Chapter XXXI: Appendix: Irish Local Government, 1883. (Page 103) (1)

_Mr. Gladstone to Lord Granville_

_Cannes, Jan. 22, 1883._—Today I have been a good deal distressed
by a passage as reported in Hartington’s very strong and able
speech, for which I am at a loss to account, so far does it travel
out into the open, and so awkward are the intimations it seems to
convey. I felt that I could not do otherwise than telegraph to you
in cipher on the subject. But I used words intended to show that,
while I thought an immediate notification needful, I was far from
wishing to hasten the reply, and desired to leave altogether in
your hands the mode of touching a delicate matter. Pray use the
widest discretion.

I console myself with thinking it is hardly possible that
Hartington can have meant to say what nevertheless both _Times_
and _Daily News_ make him seem to say, namely, that we recede
from, or throw into abeyance, the declarations we have constantly
made about our desire to extend local government, properly so
called, to Ireland on the first opportunity which the state of
business in parliament would permit. We announced our intention to
do this at the very moment when we were preparing to suspend the
Habeas Corpus Act. Since that time we have seen our position in
Ireland immensely strengthened, and the leader of the agitation
has even thought it wise, and has dared, to pursue a somewhat
conciliatory course. Many of his coadjutors are still as vicious,
it may be, as ever, but how can we say (for instance) to the
Ulster men, you shall remain with shortened liberties and without
local government, because Biggar & Co. are hostile to British
connection?

There has also come prominently into view a new and powerful set
of motives which, in my deliberate judgment, require us, for the
sake of the United Kingdom even more than for the sake of Ireland,
to push forward this question. Under the present highly
centralised system of government, every demand which can be
started on behalf of a poor and ill-organised country, comes
directly on the British government and treasury; if refused it
becomes at once a head of grievance, if granted not only a new
drain but a certain source of political complication and
embarrassment. The peasant proprietary, the winter’s distress, the
state of the labourers, the loans to farmers, the promotion of
public works, the encouragement of fisheries, the promotion of
emigration, each and every one of these questions has a sting, and
the sting can only be taken out of it by our treating it in
correspondence with a popular and responsible Irish body,
competent to act for its own portion of the country.

Every consideration which prompted our pledges, prompts the
recognition of them, and their extension, rather than curtailment.
The Irish government have in preparation a Local Government bill.
Such a bill may even be an economy of time. By no other means that
I can see shall we be able to ward off most critical and
questionable discussions on questions of the class I have
mentioned. The argument that we cannot yet trust Irishmen with
popular local institutions is the mischievous argument by which
the conservative opposition to the Melbourne government resisted,
and finally crippled, the reform of municipal corporations in
Ireland. By acting on principles diametrically opposite, we have
broken down to thirty-five or forty what would have been a party,
in this parliament, of sixty-five home rulers, and have thus
arrested (or at the very least postponed) the perilous crisis,
which no man has as yet looked in the face; the crisis which will
arise when a large and united majority of Irish members demand
some fundamental change in the legislative relations of the two
countries. I can ill convey to you how dear are my thoughts, or
how earnest my convictions, on this important subject....

General Gordon’s Instructions. (Page 153)

_The following is the text of General Gordon’s Instructions (Jan. 18, 1884)_:—

Her Majesty’s government are desirous that you should proceed at
once to Egypt, to report to them on the military situation in the
Soudan, and on the measures it may be advisable to take for the
security of the Egyptian garrisons still holding positions in that
country, and for the safety of the European population in
Khartoum. You are also desired to consider and report upon the
best mode of effecting the evacuation of the interior of the
Soudan, and upon the manner in which the safety and good
administration by the Egyptian government of the ports on the sea
coast can best be secured. In connection with this subject you
should pay especial consideration to the question of the steps
that may usefully be taken to counteract the stimulus which it is
feared may possibly be given to the slave trade by the present
insurrectionary movement, and by the withdrawal of the Egyptian
authority from the interior. You will be under the instructions of
Her Majesty’s agent and consul-general at Cairo, through whom your
reports to Her Majesty’s government should be sent under flying
seal. You will consider yourself authorised and instructed to
perform such other duties as the Egyptian government may desire to
entrust to you, and as may be communicated to you by Sir E.
Baring. You will be accompanied by Colonel Stewart, who will
assist you in the duties thus confided to you. On your arrival in
Egypt you will at once communicate with Sir E. Baring, who will
arrange to meet you and will settle with you whether you should
proceed direct to Suakin or should go yourself or despatch Colonel
Stewart _viâ_ the Nile.

The Military Position In The Soudan, April 1885. (Page 179)

_This Memorandum, dated April 9, 1885, was prepared by Mr. Gladstone for the cabinet_:—

The commencement of the hot season appears, with other
circumstances, to mark the time for considering at large our
position in the Soudan. Also a declaration of policy is now
demanded from us in nearly all quarters.... When the betrayal of
Khartoum had been announced, the desire and intention of the
cabinet were to reserve for a later decision the question of an
eventual advance upon that place, should no immediate movement on
it be found possible. The objects they had immediately in view
were to ascertain the fate of Gordon, to make every effort on his
behalf, and to prevent the extension of the area of disturbance.

But Lord Wolseley at once impressed upon the cabinet that he
required, in order to determine his immediate military movements,
to know whether they were to be based upon the plan of an eventual
advance on Khartoum, or whether the intention of such an advance
was to be abandoned altogether. If the first plan were adopted,
Lord Wolseley declared his power and intention to take Berber, and
even gave a possible date for it, in the middle of March. The
cabinet, adopting the phrase which Lord Wolseley had used, decided
upon the facts as they then stood before it: (_a_) Lord Wolseley
was to calculate upon proceeding to Khartoum after the hot season,
to overthrow the power of the Mahdi there; (_b_) and,
consequently, on this decision, they were to commence the
construction of a railway from Suakin to Berber, in aid of the
contemplated expedition; (_c_) an expedition was also to be sent
against Osman Digna, which would open the road to Berber; but Lord
Wolseley’s demand for this expedition applied alike to each of the
two military alternatives which he had laid before the cabinet.

There was no absolute decision to proceed to Khartoum at any time;
and the declarations of ministers in parliament have treated it as
a matter to be further weighed; but all steps have thus far been
taken to prepare for it, and it has been regarded as at least
probable. In approaching the question whether we are still to
proceed on the same lines, it is necessary to refer to the motives
which under the directions of the cabinet were stated by Lord
Granville and by me, on the 19th of February, as having
contributed to the decision, I copy out a part of the note from
which he and I spoke:—

Objects in the Soudan which we have always deemed fit for
consideration as far as circumstances might allow:—

1. The case of those to whom Gordon held himself bound in honour.

2. The possibility of establishing an orderly government at
Khartoum.

3. Check to the slave trade.

4. The case of the garrisons.

A negative decision would probably have involved the abandonment
at a stroke of all these objects. And also (we had to consider)
whatever dangers, proximate or remote, in Egypt or in the East
might follow from the triumphant position of the Mahdi; hard to
estimate, but they may be very serious.

Two months, which have passed since the decision of the government
(Feb. 5), have thrown light, more or less, upon the several points
brought into view on the 19th February. 1. We have now no
sufficient reason to assume that any of the population of Khartoum
felt themselves bound to Gordon, or to have suffered on his
account; or even that any large numbers of men in arms perished in
the betrayal of the town, or took his part after the enemy were
admitted into it. 2. We have had no tidings of anarchy at
Khartoum, and we do not know that it is governed worse, or that
the population is suffering more, than it would be under a Turkish
or Egyptian ruler. 3. It is not believed that the possession of
Khartoum is of any great value as regards the slave trade. 4. Or,
after the failure of Gordon with respect to the garrisons, that
the possession of Khartoum would, without further and formidable
extensions of plan, avail for the purpose of relieving them. But
further, what knowledge have we that these garrisons are unable to
relieve themselves? There seems some reason to believe that the
army of Hicks, when the action ceased, fraternised with the
Mahdi’s army, and that the same thing happened at Khartoum. Is
there ground to suppose that they are hateful unless as
representatives of Egyptian power? and ought they not to be
released from any obligation to present themselves in that
capacity?

With regard to the larger question of eventual consequences in
Egypt or the East from the Mahdi’s success at Khartoum, it is open
to many views, and cannot be completely disposed of. But it may be
observed—1. That the Mahdi made a trial of marching down the Nile
and speedily abandoned it, even in the first flush of his success.
2. That cessation of operations in the Soudan does not at this
moment mean our military inaction in the East. 3. That the
question is one of conflict, not with the arms of an enemy, but
with Nature in respect of climate and supply. 4. There remains
also a grave question of justice, to which I shall revert.

Should the idea of proceeding to Khartoum be abandoned, the
railway from Suakin, as now projected, would fall with it, since
it was adopted as a military measure, subsidiary to the advance on
Khartoum. The prosecution of it as a civil or commercial
enterprise would be a new proposal, to be examined on its merits.

The military situation appears in some respects favourable to the
re-examination of the whole subject. The general has found himself
unable to execute his intention of taking Berber, and this failure
alters the basis on which the cabinet proceeded in February, and
greatly increases the difficulty of the autumn enterprise. On the
one hand Wolseley’s and Graham’s forces have had five or six
considerable actions, and have been uniformly victorious. On the
other hand, the Mahdi has voluntarily retired from Khartoum, and
Osman Digna has been driven from the field, but cannot, as Graham
says, be followed into the mountains.(325) While the present
situation may thus seem opportune, the future of more extended
operations is dark. In at least one of his telegrams, Wolseley has
expressed a very keen desire to get the British army out of the
Soudan.(326) He has now made very large demands for the autumn
expedition, which, judging from previous experience and from
general likelihood, are almost certain to grow larger, as he comes
more closely to confront the very formidable task before him;
while in his letter to Lord Hartington he describes this affair to
be _the greatest __“__since 1815,__”_ and expresses his hope that
all the members of the cabinet clearly understand this to be the
case. He also names a period of between two or three years for the
completion of the railway, while he expresses an absolute
confidence in the power and resources of this country with vast
effort to insure success. He means without doubt military success.
Political success appears much more problematical.

There remains, however, to be considered a question which I take
to be of extreme importance. I mean the moral basis of the
projected military operations. I have from the first regarded the
rising of the Soudanese against Egypt as a justifiable and
honourable revolt. The cabinet have, I think, never taken an
opposite view. Mr. Power, in his letter from Khartoum before
Gordon’s arrival, is decided and even fervent in the same sense.

We sent Gordon on a mission of peace and liberation. From such
information as alone we have possessed, we found this missionary
of peace menaced and besieged, finally betrayed by some of his
troops, and slaughtered by those whom he came to set free. This
information, however, was fragmentary, and was also one-sided. We
have now the advantage of reviewing it as a whole, of reading it
in the light of events, and of some auxiliary evidence such as
that of Mr. Power.

I never understood how it was that Gordon’s mission of peace
became one of war. But we knew the nobleness of his philanthropy,
and we trusted him to the uttermost, as it was our duty to do. He
never informed us that he had himself changed the character of the
mission. It seemed strange that one who bore in his hands a
charter of liberation should be besieged and threatened; but we
took everything for granted in his favour, and against his
enemies; and we could hardly do otherwise. Our obligations in this
respect were greatly enhanced by the long interruption of
telegraphic communication. It was our duty to believe that, if we
could only know what he was prevented from saying to us,
contradictions would be reconciled, and language of excess
accounted for. We now know from the letters of Mr. Power that when
he was at Khartoum with Colonel de Coetlogon before Gordon’s
arrival, a retreat on Berber had been actually ordered; it was
regarded no doubt as a serious work of time, because it involved
the removal of an Egyptian population;(327) but it was deemed
feasible, and Power expresses no doubt of its accomplishment.(328)
As far as, amidst its inconsistencies, a construction can be put
on Gordon’s language, it is to the effect that there was a
population and a force attached to him, which he could not remove
and would not leave.(329) But De Coetlogon did not regard this
removal as impracticable, and was actually setting about it. Why
Gordon did not prosecute it, why we hear no more of it from Power
after Gordon’s arrival, is a mystery. Instructed by results we now
perceive that Gordon’s title as governor-general might naturally
be interpreted by the tribes in the light of much of the language
used by him, which did not savour of liberation and evacuation,
but of powers of government over the Soudan; powers to be used
benevolently, but still powers of government. Why the Mahdi did
not accept him is not hard to understand, but why was he not
accepted by those local sultans, whom it was the basis of his
declared policy to re-invest with their ancient powers, in spite
of Egypt and of the Mahdi alike? Was he not in short interpreted
as associated with the work of Hicks, and did he not himself give
probable colour to this interpretation? It must be borne in mind
that on other matters of the gravest importance—on the use of
Turkish force—on the use of British force—on the employment of
Zobeir—Gordon announced within a very short time contradictory
views, and never seemed to feel that there was any need of
explanation, in order to account for the contradictions. There is
every presumption, as well as every sign, that like fluctuation
and inconsistency crept into his words and acts as to the
liberation of the country; and this, if it was so, could not but
produce ruinous effects. Upon the whole, it seems probable that
Gordon, perhaps insensibly to himself, and certainly without our
concurrence, altered the character of his mission, and worked in a
considerable degree against our intentions and instructions.

There does not appear to be any question now of the security of
the army, but a most grave question whether we can demonstrate a
necessity (nothing less will suffice) for making war on a people
who are struggling against a foreign and armed yoke, not for the
rescue of our own countrymen, not for the rescue _so far as we
know_ of an Egyptian population, but with very heavy cost of
British life as well as treasure, with a serious strain on our
military resources at a most critical time, and with the most
serious fear that if we persist, we shall find ourselves engaged
in an odious work of subjugation. The discontinuance of these
military operations would, I presume, take the form of a
suspension _sine die,_ leaving the future open; would require
attention to be paid to defence on the recognised southern
frontier of Egypt, and need not involve any precipitate
abandonment of Suakin.

Home Rule Bill, 1886. (Page 308)

(M196) _The following summary of the provisions of the Home Rule bill of 1886 supplements the description of the bill given in Chapter V. Book X._:—

One of the cardinal difficulties of all free government is to make
it hard for majorities to act unjustly to minorities. You cannot
make this injustice impossible but you may set up obstacles. In
this case, there was no novelty in the device adopted. The
legislative body was to be composed of two orders. The first order
was to consist of the twenty-eight representative peers, together
with seventy-five members elected by certain scheduled
constituencies on an occupation franchise of twenty-five pounds
and upwards. To be eligible for the first order, a person must
have a property qualification, either in realty of two hundred
pounds a year, or in personalty of the same amount, or a capital
value of four thousand pounds. The representative peers now
existing would sit for life, and, as they dropped off, the crown
would nominate persons to take their place up to a certain date,
and on the exhaustion of the twenty-eight existing peers, then the
whole of the first order would become elective under the same
conditions as the seventy-five other members.

The second order would consist of 206 members, chosen by existing
counties and towns under the machinery now operative. The two
orders were to sit and deliberate together, but either order could
demand a separate vote. This right would enable a majority of one
order to veto the proposal of the other. But the veto was only to
operate until a dissolution, or for three years, whichever might
be the longer interval of the two.

The executive transition was to be gradual. The office of viceroy
would remain, but he would not be the minister of a party, nor
quit office with an outgoing government. He would have a privy
council; within that council would be formed an executive body of
ministers like the British cabinet. This executive would be
responsible to the Irish legislature, just as the executive
government here is responsible to the legislature of this country.
If any clause of a bill seemed to the viceroy to be _ultra vires_,
he could refer it to the judicial committee of the privy council
in London. The same reference, in respect of a section of an Irish
Act, lay open either to the English secretary of state, or to a
suitor, defendant, or other person concerned.

Future judges were to hold the same place in the Irish system as
English judges in the English system; their office was to be
during good behaviour; they were to be appointed on the advice of
the Irish government, removable only on the joint address of the
two orders, and their salaries charged on the Irish consolidated
fund. The burning question of the royal Irish constabulary was
dealt with provisionally. Until a local force was created by the
new government, they were to remain at the orders of the lord
lieutenant. Ultimately the Irish police were to come under the
control of the legislative body. For two years from the passing of
the Act, the legislative body was to fix the charge for the whole
constabulary of Ireland.

In national as in domestic housekeeping, the figure of available
income is the vital question. The total receipts of the Irish
exchequer would be £8,350,000, from customs, excise, stamps,
income-tax, and non-tax revenue. On a general comparison of the
taxable revenues of Ireland and Great Britain, as tested more
especially by the property passing under the death duties, the
fair proportion due as Ireland’s share for imperial purposes, such
as interest on the debt, defence, and civil charge, was fixed at
one-fifteenth. This would bring the total charge properly imperial
up to £3,242,000. Civil charges in Ireland were put at £2,510,000,
and the constabulary charge on Ireland was not to exceed
£1,000,000, any excess over that sum being debited to England. The
Irish government would be left with a surplus of £404,000. This
may seem a ludicrously meagre amount, but, compared with the total
revenue, it is equivalent to a surplus on our own budget of that
date of something like five millions.

The true payment to imperial charges was to be £1,842,000 because
of the gross revenue above stated of £1,400,000 though paid in
Ireland in the first instance was really paid by British consumers
of whisky, porter, and tobacco. This sum, deducted from
£3,342,000, leaves the real Irish contribution, namely £1,842,000.

A further sum of uncertain, but substantial amount, would go to
the Irish exchequer from another source, to which we have now to
turn. With the proposals for self-government were coupled
proposals for a settlement of the land question. The ground-work
was an option offered to the landlords of being bought out under
the terms of the Act. The purchaser was to be an Irish state
authority, as the organ representing the legislative body. The
occupier was to become the proprietor, except in the congested
districts, where the state authority was to be the proprietor. The
normal price was to be twenty years’ purchase of the net rental.
The most important provision, in one sense, was that which
recognised the salutary principle that the public credit should
not be resorted to on such a scale as this merely for the benefit
of a limited number of existing cultivators of the soil, without
any direct advantage to the government as representing the
community at large. That was effected by making the tenant pay an
annual instalment, calculated on the gross rental, while the state
authority would repay to the imperial treasury a percentage
calculated on the net rental, and the state authority would pocket
the difference, estimated to be about 18 per cent. on the sum
payable to the selling landlord. How was all this to be secured?
Principally, on the annuities paid by the tenants who had
purchased their holdings, and if the holdings did not satisfy the
charge, then on the revenues of Ireland. All public revenues
whatever were to be collected by persons appointed by the Irish
government, but these collectors were to pay over all sums that
came into their hands to an imperial officer, to be styled a
receiver-general. Through him all rents and Irish revenues
whatever were to pass, and not a shilling was to be let out for
Irish purposes until their obligations to the imperial exchequer
had been discharged.

On The Place Of Italy. (Page 415)

By the provisions of nature, Italy was marked out for a
conservative force in Europe. As England is cut off by the
channel, so is Italy by the mountains, from the continental
mass.... If England commits follies they are the follies of a
strong man who can afford to waste a portion of his resources
without greatly affecting the sum total.... She has a huge free
margin, on which she might scrawl a long list of follies and even
crimes without damaging the letterpress. But where and what is the
free margin in the case of Italy, a country which has contrived in
less than a quarter of a century of peace, from the date of her
restored independence, to treble (or something near it) the
taxation of her people, to raise the charge of her debt to a point
higher than that of England, and to arrive within one or two short
paces of national bankruptcy?...

Italy by nature stands in alliance neither with anarchy nor with
Caesarism, but with the cause and advocates of national liberty
and progress throughout Europe. Never had a nation greater
advantages from soil and climate, from the talents and
dispositions of the people, never was there a more smiling
prospect (if we may fall back upon the graceful fiction) from the
Alpine tops, even down to the Sicilian promontories, than that
which for the moment has been darkly blurred. It is the heart’s
desire of those, who are not indeed her teachers, but her friends,
that she may rouse herself to dispel once and for ever the evil
dream of what is not so much ambition as affectation, may
acknowledge the true conditions under which she lives, and it
perhaps may not yet be too late for her to disappoint the
malevolent hopes of the foes of freedom, and to fulfil every
bright and glowing prediction which its votaries have ever uttered
on her behalf.—_“__The Triple Alliance and Italy’s Place in
it__”__ (Contemporary Review, Oct. 1889)._

The Glasgow Peroration. (Page 492)

_After describing the past history of Ireland as being for more than five hundred years ’one almost unbroken succession of political storm and swollen tempest, except when those tempests were for a time interrupted by a period of servitude and by the stillness of death,’ Mr. Gladstone went on_:—

Those storms are in strong contrast with the future, with the
present. The condition of the Irish mind justifies us in
anticipating. It recalls to my mind a beautiful legend of ancient
paganism—for that ancient paganism, amongst many legends false and
many foul, had also some that were beautiful. There were two
Lacedæmonian heroes known as Castor and Pollux, honoured in their
life and more honoured in their death, when a star was called
after them, and upon that star the fond imagination of the people
fastened lively conceptions; for they thought that when a ship at
sea was caught in a storm, when dread began to possess the minds
of the crew, and peril thickened round them, and even alarm was
giving place to despair, that if then in the high heavens this
star appeared, gradually and gently but effectually the clouds
disappeared, the winds abated, the towering billows fell down to
the surface of the deep, calm came where there had been uproar,
safety came where there had been danger, and under the beneficent
influence of this heavenly body the terrified and despairing crew
came safely to port. The proposal which the liberal party of this
country made in 1886, which they still cherish in their mind and
heart, and which we trust and believe, they are about now to carry
forward, that proposal has been to Ireland and the political
relations of the two countries what the happy star was believed to
be to the seamen of antiquity. It has produced already
anticipations of love and good will, which are the first fruits of
what is to come. It has already changed the whole tone and temper
of the relations, I cannot say yet between the laws, but between
the peoples and inhabitants of these two great islands. It has
filled our hearts with hope and with joy, and it promises to give
us in lieu of the terrible disturbances of other times, with their
increasing, intolerable burdens and insoluble problems, the
promise of a brotherhood exhibiting harmony and strength at home,
and a brotherhood which before the world shall, instead of being
as it hitherto has been for the most part, a scandal, be a model
and an example, and shall show that we whose political wisdom is
for so many purposes recognised by the nations of civilised Europe
and America have at length found the means of meeting this oldest
and worst of all our difficulties, and of substituting for
disorder, for misery, for contention, the actual arrival and the
yet riper promise of a reign of peace.—_Theatre Royal, Glasgow,
July 2, 1892._

The Naval Estimates Of 1894.

(M197) _The first paragraph of this memorandum will be found on p. 508_:—

This might be taken for granted as to 1854, 1870, and 1884. That
it was equally true in my mind of 1859 may be seen by any one who
reads my budget speech of July 18, 1859. I defended the provision
as required by and for the time, and for the time only. The
occasion in that year was the state of the continent. It was
immediately followed by the China war (No. 3) and by the French
affair (1861-2), but when these had been disposed of economy
began; and, by 1863-4, the bulk of the new charge had been got rid
of.

There is also the case of the fortifications in 1860, which would
take me too long to state fully. But I will state briefly (1) my
conduct in that matter was mainly or wholly governed by regard to
peace, for I believed, and believe now, that in 1860 there were
only two alternatives; one of them, the French treaty, and the
other, war with France. And I also believed in July 1860 that the
French treaty must break down, unless I held my office. (2) The
demand was reduced from nine millions to about five (has this been
done now?) (3) I acted in concert with my old friend and
colleague, Sir James Graham. We were entirely agreed.

_Terse figures of new estimates_

The “approximate figure” of charge involved in the new plan of the
admiralty is £4,240,000, say 4-½ millions. Being an increase
(subject probably to some further increase in becoming an act)

1. On the normal navy estimate 1888-9 (_i.e._ before the Naval
Defence Act) of, in round numbers, 4-¼ millions

2. On the first year’s total charge under the Naval Defence Act of
(1,979,000), 2 millions

3. On the estimates of last year 1893-94 of 3 millions

4. On the total charge of 1893-4 of (1,571,000), 1-½ million

5. On the highest amount ever defrayed from the year’s revenue
(1892-3), 1-½ million

6. On the highest expenditure of any year under the Naval Defence
Act which included 1,150,000 of borrowed money, 359,000

Mr. Gladstone’s Cabinet Colleagues. (Page 525)

_The following is the list of the seventy ministers who served in cabinets of which Mr. Gladstone was a member_:—

1843-45. Peel.
Wellington.
Lyndhurst.
Wharncliffe.
Haddington.
Buccleuch.
Aberdeen.
Graham.
Stanley.
Ripon.
Hardinge.
Goulburn.
Knatchbull.
1846. Ellenborough.
S. Herbert.
Granville Somerset.
Lincoln.
1852-55. Cranworth.
Granville.
Argyll.
Palmerston.
Clarendon.
C. Wood.
Molesworth.
Lansdowne.
Russell.
G. Grey.
1855. Panmure.
Carlisle.
1859-65. Campbell.
G. C. Lewis.
Duke of Somerset.
Milner Gibson.
Elgin.
C. Villiers.
1859-65. Cardwell.
Westbury.
Ripon.
Stanley of Alderley.
1865-66. Hartington.
Goschen.
1868-74. Hatherley.
Kimberley.
Bruce.
Lowe.
Childers.
Bright.
C. Fortescue.
Stansfeld.
Selborne.
Forster.
1880-85. Spencer.
Harcourt.
Northbrook.
Chamberlain.
Dodson.
Dilke.
Derby.
Trevelyan.
Lefevre.
Rosebery.
1886. Herschell.
C. Bannerman.
Mundella.
John Morley.
1892. Asquith.
Fowler.
Acland.
Bryce.
A. Morley.

CHRONOLOGY

All speeches unless otherwise stated were made in the House of Commons.

1880.

Feb. “Free trade, railways and the growth of commerce,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Feb. 27. At St. Pancras on obstruction, liberal unity and errors of government.

Feb. 27. On rules dealing with obstruction.

March “Russia and England,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

March 5. On motion in favour of local option.

March 11. Issues address to electors of Midlothian.

March 15. Criticises budget.

March 17. At Music Hall, Edinburgh, on government’s eastern policy.

March 18. At Corstorphine on Anglo-Turkish convention.

March 18. At Ratho on neglect of domestic legislation.

March 19. At Davidson’s Mains on indictment of the government. At Dalkeith on the government and class interests.

March 20. At Juniper Green, and at Balerno, replies to tory criticism of liberal party. At Midcalder on abridgment of rights of parliament.

March 22. At Gilmerton on church disestablishment. At Loanhead on the eastern policy of liberal and tory parties.

March 23. At Gorebridge and at Pathhead.

March 25. At Penicuik on Cyprus.

March 30. At Stow on finance.

April “Religion, Achaian and Semitic,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

April 2. At West Calder on liberal record and shortcomings of the government.

April 5. Elected for Midlothian: Mr. Gladstone, 1579; Lord Dalkeith, 1368.

April 7. Returns to Hawarden.

April 28. Second administration formed.

May. Anonymous article, “The Conservative Collapse,” in _Fortnightly Review_.

May 8. Returned unopposed for Midlothian.

May 11. Publication of correspondence with Count Karolyi, Austrian ambassador.

May 16. Receives deputation of farmers on agricultural reform.

May 20. On government’s Turkish policy.

May 21. Moves reference to committee of Mr. Bradlaugh’s claim to take his seat in parliament.

May 25. On South African federation.

June 1. On government’s policy regarding Cyprus.

June 10. Introduces supplementary budget.

June 16. On reduction of European armaments.

June 18. On resolution in favour of local option. Moves second reading of Savings Banks bill.

June 22. On resolution that Mr. Bradlaugh be allowed to make a declaration.

July 1. On Mr. Bradlaugh’s case.

July 5, 26. On Compensation for Disturbances (Ireland) bill.

July 23. Explains government’s policy regarding Armenia.

July 30-Aug. 9. Confined to room by serious illness.

Aug. 26-Sept. 4. Makes sea trip in the _Grantully Castle_ round England and Scotland.

Sept. 4. On government’s Turkish policy.

Nov. 9. At lord mayor’s banquet on Ireland and foreign and colonial questions.

1881.

Jan. 6. On Ireland.

Jan. 21. On annexation of Transvaal.

Jan. 28. On Irish Protection of Person and Property bill.

Feb. 3. Brings in closure resolution.

Feb. 23. Falls in garden at Downing Street.

March 15. Moves vote of condolence on assassination of Alexander II.

March 16. On grant in aid of India for expenses of Afghan war.

March 28. On county government and local taxation.

April 4. Introduces budget.

April 7. Brings in Land Law (Ireland) bill.

April 26 and 27. On Mr. Bradlaugh’s case.

May 2. Resigns personal trusteeship of British Museum.

May 4. Supports Welsh Sunday Closing bill.

May 5. Supports vote of thanks on military operations in Afghanistan.

May 9. Tribute to Lord Beaconsfield.

May 16. On second reading of Irish Land bill.

June 10. On the law of entail.

June 24. On Anglo Turkish convention.

July 25. On vote of censure on Transvaal.

July 29. On third reading of Irish Land bill.

Aug. 6. At Mansion House on fifteen months’ administration.

Aug. 18. On Mr. Parnell’s vote of censure on the Irish executive.

Oct. 7. Presented with an address by corporation of Leeds: on land and “fair trade.” At banquet in Old Cloth Hall on Ireland.

Oct. 8. Presented with address by Leeds Chamber of Commerce: on free trade. Mass meeting of 25,000 persons in Old Cloth Hall on foreign and colonial policy.

Oct. 13. Presented with address by city corporation at Guildhall: on Ireland and arrest of Mr. Parnell.

Oct. 27. At Knowsley on the aims of the Irish policy.

Nov. 9. At lord mayor’s banquet on government’s Irish policy and parliamentary procedure.

1882.

Jan. 12. At Hawarden on agriculture.

Jan. 31. On local taxation to deputation from chambers of agriculture.

Feb. 7. On Mr. Bradlaugh’s claim.

Feb. 9. On home rule amendment to address.

Feb. 16. On the Irish demand for home rule.

Feb. 20. Moves first of new procedure rules.

Feb. 21. On local taxation.

Feb. 21 and 22. On Mr. Bradlaugh’s case.

Feb. 27. Meeting of liberal party at Downing Street. On House of Lords’ committee to inquire into Irish Land Act.

Feb. 27. Moves resolution declaring parliamentary inquiry into Land Act injurious to interests of good government.

March 3. On persecution of Jews in Russia.

March 6. Supports resolution for legislation on parliamentary oaths.

March 10. On proposed state acquisition of Irish railways.

March 17. On British North Borneo Company’s charter.

March 21. On parliamentary reform.

March 23. On grant to Duke of Albany.

March 30. On closure resolution.

March 31. On inquiry into ecclesiastical commission.

April 17. Opposes motion for release of Cetewayo.

April 18. On diplomatic communications with Vatican.

April 24. Introduces budget.

April 26. On the Irish Land Act Amendment bill.

May 2. Statement of Irish policy, announces release of “suspects,” and resignation of Mr. Forster.

May 4. On Mr. Forster’s resignation.

May 8. Moves adjournment of the House on assassination of Lord F. Cavendish and Mr. Burke.

May 15. Brings in Arrears of Rent (Ireland) bill.

May 19. On second reading of Prevention of Crime (Ireland) bill.

May 22. On Arrears bill.

May 24. On Prevention of Crime bill.

May 26-June 1. On government’s Egyptian policy.

June 14. On Egyptian crisis.

June 17. On Mr. Bright’s resignation.

July 12. On bombardment of Alexandria.

July 21. On third reading of Arrears bill.

July 24. Asks for vote of credit for £2,300,000.

July 27. Concludes debate on vote of credit.

July 28. On national expenditure.

Aug. 8. On Lords’ amendments to Arrears bill.

Aug. 9. On suspension of Irish members, July 1.

Aug. 16. On events leading to Egyptian war.

Oct. 25-31, and Dec. 1. On twelve new rules of procedure.

Oct. 26. Moves vote of thanks to forces engaged in Egyptian campaign.

Nov. 24. Opposes demand for select committee on release of Mr. Parnell.

Dec. 13. Celebrates political jubilee.

1883.

Jan. 6-16. Suffers from sleeplessness at Hawarden.

Jan. 17. Leaves England for south of France.

March 2. Returns to London.

March 14. On Irish Land Law (1881) Amendment bill.

March 16. On Boer invasion of Bechuanaland.

April 3. On Channel tunnel.

April 6. On increase in national expenditure.

April 17. On local taxation.

April 19. On Lords Alcester and Wolseley’s annuity bills.

April 26. On Parliamentary Oaths Act (1866) Amendment bill.

May 2. At National Liberal club on conservative legacy of 1880 and work of liberal administration, 1880-1883.

May 7. On Contagious Diseases Acts.

May 25. On reforms in Turkey.

May 29. Meeting of liberal party at foreign office: on state of public business.

June 2. At Stafford House: tribute to Garibaldi.

June 12. On revision of purchase clauses of Land Act.

June 23. On withdrawal of provisional agreement for second Suez canal.

July 27. On India and payment for Egyptian campaign.

July 30. On future negotiations with Suez canal company.

Aug. 6. On government’s Transvaal and Zululand policies.

Aug. 6-7. On British occupation of Egypt.

Aug. 18. Protests against violent speeches of Irish members.

Aug. 21. On work of the session.

Sept. Italian translation of Cowper’s hymn: “Hark my soul! It is the Lord,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Aug. 8-21. In _Pembroke Castle_ round coast of Scotland to Norway and Copenhagen.

Aug. 13. At Kirkwall: on changes during half century of his political life.

Sept. 18. Entertains the Emperor and Empress of Russia, the King and Queen of Denmark, at dinner on board _Pembroke Castle_ in Copenhagen harbour.

Dec. 22. At Hawarden, to deputation of liberal working men on reform of the franchise.

1884.

Jan. 5. At Hawarden on condition of agriculture.

Jan 31. Receives deputations from Leeds conference, etc., on Franchise bill.

Feb. 11 and 21. On Mr. Bradlaugh’s attempt to take the oath.

Feb. 12. On Egyptian and Soudan policy in reply to vote of censure.

Feb. 13. On re-establishment of grand committees.

Feb. 25. Moves resolution of thanks to Speaker Brand on his retirement.

Feb. 28. Explains provisions of Representation of the People (Franchise) bill.

March 3. In defence of retention of Suakin.

March 6. On government’s Egyptian policy.

March 10-19. Confined to his room by a chill.

March 19 to April 7. Recuperates at Coombe Warren.

March 31. On death of Duke of Albany.

April 3. On General Gordon’s mission in Soudan.

April 7. On second reading of Franchise bill.

May 12. On vote of censure regarding General Gordon.

May 27. On Egyptian financial affairs.

June 10. Opposes amendment to Franchise bill granting suffrage to women.

June 23. On terms of agreement with France on Egypt.

June 26. On third reading of Franchise bill.

July 8. On second reading of London Government bill.

July 10. Meeting of the liberal party: on rejection of Franchise bill by House of Lords.

July 11. On negotiations with Lord Cairns on Franchise bill.

July 18. At Eighty club on relation of politics of the past to politics of the future.

Aug. 2. On failure of conference on Egyptian finance.

Aug. 11. On Lord Northbrook’s mission to Egypt.

Aug. 30. At Corn Exchange, Edinburgh, on Lords and Franchise bill.

Sept. 1. At Corn Exchange, Edinburgh, in defence of his administration.

Sept. 2. In Waverley Market on demand of Lords for dissolution.

Sept. 26. Returns to Hawarden.

Oct. 16. Cuts first sod on Wirral railway: on railway enterprise.

Oct. 23. On Franchise bill.

Oct. 28. Defends Lord Spencer’s Irish administration.

Nov. 4. Lays foundation stone of National Liberal club: on liberal administrations of past half century.

Nov. 6 and 10. On second reading of Franchise bill.

Nov. 21. On Mr. Labouchere’s motion for reform of House of Lords.

Dec. 1. Brings in Redistribution bill.

Dec. 4. On second reading of Redistribution bill.

1885.

Feb. 23. On vote of censure on Soudan policy.

March 26. Moves ratification of Egyptian financial agreement.

April 9. Announces occupation of Penjdeh by Russians.

April 16. In defence of Egyptian Loan bill.

April 21. Asks for vote of credit for war preparations.

April 27. On Soudan and Afghanistan.

May 4. Announces agreement with Russia on Afghan boundary dispute.

May 14. On Princess Beatrice’s dowry.

June 8. Defends increase of duties on beer and spirits.

June 9. Resignation of government.

June 24. Reads correspondence on crisis.

July 6. On legislation on parliamentary oaths.

July 7. On intentions of the new government.

Aug. 8-Sept. 1. In Norway.

Sept. 17. Issues address to Midlothian electors.

Nov. “Dawn of Creation and of Worship,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Nov. 9. At Albert Hall, Edinburgh, on proposals of Irish party.

Nov. 11. At Free Assembly Hall, Edinburgh, on disestablishment.

Nov. 17. At West Calder on Ireland, foreign policy, and free trade.

Nov. 21. At Dalkeith on finance and land reform.

Nov. 23. At inauguration of Market Cross, Edinburgh: on history of the cross.

Nov. 24. At Music Hall, Edinburgh, on tory tactics and Mr. Parnell’s charges.

Nov. 27. Elected for Midlothian: Mr. Gladstone, 7879; Mr. Dalrymple, 3248.

1886.

Jan. “Proem to Genesis: a Plea for a Fair Trial,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Jan. 21. On government’s policy in India, the Near East and Ireland.

Jan. 26. In support of amendment for allotments.

Feb. 3. Third administration formed.

Feb. 4. Issues address to electors of Midlothian.

Feb. 10. Returned unopposed for Midlothian.

Feb. 22. On comparative taxation of England and Ireland. On annexation of Burmah.

Feb. 23. On Ireland’s contribution to imperial revenue.

March 4. On condition of Ireland.

March 6-12. Confined to his room by a cold.

April 6. On death of Mr. W. E. Forster.

April 8. Brings in Government of Ireland (Home Rule) bill.

April 13. On first reading of Home Rule bill.

April 16. Explains provisions of Irish Land Purchase bill.

May 1. Issues address to electors of Midlothian on Home Rule bill.

May 10. Moves second reading of Home Rule bill.

May 27. Meeting of liberal party at the foreign office: on the Home Rule bill.

May 28. Explains intentions regarding the Home Rule bill.

June 7-8. Concludes debate on Home Rule bill.

June 10. Announces dissolution of parliament.

June 14. Issues address to electors of Midlothian.

June 18. At Music Hall, Edinburgh, on home rule.

June 21. At Music Hall, Edinburgh, on home rule.

June 22. At Glasgow on home rule.

June 25. At Free Trade Hall, Manchester, on home rule.

June 28. At Liverpool on Ulster and home rule.

July 2. Returned unopposed for Midlothian and Leith.

July 20. Resignation of third administration.

Aug. 19-24. On government’s Irish, policy.

Aug. 25. Leaves England for Bavaria.

Aug 28. “_The Irish Question: (1) History of an Idea; (2) Lessons of the Election_,” published.

Sept. 19. Returns to London.

Sept. 20. On Tenants Relief (Ireland) bill.

Oct. 4. At Hawarden. Receives address signed by 400,000 women of Ireland: on home rule.

1887.

Jan. “_Locksley Hall_ and the Jubilee,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Jan. 27. Tribute to memory of Lord Iddesleigh.

Jan. 27. On Lord Randolph Churchill’s retirement and Ireland.

Feb. “Notes and Queries on the Irish Demand,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

March “The Greater Gods of Olympus: (1) Poseidon,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Match 17. To the liberal members for Yorkshire: on home rule.

March 24. On the exaction of excessive rents.

March 29. On Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) bill.

April “The History of 1852-60 and Greville’s Latest Journals,” in _English Historical Review_.

April 18. On second reading of Criminal Law Amendment bill.

April 19. At Eighty club on liberal unionist grammar of dissent.

April 25. Criticise Mr. Goschen’s budget.

May “The Greater Gods of Olympus: (2) Apollo,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

May 5. Moves for select committee to inquire into the _Times_ articles on “Parnellism and Crime.”

May 11. At Dr. Parker’s house on Ireland.

May 31. On Crimes bill at Hawarden.

June Reviews Mr. Lecky’s _History of England in the Eighteenth Century_ in _Nineteenth Century_.

June “The Great Olympian Sedition,” in _Contemporary Review_.

June 4. At Swansea, on Welsh nationality, Welsh grievances, and the Irish Crimes bill.

June 6. At Singleton Abbey on home rule and retention of Irish members.

June 7. At Cardiff on home rule.

July “The Greater Gods of Olympus: (3) Athene,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

June 2. To the liberal members for Durham on Lord Hartington’s Irish record.

June 7. Moves rejection of Irish Criminal Law Amendment bill.

June 9. Presented at Dollis Hill with address signed by 10,689 citizens of New York.

June 14. On second reading of the Irish Land bill.

June 16. At National Liberal club: on Ireland and home rule movement in Scotland and Wales.

June 29. At Memorial Hall on the lessons of bye-elections.

Aug. “Mr. Lecky and Political Morality,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Aug. 16. Lays first cylinder of railway bridge over the Dee: on railway enterprise and the Channel tunnel.

Aug. 25. On proclamation of Irish land league.

Aug. 30. At Hawarden on Queen Victoria’s reign.

Sept. “Electoral Facts of 1887,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Sept. 12. On riot at Mitchelstown, Ireland.

Oct. “Ingram’s History of the Irish Union,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Oct. 4. At Hawarden on the absolutist methods of government.

Oct. 18. At National Liberal Federation, Nottingham, on conduct of Irish police.

Oct. 19. At Skating Rink, Nottingham, on home rule.

Oct. 20. At Drill Hall, Derby, on Ireland.

Nov. “An Olive Branch from America,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Dec. 27. At Dover on free trade and Irish Crimes Act.

Dec. 28. Leaves England for Italy.

1888.

Jan. “A reply to Dr. Ingram,” in _Westminster Review_.

Feb. “The Homeric Herê,” in _Contemporary Review_.

Feb. 8. Returns to London.

Feb. 17. On coercion in Ireland.

March “Further Notes and Queries on the Irish Demand,” in _Contemporary Review_.

March 23. On perpetual pensions.

April 9. On the budget.

April 11. At National Liberal club on the budget and Local Government bill.

April 23. Moves an amendment in favour of equalising the death duties on real and personal property.

April 25. On second reading of County Government (Ireland) bill.

May. “Robert Elsmere, and the Battle of Belief,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

May. A reply to Colonel Ingersoll on “Christianity,” in _North American Review_.

May 1. On government control of railways.

May 2. Opens Gladstone library at National Liberal club: on books.

May 9. At Memorial Hall on Irish question.

May 26. At Hawarden condemns licensing clauses of Local Government bill.

May 30. Receives deputation of 1500 Lancashire liberals at Hawarden.

June 18. On death of German Emperor.

June 26. Condemns administration of Irish criminal law.

June 27. On Channel Tunnel bill.

June 30. At Hampstead on Ireland and the bye-elections.

July “The Elizabethan Settlement of Religion,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

July 6. On payment of members.

July 18. To liberal members for Northumberland and Cumberland on Parnell commission and retention of Irish members.

July 23. On second reading of Parnell Commission bill.

July 25. Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone presented with their portraits on entering on fiftieth year of married life.

July 30. On composition of Parnell commission.

Aug. 20. Receives deputation of 1500 liberals at Hawarden: on conservative government of Ireland.

Aug. 23. At Hawarden on spade husbandry and the cultivation of fruit.

Sept. “Mr. Forster and Ireland,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Sept. 4. At Wrexham on Irish and Welsh home rule.

Sept. 4. At the Eisteddfod on English feeling towards Wales.

Nov. “Queen Elizabeth and the Church of England,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Nov. 5. At Town Hall, Birmingham, on liberal unionists and one man one vote.

Nov. 6. To deputation at Birmingham on labour representation and payment of members.

Nov. 7. At Bingley Hall, Birmingham, on Irish question.

Nov. 8. To deputation of Birmingham Irish National club on Irish grievances.

Nov. 19. On Irish Land Purchase bill.

Dec. 3. On Mr. Balfour’s administration of Ireland.

Dec. 15. At Limehouse Town Hall on necessary English reforms and the Irish question.

Dec. 17. On English occupation of Suakin.

Dec. 19. Leaves England for Naples.

1889.

Jan. “Daniel O’Connell,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Feb. Reviews _Divorce_ by Margaret Lee in _Nineteenth Century_.

Feb. 20. Returns to London.

March 1. On conciliatory measures in administration of Ireland.

March 29. On death of John Bright.

April Reviews _For the Right_ in _Nineteenth Century_.

April 4. On £21,000,000 for naval defence.

April 9. On Scotch home rule.

May “Italy in 1888-89,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

May 15. On second reading of Welsh Education bill.

May 16. Moves amendment to Mr. Goschen’s proposed death duties on estates above £10,000.

June 5. At Southampton on lessons of the bye-elections.

June 7. At Romsey on Lord Palmerston.

June 8. At Weymouth on shorter parliaments and Ireland.

June 10. At Torquay on Ireland.

June 11. At Falmouth and Redruth on Ireland.

June 12. At Truro, St. Austell, and Bodmin on Ireland, one man one vote, the death duties, etc.

June 14. At Launceston on dissentient liberals.

June 14. At Drill Hall, Plymouth, on home rule.

June 17. At Shaftesbury and Gillingham on the agricultural labourer.

July “Plain Speaking on the Irish Union,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

July 6. Presented with freedom of Cardiff; on free trade; on foreign opinion of English rule in Ireland.

July 25. Golden wedding celebrated in London.

July 25. Speech on royal grants.

Aug. “Phœnician Affinities of Ithaca,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Aug. 22. At Hawarden on cottage gardens and fruit culture.

Aug. 26. Celebration of golden wedding at Hawarden.

Sept. 7. Entertained in Paris by Society of Political Economy.

Sept. 23. At Hawarden on dock strike and bimetallism.

Sept. “The Triple Alliance and Italy’s Place in it,” by Outidanos, in _Contemporary Review_.

Oct. Reviews _Journal de Marie Bashkirtseff_ in _Nineteenth Century_.

Oct. 23. At Southport on Ireland.

Oct. 26. Opens literary institute at Saltney, Chester.

Nov. “The English Church under Henry the Eighth,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Nov. “The Question of Divorce,” in _North American Review_.

Dec. Reviews _Memorials of a Southern Planter_ in _Nineteenth Century_.

Dec. 2. At Free Trade Hall, Manchester, on liberal unionists and foreign policy.

Dec. 3. In Free Trade Hall on government of Ireland.

Dec. 4. At luncheon at Town Hall on city of Manchester.

1890.

Jan. “A Defence of Free Trade,” in _North American Review_.

Jan. “The Melbourne Government: its Acts and Persons,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

Jan. 9. At Hawarden on the effect of free trade on agriculture.

Jan. 22. At Chester on Ireland.

Feb. 5. At Oxford Union on vestiges of Assyrian mythology in Homer.

Feb. 11. On motion declaring publication by _Times_ of forged Parnell letter to be breach of privilege.

March “On Books and the Housing of Them,” in _Nineteenth Century_.

March 3. On report of Parnell commission.

March 24. At National Liberal club on report of Parnell commission.

March 26. At Guy’s Hospital on the medical profession.

April 24. On second reading of Purchase of Land (Ireland) bill.

May 2. On disestablishment of church of Scotland.

May 12. On free trade at Prince’s Hall, Piccadilly.

May 15. On Local Taxation Duties bill.

May 16. At Norwich on Parnell commission, land purchase and licensing question.

May 17. At Lowestoft on Siberian atrocities and the agricultural labourer.

April 27. Receives 10,000 liberals at Hawarden: on Mitchelstown, Irish Land bill, and Licensing bill.

June 5. On Channel Tunnel bill.

June 13. On Local Taxation Duties bill.

June 18. To depositors in railways’ savings banks: on thrift.

July 17. At Burlington School, London, on the education of women.