18s. 1d., and Leeds and Sheffield both £1, 17s. 5d.

At the same time it was averred by those who were likely to be well informed that the system of estimating the true value of the teaching did not in all instances work satisfactorily. The National Union of Elementary Teachers was protesting against the overpressure on scholars and teachers under the education code. It was stated that inspectors, school managers, and school-boards attached so much importance to the mere percentage of passes in the annual examinations, and made so little of the higher results of moral and intellectual training, or the quality of the passes, that teachers were compelled against their wish to adopt a cramming system, and to bring undue pressure upon dull and weak children in order to keep up the reputation of the schools and to maintain their professional position. The teachers implied that practically the code was based on the principle that all children can progress at the same rate, and that its provisions endangered the so-called "results" if such children were educated naturally. Special difficulties existed in girls' and infants' schools, where an inordinate amount of needlework was demanded from children of tender years in addition to the ordinary subjects of instruction. It was stated that the extra worry and labour caused by regulations in the code, might be greatly reduced by allowing the managers to withhold from examination, or to present again in the same standard, children not able by reason of dulness or bad attendance to advance at the average rate, such power not to extend beyond 10 per cent of those on the books for the last 22 weeks of the school year.

The final passing of the education bill concluded the session of 1870 so far as important measures were concerned. It may also be noted that an order in council directed that from the 31st of August appointments to the civil service of the state would be by competitive examination. The announcement of the intended release of the Fenian prisoners undergoing sentences for treason or treason-felony, on condition that they should not remain in

285

or return to the United Kingdom, was also an event which was regarded with considerable interest.

The Franco-German war that terrible conflict which made Napoleon III. a prisoner and an exile, and gave occasion for the King of Prussia to accomplish North German unity under his own empire-has its own history. It need bear no prominent part here, for it has little directly to do with the social and political progress of England, except, indeed, that our having remained strictly neutral was some evidence of our advance in wisdom and in judgment. The greatest anxiety of the government was for Belgium, and it was much increased, while public suspicion was excited, by the publication in the Times of an alleged draft treaty between Count Bismarck and M. Benedetti, when the latter was French minister at Berlin. This treaty was obviously intended to secure Belgium to France. The matter was serious, but Mr. Gladstone preserved a calm and moderate attitude, while waiting for explanations from the French and Prussian governments. Count Bismarck, it appeared, had published the document to show what kind of proposal had been made, and by that means to secure the alliance of England and Belgium. All that Mr. Gladstone did when France first denied and then admitted that the document was authentic, was to ask for two millions of money and an increase in the army by 20,000 men. His desire was to remain on friendly terms with the antagonists, that England might take the earliest occasion (should it arise), either alone or with others, to bear a message of peace. This was in accordance with the general feeling of the country, and a new treaty was signed between Russia, France, and England, engaging to maintain the independence of Belgium as provided in the treaty of 1839.

As the war between France and Prussia went on there appeared to be a peculiar change in public feeling here, and though after the siege of Paris, where the inhabitants had suffered dreadful privations, we were prompt in sending relief to the famished

people, something like adulation was heard in reference to German prowess. For a time German tactics, German promptitude, German organization were the foremost topics of conversation, and perhaps deservedly so, and then in relation to our own board-school teaching, the German method of education was everywhere lauded as something very near perfection, only a few people venturing to doubt whether it was as effectual as its admirers represented it to be.

The position of affairs in Europe, and some movement in public opinion on the subject of a comparison between England and other nations in the matter of military government, made the time seem favourable for bringing forward the proposed system of army reform, which had been prepared by Mr. Cardwell, the minister of war. To purchase a commission, and to follow that up by purchasing successive steps in the service, had been the rule, so that a commission represented actual property, just as a horse, a house, or the good-will of a business might. It was, in fact, a matter of bargain and sale, and the regulation price of a commission at the Horse Guards was often far exceeded by its actual selling value. It is scarcely surprising, therefore, that whenever abolition of purchase had been proposed, as it had been by Sir de Lacy Evans, and more recently by Mr. Trevelyan, a whole contingent of officers frantically declared that the service was going to the bad; and another contingent, believing purchasing a commission was the only way to keep the commodity in the hands best fitted to adorn it, determined to fight the bill to the last. It soon became evident that they were strong enough, aided by the opposition, to arrest the progress of the bill so that it might go over the session, and therefore the part of it relating to reorganization of the army was abandoned, and only the abolition of purchase clauses retained; with a strong hint to the clamorous opponents that as all premiums on the original price of commissions were illegal, the law might be put in force. The bill passed the Commons, but in the House of Lords a clever expedient was tried for the purpose of delaying and then shelving the whole matter. The Duke of Richmond moved an amendment

to the effect that the Lords could not consider the proposal till a more comprehensive scheme was brought before them. This plan of burking the bill was ingenious, but the intention was obvious, and Mr. Gladstone frustrated it by a plan which aroused much remonstrance among some of his own supporters, including Mr. Fawcett, a very thorough Liberal of the school of Mill, who was returned for Brighton in 1865, and was a noted man in the house, not only because of his great ability, but because several years previously an accident had deprived him of his sight, a calamity which made little difference in his pursuits, in his intellectual achievements, or even in his robust recreations. Mr. Gladstone checkmated the Lords by an expedient which, for a moment, at all events, looked unconstitutional, and for which nobody seemed able to find a precedent. The purchase system was originated by a royal warrant, making it a privilege, and therefore he had advised the queen to aid the reformation of the army by cancelling the warrant. Perhaps her majesty may not have been unwilling to do so, when she remembered some opinions of the Prince Consort on the subject. At all events it was done, and purchase was made illegal. The only effect of the Lords rejecting the bill now would be that they would vote against compensation to the holders of purchased commissions, for that was all of the bill that was left. They therefore passed a vote of censure on the ministry by a majority of eighty, and then passed the measure without more delay.

The University Tests Bill was also carried without any serious alteration, and the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill put an end to another intolerant demand which had remained ever since the "papal aggression." The Trades Union Act, while forbidding the violence exercised by workmen in the case of strikes, yet defined what was and what was not illegal interference, and did something to bring about a better understanding between employers and their "hands." The Local Government Acts extended to small towns and villages the advantages of managing their corporate business, which had previously been confined to cities

The liquor traffic, as the sale of wine, beer, and spirits had come to be called, was still opposed with great pertinacity by the United Kingdom Alliance, which had collected a large sum of money, and was constantly circulating its periodicals and appeals throughout the country. Doubtless a great change had been wrought among a large class of the population, and drinking habits had greatly diminished, so that there was little difficulty in passing a bill regulating public-houses, giving magistrates the power to grant or refuse licenses, increasing the penalties for drunkenness, and lessening the number of hours for keeping taverns open both on Sundays and week-days. The publicans were also protected in some important particulars; but they were of course opposed to the bill, which, however, was carried in spite of opposition.

More important in a political, or rather in an international sense than any other occurrence of the session of 1872, was the effort to come to a definite settlement of the long outstanding question of damages demanded by the United States government for the injuries inflicted by the Alabama. Mr. Reverdy Johnson, who was a jovial man, and liked the English people, came here to negotiate the matter, but, to use a modern phrase, was "too gushing" in his after-dinner speeches, and was so complimentary to England that his countrymen came to the conclusion that he would never properly support their claims. He was recalled, and Mr. Motley the historian, and Mr. Fish, the foreign secretary of the United States, resumed negotiations. It was decided that commissioners from England should go to Washington, and as our government had already expressed regret at the ravages of the piratical vessels which went out of English shipyards, the conference became easier. Some international rules on the duties of nations to prevent privateering were agreed on, for the guidance of the arbitrators who were to be chosen to decide the question. Our commissioners contended that we had not committed any breach of international faith; but they accepted the rules, and supposed that the only point for consideration would be the

actual damage inflicted. The United States government, however, claimed indirect damages for the expense they had incurred, and the losses they had sustained in consequence of the failure of our government to prevent the privateers from leaving our ports. These claims were for losses in the transfer of the American commercial marine to the British flag, the enhancement of the payment of insurances, and the prolongation of the war, and the addition of a large sum to the cost of it.

The arbitrators were Count Frederic Sclopis for Italy, president; Chief-justice Cockburn for England; Mr. Charles Francis Adams for America; M. Jaques Staempli for Switzerland; and Viscount Itajuba for Brazil. They met on the 15th and 19th of June, and agreed that the indirect claims should be rejected. The discussions were resumed at intervals till the 25th of December, when the decision of the tribunal was announced, namely, that in the cases of the Alabama and the Florida, Great Britain had failed to fulfil the duties prescribed by the rules of the treaty, in not having used due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, and equipping vessels which, there was ground for believing were intended to carry on war against a power with which she was at peace. In the case of other vessels it was decided that there had been no failure of due diligence. The award for the satisfaction of all claims was 15,000,000 dollars. This settled the question. At about the same time the Emperor of Germany decided against us as to the right of possession of the island of San Juan, which he declared belonged to the United States. Both conclusions were accepted with dignity and endorsed with honour, and at a cost which would have been far exceeded even by a temporary resort to hostilities, while there was a gratifying sense on both sides that the dispute was settled in accordance with reason and humanity.

It may well be supposed that the untiring energy and rapidity with which the Liberal government advanced measures of remarkable importance, produced a feeling of restlessness among the less ardent of their followers, while the opposition marked with satisfaction the

289

not be passed without a great many people being affected by them, and every fresh change touched some interest and aroused some animosity. At the same time, as we have before seen, the very tendency to independent thought and the want of compact following among the Liberals tended after every new achievement to diminish that unanimity by which a strong party can alone be maintained. The time now arrived in the session of 1873 when Mr. Gladstone was to bring forward the third of the measures which he had promised for Ireland. This was the introduction of a national system of education under which the rights of conscience would be secured. As a preliminary measure in this direction Mr. Gladstone proposed to create a new university in Dublin, of which Trinity College and other colleges should form a part, just as the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge belong to their universities. Certain careful provisions were to be made to recognize the preponderance of the Roman Catholic religion, one of them being the exclusion of the teaching of theology and moral philosophy, upon which subjects, however, voluntary examinations would be held. The bill was opposed both by Roman Catholics and Protestants. Another bill brought in by Mr. Fawcett in the previous year—had been supported by the governing body of Trinity College, and Mr. Gladstone therefore declared that the ministry would stand or fall by the measure which he now advocated. Some of the professed Liberals were averse to it. Mr. Horsman bitterly opposed it, and though the debate was sharp, able, and well spiced with checks and counterchecks, it was soon seen that the division for the second reading would be a narrow one. It went against the government by 287 votes to 284.

Mr. Gladstone's ministry adhered to their determination to resign office, and Mr. Disraeli was sent for to form another administration; but though he had obstinately opposed the bill on which the government was defeated, he was not ready to take the place offered him by their resignation. Mr. Gladstone and his colleagues were therefore reluctantly

VOL. IV.

The Judicature Bill had already been brought forward by Lord-chancellor Selborne. It was based on the report of the commission appointed in 1869 to inquire into the subject, and was one of the most important measures of the Liberal government, for it was intended for the reconstruction of the whole judicial system, by uniting the higher courts of justice in one great tribunal, the operations of which were to be free from the old distinctions and restrictions between law and equity, so that suitors might be spared expense, time, and trouble in seeking redress. The lord chiefjustice, the chief-justice of the common pleas, and the chief-baron of the exchequer were to remain in the positions they then occupied, and some of the existing divisions were retained as courts of the high court of judicature. The appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords exercised by the law lords was to be transferred to a tribunal composed of the lord-chancellor, the chief-justice of England, the chief-justice of common pleas, the chiefbaron, the master of the rolls, and other judges not exceeding nine in number. The bill was not at first adapted to Scotland and Ireland because of some question of privilege, but was soon carried through both houses with the understanding that it would eventually be adapted to the whole kingdom.

But the Liberal government had been beaten, there was already a Conservative reaction which afterwards became more evident, and preparations were made for the general election in 1874. Changes were made in the ministry. Mr. Bright, who had returned to the house, consenting to be chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Mr. Gladstone undertook the duty of chancellor of the exchequer as well as that of prime minister, and Mr. Lyon Playfair and Mr. Vernon Harcourt also took office. The government had deserved well of the country, not only for the number of important measures it had passed, but for removing £12,000,000 from the taxation. It had spent £10,000,000 in buying the telegraphs as arranged by the previous minis

82