resolution of Mr. Gladstone by a direct negative, but not to support an amendment to gain time and keep the cards in the hands of ministers to shuffle just as convenience or exigency might suggest.

Mr. Gathorne Hardy followed on the next evening with a speech which deeply impressed the house by its eloquence and earnestness. It was probably as powerful an appeal as could well have been made for the maintenance of the Established Church in Ireland, the cry against which he declared was a party cry. This declaration failed to strengthen even if it did not injure the cause he was advocating. It may have helped to cancel the impression left by Lord Stanley's proposals, as Mr. Bright suggested that it was intended to do, but it had little effect on the subsequent attitude of the house. Mr. Bright replied to one portion of it by saying that the Episcopal Church in Ireland, so far from having made Catholics Protestants, had made Catholics more intensely Roman than they were in any other country of Europe.

Mr. Lowe attacked the ministry and their policy with effective criticism. The attempt to link together the Irish and the English Church was like that of the tyrant Mezentius, who fastened a dead to a living body. The effect would be not to revive the dead but to kill the living. The government, instead of initiating measures, threw out, like the cuttlefish of which we read in Victor Hugo's novels, all sorts of tentacula for the purpose of catching up something, which it might appropriate and make its own. The Irish Church was founded on injustice, on the dominant rights of the few over the many, and should not stand. It was called a missionary church, but if so its mission was not fulfilled. As a missionary church it had failed utterly; like some exotic brought from a far country, with infinite pains and useless trouble, it was kept alive with difficulty and expense in an ungrateful climate and an ungenial soil.

Mr. Disraeli rose to reply. There had been much that was personal in the remarks of Lord Cranborne, much that was pungent and irritating in the speech of Mr. Lowe, and with his knowledge of the political atmosphere he

must also have felt that he was fighting against almost certain defeat; but he could fight for a lost cause, and in retreat, with as much courage and address as most men display when they are advancing to victory. He turned sharply upon Lord Cranborne, who, he said, was at no time wanting in imputing to the government unworthy motives. The noble lord was a man of great talent, and there was great vigour in his language and no want of vindictiveness;-"I admit that now, speaking as a critic, and not perhaps as an impartial one, I must say I think it wants finish. Considering that the noble lord has studied the subject, and that he has written anonymous articles against me before and since I was his colleague,-I do not know whether he wrote them when I was his colleague,-I think it might have been accomplished more ad unguem." The references to Lord Cranborne's contributions to the Quarterly Review and other periodicals was telling, nor was the retort upon Mr. Lowe less so. "What is more remarkable than his learning and his logic, is that power of spontaneous aversion which particularly characterizes him. . . . He hates the working-classes of England. He hates the Roman Catholics of Ireland; he hates the Protestants of Ireland. He hates her majesty's ministers; and until the right honourable gentleman, the member for South Lancashire, placed his hand upon the ark, he seemed almost to hate the right honourable gentleman for South Lancashire." This was in the characteristic vein of the Disraeli of a good many years before, and perhaps the house was reminded of those days, for when the speaker went on to say that he had never attacked any one in his life, there arose cries of "Oh! oh!" and "Peel;" but when silence was regained the sentence concluded with, "unless I was first assailed." It was good heavy fencing of a sort; but what followed was more serious than fencing. He was, it may be supposed, thinking of the disposition of Irish Church endowments or grants which were under the royal authority when he intimated that his opponents were, he believed, about to seize upon the supreme authority of the realm, and announced that

he would to the utmost of his ability oppose

their attempts.

Mr. Gladstone afterwards said that there were portions of this speech which appeared to be due to the influence of a heated imagination; and the same explanation might have been given to a subsequent declaration made by Mr. Disraeli, that there were symptoms of a conspiracy between High Church ritualists and Irish Romanists, a confederacy in the hands of which the Liberation Society was a mere instrument. These representations, the first of which was made on the last night of the debate, were repeated with the remark about the Liberation Society, in a letter to a clergyman (one of Mr. Disraeli's constituents) who had asked for an explanation of the assertion made to the house.

That they were intended to apply personally to Mr. Gladstone cannot be safely assumed, but that a good many people did so apply them can scarcely be doubted.

The argument, that if the proposed plans for disestablishment should be adopted, nearly two-thirds of the property of the Irish Church would remain in the hands of its ministers, and that they would be placed in a position as free as those of any dissenting body in England, probably had some effect. Lord Stanley's amendment was lost by a majority of 61. The motion for going into committee was gained by a majority of 56, among whom were five Conservatives; seven Liberals voting against it. The majority in a house where only 33 votes were wanting was larger than had been anticipated. The Liberal party was remarkably united. Large meetings were held in various parts of the country; one at St. James' Hall, at which Earl Russell presided, was considered of great importance.

It may be mentioned that, in opposition to the proposed measure, various personal accusations were brought against Mr. Gladstone, to the effect, that when at Rome he made arrangements with the pope to destroy the church establishment in Ireland, and to make other changes, he being a Roman Catholic at heart: that he had publicly condemned all support to the clergy in the three kingdoms from church or public funds: that when at Bal

265

moral he refused to attend her majesty at Crathie Church: that he received the thanks of the pope for his proceedings respecting the Irish Church: that he was a member of a High Church ritualistic congregation. "These statements, one and all," wrote Mr. Gladstone, in a letter to the public journals, “are untrue in letter and in spirit, from the beginning to the end."

The Easter vacation arrived, and the measures which were to have been brought forward by the government were suspended. When the house again met some of the business was pushed on, the budget was brought forward, the results of the Abyssinian war were announced, and the ministry gave no sign of their intentions. After eleven nights' discussion a division took place on Mr. Gladstone's first resolution, and the majority against the government was 65. Mr. Disraeli then stated that this vote of the committee altered the relations between the government and the house. After an adjournment the house was informed that he had waited on the queen and tendered the resignation of the ministry, at the same time advising her majesty, that though the representatives of the existing constituencies were, no doubt, as morally competent to decide the question of the disestablishment of the Irish Church as the representatives of the new constituencies would be, it was the opinion of ministers that efforts should be made to appeal to the new constituencies. If parliament could co-operate with the government arrangements might be made for a dissolution in the autumn.

The position was this. If parliament were immediately dissolved the new elections would be those of the constituencies already existing, because the provisions of the new reform bill had not been brought into operation; the result of this would be that the new parliament would cease after a few months of existence. Thus the ministry would be able to press forward government measures, with the alternative, that if they were defeated, an immediate dissolution would have the effect of necessitating two general elections within a very short period.

The tactics of the ministry were condemned

by the opposition as being unconstitutional, and it was contended, that after such obvious defeats they should have resigned without recommending a dissolution. Much sharp questioning as to the statements made to the queen ensued; but it need scarcely be said that Mr. Disraeli was not led into admissions that would implicate the government. He had, temporarily, what is commonly called "the whip hand" of the house, but though the ministry recorded their strong opposition to the two remaining resolutions on the Irish Church, no division took place, and both were carried.

It is no new experience, that when the Liberal party appears to be having all its own way it begins to fall asunder. The reason is not far to seek. The independence of thought which is its boast is often fatal to that cohesion, we might even say to that loyalty to its leaders, which is essential to secure the success of measures which it has been most earnest in promoting.

No sooner had Mr. Gladstone's resolutions been carried than a Scotch member, Mr. Aytoun, persisted in proposing, as a distinct supplementary provision, that the Maynooth grant and the Regium Donum should be discontinued. The grant to the Irish College of Maynooth had been a well-gnawed bone of contention for many years, because the extreme Protestants of the house had grumbled over it during successive sessions, contending that it was in effect an endowment of the Romish Church. It had been originally conceded as a contribution towards the secular education of youths who were intended for the Irish priesthood, and who would, therefore, be teachers of the people. The question, it was argued, lay between helping them to acquire the knowledge that would enable them to be intelligent members of society, or leaving them almost as ignorant as the people over whom they were to exert not only spiritual but social influence. These were the grounds on which the grant was defended, and its appropriation was, at all events to some extent, guarded in accordance with the principle on which it had been voted; but the very fact of giving money for the support of a Roman Catholic college was

regarded by many as a direct encouragement of Papacy.

The Regium Donum had existed from the time of Charles II., and was a grant of money from the crown for the support of Presbyterian ministers in Ireland. James II. discontinued it, but it was revived by William III., who made it a charge upon the customs of Belfast.

Mr.

In vain did Mr. Gladstone explain that both these grants would be dealt with when the whole scheme was under consideration. Aytoun and those who agreed with him refused to leave the matter to any general arrangement. The house was in an uproar. Amidst the shouts and exclamations of contending disputants the occupants of the ministerial benches departed and left their opponents to fight it out. Amidst continued yells and violent denunciations Mr. Disraeli returned, and sardonically observed that it was just what he had expected; the gentlemen on the opposite side were quarrelling over their booty. The sarcasm added another discordant element to the scene; and at last, with considerable difficulty, a rider was added to the propositions, that when legislative effect should be given to the first resolution it would be right and necessary that the grant to Maynooth and the Regium Donum should be discontinued, due regard being had to all personal interests.

The amount represented by these two grants was about a million and a quarter.

The position which the ministry had taken had its effect in urging the house to deal promptly with deferred bills. The navy estimates, three months overdue, were passed, and it was necessary to hurry the Scotch Reform Bill before the dissolution. It was proposed to increase the number of members of parliament in order to give Scotland a fair share in the representation; but there was a general impression that there were already too many members; and Mr. Baxter moved that before the house went into committee on the bill there should be an instruction to the committee that they should have power to disfranchise English boroughs which the census returns of 1861 showed had fewer than 5000

267

inhabitants. This would disfranchise ten boroughs, and was in direct opposition to Mr. Disraeli's declaration that the reform bill of 1867 would not disfranchise a single borough. Sir R. Knightley therefore moved that the ten seats required for Scotland should be obtained by taking a seat from every borough whose population was below 12,000, a motion which Mr. Disraeli warmly supported. On the division this motion was defeated by 217 votes to 196, and a subsequent proposition made by Mr. Bouverie, that the rate-paying clauses should be struck out as regarded Scotland, was also passed by a majority of 22 votes. This decision was declared by Mr. Disraeli to affect the principle of the Reform Act, and was corrected by a compromise founded on a resolution that no elector in Scotland should be allowed to exercise the franchise who was not rated to the poor, and had not paid his rates.

The Irish Reform Bill and other measures were rapidly pushed onward, one of them being the Bribery Bill, which was settled by reverting to the original proposition that the jurisdiction of the house over bribery cases should be transferred to the judges. The bill enabling the government to purchase the electric telegraphs from various private companies who were then working them, also passed through the house.

The business was then deemed to be sufficiently completed to warrant a dissolution, and on the last day of July parliament was prorogued, and preparations were made for an appeal to the new constituencies, though the actual dissolution and the commencement of the elections did not take place till November.

There is no need to dwell upon the addresses and manifestoes issued on both sides. The actual results of the contest are of more importance, for they completely falsified predictions that under the extended franchise the working-men would send to parliament members of their own body as their representatives.

The exertions on both sides were strenuous, and the excitement of the election was very great-for it was to test the sentiments of the country with regard to the two great parties of the state; and the question had to be

decided how far some of the new constituencies would go in the direction of modern Radicalism. The struggle was severe, for it was almost universally recognized that Mr. Gladstone, as leader of the Liberals, had entered upon a policy which would involve widely-reaching measures and many important changes, for which timid politicians or those who sought shelter under the title of "Liberal-Conservatives" were not prepared. The Conservatives were active, and their plans were organized with considerable attention to those points of the contest by which they might obtain the most advantage. They had carried the war into the country of their foremost opponent, and though, in South-west Lancashire, when Mr. Gladstone appeared at the hustings, there appeared to be a great majority in his favour, and he called with some confidence upon his former constituents, he was defeated at the poll on the following day, two Conservatives, Mr. Cross and Mr. Turner, being elected, the former by 7729 and the latter by 7676 votes, while Mr. Gladstone, though he had preponderating numbers among the Liverpool electors, polled only 7415, and Mr. Grenfell, the other Liberal candidate, 6939. The probability of such a result had been foreseen by others, though it would appear not by Mr. Gladstone himself; therefore without his solicitation, and without any expense to him, the Liberal electors of Greenwich had put him in nomination along with Mr. Alderman Salomons, and he had already been elected as their representative by 6551 votes, Mr. Salomons polling 6645, and the two Conservatives 4661 and 4342 respectively.

Mr. Gladstone had asked the electors of South-west Lancashire to place themselves by their votes along with the unmistakable majority of the country. The result of the general elections proved that the Liberals had the national voice in their favour. At the same time there were some remarkable changes with regard to the public estimate of former Liberal representatives, and still more remarkable evidences, that the new constituencies had their own opinions of certain aspirants for parliamentary honours, and understood the difference between the real

and supposed claims of those candidates who sought to represent the working-classes.

Among former Liberal representatives who were rejected was Mr. John Stuart Mill. He failed in the endeavour to resume his former place, and was defeated by Mr. W. H. Smith, a gentleman of education and of moderate Conservative opinions, who, as the head of a firm of booksellers and publishers, had achieved considerable commercial success by having obtained from most of the principal railway companies concessions enabling him to place stalls on the various station-platforms for the sale of books and newspapers.

There were several indications that Mr. Mill was not to be numbered with the popular representatives. With a philosophical simplicity, which may perhaps be regarded as a want of judgment, he recommended other candidates to other constituencies, and none of them were returned. In former pages we have had something to say about Mr. Mill's peculiar training and education; and probably he was a little too much of the philosopher for his former constituents. He was thought to be "viewy"-to have political crotchets which were all very well as cold theories, but would not bear the test of practical experience. Some of these "crotchets," like "women-suffrage" and women's title to independence, have since come from the region of mere theory, and are substantial or imminent questions.

One of Mr. Mill's distinctions was an aversion to the expenditure of money by candidates at elections. He was a charitable, and even a generous benefactor to many who needed help; and it is easy to see that the aversion had its grounds in a detestation of bribery and a desire to remove all opportunities for it. It was not that Mr. Mill was niggardly, though his means were not so large as to enable him to compete in extravagance with wealthy men; nor did it necessarily follow that the electors of Westminster objected to his views on this subject because they desired to sell their votes. In nearly every constituency there is a feeling that a free expenditure of money is a very desirable proceeding on the part of a candidate. It looks "hearty," and Mr. Mill was scarcely a hearty person in that

sense. He might have been excused from drawing cheques if poverty had been his plea, but he distinctly declared that the expenses of an election should be borne by the constituency. There were people who declared that this caused his defeat.

If the people of Westminster had grown tired of Mr. Mill, the people of Sheffield appeared to have been offended by some of the utterances of Mr. Roebuck, who certainly seldom concealed his opinions for the sake of propitiating anybody in or out of parliament. His pugnacity seemed to have increased with years, or, at all events, it had taken the form of frequent displays of what seemed like irritability, and the nickname of "Tear-'em which had been applied to him was supposed to express his honest irrepressible tendency to go at anybody or anything opposed to his own convictions or even his own prejudices, and to worry and bark at supposed abuses, as a terrier does when he has a suspicion of rats. True to his convictions, he had with his usual courage dared to oppose the trades-unions, and strong in his prejudices, he had displayed bitter antagonism to the Northern cause during the American war. The Sheffield voters rejected him, and elected Mr. Mundella, who very soon took an eminently useful part in some of the most beneficial work of successive parliaments. Sir Wentworth Dilke, who had represented Wallingford, failed to regain his seat, but his son (now Sir Charles Dilke) was returned for Chelsea. Mr. Miall, the stanch supporter of the Nonconformist interest, lost the election at Bradford, but was soon afterwards renominated, and obtained the seat. Mr. Milner-Gibson was defeated at Ashtonunder-Lyne, and made no further effort to get into parliament. He had done good service to the state in the great battle for freetrade and afterwards, and was entitled t retire from public life. Mr. Bernal Osborne, whose sallies had so often roused and amused the house, and whom Dr. Gifford, when editor of the Standard newspaper, had happily named "the stormy petrel of debate," was among the rejected, but was afterwards returned to parliament. Mr. Lowe, as we have already