their honour (Nov. 30) the English leaders maintained this tone. Mr. Goschen, whilst not denying the value of the instinct of the masses, would not concede that the only qualification for passing a sound political opinion was "to have nothing and to know nothing." The Unionists desired to be able to extend to Ireland all the local institutions which they were prepared to grant to England and Scotland. So long, however, as such institutions were liable to be wrested to partisan objects, it would be reckless to force them upon Ireland.

There was something apposite in these warnings, for just about this time the feud existing between the Fenians and the Nationalists, which for a long time had been slumbering, broke out at the meeting of the Gaelic Athletic Association (Nov. 9) at Thurles. The contest arose over the selection of a chairman, when the priests and the Nationalists found themselves outvoted in the proportion of nearly three to one. They at once withdrew from the association, but the Fenians, who had never hesitated to avow their Separatist wishes, gave no sign of modifying their policy, in spite of the appeals made to them not to endanger the Nationalist cause.

The closing act of the year to Ireland, the reduction of the arrears on judicial rents, has been referred to in the preceding chapter. By the Nationalist press it was said to "combine the very minimum concession to the tenants with the very maximum disregard of the so-called rights of the landlords." At any rate it seemed in direct opposition to all that the Ministry had asserted by the mouths of their chief spokesmen. It did not satisfy the tenants and it infuriated the landlords. Whilst one party saw in it "the last deadliest blow struck against the Irish tenants by those who should be their protectors," the other declared that "neither Davitt nor Dillon had given a severer shock to the interests of the landed proprietors."

In presence of such wide divergences of opinion; in view of the fact that some of the most trusted of the Irish Nationalist leaders were confined in gaol for conscience' sake; and in the knowledge that, official statistics notwithstanding, the area of disaffection had not sensibly diminished, it is no exaggeration to say that for Ireland the Jubilee year ended in despondency, and for its well-wishers in something akin to despair.

1

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL HISTORY.

CHAPTER I.

FRANCE AND ITALY.

I. FRANCE.

In the political history of France the year 1887 will be known as the year of crises, struggles, and dislocation of the public service. At its very outset it was obvious that the Goblet Ministry had but little vitality. It bore, in common with the Budget which it was forced to present to the Chamber, the mark of expectancy, and like it was wanting in both unity and equilibrium. The President of the Council held only the appearance of authority over his colleagues; he was neither the most popular, nor the most eloquent, nor the most weighty of the members of his Ministry. General Boulanger had more popularity with the crowd; M. Berthelot, one of the first savants of France, was most appreciated by the educated classes; whilst M. Lockroy stood first in the favour of Parisians. It was, moreover, clear that the majority of the Cabinet was more Radical than the majority of the Chamber. Perhaps a still greater cause of weakness was the wide gulf separating the Moderates, M. Develle and M. Dauphin, from MM. Granet and Boulanger, the favourites of the Extreme Left. Public opinion, moreover, was so unanimous as to the weak resistance which the Government could offer to its adversaries that the rumour of a chance meeting between M. Jules Ferry and M. de Freycinet at the Elysée gave currency to the rumour of a Ministerial crisis. The mere hint of an alliance between the two former Premiers sufficed to arouse stories of a Ministerial crisis and a dissolution of the Chamber. These, combined with alarming presentiments of approaching troubles with Germany, threw no little gloom over the opening year.

The first thing the Ministry had to do was to obtain a two months' Budget and to find some excuse for the Chamber to reconsider its vote relating to the suppression of sous-préfetures. M. Goblet, with this view, prepared a Bill which pleased no one. He proposed to suppress 60 out of 273 sous-préfétures, and completely recast the administrative districts which dated from the time of the Consulate. In spite of so considerable a change, the Bill only showed a saving of 500,000 francs, which were at once absorbed by the additional travelling allowances accorded to the prefects and their representatives. Simultaneously M.

Dauphin, the Finance Minister, drew up a Budget which promised as little practical advantages as that planned by the President of the Council. The result he had in view was to establish an equilibrium between expenditure and revenue without having recourse to either a fresh loan or new taxes. The solution proposed by the Minister was a meagre saving to be obtained by the suppression of a certain number of tax-collectors (percepteurs). The moment, moreover, for effecting these savings was postponed until the death of the existing officials. In order, however, to find some less imaginary millions the Government resolved to propose to the Chamber to revise the legislation of 1844 on the Sugar Bounty question, and to associate the State in the profits which the manufacturers were making.

Nothing could exceed the moderation of the Chamber at the opening of the session (Jan. 11). Members returned from meetings with their electors animated by the best intentions; its officers (those of the preceding year) were nominated at a single sitting, whilst the President, M. Floquet, was elected President almost unanimously. This was a well-deserved tribute. The valuable qualities which the President had displayed in the discharge of his duty-clearness and decision in the control of the debates, absolute impartiality between rival groups, and a ready tongue at the service of sharp wit- were M. Floquet's claims to the confidence of his colleagues. In taking his seat in the presidential chair for the third time (Jan. 13) M. Floquet, after having thanked the Chamber, added a few words of wise counsel: "I sincerely desire," said he, "that amongst the Republicans my friends may bring to bear upon their discussions and transactions that spirit of concord necessary to the peaceful continuance and fruitful existence of the Republic. I wish the Chamber a long life, the strength to carry beneficent reforms, and a clear view of skilful policy."

The Chamber at once showed that it was not the dupe of the Utopists by refusing to recognise as urgent the proposal of M. Aristide Boyer, the Socialist Deputy for Marseilles, for an immediate disarmament. His theory was that if France gave an example other nations would follow, and disband their armies. Another member of the Extreme Left, M. Achard, introduced into the debate on the Budget of the Home Office an amendment for the suppression of the Secret Service Fund. M. Goblet opposed the motion with great vivacity, going so far as to make it a Cabinet question; and, inasmuch as it was the first party vote demanded by the Ministry, the result was a gauge of its strength in the Chamber. Out of 478 members voting, 265 supported the Ministry and the maintenance of the Secret Service Fund, whilst 233 voted on the other side; this minority included scarcely any but members of the Right and those of the Extreme Left, whilst the majority was made up for the most part of the Union of the Lefts (Opportunists) and of the Radical Left.

The group over which M. Clémenceau presided either refrained or voted against the Ministry, which thus found its only solid support in the moderate section of the Republican party. M. Goblet accepted the warning. At this moment most alarming rumours as to the warlike intentions of Germany were current in Paris; the telegrams from Berlin and London brought about a terrible panic on the Bourse, and the need of union amongst Republicans of all shades was urgent. M. Goblet at once struck out of the Ministerial programme every project bearing on the separation of the Church and State. Notwithstanding his former declarations he maintained that the majority of Frenchmen were in no wise disposed to suppress the Budget of public worship, and as a corollary he was prepared to support the Concordat. To show their approval of these doctrines, the Government, on the discussion of the Education and Public Worship Budgets, vigorously opposed the reductions proposed by MM. Burdeau and Millerand, who led off a campaign against the clericals. M. Burdeau wished to exclude from competitions for the Naval School all young men who had been educated in the Jesuit college at Jersey, and M. Millerand called for the suppression of chaplains, both Catholic and Protestant, in all lycées and colleges. The Government was supported by the Chamber in refuting these amendments; further, on taking a vote on the principle of the separation of Church and State (Jan. 29, the Government had a majority of 343 against 180.

The earlier days of February passed in a sterile agitation, of which foreign policy furnished the theme. German newspapers commenced a series of bitter attacks upon General Boulanger, whom they represented as a danger to the peace of Europe. Although in some quarters of France these articles found an echo, their immediate result was to increase the influence of the soldier whom they sought to depreciate, and to rally to his support not a few moderate Republicans. The General's popularity rapidly increased to an extent which was disquieting. In presence of the new element suddenly introduced into French politics, the members of the Union of the Lefts (Opportunists) felt the need of rallying their forces and giving a new organisation to their party. With this view a Grand Republican Congress was convoked at Paris (Feb. 17), at which Deputies and Senators met and took counsel with the delegates of 71 departments. M. Steeg, Deputy for the Gironde, and President of the Parliamentary Union of the Lefts, was elected President. He explained with great clearness the serious changes which the tone of politics had undergone throughout the country during the past few years. He showed the Republican party weakened by its very victories-its renewals compromised by the greatly increased cost of electoral expenses, and its influence in the country nullified by its internal divisions. It was decided that a committee should be created with the

view of establishing local societies in every department. All members of existing bodies would be admitted to form part of, these societies. The Monarchists on one side and the partisans of violent revolution were alike excluded. In point of fact the project was nothing more than an adaptation of the means employed ten years previously by Gambetta in his struggle with the Government of May 16 and renewed in 1884 by the Comte de Paris. On the present occasion, however, the mistrust existing between the various groups of Republicans was too deeply accentuated to give any hope that an attempt at common action could be realised.

Meanwhile the discussion on the Budget, delayed by numerous amendments, was at length brought to a close (Feb. 11). The Budget in its totality was voted by 373 to 24, and a few days previously a unanimous vote had accorded to the Ministers of War and Marine a credit of 86,000,000 frs. In spite of the thinly disguised menaces of the German newspapers these measures of precaution were voted with a rapidity and ease which denoted the firm intention of France to defend herself if attacked. The dangers from without made the need of greater concord at home more sensible, especially amongst the various groups of politicians, who each in their own way frankly accepted the Republic. M. Raoul Duval, formerly one of the most influential members of the Right during the MacMahon régime, set himself to bring about this reunion. He proposed to form a sort of third party in which should coalesce the Liberal Monarchists who held France above the Monarchy and all moderate Republicans. His sudden death before his plan could be tested was regarded as a public misfortune, and political leaders of the hostile camps met behind his coffin. The protectionist policy skilfully profited by the spirit of alarmed patriotism to levy an additional tax upon corn, but it must be admitted that the discussion of this serious proposal was conducted with full and befitting gravity. The debate, however, clearly brought out the want of unity existing in the Ministry, and that on a question of this importance it was ready to follow the majority of the Chamber, but unable to guide it. Moreover, the majority itself was dislocated, and the ordinary groups dispersed. Broadly speaking, it may be said that the Deputies of the great towns and commercial ports voted against the additional tax; those of the agricultural districts, on the other hand, regarding it as insufficient, gave it a lukewarm reception. Hence M. Frederic Passy, Deputy of the Seine, and a thoroughgoing Free Trader, bitterly attacked the law, and the Government which allowed it to pass, without taking a decided line for or against the proposals. He proved that the price of corn in France was higher than in London, and indignantly protested against the idea of still more increasing the functions of the State, as if it were not already too powerful in France! This charge which M. Passy brought against