Chapter XXX: The Jubilee (5)

[60] If, for example, the Prince of Wales and his children died, the Duke of Edinburgh would have succeeded him. The succession to the English throne, unlike that to most European Sovereignties, is governed by the same law which regulates the succession to all Scottish dignities and most of the very ancient English baronies, namely, descent is to heirs general, male or female; but then all males must be exhausted ere the right of the females accrues. Thus the Duke stood before his elder sisters and their families in the line of succession.

[61] Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, pp. 317 and 318.

[62] This was the letter to “My dear Grey,” in which Mr. Disraeli accused the Ministry of a policy of “blundering and plundering.” As they were in power solely because he had refused office, the attack of course recoiled on his own party.

[63] A Selection from the Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., Vol. II., p. 254.

[64] It was unjustly said that Mr. Gladstone offered to abolish the Income Tax as an electoral bribe. The fact was that he was under a recorded pledge to Parliament to take off the Income Tax when the finances admitted of its repeal. That was the condition on which he had been allowed to impose it when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1853. As the vast majority of the electors were not Income Tax payers, the proposal could not possibly be an effective electoral bribe.

[65] Another difficulty for the Independent Elector was that of seeing how Mr. Gladstone could abolish the Income Tax. Mr. Disraeli, who soon began to repent his haste in trying to outbid Mr. Gladstone on this point, suggested that difficulty in a speech at Newton Pagnell. He did not withdraw from his declaration that he desired to get rid of the Income Tax. But, he said, “If Mr. Gladstone asks me ‘are you prepared to repeal the Income Tax by means of imposing other taxes?’ I am bound to say it is not a policy I should recommend.” Mr. Gladstone never divulged his plan. It is, however, obvious that he could have easily got rid of the worst features of the Income Tax by readjusting the House Duty. A House Duty, Mr. Mill said, is the fairest of all direct taxes, and a man’s house-rent is--with certain exceptions--a sure guide to his means and substance. If, for example, Mr. Gladstone had put 1s. 6d. in the £ on all houses above £10 rental, or if he had graduated the duties from 4d. to 3s. in the £ on rentals of from £10 to over £300, he could have supplied the place of the Income Tax which yielded £4,875,000. The difference would have been this--that a man with £200 of income, presumably paying £25 a year for his house, would--less 9d. of existing house duty--have paid at the 1s. 6d. rate 18s. 9d. a year of “a means and substance” tax on his rent, instead of the £2 10s. he then paid in Income Tax. The relief of local rates might have been obtained by handing over the old House Tax or a portion of it to the local authorities.

[66] Mr. Clare Sewell Read was made Secretary to the Local Government Board, of which Mr. Sclater-Booth was made President. Sir M. Hicks-Beach became Irish Secretary. Sir H. Selwin Ibbetson was Under-Secretary at the Home Office. Mr. R. Bourke was Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Lord Sandon was Vice-President of the Council, Lord George Hamilton was Under-Secretary for India, Sir C. Adderley President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Algernon Egerton Secretary to the Admiralty, and Lord Henry Lennox Chief Commissioner of Works.

[67] Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., Vol. II., p. 258.

[68] It was supposed that Mr. Disraeli would prevent the inevitable grammatical blunder from creeping into the Queen’s Speech. But it crept in here, greatly to the delight of the pedants. They pointed out that it was wrong to speak of “the recent Act of Parliament affecting the _relationship_ of master and servant.” The word cannot be used, they argued, instead of _relation_, to denote a relative position which is temporary or official.

[69] To those who had the advantage of taking no personal interest in these transactions, Mr. Gladstone’s statement reads like the apology of a Minister who was “riding for a fall.” He was admittedly pledged to the House of Commons since 1853, to abolish the Income Tax when he had a sufficient surplus. Instead of redeeming his pledge in 1874 to the House, he took it to an electorate that had no existence in 1853, and who, even if they had been competent to the task, could not have given a fair decision on such a point in the turmoil of elections which seemed purposely hurried through in a few days. Mr. Gladstone, moreover, never defended his proposal at length. Had he really desired to carry it, he would have submitted it to Parliament--for the House of Lords, whose hostility he affected to dread, could not constitutionally have meddled with it--and then if, after exhaustive discussion in the Commons it had been defeated, he could have appealed to a nation sufficiently instructed by that discussion to pronounce a rational opinion on the question. As it was, the matter hardly entered into the election controversies of 1874 at all.

[70] “We find,” said Mr. Hardy, “the stores so full and efficient that we can dispense with the payment of £100,000 on this head.” As to arms, he remarked that “in a few weeks the whole of the infantry will, I hope, have the Martini-Henry rifle. By to-morrow there will be 140,000 Martini-Henry rifles in store, and during the year there will be a further number of 40,000 provided.” After dilating on the abundance of ammunition in stock and the sufficiency of the Reserves, Mr. Hardy said of the Volunteers that the original number of them was 199,000, “far, however, from efficient men,” whereas the number in 1874, though only 153,000, consisted of thoroughly efficient men, who were “far more worth having than what formerly existed.” The fortifications, he said, were of “the most efficient character.” He even praised the Intelligence Department, the formation of which had been a favourite subject of denunciation by the Tory “Colonels.”

[71] The most curious result of this reform was the increase which took place in pauper lunacy. Sir Stafford Northcote, in fact, offered Boards of Guardians the strongest temptation to get their senile paupers quartered on the State as pauper lunatics. All that was necessary for that purpose was a certificate from a pliable medical officer.

[72] The hours against which the publicans had agitated were twelve in London, and in other places any hour between five and seven in the morning, till any hour between ten and twelve at night, as the magistrates might decide.

[73] Mr. Cross held that the extension of the hours from twelve to half-past twelve at night was not a real extension. Under the former rule the publican had “grace” given him to clear his bar. Under Mr. Cross’s Bill closing was imperative at half-past twelve. Then Mr. Cross put a stop to certain public-houses being kept open to one in the morning, which Mr. Bruce had allowed, and the fixing of the hours at ten and eleven, in very many cases, led to further restrictions.

[74] Life of Norman Macleod, D.D., Vol. II., p. 325.

[75] _Times_, October 1, 1874.

[76] Prince Arthur was the first of his line who took as his superior dignity a title from Ireland. Several Princes and Princesses of England bore Irish titles, _e.g._, the Queen herself is Countess of Clare, but they were secondary ones, and denominated inferior dignities.

[77] Alice, Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, p. 321.

[78] _Times_, May 11, 1874.

[79] _Spectator_, May 23, 1874.

[80] Mr. Carlyle refused the offer, though he had accepted the Prussian Order of Merit.

[81] England Under Lord Beaconsfield, by P. W. Clayden, p. 120.

[82] Mr. Disraeli was blamed for ungenerous discourtesy to Lord Hartington on his first appearance as Opposition Leader. But there was a good justification for the Premier’s contemptuous reply. Lord Hartington’s taunts were foolishly factious, because he had, in a speech at Lewes (21st of January), already defended the Tory Government for not attempting to undo Liberal work, which was, as he put it, “irrevocable.”

[83] The Bill had these defects: (1), It was permissive and not compulsory. (2), It forced local authorities to compensate owners of insanitary dwellings doomed to destruction. The worse the rookeries the higher the rents, and the more extravagant the compensation, so that the Bill put a premium on the creation of rookeries. (3), It enacted that workmen’s houses must be rebuilt on the cleared land. This rendered it impossible to sell the sites at prices covering the cost of clearing them, so that local authorities had (_a_) to keep the land on hand in the hope of getting their price, during which time the displaced inhabitants were pushed into adjoining neighbourhoods already overcrowded; or (_b_) after five years to sell the sites by auction at a loss. On the 4th of July, 1879, the Metropolitan Board of Works sold some of their sites to the Peabody Trustees at a loss of £600,000 to the ratepayers of London.

[84] This Act deprived the Peers of their Appellate Jurisdiction.

[85] Hansard, Vol. CCXXIII., p. 1458.

[86] See Hansard, Vol. CCXXVIII., p. 1488. Mr. Heywood got £3,000 compensation.

[87] He complained that the Government had gone to Messrs. Rothschild for the purchase-money instead of to their regular financial agents, and paid them a commission equal to 15 per cent. a year on the advance. He declared that the Khedive would probably fail to pay his 5 per cent. on the purchase-money, and that England, in any dispute as a shareholder, would have to sue and be sued in a French court. As trustee for the nation the Government ought, he said, to insist on low tariffs. As a shareholder it must, however, insist on high dividends. The purchase, he held, would give England no real influence at the Board of Direction.

[88] Mr. Gladstone once cited the Channel as “the silver streak,” which was the best defence of England against the Continent, and a justification for a Foreign Policy of isolation.

[89] When a Bill was approaching one of the stages at half-past twelve, Mr. Biggar or Mr. Parnell would get up and speak so as to protract debate till the hour came when opposed business must be postponed.

[90] The Parnell Movement, by T. P. O’Connor, M.P. Popular Edition, p. 157.

[91] See Hodder’s Life of Lord Shaftesbury, Vol. III., pp. 367, 371.

[92] Hansard, Vol. CCXXX., p. 1182.

[93] See Macgahan’s Letters and Consul-General Schuyler’s Report to the United States Minister at Constantinople, cited in the Appendix, pp. 22 _et seqq._

[94] It was not possible that the Czar could have seen a telegraphic summary of Lord Beaconsfield’s Guildhall speech when he spoke to the nobles at Moscow.

[95] 160,000 men, and 648 guns.

[96] Sir S. Northcote spoke at Bristol on the 13th of November, and Mr. Cross at Birmingham a week later.

[97] It was at this time that Tory partisans and Ministerial organs, in order to encourage the Turks to resistance, began to denounce Lord Salisbury as a traitor.

[98] A fashionable skating-rink did poor business in 1876 if it did not return a profit of 300 per cent., and a good patent for a rinking-skate was worth at least £150,000 to a popular inventor.

[99] See Parliamentary Papers, Turkey (1877), No. 78.

[100] Even in 1877 some of the Tory squires were practising the old stupid method of obstruction, _e.g._, Mr. Orr Ewing and Sir William Anstruther put down 250 Amendments to the Scotch Roads and Bridges Bill--most of which, when not frivolous, were unpopular and reactionary. Such obstruction was, of course, easy to deal with.

[101] On the 26th of March the House got one of its earliest lessons in the new art of scientific obstruction. Mr. Parnell had, owing to the popular lines on which some of his amendments were drawn up, got about eighteen members at this time to act with him. But even they deserted him when, at one in the morning, Mr. Biggar moved to “report progress.” The division showed--Ayes, 10, Noes, 138. Mr. Biggar and his friends then kept up a series of see-saw motions--for adjournment and reporting progress, till at three in the morning Mr. Cross succumbed, and having struck his flag, assented to the rising of the House. Then Mr. Biggar and his friends pathetically wailed over the scandalous manner in which the House had had two hours of its valuable time wasted by the Home Secretary, whose surrender was cited as a justification of their opposition.

[102] This was fifteen minutes earlier than the hour at which it rose in the Debate on the Address in 1783. See Clayden’s England Under Lord Beaconsfield, p. 302.

[103] This was a popular move, for it was generally felt that Ireland not only had too many Judges, but that they were extravagantly overpaid.

[104] Mr. F. H. O’Donnell actually put down seventy-five amendments to it.

[105] The motion was moved by Sir George Campbell.

[106] It was never known what Sir Stafford Northcote meant to do. But it was supposed he would, with the support of Lord Hartington, move the expulsion of the “obstructives.”

[107] The Estimates for the past year had been closely realised. For the coming year (1877-78) the revenue was taken at £78,794,000, and the expenditure at £79,020,000.

[108] Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, p. 343.

[109] Martin’s Life of the Prince Consort, Chap. XLIX.

[110] Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, p. 357.

[111] Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., pp. 206, 273.

[112] See a letter from Mr. Hayward to Mr. Sheridan, dated 3rd November, 1876. Correspondence of Abraham Hayward, Q.C., p. 271.

[113] See Mr. Hayward’s Correspondence, Vol. II., pp. 266 and 268.

[114] Mr. Carlyle presumably got his information from the highest German authorities.

[115] Carlyle’s Life in London, by T. A. Froude, Vol. III., p. 441.

[116] Consols fell three-eighths.

[117] Mr. George Jacob Holyoake was the first to characterise these patriots as “Jingoes,” deriving the epithet from their own anthem. See his letter in the _Daily News_, March 13, 1878.

[118] These were (1), Bulgarian autonomy north of the Balkans; (2), guarantees of good government for the other Turkish provinces; (3), cession of Batoum, and retrocession of Bessarabia to Russia.

[119] Nobody gave a more vivid picture of the divided state of the nation at this time than Mr. Trevelyan, who had been one of the most active of those who forced Mr. Gladstone to withdraw his Resolutions. Speaking at Galashiels on the 10th of December he said, the desire to fight “is almost universal amongst idlers, and gossips, fashionable aspirants, and the habitual frequenters of the London burlesques and music-halls. The determination to keep at peace is almost universal among the great mass of the population which produces the wealth of this country, and which makes us respected and powerful among nations. My experience is that the division is not, as is generally described, one of class, but of personal habits and character. If you meet a man who does an honest stroke of work on every week-day, whether he be manufacturer, or artisan, or tradesman, or barrister, it is ten to one that he wishes his country to leave this quarrel to be fought out by those whom it concerns. If you meet a man who amuses himself for fifteen hours out of the twenty-four, and sleeps the rest, it is ninety-nine to one but he thinks we should send an ultimatum to Russia as soon as she crosses the Balkans, and that he regards Lord Beaconsfield as a second Chatham, who is robbed of his opportunities by his more timid colleagues.” It ought to be said that the Liberals had also their “idlers” and sentimental crochet-mongers, who were eager to join Russia in fighting the “anti-human” Turk, and who had the advantage of Mr. Gladstone’s personal leadership. Of course the partisans of Lord Beaconsfield vied with the partisans of Mr. Gladstone in pouring forth contempt on the English people, for their sordid determination to tie the restless and mischief-making hands of these two enterprising politicians.

[120] One finds in the advertising columns of the _Era_, strangely enough, a side-light on the Eastern policy of the Court at this period. A Mr. Charles Williams, who advertised himself as singing “the greatest war song on record” at four music-halls, added to his advertisement the following letter:--“Lieutenant-General Sir T. M. Biddulph has received the Queen’s commands to thank Mr. Charles Williams for the appropriate verses contained in his letter of the 18th inst., and her Majesty fully appreciates his motives.” One of the verses ran thus:--

“Bruin thinks we’ve been asleep; but a watch we’ve had to keep,
Knowing well the value of his word;
Look with many a skilful lie how they’ve blinded every eye,
Till the Lion’s grand impatience now is heard;
For every British heart would burn to take a part
To fling the Russian lies back in their face;
And to teach them, as of old, that Briton’s hearts are bold,
And would die to save our country from disgrace.”

--_Vide Era_, February 20, 1878. The song was sung at the Metropolitan Music Hall, in connection with a ballet called “Cross and Crescent War.” When the Royal letter was pointed out to Count Schouvaloff, that easy-tempered diplomatist merely shrugged his shoulders. It may be mentioned incidentally that a study of the popular songs cf the period reflects faithfully the shifting moods of the London mob during the Eastern Controversy.

[121] Turkey III. (1878), No. 1.

[122] Russia in July had pledged herself not to meddle with the Suez Canal, or with Egypt, or to menace the Persian Gulf. As to the Dardanelles, the position of the Straits “should,” said Prince Gortschakoff, “be settled by a common agreement upon equitable or efficiently guaranteed bases.” Constantinople, in his opinion, “could not be allowed to belong to any of the European Powers;” and on the 20th of July the Czar further enforced this pledge by telling Colonel Wellesley that he would not occupy Constantinople merely for military _prestige_, but only if events forced him to do so.--_See_ Russia II. (1877), No. 2; and Turkey III. (1878), No. 2.

[123] Hansard, Vol. CCXXXVII., p. 31.

[124] Sir Stafford Northcote gave another reason. Mr. Layard, on the 24th, telegraphed that the question of the Bosphorus was to be settled between the Czar and a Congress. Next morning, the 25th, it was found that by a blunder the clerk had written “Congress” instead of “Sultan.” It was on this account, said Sir S. Northcote, that the orders to the Fleet were withdrawn. In other words, when on the 24th the Government believed--if by this time they really believed any of Mr. Layard’s telegrams--that the question of the Bosphorus was to be settled in accordance with Russia’s pledges to England, the Fleet was sent to Constantinople. But when they found this to be a mistake, and that the Czar was going to settle the question in defiance of his pledges to England, the Fleet was ordered back to Besika Bay!

[125] His place at the Colonial Office was filled by Sir M. Hicks-Beach, Mr. James Lowther becoming Irish Secretary.

[126] Mr. Bright and Mr. Gladstone were, however, among those who voted against the Grant.

[127] See Sir Stafford Northcote’s statement in the House of Commons, _Times_, 29th April, 1878.

[128] It is, however, but fair to Lord Derby to say that though all the Tory speakers and writers assumed this to be his object, his obstinacy might be due to another and more honourable motive. He probably persuaded himself that the refusal of Russia implied that she meant to object to the discussion of Articles that in the opinion of the Powers affected their interests as well as hers.

[129] Mr. Charles Greville dwells on one of these ebullitions of patrician rowdyism with much anger. (_See_ Memoirs, Part III.). At the same time, it is but fair to say that the Peelites had given the Tories just provocation. Lord Aberdeen had led the Tory leaders to believe that, whenever they abandoned Protection, they (the Peelites) would return to the Tory fold, and reunite the Conservative Party. Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli did abandon Protection, incurring great obloquy from their followers. But the Peelites declined to fulfil their part of the implied bargain, and, having got all they wanted out of the Protectionists--a recantation of their principles--not only refused to join them, but attacked them with the Whigs. Mr. Gladstone was supposed to have inspired what Lord Hardwicke, in a letter to Mr. Croker, denounced as a “disgraceful” manœuvre due to “personal pique and hatred.”--_See_ Croker Papers; also an article in the _Observer_, Feb. 13, 1887, p. 3.

[130] It ought to be said that Lord Derby’s ablest apologist, Mr. T. Wemyss Reid, in an article in _Macmillan’s Magazine_ for June, 1879, advanced a fair defence for his hesitancy to work zealously with the European Powers. Mr. Reid asserts, and in a manner which commands respectful attention, that Lord Derby knew that as far back as 1873 Russia, Germany, and Austria had entered into a secret agreement to upset the _status quo_ in Turkey. No historian can presume to pass a final judgment on Lord Derby’s career at the Foreign Office without carefully studying this remarkable article. It explains much that is otherwise inexplicable in Lord Derby’s policy, and had it been an official _communiqué_ it would have been almost conclusive.

[131] Lord Salisbury said, in reply to Lord Grey, in the House of Lords, that the statements in the _Globe_ were “wholly unauthentic.” Lord Grey said he could not have believed it to be true that Lord Salisbury had agreed to the retrocession of Bessarabia. “It appeared,” he said, “to be too monstrous to be believed that her Majesty’s Government could have made such a stipulation as was agreed to”--an observation which Lord Salisbury ratified by his silence.--Hansard, Vol. CCXL., p. 1061.

[132] The words of Bismarck’s Circular were:--“While addressing this invitation to the ---- Government, the Government of his Majesty [the German Emperor] supposes that the ---- Government, in accepting the invitation, consents to allow free discussion of the contents of the Treaty of San Stefano in their totality, and that it is ready to take part in it.” It is curious to notice how persistently Russia refused to yield even verbally, and after signing the Secret Agreement, to the English demand. As the Vienna correspondent of the _Times_ said, “the formula of invitation is a compromise. While doing full justice to the full demand of England for free discussion of the Treaty of San Stefano in its totality, it contrives to spare the susceptibilities of Russia. Germany steps in and supposes that none of the Governments invited will object to a free discussion. In issuing invitations on this hypothesis, Germany gives a moral guarantee that it will be so; and Russia, who has hitherto objected to such a course, is not distinctly asked to withdraw this opposition, but only gives her consent, like the other Powers, to a Congress convoked by Germany for the purpose.”--_Times_ Vienna Correspondent, 4th June, 1878. The effect of this formula was to make Prince Bismarck absolute master of the Congress after acceptance of his invitation. He alone had given a guarantee that the Treaty should be fully discussed. He alone was therefore entitled at every stage to define what he meant by the phrase, “in its totality.”

[133] Sir M. Hicks-Beach, on the 12th of June, gave his Party and the country further assurances on this head in a speech at Cheltenham, in which he said that the main points in Lord Salisbury’s Circular of the 1st of April would be adhered to by the British representatives at the Congress. This statement, of course, recoiled on him in the most damaging manner when, on the 14th, it was found that what the Ministerialists considered to be main points had been bargained away to Russia in Lord Salisbury’s Secret Agreement of the 30th of May.

[134] Lord Houghton, as a supporter of the Ministerial Foreign Policy, said:--“Even if the surrender which we are required to make according to this document is one to which the country would give its consent, it would have been better that the fact should have appeared at the Congress than that it should have been made known by this paper [the _Globe_]. It now stands before the world that England did not go into the Congress with free hands, but before going into it had made a contract, and had, in the main, abandoned some of the most important points which I and other Members of the House considered it was the duty of this country to insist upon.”--Hansard, Vol. CCXL., p. 1569 _et seq._

[135] The proceedings against Mr. Marvin were withdrawn. He pleaded that copying on paper did not amount to theft, and his legal advisers threatened a cross-examination of the Foreign Office officials (whose laxity of administration was obvious), which determined the Government to retreat.

[136] Afghan Correspondence I., pp. 242, 243.

[137] Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, p. 375.

[138] The death of the child here alluded to was that of her little son Fritz, who accidentally fell from one of the palace windows on the 29th of May, 1873.

[139] Alice Grand Duchess of Hesse, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. Biographical Sketch and Letters, p. 385.

[140] Dr. Sell, a good clergyman of Darmstadt, who was entrusted with her papers and her correspondence with the Queen, and who knew the Princess well during the greater part of her Darmstadt life.

[141] _See_ South African Correspondence (C 2220), pp. 136-320.

[142] _Nineteenth Century_, March, 1879.

[143] Sir M. Hicks-Beach censured Frere for not sending his _ultimatum_ home for approval before delivering it. In fact, Frere’s claim was virtually that a Colonial Governor had the right to declare war without consulting the Crown or Parliament. The majority that supported the Government in the Lords was 61. In the Commons Sir C. Dilke’s motion was defeated by a majority of 60.

[144] Mr. Parnell was not formally elected leader. After Mr. Butt’s retirement, in 1878, the Irish party elected, not a leader, but a Sessional Chairman. The office was filled by Mr. Shaw during 1879.

[145] Hansard, Vol. CCXLVII, p. 53.

[146] It must be mentioned that Lord Hartington had in a previous speech haughtily repudiated all responsibility for the action of Mr. Chamberlain, Mr. Hopwood, and other Radicals who had now allied themselves with the Parnellites.

[147] These warnings were published at Lahore from Persian newswriters in Cabul. They showed that even as far back as the 16th of August the Ameer had implored Cavagnari not to ride about the streets, as he ran the risk of being murdered. At this time Lord Lytton was assuring the Government, on the authority of messages which he alleged he had received from Cavagnari, that all was going on well in Cabul.

[148] Colonel Osborn, in an article in the _Contemporary Review_ for October, 1879, estimated that a British army 40,000 strong would be needed to occupy Afghanistan.

[149] His “settlement” of Zululand organised the country into thirteen provincial governments, a British Resident controlling them all. Native rights, laws, and customs were to be respected, and Europeans prohibited from emigrating into native territory.

[150] This is clear from the censure passed by the Duke of Cambridge on Colonel Harrison, Assistant Quartermaster-General. The Duke blamed Harrison for not impressing on the Prince “the duty of deferring to the military orders of the officer who accompanied him.” Of course, if Carey had been in command, there would have been no need to have impressed on the Prince (who had graduated in the military school at Woolwich) the necessity for obeying the orders of Carey, who would, in that case, have been his superior officer.

[151] The gap torn out of the bridge--the whole length of which was 10,612 feet--measured 3,300 feet. Of the eighty-five spans, the first twenty-seven from the Fife coast were left intact. Then came thirteen of which only the stonework remained, everything else being swept away. This left forty-five spans on the northern side standing. The bridge had been tested and certified as safe by Government inspectors. An inquiry was ordered into the disaster, which showed that the bridge was, in the words of Mr. Rothery, one of the Court of Inquiry, “badly designed, badly constructed, and badly maintained.” For the mishap the engineer--Sir Thomas Bouch--was held “mainly to blame.” The bridge, which from a distance looked like a long plank set up on pipe-shanks, cost £500,000. It was opened on the 30th of May, 1878.

[152] There were seventy-five adults, and from ten to fifteen children. The bodies were nearly all washed away by the tide.

[153] Dr. Köller, a Church of England clergyman, employed by the Church Missionary Society in Constantinople, had engaged Ahmed Tewfik, a Mohammedan schoolmaster, to help him to translate the Scriptures into Turkish. Ahmed and the MSS. were seized, and the former adjudged worthy of death by the Sheik-ul-Islam. For three months Sir Henry Layard had vainly demanded his release, and the dismissal of the Minister of Police, Hafiz Pasha, from his post.

[154] Hafiz was one of the savages, whose share in the Bulgarian atrocities was so patent, that Lord Derby had demanded his punishment. The answer to this demand by the Turks was the appointment of Hafiz as Minister of Police at Constantinople, where he and Sir Henry Layard suddenly fell out.

[155] He had given the Lord-Lieutenancy of a county to Colonel King-Harman.

[156] Loans to Baronial Sessions for improvement works were virtually loans to the landlords.

[157] Nobody knew better than Lord Beaconsfield, from his experiences of 1846, that the potato is the barometer of Famine in Ireland, and it is impossible to suppose that he would have been satisfied with Mr. Lowther’s Bill if he had looked into the facts. For these all pointed to a dreadful failure of the potato crop. In 1876 its value was £12,464,382. In 1878 it was only £7,579,512. In 1879 it fell to £3,341,028. In England a crisis like this would have compelled the Government to take strong measures of relief, and yet in England such a state of affairs is always eased by the landlords abating or wiping out rent. But the distress in Ireland was aggravated because the worse it grew the fiercer became the demand of the landlords for rent. “Evictions,” writes Mr. J. Huntley McCarthy, “had increased from 463 families in 1877 to 980 in 1878, to 1,238 in 1879; and they were still on the increase, as was shown at the end of 1880, when it was found that 2,110 families were evicted.” Moreover, the Irish peasantry paid part of their rent out of wages earned as migratory labourers during part of the year in England and Scotland. But English and Scottish farmers were themselves cutting down their labour bills, and the loss to the Irish on migratory labour alone in 1877 was £250,000 (Hancock). See Healy’s “Why is there a Land Question?” pp. 71, 72; O’Connor’s “Parnell Movement,” pp. 166-7. J. H. McCarthy’s “England under Gladstone,” p. 103.

[158] The new Rule was to the effect that a Member “named” by the Speaker or Chairman for obstruction might be suspended for the rest of the sitting on a motion voted without debate; and if he repeated the offence three times, he might be suspended for an indefinite period till pardoned by the House.

[159] These were Barnstaple, Liverpool, and Southwark. At Barnstaple the Liberal (Lord Lymington) increased the Liberal majority by 60 votes. But Sir R. Carden increased the Tory minority by 99. In Liverpool Mr. Whitley was returned by a majority of 2,221, though Lord Ramsay, the losing candidate, polled 3,000 more votes than the winning candidate had ever polled before. Southwark (vacated by the death of Mr. Locke, a strong Radical) was carried by Mr. Edward Clarke, a strong Conservative, by a large majority. Lord Beaconsfield’s calculations were here faulty. The verdict of Barnstaple, being a corrupt constituency, went for nothing on either side. In Liverpool the Tories maintained their ascendency, but not at all with the proportionate majority they obtained in 1874. Southwark was dominated by the publican vote, and the Liberal candidate (Mr. Dunn) was not only a bad speaker, but especially hateful to the working-class, because he had, by insisting on standing at a former election, ruined the candidature of Mr. Odger, and, by splitting the Liberal vote, had handed over the second seat in Southwark to Colonel Beresford, the Conservative candidate. The bye-elections to which Lord Beaconsfield trusted afforded no true guidance as to the drift of opinion.

[160] Mr. Cross created a Water Trust, partly representative and partly nominated, for taking over the business of the water companies. He had in the previous Session promised Mr. Fawcett that he would not give the companies a “fancy” price for their property. He now proposed to hand over a Three and a Half per Cent. Stock to the companies as compensation for their property. The actual value of that property was about £19,000,000; but the _Standard_ and the critics of the scheme complained that Mr. Cross gave the companies £30,000,000 compensation. Water shares rose 75 per cent. when Mr. Cross’s Bill was produced.

[161] The contest in Midlothian excited the keenest interest. When the poll had been counted it was found that Mr. Gladstone had obtained the seat by a majority of 211 votes, the figures being Gladstone 1,579, Dalkeith 1,368. As soon as the result became known the utmost enthusiasm was aroused throughout the country. In Edinburgh the excitement was intense and Mr. Gladstone had to address the shouting crowd, under a fall of snow, from the balcony of Lord Rosebery’s House in George Street.

[162] Mr. Hayward’s Letters, Vol. II., p. 307.

[163] Mr. Hayward’s Letters, Vol. II., p. 308.

[164] Hansard, Vol. CCLIII., p. 1663.

[165] The origin of the term was as follows:--Captain Boycott, an agent of Lord Earne, and a farmer at Lough Mask, had served notices of eviction on the Earne tenantry. Suddenly he found himself “marooned,” as it were, on his farm. Nobody would work for him, speak to him, do business with him, or even supply him at any price with the necessaries of life. Police guards watched over him and his family whilst they did their own farm and household work. At last some of the Orange lodges in the North sent down a gang of armed labourers to help him out of his difficulties. These were called “Emergency men.” Subsequently the dispute between Lord Earne and his tenants was arranged, and all of a sudden Captain Boycott found that the leper’s ban had been removed from his household, and he himself treated as if he had been all his life the most popular person in the neighbourhood.

[166] The Rifle regiments were not supplied with colours, because in the old days they were supposed to fight in more extended order than the Infantry of the Line. Now there is no difference in this respect between the rifleman and the linesman. Of the cavalry, only the heavy dragoons carried colours, but they always left them at home when they went to war.

[167] The Rifle Brigade was originally formed out of detachments from fourteen different line regiments, and was long known as “Manningham’s Sharpshooters.” From 1800 to 1802 it was known as the Rifle Corps. Down to 1816 it got the name of the “Old 95th,” after which year till now it has been called the Rifle Brigade. The Prince Consort was its colonel, and in his portraits he is often seen wearing its sombre green heavily-braided uniform. Hence it got the title of the Prince Consort’s Own Rifle Brigade. The Prince of Wales became its Colonel-in-Chief till he was appointed Colonel of the Household Cavalry. He was succeeded by the Duke of Connaught, who began his meritorious though modest career as a lieutenant in the 1st Battalion.

[168] Mr. C. D. Boyd was shot by a gang of men with blackened faces whilst driving on the 8th of August from New Ross to Shanlough. He was the son of the agent to Mr. Tottenham, and there was reason to suppose that it was his father (who was with him) who was aimed at. Lord Mountmorres was waylaid near Clonbur and shot on the 25th of September. He had only fifteen tenants, had evicted only two of them, and his household was boycotted. He lived among the people, and was fairly popular with them, so that his murder is to this day somewhat of a mystery.

[169] This antiquated form of silencing a Member had not been heard of for two centuries, till Mr. Gladstone had himself revived it in the previous Session, for the purpose of silencing Mr. O’Donnell when he attempted to make a personal attack on M. Challemel-Lacour, who had come to England as the Ambassador of France.

[170] _See_ Hansard, Vol. CCLVIII., p. 68 _et seq._

[171] The Parnell Movement, by T. P. O’Connor, M.P., Chapter XI.

[172] Colley’s friends allege that Kruger’s letter of reply to him was delayed so long that he thought he might usefully expedite matters by attacking.

[173] It was said that the late Mrs. Brydges-Williams, an eccentric Cornish lady of Jewish extraction, had left Mr. Disraeli a legacy on condition that she should be buried with him, and on this condition the legacy was accepted. Perhaps the executors were afraid that claims might be made on them if the condition were violated.

[174] Speech at Kettering, _Times_, 5th May, 1881.

[175] Her Majesty sent two wreaths to be placed on the bier. One was composed of primroses, and carried the inscription: “His favourite flowers, from Osborne, a tribute of affection from Queen Victoria.” The other was made up of bay-leaves and everlasting flowers, and bore these words in golden letters: “A mark of true affection, friendship, and respect from the Queen.”

[176] After Lord Beaconsfield’s death the Tory Party fell under the “Dual Control” of Lord Salisbury who led it in the House of Lords, and Sir Stafford Northcote who led it in the House of Commons, when Lord Randolph Churchill let him.

[177] Mr. (afterwards Sir) Edward Clarke, Q.C. and Tory Solicitor-General, though he approved of widening summary jurisdiction, objected to the Bill because it made the Irish Viceroy a despot. Mr. Ritchie (afterwards President of the Local Government Board in Lord Salisbury’s Administration) declined to support the Bill because he had no confidence in the Government. Sir J. D. Hay complained of the excessive power placed in the hands of the Irish Viceroy. But Sir Stafford Northcote interfered, and, generously exerting his authority on behalf of the Ministry, silenced the factious Tories, who were apparently desirous of embarrassing the Government by obstructing the Bill. Public opinion was not in a state to tolerate obstructive tactics at the time.

[178] This loan was raised to wipe out the floating debt then amounting to £28,000,000. But the money-brokers who floated it imposed such usurious conditions, that they never really paid Ismail more than £20,740,077, of which they made him take £9,000,000 in bonds of the floating debt which the loan was raised to pay off. These they held themselves, having bought them at 65 per cent. They made the Khedive, however, take over the £9,000,000 worth which they thrust on him as part of the loan at 93 per cent.--See Mr. Stephen Cave’s Report on the Financial Condition of Egypt, and McCoan’s Egypt as It Is (Cassell and Co.), Appendix 9, p. 396.

[179] This land belonging to the Khedive’s personal estate is referred to in the report as Daira land.

[180] A search expedition under Colonel (afterwards Sir Charles) Warren, R.E., brought back their remains, which were buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral, close by the tomb of Nelson. See Life of Edward Henry Palmer, by Walter Besant. London: John Murray, 1883, pp. 296-329.

[181] The vote was for an addition of £10,000 a year to the Prince’s income, which was already £15,000, and a separate income of £6,000 a year to the Princess during her widowhood.

[182] These intrigues grew so dangerous that in 1879 Prince Bismarck concluded a Secret Treaty with Austria, which bound each Power to defend the other if attacked by Russia, or if Russia gave aid to any other Power which was attacking them. Though Prince Bismarck, as he said in his speech in the Reichstag (6th of February, 1887) really acted at the Berlin Congress as the fourth plenipotentiary of Russia, the Russian War Party were of opinion that he ought to have done more for them. Their attacks on Germany in the Press were incessant. Russians of rank like Gortschakoff and Skobeleff, notoriously carried on intrigues with France for an alliance against Germany. Indeed, Russian troops began to mass themselves on the German frontier in 1882. Curiously enough, of the four men who could have done most to thwart Prince Bismarck’s League of Peace with Austria--only one (Garibaldi) died in circumstances free from suspicion of foul play. Garibaldi’s death rendered it easier to bring Italy into Prince Bismarck’s anti-French combination. These four men it is curious to note passed away most opportunely for Prince Bismarck. Garibaldi died in June, Skobeleff on the 7th of July, Gambetta in December, 1882, and Gortschakoff on the 11th of March, 1883. Germany breathed freely after the death of Gambetta, who, said Prince Bismarck once, worked on the nerves of Europe “like a man who beats a drum in a sick room.”

[183] The history of this compact is as follows:--After the Treaty of Berlin was signed Lord Salisbury bought off the opposition of France to the occupation of Cyprus, first by promising not to oppose an extension of her influence in Tunis, and secondly, by paving the way for her sharing with England the control of Egypt. Prince Bismarck also left on M. Waddington’s mind the impression that Germany was indifferent to the fate of Tunis, knowing well that French interference there must brew bad blood between France and Italy. In the spring of 1881 the French discovered that the mysterious “Kroumirs” were menacing their Algerian frontier. To punish them they invaded Tunis, and though they never discovered any “Kroumirs,” they compensated themselves for their disappointment by forcing the Bey to sign the Bardo Treaty. It converted Tunis into a French dependency. Italy remonstrated in vain against this violation of the guaranteed integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and finally sought for safety against further French encroachments on her interests, in an alliance with the German Powers. M. Gambetta’s aggressive policy caused King Humbert, on the advice of Prince Bismarck, to visit the Emperor of Austria at Vienna, in the autumn of 1881. Prince Bismarck was ostentatious in expressing his friendliness to Italy, and exchanged effusive compliments with Signor Mancini. (_See_ Mancini’s Speech in the Italian Senate of December, 1881.) In October, 1882, Count Kalnoky declared that King Humbert’s pilgrimage of conciliation to the Hofburg had identified Italian and Austro-German interests, and Signor Mancini announced the existence of the Triple League on the 11th of April, 1883. On the 17th of March, 1885, Mancini, when questioned as to his Red Sea policy, told the Senate that in all his negotiations with England he had made it “clear that Italy could enter into no engagement which was contrary to the agreements concluded with the two Empires.” Through negotiations carried on by the German Crown Prince, Spain was next drawn into the net of the Triple League, and France utterly isolated.

[184] Though writers like De Tocqueville have laid it down that the civilisation and development of a State can be always measured by the social status and independence of its women and the equality of the sexes before the law, one curious exception may be noted. From various reasons, the northern kingdom of Scotland has for many centuries remained appreciably rougher in manners and less polished and refined in culture than England. The women of Scotland, too, like those of Germany, have always been compelled to render their families harder domestic service than English women, who, during the greater part of the Victorian period, led lives of comparative ease and luxury in most respectable households. Yet it is strange that in Scotland the law has always been jealous in guarding the rights of women. For example, it secured to a woman a third of her husband’s property after his death, so that he could not disinherit her by will. It enabled her, through a simple and cheap legal process, to protect her earnings from seizure by her husband. It was at pains to preserve to women in the direct line of succession their right to baronies and peerages after the males in that line were exhausted. The divorce law, too, did not, like that of England, recognise any inequality in the position of the sexes. The effect of the improved legal status of women in Scotland was curious. Though living in a ruder society, and under the pressure of harder conditions of life than their more luxurious and polished English sisters, they seem in all ages to have enjoyed by custom a position of authority in the family, scarcely even yet conceded to their sex in England. Arduous household service was, however, the price they had to pay for their privileges. It may also be added that whilst in England, till very recently, parents were more particular about the education of their sons than their daughters, such a distinction between the sexes was rarely made in Scotland at any time in its history.

[185] The occasion was a banquet given to him in the Town Hall in celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of his connection with Birmingham. Mr. Bright said:--“And, what is worse, at this moment, as you see--you do not so much see it here as it is seen in the House--they [the Conservatives] are found in alliance with an Irish rebel party (loud and long-continued cheers), the main portion of whose funds, for the purposes of agitation, comes directly from the avowed enemies of England, and whose oath of allegiance is broken by association with its enemies. Now, these are the men of whom I spoke, who are disregarding the wishes of the majority of the constituencies, and who, as far as possible, make it impossible to do any work for the country by debates and divisions in the House of Commons. I hope the constituencies will mark some of the men of this party, and that they will not permit Parliament to be dishonoured and Government enfeebled by Members who claim to be, but are not, Conservative and Constitutional. Our freedom is no longer subverted or threatened by the Crown or by a privileged aristocracy. Is the time come--I quote the words from history--is the time come to which the ancestor of Lord Salisbury referred three hundred years ago, when he said that ‘England could only be ruined by Parliament’?”

[186] It enacted that to cause an explosion not leading to loss of life was a felony punishable by penal servitude for life. The attempt was punishable with twenty years’ imprisonment. To be found in the possession of dynamite, failing proof that it was held for a lawful purpose, entailed fourteen years’ imprisonment.

[187] For an account of this sect, see a curious article in _The Spectator_, 17th March, 1883.

[188] Brown, it was said in 1883, had left a diary for publication. This was not quite true, for immediately after his death all his papers were impounded by Sir Henry Ponsonby on behalf of the Queen.

[189] The Hon. Mrs. Stonor died on the 14th of April in London, from the effects of a carriage accident. She was a daughter of Sir Robert Peel, and was married to the third son of Lord Camoys. Few ladies of the Court stood higher in the favour of the Queen, and she had been lady-in-waiting to the Princess of Wales since the formation of her household in 1863.

[190] When England advised Egypt to abandon the Soudan, the Khedive’s Ministry under Cherif Pasha refused to take the advice. The defeat of Hicks Pasha caused England to substitute insistance for advice, and when the Egyptian Government was told it must abandon the Soudan, Cherif Pasha resigned. Here was an excellent opportunity for establishing a Protectorate; and it is not generally known that Sir Evelyn Baring strongly recommended the appointment of English Ministers for a period of five years. He was overruled, and Nubar Pasha was made Cherif’s successor. See Mr. Edward Dicey’s convincing plea for a Protectorate, in the _Nineteenth Century_ for March, 1884. In passing it may be well to warn the reader that he cannot form any correct conception of Anglo-Egyptian relations till he has mastered Mr. Dicey’s numerous papers on the subject, notably his “England and Egypt” (Chapman and Hall, 1881). The central idea of Mr. Dicey’s policy is that the true interest of England in the Eastern Question lies in the Valley of the Nile, not in the Bosphorus; and that the Isthmus of Suez forms the key-stone of her position as an Imperial Power.

[191] His expenditure he estimated at £85,292,000, and his revenue at £85,555,000.

[192] The alternative courses were (1), calling in the aid of Turkish troops; (2), the employment of Zebehr Pasha; (3), the opening up of communications between Suakim and Berber after Graham’s victories on the Red Sea littoral; (4), the evacuation of Khartoum in accordance with a scheme whereby Gordon’s colleague, Colonel Stewart, was to take the fugitives down to Berber, while Gordon and a picked body of troops were to retreat up the White Nile in steamers to the Equator.

[193] These persons were in most cases rather incompetent. They were not boatmen or _voyageurs_ at all, but clerks, shopmen, and land-lubbers from the Canadian towns, who had palmed themselves off on Lord Wolseley and his subordinates as experienced Canadian _voyageurs_.

[194] This was not the only case in which Lord Northbrook had discredited the Administration. It was notorious that Mr. W. H. Smith had shockingly neglected naval ship-building when, in 1880, he handed the Navy over to Lord Northbrook. Lord Northbrook had worked hard to make up arrears, and he had built new ships as fast as he could to enable the British Navy to rank with that of France. But his best efforts to correct Mr. Smith’s negligence failed, and yet in July, 1885, he expressed himself quite satisfied with the Navy. When he was absent in Egypt a violent agitation, demonstrating the feebleness and insufficiency of the Navy, was raised in the Press. Ere the autumn Session ended he admitted that £5,000,000 above the ordinary estimates would be needed to strengthen the Fleet in swift cruisers and torpedo boats.

[195] Loans already secured on these were to merge in the Preference Debt along with bonds for Alexandria indemnities. The interest on it was not to change, but that on the Unified Debt into which Daira Loans were to merge, was to be reduced to 3½ per cent.

[196] When Ismail abdicated under the pressure of France and England it was not made clear that he abandoned all his rights as a private landowner in Egypt. Theoretically the Khedive could not, according to Oriental usage, own any land in his dominions save as head of the State, in which capacity he owned all land. Hence, when he ceased to be Khedive, his private domains reverted to his successor. Hence Lord Granville always rejected Ismail’s claim. But in 1888 Lord Salisbury, through the agency of Mr. Marriott, Judge Advocate-General, commuted all Ismail Pasha’s claims for a lump sum, calculated on the allowances he was bound to make his family, and which he himself might fairly demand to support his position as ex-Khedive. Lord Salisbury’s object was to prevent these claims from being ever made the basis of operations for diplomacy hostile to England.

[197] The dates are curious:--

17 June, 1884.--Invitations to Egyptian Conference issued. “ “ Lord Derby promises to stop the action of the Cape Government in reference to Angra Pequena. 19 “ Lord Granville assures Count Münster that he accedes to Bismarck’s wishes on the Fiji dispute. 22 “ Lord Granville tells Count Herbert Bismarck that the Cabinet, on the 21st inst., resolved to recognise the German Protectorate over Angra Pequena. 28 “ Meeting of the Conference in London.

[198] Speech in House of Lords, February 26th, 1885.

[199] Speech in the Reichstag, March 2nd, 1885.

[200] More Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands. From 1862 to 1882. Smith, Elder & Co., 1884.

[201] _Fortnightly Review_, May, 1884.