In a general way the Home Rulers were in sympathy with the policies and purposes of the Liberal party. That party lay next to themselves in the scale of political development; the Conservatives were further off. But Mr. Gladstone found from the very start that he could not depend upon the support of the Irish contingent except in so far as that support was consistent with the one thing which the party desired to promote, and that "'as a system of Home Rule government for Ireland. In the course of events the Home Rule contingent was bent around until it seemed to attach itself to the extreme right, or Conservative end of the political platform.

It was at this juncture that the Irish Land League, organized in 1879, with Charles Stewart Parnell as its president, became a social and political force in the drama. Mr. Parnell was one of the most capable and, withal, straightforward leaders that recent history has revealed. He was at the time of which we speak only thirty-five years of age. He had been in Parliament since 1875, and had acquired a thorough political education. In 1879 he visited the United States, and in the following year succeeded Mr. Shaw as the leader of the Home Rule party. He was a man whose courage was equal to his ability, and whose ability was as great as the exigency of his country. Such a leader, with more than threescore capable men in his following, must be considered by any ministry, however well fortified in pub- lic opinion and supported by however strong a majority.

Of the Home Rule party the new Liberal government took first no notice. It is always the plan of the two leading parties in a country to ignore the third as long as possible. Finally the remnants of the two combine against the one, and then there is a sudden change of scene. At the opening of Parliament in January of 1881 it was soon found difficult to these men of one idea. And yet they must be dealt with; for a state of affairs had now supervened in Ireland which could no longer be

560

overlooked in the administration. We may suppose that Mr. Gladstone did not desire to overlook it, but his temper was always to proceed with caution and by tentative stages.

The situation in Ireland did not admit of this method. In that country suffering, want, distress, resentment, rebellion, hatred, and every specter that arises under the wand of oppression had come to the huts of the lowly. It was under these conditions that the great Land League of 1879 was formed.

That sociopolitical compact had for its object, in a word, the alleviation of the hardships of the Irish tenants.' We must say that the methods to be employed did not much regard the existing laws. Those laws had been made for the most part by the landlords in their own interest. The result was at last the outbreak of crime and outrage. Such was the situation that the new Liberal government was given no option in the matter of taking im­mediate cognizance of the condition of Ireland.

Under such circumstances it is always the method to try force first. The existing order sounds an alarm and publishes a declaration to the effect that, whatever may have been the antecedents; the first thing to be done is to restore order to society and to punish crime. This was accord-

561

ingly undertaken by the government. A Coercion Act was prepared and introduced into the House of Commons, the object of which was to put down with a strong hand the disturbers of the peace in Ireland. Constructively the disturbers of the peace were the Land League and its -' ettors. The first principle of the Coercion Bill was a suspension of the habeas corpus. This done, the officers of any district in Ireland might proceed under designation of the lord lieutenant to arrest and imprison without judicial processes those who were alleged to be disturbers of the peace. At the time of bringing in this bill a new Land Bill was announced, which also was in the nature of an amendment and extension of the Irish Land Act of 1870. It was now proposed in amendment to make the law of tenant right in Ulster the standard for the whole of Ireland. Certainly the Liberal majority was sufficient to enable the government to carry through whatever measure it might propose. For the moment the Home Rulers saw themselves, in the matter of the Coercion Act, about to be over-whelmed, and their cause destroyed, as they believed, by the hand of power. In this emergency they adopted the policy of obstruction. They might at least systematically impede the consideration and passage of the odious bill through Parliament. The British Constitution relative to the House of Commons gave great liberties in this respect. In that body the freedom of debate was fully conceded. There was no rule for closure such as that practiced in the French Assembly, or for the previous question, as employed in our" House of Representatives. There was, true enough, a motion for closing the debate; but this motion might in its turn be debated. There­fore it could not avail against a systematic policy of obstruction.

It was on the 6th of January, 1881, that the Coercion Bill was intro­duced. The debate was to have been soon concluded; but it could not be done. The Home Rulers continued to debate it. They were able and per­sistent. They divided themselves into contingents, and a number were always prepared to continue the debate. No vigilance could surprise them. Day or night, it was always the same. January went by, and February; and the end seemed as far off as ever. At length, however, toward the end of February, the speaker announced that on the 2d of March he would by sheer prerogative close the debate and call the vote. This proposal was resisted to the bitter end. When the 2d of March came there was an uproarious opposition to the speaker’s effort to close the discussion, The House was for a time a scene of the greatest confusion, and the cry of "Privilege!" “Privilege!" was heard on every hand; but the majority, under the lead of the speaker, had its way, and the Home Rulers were over the vote was taken, and the Coercion Bill was carried.

This was only the beginning of war. On the day following the passage of the Coercion Act the leaders of the Irish party were forcibly expelled

562

from the House of Commons. Charles Stewart Parnell and William O'Brien were arrested and thrown into prison, where they remained until the following year. It was believed, for the time, that this method of pur­gation and suppression would end the Land League and silence its leaders; but not so. No sooner had the hand of force been applied than a strong

sympathy was created for the oppressed and their cause. A reaction came on in their favor. The triumph of the government was seen to be no triumph, and the imprisoned leaders of the Land League got as much sympathy from the public as the ministry itself. The composition of the Liberal party was peculiar. It was graded all the way up from conservatism to radicalism. The radicals of the party were in so close sympathy with the Home Rulers that party discipline was necessary in order to restrain their insurgent dis­position. Aye, more than this; Mr. Gladstone himself inclined from the

563

perpendicular in the direction of Ireland. His tendencies were toward reform. A prudent conservatism was necessary as a policy; but his drift was toward the principles of the very men who had been expelled from the House and imprisoned!

The lull that followed the coup of the 2d of March was elusive and transient. It gave the government, however, an opportunity to proceed with its enactments bearing on the Irish question. The Land Bill was taken up and passed. With this it was hoped to stop the throat of Irish clamor; but not so. The sop was thrown to Cerberus too late. He would now have more. Ten years before the Land Bill of 1881 would have been taken by the Irish as the greatest boon. Now it was regarded as little better than an insult. Their great leaders and champions were imprisoned. Progressive ideas had sprung up with the agitation, and the cry was now raised for the absolute nationalization of the Irish land.

This cry signified, of course, should it prevail, the destruction of the very principle of English landlordism. The system of foreign land tenure became more and more precarious. The poverty of the people was such that they could no longer pay rents if they would, and their temper was such that they would no longer pay them if they could. There was almost universal refusal to pay, and a consequent reign of violence and outrage ensued. Life and property were alike imperiled. Evictions began on the one side and resistance on the other. At the close of 1881 and the beginning of 1882 there was a condition of general revolt. In a single month in the following summer no fewer than five hundred and thirty-one outrages were reported against the system of foreign landlordism and those who were trying to uphold it.

For a while the government sought to stay the tide, but without much avail. On the 20th of October, 1881, a proclamation was issued declaring the Irish Land League to be an illegal and criminal association per se. This declaration gave opportunity to the authorities to proceed against the adherents of the League where and whenever found. The Coercion Bill, at the time of its adoption, was recognized by the government as a temporary expedient. It was limited in the time of its operation and was to expire with October of 1882.

The years we are here considering were marked with several hitherto unknown social expedients which the contending parties adopted in their battles. One of these we have just noticed in the assumption by the ' Speaker of the House of Commons of the right to declare the end of debate against the wishes of an obstructive minority. It was at this time that Irish wit and necessity invented the boycott. The expedient so called was a sort of social and industrial persecution directed against those who should incur the displeasure of the masses. The boycott was discovered in

564

the fall of 1880. A certain Captain Boycott, agent of Lord Erne, near Lough Mask, on the borders of Galway and Mayo, was a collector of rentals for his superior. In this relation he got the animosity of the tenants and of the Land League. The word was given by the League that Boycott's servants should leave him; that no laborer should remain in his employ­ment; that the shopkeepers of the neighborhood should supply him with nothing, not even necessaries; and these orders were enforced with threats from the Invisible Empire against any who should disregard them.

Captain Boycott and his family found themselves unexpectedly cut off

from intercourse with the people around them. Their domestics, except two or three, quit their service, and those who hesitated were threatened. The sisters of the captain were obliged to drive with arms in their hands to considerable distances in order to secure the necessaries of life. A contin­gent of police at length .arrived, but these were about to be overpowered when a body of troops came with artillery to put down violence. The vio­lence, however, was of a kind not to be reached. It was simply negative and intangible. Captain Boycott held out courageously until late in the year, when he was obliged to give up the unequal contest and leave the

565

neighborhood. This peculiar Irish discovery soon diffused itself as both a fact and a name to many parts of the disturbed country, and afterward to nearly all countries where like situations existed.

The life of William E. Gladstone was adorned with a thousand pleasant incidents. He was made the recipient of many favors and testimonials His home at Hawarden Castle was a museum of the tokens of regard which he had received in the course of his long life from his fellow-citizens and from friends and societies in foreign lands. In August of 1881 a testimonial was made to the prime minister by his constituents of Greenwich. The electors of New Cross, Dept-ford, and Woolwich combined in the presentation of a chair to their favorite leader. It is customary in England, on occasions of ex­citement and enthusiasm, for the electors to “chair" their represent­atives; that is, to put them in a chair and bear them aloft in pro­cession. Mr. Gladstone at this time was in his seventy-second year, and it was doubtful whether the usual "chairing" would be appropriate for one of his years and dignity. To change the pro­gram a fish dinner was given at the Hotel Trafalgar, in Greenwich, on August 17, and a magnifi­cent chair was presented to the prime minister as his seat at the feast. The wood was of heart of oak and the chair was upholstered with light-brown morocco and bands of blue. The carving was emblematical and was beautifully executed. The inscription was set in a wreath of carved roses, thistles, shamrocks, and leeks, these being the symbols of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. The inscription on the back of the chair was as follows: " Presented to the Right Honorable William Ewart Gladstone, M.P., First Lord of the

566

Treasury; together with an address by the Liberals of the Borough of Greenwich and the Liberal clubs of the neighborhood, in testimony of their high appreciation of the priceless services rendered by him to the country, and in remembrance of the proud distinction he conferred upon the borough as its representative in Parliament from 1868 to 1880. August, 1881."

Mr. Gladstone in these troublous years spoke frequently to the ques­tions of the day. His position was that violence and lawbreaking in Ireland should first be suppressed at all hazards, and afterward suitable legislation undertaken to relieve the distresses of that country. Mr. Forster, Chief Secretary for Ireland, was assailed in unmeasured terms for what appeared to the government to be the honest discharge of duty, but which seemed to the Irish party to be outrageous tyranny. They gave the chief secretary the name of "Buckshot" Forster, and held him up to popular contempt. Mr. Gladstone, speaking at Leeds in October of 1881, said: "Amidst diffi­culties which rarely have been equaled, and with the recollection of splendid services personally rendered to the people of Ireland from pure, disinter­ested, individual philanthropy in the early days of his youth, Mr. Forster represents in Ireland that cause which I hope will triumph. I hope it will triumph. I have not lost confidence in the people of Ireland."

Then continuing, the prime minister denounced the Land League and Mr. Parnell, saying of the latter that he who had "made himself the head of the most violent party in Ireland, and who had offered the greatest tempta­tions to the Irish people, desired to arrest the operation of the act—to stand as Aaron stood, between the living and the dead ; but to stand there, not as Aaron stood, to arrest, but to spread the plague. ... If the law, purged from defects and from every taint of injustice, is still to be repelled and refused, and the first conditions of political society are to be set at naught, then I say, without hesitation, the resources of civilization against its ene­mies are not yet exhausted."

Among the bitterest opponents of the government at this time was the Irish leader, John Dillon, who repaid the government speakers for their strictures with whole volleys of detractions and anathema. His speeches at this period are marked with such vituperation as could hardly be equaled even in the day of ancient cursing. Mr. Dillon cursed Mr. Forster. He cursed Mr. Gladstone as the father of the Coercion Act. He defied the government to arrest him. He urged the Irish to leave nothing undone that might be done in resistance to the hateful legislation. Finally he said, " If you want earnestly and like men to carry out the policy of the League, you must learn to know that the only way in which you have got to revenge yourselves or to protect yourselves against such acts of tyranny is to attack the men whom you have the power to attack; and whenever you see a man, no matter what his profession in life, helping a landlord who does a thing

567

like that, let the Land League of Tipperary follow him through every turn­ing of his life, let them, if they can, ruin him, as he sought to ruin you in your difficulties." For the utterance of these sentiments Mr. Dillon was arrested on the next day, and was imprisoned for several months, until his health was ruined. Thus if we view the field at the close of 1881 and the beginning of 1882 we find almost universal discontent and rebellion among

the Irish, and their leaders under arrest and in prison, with the suspension of habeas corpus.

It was in this manner that the great battle for Home Rule in Ireland was begun. The government was greatly embarrassed. The legislation which was devised to meet the emergency did not meet it. An Arms Bill was Passed, which provided for the disarmament of the Irish people; but it could be enforced only against the better classes, and with them there was no neces- sity for its enforcement. The underman simply concealed his gun and continued lawless. There was in all Ireland and throughout many of the populous 11 districts of England a ground swell favorable to the Irish cause. It appeared probable that that cause would triumph under the Liberal leader-

568

ship; but in order that it might be successful there must be a bringing together of the Home Rulers and the Liberals in the common cause.

Early in 1882 Mr. Gladstone undertook the difficult feat of getting the Home Rule leaders into his following. It must be confessed that the situation was not auspicious; for those very leaders were now imprisoned under the provisions of the Act which the prime minister himself had pre­pared. Besides, he had many times denounced both them and their cause. Nevertheless, in April of 1882 he opened negotiations with Mr. Parnell, who was still imprisoned. It was said that a secret understanding was reached between the two, and the compact was designated in the jargon of the times as the “Treaty of Kilmainham." The report got abroad that the Irish leader would be satisfied with a bill abolishing arrears of rent in Ireland and with a just extension of tenant rights. Under these simple conditions he and his following would join the government in the effort to restrain the Land League with its penumbra of lawlessness from further harm. However this may be Mr. Gladstone at this time dropped a hint in the House of Commons of a new policy that might be expected. It would be found expe­dient, he intimated, to pacify the Irish by releasing the prisoners.

This signified much, for the Irish jails were literally filled with persons who had been arrested on suspicion under the provisions of the Coercion Bill and the suspension of habeas corpus. Hundreds of men of excellent character were imprisoned. It was well known that it was futile to bring these prisoners to trial; for no Irish jury would convict one of them. Cer­tainly the government could not keep them imprisoned always, and some­thing must be done to break the crisis. There had been times within the year when the crisis was about to break itself. The women of Ireland, under the leadership of Anna Parnell, sister of Charles Stewart Parnell, formed a Land League of their own, making such publications that the Archbishop of Dublin issued a pastoral letter denouncing the movement. Hereupon no Jess a personage than Bishop Croke arose in defense of the Ladies' Land League, and was recognized in a triumphal procession which he made through Ireland as holding the aegis of the Church over the heads of all them who were organized against the landlords. Certainly a movement of this kind could no longer be despised. The Land Leaguers, Home Rulers, and Irish faction in general took the name of the National party; all of which brought the government to see that there must be a new deal on the whole issue.

The proposition to concede much to Parnell and his party was taken with many wry faces, and it was evident that the Liberal party as such was loath to surrender to those whom it had recently imprisoned. Just at the time when it appeared that they must surrender an unfortunate circumstance occurred which came near changing the history and tendency of the times.

569

There had been already many murders and other crimes perpetrated in Ire­land. One of the measures adopted to conciliate the Irish was the appoint­ment of Lord Frederick Cavendish to succeed William E. Forster in the office of chief secretary. Mr. Forster had shown great antipathy to the Irish, or at least to their organized effort for Home Rule. With Lord Cavendish was appointed as under secretary Mr. Thomas Henry Burke. Both the new officials were men of distinction, and were thought to be in the sympathies of the Irish people.

On the evening of the 6th of May, 1882, Lord Cavendish and Mr. Burke were driving in Phoenix Park, Dublin, when they were attacked by four murderers, partly disguised. It seems that the attack was first made on Burke, whom Lord Cavendish sought to defend; but in the melee both gentlemen were stabbed to death. Many persons were sitting or walking near by; but the assassins were permitted to escape, or at least did escape from the park. A quantity of gold coin, bank notes, and many valuables were found on the bodies of the murdered men, and it was seen at a glance that it was a case of political assassination pure and simple.

The event was followed by an indescribable sensation. Nearly all the political leaders in England found opportunity to turn the horrible event to good account by charging it to the Land League. The real leaders of that organization at once published authoritative disclaimers, and denounced the crime in patriotic terms. But the mischief was done, and the Home Rule party was made to bear the odium. Of course the Land League had drawn after it the very draff and offal of Irish discontent. Crime, as it is ever wont to do, had become a penumbra around the body of reform.

The liberation of Parnell from prison restored that remarkable person- age to the House of Commons, and there he was assailed with violent denunc iations. He was made the bite noire of the hour by those who were anxious by that means to check the reformatory tendency. The small partisans attacked him, and he stood like a boar against them. Indeed, he scarcely dei- gned to make answer when they demanded that the hands of the Irish Land League and his own hands should be washed of the crime of murder. Parnell said in answer that all defense of himself and his party was impossible in such a court as the English House of Commons. His cause was prejudged. His judges were his enemies and the enemies of the Irish people. He was not anxious to justify himself at such a bar. Certainly crime was crime, by whomsoever committed. For the rest, he stood for the cause of an oppressed people. He had suffered an unjust imprisonment for that cause ; and now he and his party were maligned and slandered.

This condition of affairs tended greatly to weaken the Liberal ascendancy. Hardly could any party steer safely through such a maelstrom. The government had a good working majority through the whole of 1882-83;

57I

but whenever a by-election occurred it resulted invariably in Ireland in a gain of a Home Rule member, and in England generally in a gain for the Conservatives. This tendency continued without variation in its results, until the government was at length reduced to the necessity of going to the Conservatives for incidental support of its measures, or else appealing to the Home Rulers themselves. The latter had now in view one definite object, and that was the nationalization of Ireland. Whatever promoted this end was a part of their policy. Whatever opposed it was opposed by them.

The immediate sequel of the murder of Lord Cavendish and Mr. Burke was the bringing in of a measure called the Prevention of Crimes Bill. Such was the temper of the House that the government made the bill much more severe than it ought to have been. It was proposed to carry the means of repression to the utmost. In fact, the measure was made so cruel that it could not in any event be carried into full operation. Nevertheless, a greater number of the Home Rulers voted for it than voted against it. Mr. Gladstone saw the defects in the Crimes Bill, but defended it on the ground that it did not put down such an organization as the Land League, provided the Land League was an organization of the kind indicated in its code of prin­ciples. He said also that the Crimes Bill would have been brought for­ward if the Dublin assassinations had never occurred. He claimed that there was a vague and yet undeniable sympathy abroad for the assassination. The government was not unwilling to hear objections that might be brought against the measure and consider the same in committee. Besides, the Crimes Bill was joined with the Arrears of Rent Bill, intended for the relief of Ireland. These arguments of course prevailed, and the two measures were carried by a great majority.

Just after this event an incident occurred in the House of Commons tending to show the slow movement of Mr. Gladstone's mind in the certain direction which he was taking. Mr. Dillon delivered a speech on the actual condition in Ireland, very truthful and very bitter. He went so far as to contemplate a scene of universal warfare in his country, and in summinp up the whole situation declared that it was useless to legislate against Irish crimes and outrages so long as eviction continued to work its horrible results among the tenants.

To this Mr. Gladstone replied. He said that Dillon's declarations were heartbreaking; but he thanked him for his frankness. The honorable gen­tleman had raised an issue which was now clear. On one side was the Brit­ish government, and all law-obeying and law-abiding men; on the other side was the honorable gentleman who had just spoken. He had told the House that it was useless to denounce outrage until eviction was denounced also. But what were evictions? Eviction was a legal right. It might involve

572

prejudice to a neighbor, or even moral guilt. He did not deny that one for the exercise of the right of eviction might be held guilty in the sight of God; but the right existed, and was a legal right. Mr. Dillon had placed the landlord who exercised the right of eviction on the same level with the perpetrator of crimes. Strange it is that just such a condition as that here depicted by the prime minister is always necessary in Great Britain before a reform against an existing abuse can be promoted!

Nevertheless Mr. Gladstone was himself moving steadily in the direc­tion of reform, and would arrive at that end before the majority of his countrymen. The Crimes Bill proved to be worse for Ireland than for Great Britain. Its enactment was followed by the perpetration of several murders. Perhaps there was for the time a more orderly administration of affairs; but it was that kind of order which sprang from terrorism. Punish­ment was the order of the day, and executions were not infrequent. The Arrears of Rent Bill was limited in its provisions to holdings of thirty pounds a year, and under. Certain conditions were requisite before tenants could avail themselves of the provisions of the measure. A tenant must establish his inability to pay. In certain cases the State should pay one half the arrearage and the tenant be quit of the rest. Tenants who had been evicted up to a certain date should be privileged to take advantage of the new law, etc.

The year 1883 was a trial of the situation under the two bills just described; but the trial was of little value to the cause of peace and qui­etude. Fresh outrages followed in Dublin. On the 25th of November a body of detectives was attacked in that city, and one of them killed. Soon afterward a juror was assassinated for performing his duty in a trial. Mean­while, on the 17th of October, an Irish National Conference was held in Dublin for the purpose of consolidating all factions and organizations into one, to be called the Irish National League. The objects of this new organ­ization were defined by Mr. Parnell as being national self-government, land-law reform, local self-government, extension of the parliamentary and munic­ipal franchises, and the development and encouragement of the labor and industrial interests of Ireland. In that country the new organization of political society was accepted, but among the Irish in America there was a division on the question.

The year 1883 was otherwise uneventful in Mr. Gladstone's life, and indeed in the history of England; but toward the end of the year the attention of the government was drawn to the consideration of a very serious state of affairs in Egypt. In that country war had broken out and English and French fleets had been ordered to the bay of Alexandria. A party of Nationalists in Egypt set up a provisional government and suc­ceeded in deppsing Khedive Tewfik from power. Great Britain espoused

574

the cause of Tewfik, and an Anglo-Indian army thirty thousand strong, under command of Sir Garnet Wolseley, was brought over from India and pitched against the National army, under command of the great leader, Ahmed El Arabi. The forces of the latter were routed and he himself deported to Ceylon. Financial control of Egypt was taken jointly by England and France, and in 1883 the Khedive was restored. At this junc­ture, however, the popular cause was taken up by the Prophet El Mahdi, and a war was carried into the Soudan; but the history of the conflict there, to the death of Gordon and finally to the suppression of the insur­rection, is so remote from our immediate subject that we need not follow it further.

It must not be supposed, however, that the war in Egypt was not a distressful circumstance to the administration. Mr. Gladstone had least strength on the side of war. He had his greatest strength on the side of economics, and more generally of political sociology. The management of affairs in the East was subjected to bitter criticism by the opposition. The ministry was not spared by high or by low. The great newspapers thun­dered against the current management. Moreover, a Russian army was on the frontiers of Afghanistan, menacing the peace again in that far quarter of the world. To all this must be added the universal commotion and distress in Ireland. Such conditions might well embarrass the strongest adminis­tration. Mr. Gladstone did not quail before the difficulties that confronted him, but went boldly forward to do the best he could.

He first directed his attention to the question of again reforming the franchise. This question, however, had to be approached by stages. The reader will remember that under the old regime the rights of the landlord to all improvements except the most transient, made on the landed estates, were absolute. The tenant had no right to anything he produced in the way of improvement on the soil, farm, barn, or homestead. All the while he was subject to a notice to leave, and this involved the loss of all his improvements. In 1875 the Agricultural Holdings Act had given permis­sion to landlords to contract themselves out of their rights to improvements, but this Act was of only small benefit. Being simply permissive, it enjoined nothing, demanded nothing for the tenant. For eight years the Act con­tinued in force, and was then swept away by the Act of 1883, which provided that a tenant on quitting his estate, but not before, should be paid by the landlord such sum as fairly represented the value of the improvements; that is, their value to the succeeding tenant. This Act was to become operative on the 1st of January, 1884.

As soon as this question of tenant right seemed to be fairly out of the way Mr. Gladstone, anxious to take up some measure that might be of universal advantage and at the same time restore the waning influence of

575

the administration, brought forward his Franchise Bill, and on the 29th of February, 1884, offered it in the House of Commons. His speech on the occasion was commended for its clearness and force. The question at issue, he said, had advanced so far in public opinion that he thought it unneces­sary to make a general argument in support of the proposed bill. The bill had been brought forward under the double motive of fulfilling a pledge and of obeying a public demand. It was calculated for many reasons to add strength to the State. It would hardly be necessary to argue the expediency of such a measure to those who had themselves been enfran­chised within the last fifteen years. The advocates of an enlarged franchise in Great Britain had grown bold with experience. " I am not prepared " said Mr. Gladstone, " to discuss admission to the franchise now as it was discussed fifty years ago, when Lord John Russell had to state with almost bated breath that he expected to add in the three kingdoms half a million to the constituencies. It is not now a question of nicely calculated less or more.

“I take my stand," he continued," upon the broad principle that the enfranchisement of capable citizens, be they few or be they many—and if they be many so much the better—is an addition to the strength of the State. The strength of the modern State lies in the representative system. I rejoice to think that in this happy country and in this happy constitution we have other sources of strength in the respect paid to the various orders of the State, in the authority they enjoy, and in the unbroken course which has been allowed to most of our national traditions. But still, in the main, it is the representative system which is the strength of the modern State in general and of the state of this country in particular."

The American reader must understand that up to this time a serious discrimination in the suffrage had existed against the county electors and in favor of the borough electors. Householders in towns had enjoyed a great advantage over those of the country. Artisans, miners, tradesmen of the rural towns, and those whom we designate as farmers, were all disparaged and to these it was now proposed to extend the same advantages and rights ' which were enjoyed by householders in towns. All previous legislation in favor of these classes had worked well. Each enlargement of the right of suffrage had been attended with distinct advantages.

In America it is difficult to understand the British prejudice against the agricultural laborer, of whom Mr. Gladstone said on this occasion, “If he has one defect it is that he is too ready to work with and under the influence of his superiors." The prime minister went on to describe what he called the affirmative provisions of the Franchise Bill. These were, in the first place, to extend the ten-pound rate to the occupation ' of land, whether with houses or without them, and, secondly, the creation of a service.

576

franchise, giving to every man in a dwelling house, by virtue of any office, service or employment, the right to vote. The speaker explained that the former provisions, under the .bill of 1867, were not to be disturbed except where the same right be in conflict with the new law. County franchises of fifty pounds were to be abolished. What was known as the salable-value franchise would be reduced from twelve pounds to ten pounds limit. The changes proposed should be extended to Scotland and Ireland, so that the right of suffrage should rest henceforth on virtually the same conditions in all three kingdoms.

We need not here enter into the details and applications of the proposed measure or quote further from the debates relative thereto. The usual opposition was offered to the bill, which was before the House during the spring of 1884. On the 26th of June the third reading was ordered, without a division of the House. On going to the House of Lords the bill was rejected, except upon the condition of a redistribution of parliamentary seats. The majority in the Lords was emphatic. An effort was made at compromise, the proposition being that the Lords would accept the Fran­chise Bill under pledge that at the next session a measure should be passed for a redistribution of seats. This was not accepted by the ministry because, as Gladstone said, to do so would be to bring in a Redistribution Bill with a rope around his neck.

The question was now whether the House should be prorogued with an appeal to the country or whether the government should recede from its chosen ground on the Franchise Bill. The contention broke out bitterly in Parliament and in the country. The popular leaders denounced the House of Lords, Mr. John Morley going so far as to say, " Be sure that no power on earth can separate henceforth the question of mending the House of Commons from the question of mending or ending the House of Lords !" Mr. Chamberlain said in a speech at Birmingham: "During the last one hundred years the House of Lords has never contributed one iota to popular liberties or popular freedom, or done anything to advance the common weal, and during that time it has protected every abuse and sheltered every privilege. It has denied justice and delayed reform. It is irresponsible without independence, obstinate without courage, arbitrary without judg­ment, and arrogant without knowledge."

In this condition of affairs the bill went over until the autumn, when it was again brought up and discussed. No alterations had been made in the measure. Nor were any suggested. Mr. Gladstone, however, was concilia­tory in his manner. He invited the Conservatives to join in support of the measure, and stated that as soon as the same should become a law a bill for the redistribution of parliamentary seats would be introduced. The Conservatives en masse voted against the measure, which, however, became

577

a law; and on the 5th of December the Redistribution Bill went to the second reading in the House of Commons. This measure, like its prede­cessor, called for long debates. It was carried beyond the holidays and into

the -following year, not being passed until after the change in government, in June of 1885.

The general effect of the bill was to disfranchise many small boroughs and to distribute the seats which they had possessed to the larger boroughs and to the counties. The voters of the disfranchised boroughs were absorbed in the larger districts in which they were situated. All boroughs having a population of less than fifteen thousand were denied separate representa-

578

tion, and those between fifteen thousand and twenty thousand should have only a single representative each.

The result of the measure was the disfranchisement of eighty-one English boroughs, two Scotch, and twenty-two Irish boroughs, while thirty-six of the English and three of the Irish boroughs lost each one representa­tive. There were some other disfranchisements and a number of undistributed seats to be added, so that the government found itself in possession of no fewer than a hundred and seventy-eight seats for redistribution. These were to be given to the counties and to the large towns of the United Kingdom. The total membership of the House of Commons was raised from six hundred and fifty-two to six hundred and seventy. Of the gain England got six seats, Scotland twelve, and Ireland none. The whole effect was to enlarge the representation of the counties and of the larger towns and cities.

No doubt this salutary measure of reform would under favorable cir­cumstances have brought to the Liberal government an accession of strength and popularity; but this seems not to have been the result. The ministry was constantly attacked on the score of its foreign policy. Affairs abroad had hardly gone well anywhere. Mr. Gladstone was evidently annoyed with the condition. It was believed by many that after the passage of the Redis­tribution Act of 1885 he was rather willing than unwilling that the Con­servatives should have their way and take the saddle.

By the beginning of summer the opposition was riding high. Matters came to a crisis in June, when Sir Michael Hicks-Beach opposed with an amendment a financial scheme introduced by Mr. Childers on the behalf of the government to increase the duty on distilled spirits and beer. There was also a ministerial measure for equalizing what were called the death duties in such a way as to make the same rest equally on land and personal property. Landed property had hitherto been exempt from this rate, and the landed interest rose in arms against the ministerial proposition. The amendment offered by Sir Michael was carried against the government by a majority of twelve votes. Nor does it appear that Mr. Gladstone was unwilling to be beaten. The majority was small and the issue not so important as to compel a resignation; but the prime minister chose to regard it otherwise and immediately resigned. Thus in June of 1885, after a five years' term of service in the highest and most responsible office to which a subject of Great Britain may aspire, Mr. Gladstone brought his second term as prime minister to an end, thus devolving upon his opponents the necessity of constructing for her majesty a new Conservative government.

A short time before his retirement from office Mr. Gladstone had a pleasing personal duty to perform. On the 8th of January, 1885, Prince

579

Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, heir to the crown in direct succession, being the oldest son of the Prince of Wales, reached his majority. The event was noted with interest by the British public, by whom the young prince, as well as his brother George, Duke of York, was highly esteemed. Mr. Gladstone as prime minister thought it proper to express to the prince his sentiments and congratulations on the occasion, which he did in the fol­lowing letter:

" Hawarden Castle, Jamiary 7, 1885.

“SIR: As the oldest among the confidential servants of Her Majesty, I cannot allow the anniversary to pass without notice which will tomorrow bring your Royal Highness to full age, and thus mark an important epoch in your life.

" The hopes and intentions of those whose lives lie, like mine, in the past, are of little moment, but they have seen much, and what they have seen suggests much for the future.

"There lies before your Royal Highness in prospect the occupation, I trust at a distant date, of a throne which, to me at least, appears the most illustrious in the world, from its history and associations, from its legal basis, from the weight of its cares it brings, from the royal love of the people, and from the unparalleled opportunities it gives, in as many ways and in so many regions, of doing good to the most countless numbers whom the Almighty has placed beneath the scepter of England.

" I fervently desire and pray—and there cannot be a more animating prayer—that your Royal Highness may ever grow in the principles of con­duct and may be adorned with all the qualities which correspond with this great and noble vocation.

“And, Sir, if Sovereignty has been relieved by our modern institutions of its burdens, it still, I believe, remains true that there has been no period of the world's history at which successors to the Monarchy could more efficaciously contribute to the stability of a great historic system dependent even more upon love than upon strength, by devotion to their duties, and by bright example to the country. This result we have happily been per­mitted to see, and other generations will, I trust, witness it anew.

" Heartily desiring that in the life of your Royal Highness, every pri­vate and personal may be joined with every public blessing, I have the honor to remain, Sir, your Royal Highness's most dutiful and faithful servant, W. E. Gladstone. “H. R. H. the Prince Albert Victor."

The responsibility of forming a Conservative government was uneasily borne. After the death of the Earl of Beaconsfield, on the 19th of April, 1881, the leadership of the Conservative party had been assigned to the

580

Marquis of Salisbury. To him, according to the custom which had now become virtually constitutional, the queen must appeal. He was accord­ingly sent for and appointed prime minister. He succeeded in forming a Conservative ministry, and in June of 1885 became the head of the govern­ment. For the second time it was thus the fortune of the Conservative ministry to inherit from its predecessor a Liberal measure for the reform of Parliament. The Redistribution Bill, not yet a law, was carried over to

Conservative hands, and the new government had little difficulty in passing that measure through its final states.

The general election was now pending, and it was thought that the Conservatives would be able to make large gains. There was not a little astonishment when the result showed for them precisely the same number (two hundred and fifty-one) of members returned as they had elected more than five years before. The Liberals returned three hundred and thirty-three members; but the Home Rule contingent was now increased to eighty-

581

six members, so that the latter faction, now become a veritable party, held the balance of power. The Marquis of Salisbury found himself under the immediate and overwhelming necessity of securing the support of the Home Rulers, in order to conduct the government at all. Even with their full vote he could command, on a party question, only a majority of four. The support of the Home Rulers could be counted on provided the govern­ment would concede to them the practical recognition of their demands. On such condition they would support anybody, and almost any cause. The Home Rule contingent was completely in the hands of Mr. Parnell, who wielded it as he would.

Mr. Gladstone went out of office fully understanding the situation. He may be said to have been once more feeling his way. Would he himself ever become a Home Ruler? In September of 1885 he sent the customary address to the electors of Midlothian. In this he discussed the existing sit­uation of affairs. He called attention to the progress of events in Ireland, to the enlargement of the suffrage, to the advantage which the Irish had gained in making known their views in Parliament, and insisting upon them. He thought that the principal grievances of the Irish people had now been removed. He hoped even that the religious poison had been expelled from the Irish body politic. Nevertheless, there were still many wants of Ireland to be considered. For some reason that country had lagged behind Eng­land and Scotland. The power of local self-government did not seem to exist in Ireland, and yet that power was the foundation of political stability. The geographical position of Ireland and her historical antecedents sug­gested special claims on her part to a liberal application of the principle of self-government. He thought that the Liberals of both England and Scot­land must deduce their inspiration from higher fountains than those to which the Conservatives were now appealing. Within certain limits the desire of Ireland with regard to her method of government ought to receive the assent of Parliament. The supremacy of the crown and the unity of the empire must be preserved. To recognize this principle was the duty of every rep­resentative of the people. It was necessary to settle in some prudent way the question that was now uppermost in Great Britain.

In conclusion Mr. Gladstone said: " I believe history and posterity will consign to disgrace the name and memory of every man, be he who he may, and on whichever side of the channel he may dwell, that, having the power to aid in an equitable settlement between Ireland and Great Britain, shall use that power, not to aid, but to prevent or retard it. If the duty of work­ing for this end cannot be doubted then I trust that, on the one hand, Ire­land will remember that she, too, is subject to the authority of reason and justice, and cannot always plead the wrongs of other days in bar of submis­sion to them ; and that the two sister kingdoms, aware of their overwhelm-

582

ing strength, will dismiss every fear except that of doing wrong, and will make yet another effort to complete a reconciling work, which has already done so much to redeem the past, and which, when completed, will yet redound to the honor of our legislation and our race."

In these utterances it was easy to read between the lines. In fact, the Conservatives as well as the Liberals thought that they beheld the hand­writing on the wall. Lord Salisbury sought as much as he deemed expedi­ent to advance in the direction of what was very vaguely called Home Rule. For a while it was thought that the ex-prime minister and the present head of the government would perhaps combine in the formulation of some meas­ure that might express the best thought of England regarding the claims of Ireland. A report got abroad that the question of the expediency of the union of the two great parties in such an effort was debated in the cabinet, and that Lord Carnarvon, Viceroy for Ireland, had supported the proposition. He had taken his present office for a limited period, and when his views did not prevail he resigned. Lord Randolph Churchill also, according to rumor, was favorable to the proposition of a united effort of the parties, and the Marquis of Salisbury himself was supposed to have a leaning in that direc­tion. But the majority, to whom the ascendancy of party meant everything opposed the suggested policy, and the opportunity was allowed to pass.

If the Conservatives were thus embarrassed with the situation so also were the Liberals. In that party there were evidences of disagreement. There was no unanimity anywhere on the question of Home Rule, except among the Irish representatives. Mr. Gladstone's precise attitude was un­known. Home Rule had never been exactly defined, and it remained for somebody to define it. It was apparent that as soon as the definition should be given there would be abundance of disagreement, and the disagreement would not be confined to any party. Mr. John Morley, an independent, spoke at Chelmsford, saying that he was favorable to giving home rule to Ireland in the way of an Assembly, to legislate for that country on all ques­tions except imperial measures. The Parliament of Great Britain should be imperial. As the case now stood imperial legislation was impeded by obstruction, and this was done in order to keep the grievances of Ireland in the foreground. It was the duty of the Liberal party to settle the question of Home Rule, and to do it at once.

Other speakers held other views. Lecky, the historian, said that this movement for local self-government in Ireland was really the entering wedge for an independent Parliament in that country and the consequent dismem­berment of the British Empire. Other speakers held an intermediate posi­tion between the two extremes. There were symptoms of a scale of opinions reaching all the way from zero to infinity. The only common opinion was that something must be done for Ireland. A secondary opinion was that so

583

far as personal agency was concerned William E. Gladstone was more com­petent than any other to prepare a scheme of home rule for Ireland that might have some chance of success.

That statesman was studying the question, but for the time he said little. It was thought that the government would have been glad to get his opinions. He prudently stood aside in the after part of 1885 and awaited the issue. Indeed, he became reticent. A deputation from Belfast was .. about to call upon him to use his influence in suppressing the Land League before granting any measure of self-government. Mr. Gladstone replied that he could not become a competitor with her majesty's government in the matter of their responsibility, and that he did not desire to make proposals with reference to Irish legislation. The deputation accordingly called on Lord Salisbury, and received from him the general assurance that the min- isters would be true to their responsibilities. The prime minister put a bold front on the matter, and went to his task at the opening of Parliament Jan- nary 12, 1886.

The address of the queen, who opened the session in person, was at-tended to with profound interest. All that her majesty said about foreign affairs may here be omitted, but the part relating to Ireland we give in full. "I have seen," said her majesty, "with deep sorrow the renewal of the attempt to incite the people of Ireland to hostility against the legislative union between that country and Great Britain. I am resolutely opposed to any disturbance of that fundamental law, and, in resisting it, I am convinced that I shall be heartily supported by my Parliament and my people. The social no less than the material, condition of that country engages my anxious attention. Although there has been during the last year no marked increase of serious crime there is in many places a concerted resistance to the en- forcement of legal obligations, and I regret that the practice of organized intimidation continues to exist. I have caused every exertion to be used for the detection and punishment of these crimes, and no effort will be spared on the part of my government to protect my Irish subjects in the exercise of their legal rights and the enjoyment of individual liberty. If, as my in- formation leads me to apprehend, the existing provisions of the law should prove to be inadequate to cope with these growing evils, I look with confi- dence to your willingness to invest my government with all necessary powers."

The tone of her majesty's address was a surprise to all who were not in the secrets of the government. It appears that Lord Salisbury had concluded, as between the two extremes of bearing a whip or an olive branch to Ireland, to take the whip. He would try the whip first. Of course the prime minister had devised the address. It was thought for the time that the scare about undoing what her majesty called the legislative union

584

between Great Britain and Ireland could be used to good advantage, and that the rest might be accomplished by coercion, pure and simple. Cer­tainly there was no conciliation, much less home rule, in the address from the throne.

No sooner had the address been read than the question was, “What shall we do with it?" Neither Mr. Gladstone nor other leaders of his party, nor yet they of the Irish party, would make any formal statement of their views. Hereupon it was proposed by Lord Randolph Churchill to postpone the debate on the address and to take up the question of the new rules of parliamentary procedure. He also said that the bringing in at this juncture, or any juncture, of a measure for the establishment, or permission to estab­lish, a separate Parliament for Ireland was not to be anticipated. When this was proposed—as it seemed to be the putting aside of the Irish ques­tion altogether—Mr. Gladstone said that the questions relating to Ireland were of an extraordinary kind, and must be met.

There was a refusal to close the debate on the address. Mr. Sexton, speaking for the Irish party, said that they who were favorable to coercion had no cause. Boycotting was an alternative of outrage. The members of the National party represented fully five sixths of the Irish people. It was the duty of Ireland to declare and to redeclare her grievances. This done, the responsibility rested with the government. There was no intention on the part of the Irish Nationalist party to attack the integrity of the British Empire. The supremacy of the crown was acknowledged, and the paramount authority of the English Parliament.

In answer to these arguments Mr. Hugh Holmes, Attorney-General for Ireland, contended that the paragraph in the queen's speech was fully justified. It had proceeded from the fact that there was a systematic at­tempt in Ireland to adopt a remedy for alleged grievances outside of the law. This could not be tolerated. Amendments were offered to the ad­dress by several members, and some of these were nearly being adopted.

The event soon showed that the government really intended to take a high-handed course on the Irish question. On the 26th of January, 1886, notice was given of the intention to introduce a bill for the suppression of the National League and other associations that were regarded as dan­gerous. The other parts of the measure, the prime minister said, would in­clude the protection of life and property, the restoration of public order, and a clause for the prevention of intimidation. Already, however, it was believed that the government was going straight to defeat. There was confusion in both parties, and neither could be confident of success. There was a dispo­sition on the part of the Conservatives to hold up their policy by declaring that it was intended to support public order in Ireland. Mr. Chamberlain, at the head of one division of the Liberal party, made a speech declaring it

585

to be the duty of the Liberals at the earliest practicable moment to give attention to the condition of agricultural laborers. He said that he approved of a bill for local representation in Ireland, with officers elected by the payers, and a provision for taking land for public purposes at a fair price, whether the landlords were assenting or not.

' an This view of the case was supported by Mr. Jesse Collings, who offered amendment expressing regret that no measures were announced by her majesty "for the present relief of these classes [meaning the proprietors of small holdings], and especially for affording facilities to the agricultural laborers and others in the rural districts to obtain allotments and small holdings on equitable terms as to rent and security of tenure" This amendment was supported by Mr. Chaplin and opposed by a member the government.

At this juncture Mr. Gladstone appeared in the arena, saying that he also was in favor of the amendment as a remedy, without, however, entering into a discussion of agricultural depression or the difficulties of the peasant proprietaries. He thought it essential, in order to revive social and industrial life in the local communities of Ireland, that some measure of the kind pro- posed by Mr. Collings should be adopted as a remedy. Other members spoke on the question, and when the vote was taken it showed a majority of no fewer than seventy-nine against the government. The decision of the House ivas fatal to the existing order. The government of Lord Salisbury expired after an existence of only eight months, and all things were again in the sea The next question was the constitution of a new Liberal government. How should that be done? Expressions were heard favorable to a coalition. cabinet, but this view did not prevail. Mr. Gladstone was sent for by the queen, and for the third time accepted the place of prime minister. Earl Spencer was named as President of the Council; Mr. Childers as Home Secretary; the Earl of Rosebery as Foreign Secretary; Earl Granville as Secretary for the Colonies; Earl Kimberley as Secretary for India; Mr. Campbell-Bannerman as Secretary for War; Sir William Vernon Harcourt as Chancellor of the Exchequer; the Marquis of Ripon as First Lord of the Admiralty; Mr. Trevelyan as Secretary for Scotland; Mr. Mundella as President of the Board of Trade; Mr. Joseph Chamberlain as President of the Local Government Board; Mr. Charles Russell as Attorney-General: Mr.John Morley as Chief Secretary for Ireland; and the Earl of Aberdeen as Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

586

587

In the constitution of this cabinet Mr. Gladstone adhered to the Liberal ranks but conceded much to differences of opinion. There were not wanting an antagonism of views between certain of the ministers, but it was believed that these might be reconciled. As to the Irish cause, the sentiment of the government relative thereto might be known from the appointment of John Morlet as Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was a Radical Liberal, favor- able to Home Rule. In the interval necessary for the reelection of the ministers a serious labor trouble occurred in London. The workingmen had been of late sub- jected to great wrongs by the prevailing system. Employees, by organiza- tion and the use of sweaters for middlemen, had succeeded in reducing wages and imposing long hours on labor, to such an extent that the masses who occupied the tenement houses were barely able to subsist. There appeared at this time an organization called the "Revolutionary Social Democratic League." This society had its propaganda and its speakers. The draff and offal of London were drawn in the wake. A meeting of about twenty thousand persons was held in Trafalgar Square. It appears that the Revolutionary Democrats got possession of this meeting and secured an adjournment of its more orderly elements. They then marched to Hyde Park, and on the way stoned the windows of clubhouses, shops, and even private residences. In Piccadilly they plundered the shops and destroyed what they could not take with them.

The meeting in Hyde Park was a mob, and the crowd there gathered went away committing outrages in the streets. The police were not out in sufficient numbers to reduce the riot. It was estimated that property to the value of about fifty thousand pounds was destroyed by the rioters. The cheif commissioner of police resigned under pressure of public opinion, and the new officer who came in his place adopted measures of unreasonable severity, going so far as to interdict processions and public meetings alto- gether. It was found subsequently that the criminal rioters had not been workingmen, but merely the off scouring of society availing itself of an opportunity. During the tendency of the ministerial elections there was much public speaking. Already Mr. Gladstone was assailed both from within and with- out the party of which he was the head. The speakers against him, including Mr. Chamberlain, were able to appeal to almost every political prejudice prevailing in Great Britain. The general contention was that the measure of Home Rule which the prime minister was said to contemplate would lead to the disruption of the British empire. It was not long until Mr. Cham- berlain and Mr. Trevelyan, holding this opinion, resigned their places in the government. It was thus that the faction sprang into existence which was designated as the Liberal Union party. Meanwhile Mr. Gladstone kept his

588

own counsel and went ahead with the excogitation of his plan for a system of Home Rule. We may pass over as of small importance the budget which was presented at the ensuing session of Parliament by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It covered the usual specifications of revenue and expenditure, and differed not much in its manner from the usual budgets of the last fifteen years.

We now arrive at the 8th of April, 1886. William E. Gladstone was in his seventy-seventh year. His health had not of late been as good as usual • but his rugged constitution still supported him at an age when most men would have shrunk from all onerous duty and responsibility. Not so, how­ever, with the son of Sir John Gladstone. He came to the ordeal with the manner and strength of a man in middle life. On the date mentioned memorable in our times, he brought into the House of Commons his Home Rule Bill. This He arose and propounded in a great address which held the attention for more than three hours, not only of the British Parliament, not only of the United Kingdom, but of almost the whole civilized world. The speech was disseminated by telegraph throughout the country and under the sea. Allowing for the difference in time it was read with interest in verbatim report by thousands in America on the hour of its delivery, or even before!

In the speech the prime minister set forth with his usual cogency the provisions and applications of his bill. In the beginning he expressed his regret at the impossibility of entering on the whole of the Irish policy of the government. The land question was a part- of that policy, and was insepa­rable there from. The first duty of the government, the prime minister thought, was to face the Irish question boldly, to come to close quarters with it, to make no feints in the matter that was now uppermost. For his part he would set forth without disguise the proposals which he believed would establish the right relations between Great Britain and Ireland. He thought the agrarian crimes in the latter country to be no more than a symptom of a deep-seated evil, and a coercive legislation was at best no more than repressive, and not curative. If like conditions had existed in England and Scotland like consequences would have followed. The time had now come when, if coercion should be still employed as a remedy, it must be of a different kind. It must be downright coercion, enforced with resolute purpose and with the sword. The people of Great Britain would not resort to such coercion until they had exhausted every other expedient. The speaker went on to show by statistics that all crimes, includ­ing agrarian crimes, in Ireland had fallen off under natural causes during the last sixty years to a remarkable degree. This betterment had not been effected, therefore, by the exceptional coercive legislation. This he proved by the facts; for at those times when coercion had been adopted the

589

590

improvement had not been as considerable as at other times. Coercion was no more than a medicine. Neither men nor nations could subsist on medicine. The situation in Ireland as it respected agrarian crime was habitual, and the coercive laws had not cured the habit.

The speaker next took up the question of preserving the unity of the empire. Coercion did not conduce to the imperial unity. Neither did it restore social order and promote liberty. The question was how to recon­cile the imperial unity with diversity of legislation. This question had been solved by Great Britain in the case of Scotland. It had also been solved by other nations. It would not tend to dismemberment of the imperial union to allow of legislative diversity. The proposition which the govern­ment would now propose was based on this principle. He would propose the creation of a legislative body to sit in Dublin, to legislate for Ireland, and to control the administration in that country. As to the empire, its unity should be secured. Minorities should be protected. Those who were interested in land (meaning the landlords), those in the civil service, and those attached to the government, and what might be designated as the Protestant minority in Ireland, should all receive adequate protection. The condition of affairs in Ulster presented peculiar difficulties; but this also should be met with adequate remedies.

In the constitution of the Irish Parliament the Irish peers and the Irish members in the British Parliament could not be allowed to continue in the latter relation. The general power of taxing should be relinquished by the imperial Parliament, and should go to the Parliament of Ireland. Customs and excise duties should be retained by the imperial government. The new legislative body, though having autonomy in Irish affairs, should be still under the prerogative of the crown. It should have no power to legis­late on questions affecting the crown or the succession. Questions of national defense, questions touching the army and the navy, and, indeed, all imperial questions, would be out of the province of the Irish legislature. Foreign questions, colonial questions, and questions proposing to endow or establish any religious body should be forbidden.

The Irish Parliament should consist of two Houses, each having power of a veto over the acts of the other. There should be twenty-eight repre­sentative peers, and seventy-five other members on whom a property quali­fication should rest of two hundred pounds a year. These should be chosen for a period of ten years, and the electors should have a qualification of twenty-five pounds a year. The second order of representatives should be two hundred and four in number, of which one hundred and three should be borough members, county members, and university members, and one hun­dred and one others should be variously distributed. The term period in this House should be five years. The chief executive, that is, the viceroy,

592

should remain as at present until some other order should be established. The viceroy should have his privy council, and should not be subject to change with the legislative government. If the present judges should re­tire they might be pensioned. The present constabulary should be con­tinued under the existing authority. Ultimately the police regulations of Ireland should be determined by the legislature of that country. The finan­cial aspects of the question were then discussed, and a demonstration offered that the new arrangement would be equitable to all concerned.

In presenting this great, almost revolutionary, scheme of reform, Mr. Gladstone stood boldly to his colors. The interest was great; but there were many signs that the plan proposed would not be acceptable to a ma­jority of the House. The defection from the Liberal ranks continued. Many went off with Mr. Chamberlain, on the ground that the measure proposed tended to disintegrate the British Empire. Public meetings began to be held. Some members of the government took part in them, and many of the Liberal following became timid in the support of the Home Rule Bill. The tone of the Liberal newspapers was uncertain, and the general alarm was no doubt heightened by the triumphant and outspoken graduations of the Home Rulers and Radical Liberals.

Mr. Gladstone made haste to follow up the Home Rule Bill with his Land Purchase Bill which had been promised. This was presented in the House of Commons on the 16th of April. It was set forth as a necessary part of the general scheme of reform. It contemplated the compensation of absentee landlords, to whose tyrannous exactions the greater part of the evils of Ireland must be referred. For nearly two centuries this tribe of landlords had become more and more detached from their tenants. They hardly ever visited their own estates. They managed them by agents who conducted the rent offices without regard to the interests of any but their masters. Mr. Gladstone set forth in full the provisions of the Land Purchase Bill, so that the whole question was now before Parliament and the people.

On the 10th of May the prime minister moved the second reading of the Home Rule Bill, and the debates became excited and prolonged. The Irish leaders announced their adhesion to the scheme, and declared that they and the Irish people would faithfully observe the letter and the spirit of the proposed Act. The opponents of the bill still held to the main point that the measure would impair the imperial union. Lord Hartington, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Goschen were of this following, and their party grew. The debate continued until the 7th of June, and was concluded by Mr. Glad­stone. The question then went to a division, and the bill was defeated by a majority of thirty. The analysis of the vote showed that the Liberal Unionists had gone over in a body to the Conservatives, thus putting the government in almost a hopeless minority. It remained either to resign or

593

go to the country. The latter course was adopted, and on the 25th of June Parliament was dissolved. Her majesty's message said that the dissolution was declared "in order to ascertain the sense of my people upon the impor­tant proposal to establish a legislative body in Ireland for the management of Irish as distinguished from imperial affairs."

So the two parties, or rather the four parties, appealed to the country. It was an epoch of Gog and Magog. On the 14th of June, Mr. Gladstone sent his address to the electors of Midlothian, saying among other things some method of governing Ireland other than coercion ought, as I thought, to be sought for and might be found. I therefore viewed without regret the fall of the late cabinet, and when summoned by her majesty to form a new one I undertook it on the basis of an ant coercion policy, with the fullest explanation to those whose aid I sought as colleagues that I proposed to

examine whether it might be possible to grant to Ireland a domestic legislature, under conditions such as to maintain the honor and consolidate the unity of the empire. Two clear, positive, intelligible plans are before the world. There is the plan of the government and there is the plan of Lord unity of the empire. Two clear, positive, intelligible plans are before the world. There is the plan of the government and there is the plan of Lord , * ** Salisbury. Our plan is that Ireland should, under well-considered conditions, transact her own affairs. His plan is to ask Parliament for new repressive laws and to enforce them resolutely for twenty years, at the end of which time he assures us that Ireland will be ready to accept any gifts in the way of local government or the repeal of coercion laws that you may wish to give her."

All classes of political ideas were now advanced with vehemence and many of them supported with great ability. On the whole the tide set against the Liberals, or at least against the Gladstonian Liberals, and the result showed the defeat of the government and its overthrow. Three hundred and sixteen Conservatives were returned, against one hundred and- ninety-one Gladstonians. Seventy-eight Liberal Unionists were chosen, and eighty-five Parnellites. The combined force of the latter and the Gladstonians was only two hundred and seventy-six. Of those who had voted for the Home Rule Bill, numbering two hundred and thirty-one thirty-eight failed of reelection. The decision was emphatic, and Mr. Glad- stone at once resigned his office, advising the queen to appoint Lord Salis- bury in his stead.

This was accordingly done, though not without some shuffling. A movement was made to have Lord Hartington named as prime minister, with the intention of forming a coalition cabinet. It is said that Lord Salisbury offered to take office in such a government, but Lord Hartington declined the proposal, and Lord Salisbury became for the second time premier. Sir Stafford Northcote (afterward Lord Iddesleigh) was appointed Foreign Secretary; Mr. William Henry Smith, Secretary for War; Lord

594

George Hamilton, First Lord of the Admiralty; Sir Michael Hicks-Beach Secretary for Ireland; the Marquis of Londonderry, Viceroy of Ireland-Lord Ashbourne, Irish Chancellor; Mr. Henry Matthews, Home Secretary' and Lord Randolph Churchill, Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Parliament was again convened in August of 1886. The Conservatives had the government, but they hardly knew what to do with it. Presently

however, the purpose was openly advanced of reducing Ireland to submission by coercive measures. A military force was sent into the west and south of that country to put down what was called the reign of terror. It was given out as a supposed panacea that the government would expend a con­siderable sum in improving the drainage of the country! Thus the Irish whale was to be satisfied with a tub!

Mr. Gladstone reappeared in the House and spoke a few words

of four and a half to one, and in Wales by five to one. In England, how-ever, the decision was the other way, the opponents of Home Rule having three hundred and thirty-six representatives against one hundred and twenty- 595

seriously and temperately on the attitude of the government, and then took no further part for the present in what was done. He decided on a short vacation, and soon set out with his family for a tour in Bavaria. Before leaving the country, however, he made two additional publications, which were written with his accustomed vigor and patriotism. The first was entitled The History of an Idea. In this pamphlet he recited the story of the growth and development of the notion of local self-government for Ireland. The second publication was entitled Lessons of the Election. In this he sought to show—and did show—by analysis the exact character of the verdict recently rendered by the British nation. He demonstrated that the vote in Scotland was in the ratio of three to two in favor of the Home Rule policy. In Ireland the same verdict was rendered in the ratio nine in favor of that measure. Mr. Gladstone held stoutly to the correctness of his policy and predicted that the same would ultimately be approved by public opinion, not only in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, but in England also.

At this time there were many public expressions in Mr. Gladstone's favor. It was seen that the election had turned upon fear, the fear of the English voters, which had been aroused by the appeals of the Conservatives. In many public assemblies the Gladstonian policy was enthusiastically approved, so that it may be said that Mr. Gladstone retired from his third ascendancy enveloped in the good will of the people.

The year 1887 completed the fiftieth year of the reign of Victoria. Such an event was not likely to go by unobserved. Not often had t happened in English history that the fiftieth year of a sovereign's reign could be celebrated. The reigning queen was popular with her subjects, particularly with the upper third of English society. Her semicentennial was duly celebrated wherever the banner of St. George is the ensign of authority. The acme of the fetes was on the 21st of June that being the anniversary of the queen's accession. The principal scene of the home celebration was in the Abbey of Westminster. Thither on the appointed day came the queen, under conduct of her sons, her sons-in-law, and her grandsons as a guard of honor. About ten thousand persons participated in the ceremonies at the Abbey. Representatives were present with congratulations from all the reigning houses in Europe and from most of the governments in the New World. London was splendidly decorated, as were all the principal cities of the United Kingdom. The poet laureate, who had now been raised to the peerage with the title of Baron Tennyson, honored the occasion with a personal poem addressed to her majesty. From London

597

asacenter the jubilee spirit extended to all the British colonies of the world. From the foothills of Burmah to the mountains of British Columbia, looking down to the Pacific, the queen's name and reign were commemorated with congratulations and festivals.

The government party in Parliament was now made up of the Conserv­atives proper plus the Liberal Unionists. That party was opposed by the Liberals proper plus the Parnellites. But the government was strong enough to carry out its policy with a strong hand. No protests could prevail against it. Some members of the cabinet refused to follow in the rake and resigned. Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was of this number, and his place was assigned to Mr. Arthur James Balfour, who became Secretary for Ireland in 1887 and remained in office for four years. It was under his reign that the policy of repression was carried out.

A series of measures was now enacted, one of the principal of which was the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, introduced by Mr. Balfour, on the 21st of March, 1887. The general intent of the bill was to confer on the authorities extraordinary powers of suppression, as it respected persons, asso­ciations, and public meetings. In fact, the proposed law was inimical to civil liberty, and this fact was pointed out in the debates. In the month of April a great demonstration was held in Hyde Park, in remonstrance against the bill, and a hundred thousand people were said to have been present. By the time the measure came to a vote Mr. Gladstone had returned from the Continent, and was in the House on the occasion. He did not speak, but when the vote was taken he arose and walked out to be counted with the Home Rulers. His appearance and his vote were loudly cheered by his fol­lowers. The government measure was carried, and in the July following eighteen counties in Ireland were put under the severe provisions of the Act.

On the 31st of March in this year the Conservative Irish Land Bill was brought before the Commons. A commission had been sent out to inquire into the condition of Ireland, and this commission had made its report, which was used as the basis of the proposed law. Mr. Parnell declared when the measure was read that the scheme of the enemies of Ireland was now revealed in all of its native dishonesty. The debate was hot, but the gov­ernment measure was put through the House and became a law. We may remark that such bills were never seriously questioned in the House of Lords.

As soon as the Land Bill was passed Mr. Balfour made a proclamation tothe effect that the National League was itself a dangerous association, pr- coming under the provisions of the Crimes Bill, and might therefore be sup- essed. The veteran Gladstone was at this time on the alert for what he re- garded as the dangerous movements of the government. On the 25th of

598

August, 1887, he moved an address to the crown, praying for the withdrawal of Mr. Balfour's proclamation. He said that before such a proclamation could be justified the evidence of such justification must be laid before Par­liament. The Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had failed to present such evidence. In the absence of it the proclamation amounted to the destruction of all the safeguards of liberty. The proclamation was not by its own terms against

crime in Ireland, but it was directed to combinations of the people, as though all such combinations were in themselves criminal. Trial by jury and the habeas corpus were both proclaimed away by Mr. Balfour. Every­thing was left to the irresponsible will of the Irish executive.

To this Mr. Balfour made answer, bringing forward the report of the late commission, as though that partial document were the justification of his proceedings. He openly declared that it had not been deemed expedi-

599

ent to denounce the Land League until after the passage of the Land Act. Now it was expedient to declare the National League itself a dangerous association. Mr. Gladstone's protest was without avail, and the govern­ment measure was sustained.

We here enter the epoch when the Irish leaders were subjected to the greatest persecutions. Not one of them was spared. Every pretext was eagerly sought to arrest them and get them into prison or exile. Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Mandeville, and indeed every leader against whom any pretext of prosecution could be devised, was arrested or driven from the country. Mr. Parnell was the object of the bitterest hatred. His abili­ties were preeminent above the rest. His patriotism was unblemished, his influence great and increasing. Just after the passage of the Crimes Act and the Irish Land Bill of 1887 the Conservative powers concentrated their are on Parnell, and the acme was reached by the publication in the London Times of a series of articles entitled “Parnellism and Crime."

The purpose of the publications was to prove that Parnell had been connected with the assassins of Lord Cavendish and Mr. Burke, in Phoenix Park. In order to establish this monstrous conclusion a letter was pub­lished in facsimile, bearing Mr. Parnell's signature, in which it was clearly indicated that he was connected with the crimes referred to and in sympa­thy with the perpetrators. The letter was addressed to Patrick Egan, well known in America, who was at that time in Nebraska. Mr. Egan at once sent a telegram declaring that he had never received such a letter. Mr. Par­nell in the House of Commons denounced it as an atrocious falsehood. Nevertheless, the Times persisted in indorsing the letter and the charges it contained. The document was of such a character as to bear its own brand of infamy; but this was overlooked by those whose interest it was to hound down the great Irish leader.

The letter, that is, the body of the letter, occupied the first page of a sheet of note paper, and Avas crowded at the bottom, as though there were want of space to complete what the writer was saying. Then at the top of the fourth page of the note paper were the words, "Yours very truly, Chas. S. Parnell." The letter in this form would not have been admitted in any court in Christendom as substantial evidence against a dog; but no denial on Mr. Parnell's part could stay the tide of vituperation and slander.

Not to be thus destroyed, Mr. Parnell brought suit against the London Times for damages in the sum of a hundred thousand pounds, the charges being malicious libel. The cause came on for trial before Lord Chief Jus­tice Coleridge and a special jury in the Queen's Bench. Meanwhile the man Richard Pigott, from whom the Times had obtained the forged letter, was brought to London to testify. An examination into his character proved that he was an unmitigated scoundrel. The fact was presently brought out

600

that the Times had paid him for the letter two thousand five hundred and thirty pounds! Presently, in the house of Mr. Labouchere, Pigott confessed, in the presence of witnesses, that he had forged the letter himself. Fearing

to come to cross-examination, he fled to Madrid, where, on the 10th of March, 1889, he rid the world of a monster by killing himself.

Itwas quite useless to try such a cause before Lord Chief Justice Cole­ridge. On the 3d of February, 1890, when the cause was called, the counsel for the Times indicated to the judges that it was not necessary to argue the question of damages. They told their honors that Mr. Parnell had agreed to accept five thousand pounds as damages, the Times to pay all the costs

601

of the proceeding's. A verdict was rendered accordingly, and Mr. Parnell Went out in triumph. Nor may we pass from this episode and dismiss from consideration Charles Stewart Parnell without an expression of profound regret for the domestic difficulties in which he was presently involved, and the advantage which was taken thereof to effect his political ruin. In November of 1890 Captain O'Shea was granted a divorce from his wife on allegations affecting Mr. Parnell's relations with her. The circumstances were of the kind most available in political warfare, and at the instance of the Liberal leaders Mr. Parnell was deposed from the leadership of his own party, although he refused to accept that verdict and received the support of a large and faithful minority unto the date of his death, October 6, 1891.

Between the years 1888 and 1891 Mr. Gladstone appeared from time to time in the House of Commons, where he was always received with those marks of distinction which are the due of recognized greatness. Occasion ally he spoke, always with moderation and always with his accustomed force and eloquence. When the report of a commission which had been appointed to investigate the accusers of Mr. Parnell and his friend, but had turned. about to investigate the complainants, was made in Parliament Mr. Glad-stone spoke emphatically on the subject, demanding that the entries on the books of the House should contain expressions of regret for the groundless and scandalous charges which had been made against the Irish members. His demand, however, was refused, and the report of the partial commission was accepted by the usual majority, not, however, until Lord Randolph Churchill had flared up and denounced the course of the government as tortuous and iniquitous.

In December of 1889 Mr. Gladstone completed his eightieth year. The event was celebrated at Hawarden and was observed at many other places. He was still sound in mind and body. He exhibited in his public and' private intercourse the manners which he had borne for more than half a century, showing, however, a measure of care and prudence which were quite necessary at that advanced period of his life. He was still able, out at Hawarden, to go abroad on his estate, to gather flowers, of which he was always fond, and to chop wood. His ability in this respect was remarked upon in a tradition almost as universal as that relating to Abraham Lincoln as a splitter of rails.

The aged statesman meanwhile kept up an unabated interest in public affairs, and whenever an issue of importance was on in Parliament there was William E. Gladstone in the midst. The administration of the Marquis of Salisbury extended from August of 1886 to August of 1892, a period of six years. It was a long government, not wanting in ability. Its policy was throughout reactionary; the whole force of the administration was directed to the obliteration, as far as possible, of the Irish cause. It may not be

602

denied that this course was in a large measure successful. The policy of repression prevailed. The condition of the Irish tenants was hardly less deplorable when order was restored by force than it had been before. In

fact, the government of Lord Salisbury, according to the old proverb, made a waste in Ireland and called it peace.

The immigration of the Irish people to America seemed to be about the only remaining remedy. Landlordism was reestablished in almost its pristine abusiveness and injustice. Eviction flourished again, and the con­stable was reinforced with the battering ram. The power of Great Britain, exercised by a Conservative ministry in full accord with the crown, and

603

administered for the greater part of the period by Mr. Balfour, was meas­ured out in Ireland with rod and cord. The protests of the aged states­man of Hawarden and his fellow-Liberals were disregarded—though not disregarded in America. It cannot be doubted that in our own country a great part of the popularity which William E. Gladstone always enjoyed must be attributed to the fact that he was the conspicuous champion of Home Rule in Ireland—a cause that has always appealed to our people, and not in vain.

By the year 1890 Mr. Gladstone, now for more than three years in opposition, had strong hopes of recovering the reins from the hands of the Conservatives. Doubtless he was no longer actuated by personal ambitions, but the failure of the Home Rule Bill in 1886 was a thorn in his flesh. It began to be seen that the by-elections were favorable to the beaten cause. The majority of one hundred and thirteen which the Conservatives had been able to muster at the beginning of the Salisbury ascendancy was now seen to crumble away little by little. Moreover, the Liberal Unionists began to lose ground. Sir George Trevelyan, Mr. Caine, and other leaders returned to the Liberal fold. Everything seemed to be going well when that unfortunate affair of Parnell's was blown abroad, and the suit of Captain O'Shea was instituted, naming the Irish leader as co-respondent.

Parnell hereupon put himself in the attitude of saying that his domestic difficulty was not the concern of those who were associated with him in public life; but such is the temper of the British nation that Parnell's dilemma was precisely the thing to be used ad odium, not only against him- self, but also against his political associates. It was of course very becoming in the London Times, which had recently paid more than two thousand pounds for what was on the face of it a forged communication, had published it as genuine, and had then paid five thousand pounds damages for the crime, now to proclaim that Parnell, for his sin, should be driven from. the Irish leadership, and that Gladstone, the Liberal leader, could no longer associate with him in public affairs.

This hollow cant was taken up with great effect by all the Conservative organs and reuttered by the speakers of that following. It was so effective that on the 24th of November, 1890, Mr. Gladstone deemed it prudent to write a letter to Mr. John Morley, saying that he had arrived at the conclusion that Mr. Parnell should resign the leadership of the Irish party, and indicating Mr. Justin McCarthy as his successor. The letter was not intended to be public, but through some bungling it got to the public and precipitated on Parnell the necessity of resigning or of breaking with the Liberals, upon whom his hopes for the success of his cause depended. He would not resign, but was deposed by a majority. A large part of the Irish party stood with him in the day of his downfall, and, as we have said, to the

604

day of his death. The Irish party was thus rent in twain, and one of those forces upon which Mr. Gladstone had depended was almost destroyed by the schism. Such was the discouragement of the situation that it was be­lieved he himself would retire finally from the conflict. But he had other opinion of his duty, and still hoped for success.

It was at this juncture, when Mr. Gladstone was in his eighty-first year,

that a bill was brought into the House of Commons to remove the restric­tion by which Roman Catholics were interdicted from the offices of Lord Chancellor and Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. This was the last remnant of the ancient discriminations against adherents of the mother Church, and Mr. Gladstone came to the support of the measure as a part of the policy to which he had devoted the greater part of his public life. When it was known that he would speak, the House, although it was in the afternoon,

605

was crowded, as it always was when Gladstone was to be the central figure On this occasion he spoke for more than an hour, with no symptom of weak­ness or indication of that break in logical power that frequently comes to the aged. It was declared at the time that the speech in question would have made an ordinary parliamentary reputation sufficient for a lifetime. The appeal, however, could not prevail against the large Conservative majority. At the close of this year the Liberal leaders were for the most part

discouraged, but Mr. Gladstone was not of that number. He still waited for the reaction of public opinion which he felt sure would soon arrive. The incidental elections continued to indicate a failure of the Conservative strength. The year 1891 was the epoch of the decline of that party. Mr. Balfour for one thing wearied at last of beating down the Irish, and resigned his place as chief secretary. Hereupon he was made, as if in reward, the first lord of the treasury and Conservative leader of the House of Commons. Meanwhile, the Liberals, Mr. Gladstone included, began to challenge the ministry on an appeal to the country. Lord Salisbury seemed to fear such a movement. He persisted in his policy, but could hardly conceal from himself the reaction that was coming on.

606

The reaction worked in both ways: It was positive as it regarded a more favorable estimate of the Gladstonian project of Home Rule for Ireland. It was negative in that it no longer sustained the repressive policy of the government. It was not, however, until the 28th of June, 1892, that the dissolution of Parliament was finally declared and a general appeal made to the people. Mr. Gladstone himself went into the contest. His constituency of Midlothian had never abandoned him. Nearly all the leading Liberals were again in the field and waged an aggressive campaign. It was a win­ning fight. The election went against the Conservatives, who were able to return only two hundred and sixty-nine members. This was only eighteen more than they had elected fifteen years previously. The Liberal Unionists were now reduced to forty-six representatives, making the whole ministerial strength only three hundred and fifteen. The Liberals elected two hundred and seventy-four members, and the Home Rulers eighty-one, making a total in this combination of three hundred and fifty-five, or a majority of forty against the government.

This signified the return of the Liberals to power and the final ascendancy of Mr. Gladstone. It could not be doubted that he would soon again be summoned to the head of the government. Some symptoms of weak­ness, however, had to be noted. The Irish party was rent in twain as the result of the deposition of Mr. Parnell. By this schism the cause of Home Rule was greatly weakened. There was a want of unity among those who had been the champions of that cause. Besides, a new party, known as the Independent Labor party, with Mr. Keir Hardie—destined after three years to create by his presence and speeches a sensation in labor circles in America —at its head, appeared in the House, commanding a few determined votes.

It was on the 5th of August that the new Parliament was opened. The Conservative ministers had not yet resigned, and appeared loath to do so. When the address from the throne was delivered, and the usual motion made for adopting it, a vote of no confidence was sprung from the Liberal benches, and was debated with much vigor for three days, when the House divided, and the vote of no confidence was carried by a majority of forty! It was the end of the Salisbury government. The ministry at once resigned, and William E. Gladstone was for the fourth time called to be prime minister. The business of the session was speedily brought to a close, and Parliament was prorogued until the 1st of Feb­ruary, 1893.

The disruption of the Irish party and the weak-heartedness of many Liberals led to a vague belief that the cause of Home Rule would be aban­doned, and that the new Liberal government would take some other tack. Not so, however, thought Mr. Gladstone. He regarded the recent elections as decisive of the course which he should pursue. He spent the interval of

607

the prorogation in considering and maturing the measure concerning which he knew well enough the last great battle of his life was to be fought.

After the usual preliminaries at the opening of the session the prime

minister brought forward his second Home Rule Bill, and presented it in the House on the 14th of February, 1893. The scene was the repetition of the like event of 1886. Mr. Gladstone entitled his new measure "A Bill

608

for the Better Government of Ireland." The occasion was likely to be long remembered. History could hardly omit this hour in the life of the states­man now in his eighty-fourth year. For years and years, through evil report and good, he had struggled on, and had now come to the hour of apparent triumph. The hall of the House of Commons was packed to its utmost capacity. The galleries were occupied, and the corridors and throngs were thrust back who had no hope of gaining entrance. The Prince of Wales sat in the peers' gallery, with the young Duke of York on his left. The peers were out in full force. The diplomatic gallery was crowded. When Mr. Gladstone made his appearance the Liberal and Irish forces sprang to their feet. There was fear that the aged premier could not be heard; but his magnificent voice rang out as usual. His speech occupied more than two hours; but he showed no signs of failure. In one respect there was cause for anxiety. His eyesight had failed. One of his eyes was almost useless. Although such a proceeding was out of order, and indeed positively against the rules, Mr. Gladstone had Mr. John Morley as his assistant to read his notes, to which he made reference at intervals. Neither the speaker nor any member objected. It would have required a hard heart to do that. Mr. Gladstone began by saying that the bill of 1886 had been founded on five principles, and that the new bill which he was now to intro­duce would adhere to the same principles, subject only to certain important changes in detail. One of these changes was the retention of the Irish members in the imperial Parliament.

Again the prime minister recommended the establishment of an Irish legislature, authorized to legislate for Ireland in all matters relating exclu­sively to that country. Again he pointed out those elements of authority which should be reserved for the imperial Parliament. All questions relat­ing to the crown, to the viceroyalty, to war and peace, to the national de­fenses, to treaties, to the coinage, and to general commerce, should be reserved as matters for the imperial government. The Viceroy of Ireland should hold his office for six years, and should not be dependent on the in­coming and outgoing of cabinets. There should be a privy council in Ire­land, to assist the viceroy, who should have the right to give or withhold assent to bills of the Irish Parliament. Over this the veto of the sovereign should remain in full force.

The Irish legislature should consist of two bodies, a council and an assembly, and the speaker defined the numbers in each, their qualifications and the qualifications of electors. The existing constabulary should be

609

610

replaced in time by a new police, to be appointed by the legislature. The Irish members in the imperial Parliament should be reduced to eighty, and should be precluded from taking part in the divisions on such, bills or reso­lutions as affected only Great Britain or things or persons therein. The remainder of the bill differed not much from the provisions of the Home Rule bill of 1886.

Mr. Gladstone concluded his address with an eloquent peroration. He hoped that the controversy between the two countries would here and now be ended. He could himself never be a party to the transmission to the generations following of the heritage of discord—a discord that had run through seven centuries almost without cessation. Then he concluded with these words: " Sir, it would be a misery to me if I had omitted in these closing years any measures possible for me to take toward upholding and promoting what I believe to be the cause, not of one party nor of another, not of one nation nor another, but of all parties and all nations inhabiting these islands. ... Let me entreat you—if it were with my latest breath I would entreat you—to let the dead bury it’s dead. Cast behind you every recol­lection of bygone evils; cherish, love, and sustain one another through all the vicissitudes of human affairs in the times that are to come."

The bill was allowed to pass the first reading without a division of the House. Then followed four nights of debate, when the bill was formally presented, with great enthusiasm. Twelve nights more were consumed before the debates were ended, and the bill went to its second reading and was carried by a majority of forty-three votes. Then the measure went into committee and was there detained for a considerable period, the opponents of the bill resorting to every expedient to prevent its passage. Finally the closure was ordered, and the “Bill for the Better Government of Ireland " was passed. This was on the 1st of September, 1893. The final majority for the government was thirty-four, which, though it indicated a slight weakening here and there, was sufficiently emphatic; but the question was now, would the House of Lords ratify the decision of the Commons? And that question remained to be answered in the negative. The House Bill was at once taken up by the Lords, and after a debate which extended over three nights was rejected by the tremendous majority of three hundred and seventy-eight, only forty-one votes being cast in favor of the bill. The decision was reached on the 8th of September, 1893; the great work of William E. Gladstone's latest hope was suddenly swung into the air.

The effect of this action of the Lords on the Liberal party, and on Mr. Gladstone in particular, may well be imagined. It was the reversal of victory won. It was the undoing of the supreme labor of a great life. It was counting of no effect the voice of the British nation. It was, perhaps, of itself the strongest argument ever adduced for the total abolition of the

611

House of Lords, with the consequent remanding of the whole government of Great Britain to the hands of the people and their representatives.

Mr. Gladstone continued for a short time at the head of the government. On the 21st of September the House adjourned for a recess, nothing having resulted from its labor. The prime minister was hopeful that some-thing might yet be accomplished, and when the House reconvened on the

2d of November he brought in the English Local Government Bill and the Employers’ Liability Bill. Both of these measures were adopted by the House of Commons during the winter session; but the first was weighted down with amendments by the Lords and the latter so mutilated that it was cast aside without further action.

So the session dragged along, with little valuable work, until the 1st of March, 1894. By this time Mr. Gladstone's health (he had now passed his

612

eighty-fifth birthday) was considerably impaired; the strain of the last session had been too great, even for his iron constitution. His eyesight in particular had failed to a remarkable degree, and it became imperative for him to retire from public responsibility, and, indeed, from public life. His decision in this regard was made on the 1st of March in the year just named, and two days afterward he and Mrs. Gladstone drove down to Osborne, where for the fourth and last time he delivered to her majesty his seals of office as Prime Minister of Great Britain.

The queen for her part—according to common report—again offered to raise Mr. Gladstone to the peerage, with the title of earl; but he declined to be thus honored. He contented himself with recommending to her majesty that she send for Sir Archibald Philip Primrose, Fifth Earl of Rosebery, and commission him as prime minister. This was accordingly done, and the Liberal government was reorganized with Lord Rosebery at its head.

Nor may we pass from this dramatic conclusion of a great public life without noticing Mr. Gladstone's last utterance in the House of Commons. It was on the day when his own retirement was first formally announced. On that subject, however, Mr. Gladstone said nothing. A measure called the Parish Councils Bill was before the House, with an amendment which had come down from the House of Lords. Mr. Gladstone spoke briefly against the amendment, and in defense of the rights of the representatives of the people against the encroachments and obstructions which came from the hereditary chamber. He warned the House of Lords that their course with respect to the House of Commons, and the legislation proceeding there from, had reached such a point as to create an issue on which the people of Great Britain must soon be called to sit in judgment! With this warning flung at hereditary privilege William E. Gladstone, the great Liberal leader, whose voice had been heard for so many years in- the people's cause, in the advocacy of every progressive measure, and in the promotion of every movement in British society that looked to the enlargement of human rights and the confirmation of civil liberty, retired from the scene of his triumphs to lift his voice in those halls no more forever.