Chapter IV: , VII (20)

"The first of May, 1851, will always be memorable as the day
on which the Great Exhibition was opened in Hyde Park. ...
Many exhibitions of a similar kind have taken place since.
Some of these far surpassed that of Hyde Park in the splendour
and variety of the collections brought together. Two of them
at least--those of Paris in 1867 and 1878--were infinitely
superior in the array and display of the products, the
dresses, the inhabitants of far-divided countries. But the
impression which the Hyde Park Exhibition made upon the
ordinary mind was like that of the boy's first visit to the
play--an impression never to be equalled. ... It was the first
organised to gather all the representatives of the world's
industry into one great fair. ... The Hyde Park Exhibition was
often described as the festival to open the long reign of
Peace. It might, as a mere matter of chronology, be called
without any impropriety the festival to celebrate the close of
the short reign of Peace. From that year, 1851, it may be said
fairly enough that the world has hardly known a week of peace.
... The first idea of the Exhibition was conceived by Prince
Albert; and it was his energy and influence which succeeded in
carrying the idea into practical execution. ... Many persons
were disposed to sneer at it; many were sceptical about its
doing any good; not a few still regarded Prince Albert as a
foreigner and a pedant, and were slow to believe that anything
really practical was likely to be developed under his impulse
and protection. ... There was a great deal of difficulty in
selecting a plan for the building. ... Happily, a sudden
inspiration struck Mr. (afterward Sir Joseph) Paxton, who was
then in charge of the Duke of Devonshire's superb grounds at
Chatsworth. Why not try glass and iron? he asked himself. ...
Mr. Paxton sketched out his plan hastily, and the idea was
eagerly accepted by the Royal Commissioners. He made many
improvements afterwards in his design; but the palace of glass
and iron arose within the specified time on the green turf of
Hyde Park."

_J. McCarthy,
History of Our Own Times,
chapter 21 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_T. Martin,
Life of the Prince Consort,
chapters 33-36, 39, 42-43 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852.
The Coup d'Etat in France and Lord Palmerston's dismissal from
the Cabinet.
Defeat and resignation of Lord John Russell.
The first Derby
Disraeli Ministry and the Aberdeen coalition Ministry.

The "coup d'etat" of December 2nd, 1851, by which Louis
Napoleon made himself master of France (see FRANCE: A. D.
1851) brought about the dismissal of Lord Palmerston from the
British Ministry, followed quickly by the overthrow of the
Ministry which expelled him. "Lord Palmerston not only
expressed privately to Count Walewski [the French ambassador]
his approval of the 'coup d'etat,' but on the 16th of December
wrote a despatch to Lord Normanby, our representative in
Paris, expressing in strong terms his satisfaction at the
success of the French President's arbitrary action. This
despatch was not submitted either to the Prime Minister or to
the Queen, and of course the offence was of too serious a
character to be passed over. A great deal of correspondence
ensued, and as Palmerston's explanations were not deemed
satisfactory, and he had clearly broken the undertaking he
gave some time previously, he was dismissed from office. ...
There were some who thought him irretrievably crushed from
this time forward; but a very short time only elapsed before
he retrieved his fortunes and was as powerful as ever. In
February 1852 Lord John Russell brought in a Militia Bill
which was intended to develop a local militia for the defence
of the country. Lord Palmerston strongly disapproved of the
scope of the measure, and in committee moved an amendment to
omit the word 'local,' so as to constitute a regular militia,
which should be legally transportable all over the kingdom,
and thus be always ready for any emergency. The Government
were defeated by eleven votes, and as the Administration had
been very weak for some time, Lord John resigned. Lord Derby
formed a Ministry, and invited the cooperation of Palmerston,
but the offer was declined, as the two statesmen differed on
the question of imposing a duty on the importation of corn,
and other matters.'

_G. B. Smith,
The Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
pages 264-265._

"The new Ministry [in which Mr. Disraeli became Chancellor of
the Exchequer] took their seats on the 27th of February, but
it was understood that a dissolution of Parliament would take
place in the summer, by which the fate of the new Government
would be decided, and that in the meantime the Opposition
should hold its hand. The raw troops [of the Tory Party in the
House of Commons], notwithstanding their inexperience,
acquitted themselves with credit, and some good Bills were
passed, the Militia Bill among the number, while a
considerable addition to the strength of the Navy was effected
by the Duke of Northumberland. No doubt, when the general
election began, the party had raised itself considerably in
public estimation. But for one consideration the country would
probably have been quite willing to entrust its destinies to
their hands.
{965}
But that one consideration was all important. ... The
Government was obliged to go to the country, to some extent,
on Protectionist principles. It was known that a Derbyite
majority meant a moderate import duty; and the consequence was
that Lord Derby just lost the battle, though by a very narrow
majority. When Parliament met in November, Lord Derby and Mr.
Disraeli had a very difficult game to play. ... Negotiations
were again opened with Palmerston and the Peelites, and on
this occasion Gladstone and Mr. Sidney Herbert were willing to
join if Lord Palmerston might lead in the House of Commons.
But the Queen put her veto on this arrangement, which
accordingly fell to the ground; and Lord Derby had to meet the
Opposition attack without any reinforcements. ... On the 16th
of December, ... being defeated on the Budget by a majority of
19, Lord Derby at once resigned."

_T. E. Kebbel,
Life of the Earl of Derby,
chapter 6._

"The new Government [which succeeded that of Derby] was a
coalition of Whigs and Peelites, with Sir William Molesworth
thrown in to represent the Radicals. Lord Aberdeen became
Prime Minister, and Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The other Peelites in the Cabinet were the Duke of Newcastle,
Sir James Graham, and Mr. Sidney Herbert."

_G. W. E. Russell,
The Rt. Hon. William Ewart Gladstone,
chapter 5._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1852.
Second Burmese War.
Annexation of Pegu.

See INDIA: A. D. 1852.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1852-1853.
Abandonment of Protection by the Conservatives.
Further progress in Free Trade.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1846-1879.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1855.
Civil-Service Reform.

See CIVIL-SERVICE REFORM IN ENGLAND.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1853-1856.
The Crimean War.

See RUSSIA: A. D. 1853-1854, to 1854-1856.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1855.
Popular discontent with the management of the war.
Fall of the Aberdeen Ministry.
Palmerston's first premiership.
A brightening of prospects.

"Our army system entirely broke down [in the Crimea], and Lord
Aberdeen and the Duke of Newcastle were made the scapegoats of
the popular indignation. ... But England was not only
suffering from unpreparedness and want of administrative power
in the War department; there were dissensions in the Cabinet.
... Lord John Russell gave so much trouble, that Lord
Aberdeen, after one of the numerous quarrels and
reconciliations which occurred at this juncture, wrote to the
Queen that nothing but a sense of public duty and the
necessity for avoiding the scandal of a rupture kept him at
his post. ... At a little later stage ... the difficulties
were renewed. Mr. Roebuck gave notice of his motion for the
appointment of a select committee to inquire into the
condition of the army before Sebastopol, and Lord John
definitively resigned. The Ministry remained in office to
await the fate of Mr. Roebuck's motion, which was carried
against them by the very large majority of 157. Lord Aberdeen
now placed the resignation of the Cabinet in the hands of the
Queen [January 31, 1855]. ... Thus fell the Coalition Cabinet
of Lord Aberdeen. In talent and parliamentary influence it was
apparently one of the strongest Governments ever seen, but it
suffered from a fatal want of cohesion."

_G. B. Smith,
Prime Ministers of Queen Victoria,
pages 227-230._

"Lord Palmerston had passed his 70th year when the Premiership
came to him for the first time. On the fall of the Coalition
Government the Queen sent for Lord Derby, and upon his failure
for Lord John Russell. Palmerston was willing at the express
request of her Majesty to serve once more under his old chief,
but Clarendon and many of the Whigs not unnaturally positively
refused to do so. Palmerston finally undertook and
successfully achieved the task of forming a Government out of
the somewhat heterogeneous elements at his command. Lord
Clarendon continued at the Foreign Office, and Gladstone was
still Chancellor of the Exchequer. The War Department was
reorganised, the office of Secretary at War disappearing, and
being finally merged in that of Secretary of State for War.
Although Palmerston objected to Roebuck's Committee, he was
practically compelled to accept it, and this led to the
resignation of Gladstone, Graham and Herbert; their places
being taken by Sir G. C. Lewis, Sir Charles Wood, and Lord
John Russell."

_Marquis of Lorne,
Viscount Palmerston,
chapter 10._

"It was a dark hour in the history of the nation when Lord
Palmerston essayed the task which had been abandoned by the
tried wisdom of Derby, Lansdowne, and John Russell. Far away
in the Crimea the war was dragging on without much hope of a
creditable solution, though the winter of discontent and
mismanagement was happily over. The existence of the European
concert was merely nominal. The Allies had discovered, many
months previously, that, though Austria was staunch, Prussia
was a faithless friend. ... Between the belligerent powers the
cloud of suspicion and distrust grew thicker; for
Abd-el-Medjid was known to be freely squandering his war loans
on seraglios and palaces while Kars was starving; and though
there was no reason for distrusting the present good faith of
the Emperor of the French, his policy was straight-forward
only as long as he kept himself free from the influence of the
gang of stock-jobbers and adventurers who composed his Ministry.
Nor was the horizon much brighter on the side of England. A
series of weak cabinets, and the absence of questions of
organic reform, had completely relaxed the bonds of Party. If
there was no regular Opposition, still less was there a
regular majority. ... And the hand that was to restore order
out of chaos was not so steady as of yore. ... Lord Palmerston
was not himself during the first weeks of his leadership. But
the prospect speedily brightened. Though Palmerston was
considerably over seventy, he still retained a wonderful
vigour of constitution. He was soon restored to health, and
was always to be found at his post. ... His generalship
secured ample majorities for the Government in every division
during the session. Of the energy which Lord Palmerston
inspired into the operations against Sebastopol, there can
hardly be two opinions."

_L. C. Sanders,
Life of Viscount Palmerston,
chapter 10._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1855.
Mr. Gladstone's Commission to the Ionian Islands.

See IONIAN ISLANDS: A. D. 1815-1862.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1856-1860.
War with China.
French alliance in the war.
Capture of Canton.
Entrance into Pekin.
Destruction of the Summer Palace.

See CHINA: A. D. 1856-1860.

{966}

ENGLAND: A. D. 1857-1858.
The Sepoy Mutiny in India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1857, to 1857-1858 (JULY-JUNE).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1858.
Assumption of the government of India by the Crown.
End of the rule of the East India Co.

See INDIA: A. D. 1858.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1858-1859.
The Conspiracy Bill.
Fall of Palmerston's government.
Second Ministry of Derby and Disraeli.
Lord Palmerston again Premier.

"On January 14, 1858, an attempt was made to assassinate
Napoleon III. by a gang of desperadoes, headed by Orsini,
whose head-quarters had previously been in London. Not without
some reason it was felt in France that such men ought not to
be able to find shelter in this country, and the French
Minister was ordered to make representations to that effect.
Lord Palmerston, always anxious to cultivate the good feeling
of the French nation, desired to pass a measure which should
give to the British Government the power to banish from
England any foreigner conspiring in Britain against the life
of a foreign sovereign. ... An unfortunate outburst of
vituperation against England in the French press, and the
repetition of such language by officers of the French army who
were received by the Emperor when they waited on him as a
deputation, aroused very angry English feeling. Lord
Palmerston had already introduced the Bill he desired to pass,
and it had been read the first time by a majority of 200. But the
foolish action of the French papers changed entirely the
current of popular opinion. Lord Derby saw his advantage. An
amendment to the second reading, which was practically a vote
of censure, was carried against Lord Palmerston, and to his
own surprise no less than to that of the country, he was
obliged to resign. Lord Derby succeeded to Palmerston's vacant
office. ... Lord Derby's second Ministry was wrecked upon the
fatal rock of Reform early in 1859, and at once appealed to
the country. ... The election of 1859 failed to give the
Conservatives a majority, and soon after the opening of the
session they were defeated upon a vote of want of confidence
moved by Lord Hartington. Earl Granville was commissioned by
the Queen to form a Ministry, because her Majesty felt that
'to make so marked a distinction as is implied in the choice
of one or other as Prime Minister of two statesmen so full of
years and honour as Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell
would be a very invidious and unwelcome task.' Each of these
veterans was willing to serve under the other, but neither
would follow the lead of a third. And so Granville failed, and
to Palmerston was entrusted the task. He succeeded in forming
what was considered the strongest Ministry of modern times, so
far as the individual ability of its members was concerned.
Russell went to the Foreign Office and Gladstone to the
Exchequer."

_Marquis of Lorne,
Viscount Palmerston,
chapters 10-11._

ALSO IN:
_T. Martin,
Life of the Prince Consort,
chapters 82-84, 91-92,
and 94 (volume 4)._

_T. E. Kebbel,
Life of the Earl of Derby,
chapter 7._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1860.
The Cobden-Chevalier commercial treaty with France.

See TARIFF LEGISLATION (FRANCE): A. D. 1853-1860.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (May).
The Queen's Proclamation of Neutrality with reference
to the American Civil War.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (APRIL-MAY).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (October).
The allied intervention in Mexico.

See MEXICO: A. D. 1861-1867.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861 (November).
The Trent Affair.
Seizure of Mason and Slidell.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (NOVEMBER).

ENGLAND: A. D. 1861-1865.
The Cotton Famine.

"Upon a population, containing half a million of cotton
operatives, in a career of rapid prosperity, the profits of
1860 reaching in some instances from 30 to 40 per cent upon
the capital engaged; and with wages also at the highest point
which they had ever touched, came the news of the American
war, with the probable stoppage of 85 per cent of the raw
material of their manufacture. A few wise heads hung
despondently down, or shook with fear for the fate of 'the
freest nation under heaven,' but the great mass of traders
refused to credit a report which neither suited their opinions
nor their interests. ... There was a four months' supply held
on this side the water at Christmas (1860), and there had been
three months' imports at the usual rate since that time, and
there would be the usual twelve months' supply from other
sources; and by the time this was consumed, and the five
months' stock of goods held by merchants sold, all would be
right again. That this was the current opinion was proved by
the most delicate of all barometers, the scale of prices; for
during the greater part of the year 1861 the market was dull,
and prices scarcely moved upwards. But towards the end of the
year the aspect of affairs began to change. ... The Federals
had declared a blockade of the Southern ports, and, although
as yet it was pretty much a 'paper blockade,' yet the newly
established Confederate government was doing its best to
render it effective. They believed that cotton was king in
England, and that the old country could not do without it, and
would be forced, in order to secure its release, to side with
those who kept it prisoner. Mills began to run short time or
to close in the month of October, but no noise was made about
it; and the only evidence of anything unusual was at the
boards of guardians, where the applications had reached the
mid-winter height three months earlier than usual. The
poor-law guardians in the various unions were aware that the
increase was not of the usual character--it was too early for
out-door labourers to present themselves; still the difference
was not of serious amount, being only about 3,000 in the whole
twenty-eight unions. In November, 7,000 more presented
themselves, and in December the increase was again 7,000; so
that the recipients of relief were at this time 12,000 (or
about 25 per cent) more than in the January previous. And now
serious thoughts began to agitate many minds; cotton was very
largely held by speculators for a rise, the arrivals were
meagre in quantity, and the rates of insurance began to show
that, notwithstanding the large profits on imports, the
blockade was no longer on paper alone. January, 1862, added
16,000 more to the recipients of relief, who were now 70 per
cent above the usual number for the same period of the year.
But from the facts as afterwards revealed, the statistics of
boards of guardians were evidently no real measure of the
distress prevailing. ... The month of February usually lessens
the dependents on the poor-rates, for out-door labour begins
again as soon as the signs of spring appear; but in 1862 it
added nearly 9,000 to the already large number of extra cases,
the recipients being now 105 per cent above the average for the
same period of the year.
{967}
But this average gives no idea of the pressure in particular
localities. ... The cotton operatives were now, if left to
themselves, like a ship's crew upon short provisions, and
those very unequally distributed, and without chart or
compass, and no prospect of getting to land. In Ashton there
were 3,197; in Stockport, 8,588; and in Preston, 9,488 persons
absolutely foodless; and who nevertheless declined to go to
the guardians. To have forced the high-minded heads of these
families to hang about the work-house lobbies in company with
the idle, the improvident, the dirty, the diseased, and the
vicious, would have been to break their heaving hearts, and to
hurl them headlong into despair. Happily there is spirit
enough in this country to appreciate nobility, even when
dressed in fustian, and pride and sympathy enough to spare
even the poorest from unnecessary humiliation; and
organisations spring up for any important work so soon as the
necessity of the case becomes urgent in any locality.
Committees arose almost simultaneously in Ashton, Stockport,
and Preston; and in April, Blackburn followed in the train,
and the guardians and the relief committees of these several
places divided an extra 6,000 dependents between them. The
month of May, which usually reduces pauperism to almost its
lowest ebb, added 6,000 more to the recipients from the
guardians, and 5,000 to the dependents on the relief
committees, which were now six in number, Oldham and Prestwich
(a part of Manchester) being added to the list. ... The month
of June sent 6,000 more applicants to sue for bread to the
boards of guardians, and 5,000 additional to the six relief
committees; and these six committees had now as many
dependents as the whole of the boards of guardians in the
twenty-eight unions supported in ordinary years. ... In the
month of July, when all unemployed operatives would ordinarily
be lending a hand in the hay harvest, and picking up the means
of living whilst improving in health and enjoying the glories
of a summer in the country, the distress increased like a
flood, 13,000 additional applicants being forced to appeal for
poor-law relief; whilst 11,000 others were adopted by the
seven relief committees. ... In August the flood had become a
deluge, at which the stoutest heart might stand appalled. The
increased recipients of poor-law relief were in a single
month, 33,000, being nearly as many as the total number
chargeable in the same month of the previous year, whilst a
further addition of more than 34,000 became chargeable to the
relief committees. ... Most of the cotton on hand at this
period was of Indian growth, and needed alterations of
machinery to make it workable at all, and in good times an
employer might as well shut up his mill as try to get it spun
or manufactured. But oh! how glad would the tens of thousands
of unwilling idlers have been now, to have had a chance even
of working at Surats, although they knew that it required much
harder work for one-third less than normal wages. ... Another
month is past, and October has added to the number under the
guardians no less than 55,000, and to the charge of the relief
committees 39,000 more. ... And now dread winter approaches,
and the authorities have to deal not only with hundreds of
thousands who are compulsorily idle, and consequently
foodless, but who are wholly unprepared for the inclemencies
of the season; who have no means of procuring needful
clothing, nor even of making a show of cheerfulness upon the
hearth by means of the fire, which is almost as useful as
food. ... The total number of persons chargeable at the end of
November, 1862, was, under boards of guardians, 258,357, and on
relief committees, 200,084; total 458,441. ... There were not
wanting men who saw, or thought they saw, a short way out of
the difficulty, viz., by a recognition on the part of the
English government of the Southern confederacy in America. And
meetings were called in various places to memorialise the
government to this effect. Such meetings were always balanced
by counter meetings, at which it was shown that simple
recognition would be waste of words; that it would not bring
to our shores a single shipload of cotton, unless followed up
by an armed force to break the blockade, which course if
adopted would be war; war in favour of the slave confederacy
of the South, and against the free North and North-west,
whence comes a large proportion of our imported corn. In
addition to the folly of interfering in the affairs of a
nation 3,000 miles away, the cotton, if we succeeded in
getting it, would be stained with blood and cursed with the
support of slavery, and would also prevent our getting the
food which we needed from the North equally as much as the
cotton from the South. ... These meetings and counter meetings
perhaps helped to steady the action of the government
(notwithstanding the sympathy of some of its members towards
the South), to confirm them in the policy of the royal
proclamation, and to determine them to enforce the provisions
of the Foreign Enlistment Act against all offenders. ... The
maximum pressure upon the relief committees was reached early
in December, 1862, but, as the tide had turned before the end
of the month, the highest number chargeable at any one time is
nowhere shown. The highest number exhibited in the returns is
for the last week in the year 1862, viz.: 485,434 persons; but
in the previous weeks of the same month some thousands more
were relieved."

_J. Watts,
The Facts of the Cotton Famine,
chapters 8 and 12._

ALSO IN:
_R. A. Arnold,
History of the Cotton Famine._

_E. Waugh,
Factory Folk during the Cotton Famine._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1862 (JULY).
The fitting out of the Confederate cruiser Alabama
at Liverpool.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1864.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1865.
Governor Eyre and the Jamaica Insurrection.

See JAMAICA: A. D. 1865.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.
Death of Palmerston.
Ministry of Lord John Russell.
Its unsatisfactory Reform Bill and its resignation.
Triumph of the Adullamites.
Third administration of Derby and Disraeli,
and its Reform Bills.

"On the death of Lord Palmerston [which occurred October 18,
1865], the premiership was intrusted for the second time to
Earl Russell, with Mr. Gladstone as leader in the House of
Commons. The queen opened her seventh parliament (February 6,
1866), in person, for the first time since the prince
consort's death. On March 12th Mr. Gladstone brought forward
his scheme of reform, proposing to extend the franchise in
counties and boroughs, but the opposition of the moderate
Liberals, and their joining the Conservatives, proved fatal to
the measure, and in consequence the ministry of Earl Russell
resigned.
{968}
The government had been personally weakened by the successive
deaths of Mr. Sidney Herbert, Sir George Cornewall Lewis, the
Duke of Newcastle, Earl of Elgin, and Lord Palmerston. The
queen sent for the Earl of Derby to form a Cabinet, who,
although the Conservative party was in the minority in the
House of Commons, accepted the responsibility of undertaking
the management of the government: he as Premier and First Lord
of the Treasury; Mr. Disraeli, Chancellor of the Exchequer."

_A. H. McCalman,
Abridged History of England,
page 603._

"The measure, in fact, was too evidently a compromise. The
Russell and Gladstone section of the Cabinet wanted reform:
the remnants of Palmerston's followers still thought it
unnecessary. The result was this wretched, tinkering measure,
which satisfied nobody, and disappointed the expectation of
all earnest Reformers. ... The principal opposition came not
from the Conservatives, as might have been expected, but from
Mr. Horsman and Mr. Robert Lowe, both members of the Liberal
party, who from the very first declared they would have none
of it. ... Mr. Bright denounced them furiously as
'Adullamites'; all who were in distress, all who were
discontented, had gathered themselves together in the
political cave of Adullam for the attack on the Government.
But Mr. Lowe, all unabashed by denunciation or sarcasm,
carried the war straight into the enemy's camp in a swift
succession of speeches of extraordinary brilliance and power.
... The party of two, which in its origin reminded Mr. Bright
of 'the Scotch terrier which was so covered with hair that you
could not tell which was the head and which was the tail of
it,' was gradually reinforced by deserters from the ranks of
the Government until at last the Adullamites were strong
enough to turn the scale of a division. Then one wild night,
after a hot and furious debate, the combined armies of the
Adullamites and Conservatives carried triumphantly an
amendment brought forward by one of the Adullamite chiefs,
Lord Dunkellin, to the effect that a rating be substituted for
a rental qualification; and the Government was at an end. ...
The failure of the bill brought Lord Russell's official career
to its close. He formally handed over the leadership of the
party to Mr. Gladstone, and from this time took but little
part in politics. Lord Derby, his opponent, was soon to follow
his example, and then the long-standing duel between Gladstone
and Disraeli would be pushed up to the very front of the
parliamentary stage, right in the full glare of the
footlights. Meanwhile, however, Lord Derby had taken office
[July 9, 1866]. Disraeli and Gladstone were changing weapons
and crossing the stage. ... The exasperated Liberals, however,
were rousing a widespread agitation throughout the country in
favour of Reform: monster meetings were held in Hyde Park; the
Park railings were pulled down and trampled on by an excited
mob, and the police regulations proved as unable to bear the
unusual strain as police regulations usually do on such
occasions. The result was that Mr. Disraeli became convinced
that a Reform Bill of some kind or other was inevitable, and
Mr. Disraeli's opinion naturally carried the day. The
Government, however, did not go straight to the point at once.
They began by proposing a number of resolutions on the
subject, which were very soon laughed out of existence. Then
they brought a bill founded on them, which, however, was very
shortly afterwards withdrawn after a very discouraging
reception. Finally, the Ministry, lightened by the loss of
three of its members--the Earl of Carnarvon, Viscount
Cranborne, and General Peel--announced their intention of
bringing in a comprehensive measure. The measure in question
proposed household suffrage in the boroughs subject to the
payment of rates, and occupation franchise for the counties
subject to the same limitation, and a variety of fanciful
clauses, which would have admitted members of the liberal
professions, graduates of the universities, and a number of
other classes to the franchise. The most novel feature was a
clause which permitted a man to acquire two votes if he
possessed a double qualification by rating and by profession.
The great objection to the bill was that it excluded the
compound householder.' The compound householder is now as
extinct an animal as the potwalloper found in earlier
parliamentary strata, but he was the hero of the Reform
debates of 1867, and as such deserves more than a passing
reference. He was, in fact, an occupier of a small house who
did not pay his rates directly and in person, but paid them
through his landlord. Now the occupiers of these very small
houses were naturally by far the most numerous class of
occupiers in the boroughs, and the omission of them implied a
large exclusion from the franchise. The Liberal party,
therefore, rose in defence of the compound householder, and
the struggle became fierce and hot. It must be remembered,
however, that neither Mr. Gladstone nor Mr. Bright wished to
lower the franchise beyond a certain point, and a meeting was
held in consequence, in which it was agreed that the programme
brought forward in committee should begin by an alteration of
the rating laws, so that the compound householder above a
certain level should pay his own rates and be given a vote,
and that all occupiers below the level should be excluded from
the rates and the franchise alike. On what may be described
roughly as 'the great drawing-the-line question,' however, the
Liberal party once more split up. The advanced section were
determined that all occupiers should be admitted, and they
would have no 'drawing the line.' Some fifty or sixty of them
held a meeting in the tea-room of the House of Commons and
decided on this course of action: in consequence they acquired
the name of the 'Tea-Room Party.' The communication of their
views to Mr. Gladstone made him excessively indignant. He
denounced them in violent language, and his passion was
emulated by Mr. Bright. ... Mr. Gladstone had to give in, and
his surrender was followed by that of Mr. Disraeli. The
Tea-Room Party, in fact, were masters of the day, and were
able to bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Government to
induce them to admit the principle of household suffrage pure
and simple, and to abolish all distinctions of rating. ... Not
only was the household suffrage clause considerably extended,
the dual vote abolished, and most of the fancy franchises
swept away, but there were numerous additions which completely
altered the character of the bill, and transformed it from a
balanced attempt to enlarge the franchise without shifting the
balance of power to a sweeping measure of reform."

_B. C. Skottowe,
Short History of Parliament,
chapter 22._

{969}

The Reform Bill for England "was followed in 1868 by measures
for Scotland and Ireland. By these Acts the county franchise
in England was extended to all occupiers of lands or houses of
the yearly value of £12, and in Scotland to all £5 property
owners and £14 property occupiers; while that in Ireland was
not altered. The borough franchise in England and Scotland was
given to all ratepaying householders and to lodgers occupying
lodgings of the annual value of £10; and in Ireland to all
ratepaying £4 occupiers. Thus the House of Commons was made
nearly representative of all taxpaying commoners, except
agricultural labourers and women."

_D. W. Rannie,
Historical Outline of the English Constitution,
chapter 12, section 4._

ALSO IN:
_W. BAGEHOT,
Essays on Parliamentary Reform, 3._

_G. B. Smith,
Life of Gladstone,
chapters 17-18 (volume 2)._

_W. Robertson,
Life and Times of John Bright,
chapters 39-40._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1869.
Discussion of the Alabama Claims of the United States.
The Johnson-Clarendon Treaty and its rejection.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1862-1869.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1867-1868.
Expedition to Abyssinia.

See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1868-1870.
Disestablishment of the Irish Church.
Retirement of the Derby-Disraeli Ministry.
Mr. Gladstone in power.
His Irish Land Bill.

"On March 16, 1868, a remarkable debate took place in the
House of Commons. It had for its subject the condition of
Ireland, and it was introduced by a series of resolutions
which Mr. John Francis Maguire, an Irish member, proposed. ...
It was on the fourth night of the debate that the importance
of the occasion became fully manifest. Then it was that Mr.
Gladstone spoke, and declared that in his opinion the time had
come when the Irish Church as a State institution must cease
to exist. Then every man in the House knew that the end was
near. Mr. Maguire withdrew his resolutions. The cause he had
to serve was now in the hands of one who, though not surely
more earnest for its success, had incomparably greater power
to serve it. There was probably not a single Englishman
capable of forming an opinion who did not know that from the
moment when Mr. Gladstone made his declaration, the fall of
the Irish State Church had become merely a question of time.
Men only waited to see how Mr. Gladstone would proceed to
procure its fall. Public expectation was not long kept in
suspense. A few days after the debate on Mr. Maguire's motion,
Mr. Gladstone gave notice of three resolutions on the subject
of the Irish State Church. The first declared that in the
opinion of the House of Commons it was 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 second
resolution pronounced it expedient to prevent the creation of
new personal interests by the exercise of any public
patronage; and the third asked for an address to the Queen,
praying that Her Majesty would place at the disposal of
Parliament her interest in the temporalities of the Irish
Church. The object of these resolutions was simply to prepare
for the actual disestablishment of the Church, by providing
that no further appointments should be made, and that the
action of patronage should be stayed, until Parliament should
decide the fate of the whole institution. On March 30, 1868,
Mr. Gladstone proposed his resolutions. Not many persons could
have had much doubt as to the result of the debate. But if
there were any such, their doubts must have begun to vanish
when they read the notice of amendment to the resolutions
which was given by Lord Stanley. The amendment proclaimed even
more surely than the resolutions the impending fall of the Irish
Church. Lord Stanley must have been supposed to speak in the
name of the Government and the Conservative party; and his
amendment merely declared that the House, while admitting that
considerable modifications in the temporalities of the Church
in Ireland might appear to be expedient, was 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.' Lord Stanley's amendment
asked only for delay. ... The debate was one of great power
and interest. ... When the division was called there were 270
votes for the amendment, and 331 against it. The doom of the
Irish Church was pronounced by a majority of 61. An interval
was afforded for agitation on both sides. ... Mr. Gladstone's
first resolution came to a division about a month after the
defeat of Lord Stanley's amendment. It was carried by a
majority somewhat larger than that which had rejected the
amendment--330 votes were given for the resolution; 265
against it. The majority for the resolution was therefore 65.
Mr. Disraeli quietly observed that the Government must take
some decisive step in consequence of that vote; and a few days
afterwards it was announced that as soon as the necessary
business could be got through, Parliament would be dissolved
and an appeal made to the country. On the last day of July the
dissolution took place, and the elections came on in November.
Not for many years had there been so important a general
election. The keenest anxiety prevailed as to its results. The
new constituencies created by the Reform Bill were to give
their votes for the first time. The question at issue was not
merely the existence of the Irish State Church. It was a
general struggle of advanced Liberalism against Toryism. ...
The new Parliament was to all appearance less marked in its
Liberalism than that which had gone before it. But so far as
mere numbers went the Liberal party was much stronger than it
had been. In the new House of Commons it could count upon a
majority of about 120, whereas in the late Parliament it had
but 60. Mr. Gladstone it was clear would now have everything
in his own hands, and the country might look for a career of
energetic reform. ... Mr. Disraeli did not meet the new
Parliament as Prime Minister. He decided very properly that it
would be a mere waste of public time to wait for the formal
vote of the House of Commons, which would inevitably command
him to surrender. He at once resigned his office, and Mr.
Gladstone was immediately sent for by the Queen, and invited
to form an Administration. Mr. Gladstone, it would seem, was
only beginning his career. He was nearly sixty years of age,
but there were scarcely any evidences of advancing years to be
seen on his face. ... The Government he formed was one of
remarkable strength. ... Mr. Gladstone went to work at once
with his Irish policy.
{970}
On March 1, 1869, the Prime Minister introduced his measure
for the disestablishment and partial disendowment of the Irish
State Church. The proposals of the Government were, that the
Irish Church should almost at once cease to exist as a State
Establishment, and should pass into the condition of a free
Episcopal Church. As a matter of course the Irish bishops were
to lose their seats in the House of Lords. A synodal, or
governing body, was to be elected from the clergy and laity of
the Church and was to be recognised by the Government, and
duly incorporated. The union between the Churches of England
and Ireland was to be dissolved, and the Irish Ecclesiastical
Courts were to be abolished. There were various and
complicated arrangements for the protection of the life
interests of those already holding positions in the Irish
Church, and for the appropriation of the fund which would
return to the possession of the State when all these interests
had been fairly considered and dealt with. ... Many amendments
were introduced and discussed; and some of these led to a
controversy between the two Houses of Parliament; but the
controversy ended in compromise. On July 26, 1869, the measure
for the disestablishment of the Irish Church received the
royal assent. Lord Derby did not long survive the passing of
the measure which he had opposed with such fervour and so much
pathetic dignity. Be died before the Irish State Church had
ceased to live. ... When the Irish Church had been disposed
of, Mr. Gladstone at once directed his energies to the Irish
land system. ... In a speech delivered by him during his
electioneering campaign in Lancashire, he had declared that
the Irish upas-tree had three great branches: the State
Church, the Land Tenure System, and the System of Education,
and that he meant to hew them all down if he could. On
February 15, 1870, Mr. Gladstone introduced his Irish Land
Bill into the House of Commons. ... It recognised a certain
property or partnership of the tenant in the land which he
tilled. Mr. Gladstone took the Ulster tenant-right as he found
it, and made it a legal institution. In places where the
Ulster practice, or something analogous to it, did not exist,
he threw upon the landlord the burden of proof as regarded the
right of eviction. The tenant disturbed in the possession of
his land could claim compensation for improvements, and the
bill reversed the existing assumption of the law by presuming
all improvements to be the property of the tenant, and leaving
it to the landlord, if he could, to prove the contrary. The
bill established a special judiciary machinery for carrying
out its provisions. ... It put an end to the reign of the
landlord's absolute power; it reduced the landlord to the
level of every other proprietor, of every other man in the
country who had anything to sell or hire. ... The bill passed
without substantial alteration. On August 1, 1870, the bill
received the Royal assent. The second branch of the upas-tree
had been hewn down. ... Mr. Gladstone had dealt with Church
and land; he had yet to deal with university education. He had
gone with Irish ideas thus far."

_J. McCarthy,
Short History of Our Own Times,
chapter 23._

ALSO IN:
_W. N. Molesworth,
History of England, 1830-1874,
volume 3, chapter 6._

_Annual Register, 1869,
part 1: English History,
chapters 2-3, and 1870, chapters 1-2._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1870.
The Education Bill.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1699-1870.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.
Abolition of Army Purchase and University Religious Tests.
Defeat of the Ballot Bill.

"The great measure of the Session [of 1871] was of course the
Army Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Cardwell, on the 16th
of February. It abolished the system by which rich men
obtained by purchase commissions and promotion in the army,
and provided £8,000,000 to buy all commissions, as they fell
in, at their regulation and over-regulation value [the
regulation value being a legal price, fixed by a Royal
Warrant, but which in practice was never regarded]. In future,
commissions were to be awarded either to those who won them by
open competition, or who had served as subalterns in the
Militia, or to deserving non-commissioned officers. ... The
debate, which seemed interminable, ended in an anti-climax
that astonished the Tory Opposition. Mr. Disraeli threw over
the advocates of Purchase, evidently dreading an appeal to the
country. ... The Army Regulation Bill thus passed the Second
Reading without a division," and finally, with some amendments
passed the House. "In the House of Lords the Bill was again
obstructed. ... Mr. Gladstone met them with a bold stroke. By
statute it was enacted that only such terms of Purchase could
exist as her Majesty chose to permit by Royal Warrant. The
Queen, therefore, acting on Mr. Gladstone's advice, cancelled
her warrant permitting Purchase, and thus the opposition of
the Peers was crushed by what Mr. Disraeli indignantly termed
'the high-handed though not illegal' exercise of the Royal
Prerogative. The rage of the Tory Peers knew no bounds." They
"carried a vote of censure on the Government, who ignored it,
and then their Lordships passed the Army Regulation Bill
without any alterations. ... The Session of 1871 was also made
memorable by the struggle over the Ballot Bill, in the course
of which nearly all the devices of factious obstruction were
exhausted. ... When the Bill reached the House of Lords, the
real motive which dictated the ... obstruction of the
Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons was quickly
revealed. The Lords rejected the Bill on the 18th of August,
not merely because they disliked and dreaded it, but because
it had come to them too late for proper consideration.
Ministers were more successful with some other measures. In
spite of much conservative opposition they passed a Bill
abolishing religious tests in the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, and throwing open all academic distinctions and
privileges except Divinity Degrees and Clerical Fellowships to
students of all creeds and faiths."

_R. Wilson,
Life and Times of Queen Victoria,
volume 2, chapter 16._

ALSO IN:
_G. W. E. Russell,
The Rt. Hon. W. E. Gladstone,
chapter 9._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1871-1872.
Renewed negotiations with the United States.
The Treaty of Washington and the Geneva Award.

See ALABAMA CLAIMS: A. D. 1869-1871; 1871; and 1871-1872.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1879.
Rise of the Irish Home Rule Party
and organization of the Land League.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1873-1879.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880.
Decline and fall of the Gladstone government.
Disraeli's Ministry.
His rise to the peerage, as Earl of Beaconsfield.
The Eastern Question.
Overthrow of the administration.
The Second Gladstone Ministry.

{971}

"One of the little wars in which we had to engage broke out
with the Ashantees, a misunderstanding resulting from our
purchase of the Dutch possessions (1873) in their
neighbourhood. Troops and marines under Wolseley ... were sent
out to West Africa. Crossing the Prah River, January 20th,
1874, he defeated the Ashantees on the last day of that month
at a place called Amoaful, entered and burnt their capital,
Coomassie, and made a treaty with their King, Koffee, by which
he withdrew all claims of sovereignty over the tribes under
our protection. The many Liberal measures carried by the
Ministry caused moderate men to wish for a halt. Some
restrictions on the licensed vintners turned that powerful
body against the Administration, which, on attempting to carry
an Irish University Bill in 1873, became suddenly aware of its
unpopularity, as the second reading was only carried by a
majority of three. Resignation followed. The erratic, but
astute, Disraeli declined to undertake the responsibility of
governing the country with the House of Commons then existing,
consequently Mr. Gladstone resumed office; yet Conservative
reaction progressed. He in September became Chancellor of the
Exchequer (still holding the Premiership) and 23rd January,
1874, he suddenly dissolved Parliament, promising in a letter
to the electors of Greenwich the final abolition of the income
tax, and a reduction in some other 'imposts.' The elections
went against him. The 'harassed' interests overturned the
Ministry (17th February, 1874). ... On the accession of the
Conservative Government under Mr. Disraeli (February, 1874),
the budget showed a balance of six millions in favour of the
reduction of taxation. Consequently the sugar duties were
abolished and the income tax reduced to 2d. in the pound.
This, the ninth Parliament of Queen Victoria, sat for a little
over six years. ... Mr. Disraeli, now the Earl of Beaconsfield,
was fond of giving the country surprises. One of these
consisted in the purchase of the interest of the Khedive of
Egypt in the Suez Canal for four millions sterling (February,
1876). Another was the acquisition of the Turkish Island of
Cyprus, handed over for the guarantee to Turkey of her Asiatic
provinces in the event of any future Russian encroachments.
... As war had broken out in several of the Turkish provinces
(1876), and as Russia had entered the lists for the insurgents
against the Sultan, whom England was bound to support by
solemn treaties, we were treated to a third surprise by the
conveyance, in anticipation of a breach with Russia, of 7,000
troops from India to Malta. The Earl of Derby, looking upon
this manœuvre as a menace to that Power, resigned his office,
which was filled by Lord Salisbury (1878). ... The war proving
disastrous to Turkey, the treaty of St. Stephano (February,
1878), was concluded with Russia, by which the latter acquired
additional territory in Asia Minor in violation of the treaty
of Paris (1856). Our Government strongly remonstrated, and war
seemed imminent. Through the intercession, however, of
Bismarck, the German Chancellor, war was averted, and a
congress soon met in Berlin, at which Britain was represented
by Lords Salisbury and Beaconsfield; the result being the
sanction of the treaty already made, with the exception that
the town of Erzeroum was handed back to Turkey. Our
ambassadors returned home rather pompously, the Prime Minister
loftily declaring, that they had brought back 'peace with
honour.' ... Our expenses had rapidly increased, the wealthy
commercial people began to distrust a Prime Minister who had
brought us to the brink of war, the Irish debates, Irish
poverty, and Irish outrages had brought with them more or less
discredit on the Ministry. ... The Parliament was dissolved March
24th, but the elections went so decisively in favour of the
Liberals that Beaconsfield resigned (April 23rd). Early in the
following year he appeared in his place in the House of Peers,
but died April 19th. Though Mr. Gladstone had in 1875
relinquished the political leadership in favour of Lord
Hartington yet the 'Bulgarian Atrocities' and other writings
brought him again so prominent before the public that his
leadership was universally acknowledged by the party. ... He
now resumed office, taking the two posts so frequently held
before by Prime Ministers since the days of William Pitt, who
also held them. ... The result of the general election of 1880
was the return of more Liberals to Parliament than
Conservatives and Home Rulers together. The farming interest
continued depressed both in Great Britain and Ireland,
resulting in thousands of acres being thrown on the landlords'
hands in the former country, and numerous harsh evictions in the
latter for non-payment of rent. Mr. Gladstone determined to
legislate anew on the Irish Land Question: and (1881) carried
through both Houses that admirable measure known as the Irish
Land Act, which for the first time in the history of that
country secured to the tenant remuneration for his own
industry. A Land Commission Court was established to fix Fair
Rents for a period of 15 years. After a time leaseholders were
included in this beneficent legislation."

_R. Johnston,
A Short History of the Queen's Reign,
pages 49-57._

ALSO IN:
_J. A. Froude,
Lord Beaconsfield,
chapters 16-17._

_G. B. Smith,
Life of Gladstone,
chapters 22-28 (volume 2)._

_H. Jephson,
The Platform,
chapters 21-22 (volume 2)._

ENGLAND: A. D. 1877.
Assumption by the Queen of the title of Empress of India.

See INDIA: A. D. 1877.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1878.
The Eastern Question again.
Bulgarian atrocities.
Excitement over the Russian successes in Turkey.
War-clamor of "the Jingoes."
The fleet sent through the Dardanelles.
Arrangement of the Berlin Congress.

See BALKAN AND DANUBIAN STATES: A. D. 1875-1878;
and TURKS: A. D. 1878.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1877-1881.
Annexation of the Transvaal.
The Boer War.

See SOUTH AFRICA: A. D. 1806-1881.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1878.
The Congress of Berlin.
Acquisition of the control of Cyprus.

See TURKS: A. D. 1878.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1878-1880.
The second Afghan War.

See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1880.
Breach between the Irish Party and the English Liberals.

See IRELAND: A. D. 1880.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1882.
War in Egypt.
Bombardment of Alexandria.
Battle of Tel-el-Kebir.

See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.

ENGLAND: A. D. 1883.
The Act for Prevention of Corrupt and Illegal Practices at
Parliamentary Elections.

{972}