LORD CAIRNS. (From a Photograph by Russell and Sons.)
Time had failed in the Session of 1867 to carry through Parliament measures for the enlargement of the constituencies in Scotland and Ireland similar to Mr. Disraeli's Reform Bill for England. The matter was now taken up by Government, and Bills were introduced, and eventually passed, for reforming the representation of the people both in Scotland and Ireland. The circumstances attending the progress of these Bills were in some respects unprecedented, and such as involved no slight humiliation to the Government, which, in spite of all Mr. Disraeli's adroitness, was compelled either to allow the details of the measures to be settled pretty nearly as the opposing majority might think fit, or to resist at the imminent peril of defeat and expulsion from office. The measure for Scotland was introduced by the Lord Advocate, Mr. Paton, on the 17th of February. It proposed that the franchise should be settled on nearly the same basis as in England, both for counties and boroughs; so that in the former there would be an ownership franchise of £5 clear annual value, and an occupation franchise of £12; while in boroughs every householder rated and paying rates would have a vote. It further gave seven additional seats to Scotland, without disfranchising any boroughs in England or Ireland; so that, if the Bill had passed in this form, there would have been a permanent increase in the numbers of the House of Commons. No sooner was the draft Bill in the possession of the House, than Scottish members, as if by one consent, set to work to tear it to pieces. It is unnecessary to repeat all the objections that were raised, and the more so because all parties ultimately agreed to pass the second reading, affirming the principle of the Bill; each trusting to obtain the modifications desired in committee. So far all had gone well for Government; but when the House went into committee, their practical powerlessness was apparent to all the world, and must have been painfully mortifying to themselves. Mr. Baxter moved, "That it be an instruction to the committee that, instead of adding to the numbers of the House, they have power to disfranchise boroughs in England having by the Census returns of 1861 less than 5,000 inhabitants." He pointed out that there were ten such small boroughs in England; these he proposed to disfranchise, and to add the ten seats thus obtained to the representation of Scotland. Sir Rainald Knightley proposed that, instead of disfranchising any boroughs, the committee should take one member from each of those boroughs in England returning two members to Parliament which in 1861 had less than 12,000 inhabitants. Mr. Disraeli, on the part of the Government, accepted Sir Rainald Knightley's proposal. But Mr. Gladstone seconded the motion of Mr. Baxter, and it was carried on a division by a majority of 217 to 196. Government was fain to acquiesce; and the only modification that Mr. Disraeli could obtain consisted in reducing the number of the boroughs marked out for immolation from ten to seven. Another and still more damaging alteration in the Government Bill was carried by Mr. Bouverie, who proposed to get rid of the ratepaying qualification in Scotland altogether, by omitting the words making the payment of rates (as in the English Bill) a necessary condition of the franchise. We have seen, in the course of the Reform debates, how devotedly, one might almost say sentimentally, attached was Mr. Disraeli to the principle of the rating franchise. Yet, when defeated on Mr. Bouverie's motion, he resigned himself with a sigh to the excision of his darling principle, not only with reference to boroughs, but also to counties. The occupation franchise for counties was fixed at £14, the reference to rateable value being omitted. Thus amended, the Bill passed through committee, and, meeting with hardly any opposition in the House of Lords, became law.
The author of "Church and State" succeeded in carrying through Parliament this year a Bill for the abolition of church rates. In the debate on the second reading Lord Cranborne said, "What shall we gain if we adhere to the principle of 'No surrender'? That is a question which must be answered by the circumstances of the time. We must look not only to the disposition of the nation out of doors, but to the course of events in this House—the principles upon which parties guide their movements—the laws by which public men regulate their conduct. Looking to these matters, and taking the most impartial view in my power, I am bound to say that I do not think any gain to the Church will arise from prolonging the resistance." After speaking of the deep reluctance he felt to give up anything that the Church possessed, he concluded with the words, "I think it wiser to accept the terms that are now offered to us, because I am distinctly of opinion that we may go farther and fare worse." The passing of this measure, though it could not be said to have reconciled the main body of the Dissenters in any appreciable degree to the existence of the Church as an establishment, at least closed a long and wearisome chapter of local bickerings, distinguished by cheap martyrdom on one side and indiscreet coercion on the other.
Age and the undermining effects of his hereditary malady, the gout, had told heavily this winter on the vigorous constitution of Lord Derby, and he felt no longer equal to the cares and toils of office. His retirement from the Ministry was announced by his son, Lord Stanley, in the House of Commons on the 25th of February, and drew forth expressions of warm and respectful sympathy from both sides of the House. The way was thus naturally opened for the gratification of the great and worthy ambition of a lifetime. Mr. Disraeli was sent for by the Queen, and requested to take the post of Premier and reconstruct the Government. On the 27th Mr. Disraeli had an audience of her Majesty, and kissed hands upon his appointment as First Lord of the Treasury. To pass over two or three minor changes, the new Premier declined to include the Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford (Sir Frederic Thesiger), in the re-constructed Ministry; and that high functionary, despite an appeal to Lord Derby, was therefore compelled to resign the seals, which were given to Lord Cairns. The great ability, industry, and readiness in debate of the new Chancellor were much needed to strengthen the Ministerial side in the House of Lords. On the 5th of March Mr. Disraeli addressed a meeting of his Parliamentary supporters, and encouraged them to look hopefully forward to the future, and to remember through what storms and sunken rocks they had been safely steered.
He admitted the difficulties that lay in their path as a minority having to deal with the great question now pressing on their attention. But the past two years had given them great triumphs, and he had every confidence that with a firm front they might add to them fresh triumphs in 1868. But there were others who felt confident, and with better reason—unfortunately for him—than Mr. Disraeli. That condition of the Liberal party described in the caustic observation of Mr. Bouverie, when it had "leaders that wouldn't lead, and followers that wouldn't follow," was now at an end. Mr. Gladstone, who assiduously felt the pulse of his party, soon discovered that those who had played truant were willing to submit to discipline once more, and his exultation was extreme. "Having put our hand to the plough," he said, at a dinner given to Mr. Brand, the Liberal whip, at the end of March, "we shall not look back. I have entertained from the first a confident hope and belief that a long and arduous struggle would be accompanied by complete success." The battle-ground which the Liberal leader had chosen was well adapted to bring together all the scattered sections of the party; it was the proposal to disestablish the Irish Protestant Church. The perturbed and discontented state of Ireland was a continual source of anxiety. The proposal to abolish the State Church was satisfactory to the Liberals who were only politicians, because it involved what they deemed a useful and tranquillising concession to the feelings of the Roman Catholic majority of the Irish people. It was also satisfactory to that large and important class of Liberals who had Dissenting sympathies, because it aimed at doing away with an Established Church, and reducing its ministers to find their subsistence through reliance on the principle of Voluntaryism.
Although we shall be departing from the strict order of time, we prefer to describe the more important measures that the Government succeeded in carrying through Parliament this Session, before entering upon the narrative of the party contest which resulted in their defeat and paved the way for their resignation. These measures were three in number. Of one, the Scottish Reform Bill, we have already given the history; the two others were the Irish Reform Bill, and the Bill for defining the boundaries of boroughs in England and Wales. The Irish Reform Bill was brought in by Lord Mayo on the 19th of March. It was in appearance a much simpler affair than the corresponding Bill for Scotland; it gave to Ireland no new members, and made no change in the county franchise, which had been fixed at a £12 rental for Ireland some years before. In the boroughs the Bill enacted that the rates of all houses valued at less than £4 a year should be paid by the landlord, and fixed the franchise at £4 a year rental. Practically, therefore, it was a ratepaying franchise as in England. It also contained a redistribution scheme, which proposed to disfranchise six small boroughs, and allot one of the seats thus obtained to Dublin, and the other five to different counties that were inadequately represented. The Bill was read a second time on the 7th of May, and then the real battle began. The redistribution scheme appeared to please no one, and Government withdrew it. The Irish Liberal members complained that the Bill, which only added about nine thousand new names to the register of voters, was absurdly insufficient; they alleged that the qualification for the county franchise was far too high, and that the retention of the freeman franchise was an error. Sir Colman O'Loghlen moved an amendment which, if carried, would have swept away the freeman franchise of Dublin and other cities; and Colonel French endeavoured to reduce the county qualification from £12 to £8. Other amendments also were moved; but from some cause or other Government were always victorious when it came to a division; and the Bill passed through committee substantially as its authors had framed it, minus the redistribution clause. The Irish members complained bitterly of this result, declaring that but for the apathy of English and Scottish Liberals, who had neglected to come to the House to support them, they would have carried the amendments above described, and greatly improved the Bill. As for the county qualification, Sir John Gray declared that though nominally the same as in England, a rental of £12 a year in Ireland was really equivalent to one of £30 a year in England.
The Bill for regulating the boundaries of boroughs in England and Wales was founded on the report of a Royal Commission that had minutely investigated the subject. When introduced into the House there appeared to be an indisposition to accept it as it stood, because the municipalities of a number of boroughs whose boundaries had been extended by the commissioners remonstrated against such extension and petitioned the House that the ancient boundaries might be preserved. A motion was accordingly made and accepted by Government, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. The recommendations of the Select Committee went to undermine many of the conclusions of the Commission, and independent members moved amendments that were derogatory to the recommendations of the committee. Great wrangling and confusion ensued, but in the end the Bill was carried as altered by the Select Committee; and fifteen important boroughs—among which Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, and Manchester were included—were permitted to retain their ancient boundaries, contrary to the recommendations of the Commission. The Bill was not passed by the House of Lords till near the end of the Session.
At a much earlier period Mr. Gladstone sprang his first mine against the Government position with destructive effect. Three years before, when Mr. Dillwyn had brought up the question of the anomalous spectacle presented to Europe by the Irish Church, Mr. Gladstone had both spoken and written to the effect that, while admitting the scandal and the danger of the existing state of things, he did not believe the question to be within the range of present politics, and considered that a long period must elapse before it would be ripe for settlement. Now, however, he had convinced himself that "the hour was come, and the man." On the 23rd of March he laid three resolutions before the Commons, of which the first declared that, "in the opinion of this House, it is necessary that the Established Church of Ireland should cease to exist as an establishment, due regard being had to all personal interests, and to all individual rights of property." The object of the second and third resolutions was to prevent the creation of any more vested interests for the future. Vacancies occurring in the higher ecclesiastical appointments were not, if in public patronage, to be filled up pending the decision of Parliament; and the Queen was to be humbly solicited by the House to place at the disposal of Parliament with a view to the aforesaid purposes, her interest in the archbishoprics, bishoprics, and other ecclesiastical dignities and benefices of Ireland. Mr. Disraeli, had all his Cabinet been of one mind, would probably have met the resolutions by a direct negative. But his Secretary for Foreign Affairs—Lord Stanley—the high descent and great wealth of whose family, coupled with his own unquestioned ability, enforced consideration for his opinions—was by no means disposed to maintain a war à outrance in defence of the Church of Ireland. It was accordingly agreed that Mr. Gladstone's resolutions should be met at the first stage by an amendment, to be moved by Lord Stanley: "That this House, while admitting that considerable modifications in the temporalities of the united Church in Ireland may, after pending inquiry, appear to be expedient, is of opinion that any proposition tending to the disestablishment or disendowment of the Church ought to be reserved for the decision of the new Parliament." The amendment was ingeniously framed, because it contained an implied menace that the Government, if defeated on the resolutions, would dissolve Parliament sooner than allow the Irish Church Question to be dealt with by the "unreformed" constituencies; thus sending back members to their constituents to face all the trouble and expense of an election many months before the time that they had calculated upon. This disagreeable prospect might again, it was hoped, cause a split in the Liberal party. But the manœuvre did not succeed this time. The debate on the resolutions commenced on the 30th of March, and was continued over four nights; the question being, whether the Speaker should leave the chair so that the House might go into committee on the resolutions, or whether Lord Stanley's amendment should be affirmed. In the course of the debate, Mr. Lowe, the great deserter, who had now returned to his colours, made a vehement and powerful attack on Government for their attempt to link the fortunes of the Church of England with those of the sister Establishment in Ireland. This, he said, was a Mezentian union—an attempt to link the living with the dead.
The division resulted in the rejection of Lord Stanley's amendment by a majority of 61; the numbers being 270 for, and 331 against it. No further progress was made for the moment, as the defeat of Government occurred on the eve of the Easter recess. During the short interval the sense of the country was variously expressed by two great meetings held in St. James's Hall—one for, the other against, Disestablishment. At the first, presided over by Lord Russell, the Chairman professed himself ready to sacrifice what was, in his own opinion, the best course—the plan of concurrent endowment by paying the priests. Great unanimity prevailed. At the Conservative meeting, the only argument put forward that was of much weight was this—that the ill-feeling which prevailed in Ireland towards England was more deep-seated than most Englishmen supposed; and that the disestablishment of the Irish Church, which was far from being a generally unpopular institution, would do nothing to remove this feeling in the minds of the majority, while it would tend to diminish the attachment of the Protestant minority to Great Britain. Parliament resumed its sittings on the 20th of April, and the 27th was fixed for the debate in committee on Mr. Gladstone's first resolution. Three more nights were consumed in the discussion of the question in all its bearings; on the 30th of April the division took place, and resulted in the affirmation of the first resolution, by a majority against Government of sixty-five.
Upon the numbers being announced, Mr. Disraeli rose and said that the vote at which the committee had arrived had altered the relations between Government and the House; he therefore moved that the House should adjourn to Monday, the 4th of May, to enable Government to consider their position. Few imagined that after defeats so decisive Government would be able to follow aught but one of two courses—either immediate resignation or immediate dissolution. Many, indeed, of the Liberal leaders maintained that the only constitutional course open to the Ministry was resignation. But his opponents did not know all that the accomplished and versatile Premier was capable of. Mr. Disraeli was not yet at the end of his resources. He contrived to extract out of defeat a secure tenure of office for seven months longer, and all the rage and vituperation of the baffled victors could avail nothing against his imperturbable front. On the 4th of May he rose in his place, and stated that, having waited on her Majesty, he told her that "the advice which her Ministers would, in the full spirit of the Constitution, offer her, would be that her Majesty should dissolve this Parliament, and take the opinion of the country upon the conduct of her Ministers, and on the question at issue; but, at the same time, with the full concurrence of my colleagues, I represented to her Majesty that there were important occasions on which it was wise that the Sovereign should not be embarrassed by personal claims, however constitutional, valid, or meritorious; and that if her Majesty was of opinion that the question at issue could be more satisfactorily settled, or that the interests of the country would be promoted by the immediate retirement of the present Government from office, we were prepared to quit her Majesty's service immediately, with no other feeling but that which every Minister who has served the Queen must entertain, viz. a feeling of gratitude to her Majesty for the warm constitutional support which she always gives to her Ministers, and I may add—for it is a truth that cannot be concealed—for the aid and assistance which any Minister must experience from a Sovereign who has such a vast acquaintance with public affairs. Sir, I, in fact, tendered my resignation to the Queen. Her Majesty commanded me to attend her in audience on the next day, when her Majesty was pleased to express her pleasure not to accept the resignation of her Ministers, and her readiness to dissolve Parliament so soon as the state of public business would permit. Under these circumstances, I advised her Majesty that, although the present constituency was no doubt admirably competent to decide upon the question of the disestablishment of the Church, still it was the opinion of her Majesty's Ministers that every effort should be made that the appeal should, if possible, be directed to the new constituencies which the wisdom of Parliament provided last year; and I expressed to her Majesty that, if we had the cordial co-operation of Parliament, I was advised by those who are experienced and skilful in these matters that it would be possible to make arrangements by which that dissolution could take place in the autumn of this year."