., i. 134, 141, 149, 211, 219, 265, 304, 339, 343, 425,
433, 466, 471; ii. 29, 153, 195, 222, 301, 335, 350, 373, 391, 451, 452,
458, 460, 463, 470, 472
Barnaby, Sir N., ii. 318
Barnett, Mr. H., i. 52
Bartley, Mr., i. 318, 353
Baumann, Mr., ii. 415
Bayley, Mr. M., ii. 504, 505
Beach, Sir M. Hicks-, i. 76, 85, 307, 320, 347, 349, 350, 356, 359, 360,
368, 384, 385, 387, 398, 400, 403, 417, 418, 432, 438, 448, 515; ii. 21,
34, 39, 45, 101, 109, 110, 116, 124, 125, 128, 145, 149, 207, 219, 224,
250, 285, 335, 337, 343, 371, 387, 392, 395, 431
Beaconsfield, Earl of, i. 30, 64, 68, 84, 98, 112, 114, 120, 154, 157,
177, 197, 222, 334; ii. 300, 362, 460
Beaconsfield statue, unveiling of, i. 240
Beale, Mr. P., ii. 390
Beckett, Mr. E., ii. 307, 388
Belfast visit, ii. 59
Berlin, ii. 368
Birmingham:
contests, i. 285, 466, 532, 544; ii. 382
meeting at Aston Park, i. 361, 365
speeches, i. 287, 296, 365; ii. 399
Bismarck, Prince von, ii. 360, 368, 477
Blackpool speech, i. 290
Blandford, Marquess of, i. 3, 19, 43, 165, 267
Blenheim Harriers, i. 25, 33, 267
Blunt, Mr. Wilfrid, i. 261
Borthwick, Sir A., i. 258; ii. 431
Bradford speeches, ii. 175, 177
Bradlaugh, Mr. C., i. 122, 124, 129, 209, 276, 333, 350; ii. 321, 428
Breteuil, M. de, i. 72; ii. 435
Bright, Mr. John, i. 59, 225, 275, 285, 286, 287, 289, 292, 378; ii. 53,
94, 109, 113, 116, 300, 384
Bright, Mr. J. A., ii. 390, 392, 393
Brodrick, Mr., i. 343, 428, 440
Bryce, Mr., i. 251
Budget:
amendment (1885), i. 398, 405
draft (1887-8), ii. 187
Bulgaria, ii. 154, 155, 165, 364
Buller, Sir R., ii. 138, 142, 143, 337
Burke, Mr., i. 207, 211
Burke, Sir J. Bernard, i. 95
Burma, i. 517; ii. 43, 484
Burnaby, Col., i. 258, 285, 320, 361, 378
Butt, Mr., i. 58, 82, 175
Cadogan, Lord, i. 160
Caine, Mr., ii. 78, 421
Cairns, Earl, i. 227, 242
Cambridge University Carlton:
speech, i. 295
undergraduates’ deputation, i. 328
Cardwell, Lord, i. 65
Carnarvon, Lord, i. 251, 432, 440, 444, 460; ii. 20, 22, 28, 30, 57, 111
Cavendish, Lord F., i. 124, 144, 207, 211
Central Committee, i. 305, 308, 356
Chamberlain, Mr. J., i. 58, 62, 170, 211, 222, 281, 286, 287, 349, 365,
370, 422, 428, 452, 462, 467; ii. 48, 52, 53, 57, 58, 73, 74, 75, 80,
82, 85, 94, 96, 100, 108, 113, 118, 119, 120, 125, 133, 143, 153, 164,
195, 216, 221, 243, 250, 252, 254, 262, 267, 284, 285, 286, 288, 336,
344, 345, 348, 349, 350, 351, 375, 382, 384, 386, 388, 392, 395, 403,
419, 420, 428, 463, 470, 472
Chancellor of the Exchequer, ii. 126, 179
budget of 1887-8, ii. 187
economies and reforms effected, ii. 184
resignation, ii. 213, 234, 240, 255, 268, 270, 282
Channel Tunnel Bill, ii. 381
Chaplin, Mr., i. 108, 245, 311, 313, 323, 355, 367; ii. 126, 175, 286,
287, 328
Chenery, Mr., i. 160, 167, 241, 248, 276
Childers, Mr., ii. 205
Civil Servants’ petitioning powers--speech, i. 260
Clarke, Mr., i. 311
Closure, i. 212, 214, 219, 220; ii. 175, 176, 219
Coalition with Whigs, proposals for, ii. 6, 8
Cobden, Mr., i. 289, 292
Collings, Mr. Jesse, i. 251; ii. 45, 164, 176
Compensation for Disturbance Bill, i. 179
Connaught, Duke of, and the Bombay Command, i. 503
Conservative Party:
Irish policy--letter, ii. 3
leadership, question of dual control, i. 227, 229, 242, 246, 251, 405
Parliamentary Reform, attitude towards, i. 336
Cook, Mr., ii. 119, 133
Corrupt and Illegal Practices Suppression Bill, i. 264
Cotter, Mr., i. 320
County Government Bill, i. 106
Cowper, Lord, i. 185, 207; ii. 90
Cranborne, Lord, i. 234
Cranbrook, Lord, ii. 35, 36, 40
Creighton, Dr., i. 24, 34, 36, 37, 255
Cromer, Lord, ii. 377
Cross, Sir R., i. 342, 378
Curzon, Lady, i. 430
Curzon, Lord, i. 428; ii. 307
Curzon, Viscount, ii. 287, 290, 292, 295
Damer, Rev. L. Dawson, i. 22, 23
Darling, Sir C., i. 364
Dartford speech, ii. 163, 175, 176
D’Aunay, Count, ii. 172
Davitt, Mr. M., i. 175, 176
De Worms, Baron, i. 166
Derby, Lord, i. 105, 227; ii. 49, 361
Dilke, Sir C., i. 70, 100-104, 276, 346, 347, 417
Dillwyn, Mr., i. 126
Disraeli. _See_ Beaconsfield
Dixon Hartland, Mr., i. 258
Dodson, Mr., i. 143
Dolben, Mackworth, i. 7
Douglas, Mr. Akers-, ii. 264, 268, 388, 389
Duffield, Tom, i. 28
Dunraven, Lord, ii. 274, 432
Durham, Earl of, i. 281
Eastern Question, i. 98, 100-104; ii. 154.
_See also_ Bulgaria
Edinburgh speeches, i. 273, 278-281
Education, i. 3, 8, 21, 24, 38
Egypt and the Soudan:
Arabi Pasha, i. 226, 261, 289
condition of, i. 225, 278, 334
Gordon, Gen., i. 349, 351, 376
policy, ii. 172, 365, 375
Soudan, evacuation of, i. 380, 382, 386, 387
Suleiman Sami, case of, i. 263
Tewfik, Khedive, i. 261
Egypt, visit to, ii. 437
Egyptian Loan Bill, i. 378
Elcho, Lord, i. 339, 343
‘Elijah’s Mantle,’ i. 248
Employers’ Liability Bill, i. 136
Escott, Mr. T. H. S., i. 15
Established Church, Defence of--speech, i. 296
Eton, i. 8
Expenditure, criticisms on, i. 143, 232
Fair Trade Movement, i. 290, 472; ii. 327
Ferry, M. Jules, ii. 478
FitzGibbon, Lord Justice, i. 77, 79, 395, 434, 435, 459, 471, 525; ii.
59, 89, 96, 124, 132, 263, 307, 351, 353, 386, 455, 462, 468, 513, 515
Forster, Mr., i. 63, 100, 174, 181, 185, 199, 201, 203, 207, 224, 349;
ii. 49, 113
Fourth Party:
Beaconsfield’s approval, i. 154, 223
Budget amendment (1885), i. 398
Coercion policy, opinion as to, i. 197
correspondence, i. 162
dual control question, i. 228
final phase, i. 303, 343
Front Opposition Bench hostility, i. 260
Gladstone’s attitude, i. 152
Gorst’s article--letter, i. 548
Lords’ amendments to Redistribution Bill, i. 417
obstruction, justification of, i. 150
origin of, i. 131
policy, i. 136, 158, 230
Reform Bill, attitude towards, i. 341
rupture and reunion, i. 199, 204, 209
_Times_ statement, i. 168
_Vanity Fair_ cartoon, i. 169
work of, i. 143, 149, 230; ii. 150
France, relations with, ii. 365
Free Trade, i. 292
Freycinet, M. de, ii. 172-174
Gastein, visit to, i. 267
Gathorne-Hardy, Mr., i. 64, 66
German Emperor, i. 166; ii. 368
Gibbs, Mr. V., ii. 472
Gibson, Mr. _See_ Ashbourne
Gibson, Mr. Milner, i. 234, 289
Giers, M. de, ii. 358, 366, 367
Giffard, Sir H., i. 130, 368
Giles, Maj., ii. 447
Gladstone, Mr. H., i. 265
Gladstone, Mr. W. E., i. 58, 60, 64, 69, 145, 172, 222, 232, 234, 260,
261, 264, 271, 275, 282, 283, 284, 377, 416, 432, 441, 451, 472; ii. 1,
3, 22, 24, 27, 62, 137, 143, 157, 169, 214, 219, 220, 229, 241, 300,
309, 312, 334, 340, 341, 360, 361, 365, 373, 428, 433, 454, 456, 463,
466, 469, 470, 471, 474, 477, 502
Affirmation Bill oration, i. 252
Bismarck’s estimate of, ii. 479, 481
Bradlaugh case, i. 127, 210, 212, 350
Burmese policy, ii. 43
Disestablishment, views on, i. 454
Egyptian policy, i. 261, 279, 334, 349
Fourth Party, attitude towards, i. 152
Irish Home Rule proposals, i. 390, 409;
ii. 29, 41, 51, 62, 66, 67, 78, 92, 96, 98, 100, 104,
111, 116, 153, 327, 437, 491, 497
obstruction, opinion on, i. 150
Parnell Commission, ii. 413, 414
rebuke of the Chair, i. 347
Reform Bill (1884), i. 336, 342
resignation, i. 400, 402; ii. 122
Suleiman Sami, i. 263
Transvaal, annexation of, i. 190, 192, 205, 208
vote of 11,000,000_l._, i. 380
Glasgow, invitation to, i. 163
Godley, Sir A., i. 476, 481
Gordon, Gen., i. 349, 351, 376
Gorst, Mr., i. 124, 133, 245, 262, 304, 305, 310, 320, 342, 352, 358,
373, 417, 421, 425, 438, 440, 471; ii. 127, 461
Gorst, Sir J., i. 257
Goschen, Mr., i. 219, 220, 295, 453; ii. 46, 47, 48, 53, 87, 90, 113,
116, 132, 200, 201, 207, 208, 243, 259, 268, 272, 282, 308, 335, 339,
350, 361, 470
Grant, Mr. Corrie, i. 427, 428, 431
Grantham, Mr., i. 126
Granville, Lord, i. 102, 103, 276, 389, 432; ii. 361
Grey de Wilton, Lord, i. 60
Grosvenor, Lord R., i. 385
Hamilton, Lord Claud, i. 311, 323, 443
Hamilton, Lord George, ii. 228, 229, 231, 234, 236, 319, 323, 324
Hamilton, Sir R., i. 445
Hanbury, Mr., ii. 378
Harcourt, Sir W., i. 67, 71, 153, 170, 204, 434, 438; ii. 49, 107, 145,
195, 205, 470
Hart-Dyke, Sir W., i. 435
Hartington, Lord, i. 58, 63, 103, 149, 179, 275, 349, 441, 453, 461; ii.
2, 3, 7, 46-48, 53, 54, 58, 69, 80-82, 87, 90, 94, 98, 113, 116, 120,
122, 124, 125, 141, 147, 153, 220, 221, 250, 256, 258, 272, 302, 321,
322, 337, 344, 349, 361, 365, 388, 392, 395
Hatzfeldt, Count, ii. 158
Healy, Mr., i. 435; ii. 4
Henry, Mr. Mitchell, i. 52
Herbert, Mr. A., i. 65
Holland, Sir H., ii. 127, 273
Holmes, Mr., i. 435, 436, 460
Home Rule:
attitude towards, i. 90, 280, 453; ii. 3, 23, 117, 490, 494, 507, 508
Belfast visit, ii. 59
Bill, proposals as to, ii. 50, 55, 92, 97, 99, 115
Conservative policy, i. 448, 460; ii. 21, 23, 28, 427
Gladstone’s scheme, ii. 2, 29, 79
Queen’s Speech (1886), ii. 32
Hope, Mr. B., i. 65
House of Commons disturbance (1893), ii. 472
Hull speech, i. 163
Iddesleigh, Lord, i. 64, 161, 219, 235, 265, 267, 326, 340, 354, 377,
398, 418; ii. 40, 127, 153, 155, 156, 160, 172, 174, 203, 212, 250, 276,
277
Aston Park, i. 360, 363, 364
Beaconsfield statue, unveiling of, i. 240
Bradlaugh case, i. 124, 128, 210, 333, 334
Egyptian policy, i. 262, 334
Fourth Party, hostility to, i. 158, 260
leadership of Conservative party, i. 145, 148, 157, 227, 242, 357,
381, 382, 403, 407, 408, 418
India:
North-West Frontier delimitation, i. 379, 380, 483
visit to, i. 374, 377, 554-564
India Office administration, i. 425, 474
army reorganisation, i. 489
Bi-metallism discussion, i. 478
Bombay command, i. 503
Budget statement, i. 491
Burma, i. 517
railway construction, i. 477
Salisbury, Lord, correspondence with, i. 498
Ireland, boycotting, origin of, i. 183
Coercion policy, attitude toward, i. 177, 189, 197, 203, 391, 393,
396, 404, 409; ii. 34, 342
Conservative party, policy of--letter, ii. 3
Home Rule. _See that title_
intermediate education question, i. 94, 97
land legislation, i. 205, 434; ii. 92, 344
Maamtrasna incident, i. 436
Reform Bill (1884), i. 343, 344
residence in, i. 75, 80, 82, 110, 111
state of, i. 1, 82, 172, 183, 186, 199, 444; ii. 33
visit to, i. 460
Irish County Government Bill, ii. 373
Irish Education Bill, plans for, ii. 352
Irish Educational Endowments Bill, i. 434
J. S., excerpt from _Realm_, i. 16
James, Sir H., i. 134, 155, 255, 265, 411; ii. 47, 48, 58, 66, 113, 116,
250, 439
Jennings, Mr. L., i. 298; ii. 270, 286-288, 290, 307, 312, 320, 321,
327, 329, 378, 386, 387, 402, 413, 414, 419, 420, 424, 426, 512
Jerome, Miss, i. 39, 40, 57
Jerome, Mr., i. 43, 56
Kerans, Mr., i. 378
King-Harman, Col., ii. 137
Kissingen, ii. 476
Labouchere, Mr., i. 130, 213, 333; ii. 27, 145, 150, 253
Lansdowne, Marquess of, i. 224; ii. 273
Lanyon, Sir O., i. 193
Lawson, Sir W., i. 251
Leadership of the House. _See_ Iddesleigh _and_ Randolph Churchill
Lee, Hans, ii. 447
Leigh, Mr. A., i. 16
Licensing question, ii. 430, 506
Liverpool meeting, i. 443
Lowther, Mr., i. 97, 245
Maamtrasna incident, i. 436
McCarthy, Mr. J., ii. 28
Maclean, Mr. J. M., i. 325; ii. 137
Manchester speeches, i. 231; ii. 69
Manners, Lord J., i. 340
Marlborough, Duchess of, i. 14, 30, 109, 115, 258
fund for relief of Irish distress, i. 110
Marlborough, Duke of, i. 3, 20, 21, 32, 40, 92, 108, 114, 170, 178, 227,
266, 429; ii. 463
Marriage, i. 57
Mashonaland, visit to, ii. 447
Matthews, Mr. H., i. 369; ii. 119, 126, 133, 134, 461
Mattinson, Mr., ii. 387
May, Sir Erskine, ii. 6, 408
Melbourne, Lord, ii. 14
Middle Temple Grand Day, 1885, i. 414
Milner, Sir F., i. 428
‘Mr. Podsnap,’ ii. 399
Mr. Spencer’s travels, ii. 169
Mitford, Mr. P., i. 258
Moore, Mr. A. W., i. 481
Morley, Mr. J., i. 125, 391, 392, 404; ii. 1, 48, 78, 88, 153, 353, 377,
405, 433, 469, 471
Morris, Lord Chief Justice, ii. 23, 57
Mowbray, Sir J., i. 245
Mundella, Mr., ii. 397
National Union of Conservative Associations, i. 305, 307, 312, 315, 318,
320, 321, 324, 326, 327, 330, 352, 355, 356, 536-543
North, Col., ii. 386
Northbrook, Lord, ii. 273
Northcote, Mr. (senr.), i. 245
Northcote, Sir Stafford. _See_ Iddesleigh
Norway, visit to, ii. 123
O’Brien, Mr. B., i. 89
O’Brien, Mr. S., ii. 66, 67
Obstruction:
Closure, effect of, on, i. 220
first use of, i. 87
opinion on, i. 150
O’Connor, Mr. A., ii. 152
O’Donnell, Mr. F. H., i. 128
Oldham speech, i. 163
Opposition, functions of, i. 233, 239
Oxford, i. 31
Territorial Military Centre--speech, i. 66
Paddington, South, i. 471; ii. 454, 461
election addresses, ii. 491, 496
Palmerston, Lord, i. 234; ii. 260
Parliamentary procedure, reform of, i. 211; ii. 10, 16, 17, 25, 42, 500,
502
Parnell, Mr., i. 83, 174, 175, 176, 183, 185, 202, 205, 393-395, 397,
446, 455; ii. 1, 22, 24, 30, 51, 54, 66, 103, 109, 141, 143, 147, 149,
375, 452, 454
arrest and release, i. 206, 207, 210
Commission, ii. 405, 413, 431
Kilmainham treaty, i. 207, 210, 212
Maamtrasna, i. 438, 440
Parnellism and Crime, ii. 406, 408, 423
Peel, Mr., ii. 9, 136
Percy, Lord, i. 306, 312, 313, 317, 318, 323, 352, 355
Perkins, Mr., ii. 447, 450
Pigott case, ii. 412, 416
Plunket, Mr., ii. 67, 84
Ponsonby, Sir H., ii. 268
Preston speech, i. 185, 187
Primrose League, i. 256, 356
Prince Imperial, monument to, i. 142
Prince of Wales’s wedding, i. 9
Protection of Persons and Property Bill, i. 200
Queen Victoria:
Bombay command appointment, i. 503
Indian affairs, i. 485
letter, ii. 154
resignation of Chancellor, ii. 234, 240, 255, 268
Radical party, principles of, i. 231, 288, 293
Raikes, Mr., i. 398; ii. 126
Randolph Churchill, Lady, i. 167, 258, 429, 430, 431; ii. 366-368
Randolph Churchill, Lord:
birth, i. 3
Chancellor of Exchequer, ii. 126, 179
characteristics, i. 6, 7, 14, 15, 33, 35, 48, 415; ii. 434
chess, fondness for, i. 30
death and funeral, ii. 484
education, i. 3, 8, 21, 24, 38
hunting, delight in, i. 4, 25, 28
illness, ii. 464
India, Secretary for, i. 425, 474
leadership of House of Commons, ii. 126, 150, 154, 213
letters, style of, i. 12, 13, 162-168
maiden speech in Parliament, i. 66
marriage, i. 57
member of Parliament, i. 55
nicknames and caricatures of, i. 275
personal appearance, i. 15; ii. 465
politics, early distaste to, i. 164, 166
popularity in 1882, i. 273
prediction in 1885, i. 473
public life, disinclination for, i. 48
speeches, style of, i. 276
Turf experiences, ii. 432
Redistribution Bill, Lords’ Amendments to, i. 417
Redschid Pasha, i. 388
Reed, Sir E., ii. 319
Reform Bill (1884), i. 335, 337, 341, 343, 360, 372, 550
Richards, Mr. B., i. 15
Richmond, Duke of, i. 227
Ripon, Marquess of, i. 492
Ritchie, Mr., ii. 126
Roberts, Sir F., i. 458, 490
Roebuck, Mr., i. 58
Rosebery, Earl of, i. 29, 433; ii. 49, 471, 478
Rowlands, Mr. J., i. 258; ii. 119, 120, 387, 391
Royal Buckhounds, i. 232
Royal grants--speech, ii. 396
Russell, Lord J., i. 234
Russell, Mr. E., ii. 142
Russia:
aggression in India, i. 380, 382, 386, 387, 389
visit to, ii. 356
Rylands, Mr., i. 106; ii. 90
Salisbury, Marquess of, i. 65, 227, 233, 245, 265, 281, 303, 347, 381,
423, 433, 458, 468; ii. 6, 7, 14, 21, 26, 54, 58, 72, 75, 78, 89, 90,
116, 135, 153, 155, 187, 264, 273, 277, 278, 281, 294, 299, 361, 362,
368, 377, 431, 463
Bombay command appointment--letters, i. 504
Burma policy, i. 522, 524
Cabinet of 1885, i. 400, 401, 402, 407, 413, 416, 419; ii. 122, 124
Carnarvon and Parnell, meeting of, i. 447
correspondence of, i. 499
Disestablishment, views on, i. 455
Eastern Question, ii. 157, 158, 160, 162, 165
Irish affairs, attitude towards, ii. 29, 30, 33-35, 37, 64, 138,
334, 448, 470
National Union, i. 312, 318, 319, 324, 330, 352, 357
resignation of Lord Randolph, ii. 214, 218, 220, 223, 228, 231-234,
236, 243, 250, 255, 261, 267, 282
Woodstock speech, i. 161
Schnadhorst, Mr., i. 276, 286, 467; ii. 98, 119, 120, 134
Sclater-Booth, Mr., i. 106
Scott, Dr., i. 22
Sexton, Mr., i. 435; ii. 4, 64, 144
Siam, ii. 478
Slade, Sir A., i. 257
Smith, Mr. W. H., i. 245, 344, 408, 503; ii. 21, 36, 40, 42, 44, 90,
124, 137, 156, 171, 221, 226, 227, 229, 230, 232, 273, 281, 291, 295,
310, 311, 321, 335, 350, 381, 406, 407, 451
Soudan. _See_ Egypt and the Soudan
South Africa:
affairs in, i. 190, 195
visit to, ii. 447
Spencer, Lord, i. 390, 438, 439, 441; ii. 3, 48
Staal, M. de, ii. 157
Stanhope, Mr. E., i. 325, 330, 373; ii. 127, 273
Stanley, Col., i. 342, 372
Stockton speech, ii. 328
Stuart-Wortley, Mr., i. 323, 353
Suakin, ii. 375, 376
Suleiman Sami, i. 263
Tabor, Mr., i. 3, 426
Tarbes, visit to, ii. 435
Temperance--letter, ii. 506
Tewfik, Khedive, i. 261
Thomas, Col., i. 4, 26
Tory democracy, i. 250, 290, 293, 295, 301, 302, 336, 349, 358, 411,
463, 465; ii. 404
Transvaal, i. 190, 193-196
Trevelyan, Sir G., ii. 48, 74, 84, 336, 340
Turf experiences, ii. 432
Turkey and the Eastern Question--letters, i. 100-104
Tyrwhitt, Mr. H., ii. 287, 289, 292
United States, visit to, i. 73
Villiers, Mr. C., i. 292
Walsall speech, ii. 397
Walsh, Archbishop, ii. 4, 78, 353, 354, 356
War Office expenditure, attack on, ii. 316
Warren, Sir C., ii. 143
Watkin, Sir E., ii. 381
Webster, Sir R., ii. 407
Welby, Lord, ii. 182, 212
Welsh Church Suspensory Bill, ii. 466, 474
West, Sir A., i. 261; ii. 205
Whitby meeting, ii. 326
Whitley, Mr., i. 443
Winston Churchill, Mr., ii. 294, 468
Wolff, Sir H. D., i. 124, 126, 129, 131, 132, 163, 264, 267, 304, 305,
310, 311, 342, 358, 367, 421, 425, 428, 430, 438; ii. 236, 260, 261, 263
Wolverhampton speech, ii. 314
Woodstock:
elections, i. 52, 115, 426, 527-532
parliamentary history, i. 18
reform of borough--speech, i. 71
Salisbury’s, Lord, speech, i. 160
Zulu War, i. 142, 191
FOOTNOTES:
[1] _Seven Years at Eton_, Brinsley Richards, p. 377.
[2] _Randolph Spencer-Churchill_, by T. H. S. Escott, M.A. (Hutchinson &
Co., 1895).
[3] _Fortnightly Review_, October, 1874, vol. xvi., p. 412.
[4] Byron, _Don Juan_, Canto ix. lxxxiv.
[5] B. O’Brien, _Life of Parnell_, second edition, i. 163.
[6] ‘That this House, having been informed in her Majesty’s gracious
Speech that the conditions on which her Majesty’s neutrality is founded
have not been infringed by either belligerent engaged in the war in the
East of Europe, and having since received no information sufficient to
justify a departure from the policy of neutrality and peace, sees no
reason for adding to the burdens of the people by voting unnecessary
supplies.’
[7] ‘Elijah’s Mantle,’ _Fortnightly Review_, May, 1883.
[8] I have been greatly assisted in this chapter by the excellent
accounts of the Fourth Party proceedings contributed by Mr. Harold
Gorst to the _Nineteenth Century_ from November 1902 to January 1903.
In relating some incidents, notably on pages 153 and 161, I have by his
permission used his actual words.
[9] _Life of Parnell_, R. Barry O’Brien, vol. i. 247.
[10] _Cf._ Mr. Forster’s ‘village ruffians.’
[11] _Men, Mines, and Animals in South Africa_, p. 23.
[12] Abridged.
[13] Mr. Gladstone.
[14] Mr. Chamberlain.
[15] A quotation from Mr. Gladstone’s famous pamphlet of 1876.
[16] Preface to Lord Randolph Churchill’s speeches, by L. J. Jennings,
p. xxiv.
[17] Mr. Harold Gorst’s articles, _Nineteenth Century_, November and
December, 1902.
[18] Appendix II.
[19] Appendix II.
[20] See J. M. Maclean’s _Reminiscences_, p. 68.
[21] Appendix II.
[22] Letter to Mr. Wainwright, M.P., June 9, 1884, Appendix III.
[23] Mr. W. H. Smith.
[24] See especially his letter to Mr. Harold Gorst of January 5, 1903,
published in the _Times_, included as an Appendix.
[25] _Nineteenth Century_, January 1903, by Mr. Harold E. Gorst.
[26] Now Sir Charles Darling.
[27] Appendix IV. See especially his description of the tiger hunt.
[28] January 17, 1885.
[29] A note upon this chapter by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.
[30] August.
[31] This was public-spirited. (See page 440.)
[32] House of Lords, May 3, 1888. _Hansard_, 325, 1179.
[33] Issued November 21, 1880.
[34] See Lord Randolph’s Letters from India, Appendix.
[35] ‘Ireland’s Eye.’
[36] Lord Ashbourne.
[37] Our Very Good Lord: Ex-Chancellor Ball.
[38] _Times._
[39] Appendix I.
[40] This appears to have been an outside estimate. (See p. 490.)
[41] Sir John Gorst’s eldest son, now Sir Eldon Gorst.
[42] The italics are mine.--W. S. C.
[43] Mr. Smith to the Duke of Cambridge, October 9, 1885.
[44] Official memorandum.
[45] Colonel Burnaby was killed in action at Abu Klea, January 18, 1885.
[46] This was written ten days ago. Its contents are not much affected
by recent events.--R. H. S. C.[*]
[*] The Memorandum and Lord Randolph’s footnote are both undated, but
Lord Salisbury’s reply on the 9th shows that he had waited some days
before replying. I conclude therefore that November 26 or 27 would be
the latest date at which this document was written.
[48] Mr. Labouchere, who has checked and confirms this account of the
conversation, remarks: ‘As a matter of fact, Lord Randolph Churchill
had asked me some time before to tell Mr. Gladstone that he would urge
Ulster to resist by arms Home Rule, which I had done, and he now begged
me to repeat to him his declaration of war.’
[49] _Life of Gladstone_, vol. iii. p. 270.
[50] Lost. The passage ultimately adopted reads as follows:--
‘The social no less than the material condition of that country engages
my anxious attention. Although there has been during the last year no
marked increase of serious crime, there is in many places a concerted
resistance to the enforcement of legal obligations, and I regret that
the practice of organised intimidation continues to exist. I have caused
every exertion to be used for the detection and punishment of these
crimes, and no effort will be spared on the part of my Government to
protect my Irish subjects in the exercise of their legal rights and
the enjoyment of individual liberty. If, as my information leads me
to apprehend, the existing provisions of the law should prove to be
inadequate to cope with these growing evils, I look with confidence to
your willingness to invest my Government with all necessary powers.’
[51] This was accompanied by the promise of a Bill dealing with the Land
Question, pursuing in a more extensive sense the policy indicated by the
Land Purchase Act in 1885.
[52] At the Colonial Office, February 15, 1898 (O’Brien’s _Life of
Parnell_, chap. xix. vol. ii.).
[53] Appendix V.
[54]
Lord Randolph Churchill 2,576
Rev. J. Page Hopps 769
[55] Wrongly stated in the _Annual Register_ of 1886 as the Board of
Trade.
[56] An expression quoted from Mr. Gladstone.
[57] ‘Lord Randolph as an Official,’ _Nineteenth Century_, October 1896,
by the Right Hon. Sir Algernon West, K.C.B.
[58]
Scale of 1886, still in force:--
Where the packet, box, bottle, pot, &c.,
did not exceed the price or value of _s._ _d._
1_s._, the duty was 0 1½
Exceeded 1_s._, but did not exceed 2_s._ 6_d._ 0 3
” 2_s._ 6_d._ ” 4_s._ 0 6
” 4_s._ ” 10_s._ 1 0
” 10_s._ ” 20_s._ 2 0
” 20_s._ ” 30_s._ 3 0
” 30_s._ ” 50_s._ 10 0
” 50_s._ 20 0
Lord Randolph Churchill’s
proposed scale:--
_s._ _d._
Not exceeding 2_d._ in value 0 0½
” ” 6_d._ ” 0 1½
” ” 1_s._ ” 0 3
” ” 2_s._ ” 0 6
” ” 4_s._ ” 1 0
” ” 8_s._ ” 2 0
” ” 12_s._ ” 3 0
” ” 20_s._ ” 5 0
” ” 40_s._ ” 10 0
Exceeding 40_s._ ” 20 0
[59] The exact figure is 291,666_l._ 13_s._ 6_d._, but some reduction
would probably occur in practice.
[60] Lord Ashbourne.
[61] Viscount Curzon, M.P. for South Buckinghamshire.
[62] Viscount Curzon, February 21. _Hansard_, 311, 179.
[63] Secretary to the Treasury.
[64] _Times_, April 20, 1887.
[65] See his letter to Mr. Arnold White, p. 459.
[66] No. 119, Egypt No. 8, 1888, published January 12, 1889.
[67] Letter to _Birmingham Daily Post_, April 18.
[68] _Life of Gladstone_, Book X., chapter iii.
[69] _Hansard_, March 1890.
[70] See Appendix, Mr. Jennings’s Memorandum and Lord Justice
FitzGibbon’s note thereupon.
[71] Appendix VIII.
[72] Local Taxation Bill, June 17--228 to 224.
[73] Addison, _Spectator_, No. 68.
[74] _Men, Mines and Animals in South Africa._
[75] The Hon. Lionel Holland.
[76] _Life of Pitt._
[77] Abridged.
* * * * *
Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:
the form of a lettter to his=> the form of a letter to his {pg vi 95}
the Tukrish rule=> the Turkish rule {pg vi 104}
furtherance of this political opinion=> furtherance of his political
opinion {pg vii 53}
even Constantiople=> even Constantinople {pg vii 158}
I purpose=> I propose {pg vii 282}
They outnumbered by three of four to one=> They outnumbered by three or
four to one {pg vii 385}
be would not speak=> he would not speak {pg vii 461}
the greatest atention to his speeches=> the greatest attention to his
speeches {pg vii 474}
and responsibilty for=> and responsibility for {pg vii 521}