Chapter IV: Part 4

_Sunday, July 18._--In the afternoon Lord Granville called on me and brought me a confidential memorandum, containing an overture which Mr. Disraeli had placed in the hands of Lord Bessborough for communication to us.... While the contention as to the residue was abandoned, and pecuniary concessions alone were sought, the demand amounted, according to our computation, to between £900,000 and £1,000,000. This it was evident was utterly inadmissible. I saw no possibility of approach to it, and considered that a further quarter of a million or thereabouts was all that the House of Commons could be expected or asked further to concede.

_Monday, July 19._--Those members of the Government who had acted as a sort of Committee in the Irish Church question met in the afternoon. We were all agreed in opinion that the Disraeli overture must be rejected, though without closing the door, and a reply was prepared in this sense, which Lord Granville undertook to send. [Draft in the above sense that no sum approaching £1,000,000 could be entertained].

_Tuesday, July 20._--The Archbishop (Dr. Tait), who had communicated with Lord Cairns in the interval, came to me early to-day and brought a memorandum as a basis of agreement, which, to my surprise, demanded higher terms than those of Mr. Disraeli. I told the Archbishop the terms in which we had already expressed ourselves to Mr. Disraeli. Meanwhile an answer had come from Mr. Disraeli stating that he could not do more. Then followed the meeting of the opposition peers at the Duke of Marlborough’s.

_Wednesday, July 21._--The Cabinet met at eleven, and I went to it in the mind of last night. [Not to abandon the Bill absolutely, but only to suspend the Government’s responsibility for it, leaving the Opposition to work their own will, and with the intention, when this had been done, of considering the matter further]. We discussed, however, at great lengths all possible methods of proceeding that occurred to us. The course adopted was to go through the endowment amendments, and if they were carried adversely, then to drop their responsibility.

_Thursday, July 22._--I was laid up to-day and the transactions were carried on by Lord Granville, in communication with me from time to time at my house.

The proceedings of this critical day are narrated by Lord Granville in a memorandum to Mr. Gladstone dated August 4.

“After seeing you, I met Lord Cairns at the Colonial Office. He offered me terms.... I asked him whether, in his opinion, he, the Archbishop, and I could carry anything we agreed upon. He said, ‘Yes, certainly.’ After seeing you, I met Lord Cairns a second time in his room in the House of Lords. I asked, as a preliminary to giving any opinion on his amendments, how he proposed to deal with the preamble. He said, ‘To leave it as amended by the Lords.’ I then proposed the words which were afterwards adopted in the 68th clause. He was at first taken aback, but admitted that he had personally no objection to them.... We agreed upon the commutation clause if the 7 and the 5 per cent. were lumped together. On the curates’ clause we could come to no agreement. He proposed to see Lord Salisbury and the Archbishop, and to meet again at four at the Colonial Office. He spoke with fairness as to the difficulty of his position, and the risk he ran with his own party. I again saw you, and asked the Irish Attorney-General to be present at the last interview. I stated to him in Lord Cairns’ presence how far we agreed, and expressed my regret that on the last point--the curates--our difference was irreconcilable. Lord Cairns said he hoped not, and proceeded to argue strongly in favour of his proposal. He at last, however, at 4.30, compromised the matter by accepting five years instead of one. I shook his hand, which was trembling with nervousness. We discussed the form of announcing the arrangement to the House. We at once agreed it was better to tell the whole truth, and soon settled that it would be better for its success that he should announce the details. I was afterwards apprehensive that this latter arrangement might be disadvantageous to us, but nothing could be better or fairer than his statement.”

“The news was brought to me on my sofa,” Mr. Gladstone says, “and between five and six o’clock I was enabled to telegraph to the Queen. My telegram was followed up by a letter at 7 p.m., which announced that the arrangement had been accepted by the House of Lords, and that a general satisfaction prevailed.”

To the Queen he wrote (July 22):

“Mr. Gladstone is at a loss to account for the great change in the tone and views of the Opposition since Sunday and Monday and even Tuesday last, but on this topic it is needless to enter. As to the principal matters, the basis of the arrangement on the side of the Government is much the same as was intended when Mr. Gladstone had the honour of an audience at Windsor on Saturday; but various minor concessions have been added. Mr. Gladstone does not doubt that, if the majority of the House of Lords should accede to the advice of Lord Cairns, the Government will be able to induce the House of Commons to agree on the conditions proposed. Mr. Gladstone would in vain strive to express to your Majesty the relief, thankfulness, and satisfaction with which he contemplates not only the probable passing of what many believe to be a beneficent and necessary measure, but the undoubted and signal blessing of an escape from a formidable constitutional conflict.”

THE IRISH LAND BILL (1870).

=Source.=--Morley’s _Life of Gladstone_, vol. ii., pp. 293, 294. (Macmillan and Co.)

Public opinion was ripening. The _Times_ made a contribution of the first importance to the discussion, in a series of letters from a correspondent, that almost for the first time brought the facts of Irish land before the general public. A pamphlet from Mill, then at the height of his influence, upon both writers and readers, startled them by the daring proposition, that the only plan was to buy out the landlords. The whole host of Whig economists and lawyers fell heavily upon him in consequence. The new voters showed that they were not afraid of new ideas. It was not until January 25 that peril was at an end inside the Government.

_January 25, 1870._--Cabinet. The great difficulties of the Irish Land Bill THERE are now over. Thank God!

_February 7._--With the Prince of Wales 3¼–4¼ explaining to him the Land Bill and other matters. He has certainly much natural intelligence.

_February 15._--Introduced the Irish Land Bill in a speech of 3¼ hours. Well received by the House at large.

The policy of the Bill as tersely explained by Mr. Gladstone in a letter to Manning was “to prevent the landlord from using the terrible weapon of undue and unjust eviction by so framing the handle that it shall cut his hands with the sharp edge of pecuniary damages. The man evicted without any fault, and suffering the usual loss by it, will receive whatever the custom of the country gives, and where there is no custom, according to a scale, besides whatever he can claim for permanent buildings or reclamation of land. Wanton eviction will, as I hope, be extinguished by provisions like these. And if they extinguish wanton eviction, they will also extinguish those demands for _unjust_ augmentations of rent, which are only formidable to the occupier, because the power of wanton or arbitrary eviction is behind them.” What seems so simple, and what was so necessary, marked in truth a vast revolutionary stride. It transferred to the tenant a portion of the absolute ownership, and gave him something like an estate in his holding. The statute contained a whole code of minor provisions, including the extension of Mr. Bright’s clauses for peasant proprietorship in the Church Act; but this transfer was what gave the Act its place in solid legal form. The second reading was carried by 442 to 11, the minority being composed of eight Irish members of advanced type and three English Tories. The Bill was at no point fought high by the Opposition. Mr. Disraeli moved an amendment, limiting compensation to unexhausted improvements. The Government majority fell to 76, “a result to be expected,” Mr. Gladstone reports, “considering the natural leanings of English and Scotch members to discount in Ireland what they would not apply in Great Britain. They are not very familiar with land tenures.” One fact of much significance he notes in these historic proceedings. “Disraeli,” he writes to the Duke of Argyll (April 21, 1870), “has not spoken one word against valuation of rents or perpetuity of tenure.” It was from the House of his friends that danger came.

_April 4._--H. of C. Spoke on Disraeli’s amendment. A majority of 76, but the navigation is at present extremely critical.

_April 7._--H. of C. A most ominous day from end to end. Early in the evening I gave a review of the state of the Bill, and later another menace of overturn if the motion of Mr. W. Fowler [a Liberal banker] should be carried. We had a majority of only 32.

To Lord Russell he writes (April 12):

“I am in the hurry-scurry of preparation for a run into the country, but I must not omit to thank you for your kind and welcome letter. We have had a most anxious time in regard to the Irish Land Bill. The fear that our Land Bill may cross the water creates a sensitive state of mind among all Tories, many Whigs, and a few Radicals.”

Phillimore records a visit in these critical days:

_April 8._--Gladstone looked worn and fagged. Very affectionate and confidential, Gladstone feels keenly the want of support in debate. Bright ill. Lowe no moral weight. “I feel when I have spoken, that I have not a shot in my locker.”

As a very accomplished journalist of the day wrote, there was something almost painful in the strange phenomenon of a Prime Minister fighting as it were all but single-handed the details of his own great measure through the ambuscades and charges of a numerous and restless enemy--and of an enemy determined apparently to fritter away the principle of the measure under the pretence of modifying its details. “No Prime Minister has ever attempted any task like it--a task involving the most elaborate departmental readiness, in addition to the general duties and fatigues of a Prime Minister, and that too in a session when questions are showered like hail upon the Treasury bench.”[A] Then the Government put on pressure and the majority sprang up to eighty.

The debate in the Commons lasted over three and a half months; or about a fortnight longer than had been taken by the Church Bill. The third reading was carried without a division. In the Lords the Bill was read a second time without a division. Few persons clearly foresaw that it was the first step of a vast transfer of property, and that in a few years it would become customary for Ministers of the Crown to base all their legislation on the doctrine that Irish land is not an undivided ownership, but a simple partnership.[B]

[A] _Spectator._

[B] Lecky, _Democracy and Liberty_, vol. i., p. 165.

EDUCATION BILL: THE COWPER-TEMPLE CLAUSE (1870).

=Source.=--_Life of the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, M.P._, by T. Wemyss Reid, vol. i., pp. 501–503. (Chapman and Hall, 1888.)

The fate of the Bill was still in suspense. No one could be quite sure that Mr. Gladstone intended to press forward with it during that session. Mr. Gladstone himself held strongly to the Bill in the shape in which it had first been introduced; but he had been startled and alarmed by the rising of the Liberal party against it, and he did not appear to share the robust self-confidence with which Mr. Forster faced the formidable flank attacks that were being delivered upon the Government from the benches below the gangway. On June 12 Mr. Forster submitted to Mr. Gladstone a Memorandum on the subject of the measure and the rival amendments which had been proposed by the representatives of the different sections of their own party.

“The first question which suggests itself,” said Mr. Forster in this Memorandum, “is, Why listen to either of their amendments? Why not stick to our Bill as it stands? Our proposal that the majority should have what religious teaching it pleases, while the minority is protected, is logical and impartial in theory, and would work well in practice. Can we not, then, carry it? Yes, with the help of the Opposition; but I fear a majority of our side of the House would vote against it. All the Radicals--not merely men like Fawcett, but earnest supporters of the Bill like Mundella--all the Dissenters from Baines to Richards, would find themselves forced to oppose us, and they would be followed, or rather led, into the lobby by the Whigs, by Sir George Grey and Whitbread; and all our best friends, like Brand, would beg us to prevent a division which would break up the party.”

Clearly Mr. Forster, when he penned this Memorandum, had no liking for the idea of carrying the Bill by means of the votes of the Opposition and against those of his party. After discussing the various amendments, he declared himself in favour of one proposed by Mr. Cowper-Temple, which was virtually identical with his own suggestion to Lord Ripon in the letter of May 18. By this amendment it was ordered that no catechism or religious formulary distinctive of any particular denomination should be taught in the public schools.

“It may be said,” continued Mr. Forster in his Memorandum, “that this plan is unjust inasmuch as it does not give the majority which prefers catechisms the same chance as the majority which does not, and it is insufficient because it still leaves the Boards free to quarrel as to whether they will have the Scriptural teaching or purely secular, or the quasi-secular schools suggested by Richards. To the last objection the sole reply, and to my mind the sufficient reply, is that this plan will be acceptable to a large majority in the House and in the country, because by excluding the Catechism it silences the rallying-cries of controversy and limits the range for dispute; and because it binds, by Act of Parliament, to have none of the theoretical character teaching which would naturally be given by the schoolmaster to young children in a common school, but to which the local bodies wish to be guided by Parliament.

“With regard to the majorities which decidedly prefer catechisms, especially the Catholics, I think we can and should meet their case. I confess I cannot but think this would have been easier to do if we had framed the Bill in accordance with my original Memorandum, and, prescribing Bible lessons as a rule, had then made allowance for exceptional localities, desiring either purely secular or distinctive schools.”

On June 16 the debate on the Bill was at last resumed, and Mr. Gladstone then made a statement which in substance was merely an amplification of Mr. Forster’s suggestion.

THE GOVERNMENT AND THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR (1870).

=Source.=--Morley’s _Life of Gladstone_, vol. ii., p. 341. (Macmillan and Co., 1903.)

LETTER FROM MR. GLADSTONE TO JOHN BRIGHT (AUGUST 1, 1870).

Although some members of the Cabinet were inclined on the outbreak of this most miserable war to make military preparations, others, Lord Granville and I among them, by no means shared that disposition, nor I think was the feeling of Parliament that way inclined. But the publication of the Treaty has altered all this, and has thrown upon us the necessity either of doing something fresh to secure Belgium, or else of saying that under no circumstances would we take any step to secure her from absorption. This publication [text of a projected agreement between the French and Prussian Governments] has wholly altered the feeling of the House of Commons, and no Government could at this moment venture to give utterance to such an intention about Belgium. But neither do we think it would be right, even if it were safe, to announce that we would in any case stand by with folded arms and see actions done which would amount to a total extinction of public right in Europe.

MR. LOWE’S BUDGET: THE MATCH-TAX (1871).

=Source.=--_The Illustrated London News_, April 22, 1871.

On Thursday the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his usual financial statement. It appeared that the deficiency this year amounted to £2,800,000, and the right hon. gentleman proposes to meet it by increasing the probate and legacy duty; in the first degree from 1 to 2 per cent.; in the second degree from 3 to 3½ per cent., and in the third degree from 3½ to 5 per cent., estimating the gain to the revenue of about £1,000,000. He also proposed to equalise the duties payable on testate and intestate property, making it in all 2 per cent. He next proposed to put a halfpenny stamp on each box of lucifer matches containing not more than one hundred, and a penny on each box of vesta matches containing not more than one hundred. By the former he expected to gain £550,000, and £300,000 by the latter. This, he estimated, would reduce his deficit to £1,950,000, and that he proposed to make up by increasing the income-tax from £1 13s. 4d. to £2 4s. per cent., which he calculated would make up the remaining deficit.

OPPOSITION TO THE MATCH-TAX.

=Source.=--_The Illustrated London News_, April 29, 1871.

A numerous gathering of persons employed in the manufacture of matches was held on Sunday afternoon in Victoria Park, at which a resolution was unanimously passed condemning Mr. Lowe’s proposed impost in strong terms. According to one of the speakers, the daily bread of 15,000 persons in the east of London depends upon the trade in matches. Several thousand persons engaged in the match trade on Monday assembled in the Bow Road, and having formed a procession, set out to march to the House of Commons, there to present a petition against the threatened duty on matches. At a short distance from its starting-point the procession was broken up by the police, but the people managed in some degree to re-form their ranks, and, after many difficulties (more especially in their progress along the Thames Embankment), they arrived at the Houses of Parliament. This, however, was not accomplished without another collision with the police, in which one or two arrests were made. One party of the processionists even succeeded in making their way into Westminster Hall, but they were speedily removed.

PURCHASE IN THE ARMY ABOLISHED BY ROYAL WARRANT (1871).

=Source.=--_The Illustrated London News_, July 22, 1871.

On Thursday (July 20) Sir George Grey asked the Government whether that House, having sanctioned their proposal for the indemnification of officers on the abolition of purchase in the Army, they intend to take measures to prevent the future violation of the law involved in the continued payment of over-regulation prices for commissions. Mr. Gladstone made a long reply, in the course of which he stated that, after consideration, the Government had resolved to advise Her Majesty to take the decisive step of cancelling the warrant under which purchase was legal. That advice had been accepted and acted upon by Her Majesty, and a new warrant had now been framed in terms conformable to the law, so that it was his duty to announce, on the part of the Government, that at present purchase in the Army no longer existed. (Loud and continued cheers.)

When he said that purchase no longer existed, he was reminded by his right hon. friend (Mr. Cardwell) to explain that it did not mean that it was extinguished from the present moment, but a day had been named--November 1 of the present year--from and after which there could be no purchase or sale of commissions in the British Army. Although the amendment of the Duke of Richmond had been carried in the House of Lords [155 for the amendment, which was against the second reading, 130 against], he was advised that that would not prevent the Bill from being proceeded with; and it would now remain to be seen how the House of Lords would act under the circumstances which he had stated, and whether, purchase being abolished, they would go on with the other portions of the Bill.

In conclusion, he begged to say that, come what might, under all circumstances the Government would use the best means in their power, mindful of the honourable pledges they had given, to secure at the hands of Parliament just and liberal terms for the officers.

Mr. Disraeli entered his protest against the course the Prime Minister had taken, and said that Minister was most unwise, who, being baffled in passing an important measure through one House of the Legislature, took upon himself the responsibility and danger of advising the Queen to exercise her prerogative and set the opinion of that House at defiance.

THE FIRST AUGUST BANK HOLIDAY (1871).

=Source.=--_The Illustrated London News_, August 19, 1871.

The first statute holiday of the first Monday in August, under the Bank Holidays Act, was very generally observed on the 7th; and another year this holiday will probably be still more general. The name of Sir John Lubbock and the first Monday in August will henceforth be associated with pleasant recollections in the minds of the clerks of the bankers, brokers, merchants, and traders of the city. At all events, the principal employers of labour in the City, many in the east and a few in the west, took advantage of the provision contained in the new Act, and closed their establishments. The Government offices in the City remained open, but all the warehouses and offices of public companies, the Royal Exchange and Lloyd’s, and nearly all the retail shops in Cannon Street, the Poultry, and Cornhill, were closed. The holiday having been wisely fixed for Monday, a large number of those for whose benefit the measure was more especially passed were able to leave town on Saturday afternoon, and thus to secure two clear days in the country. But still many thousands thronged to the railway stations in the morning. Notwithstanding this exodus of pleasure-seekers, the principal exhibitions and places of amusement had fully the average number of visitors....

In the east end of the town many of the manufactories were closed, and several of the great capitalists, who give their workmen an annual “treat,” engaged fields in which the workmen, with their wives and families, were entertained and amused with outdoor sports. By rail and by river more than 10,000 Oddfellows of the North London District of the Manchester Unity went down to the North Woolwich Gardens to take part in a fête held for the benefit of the widows and orphans of deceased members. On Monday night the great thoroughfares in the City leading from the railways--especially at Ludgate Hill, the Bank, and Gracechurch Street--were filled with holiday folks “homeward bound.” Several schools gave a whole holiday to the pupils, and children of all ages formed part of most of the groups. Not a tipsy or ill-conducted person could be seen. The day had been glorious, and the sum of happiness and social and domestic enjoyment evidently conferred by this first Bank Holiday in August testifies to the wisdom of the Legislature.

BIBLE READING IN SCHOOLS (1871).

=Source.=--_Life of Thomas Henry Huxley_, by his Son, vol. ii., pp. 342, 343. (Macmillan and Co., 1900.)

At the first meeting of the Education Committee of the London School Board, Mr. W. H. Smith, M.P., proposed, and Mr. Samuel Morley, M.P., seconded a resolution in favour of religious teaching. “That in the schools provided by the Board, the Bible shall be read, and there shall be given therefrom such explanations and such instruction in the principles of religion and morality as are suited to the capacities of children,” with certain provisos. Several antagonistic amendments were proposed; but Professor Huxley gave his support to Mr. Smith’s resolutions, which, however, he thought might “be trimmed and amended in a way that the Rev. Dr. Angus had suggested. His speech, defining his own position, was a very remarkable one. He said it was assumed in the public mind that this question of religious instruction was a little family quarrel between the different sects of Protestantism on the one hand, and the old Catholic Church on the other. Side by side with this much shivered and splintered Protestantism of theirs, and with the united fabric of the Catholic Church (not so strong temporally as she used to be, otherwise he might not have been addressing them at that moment), there was a third party growing up into very considerable and daily increasing significance, which had nothing to do with either of those great parties, and which was pushing its own way independent of them, having its own religion and morality, which rested in no way whatever on the foundations of the other two.” He thought that “the action of the Board should be guided and influenced very much by the consideration of this third great aspect of things,” which he called the scientific aspect, for want of a better name. “It had been very justly said that they had a great mass of low, half-instructed population which owed what little redemption from ignorance and barbarism it possessed mainly to the efforts of the clergy of the different denominations. Any system of gaining the attention of these people to these matters must be a system connected with, or not too rudely divorced from, their own system of belief. He wanted regulations, not in accordance with what he himself thought was right, but in the direction in which thought was moving.” He wanted an elastic system that did not oppose any obstacle to the free play of the public mind. Huxley voted against all the proposed amendments, and in favour of Mr. Smith’s motion. There were only three who voted against it; while the three Roman Catholic members refrained from voting. This basis of religious instruction, practically unaltered, has remained the law of the Board ever since.

There was a controversy in the papers between Professor Huxley and the Rev. W. H. Freemantle as to the nature of the explanation of the Bible lessons. Huxley maintained that it should be purely grammatical, geographical, and historical in its nature; Freemantle that it should include some species of distinct religious teaching, but not of a denominational character.

GENEVA ARBITRATION: THE INDIRECT CLAIMS (1872).

=Source.=--_Life of the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, M.P._, by T. Wemyss Reid, vol. ii., pp. 22, 23. (Chapman and Hall, 1888.)

But when everything seemed to be settled, and there was at last good hope of the final removal of the long-standing obstacle to the friendship of the two peoples, a new difficulty made its appearance in a very unexpected quarter. This was the claim for indirect damages, which were set forth in the “case” of America, as it was presented to the Court of Arbitration at Geneva. Great was the indignation in England when, at the close of January, 1872, it first became known that the American Government was prepared to prefer this demand. The Cabinet was at once summoned to consider the question, and some of the members were for forthwith withdrawing from the arbitration. Mr. Forster was in favour of a more moderate and prudent course, but at the same time he felt strongly as to the unfairness of the demand made by America. “Clearly,” he writes in his diary (January 30, 1872), “this claim is sharp practice by the Americans, as the protocols prove that they had waived the indirect claims. Our Press is very indignant and exigeant, the _Daily News_ leading. A cool head and a cool temper wanted. I asked Tenterden to dinner to talk the matter over with him. He is strong against diplomatic negotiations, and recommends a protest and refusal to submit the indirect claims to the arbitration to be delivered through our agent to the tribunal to the United States agent, both being appointed by Article 2 of the Treaty. Thereby diplomatic wrangling would be avoided, and the Yankees would not be forced to immediate reply while the Presidential caucus is at its height. I never felt any matter so serious. (January 31.) Drew up a memorandum urging communication through the agents rather than by despatch, on the ‘Alabama’ hitch. Took it to Granville; then sent it to Gladstone, asking him whether he would object to its circulation. Found a note from G---- assenting to circulation, so sent F---- off with the box. (February 2.) My box returned. All the Ministers’ minutes against me, except Gladstone, Granville, Ripon, and Chancellor.”

The question was discussed in the Cabinet, but the opinion was not favourable to Mr. Forster’s proposal, who had to give way.

(P. 26.) In February General Schenck [the leader of the American House of Representatives, who was in England] unofficially proposed four possible plans by way of settling the difficulty: (1) A lump sum paid by England; (2) a maximum sum paid by England to cover all claims, direct or indirect, supposing the arbitrators found against us; (3) proceeding with our arbitration under our protest that we did not consider the indirect claims within the Treaty, and could not abide by any decision against us as respected them, or pay in respect of them any gross sum or portion thereof; (4) an exchange of Vancouver’s Island for the indirect claims, upon the principle that both treaties were open to two interpretations....

Eventually ministers agreed to fall in with the American suggestion of a supplemental treaty, or, rather, of a supplemental article to the existing treaty.

[NOTE.--On June 19 the arbitrators rejected altogether the indirect claims.]

AN EARLY ELECTION UNDER THE BALLOT ACT (1872).

=Source.=--_The Times_, September 14, 1872.

Usually an election day here has been a day of great political tumult and uproar. But to-day the general aspect of things was changed. When the poll opened the principal streets of the town were almost as quiet as usual. At the polling-booths, thirty-seven in number, there was very little crowding, and generally the town seemed to have got up no earlier than usual this morning, though in an extreme state of mystification. At each polling-booth there was erected, under contract with the Corporation, the compartments prescribed by the Act to secure privacy to the voter while marking his ballot paper. These compartments consisted of an open movable box, with four stalls or recesses, each supplied with a small ledge to serve as a desk, and placed back to back, so that four voters might be engaged in marking their papers at one and the same time. The size of the partition prevents a voter from overlooking his neighbour either at his side or in front of him. Each of these compartments was supplied with a pencil, secured by a string, like those in the telegraphic departments at the post-office.

The Conservatives appeared to be infinitely more active with their agents at the various polling-booths than the Liberals, and both tried to get an insight into the way affairs were going by means of tickets. Each elector had sent to him previously--the Conservatives ostensibly began this and the Liberals followed them--a ticket with a request that he would vote for Holker or German, as the case might be, and that after voting he would, if a Conservative, hand it over to the agent who would be at the door, and if a Liberal, would give it up at the nearest committee-room. The Conservative agents had blue cards fastened in front of their hats, and upon each card there was printed the words “Conservative agent.” As a rule two of them stood close to the door of egress at each polling-booth. In one instance a couple of them managed to get into a booth, but being detected by a Liberal, were ordered out. In other instances the Conservative agents were upon the premises of the polling-booth, and at one of the booths a couple were seen in the back-yard within a foot of the door leading out of it, their object being to ask for the tickets of the voters as they left the room. The Liberals did not push themselves so keenly within the precincts of the booths, but seemed to be anxious to get as near as they could. In the end the ticket system got thoroughly confused--Liberals, in mistake, gave their tickets to the Conservative agents; Conservatives gave them to those on the Liberal side, so that it became impossible accurately to test what was being done by the plan. The voting went on rather slowly; four voters were admitted at a time to each booth, and after receiving their papers proceeded to the “stalls” behind the officials, marked their papers, and then returned, putting them into a large sealed tin box, with a narrow slit at the top, as they passed out. The general business was very quietly transacted; there was even a dead calm about it at times. Some of the working men, of the ordinary labouring class, seemed to have no proper idea at all of the Ballot; odd ones of them would, on entering the booth, ask the constable at the door where they had to tell the name of the candidate they wanted to vote for, and others were very stupid in their folding up of the voting-papers. They crumpled them up occasionally or doubled them in such a way as to hide the stamp on the back, This bungling was chiefly the work of the more illiterate classes. One or two cases of personations were early reported, but the guilty parties made a clear escape. There has been more of novelty than of difficulty in working the Ballot here; and excepting the cases of stupidity mentioned, no awkwardness or hitch has occurred. As the morning advanced the booths became thronged, and at noon the work of vote-recording was at its greatest pitch of activity; but the increase in it then in no way deranged the general mechanism adopted. From about eleven o’clock in the forenoon till five this afternoon the streets have been very crowded, the bulk of the people being of the working-class order. Even the most sapient and experienced could not tell which way the wind was blowing--could not tell whether German or Holker was ahead. There was, however, a very general impression among Conservatives that their candidate was first, and a very strong apprehension on the part of the Liberals that this really was the case. Bills, etc., professing to show the state of the poll were occasionally put out, but only the most stupid placed any reliance upon them. Cheers and counter-cheers have been heard in the streets as the respective candidates and their friends have been noticed passing along them. There have been no displays of colours, no bands of music, and even in St. John’s ward an astonishing degree of order and sobriety has been observable. The Ballot, whatever it may not effect, has clearly from to-day’s experience conduced in a striking degree to the general sobriety and good order of the people. There is much talk about bribery and some about personation. At 8.30 the result of the election was announced by a card at the Town Hall. The figures were--Holker, 4,542; German, 3,824; showing, as there are 10,214 eligible voters on the register, that 1,848 had not recorded their votes.

“ALABAMA” ARBITRATION AWARD (1872).

=Source.=--_The Times_, September 16, 1872.

SUMMARY OF THE AWARD.

The Arbitrators at Geneva have given their Award. They unanimously find Great Britain liable for the acts committed by the _Alabama_; by a majority of the Italian, Swiss, Brazilian, and United States Arbitrators against the Arbitrator appointed by Great Britain, they find Great Britain liable for the acts committed by the _Florida_; and by a majority of the Italian, Swiss, and United States Arbitrators against the Arbitrators appointed by Great Britain and Brazil, they find Great Britain liable for the acts committed by the _Shenandoah_ after leaving Melbourne. They unanimously decided that, in the cases in which Great Britain was held responsible, the acts of the tenders should be considered to follow the judgment given in regard to the cruisers to which they were attached. They decided that Great Britain was not responsible for the acts committed by the _Georgia_ or by any other of the Confederate cruisers except the three above named.

They rejected altogether the claim of the United States Government for the expenditure incurred in pursuit and capture of the cruisers.

They decided that interest should be allowed, and have awarded a gross sum of 15,500,000 dollars in gold (about £3,229,166 13s. 4d.) in satisfaction and final settlement of all claims, including interest.

The amount of the claims preferred before the Tribunal, as appears from the Revised Statement of Claims presented on the part of the United States in April last, was 19,732,095 dollars in gold, to which was added a claim for expenses of pursuit and capture to the amount of 7,080,478 dollars, with interest at 7 per cent. on the whole amount for about ten years, or in all, 45,500,000 dollars in gold (or about £9,479,166 13s. 4d.).

REFUSAL OF MR. DISRAELI TO TAKE OFFICE WITHOUT A MAJORITY (1873).

=Source.=--_Annual Register, 1873_; _English History_, pp. 35–37.

SPEECH OF MR. DISRAELI IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS (MARCH 20, 1873).

Mr. Disraeli, who was warmly cheered by his supporters, next gave his account of what had passed between him and the Queen after receiving the letter which first summoned him to Buckingham Palace. In his audience, in reply to an inquiry from the Queen, he informed Her Majesty that he should be ready to form a Government which would carry on the affairs of the country efficiently and in a manner entitled to her confidence, but that he would not undertake it with the present House of Commons. In giving his reasons for this decision, Mr. Disraeli said he had represented to the Queen that, though recent elections had been favourable to the Conservative party, Mr. Gladstone had still a majority of close upon ninety, and that the division which overthrew the Government offered no elements which could lead to an expectation that this numerical position would be modified. He pointed out, also, that the majority against the Government the other night was created by a considerable section of the Liberal party--the Irish Roman Catholic members--with whom he had no bond of union. If he had appealed to them for support, they would have repeated their demands for a Roman Catholic University--a demand which he believed was decisively condemned at the last election, and by the subsequent disendowment of the Irish Church. Of office under such circumstances Mr. Disraeli said he had some personal experience, and it had convinced him that such an experiment weakened authority and destroyed public confidence. Consequently, he had prayed Her Majesty to relieve him of the task. Replying to the question why he had not advised the Queen to dissolve, he remarked that there was much misconception about the act of dissolving.

“It is supposed [said Mr. Disraeli] to be an act which can be performed with very great promptitude, and that it is a resource to which any Minister may recur with the utmost facility. That is a grave mistake. Dissolution of Parliament is a different instrument in different hands. It is an instrument of which a Minister who is in office, with his Government established, can avail himself with a facility which a Minister who is only going to accede to office is deprived of. There may be circumstances which may render it imperative on a Minister in office to advise the Sovereign to exercise the prerogative of dissolving Parliament; but he always has the opportunity of disposing of the public business before that dissolution takes place. The position of the Minister who is about to accede to office is very different. In the first place he has to form his Administration. This is a work of great time and of heavy responsibility. It is not confined merely to the construction of a Cabinet. Before a Ministry can be formed, whoever undertakes the task of its construction must see some fifty individuals whom he has to appoint to offices of trust and consideration. It is a duty which he can delegate to no one. He must see each of those individuals personally, and must communicate with them by himself. And this is a matter which--irrespective of the knowledge of human nature, which whoever undertakes to form a Cabinet ought to possess--requires time, and materially affects the business of the country. In the present case it would not have been possible to form a Government before Easter. Then the holidays would have intervened. After the holidays we might, by having recourse to measures of which I greatly disapprove--namely, provisional finance, the taking votes on credit and votes on account, and by accepting the estimates of my predecessors--have been able to dissolve Parliament in the early part of May. But when the month of May arrived, this question would have occurred: What are you going to dissolve Parliament about? There was no issue before the country. At least, it cannot be pretended for a moment that there was one of those issues before the country which would justify an extraordinary dissolution of Parliament--that is, some question upon which the country would passionately wish to decide. I ask the House to consider impartially what was the real condition of affairs. Her Majesty’s Ministers had resigned; the Queen had called upon a member of this House to form a Ministry in a house in which he had nearly ninety majority arrayed against him. Suppose it was in his opinion necessary to appeal to the country, by which the majority might be returned--probably of ninety--in his favour.

“Well, the Irish University Bill was not a Bill on which any Ministry could resign. But we could not carry on affairs without appealing to the country; and is it not clear that we could not appeal to the country without having a policy? (Laughter.) Hon. gentleman may laugh at the word ‘policy,’ but I maintain that it is totally impossible for gentlemen sitting on the Opposition bench suddenly to have a matured policy to present to the people of this country in case Parliament dissolves. The position of any party in opposition is essentially a critical position. On all great questions of the day gentlemen on this side of the House have certain principles which guide them on the subjects before Parliament; but on these questions we cannot rival in the possession of information those who hold the seals of Government.”

This point Mr. Disraeli elaborated at some length, mentioning Central Asia, the Three New Rules, and the French Treaty of Commerce as matters on which no body of men, suddenly created a Government, could have any policy until they had studied the official information. Local taxation, too, was a question which they must have fully considered before going to the country; but the strongest obstacle to an immediate dissolution would have been the necessity of carefully scrutinising the estimates, which, he maintained, were just as large as his own which were so vehemently denounced in 1868. The upshot was that the session would have been one of ordinary length, and he knew, from experience, the consequences to a party and to the public interests of endeavouring to carry on the Government in the face of a hostile majority.

“I know well (added Mr. Disraeli), and those around me know well, what will occur when a Ministry takes office and attempts to carry on Government with a minority during the session, with a view of ultimately appealing to the people. A right hon. gentleman will come down here, he will arrange his thumb-screws and other instruments of torture, and we shall never ask for a vote without a lecture; we shall never perform the most ordinary routine office of Government without there being annexed to it some pedantic and ignominious condition. (No, no.) I wish to express nothing but what I know from painful personal experience. No observation of the kind I have encountered could divest me of the painful memory; I wish it could. I wish it was not my duty to take this view of the case. For a certain time we should enter into the paradise of abstract motions. One day hon. gentlemen cannot withstand the golden opportunity of asking the House to assert that the income-tax should no longer form one of the features of Ways and Means. Of course, a proposition of that kind would be scouted by the right hon. gentleman and all his colleagues; but they might dine out on that day, and the resolution might be carried, as resolutions of that kind have been. Perhaps another gentleman, distinguished for his knowledge of ‘men and things’ (Mr. Rylands), moves that the Diplomatic Service should be abolished. While hon. gentlemen opposite may laugh in their sleeves at the mover, they vote for the motion in order to put the Government into a minority. So it would go very hard with us if on some sultry afternoon some member should ‘rush in where angels fear to tread’ (Mr. Trevelyan) and successfully assimilate the borough and the county franchise. And so things would go on until the bitter end--until at last even the Appropriation Bill has passed, Parliament is dissolved, and we appeal to those millions who, perhaps, six months before might have looked upon us as the vindicators of their intolerable grievances, but who now receive us as a defeated, discredited, and a degraded Ministry, whose services can no longer be of value to the Crown or a credit to the nation.”

Under these circumstances, with the concurrence of all his friends, he had represented to the Queen that it was not for the public interest that he should attempt to form a Government.

FIRST LONDON HOSPITAL SUNDAY (1873).

=Source.=--_The Times_, Monday, June 16, 1873.

The Metropolis has just witnessed the success of an undertaking without parallel in the social and religious history of modern times. The congregations of the great majority of the places of worship in London and its suburbs, reinforced moreover by many who do not habitually attend places of worship at all, were united in the pursuit of a common object, and in the acknowledgment of a common obligation. The claims of the sick poor were urged from several hundred pulpits, not on any ground of expediency, or of economy, or even of benevolence, but mainly on the broad principle that their recognition forms an essential part of the life dictated by every form of Christianity.

The appeal had gone home to the hearts of all classes of the community, and in the Metropolitan Cathedral the eye ranged easily from the Heir Apparent, and from the representatives of civic wealth and munificence, to an assemblage largely composed of persons manifestly of humble station, but who were neither less devout nor less liberal than those whom fortune had more highly favoured.

So far everything is well, and there can be no doubt that Hospital Sunday from this time forward will be an established institution. It is possible that it may lead to many indirect advantages, and that the bond now for the first time established among the charities to be assisted may ultimately produce beneficial changes in various points connected with their management. Hospitals have hitherto been in some sense rival institutions; and their rivalry has been a prolific source of wasteful and unnecessary expenditure.

NOTE.--The amount collected was £28,000.

THE ASHANTEE WAR: FALL OF COOMASSIE (1874).

=Source.=--_Annual Register, 1874_; _English History_, pp. 29–31.

On entering Coomassie the General strictly forbade all plundering on the part of his men; but the darkness of night coming on, the camp followers could not always be restrained, and a policeman taken in the act was hung. Here and there, too, attempts were made to set fire to the town. Coomassie was found to be a large place, with wide streets, and houses with verandahs, built round courtyards. It bore tokens of desolation in patches of waste land, covered with grass, and the absence of domestic poultry, etc., the despotism of the King making property as well as life insecure among the Ashantees. The King’s palace was larger than that of the chief of Fommanah, and consisted of many courts, each a house in itself. Upstairs were several small rooms, each of which was a perfect old curiosity shop, containing books in all languages, English newspapers, Bohemian glass, Kidderminster carpets, pictures, furniture, etc. The King’s sitting-room was a court with a tree growing in it, which was covered with fetish objects, and hung with spiders’ webs. In the royal bedroom adjacent was an English General’s sword, bearing the inscription: “From Queen Victoria to the King of Ashantee,” a gift probably of Her Majesty to Calcalli’s predecessor. Besides the King’s palace there was a grand building, called the “Bantoma,” where the ashes of former monarchs were entombed, and which was considered the most sacred spot in all Ashanteeland. Sir Garnet Wolseley sent word to the King that his desire was to spare Coomassie, and if he would come into the town and sign the peace a smaller indemnity would be accepted than that at first specified. But if not, a sign should be given of Great Britain’s power which should be known throughout the length and breadth of Africa. The King promised to come, but came not. The General waited throughout the whole day of the 5th in vain. The envoys sent with deceitful promises by the monarch were caught surreptitiously removing property. The General then gave orders to burn the Bantoma, but on second thoughts he recalled them. The destruction of so strong and vast a fortress would have taken too much time, and perhaps in their despair the Ashantees would have rallied round their sacred mausoleum in inconvenient force. In fact, it was very necessary to think of a speedy retreat. Heavy rain had fallen, and if the streams in rear of the British army should be much swollen, its backward march might be seriously impeded. It was coming short of the entire triumph anticipated, to leave Coomassie without the treaty and the royal signature; but the subjugation of the capital was a sufficient blow to Ashantee prestige, and, that it might never be forgotten by the nation, Sir Garnet gave orders to set fire to the city and to the royal palace.

“The demolition of the place was complete,” said Sir Garnet, in his despatch to the Colonial Secretary. “From all that I can gather, I believe that the result will be such a diminution in the prestige and military power of the Ashantee monarch as may result in the break-up of the kingdom altogether. This I had been anxious to avoid, because it seems impossible to foresee what Power can take this nation’s place among the feeble races of this coast. I certainly believe that your lordship may be well convinced that no more utterly atrocious Government than that which has thus, perhaps, fallen, ever existed on the face of the earth. Their capital was a charnel-house; their religion a combination of cruelty and treachery; their policy the natural outcome of their religion. I cannot think that, whatever may be the final fate of the people of this country, the absolute annihilation of such a rule, should it occur, would be a subject for unmixed regret. In any case, I believe that the main object of my expedition has been perfectly secured. The territories of the Gold Coast will not again be troubled by the warlike ambition of this restless power. I may add that the flag of England from this moment will be received throughout Western Africa with respectful awe, a treatment which has been of late years by no means its invariable fate among the savage tribes of this region.”