Chapter I: Religious Equality. (1869)

In the removal of this establishment I see the discharge of a debt
of civil justice, the disappearance of a national, almost a
worldwide reproach, a condition indispensable to the success of
every effort to secure the peace and contentment of that country;
finally relief to a devoted clergy from a false position, cramped
and beset by hopeless prejudice, and the opening of a freer career
to their sacred ministry.—GLADSTONE.

I

Anybody could pulverise the Irish church in argument, and to show that it ought to be disestablished and disendowed was the easiest thing in the world. But as often happens, what it was easy to show ought to be done, was extremely hard to do. Here Mr. Gladstone was in his great element. It was true to say that “never were the wheels of legislative machinery set in motion under conditions of peace and order and constitutional regularity to deal with a question greater or more profound,” than when the historic protestant church in Ireland was severed from its sister church in England and from its ancient connection with the state. The case had been fully examined in parliament. After examination and decision there, it was discussed and decided in the constituencies of the United Kingdom. Even then many held that the operation was too gigantic in its bearings, too complex in the mass of its detail, to be practicable. Never was our political system more severely tested, and never did it achieve a completer victory. Every great organ of the national constitution came into active play. The sovereign performed a high and useful duty. The Lords fought hard, but yielded before the strain reached a point of danger. The prelates in the midst of anger and perturbation were forced round to statesmanship. The Commons stood firm and unbroken. The law, when at length it became law, effected the national purpose with extraordinary thoroughness and precision. And the enterprise was inspired, guided, propelled, perfected, and made possible from its inception to its close by the resource, temper, and incomparable legislative skill of Mr. Gladstone. That the removal of the giant abuse of protestant establishment in Ireland made a deeper mark on national well-being than other of his legislative exploits, we can hardly think, but—quite apart from the policy of the act, as to which there can now be scarcely two opinions—as a monument of difficulties surmounted, prejudices and violent or sullen heats overcome, rights and interests adjusted, I know not where in the records of our legislation to find its master.

(M77) With characteristic hopefulness and simplicity Mr. Gladstone tried to induce Archbishop Trench and others of the Irish hierarchy to come to terms. Without raising the cry of no surrender, they declined all approaches. If Gladstone, they said, were able to announce in the House of Commons a concordat with the Irish clergy, it would ruin them both with the laity of the Irish establishment, and with the English conservatives who had fought for them at the election and might well be expected, as a piece of party business if for no better reasons, to fight on for them in the House of Lords. Who could tell that the Gladstone majority would hold together? Though “no surrender” might be a bad cry, it was even now at the eleventh hour possible that “no popery” would be a good one. In short, they argued, this was one of the cases where terms could only be settled on the field of battle. There were moderates, the most eminent being Bishop Magee of Peterborough, who had an interview with Mr. Gladstone at this stage, but nothing came of it. One Irish clergyman only, Stopford the archdeacon of Meath, a moderate who disliked the policy but wished to make the best of the inevitable, gave Mr. Gladstone the benefit of his experience and ability. When the work was done, Mr. Gladstone wrote to the archdeacon more than once expressing his sense of the advantage derived from his “thorough mastery of the subject and enlightened view of the political situation.” He often spoke of Stopford’s “knowledge, terseness, discrimination, and just judgment.”

Meanwhile his own course was clear. He did not lose a day:—

_Dec. 13, 1868._—Saw the Queen at one, and stated the case of the
Irish church. It was graciously received. 24.—At night went to
work on draft of Irish church measure, feeling the impulse.
25.—Christmas Day. Worked much on Irish church _abbozzo_. Finished
it at night. 26.—Revised the Irish church draft and sent it to be
copied with notes.

The general situation he described to Bishop Hinds on the last day of the year:—

We cannot wait for the church of Ireland to make up her mind. We
are bound, nay compelled, to make up ours. Every day of the
existence of this government is now devoted to putting forward by
some step of inquiry or deliberation the great duty we have
undertaken. Our principles are already laid in the resolutions of
the late House of Commons. But in the mode of applying them much
may depend on the attitude of resistance or co-operation assumed
by the Irish church. It is idle for the leading Irish churchmen to
think “we will wait and see what they offer and then ask so much
more.” Our mode of warfare cannot but be influenced by the troops
we lead. Our three _corps d’armée_, I may almost say, have been
Scotch presbyterians, English and Welsh nonconformists, and Irish
Roman catholics. We are very strong in our minority of clerical
and lay churchmen, but it is the strength of weight not of
numbers. The English clergy as a body have done their worst
against us and have hit us hard, as I know personally, in the
counties. Yet we represent the national force, tested by a
majority of considerably over a hundred voices. It is hazardous in
these times to tamper with such a force.

The preparation of the bill went rapidly forward:—

_Hawarden, Jan. 13, 1869._—Wrote out a paper on the plan of the
measure respecting the Irish church, intended perhaps for the
Queen. Worked on Homer. We felled a lime. 14.—We felled another
tree. Worked on Homer, but not much, for in the evening came the
Spencers [from Dublin], also Archdeacon Stopford, and I had much
Irish conversation with them. 15.—We felled an ash. Three hours
conversation with the viceroy and the archdeacon. I went over much
of the roughest ground of the intended measure; the archdeacon
able and helpful. Also conversation with the viceroy, who went
before 7. Worked on Homer at night. 19.—One hour on Homer with Sir
J. Acton. Whist in evening. 20.—Further and long conversations on
the Irish church question and its various branches with Granville,
the attorney-general for Ireland, and in the evening with Dean
Howson, also with Sir J. Acton. 21.—Wrote a brief abstract of the
intended bill. Woodcutting. 23.—Saw the Queen [at Osborne] on the
Irish church especially, and gave H.M. my paper with explanation,
which appeared to be well taken. She was altogether at ease. We
dined with H.M. afterwards. 24.—Saw her Majesty, who spoke very
kindly about Lord Clarendon, Mr. Bright, Mr. Lowe, the Spanish
crown, Prince Leopold, Mr. Mozley, and so forth, but not a word on
the Irish church. _Feb. 4._—A letter from H.M. to-day showed much
disturbance, which I tried to soothe.

In February Lord Granville thought that it might do good if the Queen were to see Bishop Magee. Mr. Gladstone said to him in reply (Feb. 7, ’69):—

The case is peculiar and not free from difficulty. On the whole I
think it would be wrong to place any limit upon the Queen’s
communications to the Bishop of Peterborough except this, that
they would doubtless be made by H.M. to him for himself only, and
that no part of them would go beyond him to any person whatever.

(M78) On Feb. 12, the Queen wrote to Mr. Gladstone from Osborne:—

The Queen has seen the Bishop of Peterborough according to the
suggestion made by Lord Granville with the sanction of Mr.
Gladstone, and has communicated to him in the strictest confidence
the correspondence which had passed between herself and Mr.
Gladstone on the subject of the Irish church. She now sends Mr.
Gladstone a copy of the remarks made by the bishop on the papers
which she placed in his hands for perusal, and would earnestly
entreat Mr. Gladstone’s careful and dispassionate consideration of
what he says. She would point especially to the suggestion which
the bishop throws out of the intervention of the bench of English
bishops. The country would feel that any negotiation conducted
under the direction of the Archbishop of Canterbury would be
perfectly safe, and from the concessions which the Bishop of
Peterborough expresses his own readiness to make, the Queen is
sanguine in her hope that such negotiations would result in a
settlement of the question on conditions which would entirely
redeem the pledges of the government and be satisfactory to the
country. The Queen must therefore strongly deprecate the hasty
introduction of the measure, which would serve only to commit the
government to proposals from which they could not afterwards
recede, while it is _certain_ from what the bishop says, that they
would not be accepted on the other side, and thus an acrimonious
contest would be begun, which, however it ended, would make any
satisfactory settlement of the question impossible.

He replied on the following day:—

_Feb. 13._—First the bishop suggests that the endowments posterior
to the Reformation should be given to the church, and those
preceding it to the Roman catholics. It would be more than idle
and less than honest, were Mr. Gladstone to withhold from your
Majesty his conviction that no negotiation founded on such a basis
as this could be entertained, or, if entertained, could lead to
any satisfactory result. Neither could Mr. Gladstone persuade the
cabinet to adopt it, nor could the cabinet persuade the House of
Commons, nor could cabinet and House of Commons united persuade
the nation to acquiesce, and the very attempt would not only
prolong and embitter controversy, but would weaken authority in
this country. For the thing contemplated is the very thing that
the parliament was elected not to do.

_Osborne, Feb. 14._—The Queen thanks Mr. Gladstone for his long
letter, and is much gratified and relieved by the conciliatory
spirit expressed throughout his explanations on this most
difficult and important question. The Queen thinks it would indeed
be most desirable for him to see the Archbishop of Canterbury—and
she is quite ready to write to the archbishop to inform him of her
wish and of Mr. Gladstone’s readiness to accede to it, should he
wish it.

“My impression is,” Mr. Gladstone wrote to Lord Granville (Feb. 14), “that we should make a great mistake if we were to yield on the point of time. It is not time that is wanted; we have plenty of time to deal with the Bishop of Peterborough’s points so far as they can be dealt with at all. Sir R. Palmer has been here to-day with overtures from persons of importance unnamed. I think probably the Archbishop of Canterbury and others.(175) I do not doubt that on the other side they want time, for their suggestions are crude.”

(M79) On the following day (Feb. 15) the Queen wrote to the archbishop, telling him that she had seen Mr. Gladstone, “who shows the most conciliatory disposition,” and who at once assured her “of his readiness—indeed, his anxiety—to meet the archbishop and to communicate freely with him.” The correspondence between the Queen and the archbishop has already been made known, and most of that between the archbishop and Mr. Gladstone, and I need not here reproduce it, for, in fact, at this first stage nothing particular came of it.(176) “The great mistake, as it seems to me,” Mr. Gladstone writes to Archdeacon Stopford (Feb. 8), “made by the Irish bishops and others is this. They seem to think that our friends are at the mercy of our adversaries, whereas our adversaries are really at the mercy of our friends, and it is to these latter that the government, especially in the absence of other support, must look.” Meanwhile the bill had made its way through the cabinet:—

_Feb. 8._—Cabinet, on the heads of Irish Church bill.. 9.—Cabinet,
we completed the heads of the Irish Church measure to my great
satisfaction. 19.—At Lambeth, 12-1-½ explaining to the archbishop.
22.—Conclave on Irish church, 3-4-½ and 5-½-7-3/4. After twenty
hours’ work we finished the bill for this stage.

II

On March 1, Mr. Gladstone brought his plan before a House of Commons eager for its task, triumphant in its strength out of doors, and confident that its leader would justify the challenge with which for so many months the country had been ringing. The details are no longer of concern, and only broader aspects survive. A revolutionary change was made by the complete and definite severance of the protestant episcopal church in Ireland alike from the established church of England and from the government of the United Kingdom. A far more complex and delicate task was the winding up of a great temporal estate, the adjustment of many individual and corporate interests, and the distribution of some sixteen millions of property among persons and purposes to be determined by the wisdom of a parliament, where rival claims were defended by zealous and powerful champions influenced by the strongest motives, sacred and profane, of party, property, and church. It was necessary to deal with the sums, troublesome though not considerable, allotted to the presbyterians and to the catholic seminary at Maynooth. Machinery was constructed for the incorporation of a body to represent the emancipated church, and to hold property for any of its uses and purposes. Finally, the residue of the sixteen millions, after all the just demands upon it had been satisfied, computed at something between seven and eight millions, was appropriated in the words of the preamble, “not for the maintenance of any church or clergy, nor for the teaching of religion, but mainly for the relief of unavoidable calamity and suffering” not touched by the poor law.

The speech in which this arduous scheme was explained to parliament was regarded as Mr. Gladstone’s highest example of lucid and succinct unfolding of complicated matter. Mr. Disraeli said there was not a single word wasted. So skilfully were the facts marshalled, that every single hearer believed himself thoroughly to comprehend the eternal principles of the commutation of tithe-rent-charge, and the difference in the justice due to a transitory and a permanent curate. Manning said that the only two legislative acts in our history that approached it in importance for Ireland were the repeal of the penal laws and the Act of Union. However this may be, it is hardly an excess to say that since Pitt, the author of the Act of Union, the author of the Church Act was the only statesman in the roll of the century, capable at once of framing such a statute and expounding it with the same lofty and commanding power.(177)

(M80) In a fugitive note, Mr. Gladstone named one or two of the speakers on the second reading: “Ball: elaborate and impressive, answered with great power by Irish attorney-general. Bright: very eloquent and striking. Young George Hamilton: a first speech of great talent, admirably delivered. Hardy: an uncompromising defence of laws and institutions as they are, with a severe picture of the character and civil conduct of the Irish population.” Mr. Disraeli’s speech was even more artificial than usual. It was Mr. Hardy and Dr. Ball who gave cogent and strenuous expression to the argument and passion of the church case. When the division came, called by Mr. Gladstone “notable and historic” (March 24), the majority in a crowded house was 118.(178) “Our division this morning,” Mr. Gladstone wrote to Lord Granville, “even exceeded expectations, and will powerfully propel the bill.” The size of this majority deserves the reader’s attention, for it marked the opening of a new parliamentary era. In 1841 Peel had turned out the whigs by a majority of 91. Lord John Russell was displaced in 1852 by 9. The Derby government was thrown out in December 1852 by 19. The same government was again thrown out seven years later by 13. Palmerston was beaten in 1857 by 14, and the next year by 19. In 1864 Palmerston’s majority on the Danish question was only 18. The second reading of the Franchise bill of 1866 was only carried by 5, and ministers were afterwards beaten upon it by 11. With Mr. Gladstone’s accession the ruling majority for a long time stood at its highest both in size and stability.

With invincible optimism, Mr. Gladstone believed that he would now have “material communications from the heads of the Irish church”; but letters from Lord Spencer at Dublin Castle informed him that, on the contrary, they were angrier after they knew what the majority meant, than they were before. At the diocesan conferences throughout Ireland the bill was denounced as highly offensive to Almighty God, and the greatest national sin ever committed. The Archdeacon of Ossory told churchmen to trust to God and keep their powder dry, though he afterwards explained that he did not allude to carnal weapons. The cabinet was called a cabinet of brigands, and protestant pastors were urged to see to it that before they gave up their churches to an apostate system a barrel of gunpowder and a box of matches should blow the cherished fabrics to the winds of heaven.

Even Mr. Disraeli’s astuteness was at fault. The Archbishop of Canterbury perceived from his conversation that he was bent on setting the liberals by the ears, that he looked for speeches such as would betray utter dissension amid professed agreement, that he had good hopes of shattering the enemy, and “perhaps of playing over again the game that had destroyed Lord Russell’s Reform bill of 1866.” The resounding majority on the second reading, he told the archbishop, was expected; it created no enthusiasm; it was a mechanical majority.(179)

The bill swept through the stages of committee without alteration of substance and with extraordinary celerity, due not merely to the “brute majority,” nor to the confidence that all was sure to be undone in another place, but to the peculiar powers developed by the minister. From the speech in which he unfolded his plan, down to the last amendment on report, he showed a mastery alike of himself and of his project and of the business from day to day in hand, that routed opposition and gave new animation and ardour to the confidence of his friends. For six or seven hours a day he astonished the House by his power of attention, unrelaxed yet without strain, by his double grasp of leading principle and intricate detail, by his equal command of legal and historic controversy and of all the actuarial niceties and puzzles of commutation. “In some other qualities of parliamentary statesmanship,” says one acute observer of that time, “as an orator, a debater, and a tactician he has rivals; but in the powers of embodying principles in legislative form and preserving unity of purpose through a multiplicity of confusing minutiae he has neither equal nor second among living statesmen.”(180) The truth could not be better summed up. He carried the whole of his party with him, and the average majority in divisions on the clauses was 113. Of one dangerous corner, he says:—

_May 6._—H of C, working Irish Church bill. Spoke largely on
Maynooth. [Proposal to compensate Maynooth out of the funds of the
Irish church.] The final division on the pinching point with a
majority of 107 was the most creditable (I think) I have ever
known.

By a majority of 114 the bill was read a third time on the last day of May.

III

(M81) The contest was now removed from the constituencies and their representatives in parliament to the citadel of privilege. The issue was no longer single, and the struggle for religious equality in Ireland was henceforth merged before the public eye in a conflict for the supremacy of the Commons in England. Perhaps I should not have spoken of religious equality, for in fact the establishment was known to be doomed, and the fight turned upon the amount of property with which the free church was to go forth to face its new fortunes. “I should urge the House of Lords,” wrote the Archbishop of Canterbury to Mr. Gladstone (June 3), “to give all its attention to saving as large an endowment as possible.”

As at the first stage the Queen had moved for conciliatory courses, so now she again desired Archbishop Tait to communicate with the prime minister. To Mr. Gladstone himself she wrote from Balmoral (June 3): “The Queen thanks Mr. Gladstone for his kind letter. She has invariably found him most ready to enter into her views and to understand her feelings.” The first question was whether the Lords should reject the bill on the second reading:—

It is eminently desirable, Mr. Gladstone wrote to the archbishop
(June 4), that the bill should be read a second time. But if I
compare two methods, both inexpedient, one that of rejection on
the second reading, the other that of a second reading followed by
amendments inconsistent with the principle, I know no argument in
favour of the latter, except what relates to the very important
question of the position and true interest of the House of Lords
itself.

At the same time he promised the archbishop that any views of his upon amendments would have the most careful attention of himself and his colleagues, and “they would be entertained in a spirit not of jealousy but of freedom, with every desire to bring them into such a shape that they may be in furtherance, and not in derogation, of the main design of the bill.”

General Grey, the Queen’s secretary, told Mr. Gladstone that she had communicated with the archbishop, “having heard that violent counsels were likely to prevail, and that in spite of their leaders, the opposition in the House of Lords was likely to try and throw out the measure on the second reading.” Her own feeling was expressed in General Grey’s letter to the archbishop of the same date, of which a copy was sent to the prime minister:—

Mr. Gladstone is not ignorant (indeed the Queen has never
concealed her feeling on the subject) how deeply her Majesty
deplores the necessity, under which he conceived himself to lie,
of raising the question as he has done; or of the apprehensions of
which she cannot divest herself, as to the possible consequences
of the measure which he has introduced. These apprehensions, her
Majesty is bound to say, still exist in full force; but
considering the circumstances under which the measure has come to
the House of Lords, the Queen cannot regard without the greatest
alarm the probable effect of its absolute rejection in that House.
Carried, as it has been, by an overwhelming and steady majority
through a House of Commons, chosen expressly to speak the feeling
of the country on the question, there seems no reason to believe
that any fresh appeal to the people would lead to a different
result. The rejection of the bill, therefore, on the second
reading, would only serve to bring the two Houses into collision,
and to prolong a dangerous agitation on the subject.

Mr. Gladstone replied:—

_June 5._—From such information as has indirectly reached Mr.
Gladstone, he fears that the leaders of the majority in the House
of Lords will undoubtedly oppose the second reading of the Irish
Church bill, of which Lord Harrowby is to propose the rejection.
He understands that Lord Salisbury, as well as Lord Carnarvon,
decidedly, but in vain, objected to this course at the meeting
held to-day at the Duke of Marlborough’s. Very few of the bishops
were present. Lord Derby, it is said, supported the resolution.
Although a division must now be regarded as certain, and as very
formidable, all hope need not be abandoned that your Majesty’s
wise counsels through the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the
sagacity of the peers themselves with reference to the security
and stability of their position in the legislature, may avail to
frustrate an unwise resolution.

“How much more effectually,” Mr. Gladstone wrote to Hawarden, “could the Queen assist in the settlement of this question were she not six hundred miles off.” As it was, she took a step from which Mr. Gladstone hoped for “most important consequences,” in writing direct to Lord Derby, dwelling on the danger to the Lords of a collision with the Commons. In a record of these proceedings prepared for Mr. Gladstone (August 4, ’69), Lord Granville writes:—

Before the second reading of the Irish Church bill in the House of
Lords, I was asked by the Archbishop of York to meet him and the
Archbishop of Canterbury. They said it was impossible for them to
vote for the second reading in any case, but before they decided
to abstain from voting against it they wished to know how far the
government would act in a conciliatory spirit. I made to them the
same declaration that I afterwards made in the House, and after
seeing you I had another interview with the Archbishop of
Canterbury. I told his grace that it was impossible for the
government to suggest amendments against themselves, but I gave a
hint of the direction in which such amendments might be framed,
and, without mentioning that the suggestion came from you, I said
that if his grace would tell Dr. Ball that he only wished to
propose amendments which it would be possible for the government
to accept, that learned gentleman would know better than others
how it could be done. The archbishop, however seems chiefly to
have made use of Dr. Ball to supply him with arguments against the
government.

The result was doubtful to the very end. It was three o’clock in the morning (June 19) before the close of a fine debate—fine not merely from the eloquence of the speakers and cogency of argument on either side, but because there was a deep and real issue, and because the practical conclusion was not foregone. It was the fullest House assembled in living memory. Three hundred and twenty-five peers voted. The two English archbishops did not vote, and Thirlwall was the only prelate who supported the second reading. It was carried by a majority of 33. In 1857 Lord Derby’s vote of censure on Palmerston for the China war was defeated by 36, and these two were the only cases in which the conservatives had been beaten in the Lords for twenty years. Thirty-six conservative peers, including Lord Salisbury, voted away from their party in favour of the second reading.

IV

(M82) For the moment ministers breathed freely, but the bill was soon in the trough of the sea. The archbishop wrote to the Queen that they had decided if they could not get three million pounds to float the new church upon, they would take their chance of what might happen by postponing the bill until next year. Asked by the Queen what could be done (July 10), Lord Granville, being at Windsor, answered that the cabinet would not make up their mind until they knew how far the Lords would go in resistance, but he thought it right to tell her that there was no chance of ministers agreeing to postpone the bill for another year. The day after this conversation, the Queen wrote again to the archbishop, asking him seriously to reflect, in case the concessions of the government should not go quite so far as he might himself wish, whether the postponement of the settlement for another year would not be likely to result rather in worse than in better terms for the church. She trusted that he would himself consider, and endeavour to induce others to consider, any concessions offered by the House of Commons in the most conciliatory spirit, rather than to try and get rid of the bill. “The amendments,” said Mr. Gladstone, “seem to mean war to the knife.”

After the second reading a tory lady of high station told Lord Clarendon and Mr. Delane that in her opinion a friendly communication might have great influence on Lord Salisbury’s course.

I therefore wrote to him (Lord Granville says in the memorandum
already referred to), stating why on public and personal grounds
it was desirable that he should meet you. I said that although it
would be difficult for us to initiate suggestions, yet from your
personal regard for him such a conversation would advance matters.
He consented, stating that he was in communication as to
amendments with Lord Cairns and the archbishop. He was extremely
desirous that no one should know of the interview. You were of
opinion that the interview had done good, and I wrote to ask Lord
Salisbury whether he would like me to put dots on some of your
i’s. He declined, and considered the interview had been
unsatisfactory, but gave me an assurance of his desire to avoid a
conflict.... On the 4th of July I wrote again suggesting a
compromise on Lord Carnarvon’s clause. He declined, that clause
being the one thing they cared about. He ended by telling me his
growing impression was, that there would be no Church bill this
session.

The general result of the operations of the Lords was to leave disestablishment complete, and the legal framework of the bill undisturbed. Disendowment, on the other hand, was reduced to a shadow. An additional sum of between three and four millions was taken for the church, and the general upshot was, out of a property of sixteen millions, to make over thirteen or fourteen millions to an ecclesiastical body wholly exempt from state control. This, Mr. Gladstone told the Queen, the House of Commons would never accept, and the first effect of persistence in such a course would be a stronger move against the episcopal seats in the House of Lords than had been seen for more than two hundred years. He ridiculed as it deserved the contention that the nation had not passed judgment on the question of disendowment, and he insisted that the government could not go further than three quarters of a million towards meeting the extravagant claims of the Lords. Confessing his disappointment at the conduct of the episcopal body, even including the archbishop, he found a certain consolation in reflecting that equally on the great occasions of 1829 and 1831, though ’the mild and wise Archbishop Howley was its leader,’ that body failed either to meet the desires of the country, or to act upon a far-sighted view of the exigencies of the church. One point obstinately contested was the plan for the future application of the surplus. A majority of the Lords insisted on casting out the words of the preamble providing that the residue should not be applied for purposes of religion, and substituting in one shape or another the principle of concurrent endowment, so hostile, as Mr. Gladstone judged it, to the peace of Ireland, and so irreconcilable with public feeling in England and Scotland.

On July 12, the bill came back to the Commons. The tension had hardly yet begun to tell upon him, but Mr. Gladstone enters on these days:—

_July 11._—Formidable accounts from and through Windsor. 12.—The
time grows more and more anxious. 15.—This day I received from a
Roman catholic bishop the assurance that he offered mass, and that
many pray for me; and from Mr. Spurgeon (as often from others), an
assurance of the prayers of the nonconformists. I think in these
and other prayers lies the secret of the strength of body which
has been given me in unusual measure during this very trying year.

This was the day on which, amid the ardent cheers of his party, he arose to announce to the House the views of the government. He was in no compromising mood. In a short speech he went through the amendments made by men so out of touch with the feeling of the country that they might have been “living in a balloon.” One by one he moved the rejection of all amendments that involved the principle of concurrent endowment, the disposal of the surplus, or the postponement of the date of disestablishment. He agreed, however, to give a lump sum of half a million in lieu of private benefactions, to readjust the commutation terms, and make other alterations involving a further gift of £280,000 to the church. When the Commons concluded the consideration of the Lords’ amendments (July 16), Mr. Gladstone observed three things: first, that the sentiment against concurrent endowment in any form was overwhelming; second, that not only was no disposition shown to make new concessions, but concessions actually made were sorely grudged; and third, that the tories were eager to postpone the destination of the residuary property.

V

(M83) On July 16, the bill, restored substantially to its first shape, was again back on the table of the Lords, and shipwreck seemed for five days to be inevitable. On July 20, at eleven o’clock, by a majority of 175 to 93, the Lords once more excluded from the preamble the words that the Commons had placed and replaced there, in order to declare the policy of parliament on matters ecclesiastical in Ireland. This involved a meaning which Mr. Gladstone declared that no power on earth could induce the Commons to accept. The crisis was of unsurpassed anxiety for the prime minister. He has fortunately left his own record of its phases:(181)—

_Saturday, July 17._—On the 16th of July the amendments made by
the Lords in the Irish Church bill had been completely disposed of
by the House of Commons. The last division, taken on the disposal
of the residue, had, chiefly through mere lazy absences, reduced
the majority for the government to 72. This _relative_ weakness
offered a temptation to the opposition to make play upon the
point. The cabinet met the next forenoon. We felt on the one hand
that it might be difficult to stake the bill on the clause for the
disposal of the residue, supposing that to be the single remaining
point of difference; but that the postponement of this question
would be a great moral and political evil, and that any concession
made by us had far better be one that would be of some value to
the disestablished church.

By desire of the cabinet I went to Windsor in the afternoon, and
represented to H.M. what it was in our power to do; namely,
although we had done all we could do upon the merits, yet, for the
sake of peace and of the House of Lords, [we were willing], (_a_)
to make some one further pecuniary concession to the church of
sensible though not very large amount; (_b_) to make a further
concession as to curates, slight in itself; (_c_) to amend the
residue clause so as to give to parliament the future control, and
to be content with simply declaring the principle on which the
property should be distributed. The Queen, while considering that
she could not be a party to this or that particular scheme, agreed
that it might be proper to make a representation to the archbishop
to the general effect that the views of the government at this
crisis of the measure were such as deserved to be weighed, and to
promote confidential communication between us. She intimated her
intention to employ the Dean of Windsor as a medium of
communication between herself and the archbishop, and wished me to
explain particulars fully to him. I went to the deanery, and, not
finding the dean, had written as much as here follows on a scrap
of paper, when he came in....

The object of this paper was to induce the archbishop to
discountenance any plan for pressing the postponement of the
provisions respecting the residue, and to deal with us in
preference respecting any practicable concession to the church.
When the dean came in, I explained this further, recited the
purport of my interview with the Queen, and on his asking me
confidentially for his own information, I let him know that the
further pecuniary concession we were prepared to recommend would
be some £170,000 or £180,000.

_Sunday, July 18._—In the afternoon Lord Granville called on me
and brought me a confidential memorandum, containing an overture
which Mr. Disraeli had placed in the hands of Lord Bessborough for
communication to us. [Memorandum not recoverable.] He had
represented the terms as those which he had with much difficulty
induced Lord Cairns to consent to. While the contention as to the
residue was abandoned, and pecuniary concessions alone were
sought, the demand amounted, according to our computation, to
between £900,000 and £1,000,000.... This it was evident was
utterly inadmissible. I saw no possibility of approach to it; and
considered that a further quarter of a million or thereabouts was
all that the House of Commons could be expected or asked further
to concede. On the same afternoon Lord Granville, falling in with
Mr. Goschen, asked him what he thought the very most that could be
had—would it be £500,000? Goschen answered £300,000, and with this
Glyn agreed. Mr. Disraeli desired an answer before three on
Monday.

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

Meantime the archbishop had arrived in Downing Street, in
pursuance of the arrangements of Saturday; and a paper was either
now drawn, or sanctioned by my colleagues, I do not remember
which, in order to form the basis of my communication to the
archbishop. I returned from my interview, and reported, as I
afterwards did to the Dean of Windsor, that his tone was friendly,
and that he appeared well disposed to the sort of arrangement I
had sketched.

_Tuesday, July 20._—The archbishop, who had communicated with Lord
Cairns in the interval, came to me early to-day and brought a
memorandum as a basis of agreement, which, to my surprise,
demanded higher terms than those of Mr. Disraeli.(182) I told the
archbishop the terms in which we had already expressed ourselves
to Mr. Disraeli.... Meantime an answer had come from Mr. Disraeli
stating that he could not do more. Then followed the meeting of
the opposition peers at the Duke of Marlborough’s.

On the meeting of the Houses, a few of us considered what course
was to be taken if the Lords should again cast out of the preamble
the words which precluded concurrent endowment; and it was agreed
to stay the proceedings for the time, and consider among ourselves
what further to do. [Lord Granville has a pencil note on the
margin, “The first order I received was to throw up the bill, to
which I answered that I could not do more than adjourn the
debate.”] Lord Granville made this announcement accordingly after
the Lords had, upon a hot debate and by a large majority, again
excluded our words from the preamble [173: 95]. This had been
after a speech from Lord Cairns, in which he announced his
intention of moving other amendments which he detailed, and which
were in general conformable to the proposals already made to us.
The first disposition of several of us this evening, myself
included, was to regard the proceeding of the opposition as now
complete; since the whole had been announced, the first stroke
struck, and the command shown of a force of peers amply sufficient
to do the rest.(183) ... The idea did not, however, include an
absolute abandonment of the bill, but only the suspension of our
responsibility for it, leaving the opposition to work their own
will, and with the intention, when this had been done, of
considering the matter further....

_Wednesday, July 21._—The cabinet met at 11; and I went to it in
the mind of last night. We discussed, however, at great length all
possible methods of proceeding that occurred to us. The result was
stated in a letter of mine to the Queen, of which I annex a copy.
[_See __Appendix__. He enumerates the various courses considered,
and states that the course adopted was to go through the endowment
amendments, and if they were carried adversely, then to drop their
responsibility._]

Most of the cabinet were desirous to go on longer; others, myself
included, objected to proceeding to the end of the bill or
undertaking to remit the bill again to the House of Commons as of
our own motion. It occurred to me, however, that we might proceed
as far as to the end of the many amendments, about the middle of
the bill; and this appeared to meet the views of all, even of
those who would have preferred doing more, or less.

_Thursday, July 22._—I was laid up to-day, and the transactions
were carried on by Lord Granville, in communication with me from
time to time at my house. First he brought me a note he had
received from Lord Cairns.

(M84) This, dated July 22, was to the effect that Lord Cairns had no right and no desire to ask for any information as to the course proposed that night; but that if the statements as to the intention of the government to proceed with the consideration of the amendments were correct, and if Lord Granville thought any advantage likely to result from it, Lord Cairns would be ready, “as you know I have throughout been, to confer upon a mode by which without sacrifice of principle or dignity upon either side the remaining points of difference might be arranged.” The proceedings of this critical day are narrated by Lord Granville in a memorandum to Mr. Gladstone, dated August 4:—

After seeing you I met Lord Cairns at the colonial office. He
offered me terms.(184) ... I asked him whether, in his opinion,
he, the archbishop, and I could carry anything we agreed upon. He
said, “Yes, certainly.” After seeing you I met Lord Cairns a
second time in his room at the House of Lords. I asked as a
preliminary to giving any opinion on his amendments, how he
proposed to deal with the preamble. He said, “to leave it as
amended by the Lords.” I then proposed the words which were
afterwards adopted in the 68th clause. He was at first taken
aback, but admitted that he had personally no objection to them.
He asked what was the opposition to be feared. I suggested some
from Lord Grey. He believed this to be certain, but immaterial. I
objected _in toto_ to Lord Salisbury’s clause or its substitute.
He was unwilling to yield, chiefly on Lord Salisbury’s account,
but finally consented. We agreed upon the commutation clause if
the 7 and the 5 per cent. were lumped together. On the curates
clause we could come to no agreement. He proposed to see Lord
Salisbury and the archbishop, and to meet again at four at the
colonial office. He spoke with fairness as to the difficulty of
his position, and the risk he ran with his own party. I again saw
you and asked the Irish attorney-general to be present at the last
interview. I stated to him in Lord Cairns’s presence how far we
agreed, and expressed my regret that on the last point—the
curates—our difference was irreconcilable. Lord Cairns said he
hoped not, and proceeded to argue strongly in favour of his
proposal. He at last, however, at 4.30, compromised the matter by
accepting five years instead of one. I shook his hand, which was
trembling with nervousness. We discussed the form of announcing
the arrangement to the House. We at once agreed it was better to
tell the whole truth, and soon settled that it would be better for
its success that he should announce the details. I was afterwards
apprehensive that this latter arrangement might be disadvantageous
to us, but nothing could be better or fairer than his statement. I
cannot finish this statement, which I believe is accurate, without
expressing my admiration at the firmness and conciliation which
you displayed in directing me in all these negotiations.

“The news was brought to me on my sofa,” Mr. Gladstone says, “and between five and six I was enabled to telegraph to the Queen. My telegram was followed up by a letter at 7 P.M., which announced that the arrangement had been accepted by the House of Lords, and that a general satisfaction prevailed.” To the Queen he wrote (July 22):—

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

On reviewing this whole transaction, and doing full justice to the attitude both of the Queen and the archbishop, the reader will be inclined to agree with old Lord Halifax: “I think we owe a good turn to Cairns, without whose _decision_ on Thursday I hardly think that the settlement could have been effected. Indeed Derby’s conduct proves what difficulty there would have been, if Cairns had not taken upon himself the responsibility of acting as he did.”

Among interesting letters was one from Manning (July 24): “My joy over the event is not only as a catholic, though that must be, as it ought to be, my highest motive, but as an Englishman to whom, as I remember your once saying, the old English monarchy is dear next after the catholic church. But at this time I will only add that I may wish you joy on personal reasons. I could hardly have hoped that you could so have framed, mastered, and carried through the bill from first to last so complete, so unchanged in identity of principle and detail, and let me add with such unwearying and sustained self-control and forbearance.”

The diary gives us a further glimpse of these agitating days:—

_July 20._—Conclave of colleagues on Irish church proceedings. An
anxious day, a sad evening. 21.—Cabinet 11-2-1/4, stiff, but good.
22.—I was obliged to take to my sofa and spent the day so in
continual interviews with Granville, Glyn, West,
Sullivan—especially the first—on the details and particulars of
the negotiations respecting the Irish Church bill. The favourable
issue left me almost unmanned in the reaction from a sharp and
stern tension of mind. 23.—My attack did not lessen. Dr. Clark
came in the morning and made me up for the House, whither I went
2-5 P.M., to propose concurrence in the Lords’ amendments. Up to
the moment I felt very weak, but this all vanished when I spoke
and while the debate lasted. Then I went back to bed. 25.—Weak
still. I presumed over much in walking a little and fell back at
night to my lowest point.

Sir Robert Phillimore records:—

_July 21._—Found Gladstone at breakfast, calm, pale, but without a
doubt as to the course which the government must pursue, viz.: to
maintain upon every important point the bill as sent back by the
Commons, probably an autumn session, a bill sternly repeated by
the Commons, too probably without the clauses favourable to the
Irish church. 23.—Nothing talked or written of but the political
marvel of yesterday. Gladstone in a speech universally praised
proposed to the House of Commons the bill as now modified, and it
passed with much harmony, broken by an Orange member. Gladstone
very unwell, and ought to have been in bed when he made his
speech. 24.—Gladstone still very weak but in a state of calm
happiness at the unexpected turn which the Irish bill had taken.
Does not now know the origin or history of the sudden resolution
on the part of the leaders of the opposition. I am satisfied that
Disraeli was alarmed and thoroughly frightened at the state of the
House of Commons and the country, that Cairns was determined to
regain what he had practically lost or was losing, the leadership
of the Lords, and that many of his party were frightened at the
madness and folly of Tuesday night considered after a day’s
reflection.... Above all there was a well-grounded alarm on the
part of Cairns and his immediate supporters in the Lords, that
their order was in imminent danger. Bluster disappeared, and a
retreat, as decent as well could be expected, was made from a
situation known to be untenable. They had never expected that
Gladstone would drop the bill. 25.—Much conversation with
Gladstone, who is still very weak. He wrote to the Archbishop of
Dublin to say in effect, that as a private churchman he would be
glad to assist in any way the archbishop could point out in the
organising of the voluntary church in Ireland.

Sir Thomas Acland writes, August 3, 1869:—

I stayed at House of Commons perforce till about 1.30 or 2, and
then walked away with Gladstone through the Park. It is beautiful
to see his intense enjoyment of the cool fresh air, the trees, the
sky, the gleaming of light on the water, all that is refreshing in
contrast to the din of politics.

A month later the Archbishop of Canterbury found Mr. Gladstone at Lord Granville’s at Walmer Castle:—

Reached Walmer Castle about 6.30. Found Gladstone lying in
blankets on the ramparts eating his dinner, looking still very
ill.... He joined us at night full of intelligence. His fierce
vigour all the better for being a little tempered.... Much
interesting conversation about the state of the church and
morality in Wales, also about leading ecclesiastics. I gather that
he will certainly nominate Temple for a bishopric.(185)