[168] Mr. C. D. Boyd was shot by a gang of men with blackened faces whilst driving on the 8th of August from New Ross to Shanlough. He was the son of the agent to Mr. Tottenham, and there was reason to suppose that it was his father (who was with him) who was aimed at. Lord Mountmorres was waylaid near Clonbur and shot on the 25th of September. He had only fifteen tenants, had evicted only two of them, and his household was boycotted. He lived among the people, and was fairly popular with them, so that his murder is to this day somewhat of a mystery.

[169] This antiquated form of silencing a Member had not been heard of for two centuries, till Mr. Gladstone had himself revived it in the previous Session, for the purpose of silencing Mr. O’Donnell when he attempted to make a personal attack on M. Challemel-Lacour, who had come to England as the Ambassador of France.

[170] See Hansard, Vol. CCLVIII., p. 68 et seq.

[171] The Parnell Movement, by T. P. O’Connor, M.P., Chapter XI.

[172] Colley’s friends allege that Kruger’s letter of reply to him was delayed so long that he thought he might usefully expedite matters by attacking.

[173] It was said that the late Mrs. Brydges-Williams, an eccentric Cornish lady of Jewish extraction, had left Mr. Disraeli a legacy on condition that she should be buried with him, and on this condition the legacy was accepted. Perhaps the executors were afraid that claims might be made on them if the condition were violated.

[174] Speech at Kettering, Times, 5th May, 1881.

[175] Her Majesty sent two wreaths to be placed on the bier. One was composed of primroses, and carried the inscription: “His favourite flowers, from Osborne, a tribute of affection from Queen Victoria.” The other was made up of bay-leaves and everlasting flowers, and bore these words in golden letters: “A mark of true affection, friendship, and respect from the Queen.”

[176] After Lord Beaconsfield’s death the Tory Party fell under the “Dual Control” of Lord Salisbury who led it in the House of Lords, and Sir Stafford Northcote who led it in the House of Commons, when Lord Randolph Churchill let him.

[177] Mr. (afterwards Sir) Edward Clarke, Q.C. and Tory Solicitor-General, though he approved of widening summary jurisdiction, objected to the Bill because it made the Irish Viceroy a despot. Mr. Ritchie (afterwards President of the Local Government Board in Lord Salisbury’s Administration) declined to support the Bill because he had no confidence in the Government. Sir J. D. Hay complained of the excessive power placed in the hands of the Irish Viceroy. But Sir Stafford Northcote interfered, and, generously exerting his authority on behalf of the Ministry, silenced the factious Tories, who were apparently desirous of embarrassing the Government by obstructing the Bill. Public opinion was not in a state to tolerate obstructive tactics at the time.

[178] This loan was raised to wipe out the floating debt then amounting to £28,000,000. But the money-brokers who floated it imposed such usurious conditions, that they never really paid Ismail more than £20,740,077, of which they made him take £9,000,000 in bonds of the floating debt which the loan was raised to pay off. These they held themselves, having bought them at 65 per cent. They made the Khedive, however, take over the £9,000,000 worth which they thrust on him as part of the loan at 93 per cent.—See Mr. Stephen Cave’s Report on the Financial Condition of Egypt, and McCoan’s Egypt as It Is (Cassell and Co.), Appendix 9, p. 396.

[179] This land belonging to the Khedive’s personal estate is referred to in the report as Daira land.

[180] A search expedition under Colonel (afterwards Sir Charles) Warren, R.E., brought back their remains, which were buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral, close by the tomb of Nelson. See Life of Edward Henry Palmer, by Walter Besant. London: John Murray, 1883, pp. 296-329.

[181] The vote was for an addition of £10,000 a year to the Prince’s income, which was already £15,000, and a separate income of £6,000 a year to the Princess during her widowhood.

[182] These intrigues grew so dangerous that in 1879 Prince Bismarck concluded a Secret Treaty with Austria, which bound each Power to defend the other if attacked by Russia, or if Russia gave aid to any other Power which was attacking them. Though Prince Bismarck, as he said in his speech in the Reichstag (6th of February, 1887) really acted at the Berlin Congress as the fourth plenipotentiary of Russia, the Russian War Party were of opinion that he ought to have done more for them. Their attacks on Germany in the Press were incessant. Russians of rank like Gortschakoff and Skobeleff, notoriously carried on intrigues with France for an alliance against Germany. Indeed, Russian troops began to mass themselves on the German frontier in 1882. Curiously enough, of the four men who could have done most to thwart Prince Bismarck’s League of Peace with Austria—only one (Garibaldi) died in circumstances free from suspicion of foul play. Garibaldi’s death rendered it easier to bring Italy into Prince Bismarck’s anti-French combination. These four men it is curious to note passed away most opportunely for Prince Bismarck. Garibaldi died in June, Skobeleff on the 7th of July, Gambetta in December, 1882, and Gortschakoff on the 11th of March, 1883. Germany breathed freely after the death of Gambetta, who, said Prince Bismarck once, worked on the nerves of Europe “like a man who beats a drum in a sick room.”

[183] The history of this compact is as follows:—After the Treaty of Berlin was signed Lord Salisbury bought off the opposition of France to the occupation of Cyprus, first by promising not to oppose an extension of her influence in Tunis, and secondly, by paving the way for her sharing with England the control of Egypt. Prince Bismarck also left on M. Waddington’s mind the impression that Germany was indifferent to the fate of Tunis, knowing well that French interference there must brew bad blood between France and Italy. In the spring of 1881 the French discovered that the mysterious “Kroumirs” were menacing their Algerian frontier. To punish them they invaded Tunis, and though they never discovered any “Kroumirs,” they compensated themselves for their disappointment by forcing the Bey to sign the Bardo Treaty. It converted Tunis into a French dependency. Italy remonstrated in vain against this violation of the guaranteed integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and finally sought for safety against further French encroachments on her interests, in an alliance with the German Powers. M. Gambetta’s aggressive policy caused King Humbert, on the advice of Prince Bismarck, to visit the Emperor of Austria at Vienna, in the autumn of 1881. Prince Bismarck was ostentatious in expressing his friendliness to Italy, and exchanged effusive compliments with Signor Mancini. (See Mancini’s Speech in the Italian Senate of December, 1881.) In October, 1882, Count Kalnoky declared that King Humbert’s pilgrimage of conciliation to the Hofburg had identified Italian and Austro-German interests, and Signor Mancini announced the existence of the Triple League on the 11th of April, 1883. On the 17th of March, 1885, Mancini, when questioned as to his Red Sea policy, told the Senate that in all his negotiations with England he had made it “clear that Italy could enter into no engagement which was contrary to the agreements concluded with the two Empires.” Through negotiations carried on by the German Crown Prince, Spain was next drawn into the net of the Triple League, and France utterly isolated.

[184] Though writers like De Tocqueville have laid it down that the civilisation and development of a State can be always measured by the social status and independence of its women and the equality of the sexes before the law, one curious exception may be noted. From various reasons, the northern kingdom of Scotland has for many centuries remained appreciably rougher in manners and less polished and refined in culture than England. The women of Scotland, too, like those of Germany, have always been compelled to render their families harder domestic service than English women, who, during the greater part of the Victorian period, led lives of comparative ease and luxury in most respectable households. Yet it is strange that in Scotland the law has always been jealous in guarding the rights of women. For example, it secured to a woman a third of her husband’s property after his death, so that he could not disinherit her by will. It enabled her, through a simple and cheap legal process, to protect her earnings from seizure by her husband. It was at pains to preserve to women in the direct line of succession their right to baronies and peerages after the males in that line were exhausted. The divorce law, too, did not, like that of England, recognise any inequality in the position of the sexes. The effect of the improved legal status of women in Scotland was curious. Though living in a ruder society, and under the pressure of harder conditions of life than their more luxurious and polished English sisters, they seem in all ages to have enjoyed by custom a position of authority in the family, scarcely even yet conceded to their sex in England. Arduous household service was, however, the price they had to pay for their privileges. It may also be added that whilst in England, till very recently, parents were more particular about the education of their sons than their daughters, such a distinction between the sexes was rarely made in Scotland at any time in its history.

[185] The occasion was a banquet given to him in the Town Hall in celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of his connection with Birmingham. Mr. Bright said:—“And, what is worse, at this moment, as you see—you do not so much see it here as it is seen in the House—they [the Conservatives] are found in alliance with an Irish rebel party (loud and long-continued cheers), the main portion of whose funds, for the purposes of agitation, comes directly from the avowed enemies of England, and whose oath of allegiance is broken by association with its enemies. Now, these are the men of whom I spoke, who are disregarding the wishes of the majority of the constituencies, and who, as far as possible, make it impossible to do any work for the country by debates and divisions in the House of Commons. I hope the constituencies will mark some of the men of this party, and that they will not permit Parliament to be dishonoured and Government enfeebled by Members who claim to be, but are not, Conservative and Constitutional. Our freedom is no longer subverted or threatened by the Crown or by a privileged aristocracy. Is the time come—I quote the words from history—is the time come to which the ancestor of Lord Salisbury referred three hundred years ago, when he said that ‘England could only be ruined by Parliament’?”

[186] It enacted that to cause an explosion not leading to loss of life was a felony punishable by penal servitude for life. The attempt was punishable with twenty years’ imprisonment. To be found in the possession of dynamite, failing proof that it was held for a lawful purpose, entailed fourteen years’ imprisonment.

[187] For an account of this sect, see a curious article in The Spectator, 17th March, 1883.

[188] Brown, it was said in 1883, had left a diary for publication. This was not quite true, for immediately after his death all his papers were impounded by Sir Henry Ponsonby on behalf of the Queen.

[189] The Hon. Mrs. Stonor died on the 14th of April in London, from the effects of a carriage accident. She was a daughter of Sir Robert Peel, and was married to the third son of Lord Camoys. Few ladies of the Court stood higher in the favour of the Queen, and she had been lady-in-waiting to the Princess of Wales since the formation of her household in 1863.

[190] When England advised Egypt to abandon the Soudan, the Khedive’s Ministry under Cherif Pasha refused to take the advice. The defeat of Hicks Pasha caused England to substitute insistance for advice, and when the Egyptian Government was told it must abandon the Soudan, Cherif Pasha resigned. Here was an excellent opportunity for establishing a Protectorate; and it is not generally known that Sir Evelyn Baring strongly recommended the appointment of English Ministers for a period of five years. He was overruled, and Nubar Pasha was made Cherif’s successor. See Mr. Edward Dicey’s convincing plea for a Protectorate, in the Nineteenth Century for March, 1884. In passing it may be well to warn the reader that he cannot form any correct conception of Anglo-Egyptian relations till he has mastered Mr. Dicey’s numerous papers on the subject, notably his “England and Egypt” (Chapman and Hall, 1881). The central idea of Mr. Dicey’s policy is that the true interest of England in the Eastern Question lies in the Valley of the Nile, not in the Bosphorus; and that the Isthmus of Suez forms the key-stone of her position as an Imperial Power.

[191] His expenditure he estimated at £85,292,000, and his revenue at £85,555,000.

[192] The alternative courses were (1), calling in the aid of Turkish troops; (2), the employment of Zebehr Pasha; (3), the opening up of communications between Suakim and Berber after Graham’s victories on the Red Sea littoral; (4), the evacuation of Khartoum in accordance with a scheme whereby Gordon’s colleague, Colonel Stewart, was to take the fugitives down to Berber, while Gordon and a picked body of troops were to retreat up the White Nile in steamers to the Equator.

[193] These persons were in most cases rather incompetent. They were not boatmen or voyageurs at all, but clerks, shopmen, and land-lubbers from the Canadian towns, who had palmed themselves off on Lord Wolseley and his subordinates as experienced Canadian voyageurs.

[194] This was not the only case in which Lord Northbrook had discredited the Administration. It was notorious that Mr. W. H. Smith had shockingly neglected naval ship-building when, in 1880, he handed the Navy over to Lord Northbrook. Lord Northbrook had worked hard to make up arrears, and he had built new ships as fast as he could to enable the British Navy to rank with that of France. But his best efforts to correct Mr. Smith’s negligence failed, and yet in July, 1885, he expressed himself quite satisfied with the Navy. When he was absent in Egypt a violent agitation, demonstrating the feebleness and insufficiency of the Navy, was raised in the Press. Ere the autumn Session ended he admitted that £5,000,000 above the ordinary estimates would be needed to strengthen the Fleet in swift cruisers and torpedo boats.

[195] Loans already secured on these were to merge in the Preference Debt along with bonds for Alexandria indemnities. The interest on it was not to change, but that on the Unified Debt into which Daira Loans were to merge, was to be reduced to 3-1/2 per cent.

[196] When Ismail abdicated under the pressure of France and England it was not made clear that he abandoned all his rights as a private landowner in Egypt. Theoretically the Khedive could not, according to Oriental usage, own any land in his dominions save as head of the State, in which capacity he owned all land. Hence, when he ceased to be Khedive, his private domains reverted to his successor. Hence Lord Granville always rejected Ismail’s claim. But in 1888 Lord Salisbury, through the agency of Mr. Marriott, Judge Advocate-General, commuted all Ismail Pasha’s claims for a lump sum, calculated on the allowances he was bound to make his family, and which he himself might fairly demand to support his position as ex-Khedive. Lord Salisbury’s object was to prevent these claims from being ever made the basis of operations for diplomacy hostile to England.

[197] The dates are curious:—

[198] Speech in House of Lords, February 26th, 1885.

[199] Speech in the Reichstag, March 2nd, 1885.

[200] More Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands. From 1862 to 1882. Smith, Elder & Co., 1884.

[201] Fortnightly Review, May, 1884.

[202] The Claremont Estate was bought by the Crown in 1816. It was granted to the lamented Princess Charlotte and her husband, Prince Leopold—the Queen’s uncle—with benefit of survivorship. It was a place full of gloomy associations, but Prince Leopold kept it up pretty well till 1848, on the £60,000 a year which he had from the nation. In 1848 the exiled Orleans family occupied it, and were prodigal in spending money in improving the grounds and gardens, which were almost as productive as those of Frogmore. On the death of King Leopold of Belgium, Claremont reverted to the Crown, and Lord John Russell and Mr. Gladstone passed an Act granting it to the Queen for life. In 1881 Sir Henry Ponsonby, as trustee for the Queen, bought the reversionary interest of it for her from the State for £70,000, and since then it has been her private property, like Osborne and Balmoral. That Claremont is the property of the nation is a strange delusion fondly cherished by many critics of Royalty.

[203] Prince Leopold lived chiefly at Boyton Manor from the summer of 1875 till the autumn of 1879, when the Queen insisted on his going to Claremont. It was at Boyton that he was so dangerously ill in 1877 that Sir William Jenner telegraphed for the Queen to come to what was supposed to be his deathbed. After that her Majesty always objected to his staying in Wiltshire.

[204] The borough franchises of England and Wales were the old £20 clear annual value qualification of 1832, and the householder and lodger franchises established in 1867. To these the new Reform Act of 1885 added the “service franchise,” giving a vote to any man who inhabits any dwelling-house by virtue of any office, service, or employment. Caretakers, bailiffs, gamekeepers, officers of public establishments, shepherds, &c., were admitted under this qualification. It was further provided that every citizen of full age, and not subject to legal incapacity, who has occupied a house for a year and paid his rates, can have his name registered as a voter for the district, whether it be called county or borough, in which he resides. The property franchises in the counties were in the main left untouched, but provision was made to check multiplication of faggot votes—i.e., votes of non-resident occupiers on sham qualifications. But four-fifths of the 5,000,000 electors enfranchised by the Bill were really qualified as simple householders in town and county.

[205] There were 56 two-member constituencies wholly disfranchised, and 31 which lost a member apiece. But by Mr. Gladstone’s Bill in 1885, there were 160 seats set free for redistribution, 6 that were in abeyance were revived, and to meet the claim of Scotland for increased representation, 12 new seats, despite the opposition of the extreme Tories like Sir J. D. Hay, were added to the House.

[206] Of this £11,000,000, it must be said £4,500,000 were to pay for Egyptian expeditions and £6,500,000 for “special preparations.”

[207] M. Lessar, the Central Asian geographer, was now in attendance at the Russian Embassy as an expert.

[208] See Speeches of Lord Randolph Churchill (Authorised Edition), edited by Henry W. Lucy (George Routledge and Sons: London, 1885, p. 220).

[209] As a matter of fact it was weaker than it should have been, but this was due to the neglect of shipbuilding by Mr. W. H. Smith, whose favourite policy was to make old ships do for new ones by patching their boilers. Lord Northbrook had pushed on shipbuilding, and made up leeway so that in first-class ironclads the country was more than a match for France. But much had still to be done in other directions—e.g., in providing vessels for scouting, and for torpedo warfare. The armament of the Navy was also obsolete, in fact, when Mr. Smith handed the Navy over to Lord Northbrook, there was not a single big breech-loading gun mounted in the Fleet.

[210] Whilst the anti-Coercionists in the Cabinet (Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Chamberlain, and Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) were struggling with the Coercionists, the subterranean arrangements between the Tories and Parnellites were also publicly ratified in a speech delivered by Lord Randolph Churchill at the St. Stephen’s Club, in which, amidst ringing cheers, he condemned the renewal of Coercion. Signs of disorder in Ireland, he argued, had passed away, and such being the case Government was bound by “the highest considerations of public policy and Constitutional doctrine to return to and rely on the ordinary law. They were all the more strongly bound at that time because they had just enfranchised the Irish people, and declared them capable citizens fit to take part in the government of the Empire.”—The Parnell Movement, by T. P. O’Connor, Chap. XIII.

[211] After he wound up the debate, and during this exciting scene, Mr. Gladstone had been quietly writing his nightly report to the Queen of the proceedings of the House, on a sheet of note-paper which he held on his knee as a desk. Lord Randolph Churchill vainly endeavoured to rouse his attention by putting up his hand to his mouth as if it were a speaking-trumpet, and shouting through it mocking taunts of triumph at the Premier.

[212] H. W. Lucy’s Diary of Two Parliaments, Vol. II., p. 478. (London: Cassell & Co.)

[213] The controversy between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone was conducted through memoranda addressed to the Queen dated the 17th, 18th, 20th, and 21st of June. For the text, see Parliamentary Report of the Times, 25th of June, 1885.

[214] The offer, it is odd to notice, was almost an unprecedented mark of Royal favour. The elevation of Mr. Disraeli to an earldom was effected in the middle, not at the end of his service as Premier, and in the moment of his triumph, not of his defeat. It is, however, worth noting that at the end of his first Administration Mr. Disraeli accepted a viscountess’s coronet for his wife. Lord John Russell was not Premier in 1859 when he became Earl Russell; in fact, his acceptance of the Foreign Office under Palmerston was supposed finally to put him in the background. Grenville, Liverpool, Wellington, Goderich, Grey, Melbourne, Derby, and Aberdeen were all Peers before they became Premiers. When Addington’s Ministry resigned early in the century, the Premier, it is true, became Lord Sidmouth. Yet it was not an earldom but only a viscountcy—a rank often conferred on ex-Ministers who have not been Premiers—that was given to him. Pitt was not actually First Lord of the Treasury—though no doubt he was the moving spirit in the Cabinet—when he became Earl of Chatham. In fact, for the Queen’s offer there was no precedent later than 1742, when Walpole—the Minister to whom her House owe their crown—was created Earl of Orford when he resigned.

[215] Mr. Gibson had been elevated to the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland under this title.

[216] “Lord Northbrook,” wrote the Times, “chose to regard the criticisms on this blundering way of keeping accounts as a personal attack on himself, and rested his defence, with more temper than lucidity, on the propriety of the expenditure incurred, which no one had thought of challenging.”

[217] The Journals of Major-General C. G. Gordon, C.B., at Khartoum, printed from the original MS. Introduction and Notes by A. Egmont Hake. (London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co., 1885, p. 56.)

[218] On this point see an entry in Gordon’s Journal under date the 6th of October, 1884. It was not till the 17th of May, 1884, that Lord Granville wrote enjoining Gordon to adopt “measures for his own removal and for that of the Egyptians at Khartoum by whatever route he may consider best.” But it was now too late to attempt the evacuation of Khartoum save in co-operation with a relief force.

[219] Metamneh is 176 miles from Korti, but only 90 miles from Berber, and 98 from Khartoum, from which latter places the Mahdi brought up all the troops he could spare.

[220] “A cavalryman is taught never to be still, and that a square can be broken. How can you expect him in a moment to forget all his training, stand like a rock, and believe no one can get inside a square?... The sailors were pressed back with the cavalry, and lost heavily; they get very excited, and would storm a work or do anything of that kind well; but they are trained to fight in ships, and you cannot expect them to stand shoulder to shoulder like grenadiers.”—From Korti to Khartoum, by Sir Charles Wilson, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., D.C.L., F.R.S., R.E., late Deputy Adjutant-General, Nile Expedition. Edinburgh (Blackwood), 1885, p. 36.

[221] Sir Charles Wilson strives hard to defend Lord Wolseley and Sir Herbert Stewart. He says that Stewart could not march straight across the Desert for lack of transport, though he admits that an additional thousand camels, which could have been easily got in November, would have saved the situation. Why were they not got? Moreover, the blunder of Lord Wolseley and Sir Herbert Stewart is inexcusable, because they acted in defiance of Gordon’s last message. “Come,” said he, “by way of Metamneh or Berber; only by these two roads. Do this without letting rumours of your approach spread abroad.” Stewart’s first occupation of Gakdul, thirteen days before the Desert column was ready to move, was simply a gratuitous warning to the Mahdi of the English advance.

[222] This is sometimes called Gubat, and sometimes Abu Kru.

[223] Gordon’s diaries show that even on the 28th of November, 1884, when his men held Omdurman and the North Fort, Wilson could not have passed the junction of the Blue and White Nile without a strong land force to co-operate with his steamers. On the 28th of January, 1885, however, these positions were in the Mahdi’s hands, and Wilson had no land force.

[224] Lord Charles Beresford was too ill to proceed up the Nile with Wilson, and, as he was the only naval officer available, it was prudent to leave him at Gubat. Had our position there been attacked, he would perhaps have been able to assist in its defence with Gordon’s steamers.

[225] See an analysis of General Gordon’s Journals by the present writer in the Observer for the 28th of June, 1885. For criticism of Wilson’s Expedition, see article, said to be by Sir E. Hamley, in Blackwood for June, 1885.

[226] See The Letters of General C. G. Gordon. (London: Macmillan, 1888.)

[227] Gordon’s death evoked from the Colonies in America and Australia profuse and generous offers of military aid. The only one accepted was that which was made by New South Wales.

[228] When Mr. Gladstone fell from power, and Lord Salisbury’s Government took office in 1887, this promise was renewed. But in 1888 it was repudiated by Mr. W. H. Smith, the First Lord of the Treasury.

[229] The children of the Prince of Wales will probably be provided for by the State. The children of the Duke of Edinburgh, owing to the wealth of their parents, need no provision. The Duchess of Connaught inherited a large fortune from her father, the “Red Prince.” The Princess Louise, Marchioness of Lorne, if she were to have a family, could provide for them as members of the House of Argyll.

[230] The German Crown Prince and the Grand Duke of Hesse received the Order on marrying daughters of the Queen. But the Marquis of Lorne got the Order of the Thistle in similar circumstances.

[231] Continental diplomatists and publicists held that the notification in the Gazette was absolutely illegal, because it was a violation of an international agreement as to the assumption of this title arrived at by the Great Powers at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. This agreement, which was signed by the Duke of Wellington as the representative of England, is embodied in the “Protocol Séparé Séance du 11 Oct., 1818, entre les cinq Puissances,” and it arose out of their refusal to permit the Elector of Hesse to assume the title of king. The Powers declared that the title Royal Highness used by the sons of kings, might be also used by grand dukes and their heirs-presumptive, but by no one of lower rank in sovereign circles. Prince Henry was neither a grand duke nor an heir-presumptive to a grand duke.

[232] When Prince Victor married the sister of the Marquis of Hertford, she was created Countess Gleichen, a title which the Prince also assumed, the marriage being on the Continent regarded as “morganatic.” It was held that the Queen’s order raising the lady to her husband’s royal rank was void and illegal outside the English Court, like the similar order with reference to the Countess Dornburg.

[233] This intrigue was initiated by Mr. Justin McCarthy, who had long enjoyed Lord Carnarvon’s personal friendship. Before finally selling the Irish vote, Mr. Parnell had a personal interview with Lord Carnarvon, at which the bargain was struck. Lord Carnarvon has denied various accounts of this interview, but he has never denied that as Viceroy of Ireland, he told Mr. Parnell that Irish industries must be stimulated, and that he would give the new Irish Government power to levy Protective Duties. As taxation and representation go together, this concession implies that the Irish Government was to be vested with fiscal powers, which could only be exercised in co-operation with and under responsibility to an Irish Parliament.

[234] The doctrine of ransom in the counties took the form of a vague and ambiguous pledge to give every labourer who wanted an allotment “three acres and a cow,” by purchase-money advanced from the rates.

[235] For a definite statement of Lord Carnarvon’s policy as Mr. Parnell understood it, see Mr. Parnell’s speech on the Home Rule Bill. Times, June 8, 1886.

[236] The case for the Government, however, was strengthened and made more conclusive as the debate went on.

[237] As successor of the old abbots, the Dean of Westminster, in the Abbey, takes precedence of all ecclesiastics except the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[238] When the children got to the Park Mr. Lawson, like a practical man, put them in good humour by feeding them. They were taken in squads to tents, and each child got a bag with a meat pie, a piece of cake, a bun, and an orange; also a plated medallion portrait of the Queen. A Jubilee mug of Doulton ware was also given to each boy and girl, and during the day lemonade, ginger beer, and milk were to be had for the asking.

[239] Lord Tennyson’s health did not admit of his officiating as Laureate on this occasion, and Mr. Browning has always declared himself unable to produce ceremonial odes to order.

[240] History of England, Vol. V., p. 537.