The liquor traffic, as the sale of wine, beer, | actual damage inflicted. The United States

and spirits had come to be called, was still opposed with great pertinacity by the United Kingdom Alliance, which had collected a large sum of money, and was constantly circulating its periodicals and appeals throughout the country. Doubtless a great change had been wrought among a large class of the population, and drinking habits had greatly diminished, so that there was little difficulty in passing a bill regulating public-houses, giving magistrates the power to grant or refuse licenses, increasing the penalties for drunkenness, and lessening the number of hours for keeping taverns open both on Sundays and week-days. The publicans were also protected in some important particulars; but they were of course opposed to the bill, which, however, was carried in spite of opposition.

More important in a political, or rather in an international sense than any other occurrence of the session of 1872, was the effort to come to a definite settlement of the long outstanding question of damages demanded by the United States government for the injuries inflicted by the Alabama. Mr. Reverdy Johnson, who was a jovial man, and liked the English people, came here to negotiate the matter, but, to use a modern phrase, was "too gushing" in his after-dinner speeches, and was so complimentary to England that his countrymen came to the conclusion that he would never properly support their claims. He was recalled, and Mr. Motley the historian, and Mr. Fish, the foreign secretary of the United States, resumed negotiations. It was decided that commissioners from England should go to Washington, and as our government had already expressed regret at the ravages of the piratical vessels which went out of English shipyards, the conference became easier. Some international rules on the duties of nations to prevent privateering were agreed on, for the guidance of the arbitrators who were to be chosen to decide the question. Our commissioners contended that we had not committed any breach of international faith; but they accepted the rules, and supposed that the only point for consideration would be the

government, however, claimed indirect damages for the expense they had incurred, and the losses they had sustained in consequence of the failure of our government to prevent the privateers from leaving our ports. These claims were for losses in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag, the enhancement of the payment of insurances, and the prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of it.

The arbitrators were Count Frederic Sclopis for Italy, president; Chief-justice Cockburn for England; Mr. Charles Francis Adams for America; M. Jaques Staempli for Switzerland; and Viscount Itajuba for Brazil. They met on the 15th and 19th of June, and agreed that the indirect claims should be rejected. The discussions were resumed at intervals till the 25th of December, when the decision of the tribunal was announced, namely, that in the cases of the Alabama and the Florida, Great Britain had failed to fulfil the duties prescribed by the rules of the treaty, in not having used due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, and equipping vessels which, there was ground for believing were intended to carry on war against a power with which she was at peace. In the case of other vessels it was decided that there had been no failure of due diligence. The award for the satisfaction of all claims was 15,000,000 dollars. This settled the question. At about the same time the Emperor of Germany decided against us as to the right of possession of the island of San Juan, which he declared belonged to the United States. Both conclusions were accepted with dignity and endorsed with honour, and at a cost which would have been far exceeded even by a temporary resort to hostilities, while there was a gratifying sense on both sides that the dispute was settled in accordance with reason and humanity.

It may well be supposed that the untiring energy and rapidity with which the Liberal government advanced measures of remarkable importance, produced a feeling of restlessness among the less ardent of their followers, while the opposition marked with satisfaction the

DEFEAT OF THE LIBERAL GOVERNMENT.

289

done was to abolish tests at Trinity College.

The Judicature Bill had already been brought forward by Lord-chancellor Selborne. It was based on the report of the commission appointed in 1869 to inquire into the subject, and was one of the most important measures of the Liberal government, for it was intended for the reconstruction of the whole judicial system, by uniting the higher courts of justice in one great tribunal, the operations of which were to be free from the old distinctions and restrictions between law and equity, so that suitors might be spared expense, time, and trouble in seeking redress. The lord chiefjustice, the chief-justice of the common pleas, and the chief-baron of the exchequer were to remain in the positions they then occupied, and some of the existing divisions were retained as courts of the high court of judicature. The appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords exercised by the law lords was to be transferred to a tribunal composed of the lord-chancellor, the chief-justice of England, the chief-justice of common pleas, the chiefbaron, the master of the rolls, and other judges not exceeding nine in number. The bill was not at first adapted to Scotland and Ireland because of some question of privilege, but was soon carried through both houses with the understanding that it would eventually be adapted to the whole kingdom.

signs of reaction. Such a number of bills, | compelled to remain in office, and all that was embracing so many important interests, could not be passed without a great many people being affected by them, and every fresh change touched some interest and aroused some animosity. At the same time, as we have before seen, the very tendency to independent thought and the want of compact following among the Liberals tended after every new achievement to diminish that unanimity by which a strong party can alone be maintained. The time now arrived in the session of 1873 when Mr. Gladstone was to bring forward the third of the measures which he had promised for Ireland. This was the introduction of a national system of education under which the rights of conscience would be secured. As a preliminary measure in this direction Mr. Gladstone proposed to create a new university in Dublin, of which Trinity College and other colleges should form a part, just as the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge belong to their universities. Certain careful provisions were to be made to recognize the preponderance of the Roman Catholic religion, one of them being the exclusion of the teaching of theology and moral philosophy, upon which subjects, however, voluntary examinations would be held. The bill was opposed both by Roman Catholics and Protestants. Another bill brought in by Mr. Fawcett in the previous year—had been supported by the governing body of Trinity College, and Mr. Gladstone therefore declared that the ministry would stand or fall by the measure which he now advocated. Some of the professed Liberals were averse to it. Mr. Horsman bitterly opposed it, and though the debate was sharp, able, and well spiced with checks and counterchecks, it was soon seen that the division for the second reading would be a narrow one. It went against the government by 287 votes to 284.

Mr. Gladstone's ministry adhered to their determination to resign office, and Mr. Disraeli was sent for to form another administration; but though he had obstinately opposed the bill on which the government was defeated, he was not ready to take the place offered him by their resignation. Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues were therefore reluctantly

VOL. IV.

But the Liberal government had been beaten, there was already a Conservative reaction which afterwards became more evident, and preparations were made for the general election in 1874. Changes were made in the ministry. Mr. Bright, who had returned to the house, consenting to be chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Mr. Gladstone undertook the duty of chancellor of the exchequer as well as that of prime minister, and Mr. Lyon Playfair and Mr. Vernon Harcourt also took office. The government had deserved well of the country, not only for the number of important measures it had passed, but for removing £12,000,000 from the taxation. It had spent £10,000,000 in buying the telegraphs as arranged by the previous minis

82

THE NEW LIBERAL LEADER LORD HARTINGTON.

be chosen to represent the great party that had temporarily fallen apart and been vanquished, could not hope and would not be expected to exhibit equal qualifications for the task of leadership. At the same time there was, if not an insurmountable reluctance on the part of other distinguished men, at least a grave disinclination to assume a position where comparison might tend to depreciate their real attainments, or where, however eminent those attainments might be, there would be great doubt as to their efficacy in reuniting the sections of the Liberals in such a manner as to restore the probability of their ready return to power.

However, a meeting was held at the Reform Club on the 3d of February, 1875, and there it was to be determined what course should be pursued. Mr. Bright was chairman of the meeting. Lord Granville, it was understood, was the trusted chief in the Upper House. Who among the members of the late cabinet would be chosen to be the real leader where influence and authority would be more constantly required? The general attention was fixed on Mr. Forster. He had displayed remarkable power of elucidation, no little tact, and that genuine earnestness of purpose which was of the greatest importance, and to him had been intrusted a measure which had met with the concurrence of the whole house, and was now heartily accepted by the country. Yet Mr. Forster's earnestness, allied as it perhaps necessarily was with remarkable positiveness, was, perhaps, the very quality which he felt, would prevent him from becoming in any real sense the parliamentary leader of the party. Two days before the meeting he wrote, declining the candidature on the ground that he felt he could not reckon on that general support without which he could not fulfil the required duties.

Mr. Goschen had been spoken of as a candidate, and the choice was supposed to be between him and Lord Hartington. Mr. Goschen, however, had scarcely been in a position to give to the Liberal party the kind of hostages which entitled him to occupy so responsible a position. At any rate it was evident that those who composed the meeting,

291

and who were really representative men of various shades of Liberalism, had little doubt or hesitation when Mr. Forster had declined to occupy the place vacated by Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Villiers simply rose to remind the meeting that Lord Hartington had been before the public and the House of Commons for sixteen or seventeen years; that they had seen him filling subordinate offices, and also filling the higher offices in the state. He had been chief secretary for Ireland; he had presided over the post-office, and he had been under-secretary for war; he had presided over committees of great public importance, and on all these occasions he had displayed good feeling, good sense, tact, and judgment that fairly entitled him to the confidence of the party. Mr. Villiers added that he would not believe any prejudice could fairly be raised against the Marquis of Hartington merely from the circumstance of his family connections, seeing that his family happened to be associated with the great principles which had been professed in the Liberal party for at least two centuries. Without further remarks he proposed him to the acceptance of the meeting, sincerely believing that the noble lord would do honour to their choice.

The proposal was responded to by Lord Frederick Cavendish, who spoke on behalf of his brother, and Mr. Bright, as chairman of the meeting, spoke in terms of hearty commendation of the new leader of the Liberal forces.

Ten years before, when Lord Hartington was promoted to office, a close and frequent observer of parliament had written amusingly as follows:-We shall not soon forget the effect upon certain members of the house, and they not few in number, of the announcement that the Marquis of Hartington was to be the under-secretary for war, and take the management of the business of the war department in the house. "It is an insult to the house," said one. "The cheekiest thing I ever heard of," said another; "but it is like old Pam." "It is very bad, I must confess," said a cautious old gentleman, who has lived long enough to speak with reserve. "However, let us trust there may be more in him than we