Chapter XXIX: THE REIGN OF VICTORIA (continued) (1)

More Coercion for Ireland--The Scottish Reform Bill--Government
Defeats--The Church Rates Bill--Mr. Disraeli succeeds Lord
Derby--Reunion of the Liberals--The Irish Reform Bill--Mr.
Gladstone's Irish Church Resolutions--His Victory--Disraeli's
Strategy--Neither Dissolution nor Resignation--Maynooth Grant
and the _Regium Donum_--The Suspensory Bill--Remainder of the
Session--Lord Stanley's Foreign Policy--General Election--Mr.
Disraeli resigns--Mr. Gladstone's Ministry--Attempt on the Life
of the Duke of Edinburgh--Trial of O'Farrel--Murphy Riots--Martin
_v._ Mackonochie--Obituary of the Year--Lord Brougham, Archbishop
Longley, and Others--The Abyssinian War--Christianity in
Abyssinia--The Crescent and the Gallas--European Intercourse--Mr.
Plowden--Rise of Theodore--His enlightened Views--Deaths of
his best Friends--Arrival of Consul Cameron--The unanswered
Letter--Theodore's Retaliation--Provincial Rebellions--Mr.
Rassam's Mission--His Interview with Theodore--The King's Charges
against Cameron--His Humour changes--Dr. Beke's Letter--Theodore
becomes obdurate--Rassam's Arrest--Mr. Flad's Journey--The
Captives' Treatment--Merewether's Advice--Lord Stanley's
Ultimatum--Constitution of Sir R. Napier's Expedition--Annesley
Bay--Difficulties of Transport--Arrival of Napier--Friendliness
of the Natives--Attitude of the Chiefs--Two Plans--An unopposed
March--Proceedings of Theodore--Massacre of Prisoners--Advance
on Magdala--Destruction of Theodore's Army--Negotiations with
Theodore--Release of the Prisoners--A Present of Cows--Bombardment
of Magdala--Suicide of Theodore--The Return March--The "Mountains of
Rasselas"--Sketch of Continental Affairs.

On the 7th of December Parliament was adjourned till the 13th of February, 1868. When it recommenced its sittings on that date the political situation was, of course, unchanged; the Tory Government was in a minority of from sixty to seventy voices in the House of Commons; yet, through the amazing suppleness, versatility, and adroitness of its leader in the Commons, ably seconded by the heavier metal of Lord Cairns, it made headway for a time against all its opponents with surprising courage and success. One of the first measures proposed by Government was to renew the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland for a twelvemonth. Already had the Habeas Corpus Act been suspended for two years in the sister island; yet, although Fenianism was less menacing than it had been, it still appeared to the Irish Government unsafe to dispense with the extraordinary powers for the repression of disorder that had been first granted in 1866. In asking leave to bring in a Bill for the continuance of the suspension, Lord Mayo, Chief Secretary for Ireland, stated that though the Fenian leaders had recently transferred the scene of their active operations to England, there were still events occurring in Ireland that made it necessary that the Government should have this power. That the enlarged powers of repression conferred by the law on the executive had not been ineffectual, he proved by reading an extract from an American paper, which showed that out of forty-three military leaders sent from America to aid and direct the Fenian movement, the three principals had never reached Ireland, and the others had either been brought to justice or were exiles. The Bill passed through all its stages in both Houses with very little opposition.

Time had failed in the Session of 1867 to carry through Parliament measures for the enlargement of the constituencies in Scotland and Ireland similar to Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill for England. The matter was now taken up by Government, and Bills were introduced, and eventually passed, for reforming the representation of the people both in Scotland and Ireland. The circumstances attending the progress of these Bills were in some respects unprecedented, and such as involved no slight humiliation to the Government, which, in spite of all Mr. Disraeli's adroitness, was compelled either to allow the details of the measures to be settled pretty nearly as the opposing majority might think fit, or to resist at the imminent peril of defeat and expulsion from office. The measure for Scotland was introduced by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Paton, on the 17th of February. It proposed that the franchise should be settled on nearly the same basis as in England, both for counties and boroughs; so that in the former there would be an ownership franchise of £5 clear annual value, and an occupation franchise of £12; while in boroughs every householder rated and paying rates would have a vote. It further gave seven additional seats to Scotland, without disfranchising any boroughs in England or Ireland; so that, if the Bill had passed in this form, there would have been a permanent increase in the numbers of the House of Commons. No sooner was the draft Bill in the possession of the House, than Scottish members, as if by one consent, set to work to tear it to pieces. It is unnecessary to repeat all the objections that were raised, and the more so because all parties ultimately agreed to pass the second reading, affirming the principle of the Bill; each trusting to obtain the modifications desired in committee. So far all had gone well for Government; but when the House went into committee, their practical powerlessness was apparent to all the world, and must have been painfully mortifying to themselves. Mr. Baxter moved, "That it be an instruction to the committee that, instead of adding to the numbers of the House, they have power to disfranchise boroughs in England having by the Census returns of 1861 less than 5,000 inhabitants." He pointed out that there were ten such small boroughs in England; these he proposed to disfranchise, and to add the ten seats thus obtained to the representation of Scotland. Sir Rainald Knightley proposed that, instead of disfranchising any boroughs, the committee should take one member from each of those boroughs in England returning two members to Parliament which in 1861 had less than 12,000 inhabitants. Mr. Disraeli, on the part of the Government, accepted Sir Rainald Knightley's proposal. But Mr. Gladstone seconded the motion of Mr. Baxter, and it was carried on a division by a majority of 217 to 196. Government was fain to acquiesce; and the only modification that Mr. Disraeli could obtain consisted in reducing the number of the boroughs marked out for immolation from ten to seven. Another and still more damaging alteration in the Government Bill was carried by Mr. Bouverie, who proposed to get rid of the ratepaying qualification in Scotland altogether, by omitting the words making the payment of rates (as in the English Bill) a necessary condition of the franchise. We have seen, in the course of the Reform debates, how devotedly, one might almost say sentimentally, attached was Mr. Disraeli to the principle of the rating franchise. Yet, when defeated on Mr. Bouverie's motion, he resigned himself with a sigh to the excision of his darling principle, not only with reference to boroughs, but also to counties. The occupation franchise for counties was fixed at £14, the reference to rateable value being omitted. Thus amended, the Bill passed through committee, and, meeting with hardly any opposition in the House of Lords, became law.

The author of "Church and State" succeeded in carrying through Parliament this year a Bill for the abolition of church rates. In the debate on the second reading Lord Cranborne said, "What shall we gain if we adhere to the principle of 'No surrender'? That is a question which must be answered by the circumstances of the time. We must look not only to the disposition of the nation out of doors, but to the course of events in this House--the principles upon which parties guide their movements--the laws by which public men regulate their conduct. Looking to these matters, and taking the most impartial view in my power, I am bound to say that I do not think any gain to the Church will arise from prolonging the resistance." After speaking of the deep reluctance he felt to give up anything that the Church possessed, he concluded with the words, "I think it wiser to accept the terms that are now offered to us, because I am distinctly of opinion that we may go farther and fare worse." The passing of this measure, though it could not be said to have reconciled the main body of the Dissenters in any appreciable degree to the existence of the Church as an establishment, at least closed a long and wearisome chapter of local bickerings, distinguished by cheap martyrdom on one side and indiscreet coercion on the other.

Age and the undermining effects of his hereditary malady, the gout, had told heavily this winter on the vigorous constitution of Lord Derby, and he felt no longer equal to the cares and toils of office. His retirement from the Ministry was announced by his son, Lord Stanley, in the House of Commons on the 25th of February, and drew forth expressions of warm and respectful sympathy from both sides of the House. The way was thus naturally opened for the gratification of the great and worthy ambition of a lifetime. Mr. Disraeli was sent for by the Queen, and requested to take the post of Premier and reconstruct the Government. On the 27th Mr. Disraeli had an audience of her Majesty, and kissed hands upon his appointment as First Lord of the Treasury. To pass over two or three minor changes, the new Premier declined to include the Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford (Sir Frederic Thesiger), in the re-constructed Ministry; and that high functionary, despite an appeal to Lord Derby, was therefore compelled to resign the seals, which were given to Lord Cairns. The great ability, industry, and readiness in debate of the new Chancellor were much needed to strengthen the Ministerial side in the House of Lords. On the 5th of March Mr. Disraeli addressed a meeting of his Parliamentary supporters, and encouraged them to look hopefully forward to the future, and to remember through what storms and sunken rocks they had been safely steered.

He admitted the difficulties that lay in their path as a minority having to deal with the great question now pressing on their attention. But the past two years had given them great triumphs, and he had every confidence that with a firm front they might add to them fresh triumphs in 1868. But there were others who felt confident, and with better reason--unfortunately for him--than Mr. Disraeli. That condition of the Liberal party described in the caustic observation of Mr. Bouverie, when it had "leaders that wouldn't lead, and followers that wouldn't follow," was now at an end. Mr. Gladstone, who assiduously felt the pulse of his party, soon discovered that those who had played truant were willing to submit to discipline once more, and his exultation was extreme. "Having put our hand to the plough," he said, at a dinner given to Mr. Brand, the Liberal whip, at the end of March, "we shall not look back. I have entertained from the first a confident hope and belief that a long and arduous struggle would be accompanied by complete success." The battle-ground which the Liberal leader had chosen was well adapted to bring together all the scattered sections of the party; it was the proposal to disestablish the Irish Protestant Church. The perturbed and discontented state of Ireland was a continual source of anxiety. The proposal to abolish the State Church was satisfactory to the Liberals who were only politicians, because it involved what they deemed a useful and tranquillising concession to the feelings of the Roman Catholic majority of the Irish people. It was also satisfactory to that large and important class of Liberals who had Dissenting sympathies, because it aimed at doing away with an Established Church, and reducing its ministers to find their subsistence through reliance on the principle of Voluntaryism.

Although we shall be departing from the strict order of time, we prefer to describe the more important measures that the Government succeeded in carrying through Parliament this Session, before entering upon the narrative of the party contest which resulted in their defeat and paved the way for their resignation. These measures were three in number. Of one, the Scottish Reform Bill, we have already given the history; the two others were the Irish Reform Bill, and the Bill for defining the boundaries of boroughs in England and Wales. The Irish Reform Bill was brought in by Lord Mayo on the 19th of March. It was in appearance a much simpler affair than the corresponding Bill for Scotland; it gave to Ireland no new members, and made no change in the county franchise, which had been fixed at a £12 rental for Ireland some years before. In the boroughs the Bill enacted that the rates of all houses valued at less than £4 a year should be paid by the landlord, and fixed the franchise at £4 a year rental. Practically, therefore, it was a ratepaying franchise as in England. It also contained a redistribution scheme, which proposed to disfranchise six small boroughs, and allot one of the seats thus obtained to Dublin, and the other five to different counties that were inadequately represented. The Bill was read a second time on the 7th of May, and then the real battle began. The redistribution scheme appeared to please no one, and Government withdrew it. The Irish Liberal members complained that the Bill, which only added about nine thousand new names to the register of voters, was absurdly insufficient; they alleged that the qualification for the county franchise was far too high, and that the retention of the freeman franchise was an error. Sir Colman O'Loghlen moved an amendment which, if carried, would have swept away the freeman franchise of Dublin and other cities; and Colonel French endeavoured to reduce the county qualification from £12 to £8. Other amendments also were moved; but from some cause or other Government were always victorious when it came to a division; and the Bill passed through committee substantially as its authors had framed it, minus the redistribution clause. The Irish members complained bitterly of this result, declaring that but for the apathy of English and Scottish Liberals, who had neglected to come to the House to support them, they would have carried the amendments above described, and greatly improved the Bill. As for the county qualification, Sir John Gray declared that though nominally the same as in England, a rental of £12 a year in Ireland was really equivalent to one of £30 a year in England.

The Bill for regulating the boundaries of boroughs in England and Wales was founded on the report of a Royal Commission that had minutely investigated the subject. When introduced into the House there appeared to be an indisposition to accept it as it stood, because the municipalities of a number of boroughs whose boundaries had been extended by the commissioners remonstrated against such extension and petitioned the House that the ancient boundaries might be preserved. A motion was accordingly made and accepted by Government, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The recommendations of the Select Committee went to undermine many of the conclusions of the Commission, and independent members moved amendments that were derogatory to the recommendations of the committee. Great wrangling and confusion ensued, but in the end the Bill was carried as altered by the Select Committee; and fifteen important boroughs--among which Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, and Manchester were included--were permitted to retain their ancient boundaries, contrary to the recommendations of the Commission. The Bill was not passed by the House of Lords till near the end of the Session.

At a much earlier period Mr. Gladstone sprang his first mine against the Government position with destructive effect. Three years before, when Mr. Dillwyn had brought up the question of the anomalous spectacle presented to Europe by the Irish Church, Mr. Gladstone had both spoken and written to the effect that, while admitting the scandal and the danger of the existing state of things, he did not believe the question to be within the range of present politics, and considered that a long period must elapse before it would be ripe for settlement. Now, however, he had convinced himself that "the hour was come, and the man." On the 23rd of March he laid three resolutions before the Commons, of which the first declared that, "in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that the Established Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an establishment, due regard being had to all personal interests, and to all individual rights of property." The object of the second and third resolutions was to prevent the creation of any more vested interests for the future. Vacancies occurring in the higher ecclesiastical appointments were not, if in public patronage, to be filled up pending the decision of Parliament; and the Queen was to be humbly solicited by the House to place at the disposal of Parliament with a view to the aforesaid purposes, her interest in the archbishoprics, bishoprics, and other ecclesiastical dignities and benefices of Ireland. Mr. Disraeli, had all his Cabinet been of one mind, would probably have met the resolutions by a direct negative. But his Secretary for Foreign Affairs--Lord Stanley--the high descent and great wealth of whose family, coupled with his own unquestioned ability, enforced consideration for his opinions--was by no means disposed to maintain a war _à outrance_ in defence of the Church of Ireland. It was accordingly agreed that Mr. Gladstone's resolutions should be met at the first stage by an amendment, to be moved by Lord Stanley: "That this House, while admitting that considerable modifications in the temporalities of the united Church in Ireland may, after pending inquiry, appear to be expedient, is of opinion that any proposition tending to the disestablishment or disendowment of the Church ought to be reserved for the decision of the new Parliament." The amendment was ingeniously framed, because it contained an implied menace that the Government, if defeated on the resolutions, would dissolve Parliament sooner than allow the Irish Church Question to be dealt with by the "unreformed" constituencies; thus sending back members to their constituents to face all the trouble and expense of an election many months before the time that they had calculated upon. This disagreeable prospect might again, it was hoped, cause a split in the Liberal party. But the manœuvre did not succeed this time. The debate on the resolutions commenced on the 30th of March, and was continued over four nights; the question being, whether the Speaker should leave the chair so that the House might go into committee on the resolutions, or whether Lord Stanley's amendment should be affirmed. In the course of the debate, Mr. Lowe, the great deserter, who had now returned to his colours, made a vehement and powerful attack on Government for their attempt to link the fortunes of the Church of England with those of the sister Establishment in Ireland. This, he said, was a Mezentian union--an attempt to link the living with the dead.

The division resulted in the rejection of Lord Stanley's amendment by a majority of 61; the numbers being 270 for, and 331 against it. No further progress was made for the moment, as the defeat of Government occurred on the eve of the Easter recess. During the short interval the sense of the country was variously expressed by two great meetings held in St. James's Hall--one for, the other against, Disestablishment. At the first, presided over by Lord Russell, the Chairman professed himself ready to sacrifice what was, in his own opinion, the best course--the plan of concurrent endowment by paying the priests. Great unanimity prevailed. At the Conservative meeting, the only argument put forward that was of much weight was this--that the ill-feeling which prevailed in Ireland towards England was more deep-seated than most Englishmen supposed; and that the disestablishment of the Irish Church, which was far from being a generally unpopular institution, would do nothing to remove this feeling in the minds of the majority, while it would tend to diminish the attachment of the Protestant minority to Great Britain. Parliament resumed its sittings on the 20th of April, and the 27th was fixed for the debate in committee on Mr. Gladstone's first resolution. Three more nights were consumed in the discussion of the question in all its bearings; on the 30th of April the division took place, and resulted in the affirmation of the first resolution, by a majority against Government of sixty-five.

Upon the numbers being announced, Mr. Disraeli rose and said that the vote at which the committee had arrived had altered the relations between Government and the House; he therefore moved that the House should adjourn to Monday, the 4th of May, to enable Government to consider their position. Few imagined that after defeats so decisive Government would be able to follow aught but one of two courses--either immediate resignation or immediate dissolution. Many, indeed, of the Liberal leaders maintained that the only constitutional course open to the Ministry was resignation. But his opponents did not know all that the accomplished and versatile Premier was capable of. Mr. Disraeli was not yet at the end of his resources. He contrived to extract out of defeat a secure tenure of office for seven months longer, and all the rage and vituperation of the baffled victors could avail nothing against his imperturbable front. On the 4th of May he rose in his place, and stated that, having waited on her Majesty, he told her that "the advice which her Ministers would, in the full spirit of the Constitution, offer her, would be that her Majesty should dissolve this Parliament, and take the opinion of the country upon the conduct of her Ministers, and on the question at issue; but, at the same time, with the full concurrence of my colleagues, I represented to her Majesty that there were important occasions on which it was wise that the Sovereign should not be embarrassed by personal claims, however constitutional, valid, or meritorious; and that if her Majesty was of opinion that the question at issue could be more satisfactorily settled, or that the interests of the country would be promoted by the immediate retirement of the present Government from office, we were prepared to quit her Majesty's service immediately, with no other feeling but that which every Minister who has served the Queen must entertain, viz. a feeling of gratitude to her Majesty for the warm constitutional support which she always gives to her Ministers, and I may add--for it is a truth that cannot be concealed--for the aid and assistance which any Minister must experience from a Sovereign who has such a vast acquaintance with public affairs. Sir, I, in fact, tendered my resignation to the Queen. Her Majesty commanded me to attend her in audience on the next day, when her Majesty was pleased to express her pleasure not to accept the resignation of her Ministers, and her readiness to dissolve Parliament so soon as the state of public business would permit. Under these circumstances, I advised her Majesty that, although the present constituency was no doubt admirably competent to decide upon the question of the disestablishment of the Church, still it was the opinion of her Majesty's Ministers that every effort should be made that the appeal should, if possible, be directed to the new constituencies which the wisdom of Parliament provided last year; and I expressed to her Majesty that, if we had the cordial co-operation of Parliament, I was advised by those who are experienced and skilful in these matters that it would be possible to make arrangements by which that dissolution could take place in the autumn of this year."

This speech, so charmingly blended and tempered as it was, concealed under a cloud of plausible words the exact point which every one wanted to know--how far the Ministerial plan was due to the Queen's own initiative, and how much was suggested to her by the Premier. The only point about which there could be no mistake was that the Ministers meant to stay in till the autumn. The Liberals were greatly incensed; and although many of them must have keenly relished the joke, and internally done homage to the genius of this master of political legerdemain, the leaders of the party felt it as a very serious matter to be kept so long out of the fruits of a triumph which they had deemed secure. Mr. Disraeli was questioned and cross-questioned as to the exact nature of the communications that had taken place between the Queen and himself, and as to an apparent discrepancy between his own explanation of the circumstances, and that given by the Duke of Richmond in the other House. Nothing could be more ingenuous and candid than Mr. Disraeli's replies; nevertheless, the transaction continued to be wrapped in some degree of mystery and Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Lowe, and others protested against the course taken by the Ministry as unconstitutional and unprecedented. According to Lord Malmesbury, Mr. Gladstone wished to stop supplies, but could not obtain the support of his party. Mr. Bright, however, severely chastised Mr. Disraeli for his use of the Queen's name, and the Prime Minister winced under the castigation. To the statement of Mr. Lowe, that in not resigning the Ministry was treating the House with disrespect, since the large majorities by which Government had been defeated on the Irish Church Question amounted virtually to a vote of want of confidence, Mr. Disraeli replied that many of those who sided with the majority on these occasions had assured him that they did not so understand the votes they gave; and he challenged Mr. Lowe and those who agreed with him to propose a direct vote of want of confidence, which could be argued and decided on that plain issue. The challenge was not taken up, and the excitement on this particular matter gradually subsided.

To the three original resolutions of Mr. Gladstone a fourth was added in the course of the discussion, relating to the Maynooth Grant and the _Regium Donum_. The former, which was originally fixed at £8,000 a year, was raised by Sir Robert Peel, in 1845, to £30,000 a year, and charged upon the Consolidated Fund. It was devoted to the sustentation of the great Roman Catholic seminary for the training of priests at Maynooth, and was administered by the Irish bishops, subject to the control of the Executive. Before Maynooth was established, the Irish priests were generally educated in France, whence they brought back, as it was supposed, feelings of alienation and hostility towards England; it was therefore considered to be an act of wise statesmanship to subsidise a seminary in Ireland itself, so that the priests might be educated at home. The _Regium Donum_ was an annual grant of about £38,000, first instituted by Charles II., in favour of the Irish Presbyterian Church, and distributed among the ministers in stipends of £75 each. Evidently the grounds of justice and conciliation upon which Mr. Gladstone relied in moving for the disendowment of the Irish Church were inapplicable in the case of the Maynooth Grant and the _Regium Donum_, both of which were of very modest amount relatively to the size of the religious communities to which they were allotted, and the payment of which involved no injustice nor inequality. But it was necessary for Mr. Gladstone to include these also in his scheme of disendowment, as, otherwise, he would have forfeited the support of the English Dissenters and the Scottish Radicals. With these the disendowment of the Irish Church was popular, not so much as an abatement of an injustice, as because it committed the State _pro tanto_ to the principle of Voluntaryism. "Levelling down" was the only kind of equalisation which they approved of; they desired that all religious organisations should be denuded of State aid equally with themselves, whether that aid were much or little. This applies more particularly to the Dissenters; with the Scottish members the detestation of everything Roman Catholic was the chief motive for their claiming that the Maynooth Grant should be included in the work of demolition. Mr. Gladstone, in order to preserve the unity of his party, which he had just patched together again with such infinite trouble, was obliged to consent to this enlargement of his scheme; and the fourth resolution accordingly ran thus: "That when legislative effect shall have been given to the first resolution of this committee, respecting the Established Church of Ireland, it is right and necessary that the grant to Maynooth and the _Regium Donum_ be discontinued, due regard being had to all personal interests."

The resolutions having been carried, in their final shape (May 8th), the Address to her Majesty respecting the temporalities of the Irish Church was duly presented. Some inconsiderate persons supposed that either Mr. Disraeli would advise the Queen, or that the Queen herself, under the influence of an imagined scruple as to the bearing of the Coronation Oath, would refuse, to surrender to Parliament her interest in the Irish temporalities in the manner requested. But both Mr. Disraeli and the Queen knew better the path prescribed to each by constitutional duty. The answer of her Majesty to the Commons' Address, received at the House on the 12th of May, stated that, relying on the wisdom of her Parliament, the Queen desired that her interest in the temporalities of the Irish Church should not stand in the way of the discussion of any measure that Parliament might deem necessary for the welfare of Ireland. To advise her Majesty to any other course would have been the less excusable, because it was quite unnecessary; Mr. Disraeli being serenely confident that the Tory majority in the House of Lords would allow no measure touching the temporalities to pass into law--at any rate that year. This was soon made evident, when, as soon as possible after the receipt of the Queen's consent to legislative action, Mr. Gladstone brought in a Suspensory Bill, the object of which was to stop the creation of new vested interests, by preventing for a limited time any new appointments in the Irish Church, and to restrain for the same period in certain respects the proceedings of the Irish Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The Suspensory Bill passed easily through the House of Commons; but when it came to the Lords it was criticised with great severity, and the second reading was refused by a majority of ninety-five.

The rest of the Session passed away with little that was eventful to mark its course. Government brought in an Education Bill, which contained one noteworthy and excellent feature--the provision of a real Minister of Education, in the shape of a new Secretary of State for that special department. But the general scheme proposed in the Bill was slight and not deeply considered; it therefore failed to stand its ground against the numerous objections raised against it, and was before long withdrawn by its promoters. The financial statement of Mr. Ward Hunt, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, showed that the revenue continued to exhibit that character of elasticity which it had maintained for several years. The plan for the public endowment of the Irish Catholic University fell to the ground at an early period of the Session. The Irish prelates (Archbishop Leahy and Bishop Derry) who had been appointed to conduct the negotiation on the part of the University authorities with the Chief Secretary, Lord Mayo, demanded powers so extensive, not only as to the appointment and dismissal of professors and other officers, but also as to the use and prohibition of books, that Government abruptly closed the correspondence. It afterwards appeared that the prelates had not put forward these demands as an ultimatum, and might have abated their terms upon good cause being shown. But it is probable that Mr. Disraeli, knowing how extremely averse was popular feeling from any concession to Romanism, felt little regret that the large demands of the prelates had furnished him with a decent excuse for abandoning the project.

Several measures introduced by Government in the course of the Session met with a similar fate to that which befell the Education Bill. One really useful Act was passed--that for enabling the State to treat with the various electric telegraph companies for the purchase of their lines, in order that the whole telegraphic communication of the country might be placed under the control of the Postmaster-General. The adjustment of the various interests involved was a work of great labour and patience; it was, however, accomplished, and the telegraph companies agreed to accept twenty years' purchase of the net profits of their undertakings. It was calculated that Government would require about £6,000,000 in order to carry the scheme into full effect, the greater part of which sum would be borrowed from the Savings Banks Fund; but the financial part of the arrangement was reserved for the next Parliament. Mr. Scudamore, the originator of the scheme, calculated that the Post Office would derive a net profit of £200,000 a year from taking the telegraph lines into its own hands; but the purchase gave rise, then and afterwards, to much hostile criticism.

The home policy of the Tory Government, checked and foiled as it was at every turn, by the fact of its supporters being a minority in the House of Commons, cannot be deemed, however brilliant it may have been in inception, to have been more than moderately successful in what it achieved. With foreign affairs it was otherwise. Lord Stanley presided over the Foreign Office, and controlled the relations of the country with Foreign Powers with a firmness and dignity that recalled English statesmen of the old school. Of his conduct in the Luxemburg business we have already spoken; of his management of the _Alabama_ question we shall have to speak hereafter. Making a reasonable deduction for partisanship, we may admit that there was much truth in the lofty language used by the Prime Minister with regard to the foreign policy of his Government, in a speech delivered at a banquet in Merchant Taylors' Hall, on the 17th of June. "When we acceded to office," he said, "the name of England was a name of suspicion and distrust in every foreign Court and Cabinet. There was no possibility of that cordial action with any of the Great Powers which is the only security for peace; and, in consequence of that want of cordiality, wars were frequently occurring. But since we entered upon office, and public affairs were administered by my noble friend, who is deprived by a special diplomatic duty of the gratification of being here this evening, I say that all this has changed; that there never existed between England and Foreign Powers a feeling of greater cordiality and confidence than now prevails; that while we have shrunk from bustling and arrogant intermeddling, we have never taken refuge in selfish isolation; and the result has been that there never was a Government in the country which has been more frequently appealed to for its friendly offices than the one which now exists."

A short Act--the Registration of Voters Act--was passed before Parliament separated, in order to facilitate early elections under the Reform Bill of 1867; and the Session came to a close on the 31st of July. After the prorogation of Parliament the Ministry lost no time in making the necessary preparations for a dissolution and general election. The registers of the enlarged constituencies were actively proceeded with and so far completed that it was found possible to dissolve Parliament on the 11th of November, and to summon a new one, to be elected under the Reform Act of 1867, for the 10th of December. The great public question at issue was the existence of the Irish Establishment; and, on a general view, the verdict of the constituencies was given in favour of Mr. Gladstone's proposals, and disappointed the sanguine anticipations of Mr. Disraeli. There was a gain to the Liberal party, as the net result of the elections, of fifteen seats, equal to thirty votes on a division. But their triumph was chequered by several minor reverses, among which the rejection of Mr. Gladstone for South Lancashire was the most remarkable. Every resource that unflagging industry, careful organisation, and incessant oratory could put in requisition was resorted to in order to secure the return of the Liberal leader, but all efforts were in vain; the Conservative candidates--Messrs. Cross and Turner--were returned at the head of the poll, Mr. Gladstone having two hundred and sixty fewer votes than Mr. Turner, who was about fifty below Mr. Cross. There were two principal causes accounting for this result; one the extreme unpopularity of the Irish in South Lancashire, owing to the increased turbulence, drunkenness, and pauperism which their presence in large numbers occasioned, and also to the fact that their competition beat down wages; the other, the influence of the house of Stanley and other great Conservative families in that part of the country. Mr. Gladstone had to console himself with the suffrages of Greenwich, which had generously elected him while the issue in South Lancashire was still undecided. In other parts of Lancashire the same feeling of soreness against the proposal to disestablish the Irish Church, because it seemed to involve a triumph for the locally unpopular Irish Catholics, produced a similar result. This great and representative county, taking boroughs and shire-divisions together, returned twenty-one Conservatives against eleven Liberals. On the other hand, the Scottish electors accepted Mr. Gladstone's proposal with extraordinary favour. Not only did the Scottish boroughs return Liberals without exception, but many counties which had returned Conservative members for years were on this occasion carried for Liberals. Of the whole number of members who came up from Scotland, only seven were Conservatives. In Ireland also there was a Liberal gain, though one of less magnitude. At the election for Westminster--to the deep regret of all who could appreciate the profound political insight and philosophical treatment of great questions which were thus lost to the House of Commons--Mr. John Stuart Mill was defeated by the Conservative candidate, Mr. William Henry Smith.

By the beginning of December it was abundantly evident that Mr. Gladstone would be supported in the new House of Commons by a considerably larger following than before. Mr. Disraeli thereupon took a bold and judicious resolution. He would not go through the forms of meeting Parliament as if he were the master of the situation--of advising a Royal Speech that must either omit all mention of the Irish Church, or mention it in a tone at variance with the sentiments of the great majority of the House,--of renewing or seeing renewed a debate that he knew could only end one way. He resolved, therefore, to resign office before Parliament met, and this resolution he communicated to his friends and supporters by a circular dated the 2nd of December. Mr. Disraeli and his colleagues accordingly resigned, and the Queen, of course, sent for Mr. Gladstone, as the recognised leader of the party, and the ablest exponent of the policy of which the majority of the constituencies had just recorded their emphatic approval. The outgoing Premier declined a peerage for himself, but accepted one for his wife, who became Viscountess Beaconsfield. Mr. Gladstone became First Lord of the Treasury, and the principal offices were thus filled up:--Lord Chancellor, Lord Hatherley (late Sir W. Page Wood); President of the Council, Lord de Grey and Ripon; Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Lowe; Home Secretary, Mr. Bruce; Foreign Secretary, Earl of Clarendon; Colonial Secretary, Earl Granville; Secretary for War, Mr. Cardwell; Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Chichester Fortescue; Secretary for India, Duke of Argyll; First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. Childers; President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Bright; Chairman of the Poor Law Board, Mr. Goschen; Vice-President of the Council, Mr. W. E. Forster. The new Ministers, having necessarily vacated their seats on taking office, were not present at the meeting of Parliament on the 10th of December, and the only proceedings then taken were of a formal character, including the re-election of Mr. Evelyn Denison as Speaker, and the swearing-in of the new members who were more than 200 in number. Parliament was then adjourned to the 29th of December, at which date, the re-election of the new Ministers having been in no instance opposed, the House reassembled, with Ministers all in their places, but only to be again immediately adjourned to the 16th of February, 1869.

Some events, non-political in their character, which belonged to the year 1868, may here be brought together. In the course of the spring the intelligence of an attempt to assassinate the Duke of Edinburgh while in Australia created much excitement in London. Prince Alfred, the second son of the Queen, having taken to a naval life, rose rapidly in the service, and at the time of the attempt was in command of the _Galatea_, a frigate attached to the Australian station. In the course of a long visit to the colony of New South Wales the Prince had consented to be present at a large picnic at Clontarf (a place on Middle Harbour, Port Jackson), organised partly to do honour to his Royal Highness, partly to benefit the funds of a Sailors' Home. Here, under the bright Australian sky, while all was mirth and enjoyment around, the Prince being engaged in conversation with Sir William Manning, the Attorney-General, while the Governor (Lord Belmore) and the Lord Chief Justice were at a short distance, a person was observed to take deliberate aim at the Prince with a revolver and fire. The Duke fell forward on his hands and knees, exclaiming, "Good God! my back is broken." Sir William Manning rushed at the fellow to seize him, but, seeing him on the point of firing another shot, stooped to evade the bullet, and in the act of stooping lost his balance and fell. But there were so many persons on the ground that the criminal had little or no chance of escape. A stalwart coachbuilder of the name of Vial ran up and seized him from behind, pinioning his arms to his side. The man struggled hard, attempting to liberate his right arm sufficiently to discharge the pistol at Vial over his shoulder; but, finding this impossible, he fired in the direction of the spot where the Duke was lying, with the supposed intention of wounding him again. The bullet, which had struck the back and traversed the ribs, was extracted without difficulty, and the progress of his Royal Highness to recovery was rapid and without check. While the Duke was being borne away, a painful scene occurred. Before the police could take him in charge, the misguided wretch was surrounded by a mob of infuriated loyalists, incapable of restraining either their feelings or their fists. By these the criminal was so mauled, so brutally beaten and bruised, that, when the police at last arrived, he was covered with blood from head to foot and scarcely retained the semblance of humanity. "Lynch him!" "Hang him!" "String him up!"--such were the cries that issued from a hundred throats. When he was brought down to the man-of-war from which he was to be removed to gaol, the sailors were about to hang him at the yard-arm incontinently; but Lord Newry interposed and saved him. After much preliminary investigation, in order to ascertain whether or not the man had accomplices, he was put on his trial on the 26th of March. He gave his name as Henry James O'Farrel, admitted that he had intended to kill the Prince, as a prominent representative of English tyranny over his native land, and at first used language which pointed, like that of Mucius Scævola on a similar occasion, to a secret conspiracy in which he was but one of the adepts and accomplices. When, however, he was condemned to death, he wrote and signed on the day before his execution (April 21st) a full and clear statement, declaring that he had had no accomplices, and that the design of assassinating the Duke had been conceived in his own brain, and communicated to no other person. He admitted that he was a Fenian, but denied that he was connected with, or even cognisant of the existence of, any Fenian organisation in New South Wales. Before he suffered, he was brought to a becoming sense of the guilt of the criminal act he had so nearly consummated. The Duke of Edinburgh, after his recovery, interceded with the Colonial Government, but without effect, for the pardon of the culprit.

The scandalous scenes caused in 1867 by the discourses of the "No Popery" lecturer Murphy were renewed in the May of 1868 with yet more calamitous results. A traveller, passing through the streets of Birmingham, on the night of June 19th, 1867, saw Park Street in ruins; the traffic stopped in the great thoroughfare of High Street and Bull Street; Carr's Lane, Moor Street, etc., strongly occupied by soldiers, and Irishwomen weeping over the destruction of their little property and their wrecked homes. On the 9th of May, 1868, the furious spirit of bigotry which Murphy's lectures had awakened in the breasts of his English auditors, at Dukinfield, Stalybridge, and Ashton-under-Lyne, important manufacturing towns in South Lancashire, found vent in a combined movement against the quarter inhabited by the Catholic Irish in the last-named town. Much fighting ensued, but the party of the assailants was in superior force, and, after having done considerable damage to a small chapel with its school in the Irish quarter, they attacked the principal chapel (St. Mary's). The chapel bell was rung, and the Irish flocked to the aid of their priest; but they were overpowered by numbers, and the fittings and window-frames of the chapel were destroyed. Shots were fired, but no lives were lost. On the 11th there was a renewal of rioting; the English attacked Reyner's Row, the inhabitants of which were mostly Irish, and commenced systematically to sack and gut the houses, and destroy the furniture. Troops were at last sent for by the Mayor; the rioters cheered the soldiers, and adjourned to another street merely to renew the work of devastation. It was the riots of 1780 repeated on a smaller scale. In one of the rushes made by the mob a respectable woman was knocked down and trampled to death. A number of special constables were sworn in; the most mischievous of the rioters were arrested or disarmed, and the disturbance was gradually got under. An attempt was made to renew the same outrages at Stalybridge; but here the authorities were well prepared, and the mob was at once charged and dispersed by a combined force of constables and specials.

In December, a decision, which had been awaited with deep interest by both the great parties in the Church, was delivered by Lord Cairns in the name of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The judgment was in the case of Martin _v._ Mackonochie. The latter, one of the leading Ritualist clergy in London, and the incumbent of St. Alban's, Holborn, was charged with lighting candles on the communion-table at the time of the celebration of the communion, and with superstitiously prostrating himself before the elements after pronouncing the prayer of consecration. On both charges submitted the judgment was against Mr. Mackonochie. Lighted candles, according to the Judicial Committee, were not "ornaments" within the meaning of the Rubric; and with regard to the prostrations, it was evident that they introduced and implied an adoration to a supposed Divine presence, objectively understood, which the Reformers had carefully eliminated from the worship of the Anglican Church. Mr. Mackonochie was condemned in the costs of the appeal, as well as in the costs of the hearing in the court below.

There died in this year (May 7), at an extreme old age, one whose name recalled the Liberal reaction that set in in Great Britain at the beginning of the century, who had worked with Mackintosh and Charles James Fox, and stood up to defend the unhappy Queen of George IV. This was Lord Brougham, whose splendid talents were neutralised by a restless ambition, which had condemned him, since his ostracism by Lord Melbourne, to a long career of political sterility. Longley, once head-master of Harrow, who since the death of Sumner had been Archbishop of Canterbury, died this year (October 27), and was succeeded by Dr. Tait, the Bishop of London. A life brilliantly commenced, but clouded latterly by many disappointments, was also closed this year (June 11)--that of Sir James Brooke, the Rajah of Sarawak. The adventurous story of his early life--how, finding himself possessed of wealth, and with no special work to do, he fitted out a yacht, and sailed to the Eastern Archipelago; how he settled down at Sarawak in Borneo, and, as a beneficent friend and lawgiver, taught the Dyaks the benefits of law, and the arts and enjoyments of a higher life; how he warred upon the pirates of the coast and the freebooters of the interior--all this is told, simply and well, in Captain Keppel's "Voyage of the _Dido_." Milman, the historian of the Jews and of Latin Christianity, also passed away; and Bishop Hampden, whose name was associated with university controversies, and Bishop Jeune, whose name recalls university reform.

The sequence of events in Abyssinia that terminated in the death of the Emperor Theodore and the storming of the rock fortress of Magdala, commenced with the conclusion of a treaty of amity and commerce, in 1848, between Queen Victoria and Ras Ali, the ruler of central Abyssinia. This treaty was the work of Lord Palmerston; and to understand his motives, it is necessary that the reader should have some general knowledge of the previous history of Abyssinia. The natives of this portion of the ancient Ethiopia--which, though within the tropics, enjoys a healthy and delightful climate, on account of its great elevation above the sea--were converted to Christianity by St. Frumentius, sent from Alexandria by the great Athanasius in the fourth century of our era. They never for any long time together broke their connection with Egypt; for centuries the Abuna, or patriarch, of the Abyssinian Church, had been appointed, whenever the dignity fell vacant, by the Coptic Patriarch in Egypt, and submissively accepted by the Abyssinian Christians. Unfortunately, the Copts in Egypt having ages ago adopted the heresy of the Monophysites, the connection between the two countries propagated the same heresy in Abyssinia, and thereby raised in some degree a barrier between the Abyssinians and the rest of Christendom. But the motive that originally induced the Neguses, or Emperors, of Abyssinia to seek the head of their Church from Egypt was wise and laudable; they saw Mohammedanism spreading all around them, cutting them off from all other Christian countries; and they hoped by this ecclesiastical arrangement to guard themselves in some measure against the fatal effects of that isolation.

Ages rolled by and the troubles of Abyssinia continually thickened. Once, before Mohammed arose, she had had the command of the Red Sea and had subdued the southern portion of Arabia, where her dominion for a time promised to be permanent. Gibbon speculates on the strangely different course which human affairs might have taken if the Christian rulers of Abyssinia had been able to subjugate the whole of Arabia and stifle Islam in its cradle. But the Crescent rose higher and higher in the heavens; the Turkish power gradually extended itself along the shores of the Red Sea, and about 1570 succeeded in permanently occupying Massowah and other points on the west coast, thus cutting off Abyssinia from the sea. A still worse infliction came on the unfortunate country about the same time, in the invasion of tribes of savage and heathen Gallas from the south. They came again and again; though often defeated and driven out, they still returned in greater numbers and with greater ferocity than before. These intruding Gallas had become Mussulman, while the Galla tribes to the south remained heathen.