to be used in emergencies. His reply was that the Sinking Fund had not been extinguished, but only turned for a period to a use not contemplated when it was created; but this answer hardly touched the point which his critics made against him.

The reform of the Probate Duties was chiefly objected to on the gound that it did not go far enough, and that the subject was too complicated to be dealt with hurriedly, and at a crisis which did not leave due time for its consideration. Mr. Gladstone said that he did not purpose to say anything on the subject except by way of protest. It was not in his power to check the career of the Government. He and his friends were entirely at their mercy. He commented particularly on the fact that the Probate Bill did not touch one of the worst abuses of the present system, under which an administration had to pay duty on the whole assets of an estate, without deducting the debts. Mr. J. Barclay, Mr. Childers, and Mr. Dodson spoke to the same effect, but no division was taken.

Very little attention was paid to the proceedings of Parliament during its closing days. One measure only attracted much attention, and that was a measure which had a direct bearing upon the coming election. Sir S. Northcote, when he announced the dissolution, had intimated that before Parliament rose he would ask it to deal with the question of corrupt practices at elections. In accordance with this promise a Corrupt Practices Bill was introduced, the main feature of which was the abolition of the restrictions upon the conveyance of voters to the poll. This practice, though prohibited by the existing law, was, nevertheless, persisted in, the law being systematically evaded; and Sir Stafford Northcote proposed to remove the prohibition. Very few members were left in town on March 16, when this Bill came on for second reading; but the Scotch members and the Irish members succeeded, by the energy of their protests, in securing the exemption of Scotland and Ireland from its operation. English Liberal members protested with equal energy, but in vain.

Friday, the 19th, was the last working day of the expiring Parliament. Significantly enough, the House, which had had to listen so much in the course of its existence to Irish grievances, was counted out during a debate raised by the O'Gorman Mahon on Lord Beaconsfield's letter to the Duke of Marlborough. The O'Gorman Mahon had asked the House to declare that it "highly disapproved the attempt of the Prime Minister to stir up feelings of hatred between England and Ireland for the purpose of furnishing an election cry to his followers, and regarded with indignation his flagrant misrepresentation of the loyal efforts of the Home Rule party to extend the blessings of constitutional government to Ireland." He denied that the Home Rule movement involved any disloyalty, or contained any proposal to destroy the empire. Mr. Sullivan, who followed the O'Gorman Mahon, maintained that the Home Rule movement aimed at closing the era of insurrection for Ireland. It was an olive branch held out

at some risk to themselves, by certain public men in Ireland, prominent among whom, it was only justice to say, were members of the Conservative party, in the troublous times of 1866; and never in his practical experience was there a movement more fruitful of hope for the peace and welfare of his unhappy country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer briefly replied to these speeches; and when an attempt was made to continue the debate, the Speaker's attention was called to the fact that there was not forty members present, and the House was counted out. Thus practically ended the Parliament which had met on March 5, 1874. "Nothing in the whole term of this body's existence," the Times remarked, "has graced it less than the close."

66

The session of the House of Lords ended with more dignity; in an evening of discussions on the Corrupt Practices Bill, the state of agriculture and trade, and the affairs of Afghanistan. The depression of agriculture and trade was brought under the notice of the House by the Duke of Rutland, who advocated a return to protection as a remedy, or the introduction of reciprocity if protection were impossible. Lord Beaconsfield availed himself of the opportunity to expound his views on the nature of the prevailing depression, and the possible remedies for it. "If the whole nation," he said, " chose to adopt a protection policy, nothing could resist that policy being carried into effect." Reciprocity, as on a previous occasion, he declared to be in his opinion impossible. On the question whether it was in the power of the Government to do anything to relieve the distress, he said that it appeared to him that there were many things which might be done to facilitate the improvement of the soil, and thereby benefit its occupiers. Whether," Lord Beaconsfield went on to say, "we consider the question of removing the restrictions on its cultivation, or that most important point as to which I introduced in the other House of Parliament a remedy-namely, the securing for a tenant a complete protection for the capital which he has invested on the farm which he occupies-I think myself that before we can beneficially act to relieve and improve the agriculture of this country, the agriculture of this country must be in a normal condition, and that it would be most unwise in a moment of distress to hurry a measure when we are not dealing with the land of England in its usual state. I think it must be acknowledged by all that it is not so much competition, it is not so much local taxation, but what is infinitely more injurious and more powerful—namely, an almost unprecedented series of disastrous seasons-which has brought about the present unfortunate state of agriculture in England. That condition of the cultivators of the soil, however, is not a permanent one, and, as far as I can see, matters are tending towards improvement. All the evidences of nature that can guide us rather make us hope that we are about to enjoy a season of prosperity and abundance; and should this promise be fulfilled, the agricultural mind will be relieved from a great deal of the despondency and

distress which at this moment paralyse to a great degree the energies of the farmer. Then will be the time to consider whether we cannot alter many things in the relations of the farmer with the landowner, and deal with other matters which do not now beneficially act upon his condition. We require more data, more opportunities for examination, and more experience before we can come to any decided opinion as to the effect of the importation of foreign-grown corn upon our own produce. When the English farmer has been blessed with a harvest worthy of his industry, and when we have gained greater experience of the effect of the produce of other countries upon our own, then will be the time for us to consider a variety of measures which undoubtedly may not appear very important in themselves, but which will in the aggregate place him in a more advantageous and improved position than he now occupies."

99

When Lord Beaconsfield made this speech, the last word of his party for the time being to the farmers, the electoral battle had been in full progress for a week, all the leading members of the Opposition being fully occupied in various parts of the country with their indictment of the Government. Mr. Gladstone's speech at Marylebone on the 12th, before his departure for Scotland, marked the opening of the engagement. The Water Bill, the failure of which he treated as the main cause of the dissolution, and the readjustment of the Probate Duties-which he denounced as pressing unfairly upon personal property as compared with real property-were the chief topics of this speech. A passage in the peroration proved to be prophetic. "I cannot help hoping,' Mr. Gladstone said, " that whatever the answer of the country may be, it shall be clear and unequivocal, and shall ring from John o'Groat's to Land's End. Don't let us have an ambiguous expression of the popular voice-to-day an election in one way, tomorrow an election in another; to-day Liberalism is up in good spirits, to-morrow Jingoism is up. It is better that Jingoism should have its way, and that the people, if they won't learn by reason and they have had plenty of reason-should learn by experience, than that we should present to the rest of the world not one England, but two Englands; in fact, an England that does not know its mind, an England blowing one day hot, another day cold; one day wet, another day dry; something like what is said of our climate, and never maintaining that consistency and dignity of action which belongs to a great Power." This hope of a decided result from the General Election was far from being generally entertained. The common impression was that one party or the other would be returned to power with a small majority. Politicians and party-managers in the country were more hopeful of the prospects of the Liberals, but in London the utmost that was hoped for was a small majority. To predict a majority independent of the Home Rulers would have been considered a jest; and to predict what actually happened, a Liberal majority against

Conservatives and Home Rulers combined would have been considered too absurd even for that.

In his speech at Marylebone, Mr. Gladstone announced Lord Derby's definite secession from the Conservative party, and a formal letter to Lord Sefton explaining the reasons for this step was made public next day. "I have been long unwilling," Lord Derby wrote, "to separate from the political connection in which I was brought up, and with which, notwithstanding occasional differences on non-political questions, I have in the main acted for many years; but the present situation of parties, and the avowed policy of the Conservative leader in reference to foreign relations, leave me no choice. I cannot support the present Government; and as neutrality, however from personal feelings I might prefer it, is at a political crisis an evasion of public duty, I have no choice except to declare myself, however reluctantly, ranked among their opponents."

Lord Hartington began his campaign in North-east Lancashire at Accrington, on the 13th, in a speech which, according to the Times, "gave proof that he had attained a real skill in the art of controversial rhetoric," being "terse, direct, and clear in statement, successfully planting its telling points, and appealing to the strong parts of the English character." The most telling part of a speech which fully deserved this eulogium was a reply to the charge brought against the Liberal leaders of complicity with the disintegrating designs of the Home Rulers. Lord Hartington carried the war into the enemy's country, and suggested that the Government had deliberately tried to fasten this charge on their opponents with a view to getting up a good election cry. He could not, he said, bring himself to believe that the Water Bill was the sole cause of the dissolution, although, if the Government had in their minds any thought of dissolution when they introduced it, they "lent themselves to a most gigantic gambling job." Was it possible, after all, he asked, that the dissolution was "a preconcerted arrangement," and that the Government had intended from the first that the session should be considered to have done its duty when it had convicted the Opposition of "alliance with Home Rule," and "alliance with obstruction"? Lord Beaconsfield was an adept in election cries; and Lord Hartington thought that, looking back at the politics of the last three months, it was possible to see an election cry in the very process of manufacture. "Ever since the election at Sheffield," Lord Hartington said, "when the successful Liberal candidate received the support of the Irish vote -although he gave no pledges to the Irish or to the Home Rule section-ever since the Sheffield election I think we can trace the progress of a little plan which has being going on in the Conservative party and the Conservative press. A great deal was said after the election about the support which Mr. Waddy had received from the Irish, although, as I have said, that support was purchased by no pledges and by no concessions. After that the Liverpool election

was a godsend to those who were engaged in the little arrangement. From that moment the word was given that the cry was to be that an alliance has been formed between the Liberal party and the Home Rulers-an alliance for the purpose of disintegrating and destroying the British Empire. That was proclaimed in all the Conservative press; but we did not know yet how far countenance was to be given to it by the responsible leaders of the Conservative party. As soon as Parliament met we saw a still further development of this plan; we found that a gentleman had been put up to second the Address, a representative of one of the Orange societies of Ireland, Mr. Corry, the member for Belfast, who, instead of seconding the Address in the usual temperate language, devoted the greater part of his speech to a violent attack upon the Home Rule party, and the Liberal party, who were supposed to be in alliance. I took the liberty of altogether disregarding Mr. Corry's remarks. But a little later the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir S. Northcote himself, took up the same line, and said that Mr. Corry's observations were very much to the point, and that he should like to know, and the country would like to know, what is the attitude of the Liberal party in regard to Home Rule; and other speeches were made in the same debate, all to the same effect -all pointing to this supposed alliance between the Liberal party and the men who want to break up and dismember the British Empire." The cry for which the public mind was thus gradually prepared received its final shape, Lord Hartington pointed out, in the Prime Minister's manifesto. The introduction of the AntiObstruction resolutions, when no real business was intended, was, he suggested, part of the same plan: "if the Opposition could only have been got to join the Obstructionist party in resistance to those resolutions, then the election cry would have been a good deal improved."

Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Forster, Mr. Chamberlain, Sir Henry James, Lord John Manners, were all in the field with addresses and speeches on Monday, the 15th, Sir W. Harcourt's trenchant review of the foreign and domestic policy of the Government being one of the most powerful of single contributions to the force of the Liberal attack. The same day saw the beginning of an electoral campaign which attracted more than ordinary interest— an attempt made by Mr. John Morley and Sir Arthur Hobhouse to wrest the representation of Westminster from Mr. W. H. Smith and Sir Charles Russell. Mr. Lowe spoke at their first meeting, in Exeter Hall. "There were two roads," he said, "before the electors; one leading to safety and honour, the other to ruin and perdition. They had now to make their choice. Would they be led away by the cheap and puerile vanity of talking about the ascendency of England in the Councils of Europe? Such talk meant empty, foolish, and shameful delusion; it meant boundless taxation and oceans of blood. If their rights were attacked, they would, he hoped, like their ancestors, know how to defend them;