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.

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 to 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

noted, was returned as the first representative for the University of London.

One of the most marked contests was that between Lord Hartington and the younger son of Lord Derby-we might almost say between the houses of Cavendish and Stanley -for North Lancashire. Mr. Frederick Stanley was the successful candidate by a large majority, and it was only some months afterwards that Lord Hartington obtained a seat for the Radnor boroughs, and was included in the new ministry formed by Mr. Gladstone.

The names of some of those here mentioned will be recognized as belonging to the real representatives of "the working-classes" of the community; but it was very significant that those who professed to belong to that class, or to found their claims on being eminently fitted to uphold working-class interests, were unmistakably rejected. Mr. Ernest Jones, Mr. Mason Jones, even Mr. Beales, were not acceptable, and Mr. Odger, an actual workingman of no little ability, had even less success in commanding the suffrages of his fellowcraftsmen than some of the blusterous and selfassertive declaimers whose names need not be mentioned here, but who assuredly were not representatives of working-men in any true sense, but were the demoralizing parasites of "the working-classes," subsisting on the subscriptions or contributions which they could contrive to extract from their dupes.

The social and political aspect of the House of Commons was not much changed, but there had been a remarkable transposition of members. In several places which had formerly been conspicuous for Radical opinions, Conservatives had achieved the greatest success. The county of Lancaster had returned eight Conservatives, representing the whole of the divisions of the county, and in some of the towns equally unexpected changes had taken. place. There could be no question, however, that the aggregate increase of Liberalism was equally remarkable. In the boroughs there were only 95 Conservative members returned as against 214 Liberals, while in Scotland the Liberal votes were overwhelming, the Conservatives taking only 7 county seats against

269

An

23, and receiving none in the burghs. analysis of the election of 1868 showed the total Liberal vote in England and Wales was 1,231,450; the Conservative, 824,057-majority, 407,393. The total Liberal vote in Scotland was 123,410; the Conservative, 23,391— majority, 100,019, a few additions for undecided votes making the majority slightly greater. The total Liberal vote in Ireland was 53,379; the Conservative, 36,082-majority, 17,297. Thus there was a gross Liberal vote of 1,408,239, and a gross Conservative vote of 883,530, leaving a majority in favour of the Liberals of 524,709. But it is to be noted that the 92 constituencies gained by the Liberals throughout the elections contained a population of 6,611,950; while the 69 won by the Conservatives contained only a population of 5,177,534, leaving a balance on the side of the Liberals of 1,434,416. There were no fewer than 227 out of the whole number of members returned who had no seat in the previous parliament, being upwards of one-third of the entire House of Commons.

The situation of the Conservative government was so obvious that Mr. Disraeli announced the resignation of ministers without waiting for the verdict of the house. On the 4th of December Mr. Gladstone was summoned to receive the queen's command to form a new ministry. On the 9th he had completed it, and had succeeded in persuading Mr. Bright (who was still disinclined to hold office) to accept the position of president of the Board of Trade. For no other minister than Mr. Gladstone would he have consented to become a member of the cabinet, and he felt it necessary to assure his constituents in words of much pathos and evident sincerity that he should neither change his sentiments nor sacrifice his strong convictions because of his association with the ministry, though it might be necessary for him to abstain from the expression of independent opinions for the purpose of maintaining the united action which would be essential to the maintenance of the government. In fact Mr. Bright did not altogether abstain from taking independent ground outside the cabinet, but he felt that with Mr. Gladstone at the helm, and having in view that legislation for Ireland.

which they had both so earnestly advocated, he could not refuse to strengthen the Liberal policy by accepting a place in the ministry.

Lord Clarendon was foreign secretary, Lord Granville secretary for the colonies; Mr. Bruce, home secretary; and to the calm and methodical Mr. Cardwell was committed the war secretaryship, an office in which he had to carry out important measures of army reform. The Duke of Argyle was secretary for India, Lord Hatherly (Sir William Page Wood), a staunch Liberal, became lord-chancellor; the Earl of Kimberley, lord privy seal; and Mr. Childers first lord of the admiralty. Lord Dufferin had a place in the ministry as chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Earl Spencer became lord-lieutenant of Ireland, with Mr. Chichester Fortescue as chief secretary. The Marquis of Hartington was made postmaster-general, and Mr. Lowe chancellor of the exchequer, an experiment the consequences of which will be briefly noted hereafter. On the whole it was a strong government and well organized, and it was popular. The fact of Mr. Bright having become a direct coadjutor of the premier had great weight with those of the Liberal party who looked forward to decisive measures for the satisfaction of Irish claims.

In an address to his constituents at Greenwich Mr. Gladstone sounded the note of advance, not only with regard to the question of the Irish Church, Irish education, and the tenure of land in Ireland, but in other matters with which he knew that the government would have to deal promptly and decisively. The Irish Church came first. Amidst a storm of violent abuse, invective, and denunciation uttered at public meetings by noblemen, leading Orangemen, bishops, and clergy, as well as by his opponents in parliament, he braced himself to the task of bringing forward the complete scheme, of which his resolutions had been the intimation. "We confide," said the premier, "in the traditions we have received of our fathers; we confide in the soundness both of the religious and of the civil principles that prevail; we confide in the sacredness of that cause of justice in which we are engaged, and with that confidence and persuasion we are prepared to go forward."

On the 1st of March, 1869, he rose to bring forward the scheme which had been proposed. For three hours the dense crowd which filled the benches, the galleries, and every point from which he could be heard, listened with almost breathless interest.

A speech full of detail, full of strong appeal, but a speech, so Mr. Disraeli said, in which there was not a redundant word.

That should alone be a reason for not quoting extracts from it. It must be sufficient to indicate what were the provisions of the bill which was to make the significant and important change of dissolving the union between the two churches.

Those provisions were, that the existing Ecclesiastical Commission should cease, and that a new commission should be appointed for ten years in which the property of the Irish Church should be vested (making provision for life interests) from the time of the passing of the bill.

This new commission was to be appointed immediately after the passing of the bill, so that disendowment would practically commence at once. The Irish Church would in effect be made a free Episcopal Church, and during the transitional period no new vested interests were to be created.

Disestablishment would commence on the 1st of January, 1871 (unless the date should for sufficient reasons be altered by the government), when the union between the churches of England and Ireland would be dissolved. The Irish Church would cease to be recognized by the state; all Irish ecclesiastical courts would be abolished, and ecclesiastical laws would remain only provisionally in force, not as laws, but as a voluntary compact between clergy and laity until they should be altered by the governing body of the disestablished churcha kind of synod elected to represent the clergy and laity and recognized by the queen in council as a duly constituted representative body to be legally incorporated. The crown was to resign the right to appoint Irish bishops, and Irish bishops would no longer sit in the House of Lords.

In the interval between the passing of the act and the date of January 1st, 1871, and during the reorganization of the church,