Sis fis. (J^artteU Hniueroitg ffiibrarg atijata. S^tw ^atfe BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF HENRY W. SAGE 1891 The date shows when this volume was taken. To renew this book copy the call No. and give to the libraiian. jm^....2.S..,192| HOME USE RULES All Books subject to recall |fi|u J t IBdI All borrowers must regis- .....V.^ ter in the library to borrow F BD 16 1 95fi I I ff '^^^^ ^°^ ^""^^ "'^• "^ i.w.w.w..t|...i^, All books must be re._ turned at pnd of college year for inspection and repairs. Limited books must be returned' within the four week limi t and not renewed. Students must return all books before leaving town. Officers should arrange for the return of books wanted during their absence from town. Volumes of periodicals " and of pamphlets are held in the library as much as possible. For special pur- __, poses they are given out for a limited time. Borrowers should not use their library privileges for the benefit of other persons. * Books of special value and gift books, when the , giver wishes it, are not allowed to circulate. Readers are asked to re- port all cases of books marked or mutilated. Do not deface books by marks and writing. CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 1924 088 010 578 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924088010578 GEORGE DOUGLAS EIGHTH DUKE OF ARGYLL, K.G., K.T. (18*3-1900) AUTOBIOGRAPHY AND MEMOIRS ld()8 GEORGE DOUGLAS EIGHTH DUKE OF ARGYLL K..(j., K..X. (1823— 1900) ■ AUTOBIOGRAPHY AND MEMOIRS EDITED BY THE DOWAGER DUCHESS OF ARGYLL WITH PORTRAITS AND ILLUSTRATIONS IN TWO VOLUMES II. LONDON JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET, W. 1906 S ^MS'S-\^^ CONTENTS TO VOL. II CUAPTEll , p^OK XXVII. VISIT TO HAWARDEN^rWOBK AT THE POST OFFICE — QUESTION OF LIFE PEERAGES — LORD LYND- HTJRST'S SPEECH — TREATY OF PARIS 1 XXVIII. CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. GLADSTONE ON THE CRIMEAN WAR 26 XXIX. SYMPATHY WITH THE ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENT — VISIT OF MRS. STOWE TO ENGLAND AND TO INVERARAY — DIFFICULTY WITH CHINA — GENERAL ELECTION 45 XXX. INDIAN MUTINY — SIR COLIN CAMPBELL — LORD DALHOUSIE — COMMERCIAL CRISIS 80 XXXI. LORD PALMERSTOn'S ADMINISTRATION 93 XXXII. THE DERBY ADMINISTRATION 111 XXXIII. LORD PALMERSTON'S SECOND MINISTRY - 137 XXXIV. THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR 169 XXXV. FOREIGN POLITICS 200 XXXVI. REFORM 229 XXXVn. DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE IRISH CHURCH 242 XXXVni. THE IRISH LAND BILL 253 XXXIX. INDIA 269 XL. THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR — ARMY REFORM — EDUCATION — CHURCH AND STATE 293 XLI. THE EASTERN QUESTION — ORNITHOLOGY - 322 XLH. THE IRISH LAND BILL - - 346 VI CONTENTS TO VOL. II CHAPTER PAGE XLin. THE PEANCHISE BILL — THE SOUDAN — LIBERAL- ISM AND RADICALISM 384 XLIV. HOME RULE 402 XLV. SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT THE ARMENIAN QUESTION 450 XLVI. SCIENCE- 481 XLVII. LITERARY WORK — JUBILEE — QUEEN VICTORIA — NATURAL HISTORY — POETRY — CHARACTER- ISTICS - 545 XLVIII. APPRECIATIONS 584 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS George Douglas, Eighth Duke of Argyll Frontispiece From a portrait by William Wontner. Photogravure PAGE GrEORGE DOUGLAS, EIGHTH DUKE OF ARGYLL To face 48 From a portrait by James Swinton. Photogravure. Inveraray Castle in Winter „ 342 The Mantuan Medal - „ 384 Ailsa Craig from Maoharioch „ 562 From a picture by the Duke of Argyll. AUTOBIOGEAPHY OF THE DUKE OF ARGYLL CHAPTER XXVII 1855-56 VISIT TO HAWARDEN— WORK AT THE POST OFFICE — QUESTION OF LIFE PEERAGES — LORD LYNDHURST's jl SPEECH — TREATY OF PARIS It was in the midst of this acute crisis in the Eastern Question that we were cordially invited by the Glad- stones to visit them at Hawarden. We were very glad to do so, as the most accentuated political differences had never interfered with our constant social inter- course, or with the immense pleasure we had in Glad- stone's varied and abounding conversation. We were delighted with Hawarden and the fine old castle on a steep elevation, overlooking an extensive and well- timbered park. The modern house is not beautiful, but comfortable and commodious, commanding an extensive view over a well-wooded landscape. Glad- stone began immediately to talk to me on the question of the moment, and assured me that he had not a,t all changed his opinion on the need of curtailing the pre- dominance of Russia in Europe ; but he continued to deny that the stipulation about the Euxine was a right way of trying to attain this end. I told him I saw no other. His mind was fixed on a mere negative, and in VOL. II. 1 2 VISIT TO HAWARDEN [chap, xxvn his usual eagerness he was carried away to making violent speeches against the policy of his own country — greatly, no doubt, to the encouragement of our enemy. General declarations of a desire to keep to our old ' Third Point,' and to diminish the overbearing pre- ponderance of Russia in the East of Europe, were useful and guiding declarations when he and I had been colleagues together in urging the Crimean expedition. But they were utterly useless now, when we were com- pelled to specify what we meant. Not even some large cession of territory would have been any equivalent for the abolition of the fleets, and no one knew better than Gladstone that any cession of territory of the least value for our purpose would have renewed and prolonged the war to an indefinite extent. But it was useless to argue with him on that subject. It was in his nature when once he had taken up a side to see no other, and this was the second great occasion on^which, with all my admiration of his powers and all my affection for him as a man, I saw how unsafe was his judgment, and how passionate were his convictions. But I never had any difficulty in the freest conversation with Gladstone. Almost equally eager on every sub- ject under the sun — except, indeed, the natural sciences, for which he never seemed to care — through all the Avide ranges of history, literature, and art, he was always as^fuU of animation as of knowledge. In the manage- ment of the woods of Hawardeh I thought him too destructive, but this was partly due to his eagerness in a personal handling of the axe. I enjoyed, as I always do, the fine timbering of an old English park, and regretted to see the fall of even stag-headed monarchs of the forest. During this visit to Hawarden I had long and very interesting talks with Gladstone on the condi- tion of the English Church. This may seem strange, considering our different standpoints, but neither of us was wedded to any provincial or personal theology. I could see from his manner and his silence 1855-56] POSTMASTER-GENERAL 3 that he disliked the Established Church of Scotland — I believe because its position had been one of the great stumbling-blocks in the way of his argument in his famous book on Church Principle. He never seemed to me to get over that early association of ideas. As his life went on, his character and position as a poli- tician and a statesman predominated over his earlier character as a Churchman and a theologian, and his alliance with the Dissenting element on both sides of the Tweed made him feel a warm sympathy with the Free Church Presbyterians in Scotland. But he never got over his distaste for the Establishment, and I was amused in later years by the involuntary coolness and restraint of his manner in speaking to, or of, any of its ministers. Beyond this little weakness, arising from some of the most indelible associations of his early years, I think his mind was singularly open and free from prejudice in the discussion of religion. I knew well the tender places with him, and they were too few and too far removed from any question of the time to interfere with the freedom of our intercourse. I had an intense interest in the discussion of such subjects with him, and was always able, if not largely to agree with him, yet at least to understand his points of view and to harvest some thoughts of interest and of value. On our return to London, I found myself fairly in the saddle of a great administrative department. It is usual in such offices that the incoming Minister should meet his predecessor, and learn from him in personal conversation as much as possible of the work in hand, and especially of the character and qualifications of the various members of the official staff. I had accordingly called on Canning, with whom I was on terms of cordial friendship, and we had a long conversation, some inci- dents of which afforded me considerable amusement. First, as regards the office generally, he asked me with a kindly smile whether I thought that I could easily restrain myself from controversial arguments, since in that office they would often be inconvenient. This 1—2 4 WORK AT THE POST OFFICE [chap, xxvii amused me much, as it was the first intimation I had had that, among friends, I had the reputation of being much disposed to controversy. Perhaps this was not wonder- ful, considering that I was first pubHcly known as the writer of a strongly controversial pamphlet, and later as an eager debater in the House of Lords. Canning was not in the Cabinet, althoughhewas a member of the Adminis- tration, so that he had not seen me in the capacity of a Minister ; but perhaps he may have been told by others that I was not an ' assentator ' there, and it was true that where great questions were at stake, and where I had reached decided opinions, often after much doubt, and always after much consideration, I did urge them with the eagerness of a strong conviction. But this is nothing more than the duty of every member of a Cabinet. On the other hand, if Canning thought I would naturally be contentious, either inside the Office with my permanent advisers there, or outside the Office, in its correspondence with the public, he was very much mistaken. Strange as it may sound, considering the many public controversies in which I have been engaged, I have always disliked extremely, and avoided, controversy in conversation among official colleagues or friends and intimates. When Canning, therefore, seemed to fear that I should soon be in some wrangle with my staff or with complainants outside, I laughed a good deal, and assured him that on that point I felt no apprehen- sions whatever. Canning then gave me a rapid and characteristic account of all the leading officers on whose reports and judgments I should have greatly to rely. Coming to the name of one of these, he hesitated for a moment, and said : ' Do you know what a clever ass means ? Well, that is what A.B. is.' I afterwards found all his personal sketches to be very accurate and of much use to me. Nothing could be more friendly and harmonious than all my relations with the staff of the Post Office, and especially with the Permanent Secretary 1855-66] SIB BOWLAND HILL 5 — an office then filled by that very eminent man. Sir Rowland Hill, to whom, more than to anyone else, the country owed the idea and the adoption of the penny post. I gave to any advice from him that weight to which it was so eminently entitled. He was of short stature, with a very round head, then nearly bald, rather small eyes, but with an expression of great quickness, a manner very grave and deliberate, with speech and voice well suited to the utterance of opinions never arrived at hastily, but always after the most careful and prolonged examination. It was an im- mense comfort to have to deal with such a man, more especially as, in the arithmetical element in all our dealings with railway and steamboat companies, I could only stare and wonder at Rowland Hill's extraordinary powers of statistical analysis and of arithmetical calculations. It was by these powers that he had arrived at his great proposal, as one resting on a sound financial basis. The central idea was one not easily grasped — namely, this : that the cost of carrying a letter from London to Birmingham is not appreciably less than the cost of carrjdng it to Thurso. But it required great faculties of calculation to prove that one and the same charge would pay for the transit of letters to all parts of the United Kingdom, however near or however distant. It used to turn my head giddy sometimes when Rowland Hill brought to me his calculations of the cost of railway carriage for the mails, involving fractions of a farthing per mile. But I felt absolutely safe in his hands on every question of this kind. I need not say that I treated him with the utmost distinction and personal regard. I thought him a singularly straightforward and honourable man, besides being most able and ingenious. There was only one solitary occasion during my tenure of the Post Office on which I was compelled to difiier decidedly from Sir Rowland Hill — one which Veil illustrates the ineradicable distinction which exists between the purely departmental mind, however able, and the mind 6 WOBK AT THE POST OFFICE [chap, xxvii of the political officials who are generally the respon- sible heads. Eowland Hill came to me one day, and advised me very strongly to abolish the system of surcharging unpaid letters and the system of allowing unpaid letters to be forwarded at all. He laid before me excellent de- partmental reasons. The number of clerks required and the time spent in watching for these letters cost a great deal more than the surcharges recovered for them, and besides the cost, there was the nuisance and the trouble. There had now ceased to be any excuse for posting an unpaid letter. Everyone covld have a few stamps in his pocket, and if anyone was so careless in giving trouble and expense to a public department as to omit to affix one, he ought to sufiEer the punishment of not having his letter forwarded at all. Fortunately for me, it so happened that I had never been in the habit of stamping my letters myself, nor of carrying stamps in my pocket. I felt in a moment that Rowland Hill's proposal might be a serious inconvenience to many, and might stop letters of immense consequence to the sender — might involve perhaps even issues of life and death. I set all this before Rowland Hill as best I could, but he was not convinced. He insisted on his proposal as one of great reUef to the Office and of no serious injury to the public. I was so accustomed to defer to him that I determined to think over it for a week, and to make some private inquiries as to the impressions of outsiders. I found, as I had expected, that most people disliked extremely the idea of com- pulsory prepayment under the penalty of the letter being lost. Accordingly, next week I told Sir Rowland that I could not admit his proposal, as I felt I could not defend it in Parliament, where I was sure it would be angrily opposed. Sir Rowland submitted with a good grace, although without any change of his own Opinion. But my triumph soon came. My suc- cessor in office was Lord Colchester, not a very strong man. Sir Rowland approached him with the same 1855-56] AN IRISH DEPUTATION 7 proposal, and Lord Colchester agreed. The moment it was heard of by the public there was an outcry, and, before a threatened motion in the House of Commons, the Government had to give way, and the obnoxious measure was withdrawn. But although Rowland Hill failed on this occasion to understand the public, as compared with the departmental, point of view, he was generally wise and sagacious in his dealings with men. An amusing instance of this came before me in one important case. We had been taking great pains at the Office to organize an improved postal system between England and Ireland. There were many difficulties to be overcome, connected with the speed of trains to Holyhead and of steamers across the Channel. Rowland Hill had a fine field of action for his special gifts, and at last we had formed a scheme which seemed to us to present the best attainable results. But as soon as it became known in Ireland, there were a number of discontented parties connected with dis- tricts having different interests, who got up an agitation in the press and in Parliament, and at last clubbed together to come to me with an imposing deputation. It looked like a very difficult subject for me to deal with adequately in a mere personal conversation. Of course, I had to receive the deputation, and applied to Rowland Hill for a brief. He advised me to say very little, telling me that he knew the wide divergence of interests between the different parties, who were combined only in opposition to our plan, and would be still more divided by any substitute. He advised me, therefore, to listen to all they said, without entering on objections or reply, and then just to put one or two questions, asking them what they would themselves propose. Accordingly I received the deputation, con- taining Irish members from both Houses of Parlia- ment, to all appearance a most united and formidable body. They backed each other up in all the objections. When they had concluded, I said a few civil words of 8 WOKK AT THE POST OFFICE [chap, xxvii thanks for their assistance, and then asked for their own plan and proposals. In a moment there was a tremendous hubbub. No two of them seemed to be agreed, and in a few minutes there was a regular Irish row round my peaceful long table of green baize. Nothing could have been more successful than the tactics of Rowland Hill ; his scheme was carried into effect, and the splendid boats that now carry the mails to Ireland from Holyhead were organized and stationed while I was at the Post Office. When I returned to London from the country, I found my colleagues in anxious speculation about the probable reply of Russia to the Austrian ultimatum. I was more sanguine than I usually am, because of the strong impression I had that Austria would not commit herself to any terms which she had not good reason to know would be accepted. Therefore, although it was no surprise, it was an immense pleasure to me to hear on the 16th January, 1856, that Russia accepted the ultimatum, with the neutralization of the Black Sea. We had a Cabinet, at which Nesselrode's despatch was read, which we thought an able and very moderate document ; and we had also a letter from the French Emperor, saying that he did not think he could or ought to continue the war upon further detailed de- mands, such as the Austrian demand for a slice of Bessarabia. But the important impression made upon the Cabinet was this : that Russia had now for the first time made such large advances that it would not be possible or right to require further negotiations directly with herself. This was an immense step towards peace, and from this date we were fairly launched on the stream of those transactions which ended in the Peace of Paris. Yet during those trans- actions, and especially at this early time, contingencies came into view which impressed upon me more and more the great danger of any prolongation of the war. The French were determined to have a separate command, and of course a larger command than ours, 1856] RUSSIA ACCEPTS THE ULTIMATUM 9 and to assign to their own General and troops all the work in which any glory could be won. Of course, we should have resisted this, but their numerical superi- ority made any resistance on our part difficult and precarious, and endangered the continuance of the alliance. Every day, therefore, and every discussion about details, increased my anxious desire to see the whole affair of the Crimean War wound up for ever. The burden of it, financially, was very heavy, but our resources in money were greater than our resources in men. In the Cabinet at this time it was agreed that, in order to hold our own with the French in the conduct of the war, our Generals must be placed in command of not less than 40,000 English troops ; and very recent experience told us of the extreme difficulty we had in keeping up in the Crimea a very much smaller force. In every discussion, therefore, at this time, in the Cabinet, I was in favour always of the alternative which looked best for the attainment of a reasonable peace, and I regarded the neutralization of the Black Sea as in itself including very much of all that we had aimed at in the war. I was glad to see that these considerations were forcing themselves even on Palmerston himself, and stiU more on his colleagues generally, whilst the determination shown by the French Emperor to make peace if possible, made me feel comparatively safe, through all the complicated details of the negotiations now renewed. On hearing of the Russian acceptance of the ulti- matum, I had called at once on Aberdeen to tell him the great news. He said he was not surprised, de- claring that in his opinion we had always set too small a value on the aid of Austria. But he asked if the restoration of Kars to Turkey could be included in the acceptance. I told him this was impossible in a literal sense, because Kars had not fallen to the Russian arms when the ultimatum was drawn up, so that the restora- tion of it could not be included in that document. On the 31st January, 1856, Parliament was opened. 10 QUESTION OF LIFE PEERAGES [chap, xxvii and the speeches of my colleagues were so rational and so peaceful in tone that they satisfied even my old friends Aberdeen and Grey. No severer test could have been applied to them. Within a few weeks of the opening of the session we found ourselves suddenly plunged into a question of the greatest interest and of the greatest difficulty, Avith which we were very imperfectly prepared to deal by any adequate previous inquiry or consideration. If there is any value in biographies, it is that in them we can narrate facts of public interest from, as it were, an inside point of view, whereas an outside view is generally all that can be got from history. I will here tell the story of our controversy on the subject of life peerages as it appeared to me at the time, with all the personal influences which I saw in operation. It had been thought desirable, for some little time, to add to the judicial strength of the House of Lords by the creation of one or two new Law Lords. But, as ordinary hereditary peerages created for this temporary purpose would continue after that purpose had ceased to be served, and a useless addition was thus often made to the number of the House, Palmerston took it into his head that it would be convenient to give peerages for life to such Law Lords as might be needed for judicial purposes alone. He of course consulted his own Lord Chancellor, but, so far as I can recollect, or can find in contemporary notes, he did not consult the Cabinet. Our Chancellor, Cranworth, was person- ally a most excellent and honest man. He had been a successful lawyer and an efficient judge. His charge to the jury in the case of the famous Norfolk murder by Rush was the admiration of all England at the time, for the clearness and firmness with which he unravelled a very tangled skein of evidence, and braced the jury to do their duty. Nevertheless, Cranworth as Chancellor was not a very strong man. He was a great friend of mine, and on one occasion I ventured to advise him to show his teeth a little more to the aggressive lawyers 1856] LIFE PEERAGES 11 round him in the House, who treated him sometimes with but scant respect. But his gentle nature was not up to that sort of work, and once, when he did show his teeth, he did it so ill that he rather lost ground than gained it. Cranworth was not the man to grasp the very large questions which would be involved by the practically new expedient of introducing life peerages into the House of Lords. He found in aU authoritative text-books, and in the written words of his contem- poraries, the full admission that the Crown's right to create peers was not limited to peerages with some remainder. He therefore told Palmerston that his proposal was perfectly legal, and without more ado or consultation with anybody, Palmerston advised the Queen to confer a hfe peerage on Baron Parke, under the title of Lord Wensleydale. By an unfortunate, or, as some will think, a fortunate, accident. Baron Parke was laid up with an attack of gout, and was unable to take his seat on the first day of the session, which otherwise he certainly would have done. If he had so taken his seat, there is the highest probabiUty — in my mind a certainty — ^that nothing more would have been heard of the matter than a few speeches of protest from some of the Law Lords. It was one thing to keep out a new peer by preventing him from taking his seat on some plea of illegality, but it would have been a very different thing to vote for his expulsion after his seat had been taken, Avith all the usual formalities of Parhamentary usage, at a sitting of the House. The accident, therefore, of Baron Parke's fit of gout at an awkward moment was the determining cause of one of the most serious and important decisions on its own constitution ever come to by the House of Lords — a decision fuU of the most curious historical interest, and, not less, of the most important political consequences. The issue by the Queen of a Patent of NobiHty without any remainder in it was a transaction which was hardly at aU noticed by the pubhc, and created not the smallest excitement among politicians. Nobody disputed for 12 QUESTION OF LIFE PEERAGES [chap, xxvii a moment the eminent fitness of the man for the func- tions involved in a judicial peerage. Baron Parke, by universal consent, was esteemed one of the very ablest and soundest lawyers on the Bench. And then there was another circumstance which might well distract attention from the novelty of Palmerston's proceeding — namely, the circumstance that Baron Parke was old and had no son. But this was the very fact which arrested the atten- tion of the legal profession, and especially of the Law Lords. Why did Palmerston go out of his way, and out of the usual routine, to bestow a new form of peerage on a man on whom a nominally hereditary peerage could be conferred without any inconveni- ence ? But if the accident of one old man's illness was a determining factor in raising this question, it is curious that another old man's almost preter- natural activity and strength were still more decisive elements in the result. Among the Law Lords there was one — now a good deal retired from public life, and almost half forgotten — who had been the greatest of them all. Coming to this country from America some time between 1774 and 1776, a poor and unknown boy, he had studied for the English Bar, and by sheer force of intellect had pushed his way upwards to the seat on which the Lord Chancellor of England sits and presides over the House of Peers. Nor was his precedence there a precedence of official rank alone. In political debate he wielded an over- whelming power. During the declining Ministries of the Whig party his scathing annual reviews of their helplessness and inefficiency were among the feats of oratory which men crowded to hear, and telling sen- tences from which were repeated all over the kingdom. The fall of Lord Melbourne's Government in 1841 had sated old Lyndhurst's rooted antipathy to the Whigs, whilst the fall of Lord Derby's Government in 1852 had convinced him that some new combination of 1856] LORD LYNDHURST 13 parties had become a necessity. During Lord Aber- deen's Government, therefore, he was one of the majority in the House of Lords which steadily sup- ported us. But I have no recollection that he ever spoke. He was now, in 1856, between eighty and ninety years of age, very blind and very infirm, and nobody thought of him as any longer a living force in politics. Those who did know him personally, how- ever, were quite aware that, in mind, he was as acute and as strong as ever. I had been by accident thrown into personal relations with him on the Ryland case, and in my interview with him I had seen and felt the march of a powerful spirit. No compliment ever paid to me had gratified me more than Lyndhurst's recommenda- tion that a case of personal grievance which had been placed in his hands should be transferred to mine. There was much about his personal appearance which was very peculiar. He wore a snuff-brown frock-coat buttoned up to the chest. A yellow-brown wig fitted close to his head, not concealing a very square and massive brow. His eyebrows were straight and bushy, and from behind them glanced and glittered cold but merry grey eyes which seemed to have been couched for cataract, and could only show their fire through the appropriate glasses. His cheeks were wonderfully smooth, with a complexion of that dry red with some tinges of yellow which is not an uncommon colouring in healthy men of a great age. It was in perfect harmony with the brown wig and the brown coat. The jaws were powerful and the mouth firm. Alto- gether it was an impressive countenance, and it would have been handsome too, had it not been for an un- fortunate approximation to the conventional type of Mephistopheles. He rose with great difficulty from any seat, and leaned heavily on a stick when standing. Such was the glorious old weapon, now hung on the walls of Parliament, and bearing the dints of many fights, which the Law Peers wished to take down from its place of rest, that it might be wielded once more in 14 LORD LYNDHURST'S SPEECH [chap, xxvii battle for themselves ; for this was avowedly their feeling on the nature of the issue that was at stake. They regarded Lord Wensleydale's life peerage as a personal and a professional affront. They believed that no laAvyer would ever again receive an hereditary peerage. But, seeing that this view alone would not secure any large support, they fell back on the danger involved to the independence of the House of Lords, and there was not a man among them who could present this high argument as L3mdhurst could present it. They therefore crowded to his house, and with one consent implored him to imdertake the cause. With wonderful pluck, he buckled on his armour, although he himself, as a childless man, could have no personal feeling in the matter. Professional feeling, indeed, he did possess, and he did not hesitate to give it strong expression. But the constitutional argument which he scented in the air was one most attractive to that sweep of intellect and to that breadth of mind which made Lyndhurst much more a statesman than a lawyer. The distinction between an act which may be legal, and an act which is also constitutional, was a distinction familiar to my own mind, because I had had occasion to dwell upon it in my first published argument on the Church question in Scotland. But it is a distinction unfamiliar to EngHsh lawyers generally, and, indeed, they are often indignant with any pretension to con- demn a legal act on grounds unknown to the authorities of formal jurisprudence. It was in this spirit that our Lord Chancellor (Cran- worth), when Palmerston's proposal about life peerages was first mentioned in the Cabinet, and when someone said that its legality was questioned, replied : ' I don't think it will be questioned by any lawyer.' And this was true — ^that, in so far as the question had ever been raised, the authorities had recognised the power of the Crown to create peerages without any remainder. The Lord Chief Justice, Campbell, had so expressed himself in one of his books. But he was now among the keenest 1856] LIFE PEERAGES 15 of our opponents. There was in truth a catena of authorities to the same effect, from the time of Lord Coke. It was easy work to quote them, and to be satisfied with dicta so uncontradicted and so con- tinuous. The result was that neither our worthy Chancellor nor any other of my colleagues had the least conception of the powerful fire of arguments which would be brought to bear on the question when Lyndhurst opened his batteries upon us. Lyndhurst's plan of campaign was ingenious and effective. He could not bring the House of Lords in its ordinary legislative capacity to bear upon the question, because no vote by resolution or address wotild stop the action of the Crown. Neither could he enlist the House in its judicial capacity, because no strictly legal question was raised at all. He resorted to the plea of privilege — a body of doctrine of wide range, necessarily vague, and always rich in possible appeals to the fears and the prejudices of each House of Parlia- ment. He gave notice that he would move that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Privi- leges, to consider the patent issued to Baron Parke, and then in that Committee he would have a second opportunity of piling up arguments of assault, in moving that the patent was unconstitutional. This plan he carried into effect with astonishing ability and power. In his first speech, demanding that the question should be dealt with, not in any ordinary sitting of the House, but in a Committee of Privileges, he did not waste any time in arguing as to mere legality. He reminded us that it would be perfectly legal for the Crown to give patents of nobility to every man in a company of soldiers, and to send them to the House of Peers. But nobody would contend that such an exercise of the prerogative would be constitutional. He warned us that our independence was at stake ; for if an un- scrupulous Minister could make as many peers for life as he chose, the manoeuvre would be resorted to whenever it was convenient. He insisted that our 16 LORD LYNDHURST'S SPEECH [chap, xxvil unwritten Constitution was one of usage, and that no act or exercise of prerogative which had fallen into com- plete desuetude for centuries could be revived without the sanction of Parliament. He then showed that in every alleged case of a life peerage there were some one or more broadly discriminating facts which separated it entirely from the case of Baron Parke. Most of these alleged cases went back to the reign of Henry II,, 400 years ago. This part of Lyndhurst's speech was very powerful. He did not deny the right of the Crown to confer titles ; but titles for life only, and yet carrjdng a seat in the House of Peers, had never been given since our Con- stitution had been settled. It was a splendid and, indeed, a memorable speech — lucid in its arrangement, in its historical narrative, and in the inferences drawn. It was delivered with striking dignity of manner and of tone, and, though expressing severe censure on the Government for unconstitutional conduct, it never descended into declamatory violence. There was but one exception, as it seemed to me, to its skill and force of statement, and that was a passage which revealed the strong professional animus of the legal members of the House. I should not truly represent my own impressions of that time if I did not confess that this animus was very strongly impressed upon me by many circumstances of the moment. One day I had heard Lord Campbell say, when I was seated close beside him at the table : ' My Lords, what has the law done that it should be subjected to this indignity ?' There are no feelings in the world so strong as a professional susceptibility, and when it affects, almost unanimously, such a compact and powerful brotherhood as the law members of the House of Lords, it has a very good chance of governing their opinions and their votes. Now, although Lynd- hurst's great speech turned mainly on the danger to our House as a whole and in its legislative capacity, he yet was unable to conceal the purely professional element of jealousy, lest law peerages should be rele- 1856] A MEMORABLE SPEECH 17 gated to a lower or secondary class of honour, shown by the lack of privileges usually attached to the dignity of a peer. In the latter part of his speech this feeling found expression in a repetition of the very exclama- tion which I had heard from Lord Campbell : ' What, I would ask your lordships, has the profession of the law done to merit this indignity ?' Strongly impressed as I was at the time, and convinced as I still am, that this susceptibility was the inciting cause which led to the insurrection of the Law Lords against life peerages, I do not wish it to be supposed that I regard this element of motive as a condemnation of the result. It is rather the rule than the exception in politics that a mixture of inferior motives is among the impelling forces which vindicate valuable and important prin- ciples in the government of men. We must judge, therefore, of Lyndhurst's great argument by its strongest, and not by its weakest, part ; and from this point of view I felt even then, and I feel still more strongly now, the great weight to be attached to his contention that long-abandoned and obsolete powers, in a Constitution such as ours, ought not to be called out from the sleep of centuries into active life and play without great deliberation and, in general. Parliamen- tary assent. On referring the question to a Committee of Privi- leges, Lyndhurst beat us by a majority of thirty-four in the first division (February 7th, 1856). On February 22nd, in the second division on his condem- natory resolution, he beat us again by thirty-five. It was in this second debate that Lyndhurst delivered another speech, more wonderful than the first. It is impossible to exaggerate the impression produced by a man in his eighty-sixth year pouring out for two hours a vigorous, consecutive argument, fuU of history and of constitutional reasoning, in language of extraordinary dignity and power. Campbell, in his ' Lives of the Chancellors,' says that this was the finest speech ever delivered in the House of Lords. Such comparative VOL. II. 2 18 LORD LYNDHURSt'S SPEECH [ohap. xxvii superlatives depend a good deal on the predispositions of those who use them. In the condition of mind in which Lord Campbell then was, as regards a threatened dishonour to his profession, it is easy to understand his estimate of a speech which must have seemed to him a great deliverance. But after discounting all that may justly be allowed for this feeling, it remains true that Lyndhurst's speech on this occasion was indeed a splendid oratorical effort — all the more as the subject did not admit of any play of imagination or of fancy. He did, indeed, introduce a quotation of ten fine lines from Dryden, describing the character of Shaftesbury, but, with this exception, the character of the speech was that of immense solidity and weight — the judicial summing up of a great case by a great judge. In this capacity it is undoubtedly the greatest speech I ever heard in either House of Parliament. It is one of the very few which has imprinted indelibly on my memory all the circum- stances of the scene, the venerable figure of the veteran, and not a few of the pregnant sentences of his stately argument. There was one in particular which struck me much. He alluded to the charge that his objections were founded on mere jealousy. Full as my mind was of the idea that professional jealousy was at the bottom of his opposition, I listened eagerly to what he would say on this subject. But with a real genius for debate, he turned it to a splendid use in support of his own argument. Instead of repudiating jealousy, he boasted of it, and claimed it as his own. He claimed it, not, indeed, in that lower sense in which the word is often used as synonymous with envy — ^the meanest of human passions — but in that highest sense in which jealousy is ascribed in the Old Testament even to the Divine Being, as one of the highest attributes of His nature. Jealousy of the insidious approach of any dangers to the citadels of freedom and of the Constitution was a temper which he avowed. ' Jealousy, my Lords,' said the old orator slowly, solemnly, and with just a slight 1856] LIFE PEERAGES 19 elevation of voice to make the emphasis — ' jealousy, my Lords, is the spirit of our Constitution.' From the moment these words were uttered a new current was set up in the thoughts of aU of us. They were turned from the idea of any mere pride or pique in one pro- fession, to the idea of men, standing as watchmen on the towers of a Constitution, depending for its virtue and stability on the balance of nicely-adjusted powers. This identification of the wounded pride of a dominant profession with the highest duty of a citizen ia a con- stitutional Government was a skilful and most effective expedient of debate. It shook some, it confirmed others. The result when we divided was a foregone conclusion. I should have been glad to escape speaking, but the Government forces were too few to admit of any of us declining battle, and I spoke third after Lyndhurst. I took the safe line of explaining the action of the Government by asserting what I knew to be true, and by denying what I knew to be mistaken. What we did know to be true was, that the appellate jurisdiction of the House had fallen into an unsatisfactory condi- tion, and we were of opinion that it ought to be strengthened by the revival of an ancient precedent, which would enable future Governments, from time to time, to keep it more easily in a state of efi&cienoy. I denied emphatically that we had any idea of raising a question of constitutional law. Lyndhurst had de- clined to allow the House to consult the judges. We found that every juridical writer since the time of Lord Coke concurred in the doctrine that it was com- petent for the Crown to create life peerages. I denied that, in future, hereditary peerages would never be conferred on great lawyers. I dwelt on the strong pro- fessional feeling that had developed on this point, and warned the House against it. I denied that Lyndhurst was right in assuming that any date, such as the Revolution, could be fixed as one beyond which ancient precedents were useless in our Constitution, without 2—2 20 TREATY OF PAKIS [chap, xxvii fresh legislative authority. I contended that anything not expressly condemned at the Revolution was pre- sumably alive, and I declared my belief that in the most ancient precedents of our history might be found, from time to time, materials for renovation. The debate, on the whole, was a good one, several peers speaking well. But there was a general feeling, even amongst ourselves, that Palmerston's action had been hasty and ill-considered, that its probable con- sequences — not on the judicial, but on the political strength and independence of the House — had not been duly weighed, and, above aU, that no provision had been made against abuses. The contest ended in a compromise. The judicial strength of the House was increased by a limited and definite number of judicial peerages — a plan which has worked weU ever since. It must not be supposed that the place occupied in this memoir by the struggle on the subject of life peerages was the place it occupied at the time in the public mind or in the minds of public men. It was a battle entirely fought within the quiet precincts of the House of Lords, and excited very little attention outside of it. We who had been engaged in it, and had been defeated, were glad to return from discussions which turned on events in the reign of Henry II. to the living questions of our own day, first and foremost among which were the terms of our contemplated peace with Russia. The Conference was sitting in Paris from day to day, and a good many of the circumstances attending it were only too like the older Conference at Vienna, which had been so embarrassing in its course and so abortive in its result. There were, however, some all- important differences. We were represented by Clarendon, instead of by Lord John Russell, and Claren- don knew the feelings both of the Cabinet and of the country, besides being in immediate communication with Palmerston from hour to hour. In the second place, the allies had at last conquered the position at 1866] PEACE NEGOTIATIONS 21 Sebastopol, and Russia was suffering severely from the exhaustion of a contest which had been most gallantly- fought, but only with an immense exertion, which could not longer be maintained. In the third place, we had entered into the Congress only after Russia had accepted an ultimatum, which fully embodied our long- established ' Four Points.' In the fourth place, our French ally was tolerably satisfied with those military successes of his army without which his Generals had warned him it would not be safe to consent to peace, and he was now bent on terminating the war. These were conditions which I was glad to think were almost securities for peace ; and so they proved to be, but, strange to say, not without some moments of embar- rassment. There were several adjuncts to our main demands, on some of which all of us set considerable store, while, regarding others, Palmerston was disposed to be ob- stinate. On the other hand, Russia had some points in reserve which might easily have been made serious. One of these arose out of the fact that she claimed her right to keep the fort of Kars, or to deal with it as a subject of exchange against other concessions demanded of her. In particular, Russia indicated that her con- cession of territory on the Bessarabian frontier ought to be abandoned on the part of the allies, if Russia were to be called upon to give back Kars. We, on the contrary, intimated that, as the integrity of Turkey was a declared object of the war, we could not admit the right of Russia to consider as her own a fortress so important to the eastern provinces of Turkey. On our side, again, we insisted that the fortress of Bomarsund, on the Aland Islands, which we had captured, should never be reoccupied by Russia. France was very stiff about this, and disposed to insist that the preliminaries of peace should be signed strictly on the ultimatum and on nothing else, but she promised to support us in the negotiation of details. To this we were obliged to agree. 22 TEEATY OF PARIS [chap, xxvii Clarendon left for Paris on the 16tli February, 1856. He soon reported very satisfactory interviews with both the Emperor and with Orloff, the Russian Envoy. But at the first meeting of the Conference, Russia held out stiffly on the subject of Kars, and insisted on her right to count it as her own. When this was refused, Orlofif declared that his instructions were exhausted, and that the Conference, so far as he was concerned, was at an end. Clarendon telegraphed to ask whether he might demand on our behalf the inde- pendence of Circassia, to which Palmerston replied in the afi&rmative. I thought this absurd, but I did not much care what was asked, provided it were not made a sine qua non. In this state of matters there was a Cabinet dinner at Labouchere's, which I could not attend because I was dining at the Palace. Her Majesty graciously allowed me to join my colleagues when dinner was over. I came, however, too late for the discussion, which I heard had been a warm one ; the general feeling, however, had been in favour of standing out about Kars to the last, and some were in favour of going beyond ' the last ' — even to renewing the war. Palmerston at this time had the telegraph to Clarendon in his own hands, and could do very much what he liked — so far, at least, as first intentions were concerned. To all suggestions from Clarendon of small miscellaneous concessions, Palmerston' s answers always were to keep strictly to the ultimatum which Russia had accepted, and not to allow it to be infringed in the least. Clarendon had secret information that the Russian Government had disapproved of Orloff' s unyielding attitude. On the Circassian question, Clarendon found that no one of the other Plenipoten- tiaries supported him at all, the truth being that any suggestions of ours in respect to the countries eastward of the Black Sea were always considered by the othet Powers as made in the interests, direct or indirect, of our Indian Empire ; and not one of them was in the least disposed to help us there. At the meeting of the 1856] THE CONFERENCE OE PARIS 23 Conference on the 1st March it seemed settled that Russia would accept the whole ultimatum, including the Bessarabian cession, and Palmerston felt that the time had come for giving to Clarendon some greater freedom in making smaU concessions for the sake of peace. It was quite time, because Louis Napoleon had become somewhat irritated with the rigidity of the attitude which Clarendon had been instructed to maintain. On hearing this, Palmerston wrote an excellent despatch to Clarendon, giving him greater liberty about details, where greater advantages could be obtained. Clarendon's account, however, of the Emperor's tone made him suspicious that he had some secret understanding with Orloff and Buol. This induced Palmerston to instruct Clarendon to seek an interview with the Emperor, and to explain to him very seriously what our views were. We must press for a peace not less good than that which would result from a hond-fide carrying into effect of the conditions agreed on in Vienna. The Emperor might be able to force us into a peace on terms even less good ; but if he did, we could only defend it on the ground that Prance had forced us to accept it, or we might possibly be compelled to go on with the war alone. This language had no doubt its effect upon our ally. On the other hand, there were several items in our demand on which we submitted to the Emperor's evident desire to give way before the resistance of Russia. These were the independence of Circassia, the non-erection of forts on that coast, and the exclusion of Nikolaief from the naval arsenals to be destroyed. We never had expected to get these concessions, and it was unwise to let the Emperor suppose that we would insist on them at the risk of war. But what did alarm us were some indications of hesitation about the neutralization of the Black Sea, in the form of a disposition to allow the few vessels retained to be larger and heavier than was safe. On this Palmerston was rightly quite determined to allow no room for 24 TBEATY OF PARIS [chap, xxvii dangerous evasions, and we all supported him. He therefore sent word to the Emperor that we had fol- lowed his advice on the frontier question, but that on the naval question we could admit of no compromise, and that we should keep possession of the Euxine till we were fully satisfied. We consulted Lyons on the class and number of vessels to be allowed. These terms were offered to Russia, and formally accepted. At last — at last — after how long and how painful a time ! on the 29th of March, 1856, Palmerston met us in Cabinet with his pleasantest smUe, and with the words : ' WeU, we are to have peace to-morrow.' I thought the smUe was rather one of good-humoured resignation to an inevitable fate. Clarendon reported that in his various conversa- tions with Louis Napoleon at this time he found the Emperor thinking of nothing but how soon he could get peace signed, and how agreeable he could make the wording of the treaty to the Emperor of Russia. Louis Napoleon said that he had promised to do this when Russia accepted the ultimatum, and when her Government appealed to him to make the forms as little offensive to the dignity of Russia as pos- sible. Clarendon added that even the desire to please Austria had long before given way to his new Russian love. Palmerston' s jovial ' to-morrow ' was the 30th March, 1856. On that day the Treaty of Paris was signed by all the Plenipotentiaries, and the Crimean War was ended. It is needless to say that I look back on this event as an epoch in my life. It was an epoch no less in the life of the nation — ^the ending of a time full of anxiety, of the continual sense of a terrible responsibility. But before I enter upon the new horizons which now opened out before us, I must dwell for a time upon some problems which the Crimean War left unsolved, which have returned upon us all in later years, and which are only too sure to return again, under con- 1856] TREATY 01' PARIS 25 tingencies full of difficulty and of danger to the peace of Europe. As in the physical sciences the most inter- esting problems lie behind the mere facts of Nature, so in history and in politics the most pregnant questions lie behind the triumphs of the soldier or the treaties of the diplomatist. CHAPTEK XXVIII 1855-56 CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. GLADSTONE ON THE CRIMEAN WAR In the account which I have given of the origin and progress of the Crimean War I have said nothing of the Turks as a people or as a Government fitted to rule with decency over the empire we were defending. This is no omission on my part. I do not recoUect in all the debates of the Cabinet, from the beginning to the end of the Crimean War, one single discussion on this question. This was not due to shortsightedness or neglect, but because that question was to us irrelevant. We had nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the Turkish Government, but only with the fate and disposal of its territories, whenever that Government should come to an end. What we were insisting upon, at the risk of a costly and a bloody war, was that the fate and disposal of Turkey was not to be settled by Russia, but by the co-operation and consent of Europe. We started with this principle, as laid down and sanc- tioned in the treaty of 1840, and we were aU satisfied of its soundness and importance. The new treaty of 1856 rested entirely on the same principle, and all its provisions were directed towards giving effect to it. It did not deal, and it did not profess to deal, with internal reforms in the Turkish Empire, except quite incident- ally. Its whole aim was to secure that empire from being disposed of by Russia, by the use of her great preponderance of power and her geographical position of insuperable advantage. 26 1855-56] NATUEE OF TREATY OE PABIS 27 The chief remedial provisions were these : In the first place, the common acknowledgment of all the Powers that Turkey was to be recognised as one of the European Powers, in the fate of which all the rest had an equal interest and concern. In the second place, the Black Sea was to be neutraHzed — that is to say, it was to be closed to aU the guns and open to all the commerce of the world. The special treaties which, as the result of previous wars, had given to Russia opportunities and excuses for perpetual interference with the internal affairs of Turkey, were all abolished. The Sultan agreed to communicate to aU the Powers his new promises to his Christian subjects ; this promise, however, was not to be considered as an admission by him of a right of interference on their part. We did not repudiate any right of interference resting on other grounds, but we agreed not to rest it on the fact that the Sultan's promises were communicated and formally recorded in the new treaty. The Danubian Principalities and the Danubian fortresses of Turkey, as also pledges for the free navigation of the Danube, were placed under new securities and the guarantee of Europe. All of these were provisions which added to the safety of Turkey against invasion on the side of Russia. We were not foolish enough to think that this treaty of 1856 was a settlement of the East of Europe. But there was no poHtical party — ^not even any school of thought — in the country which had any better solu- tion to recommend. If there had been any such party which took up the cause of the Christian subjects of the Porte, then the old Memorandum of the Czar Nicholas, which was still sleeping in the pigeon-holes of the War Office, would have been the plan upon which reasonable men might well have faUen back. We might have called on Russia and the other Powers of Europe to unite with us in bringing the baleful rule of Turkey to an end, and in a rational partition of its territory ; but this heroic remedy was not then within the region 28 COERESPONDENCB WITH MR. GLADSTONE [ohai-. xxviii of practical politics. No agreement of the Powers on the principle of partition could possibly have been obtained. Moreover, the whole difficulty had arisen in a form which did not connect itself at all with any fault on the part of Turkey. The Sultan was the aggrieved party. Besides, in defending herself against a very insidious aggression on the part of Russia, Turkey was defending the European Treaty of 1840, in which we had been the principal negotiator, and which had been specially directed against such secret engagements with any one Power as those we were now resisting. Under those conditions, any final settlement of the Eastern Question was at that time impossible for us. Neither at home nor abroad should we have had any support in any scheme of such a scope. There was, indeed, a party — but a very small one — which may be said to have had an alternative scheme to ours — ^the party, namely, of Cobden and Bright, otherwise called the Manchester School, Their view was that the old doctrine of a balance of power in Europe was a mere antiquated superstition, and in particular that Russia was a Power which we could ' crumple up ' whenever we liked — that we should not interfere at all, but allow Russia to impose on Turkey any engagements she liked by force of arms, and thereby to serve herself heir to that rich inheritance of the East. I do not stop to discuss this doctrine here. Suffice it to say that not one member of the Cabinet agreed in it, and that a policy founded on it would have met with a passionate condemnation from the British people. It would, however, have been in itself a rational and a consistent policy if announced from the beginning and persevered in to the end. But there was another policy which was not rational or consistent, and that was, to be responsible, not only for beginning the war, but for giving it the significant direction of a great attack upon the naval arsenal and fleets of Sebastopol ; to continue that attack till it led 1855-56] Gladstone's opposition 29 to great loss and almost to disaster ; and then suddenly to desert the cause, and to denounce both the feelings and the arguments on which that cause depended. This was the course taken by Gladstone, which it must be confessed was most trying to his friends. As my relations vntla. him, however, have been always some part of my life, and sometimes a great part, I wish to give in this chapter some examples of our correspon- dence during the continuance of the Crimean War. It must be remembered that, when Gladstone left us, no question had been raised as to the policy of the war, or as to the destination and purpose of our attack. The terrible Siege of Sebastopol had then run a considerable part of its course, and no thought had arisen in the minds of any of us of abandoning that great military enterprise, or the great political object which was its aim. I did not, indeed, for a moment expect that Gladstone would remain friendly when he had ceased to belong to us. It is a difl&cult thing for any man to continue friendly, or even impartial, towards a Cabinet from which he has withdrawn, but with Gladstone it was an impossibility. The heat and impetus of his mind were quite sure to deflect it at the least touch of difference, and its tangential flight could never be calculated. Accordingly, though I felt sure of his speedy alienation, I did not foresee that the whole special aim and object of our attack upon Sebastopol — namely, the destruction of Russian preponderance in the Black Sea — would become the chosen object of his most furious denunciation. The opportunity came to him for the first time when the feeble negotiations at Vienna under Lord John Russell presented for a moment an appearance of difference between us and our Pleni- potentiary. Gladstone then took with passion the side, as he thought, of Lord John, and of the ambiguous and deceptive phrases in which he was disposed to recommend a peace. But when Lord John came home, we have seen how he accepted new lights from Paris and from us, how he turned completely round, 30 CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. GLADSTONE [chap, xxviii and how he jfinally joined us heartily in speech and vote. This, however, had no effect on Gladstone. He had been with us up to the Vienna negotiations. He was vehemently against us from the moment of their failure. His ingenious mind invented for itself the fable that our policy was completely changed when we did not accept the Austrian terms, and that it was now perfectly consistent in him to oppose and condemn, the war into which he had helped to plunge us, and in particular the great military enterprise which was the most significant indication of its aims, and which he was one of the loudest to applaud. The correspondence which follows refers to this state of matters. In a letter which I have lost I had referred to the ' Four Points ' on which we had all been agreed, and I had referred also to the importance we had all attached to securing the support and co-operation of Austria. On the 12th of May I received from Glad- stone the following reply : ' 29, B. Square, 'May 12, 1855. ' My dear Argyll, ' I will not refer to the general topics of your letter further than to say that, in speaking of our having adopted, not the " Four Points," as you suppose, but a particular construction of the " Third Point," with great levity, I used words which I meant to apply not so much to others as to myself in particular, but not so much to the inadequate consideration of that particular subject as to the inadequacy of the consideration which I generally find on retrospect that I have given to any weighty public question when compared with its importance. But my main object in writing is to say how strongly I differ from you on the point with regard to Austria. In my opinion, if Austria has informed England that she will not go to war for the limitation of fleets, the Government will incur a frightful responsibility by withholding that fact — if they do withhold it — from the knowledge of Parliament ; and upon this opinion I must act. ' Believe me, most sincerely yours, ' W. E. Gladstone.' 1855-56] Austria's attitude 31 As this letter seemed to imply that I had told him that Austria had categorically informed us that she would not act with us in enforcing the principles of limitation (of fleets in the Euxine), and as I had not intended to convey this meaning, I wrote the following reply : 'Confidential 'Argyll Lodge, Kensington, 'My dear Gladstone, '■^'=3' ^^' 1855. ' It is not true that Austria has announced to us that she will never go to war for limitation. If we said so to Parliament, it would give an entirely false impression, I find Lord John does not consider that any such intimation has been made, and on looking back to the papers, I find that the very same despatch which reports some private speech of Buol to such effect in course of an argument adds that, after hearing the argument out, he appeared to change his tone and language, and subsequently declared formally to Russia that Austria reserved perfect freedom on this matter. I don't know what you mean by saying that " you will act " on this point in a certain way. I can only say that you have not derived from me any such information as that which you seem to assume you are in possession of in regard to it. ' You speak of a " fearful responsibility." There is indeed plenty of this on all sides. I am not sure that I should feel that responsi- bility to sit the heaviest which would arise from refusing to com- municate to the enemy information, even if it had been true, which would be of great use to him and of great disadvantage to ourselves. ' I hope you will remember that negotiations are not, strictly speaking, closed. You, the peace party, may do much good in Parliament ; but it will be nice steering which can alone prevent you doing more harm than good by public debate at this moment. Arguments to the effect that we have demanded too much already mat/ assume so pro-Russian an aspect as to create nothing but a violent reaction. Arguments pointing out the dangerous conse- quences of demanding more as committing us to an almost interminable war will certainly do good — at least, I think so — for this is the popular tendency, and the public have had little serious thought yet on what they do want, and what they will be com- mitted to, if they don't hold hard. ' I am sure you will like my writing to you without reserve what 32 COBEESPONDENCE WITH ME. GLADSTONE [chap, xxviii occurs to me. I am sincerely desirous of seeing peace well advo- cated by an independent party in Parliament ; I mean a peace consistent with the original objects of the war. ' I am, my dear Gladstone, yours very sincerely, ' Argyll.' To this, again, Gladstone replied as follows : '29, B. Square, 'My DEAR Argyll, ' ^<^y 1*. 1855. ' Beyond all doubt, it is a matter of the greatest gravity, even for persons like myself, without authority to separate them- selves in the face of the world from the policy of their Government, who act for, and commit, the country in regard to the war. Avowed differences in Parliament upon questions where every difference is vital must more or less weaken your hands, and may inspire the enemy with exaggerated hopes. ' But at this moment, as it appears to me, he is reasonable and you are unreasonable. When you tell me, as a ground for silence — so I understand you — that negotiations are not closed, I reply that it is a good ground for silence i/'the Government are disposed to make an effort to recover an opportunity they have thrown away. But it is no reason for silence if the continued negotiations are to be conducted in the spirit which met the second Russian proposal by the declaration on the part of the English Minister that his instructions were exhausted. ' I am sorry to say all that I see and hear tends to the conclusion that the English Government, and the English Government alone, is the cause which has prevented peace from being, in substance, made within the last three weeks. I have no doubt whatever that if it had done otherwise it would have been abused, assailed, perhaps overthrown. On the other hand, it is, I suppose, most probable that your warlike counsels will be for the present highly approved. ' In the way of caution, all I could do I have done, namely, to take care that some member, at least, of the Government should know my apprehensions, and now my intentions, before I am committed to anyone else. ' Believe me, most sincerely yours, ' W. E. Gladstone.' 1855-56] ATTSTRO-BITSSIAN PROPOSALS 33 As it seemed to me that Gladstone did not understand the objections we had to the Austro-Russian proposals which we had rejected at Vienna, and as I thought the futility of them demonstrable, I addressed him again in another letter : ' Private. ' Argyll Lodge, Kensington, 'Mat/ 17, 1855. ' My dear Gladstone, ' It increases, of course, the painful sense I have had for the last month of the difficult and responsible position in which we have been placed, to know that you have so decidedly made up your mind that the continuation of the war is due to our fault, and that an honourable and satisfactory peace might have been attained. 'The weight, however, which should naturally attach to your opinion is, on this question, somewhat modified by the conviction I entertain that you have receded, and are receding, from the common ground on which we stood when members of the same Government. ' This is indicated by the language in which you refer to the " Four Points." You seem to feel that you did not sufficiently consider their scope and bearing when they were originally laid down, and that a new light has been thrown upon the third by the discussions at Vienna, or, at least, by the proposals of Russia. But I will assume that you still agree that one very essential object of the war is to " put an end to Russian preponderance in the Black Sea." The question, then, is whether the Russian proposal really does effect this object. I cannot conscientiously say that it does ; it certainly was a pity that we ever laid down the "Third Point" as a basis of agreement with Russia at all, because her proposal is one which offers nothing which she has any power of withholding. It merely amounts to an acknowledgment on her part of the right of Turkey to hold absolutely the keys of her own straits. We might make a treaty with Turkey now, without any dealing with Russia, securing our own right of entry through those straits on any condition which Turkey may choose to agree to. ' This, however, is an argument against our own mode of pro- ceeding rather than against the proposal itself. But as to that VOL. n. 3 34 CORKBSPONDENCE WITH MB. GLADSTONE [chap, xxviii proposal itself, how far can you say that it would put an end to " Russian preponderance " ? Your own argument against our proposal is that it involves the possible entry into the Black Sea of a force unjustly superior to that which Russia would be able to maintain for purposes of defence. You admit that the same argument would apply even to allowing Turkey to give unre- stricted access to our fleets added to her own ; and your only rejoinder is — Volenti non Jit injuria — if Russia chooses to submit to the danger and offers it, you don't desire to suggest to her how great is the concession she is making. Well, but what does all this point to .'' Why, that Russia will be under the temptation, and even necessity for purposes of defence, to augment rather than decrease her force in the Euxine. She will plead your argument for doing so. She will say : " I have agreed to allow Turkey to send in whenever she pleases a great combined fleet to ravage my shores and bombard my towns ; I must keep up a large standing navy to meet such a contingency." ' This would appear to be the natural, if not necessary, course of events. What, then, is the result which the Russian proposal tends to ? That she shall keep up a larger navy than ever in the Black Sea, that her preponderance as against Turkey will be strengthened and confirmed, and that the possibility of that preponderance, even as against the Western Powers, being at all affected will depend on the contingencies of France and England having large fleets ready at a moment''s notice, and those two Powers being in such per- manent alliance as to be disposed to use those fleets in combination and for the same purpose. ' Can any man say with truth that this is " putting an end to Russian preponderance in the Black Sea " ? I quite admit that it may be represented as such a nominal fulfilment of the condition that we may retreat from our former position under cover of it. But is it anything more ? ' If the evils of war are so great that we dare not bear them, it may be a good reason for such a retreat ; or, if you think we have been so beaten that we have little hope of success, that would be a still better reason for retreating. But don't let us disguise that it would be a retreat, involving all the great moral and political consequences which could not be separated from the retreat of the two greatest nations of Europe. 1855-56] MR. GLADSTONE'S VIEWS 35 ' However, what I chiefly wish to say to you is this : that you, the peace party, ought to consider very carefully how you can so guide the debate as to promote really and effectually the cause of peace. ' I dread as much as you do our getting committed to conditions the attainment of which would involve us in wars of which no man can foresee the end. Already it has been argued that " limitation " of fleets is useless. That means that we must go on to dismember- ment, to occupation or alienation of Russian territory. I think, it mast useful that the consequences of committing the honour and blood of England to such a war should be pointed out, resolutely and clearly traced. ' It was in reply to such an argument from Cobden that, if I recollect rightly, Lord John was induced to declare that he sought no Russian territory. That declaration was a landmark, and other similar declarations may be deduced by arguments pointed in the same direction. ' But I rather dread the tendency of arguments going the length of those you have been using lately. They will certainly tend to reduce the strong objections entertained to anything short of limitation ; and I confess that, although I think those objections as strong as possible, I should prefer to see this question left open to consideration as long as it can be. ' I am, my dear Gladstone, ' Yours most sincerely, ' Argyll.' Between the date of the close of the Vienna Confer- ences in May, 1885, and the fall of Sebastopol in September, 1855, our political letters ceased. It is always a fine thing to see a public man breasting the waves of popular condemnation, running high against him. Agreement in his opinions is not reqxiired. On the other hand, our admiration must be afiEected by his personal consistency, and by the circumstances under which those opinions have been adopted. In this case both those criteria of judgment seemed to me to teU against my friend's course. Gladstone had shared with us the responsibility of the attack upon Sebastopol, o — 2i 36 CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. GLADSTONE [chap, xxviii which could have no other sense or meaning except some such stipulation for the future as that which we were now demanding, and this stipulation Gladstone was advising the enemy to resist with his last man and his last rouble. Fortunately, we covld be at our ease as regards the country, which was supporting us with almost an excess of zeal. But in proportion as they were passionate, Gladstone was contemptuous. On the 21st August he wrote to me : ' Your (!) cannon are roaring before Sebastopol, and the music certainly pleases the ear of the middle class, which calls itself the cotmtry.' There was not the slightest ground for this distinc- tion. The general tone of all classes was the same. ^When the fall of Sebastopol came at last, early in September, 1855, Gladstone was, very naturally, in a hurry to hear of peace. So was I. But arguments such as those he had been using were among the impedi- ments in our way. They had stimulated the passion that asked for more. Amid the excitement and shouts of victory we were urged, not only to prolong, but to extend the war. It was under these conditions that Gladstone wrote to me the following letter : ' Hawarden, Chester, ' October S, 1855. ' I will only say I wait with great anxiety and great eagerness to know at the proper time what steps are being taken for peace now that the grand consummation, the fall of Sebastopol, has been achieved with so much glory in triumphing over so brave, obstinate, and skilful a resistance ; and my belief that you execrate with me the abominable doctrine now preached right and left by those who in May last assured us the most loudly that Sebastopol was the great object of the war and the one obstacle to peace, but who now coolly describe it as the first act of the great tragedy, and quietly bid us prepare for the other four. ' W. E. Gladstone.' 1855-56] MR. GLADSTONE'S VIEWS 37 Having replied to this in a letter reminding him of the difficulties to be overcome, and especially of his having once expressed to me his sense of the debt we owed to Palmerston for having concentrated the atten- tion of the Cabinet upon the expedition to Sebastopol, I received the following reply : ' Hawarden, 'My DEAR Argyll, ' October 18, 1855. ' You have conferred a great obligation on me in one part of your letter of the 9th by putting me into the witness-box and asking me why I thought last year that we were under an obliga- tion to Lord Palmerston for " concentrating the attention of the Cabinet on the expedition to the Crimea." ' Such was then my feeling, entertained so strongly that I even wrote to him for the purpose of giving to it the most direct expression, and such is my feeling still. I think the fall of Sebastopol, viewed in itself and apart from the mode in which it has been brought about, a great benefit to Europe. The same might perhaps be said of some other fortified places not Russian, and even of the camp at Boulogne which our "great ally," the sincerity of whose attachment to us is so much beyond question, has created, of course, for purposes purely defensive. This benefit I should have contemplated with high and, so to speak, unmixed satisfaction, were I well assured as to the means by which we had achieved it. But, of course, there is a great difference between a war which I felt, however grievous it was, yet to be just and needful, and a war carried on without any adequate justification and, so far as I can to this hour tell, without even any well-defined practicable object. ' I hope that my answer to your very fair question is intelligible, whether it has your concurrence or not. ' Next, I quite agree that the destruction of Sebastopol and of the fleet does not of itself dispose of the question of stipulations for the future distribution of power in the Black Sea. It, how- ever, considerably alleviates that question ; and as to stipulations, I am much disposed to think, though subject to correction, that in its bearing upon the future peace of the world the Russian plan No. 2 of May last was really wiser and safer than the demand we 38 COERESPONDENCE WITH MR. GLADSTONE [chap, xxviii made, less entangling and less fraught with the elements of future dispute, but I could thankfully have taken either. ' You say, with great truth, that I am not justified in charging upon the man who thinks higher terms than I would take necessary for a staple peace that he holds an abominable doctrine. My intention was to apply that charge only to those who before the conquest of Sebastopol said that we might make peace after it upon terms that could not previously be accepted, but whose appetite has grown with what it fed upon and has exhibited itself since the capture of Sebastopol in the abandonment of all definite language as to peace, and in flying to vague generalities about humbling Russia, securing Europe, promoting civilization, and the like. ' Your letter — if I must now pass from the defensive — seems to involve assumptions as to our right to rectify the distribution of political power by bloodshed which carry it far beyond just bounds. ' In the hour of success doctrines and policy are applauded or pass unquestioned even under misgiving which are very differently handled at a period of disaster or when a nation comes to feel the embarrassments it has accumulated. ' The Government are certainly giving effect to the public opinion of the day. If that be a justification, they have it, as all Governments of England have had in all wars at eighteen months from their commencement. ' Apart from the commanding consideration of our duty as men and Christians, I am not less an objector to the post-April policy on the ground of its certain or probable consequences in respect, first and foremost, to Turkey ; in respect to the proper place and power of France ; in respect to the interest which Europe has in keeping her and us all within such place and power ; in respect to the permanence of our friendly relations with her ; and, lastly, in respect to the effects of continued war upon the condition of our own people and the stability of our institutions. But each of these requires an octavo volume. I must add another head : I view with alarm the future use against England of the argument and accusations we use against Russia. ' You have shown no cause against coming here on your way south, so I hope you will appear and let me answer, viva voce, your question about Homer. .t.t .^ • i * ' Most sincerely yours, ' W. E. Gladstone.' 1855-56] ME. GLADSTONE AND RTJSSIA 39 To this letter I replied as foUows : ' Private. ' Rosneath, 'October 24, 1855. ' My dear Gladstone, ' I must thank you for your last letter. I think I can gather from it very clearly what are the predominant feelings in your mind which have determined your recent course in respect to the war. I find myself in the somewhat strange position of often sympathizing much more with you than with most of those who speak and talk about the war, even when I agree in their general conclusion. I mean that I feel very strongly all the dangers and inconveniences arising out of this war, to which you specifically allude. For example, I agree with you in wishing our- selves well out of — not an alliance with France, but that close copartnery which has been established. Secondly, I agree in the danger which exists to our internal institutions in the long con- tinuance of war. Thirdly, I agree with you in respect to the exhausting effect of the contest upon Turkey ; and, lastly, I am jealous of the extent to which the war may be pushed if an extreme interpretation is to be given to the "balance of power," and we are to fiffht on till Russia has been reduced to some theoretical o standard of due influence and power. ' Where, then, do we differ ? I have no difficulty in putting my finger on the point. You express very moderately and guardedly your opinion on that very question on which the whole argument as regards the justice of this present war depends. Was the Russian proposal, or was it not, a sufficiently satisfactory solution of the Eastern Question, for which you agreed to go to war, and for which we are now continuing to wage it ? ' I dispute your right to speak of a " post- April policy " as dis- tinguished from the " pre-February policy." I consider it identical. You may argue that the terms offered at Vienna would have ful- filled sufficiently the purposes for which the war was begun. But you surely will not argue that, for example, the neutralization of the Euxine would not fulfil those purposes still better. ' You may contend very fairly that the abolition of all the Russo- Turkish treaties was a sufficient abdication of her former preponder- ance in those regions ; but I really must call upon you to admit 40 CORBBSPONDENCE WITH MB. GLADSTONE [ohap. xxviii that the abolition of her navies is at least an additional guarantee against that preponderance being revived. ' I don't object to your maintaining that this would be an addition to our demands not worth the cost and bloodshed of a prolonged war. That is a matter of opinion, and fairly open to argument. It is a point upon which I have never had a doubt. But if I had, I should not feel myself entitled to establish the smallest difl'erence oi principle between the war to which I was a party in February and the war which is being waged now. ' I don't know what you mean when you say that you would consider the destruction of Sebastopol an unmixed good to Europe, if you were well assured of the means by which it has been effected. The means are those identical means which you and I were jointly responsible for resorting to. And if by " means " you refer rather to the objects for which the destruction of Sebastopol was sought, then I contend that they have undergone no change whatever since you left the Government. I don't mean that you or I might not consistently have raised the Siege of Sebastopol the moment Russia offered to give up her treaties. But I do mean to say that this was never understood by us to be an ultimate object, or one which would have satisfied the whole intentions of the Crimean Expedition. ' You tell me that when I indicate still further objects as legiti- mate, I imply " assumptions as to our right to rectify the distribu- tion of political power by bloodshed which carry it far beyond just bounds.'''' Yes ; but you admit the " right of rectifying the distribution of political power by bloodshed within certain bounds," for you went to war upon that right and in the exercise of it. The only question is, how do you define "just bounds".? Can you draw a sharp line between the conditions which you agreed to demand and those which we now demand, supposing, e.g., " neutralization " to be a main item, and say, " so far it has been just and right, but beyond it all your bloodshed is unjust and wrong " ? Let us recollect that Louis Napoleon is no blacker a sheep now than he was when we began this very intimate alliance. Whatever danger there was in it of raising an undue military preponderance on the part of France existed in February as well as in October ; so of the danger to our internal institutions ; so of the danger to Turkey — all excellent reasons for stopping the war 1865-56] OBJECTS OF THE CEIMEAN WAR 41 when its original objects have been attained, but of no value whatever as arguments in respect to what those objects were or ought to be. ' I am shocked by poor Molesworth's death. We expect the Duke of S., etc., ' Argyll.' ' Private. • Rosneath, 'November 1, 1855. ' My dear Gladstone, ' I fully agree with you in desiring to see peace founded on conditions which so far as possible may have the elements of durability, and may not depend only on the continued joint action of France and England, or, at least, may depend on that action only as part of the general and admitted policy of Europe. ' But I don't see that the prohibition of fleets in the Euxine would answer this description less well than the mere abolition of Russo-Turkish treaties. Do you? It seems to me, on the contrary, that the prohibition of fleets, if once assented to, is the most self-acting condition that could be devised. ' It is true that gunboats or even larger craft might be secretly or quietly " got up " at a time when the rest of Europe might be otherwise engaged, and especially when France and England should be in antagonism. I don't deny that. But surely the same line of argument is, to say the least, quite as good as against the effectiveness of a mere re-signation of old treaties. You know how we used to argue, and with truth, that the strength of the Russian position for aggression against Turkey lay, not in the treaties, but in the facts and conditions of which those treaties were but the faint expression. I used to maintain this argument, I recollect, when I was resisting being driven to demand as a sine qud non the abolition of all the old treaties, and I maintain it now when that condition had been secured, or, at least, after it has been offered. No condition depends more entirely for its effectiveness on the continued and watchful attention of the Powers to whose demand Russia professes to yield it. ' I have no hesitation in saying that the objects of the war have in my mind undergone no change at all. Of those objects I regard 42 CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. GLADSTONE [chap, xxvin the "Four Points" as still an adequate expression, but not on the popular understanding of what the " Four Points " are. 'In the course of last winter I sent a Memorandum to Lord Aberdeen, pointing out how completely the " Four Points " com- prehended all the objects of the war, and especially how wide was the margin which they leave as regards the means by which those objects may be attained. And so completely does this Memorandum embody my opinion on this matter that I sent, it afterwards to Lord Palmerston when the Vienna Conferences were closed. * I am not prepared to say, for example, whether the free naviga- tion of the Danube can ever be secured, so long as Russia has fortifications at its mouth. That is a question as to the ')n£ans by which that " point" or " basis" is to be secured. It is no question as to the enlargement of, or departure from, the original object. ' I admit the truth of what you say as to the " Aye " and " No " question of peace or war. It is a matter of judgment, on the balance of public policy, between the one course and the other. And very slight circumstances may affect the judgment either way. But then, I think our language respecting our own conclusion ought to have a corresponding character. I thoroughly under- stand any man having come to the conclusion last April that on the whole it was wiser to accept peace on the terms offered than to refuse them. Probabilities of success, hopes of alliances, prospects of assistance — all may have contributed to such a conclusion according as each mind might be influenced. But then, a con- clusion come to upon such balances must not be defended on arguments which have reference to very different elements of decision. I am sure I feel as hostile as you do to much of the war language that I see in the press and hear elsewhere. But I have always felt since you parted from us that your language and arguments were directed quite as logically against the war in all its stages. ' However, I hold with you that we ought to have definite objects, and not fight for the sake merely of what may turn up. You, on the other hand, will agree that the means by which those objects are to be secured can never be really settled until the time of treaty comes. As Lord Aberdeen himself said, "They w^ill be different if the allies get to St. Petersburg from what they would be if the Russians get to Constantinople." How you might have 1855-56] OBJECTS OF THE CRIMEAK WAR 43 denounced from this text if these words had fallen from Palmerston ! I recollect the foolish newspapers at the time saying : " Here we have a Minister confessing that he has no fixed conditions or objects, and that he will allow the just demands of Europe, etc., to be determined by events." ' But I must stop. I hope to be able to pay you a visit before this month closes ; but you know I must take care not to have it said — if I am in any degree peaceful — " Oh, you come fresh from Hawarden," for even on such a disputatious and contradictious Scot as I am, you are supposed to have the most dangerous influences. . ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^ ^^^^^^ ' Aegyll.' ' HaWARDENj ' My dear Argyll, 'December 1, 1855. ' As I do not know how long I may be in London after Windsor, or what chance I may have of seeing you there, I write to say that I hope to arrive at Windsor from Chester by a train which, starting hence at 9.5, gets to London at 3.30, and therefore should be in Windsor about 3. I know not whether you will by that time have disappeared. ' One word only on your " safe conscience." What I find press hardest among the reproaches upon me is this : " You went to war for limited objects. Why did you not take into account the high probability that those objects would be lost sight of in the excite- ment which war engenders, and that this war, if once begun, would receive an extension far beyond your views or wishes ?'" ' Now let us shift the ground and take the present moment for starting-point instead of, say, December 1, 1853. You have, now, limited objects. It is not only in their first stage that wars are apt to extend. When you say, " These are my objects, and I can with a safe conscience fight indefinitely long till I attain them," I ask myself whether you ought not now to take into view prob- abilities analogous to those which I, for one, certainly had not sufficiently in my mind two years ago. 'When we meet I shall tell you how Post Office Sunday re- striction practically has worked and still works here. ' Most sincerely yours, ' W. is. Gladstone.' 44 CORRESPONDENCE WITH MB. GLADSTONE [chap, xxviii 'Windsor Castle, ' My dear Argyll, 'December 3, 1855. ' I stay until Wednesday, and I can come to you at StaflPbrd House, if bidden, about two o'clock or at any later hour, or at any hour on Thursday. ' I do mean that the reproach I named is the one most nearly just. What the weight due to it is I forbear finally to judge until I see the conclusion of this tremendous drama ; but I see quite enough to be aware that the particular hazard in question ought to have been more sensibly and clearly before me. It may be good logic and good sense, I think, to say, " I will forego ends that are just for fear of being driven upon the pursuit of others that are not so " ; whether it is so in a particular case depends very much upon the probable amount of the driving-power and of the resisting force which may be at our command. ' Ever most sincerely yours, ' W. E. Gladstone.' ' Hawarden, 'My dear Argyll, 'January 18, 1856. ' It was most kind in you to back the telegraph by a note of your own, which, although perhaps it had no other foundation, yet was subjectively worth a great deal more. 'You know my fears about neutralization, and can well judge that I have misgivings as to the meaning of the Russian accept- ance on that point. The future Foreign Secretary, however, must take care of himself. I should hope that now we may begin to feel sanguine as to your getting us out, and if you do, an immense good upon the whole will have been achieved. ' I like, as far as I understand it, the stipulation about the Aland Isles, and especially the removal of the Russian frontier from the Danube. At the same time, I should have been sorry to see the war carried on for those objects alone. ' We have had the measles in the house, and have been detained here accordingly. To-morrow evening, however, we hope to be in London for good, as the saying is. ' Believe me always, most sincerely yours, ' W. E. Gladstone.' CHAPTER XXIX 1856-57 SYMPATHY WITH THE ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENT — VISIT OF MRS. STOWE TO ENGLAND AND TO INVERARAY — DIFFICULTY WITH CHINA — GENERAL ELECTION Horizons wholly new of political thought and action were now about to open on Europe and the world. And it is a curious circumstance that the curtain which as yet concealed them had its fringe first lifted by the same small group of men whose official duty it was to wind up the transactions of the epoch that had gone before. The Plenipotentiaries of the European Powers who had met in Paris had signed the treaty of peace on the 30th March, 1856, but the formal exchange of ratifications did not take place for nearly a month later — tiU the 27th of April. This period of a month spent ia Paris they put to a very singular use — ^namely, that of discussing various questions of difficulty in the foreign politics of Europe, which had nothing to do with the Crimean War or with the Eastern Question, and wdth which, so far as was known, they had received no instructions from their Governments to meddle at all. The initiative in this, apparently gratuitous, under- taking was assumed by the French Plenipotentiary Walewski, on the 8th of April, in a well-considered and judicious speech, suggesting that, as it so happened that Europe was assembled in a Congress on a particular subject, it might be wise to take the opportunity of tr3dng whether on some other subjects something might 45 46 THE ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENT [chap, xxix not be done for the future peace of Europe, seeing that the horizon was by no means free from clouds. I have no recollection that any such enlargement of his powers was ever given to Clarendon by consent of the Cabinet, but I have little doubt that it was agreed to by Palmerston in private communication with the French Emperor, through Clarendon. There was only one of the subjects named by Walewski on which differ- ences would be liable to arise, and that was some changes in the laws of maritime capture. The other subjects concerned those military occupations by France and Austria of different parts of Italy, which were the still standing results of that great reaction of authority against the revolutionary insurrections of 1848. The result of this supplementary Congress was re- markable for our agreeing to abandon privateering, and also to abandon our claim to seize enemy's goods on board of neutral vessels. For the future we con- sented to admit the principle that ' The flag covers the goods,' or ' Free ships make free goods ' — a great change in our traditional contention, but one which the changed and still rapidly changing conditions of the maritime world rendered it every year increasingly dangerous to resist. On the other subjects brought under the notice of this supplementary Congress, nothing was or could be done, except to record the expressed or implied admission of all the great military Powers that the occupation of Italy and of Greece ought to be brought to an end as soon as possible. The bad internal government of Naples was alluded to with reserve. This was only a glimpse — but it was a glimpse — into the new horizon on which we were about to enter, and into the new cycle of events which was very soon to bring about great wars, and end in the largest changes in the map of Europe. About this time I took somejpart [inTa voiding a dangerous antagonism with the United States upon 1856] THE NICABAGUAN QUESTION 47 one of those questions connected with, the South American wars which were continually recurring. What happened affords a curious illustration of the peculiarities of Palmerston's character. In a Cabinet held on June 7th, Palmerston had told us that he thought we ought to send out a powerful fleet to Greytown, on the coast of Nicaragua, to maintain certain rights of protectorate there which we had long claimed. The President of the United States had suddenly recognised a Government there which was supported by an American filibuster. We held that Greytown belonged to Mosquito, and not to Nicaragua. Palmerston added that the only way we could act effectually would be by blockade. The Americans had sent a powerful frigate. The Cabinet seemed to be disposed to agree that we should strengthen our fleet. I suggested any difficulty and objection I could, and especially urged that though the pubHc would support us ia any war into which we might be driven by British interests, we should not be supported in a war engaged in for such a pure fiction as the Mosquito Protectorate. To my great surprise. Clarendon acqui- esced in this opinion, but fell back on the repeated declarations of all former Governments in this country, committing Great Britain as a point of honour to maintain the nominal sovereignty of Mosquito over Greytown. He said that he did not see his way out of them ; but so fully did he agree with me that a sentence in his prepared instructions to our Admiral, which laid down the protectorate as the basis on which he was to found his action, was a sentence which he told us he would Hke to modify as much as possible. After a long discussion, I declared my opinion to be that we ought to limit our instructions to the defence of British life and property, and especially that we ought not to blockade, thereby seriously obstructing American com- merce. I urged that the execution of the blockade would infallibly bring us into collision with the United States, who would complain of the practical inconveni- 48 THE ANTI-SLAVEEY MOVEMENT [chap, xxix ence to which their citizens would be subjected in one of the great highways of the Western States. Just as the Cabinet was breaking up my arguments seemed to have some effect, and Clarendon suggested that we should at least delay tiU the American reply to our Enlistment Despatch had been received. I utilized the time gained by going over all the papers on the subject, and I was agreeably surprised to find that several of them — especially one from Lord John in 1853 — had fuUy admitted the great changes which had taken place since we had assumed and asserted the Mosquito dominion over Greytown ; that this dominion had now become a pure fiction ; and that we were per- fectly willing to make some new arrangement which might square theories with the facts, I also found that the American Government had quite agreed with us in 1852 on the basis of an arrangement for settling the whole question, and that the failure of this scheme was not due to them, but to the wretched little Governments with which we both had to deal. It was less pleasant to find that Clarendon's own recent despatches had rather tended to go back on the old ground, in conse- quence of the less reasonable temper of the American Government under President Buchanan. I therefore wrote to Clarendon on the morning of our next Cabinet, bringing forward aU these and other points, and urging that we should fall back as much as possible on the tone of Lord John's despatch, and do aU we could to swing loose from the old high doctrine of protectorate. At the next meeting of the Cabinet I was greatly relieved to find that both Palmerston and Clarendon had very much altered their minds. Our Admiral was now only instructed to protect British life and property, and to forbid the filibustering General from actually occupying Greytown. Not very consistently, there was a preliminary passage laying down strongly our old doctrine of a Protectorate, but on my urging its incongruity, the Cabinet agreed to strike it out, and Palmerston expressed his ready assent. -Jrvm, a, draw-iruj -by Lune^ QJiv-irUcm, 1856] PALMEBSTON 49 The whole of this passage is typical of what I have often observed in Palmerston. His first impulse ^was always to move fleets and to threaten our opponents, sometimes on trivial occasions, on the details of which he had not fully informed himself by careful reading. Then, on finding his proposals combated, he was candid in listening and in inquiring, and if he found the objec- tions reasonable, he could give way to them with the most perfect good-humour. This was a great quality in a man so impulsive and so strong-headed as he was, and so prone to violent action. It made him a much less dangerous man than he was supposed to be. But it made it an all-important matter that he should have colleagues who understood him, and were not afraid of him. Only a few days before, he had amused us all immensely by his explanation of another retreat which he told us he thought it expedient to make. The matter was one of those small ones which sometimes give great trouble. Palmerston had put at the head of the Board of Works one of his own special supporters. Sir Benjamin Hall — a strong, rather obstinate man, not over-courteous in his dealings with men, and corre- spondingly unpopular. One of his novelties was the introduction of bands of music in the parks on Sundays. It raised a very considerable agitation, and Palmerston was besieged to check the vagaries of a Minister who seemed to take pleasure in affronting the religious world. So far did it go that Palmerston was warned that an adverse vote in the House of Commons would not improbably be carried. Palmerston therefore told us in Cabinet that, though he himself highly approved of the bands on Sunday, he thought it would be prudent to give way, adding : ' The clergy, who were on the whole well-intentioned people, were committing a pious fraud in making the working classes beheve that those measures would end in their being called upon to Avork on Sundays, which was not at all true,' etc. This is a perfect specimen of the easy good-humour with which Palmerston treated all sorts and conditions of men when VOL. II. ^ 50 THE ANTi-SLAVHRY MOVEMENT [chap, xxix he came into contact with them, even when such con- tact was one of antagonism. It was a characteristic to which his growing popularity at this time was greatly due. His older popularity was entirely founded on foreign affairs, in which the British public are rather fond of games of bluff. But now, when in the multifarious transactions of his office as Prime Minister his moderation and good temper came to be often felt, he was becoming more and more a universal favourite. His very opponents played into his hands — no one more conspicuously than Lord Derby, who at this time chose to attack us in the House of Lords upon the changes to which we had consented in the laws of maritime capture (at the Conference in Paris). We had already triumphed in the Commons on another item in our peace, and at a private meeting of the party on the 28th of April, Palmerston was received with enthusiasm, whilst in the House of Commons on the 2nd May we triumphed with the extraordinary majority of 127. Nothing, therefore, could be more futile than Derby's attack on us about maritime law. Lord Colchester was chosen by Derby to lead off on his side. Clarendon spoke excellently. I spoke later in the debate, and dehvered a speech of strict reasoning on the facts of the maritime world in our time, and rather taunted the Opposition with not venturing to try the vote in the other House, where the maritime interests of the country were more specially represented. This, and the knowledge of what was to follow, seemed to exasperate Derby, and he delivered a speech of great petulance and of personal attack on me, which was not very worthy of the occasion. On a division, we beat him by a majority of fifty. This was rather a notice- able result, because it reassured us of the disposition of the House of Lords to support Palmerston' s Government. It had been one of the features of the Aberdeen Cabinet that it had always been steadily supported by the Upper House, although it was the stronghold of what remained of the Pro- 1856] LORD ABERDEEN AND GLADSTONE 51 tectionist party, and that party had the powerful leadership of Lord Derby. Palmer ston's Cabinet was nothing but a prolongation of Aberdeen's, with a few personal changes ; but quite latterly we had felt less confidence in the support of the Peers. This vote, therefore, on a ticklish question of maritime law, and in the teeth of a very violent speech from Derby, made us feel tolerably secure of our position in the House of Peers. In truth, the Opposition was com- pletely broken up. It had no name to conjure with. Lord John Russell was entirely discredited. So was Gladstone, because of his violent pro-Russian speeches, during a war of which he had been one of the leading authors. His continued animosity to Palmerston after the peace, on every question on which opposition could possibly be raised, did not tend to rehabilitate him in the public estimation. His best friends were well aware of this, of which I find a curious example in my journal. An Irish member of the name of Moore had long threatened a motion in the Commons censuring us on the enlistment trouble with America. At last this motion was to be brought forward upon the 1st July. On that evening I find in my journal the following entry : ' Aberdeen spoke to me in great anxiety as to Gladstone's vote to - night. He had been with him to-day, quite undecided how he should vote, since Graham had told him that he (Graham) would not vote with Moore. I told Aberdeen that I had no anxiety as regarded the result, since Gladstone would only drive men away from voting as he voted rather than attract them to it. Aberdeen then said there was no question of any danger to the Government, but there was of danger to Glad- stone himself. He added, with his characteristic directness : "I don't care about the Government ; I care for Gladstone." He had strongly advised him against voting with Moore, telling him that '' he was only just escaping from the odium he had incurred 52 THE ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENT [chap, xxix about his peace speeches forJRussia last year, and that he was now throwing himself back for no good object." ' Gladstone solved the problem in a characteristic manner. He spoke for Moore, and then voted against him, discovering a ground on which he could do both with perfect consistency — viz., the ground that no man should move a vote of want of confidence unless he was prepared to form a Government, even although his argument was sound and deserving of the support of others. How far this solution of the difficulty helped him in that recovery of public confidence for which Aberdeen was so anxious may well be doubted. Palmerston and Clarendon had great trouble with Russia about the final settlement of the new Bess- arabian frontier at the mouth of the Danube, but they succeeded at last. There was, however, another subject which came before us at this time, and in which I felt the greatest interest. It was a subject which the French Govern- ment had brought before the supplementary Congress in Paris, and on which the greatest difficulty was felt by all of us. I refer to the condition of the subjects of the King of Naples as the result of his gross and cruel misgovemment. Austria was, or pretended to be, much shocked by the very idea of international interference Avith the purely internal affairs of any Sovereign. On the other hand, the ground taken by France and by us was that the misgovemment was so gross as to be a perpetual danger to the peace of Europe, and was the occasion of the insurrectionary movements which were the main cause of the foreign military occupations, which it was a most desirable object to terminate. When this subject came before the Cabinet, Palmerston, as usual, showed a disposition to send our fleet to the Bay of Naples. The ground I took was that we must either do more, or else do nothing ; sending a fleet alone would very probably excite an insurrection ; then we could not honourably 1856] GLADSTONE AND NAPLES 53 leave the insurgents to their fate, but must be prepared to support and defend them. Even Palmerston felt and acknowledged the difficulty, with the result that nothing was done, beyond some diplomatic remon- strances. It was in connection with this subject that Gladstone had done himself great credit, if in a way which his friend Aberdeen did not approve of. On a visit to Naples he had seen and heard of the exceptional brutality of the Government of Naples. It was the only capital in Europe in which a stranger might find himself one night dining with men of high education and refinement, and might hear next morning that every one of them had been consigned to the most loath- some prisons — ^chained, perhaps, to villains of the deepest dye. Some actual instances in the experience of personal friends of his own set the heather in his mind on fire. He found access to the most authentic documents, and he fired off a letter to Lord Aberdeen, which scattered over the whole of Europe the breathings of a just and righteous indignation. The days had now well begun when the public opinion of the world, if concentrated, well founded, and powerfully expressed, was destined to have an effect such as it never had had before on the conduct and on the fate of Governments. The appeals made to this public opinion were no longer confined to a revolu- tionary press, or to the harangues of professional demagogues. The new feature about it was that appeals to the power of public opinion were made by some of the Governments most decidedly representing the principles of authority, and by individual statesmen whose very names were identified with the most Conservative opinions. On the 28th April, 1856, the venerable Lord Lynd- hurst was to have addressed the House on the state of Italy, and although at the personal request of Clarendon he consented to postpone his speech, he took care, in doing so, to denounce the ' intolerable 54 THE ANTI-SLAVEBY MOVEMENT [chap, xxix misgovernment under which the people of Italy have been so long su£fering.' But where was this interfer- ence with the internal affairs of other States to stop ? That was the question which Austria asked, and to which there was not, and could not then be, any definite reply. Only this was clear — that other cases of suffering humanity might equally attract the sym- pathies of the world, and might, perhaps, be equally assisted by the upgrowth of a great body of popular opinion. I should not be giving a true picture of my life at this time if I did not confess that for some years my thoughts and feelings had been drawn more and more to the great contest in America between negro slavery and abolitionism, which was becoming constantly more and more bitter, and which was soon to break out in one of the most terrible wars which history records. I must explain, however, the current of influences which had carried me in this direction, and which gave me for a long time an almost engrossing interest, as well as some of the saddest and also some of the happiest moments of my life. My home in boyhood was not one in sympathy with the abolition of negro slavery. My father's few com- mercial friends were generally more or less connected with West Indian property, and my father had not personally a favourable opinion of the negroes. One of his most intimate friends was that Mr. Lewis who was the author of a novel called ' The Monk,' from which its author came to be generally known as ' Monk Lewis.' He owned a West Indian estate, and he had promised his negroes that at his death they should be free. Not very long after this intimation, he died rather suddenly, and my father always suspected that he had been poisoned by his own slaves. Vague and indefinite as my prepossessions were, arising out of such stories and ideas, they were more or less strengthened by my early prejudices against the Whigs and all their works. The result was that, although not denying the 1856] 'uncle TOM'S CABIN' 55 injustice of slavery, I was cold and indifferent on the subject. I had, indeed, read the great speech of Mr. Pitt, in support of his friend Wilberforce, and for the abolition of the slave-trade ; but I was disposed to refine and distinguish between slavery and the slave- trade, as involving different considerations, and to look upon slavery as no worse than the old feudal or military servitudes. Later in life I found myself in contact with a society which reflected the purest and noblest elements that had given dignity and elevation to the Whig party at its best, and among these elements was an enlightened understanding, and a thorough destesta- tion, of negro slavery. Up to the year 1850 no event happened which brought American slavery very prominently before me, but in that year an event did happen which turned out to be the beginning of the end. This was the passing of the Fugitive Slave Law, which virtually turned every free State into slave territory, and brought home to the very doors of all the people of the free States the most tragic and horrible scenes of the slave-hunter's cursed work. I do not recoUect that in the busy and unsettled state of home politics in those years, my attention was specially drawn to the great change which this step on the part of the slave party was calculated to produce, and I have no recollection of ever having spoken or written a line in public on the subject. As a member of the Government after 1852, I should not have thought it judicious to do so, in Adew of the extreme sensitiveness of the Government of the United States as regards foreign interference. Such was the state of matters, when suddenly there burst upon the world a book, written by a woman, which at once preyed on all hearts, and commanded attention in every country, and in every class and rank. It was 'Uncle Tom's Cabin '—a picture of negro slavery in the Southern States of the American Union. Exhibiting the utmost grace and facility of style and power of literary composition, in ex- 56 VISIT OF MRS. STOWE [chap, xxix pressing the most powerful enlotions of the mind and heart, that wonderful book had run through numerous editions in the Old and New World. I confess that I was entirely engrossed by it. It was exactly what was wanted. It made men see and feel what before they had only heard of at a distance. It was the occasion of a compliment to me which I greatly valued. When Mrs. Stowe, the illustrious author of this wonderful book, received the first copies to be sent to Europe, she selected a few men in England, to each of whom she sent a copy, with a short dedicatory note. One was sent to Prince Albert, another to Lord Shaftesbury, a third to Lord Carlisle, and the fourth was sent to me. When the unparalleled circulation of the book in England involved pecuniary transactions of correspond- ing magnitude, it became necessary for Mrs. Stowe to visit Europe, and she arrived in London in the spring of 1853. I was invited by Lord Carlisle to meet her at dinner soon after her arrival. The expectation so common with us aU, that extraordinary gifts of genius will have a home in outward form of corresponding beauty or of power, is an experience more often disappointed than fulfilled. In my own long experience of life, I have never seen that expectation fuUy satisfied, except in the solitary case of my dear friend the poet Tennyson. His was indeed an ideal head and an ideal cotmtenance, expressing all he was. But never have I encountered such a contrast between a spirit and its shrine as in the case of Mrs. Stowe. Here, in the one, was a voice ringing through both the New and the Old World, with a call so powerful that every ear was open and every heart was moved ; and there, on the other side, was a small and most inconspicuous woman, without a feature to attract, still less to command attention. I found that no one was more astonished than herself by the effect which her tale had produced. That effect was measured by nothing except the travail of her own soul in conceiving incidents of the story, and in giving to 1856] MRS. BEBCHBR STOWE 57 them that intense reaUty in which its power lay. But this physical and mental contrast did not tend to diminish — -on the contrary, it all tended to increase — the wonder and the reverence with which I looked at Mrs. Stowe. I saw in her the chosen instrument of a Divine purpose — a living example of inspiration. I did not then know what all know now — ^that Mrs. Stowe had felt herself for the time so possessed that she became the conscious agent of a Power other than her OMm. It was no mere outburst of a tender woman's heart against the wrongs and miseries of her sex under the conditions of slavery, although this, of course, was an item in it. But the aim of Mrs. Stowe' s book was far higher than this. Her mind was inflamed for the honour of Chris- tianity itself. It was on fire to denounce the terrible complicity of the Churches, and to show how that com- plicity must stand in the light of the Divine morality of the Gospel. To bring this home to the hearts of men, to shake them with horror and with shame — this was the sublime endeavour which filled her soul, from an impulse which she could not resist. I confess I looked at Mrs. Stowe with a good deal of the feeling of veneration and curiosity with which I should have regarded a prophet of the Jews or one of the Apostles of our Lord. The contrast of her outward appearance made the spiritual element aU the more conspicuous. An idea of that appearance cannot be better given than in her own humorous description : ' I am a little bit of a woman — somewhere more than forty, about as thin and dry as a pinch of snuff — ^never very much to look at in my best days, and looking like a used-up article now.'* I cannot, however, allow this comic frame to be left without some filling up with a pen-and-ink sketch of the features of this remarkable woman. Her head and face as a whole were somewhat narrow and dark-com- plexioned. The forehead was not high. The eyes * 'Life of Mrs. B. Stowe,' pp. 197, 198. 58 VISIT OF MBS. STOWE [chap, xxix were rather small, with no open gaze, but with a very merry twinkle when anything roused her abundant humour. The salient feature of her face was the nose, which usurped an undue predominance. It was not, however, aggressive like an eagle's, but straight, like that of a contemplative stork. Her mouth was always a Httle puckered laterally, but became more so when she smiled, especially when the idea presented to her was full of fun. Her voice was low , sweet, and gentle — ' that most excellent thing in woman.' Her manner was very quiet, almost demure, unassuming to the last degree. Of course, this was a great charm, in one with whose extraordinary powers the world was at that moment literally surging. A few days after this quiet dinner, we met Mrs. Stowe in a scene very different, where the con- trasts of her appearance and her position were still more remarkable. A number of her leading admirers in England, headed by Lord Shaftesbury and the Duchess of Sutherland, had got up an address of thanks to her from the women of England ; the presen- tation took place in the picture-gallery of Stafford House. The Duchess had invited a goodly company of all the most prominent men and women of London who were sympathizers in the anti-slavery cause. Such men as Milman, Whately, and Macaulay repre- sented the Hterary element, whilst Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell represented the old political school, which had been always adverse to slavery. The Duchess placed Mrs. Stowe on a rather high-backed sofa, and brought up to her the various guests who desired to be personally introduced. The tiny per- sonality of the great writer was almost lost in the gilded and lofty surroundings of that beautiful room, whilst the magnificent figure of the hostess looked like some splendid bird of paradise mothering under her wings a little black chick, which had somehow fallen to her care. The address, read by Lord Shaftesbury, was a tribute to genius, and to genius devoted to a holy 1856] MRS. BEEOHER STOWE 59 cause. The scene was most striking, and the contrast it presented between her unmitigated homeliness and the high culture and position of those who were crowding round her, could hardly have been imagined in the boldest fiction. For myself, I felt that day more than ever astonished by her powers, for the best of all reasons— that I had just read another of her productions, a book called ' A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin.' It was written to disprove the accusations of untruth which had been brought against her by the slave power. It was a masterly summary of the evidence on the strength of which her story had been constructed, and it proved to demonstration that her picture had been drawn to the very life. Some portions of the book I had read to the Duchess of Sutherland on the previous evening, and she was much impressed and horrified by its revela- tions. I have told this story of the reception of Mrs. Stowe at Stafford House a little out of perspective as to time, with reference to the general narrative of this memoir. But the reception of 1853 had a sequel which belongs strictly to the later year of 1856, and in my memory the reception and the sequel are inseparably blended. Mrs. Stowe' s first visit to England was a short one, and she returned home to renew her gallant fight against the slave power. This fight she maintained with all her splendid literary power, whilst we were soon engaged in our great fight with Russia, which, with aU my convictions of its necessity in the circum- stances in which we were placed, could never have those sure elements of a wide beneficence for humanity which were the glory of her campaign. We were glad to hear that she contemplated a return to England in 1856, and both the Duchess of Sutherland and I took measures to secure a visit from her in our country homes — the best way in which a great character can be understood and a great nature can be enjoyed. Mrs. Stowe accepted our invitations cordially. Accordingly, 60 VISIT OF MRS. STOWE [chap, xxix in September, 1856, we received at Inveraray Mrs. Stowe and all her family who accompanied her to Europe, namely, her husband, her sister, two daughters, and one son. They remained with us for five days. We did not find in Mrs. Stowe — and we were glad not to find — what is called a brilliant conversationalist ; but never did any woman appear more exactly what she was as authoress. Gentle and serious and earnest on all the grave subjects of her thought, there was yet a ripple of humour and of fun where it was at all admissible with the subject. It was impossible not to observe in her books a close observation of nature, and it was my special delight to see this gift applied to new surroundings, such as she never could have seen before in her small New England homes. I soon saw how quick her eye was, and how well she could describe the differences between the vegetation of our old planted woods and that of the native woods of the North American continent. Nothing escaped her, and I felt that I gained more knowledge from her remarks during a short drive than from any books I had ever read. Mrs. Stowe, like aU educated Americans, took a special interest in places connected with that literature which has become theirs as much as ours, and especi- ally in all places which have been touched by the immortal fictions of Sir Walter Scott. It happens that one of the most striking and picturesque of these, the novel of ' Rob Roy,' has a good deal of its scene laid at Inveraray, and I was able to take Mrs. Stowe to a spot which was a signal proof of the extraordinary truth of Sir Walter's touches, even the most incidental, in the picture he presented of the times. I do not know how Scott derived his information that there was any local connection between the great freebooter and the Argyll family, but it is well known at Inveraray that Rob Roy lived for many years in a very secluded nook among the mountains there, which has ever since been pointed out as his cottage. It lies at the head 1856] . ROB ROY's stronghold 61 of a long and narrow glen, called Glen Shira, which has several great peculiarities. Its floor is so low that the greater part of it is only little above the level of the sea, the consequence of which is that the river coming down its bed is a gently-running stream, which is noiseless, unlike most streams in the Highlands. The name Glen Shira comes from this, meaning ' the valley of the silent stream.' Another peculiarity of the glen is that its walls are hung with remains of the ancient native forest — oak, ash, and alder, with thickets of birch and hazel. About five miles up the glen, the foundation rocks are exposed, and for the next two miles the river has cut its way through those rocks, which are of mica slates. It makes this cut through a succession of waterfalls, only separated by rapid pools and dashing currents. At last, in following this river upwards, we come to a place where it divides into two branches, both the same in character, and filling the whole air with the various tunes of falling and of rushing water. These two branches completely isolate a steep and high mountain, one of them trenching it on its eastern and the other on its western, base. And these trenches are so deeply cut that no man could cross them in the face of any opposition. Behind these battlements of Nature, Rob Roy had chosen to make his home, adding the artifice of conceal- ment to the advantage of a strong natural fortification ; for his cottage was built upon a site invisible from almost every direction. It stood behind a high knoll, which could not be seen at all until those ascending the glen were close upon it ; and when it became visible, it gave no symptom of being near any human habita- tion. Yet hidden and sheltered behind this knoll was the cottage of the famous rover. One of the deep-cut torrents rushed behind it, and masses of natural wood hung their tangled foliage down the western side of the ravine. About the whole place there was an extra- ordinary sense of remoteness and of concealment and of rest. Leading Mrs. Stowe round the knoll, I could 62 VISIT OF MRS. STOWE [chap. Xxix place her at the cottage door, which was very low. The walls were built of loose stones, absolutely with- out mortar, like the stone walls usually called dikes in Scotland. The roof was of sticks, covered with thatch. The door was scarcely 6 feet high, which was the height of the whole wall, and the windows were narrow embrasures in the thickness of the wall. Mrs. Stowe looked with much astonishment at this primitive form of human habitation. But she was still more astonished when I explained to her that it was a considerable advance upon a still ruder kind of structure. At the beginning of the last century most of the inhabitants of the Highlands lived in cabins made of wattles, and plastered on the outside with clay or peat. There were no internal divisions, and the whole floor was occupied jointly by the family and the cattle. Towards the middle of the century, they began to build such cottages of stone as the one we had then before us, and the interior was divided into two apartments by a partition or screen of wattles, one side being occupied by the family, the other by the cattle. This was the stage at which domestic architecture of this class had arrived in the days of Rob Roy, and at which it had remained, in the case of this particular cottage, to the date of Mrs. Stowe' s visit. There was, indeed, one inference from Rob Roy's cottage which Mrs. Stowe must have been dis- posed to draw, and that was the curious accuracy of Walter Scott in the reproaches which he makes some of his characters throw against my ancestor, John, Duke of Argyll and Greenwich, for afford- ing protection and shelter to the famous outlaw. It was impossible that Rob Roy should have lived so long within about six miles of Inveraray Castle, without the fact being known to that Duke, and for some reason or another the famous Rob must have been allowed to remain unmolested in his safe and picturesque retreat. I felt under no need of solving this curious problem for my American friend. As herself a great writer of 1856] GLBNSHIRA 63 fiction, she knew the incidental Hberties consistent with substantial truth, and she probably thought little of the problem why men like Rob Roy were more than tolerated 150 years ago. Her whole heart and soul were at that time agonized by the thought, not of cattle-stealers, but of man-stealers being openly pro- tected and encouraged by a civiUzed legislature and by Christian Churches in her own country. She could feel, therefore, nothing but amusement, and the sense of a strange historical continuity, when she was brought into the hut of Rob Roy, and in touch with the actual surroundings of one of the most picturesque and briUiant tales of the immortal Wizard of the North. When Mrs. Stowe and I left the hut, I took her back to a place where the rest of our party were waiting for us. This was a spot to which I have been accustomed to take those of our guests whose daily work is hardest, and whose spirits, as well as bodies, give some evident token of needing rest. There are some places where the aspects of Nature seem to carry into the tired heart and brain a sense of unspeakable refresh- ment. The long perspective of the narrow glen, opening to the south and to the sea, with its hanging woods and precipices ; the absence of any visible human habitation ; the rocky ravines all round us, and the air fuU of the sound of falling waters, each pool looking as if it were held in a Httle basin of silver, from the universal mica of the rocks — all these were elements in a very peculiar scene, which seemed to give Mrs. Stowe a sense of tranquil enjoyment. To me her presence haunts that scene still, and as often as I have taken there in later years some distinguished guest, it always recalls to me the sunny afternoon in September, 1856, when it attracted the steady gaze of that most remarkable woman, at a time when she was in the thick of her great fight, and could not as yet see the speedy triumph of the blows she was raining down upon the manacles of the slave. I am not a Boswell. With the single exception of 64 VISIT OV MRS. STOWE [chap, xxix Macaulay, whose stores of knowledge seemed inex- haustible, and whose memory was almost miraculous, I have never even had any very great enjoyment in what is called brilliant conversation. Still less have I ever tried to record it. I have no memory of that kind, and sometimes I have wished that others were in this respect as wanting as myself, for I know few things more wearisome than the faded flowers of vanished conversations, when the petals are aU dried and dusty, and the very stalks have ceased to hold them together in any true connection. I have a lively impression of the curious mixture of the great seriousness and the great humour of ]\Irs. Stowe's conversation — the union of the strength of a masculine understanding with the tenderness of a woman's heart, which is a character- istic of her books. It does so happen, however, that she Avrote a letter from Inveraray, giving an account of her visit, which has since been pulilished by her family, and in that letter she gives an indication of some of the subjects of our conversation at the time. Mrs. Stowe had deeply at heart the honour of Christianity, and she mourned over the failure of the Churches in America to see and to uphold the cause of an everlasting righteousness, when it was presented to their recogni- tion and committed to their care. But no one ever saw more clearly the hoUowness of conventional theology and the shams of orthodoxy, which were often the objects of her wit and the subjects of her humour. There are many illustrations of these in her books, and I well recollect being immensely entertained by them in her conversation. It is the only disadvantage I know, as attaching to warm and intimate friendships with cultivated Ameri- cans, that in a great majority of cases they are severed by distance before they can be lost by death. But I have enjoyed too many of these friendships not to be grateful for their memory. We continued to hear of and from Mrs. Stowe for many years, and rejoiced with her in the results of 1857] WAR WITH PERSIA 65 that terrible Civil War, of which abolition was not the confessed or ostensible aim, but of which, none the less, slavery was the real and efficient cause. It often seems strange to me that, although from a very early age I was keenly occupied with politics, I was yet never so happy as when I got away from them, and even now in retrospect I am never so bored as when I am compelled to return to them. The unspeak- able relief afforded by the close of the Crimean War, and by the conclusion of a general peace, made all other pending questions seem so comparatively unimportant, that for some time neither in the House nor in the Cabinet did I work as I had worked. I was satisfied that Palmerston and Clarendon would deal on the whole well and wisely with such embarrassments as remained. And this they did. Palmerston showed all his strength in resisting Russia with respect to the treaty securities for the Danube navigation. We settled the Central American dispute. We renewed our friendly relations with the United States, and, altogether, foreign affairs looked more peaceful than they had done for some time when we met Parliament in 1857. We were now involved in a little war with Persia. A violent personal quarrel had arisen between our Minister there, Charles Murray, and the Shah, in which we did not think that Murray showed much temper or discretion. He broke off diplomatic relations with the Persian Government, and the Shah proceeded to besiege Herat. Palmerston sent an expedition to Bushire, at the head of the Persian Gulf, and we took possession of the island of Karah. The groiuid of objection to these little wars was jealousy of the Executive Govern- ment being free to handle armies without the usual recourse to Parliament. My feeling was that in an Empire such as ours, especially in the East, the execu- tive power ought to have a strong weapon always^ in hand, and ought not to be hampered with the Parlia- mentary forms which are necessary in European hostilities. I was glad, therefore, when I saw the VOL. n. 5 66 DIFFICULTY WITH CHINA [chap, xxix assaults on Palmerston fail when they took this form, and especially when the Lords refused to have anything to do with them. The storm, however, was destined to burst out of another cloud — one which rose still farther away than Persia or even India. The Benthamite Radical, Sir John Bowring, whom Palmerston had appointed to be our Commissioner in China, had got into a quarrel with the Chinese authorities at Canton about the nationality of a local vessel of a class called lorcha. He claimed one of these vessels as British, and denied the right of the Chinese Government to treat her as it did. When the Chinese refused to acknowledge her British character, Bowring, after the manner of his master, sent British ships and British guns, and blew the Chinese forts out of the water. The malcontents in the House of Commons were numerous and various, and this was just such an occasion as was favourable to a joint attack on their part upon Palmerston. In connection with this case, a comical incident occurred to me. In the preceding autumn, my wife and I had paid one of our usual visits to Dunrobin, and had gone there by the route of the Caledonian Canal. On the steamer upon the lake we met an elderly man, who attracted a good deal of our attention. He was what is called a dapper little man — very round in his contours, like a partridge or a quail. He had a round face with good features, and cheeks of the roundness characteristic of all his figure. On the removal of his hat, we saw that he was bald, with the exception of a fringe of gray hair round his neck. His head was a fine one, large and well domed, with ample room for brains. But what attracted our attention most was his extraordinary mode of speaking. I cannot say there was any local brogue or accent. He spoke very pure English, but with a deliberation and slowness of articulation which was most peculiar. Each syllable was separately pronounced, as if it were a separate word, and with the utmost and apparently the most careful 1857] THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL 67 precision, so that each letter made itself distinctly heard. When we came to the Palls of Foyers, there was but one carriage, and our new acquaintance and our- selves shared it to the falls and back to the steamer. Nothing came out in his conversation that gave the slightest indication of his business or occupation, and yet our curiosity was considerable. My conclusion was that he was a Londoner — a pure Cockney — and that he was engaged in some City business. At one of the early meetings of the Cabinet after the opening of Parliament, Palmerston told us that he under- stood that the naval proceedings in the Canton River were attracting more and more attention, and that an attack upon the Government was being prepared by the usual combination of malcontents. He added that it was to be founded on an accusation of having violated the principles of international law, and that the legal members of the House were shaking their heads very much about it. In case, therefore, of the Cabinet desiring to hear their opinion, he had asked the Attorney-General to be within reach, and suggested that he should be called in. I had never seen this course taken before ; the opinion of the law ofl&cers had always in my previous experience been given in writing, and circulated in a paper to the Cabinet. It would be more interesting, however, to hear that opinion given verbally, and elucidated by question and answer. We all, therefore, readily agreed. Palmerston rang the bell for our attendant, and said : ' Will you teU the Attorney-General, who is in the next room, that we shall be glad if he will be good enough to come to us.' It happened that I was near the end of the Cabinet table next the door of entrance, and, being interested in the whole proceeding, I had my eyes fixed upon it. Suddenly it opened wide, and, to my intense surprise, I saw my dapper little friend of the Falls of Foyers ushered into our Cabinet room, under the title of Her Majesty's Attorney-General. He rolled, rather than walked, into the room, with a slow and very 5—2 68 DIFFICULTY WITH CHINA [chap, xxix deliberate motion, which corresponded well with the rotundities of his form, and with a slight poising and re- poising of the head, which kept time with the motion of the feet, not unlike that which marks the walking gait of some kinds of bird. He sat down with the same deliberation, and then looked round at us all with a calm and intrepid, but, I thought, a slightly irritable, gaze. Palmerston set him a-going by some appro- priate questions. Then I heard again that most sin- gular voice and enunciation which had amused me so much in the Highlands, but with this difference^ — that there it had been associated with nothing but the most ordinary, trivial topics, which made its curious emphasis seem comical and almost ridiculous. Here, on the contrary, it was spent on a most careful and accurate statement of the facts of a complicated case — on an equally careful definition of the principles applicable to them, and on a clear indication of the conclusions to which he thought they pointed. With all these matters, the voice and the precise utterance accorded well. There were occasional passages in his statement which seemed to me to indicate a very strong feeling against the over- zealous civilian in China who had got us into a most serious difficulty. Before closing what he had to say, I recollect that he shook his head ominously, and indi- cated his opinion that a very serious case against us on the points of international law could be, and probably would be, made out in the House of Commons. Before he had spoken ten minutes, my attention had been, first thoroughly aroused, and then irresistibly attracted. I felt at once that my little friend of the Falls of Foyers was not only a very able, but a very powerful man. Such were my first and second introductions to Richard Bethell, afterwards my colleague as Lord Westbury, Lord Chancellor of England, and whom I soon learned to estimate very highly for the rarest intellectual powers. When the mellifluences of the Attorney-General's voice and his precise syllabic utterances had come to 1857] EBLATIONS WITH CHINA 69 an end, Palmerston thanked him for the assistance he had given to us, and he rolled gently out of the room, as he had rolled into it. We all thought it very evident that, were it not for his office, it would give him immense pleasure to take the part of leading counsel against us. But however struck I may have been by the obvious great abilities of our new law officer of the Crown, I was not equally impressed by the relevance of his argument. The whole of it was founded on the assumption that our representative officers on the Canton River were bound by the same highly complex rules of so-called international law which govern the relations of the civiHzed nations of the Christian world, and that assumption appeared to me to be absurd. Our relations with the Chinese at Canton were exclusively commercial, largely determined by local habits and usages, and Hable to suffer the most serious injury from the local functionaries of a barbarous Government, whose conduct was apt to be arbitrary and violent. I did not care to ask whether the conduct of Sir John Bowring had or had not been somewhat more high- handed than was absolutely necessary. It was enough for me to see that the disavowal of our Commissioner, when such serious action had been taken, would inffict a severe blow on all our officers who might succeed him, and throw into confusion the whole system on which our commerce rested in that part of the world. I was convinced that this common-sense view would be taken by the country and by the House of Commons. I was therefore disposed, despite the ominous shakes of Bethell's head, to disbelieve in there being any danger in the assaults, of which notices had now been given in both Houses of Parliament. My prevision of the opinion of Parliament was fully justified by the event, so far as the House of Lords was concerned. The discussion came on upon Febru- ary 23rd, 1857, and we had against us some of the most powerful speakers in the House, amongst whom were Derby and Ljmdhurst. I spoke on the second 70 DIFFICULTY WITH CHINA [chap, xxix night, in the sense indicated above, and on a division we beat Lord Derby by the very considerable majority of thirty -six. Next came the assault in the Commons, led by Cobden. The debate lasted several days, and the result was matter of varying conjecture from day to day. At last, when the House divided, we found ourselves beaten by a majority of sixteen. Palmerston called us to- gether, and explained the reasons which induced him to think that we ought to dissolve that ParKament, and appeal to the constituencies against its decision. I was keenly in favour of that course, and was delighted with the determination of Palmerston to take it. There was no other political leader at that time in a position to form a Government, on any intelligible principle, and the vote had been determined by a combination among all the scraps and debris of parties which had resulted from many fractures, and which had nothing in common except an unreasoning antipathy to Palmerston. Everybody knew this as regarded the Manchester school, represented by Bright and Cobden ; and as regarded the old Peelite contingent, nobody knew their animus better than myself. I had seen them in all the windings of their course, and through my intercourse with Aberdeen I knew the latest phases of their antipathy to the chief under whom they had at one time actually accepted office, along with me, and had then renounced it for reasons which certainly had no just connection with their new hostility. Never, as it seemed to me, was a ' penal dissolution ' more thoroughly deserved, and I was quite excited by the confident expectation that Palmerston would be sup- ported by the country. On leaving the Cabinet, where the matter was formally settled, I saw two friends of very different calibre, and was much interested by the several ways in which they took the decision. The first was Cardwell, a personal friend of my own, for whom I had a great regard. He came up to me in the club, having heard the universal 1857] LOBD MACAULAY 71 rumour, and his face was almost as fuU of alarm as it had been when he heard of Gladstone's great Budget proposals of 1853. The only words he said to me were : ' You have not given us a chance.' What that meant I could not conceive, and could only reply : ' You have left us no other course to pursue.' The second friend I met was a very di£Eerent man — Macaulay. Very recently he had changed his residence, and was now our neighbour in Kensing- ton. At one of his breakfasts, I heard him giving not a good accoxuit of his health, and saying he doubted whether the air of the Albany in Piccadilly was altogether good for him. On my reporting this to my wife, it occurred to her that a charming viUa next door to us on Campden Hill would be just such a residence as would suit Macaulay. She wrote to him to this effect, and telling him how we should rejoice in having him as our nearest neighbour. He acted on her suggestion, bought the villa, and spent there the remainder of his life. In passing his door on the day of which I am now speaking, I stopped to speak to him and tell him the news. I do not mean to quote Macaulay as giving his opinion on the details of Bowring's conduct towards the Chinese, but on the broad question between us and the House of Commons. I was glad to find him heartily with us, and wishing us all success. Macaulay had by this time become much more of a literary man than of a politician. StiU, he inherited all the very best traditions of the Whig party, and would not sympathize with any great departure from them. It was satisfactory to remember that the quarrel of the House of Commons with us was strictly confined to the trumpery affair between Bowring and the Chinese of Canton. On all other subjects we had been supported by that same House, and especially on one of cardinal importance. As before mentioned, the Exchequer had been placed by Palmerston in the hands of Sir George Lewis. No two men could be more 72 DIFFICULTY WITH CHINA [chap, xxix different than Lewis and Gladstone. Lewis was calm, philosophical, and destitute of passion. He had been more of a literary man than of a politician. But his knowledge was almost equal to Macaulay's, and in discussion, the sense he gave one of perfect truthfulness and accuracy in every statement was singularly agree- able and persuasive. So long as the Crimean War lasted, George Lewis had an easy time of it. Men will put up with any amount of taxation under the excite- ment of a great war. But now that the war had ended, and peace had been concluded, it was certain that the war taxes would have to be abated. Strange to say, this did not at once strike those members of the Cabinet who were at the head of the army and the navy. They always hate reductions ; but it was surely a signal case of blindness that they had actually prepared estimates so enormous that the whole war expenditure would have been maintained, and no alleviation of the public burdens would have been possible. In February, George Lewis informed us in the Cabinet that the two War Departments had produced estimates amounting together to about twenty-four millions, and with his calm, grave face explained that this would render it impossible for him even to diminish the income-tax at all, far less to allow it to fall, as the public expected it to do. Both Panmure and Wood defended their estimates, to which Lewis rejoined by telling us that he must then keep up the income-tax to sixteen pence in the pound, and stop all reductions on tea. He added with gravity and calmness that he was certain that neither the House nor the country would agree to this. An agitation had been already started for the repeal of the income-tax, and he was certain that most of the members for popular constituencies would come up pledged against such propositions. We agreed, therefore, to send the two extravagant Ministers back to their shops, with a general instruction to reduce the army and navy to twenty millions, as near as pos- sible. On the 27th they came back with a reduction 1857] THE BUDGET 73 to twenty-one millions. Lewis then said that with this reduction, and giving up remissions of indirect taxation, which were most desirable, he could just ' pull through,' abating the income-tax to one-half of its then amount, or eightpence in the pound. We all knew that the federated factions would not be content with this. They had already indicated that they would take ad- vantage of the unpopularity of the income-tax to make an assault on retaining it at all, whilst we knew that Gladstone would do the same, resting on the prowess of his famous Budget of 1853. We were not mistaken. When George Lewis brought on his Budget on the 13th of February, 1857, it was, on the whole, well received by the House. Nobody seemed to care about anjrthing except the abandonment of the war augmentation of ninepence. Gladstone kept his counsel, waiting for whatever action Disraeli might take. But I heard that he was going about town abusing the Budget vehemently. At last, on the 21st, the debate came on, upon an abstract resolution by Disraeli, when Gladstone made a very long and furi- ously excited speech, in which he fiercely attacked Lewis, who was a personal friend and a correspondent. It was thought very overstrained, and unfair in argu- ment in the highest degree. Lewis himself, one of the most passionless and amiable of men, spoke of it as so personally bitter that he was quite amazed. Wood told me that Gladstone seemed in the highest excite- ment. On the morning of the 24th, Disraeli's motion on the Budget was negatived by the large majority of eighty — xmexpectedly large. But I find that in my journal at the time this formidable result is ascribed to our having had the benefit of a junction between the haters of Gladstone and the haters of Disraeli. Whether this was the cause or not, I felt it to be impossible to have much respect for a House of Commons whose votes were so inconsistent and uncertain, one day giving us a sweeping majority on a vote which determined the 74 THE GENEBAL ELECTION [chap, xxix largest issues of our policy, and a few days afterwards condemning us on an accidental squabble with the Chinese on the river Canton. I, who had listened to Bethell's argument in our own Cabinet and to Lynd- hurst's speech in the Lords, knew very well that a good case could be made out against Bowring on the tech- nical grounds of international law, but common-sense condemned a vote which must carry such consequences, on grounds so trivial. We had not long to wait before we saw how the wind was blowing in the constituencies. All the great com- mercial centres — London, Manchester, Liverpool, and others — sent up resolutions in our favour, iaid when, the election came on, our foes were scattered like chaff before the wind, and the peace party and the Man- chester party were wiped out of the House of Commons. Bright and Cobden and Milner Gibson all lost their seats. So did Cardwell at Oxford. The look of alarm I had seen on his face in the club was more than justified. Since Lord Grey's Reform BiU there had been no such triumph for any Minister as the national vote for Palmerston in April, 1857. Some incidents in the course of the General Election were of special interest. One was the contest for the City of London, one of the seats for which had been long held by Lord John Russell. No part of the kingdom was more Palmerstonian than London at this juncture. Lord John's poHtical conduct had rendered him unpopular, and he was told by all his friends in the City that he had no chance whatever of re-election in the penal dissolution, and it was useless to try. This was impressed upon him so universally, by those who knew the constituency best, and who had worked for him in it, that he had made up his mind to accept their advice. But quite suddenly, at the last moment, he changed his resolution, and, without consulting anyone, published an address to the con- stituency, and determined to speak on the hustings. This he did, beginning with parable. It happened 1857] LORD JOHN RUSSELL 75 that that generation of the Russell family had a peculi- arity of pronunciation as regarded the word John. The Duke of Bedford, who was much attached to his brother, always called him ' Jahn,' and Lord John himself pronounced it ' Jahn ' when he used the name. On this occasion his parable turned upon the plea that an old servant ought not to be dismissed without giving him an opportunity of explanation and defence. In presenting this view, it was his plan to refer to the constituency as his master, and to put into their mouth some familiar words to the old servant, asking for explanation before they could think of a dismissal. ' I say, Jahn,' were the opening words. The moment they were uttered, with his peculiar voice and accent, they were received with a storm of laughter, which ended in a storm of cheering. By sheer pluck and courage, together with a happy appeal to a generous feeling, he had already won his election, and when it came. Lord John Russell was at the head of the poll. This was a specimen of the great qualities of courage which were inherent in the man. A very different kind of courage was exhibited by Gladstone during this same General Election. He entered upon one of those campaigns of speaking to the electors with which we all became famiUar in later years, and which Disraeli cleverly called ' pilgrimages of passion.' I rather think they were novel in our Parlia- mentary habits. Prominent men, of course, have always made speeches to their own constituents, or elsewhere ; but I rather think that Gladstone initiated the practice of setting out on a campaign of oratory, all over the country, for the purpose of influencing its decision. It struck me as very strange, and on the 5th of April I find myself writing to Aberdeen : ' Gladstone has been making a speech in every town — every village— every cottage — everywhere where he had room to stand, and at Liverpool it was an avowed canvass for Derby.' If, even in the House of Commons, in the^presence of his opponent, Gladstone was so excited as to accuse one of 76 THE GENEEAL ELECTION [chap, xxix the most accurate and truthful men in England — Sir George Lewis — of manipulating his Budget figures enormously for the purposes of his argument, what chance could there be of such a man as Gladstone being just or temperate when he was raging about the country, addressing mobs entirely ignorant of the sub- ject ? Fortunately, at that moment the public mind was fixed on one man — Palmerston — whom the vast majority was determined to support. There was rather a curious, but also a significant, scene at one of the Cabinets, which sat before the dis- solution had actually taken place. It will be remem- bered that when the Aberdeen Cabinet was formed, it was understood that it would entertain and deal with the subject of Parliamentary Reform, but not during the first year of its work, 1853. But the next year the Crimean War came also, whereupon Lord John Russell, after a struggle and with tears, was obliged to admit the necessity of delay. Palmerston then, working on the Cabinet's unusual pressure Avith the Budget, con- tinued to get it postponed sine die. But now that the war was ended and peace secured there was a general expectation that the subject must be dealt with. A good number of the Cabinet sat for popular constitu- ences, and were naturally anxious to know what Palmerston intended. They felt that the name of Palmerston, and the Crimean War, might do very well for the passing moment, but would not do to live upon for the whole duration of a Government. Some of them, therefore, asked Palmerston what he intended to say in his address to his own constituents, that they might take their cue from him. Did he intend to mention reform ? and if so, what did he mean to say about it ? Palmerston did not seem very willing to be pressed by this inquiry. Some of my colleagues urged that the total omission of the subject would lead to inferences and embarrassment. Palmerston said he was xmwiUing to use ambiguous words, which would be capable of opposite interpretations. The dissatis- 1857] PALMERSTON AND REFORM 77 fied members then repaired to Lord Lansdowne, the Father of the Cabinet, always calm, wise, and abso- lutely straight. They begged him to impress on Palmerston the extreme inconvenience of giving no sound whatever on the subject of reform at a General Election. The restdt was that Palmerston did intro- duce into his address the word ' reform.' But he used it in a context which seemed to apply it rather to ad- ministrative improvements than to any reform of Parliament. The truth, however, was that it mattered little what Palmerston might say at that moment, because the people were determined to have him at his own price, whatever that might be. There are such moments probably in the history of every people, when some one man engrosses all their attention, and they care for nothing except that he should be in power. Such was Palmerston' s position at this junctiire. There was, however, one other question with which we were compelled to deal in those Cabinets which were held just before the dissolution, and on which our decision and our action were fortiinate beyond aU that we could then contemplate or conceive. Palmerston was quite aware that, although he supported Sir J. Bowring in his quarrel with the Chinese, we could not safely continue that official in the same position. He had therefore told the House of Commons that we should send out some new man as Plenipotentiary, to communicate with the Chinese Government on the sources of disagreement. Palmerston now brought this subject before us. I have already had occasion to speak of Palmerston's great loyalty to his colleagues in such matters. Even in the selection of new Cabinet Ministers he used always to constilt them. Prime Ministers generally take these arrangements very much into their own hands, com- municating only with some special department. But Palmerston on this, as on other occasions, told us the whole story, and that three names occurred to him, each having some different but peculiar quahfications. 78 THE GENERAL ELECTION [chap, xxix First, there was Sir Bartle Frere, one of the most dis- tinguished of the corps of administrators who had qualified in the great school of our Indian Empire. Second, there was our old colleague the Duke of Newcastle, the ban against whom had now died out, and whom we all felt had been ill-used. Lastly, there was Lord Elgin, one of those younger members of the peerage who, after a distinguished Oxford career, gave much promise of ability in political life. We discussed them all carefully, and we decided on the Duke of New- castle. But he declined. We then took Elgin, who accepted, and we determined that he should be sent to China, not with ships only, but with a force of 4,000 men. These were the men who, a few weeks later, in passing by the gates of India, heard suddenly of the terrible mutiny of the native army of Bengal, and by the public spirit of Lord Elgin were at once deflected from their Chinese destination, and sent to help Lord Canning in his desperate struggle for the salvation of the Indian Empire. Without a thought of the calamity which was impending, and without a notion of the value attaching to our action in sending troops which would be within hail of India, we all scattered over the kingdom, watching or taking part in the elections. As usual, my wife and I went down to our home on the Clyde, and thence I sent a letter to Palmerston on the subject of Reform. I deprecated any attempt to deal with it in the first session of the new Parliament ; but, on the other hand, I urged him to announce it for next session, and that it should be a substantial measure, as the only means of making it a safe one. This was exactly the course which he actually pursued. On the debate on the Address, he was even more distinct than I at all expected him to be in pledging his Government to Reform, although details were carefully withheld. But aU opposition was cowed by our success at the polls, and even the most waspish of OTir enemies — Mr. Roebuck — was obliged to accept as 1857] PROPOSED LAW OP DIVORCE 79 satisfactory the vague intimations of the triumphant Minister. Palmerston at this moment was eager on the subject of a new law of divorce. The Episcopate was divided, but the High Church party hated it beyond measure, Gladstone in particidar was a violent opponent. I was in favour of Palmerston' s measure, and spoke several times in its support. CHAPTER XXX 1857 INDIAN MUTINY — SIR COLIN CAMPBELL — LORD DAL- HOUSIE— COMMERCIAL CRISIS All was going smoothly for Palmerston in Parlia- ment, and there were no manifest rocks ahead, when suddenly, as a clap of thunder out of the blue, came, one fine morning in June, the news of the mutiny of Bengal regiments at Meerut, of the massacre of the officers, and of the escape of the mutinous throng up the Ganges to Delhi. Well do I remember the morning on which we read of this disastrous event. It was our custom at that time to breakfast at an open window, a little above the level of the flowers of a very pretty parterred garden. It stiU comes back to me how sick we felt with anxiety, how alarming the prospect appeared, and how aU our flowers had lost their glory. From that moment my attention was wholly engaged by the Mutiny and its consequences. It is of course the custom in all Governments that when any department is filled by a Minister in the House of Commons, some substitute or represen- tative is supplied in the House of Lords, who answers for the Government on the subject of that department. Sometimes this substitute in one House for a chief that is in another had the formal position of an Under- Secretary of State. But where there is none such, some other member of the Government takes up the duty. Ever since the Aberdeen Government had been formed, it had fallen to my lot to answer for the Indian Depart- so 1857] OUTBREAK OF THE MUTINY 81 ment. Partly, perhaps, owing to my connection with Dalhousie, and partly to my personal knowledge of the subject, this duty had been chiefly left in my hands, and I had given my mind to it in a special manner. The method by which I proceeded was to read the official papers as they reached our hands — to read them thoroughly and in their order. It is easy to read what are called Blue-books with little benefit. Ex- tracts are given by the press, and quotations in many speeches ; but what is wanted, if we desire to know the truth, is to foUow events in the true order in which they occur, for on this very often the whole interpretation depends. Some mutinous symptoms had appeared at Barrack- pore soon after Lord Canning had reached India in February, 1857. But, though serious, they were not alarming. EUenborough had raised a debate on them on the 9th of June, and had given some currency to an injurious report that Canning was disposed to interfere with the reHgion of the natives of India. GranvUle and Lansdowne gave a prompt denial to this ridiculous report. But when the great crash of the Mutiny came, and all the world realized its formidable proportions, every fool who had ever objected to anything in the policy or acts of the Government of India was shouting in some form or another, ' Didn't I tell you ?' One result of my close reading of all the facts was an early and firm conviction that we had to deal, not with a popular insurrection, but with a military mutiny, and with that alone. But there was another conviction forced upon my mind — namely, this: that the Mutiny was due to a genuine religious panic, communicating itself from mind to mind under the uncontrollable impulses of superstitious fears. It was not in its origin any political conspiracy, although, of course, it set up conspiracies without number, racial, political, and religious. But many of the phenomena were not only curious, but mysterious. VOL. II. 6 82 THE INDIAN MUTINY [ohap. xxx Regiments, after having stood firm for weeks, suddenly- joined the mutineers, just at a moment when their success was impossible, and when they were sure to be disarmed or shot. There was no reason in their action, no opportuneness in their conduct. They seemed to go suddenly mad, like shying horses or stampeded mules. The savage slaughter of the officers came at the end of years of sympathy and affection. It was as if some evil spirit were let loose, which, at the most unexpected moments, lighted upon and took possession of the Sepoy corps, converting them into demons of treachery and destruction. And yet, in the middle of this raging storm in the spirits of men, there were abundant examples of the most splendid fidelity and courage. Following all these facts, as I did in the minutest detail, I saw the f oUy and the danger of the furious cry for vengeance which arose in England, and of the reckless blame cast on Lord Canning, embodied in the name given to him in the press of ' Clemency Canning.' I saw that whilst punishment of mutineers ought to be swift, if possible, it ought above all things to be dis- criminate. I therefore took an active part in defending Canning against the attacks made upon him in the House of Lords, and I was gratified, at a later date, by hearing from Canning himself that he had been struck by the accurate knowledge of the detailed facts of the case I had shown in my replies. On the 27th of July, in reply to a speech from Lord EUenborough, I took occasion to expose the opposite directions from which censure had been cast upon our Indian Government, and to point out how dangerous it would be to come to any hasty conclusion on the real causes of the Mutiny, or as to any changes of policy which would be desirable. A few days later I was able to contradict Lord EUenborough, when he attributed to Canning procrastination in dealing with the first symptoms of suspicion and alarm among the native troops. But 1857] SIR COLIN CAMPBELL 83 all these details were soon forgotten in the two tre- mendous struggles — one for the recapture of Delhi, the other for the relief of Lucknow. The only comfort, we had, during the dreadful months when those struggles were going on, lay in the magnificent courage, energy, and resource displayed throughout India, not merely by the great soldiers whose names are for ever memorable, but by individual officers and civilians, who were taken by surprise in small stations aU over the country, and who often contrived to defeat the mutineers or to escape from them. It cheered us all beyond expression to see that the virtues of a governing race had not departed from us, and that under the most adverse conditions, our men and women showed in- domitable courage and resource. At Delhi there was no garrison to be relieved, no valuable lives to be rescued. On the other hand, we knew that invaluable lives would be lost in the siege and capture. But our dominion and Empire depended on it, and we cheered our gallant countrymen when, in the fiercest heats of an Indian summer, they undertook the recovery of the capital of the Moguls. With Lucknow it was different. There we had a gallant garrison, with women and children, to rescue from bloodthirsty villains and from a cruel death. It was evident that the work of rescue would be most difficult. We had plenty of heroic men, such as Havelock and Sir Henry Lawrence and Outram. But we had no one man to co-ordinate our separate forces, and to combine all their efforts to supreme results. To my intense relief, Palmerston and the Cabinet determined to send out Sir Colin Campbell, as Com- mander-in-Chief over the army of India. I went to him directly, and, finding him at home in a small house in Knightsbridge, I told him of his appointment, and asked him how soon he would be ready to go. His reply was instantaneous : ' To-morrow afternoon.' He left England on the 12th of July, and on the 22nd of November every one of the threatened victims of 6—2 84 THE INDIAN MUTINY [chap, xxx massacre in Lucknow had been redeemed from a dreadful death, and had been restored to safety. I did not at that time know anything about Sir Colin's origin or his history, although his name indi- cated that he came from my own country. All this knowledge came to me in a curious and very accidental way. I was on one of my visits with my wife to my estates in Mull, and one day we were in a boat with the factor, who was a Campbell and a native of Islay, As we were passing a slated house near the shore, which I had not seen before, I asked who lived there. The reply was : ' An old man whose name is Macliver, who is the father of Sir Colin Campbell.' ' The father of Sir Colin Campbell !' I repeated in great surprise. ' Do you mean the General ?' He said he did, and explained that Sir Colin's real name was Macliver, but that his mother was a Campbell, and an uncle had adopted the boy at an early age, had educated him, and had bought for him a commission in the army. We landed, and went up to see the old man. We found him above eighty years of age, but very erect and tail, with the dignified and courteous manners of the genuine Highlander. The most remarkable feature about him was a very large and rather globular head, with gray curly hair matted round his forehead. I left the old man's house feeling that I now knew Sir Colin as I had never known him before, and that I had a kind of personal interest in his fame. Sir Colin was extremely like his father. He was of shorter stature, but the head was of the same character, and also the curly grey hair, giving a general aspect not unlike a West Highland bull. Lines of power coursed across his brow, and ridged it up into a deeply corru- gated surface. With a gentle manner, there was a fiery expression lurking in his eyes, whUst his whole aspect and demeanour were soldierly in character. He had a square and massive figure, giving one the impression of a man capable of great physical endur- ance. The whole^aspect of the man inspired confidence. 1857] CLANSHIP IN SCOTLAND 85 He seemed the very type of a soldier, by profession, and by the experience and education of a life of service. It is impossible, in my opinion, to exaggerate the combination of high qualities which Sir Colin exhibited in this dangerous labour of duty and of love. I am never tired to this day of reading the detailed account, and wondering at the precision, the foresight, the sagacity, the resource, the determination, and the moral as weU as physical courage involved in the opera- tion as a whole, and in all its complicated details. It was a splendid piece of work, and for a prize of unspeak- able value. It is now somewhere about a hundred and fifty years since the Supreme Court of Law in Scotland declared that clans in Scotland had no longer any existence — that nothing could belong to, or be due to, any man as member of a clan. And aU that is true. But, though dead as an institution, clanship survives as a senti- ment ; and I confess it made me proud and happy when I found that a clansman of my own, born and bred in one of those western isles I loved so well, was standing out before the world, not merely as the rescuer of valuable lives, but as the subduer of a fierce enemy and the saviour of India. When he came home as a Peer of the Realm I had the honour of being one of the two members who introduced him to the House, and my wife and I made as intimate a friend of him as his retired habits would allow. On one occasion, when a vacancy was about to occur in the county seat, I offered to exert all my influence to secure his election, feeling quite sure that the county would have been proud to have him as member. But, though pleased and surprised, he declined absolutely, telling me that he had never been anything but a soldier, and had no interest in ordinary politics. In September, 1857, I was, as usual, for some weeks Minister in Attendance on the Queen at Balmoral. One day, when no members of the Royal Family were present except the Prince Consort, it happened that I 86 THE INDIAN MUTINY [chap, xxx was sitting at dinner next the Queen. On Her Majesty's other side was Lord Chelmsford, who had come accidentally to Braemar with his wife, and had been asked to dinner. A daughter of Lord and Lady Chelmsford was the wife of an officer stationed at Luck- now when the Mutiny broke out, and with her husband formed part of the beleaguered garrison. Of course, the Chelmsfords were both in a state of the most anxious suspense, as to the progress of the relieving columns. In the middle of dinner a servant came behind the Queen's chair, and passed one of the well- known red boxes into Her Majesty's hand. The Queen at once slipped it under the tablecloth, so as to be able to open it out of sight of Lord Chelmsford. He, however, was a man of very alert perceptions, and, although he gave no sign of having seen anything, I saw the strain under which he kept his countenance unmoved. The Queen read the telegram underneath the tablecloth, and then in a gentle voice of sympathy said to Lord Chelmsford : ' Not relieved yet.' In his excitement he did not catch the word ' yet,' and he repeated in a suppressed voice of great alarm : ' Not relieved ?' The Queen then laid special stress on the word ' yet,' and so mitigated as far as possible the painful anxiety of her guest. It was during this stay at Balmoral that I heard of Palmerston's resolution to bring in a BiU for the abolition of the East India Company, and the assump- tion by the Crown of the government of India. He had not mentioned it in the Cabinet before I left town, and in conversation with myself I had never heard him allude to it. I do not think he cared much about it. But he was just the man to take up the broad, popular impression — very ignorant, but very widely spread — that somehow or other the mutiny of the Sepoys was the result of the rule of the Company. Although I was disgusted with the senseless abuse heaped by the Press upon the Government of India, and especially upon the great man who had just left the 1857J ATTACK ON LORD DALHOUSIE 87 scene of his labours, I did not entertain any objections to the change in form which Palmerston was going to propose. On reaching London, I wrote in my political journal as follows : ' I have no belief that this change will render the administration much more successful than it has been ; but I think it necessary and desirable, in order to remove the very gross delusion which prevails at present in this country as to the real nature of the Indian Government. There is no driving it^^out of people's heads that the Company is not still *a com- mercial body, or that the Crown does not really possess already very complete control over the measures of the administration. The result, therefore, is that people are continually running on false scents, attributing every evil to causes which have no connection with the subject. Moreover, the Government at home is tempted not to defend the Indian Government as it ought. I have frequently been warned in the House, " Oh, don't commit yourself too much in defence of the Company," and this, not because any real fault could be found with the action of the Government of India, but because the directors and the Company are so unpopular that it is considered best to keep, as it were, in a separate boat.' What troubled me most was the chorus of attacks which were now directed against Lord Dalhousie. He had done too many great things with a high hand and a strong arm not to have offended and irritated many people. His resolute character, too, had found expression in minutes and despatches of brilliant ability, but which were not conciliatory to his oppo- nents. Now that he was down, and an overwhelming calamity had suddenly affected a great part of the native army, aU his enemies rushed upon him with their weapons. As became the dignity of the great office he had so long held with splendid results, he maintained a rigid silence. He knew that ignorant clamours would find their level. He had held that office, at the request of the Government, longer than his broken health could 88 THE INDIAN MUTINY [chap, xxx bear. He had sent his wife home in anticipation of his return. But she had died on the way, on shipboard, almost in sight of England. The blow broke him com- pletely down. In the autumn after my return from Balmoral, I heard that he had taken rooms in the hotel at Arrochar, at the head of Loch Long, about twenty miles from Inveraray. Finding it impossible to hope for a visit from him, I drove over to see him. I found him sadly changed from the happy day when I sat beside him at the great meeting in Edinburgh, when all poHtical parties had united to rejoice over his appointment. He was then a spare man, with very fair hair and fairer skin. He was now very stout, and he seemed unable to rise from his chair. There only remained unchanged his large, splendid eyes, and his thin, compressed lips, giving one the idea of unbending resolution. An air of sadness and depres- sion was only too apparent. I was, I confess, much vexed to see so great a force so nearly spent. But I did what I could to be cheerful with him, and, thinking the employment might be useful to him, I spoke of his answering in some form some of the attacks then being made upon him. His reply was prompt : ' My dear Argyll, I never will say one word in my own defence until I can say it in the House of Lords.' Alas ! I knew and saw only too clearly what that must mean, and I formed the determination to do for him as best I could what he never would be well enough to do for himself, I left him with a heavy heart, and was glad to refresh my spirit by that contact with external nature which is an ever-living fountain for the weary and the sad. The mountain passes through which my road lay — Glencroe and Glen Kyle — are among the most beautiful in the West Highlands. They had been familiar to me from childhood, with streams and rocks and lakes and restful arms of the sea, and they made me feel how little Nature takes heed of the infirmities of men, and with what composure we must accept them, whether in others or in ourselves. 1857] FINANCIAL CRISIS 89 I could not but remember the shouts of gratulation with which Lord Dalhousie was speeded on his way to take up that great office, the brilliancy of his administra- tive achievements, his uncontested supremacy above all the ablest men in India, the widened boundaries of our marvellous Empire ; and now, on the other side of the picture, his return in ruined health to a desolate home, made the target of every ignorant opponent whom he had brushed aside in India, and whom he could have brushed aside in England, if only he could but stand and speak. All this passed through my mind as I left the inn at Arrochar with a sadness which was really inexpressible. Lord Dalhousie lived till 1860, and after his death I had the satisfaction of writing and publishing in the Edinburgh Review an account of his splendid years of public service in the greatest office under the British Crown, at a momentous epoch in the history of our Eastern Empire. Cabinet office has one advantage in public life : that it brings one into contact with a great variety of sub- jects about which otherwise one might never feel called upon to think at all. This was my case in December, 1857, when a Cabinet was called suddenly to deal with a great financial crisis. When we met, our Chancellor of the Exchequer had to tell us of a very alarming state of things. Some of the largest houses in the city of London were within a few days of bank- ruptcy. Even the soundest were in great alarm, and would probably fall into the same condition unless something were done to help them. To my astonish- ment, George Lewis told us that some of the oldest banks in Scotland, which I had been accustomed to regard as being as safe as the Bank of England, were also in a very shaky condition. How could the Cabinet remedy this condition of things, dangerously affecting the credit of the commercial world aU over the three kingdoms ? Lewis told us we could ' suspend the Bank Act.' 90 THE INDIAN MUTINY [chap, xxx And what would that do ? It would enable the Bank of England to issue more paper-money in the form of notes than, under the existing law, it was allowed to do. Peel's Act of 1844 had placed the issue of paper-money under strict limitation, and the fact of that limitation, if it did not cause, did at least aggravate the monetary panic. George Lewis assured us that he had consider- able confidence in the remedy of simply for a time withdrawing the limitation, and allowing the Bank of England to exceed its statutory limits in regard to paper. Of course, we agreed, because there was nothing else that we could do. But it roused misgivings in my mind that have never been solved. Could that law be a wise one— could it be founded on really sound principles — which imperatively needed to be suspended when times of monetary difficulty came ? And as the actual effect of suspending it was nothing whatever but a larger issue of paper-money, were not the panic and the crisis itself caused by an artificial restriction on that issue which ought not to be restored ? Of course, we could not of our own authority suspend an Act of Parliament, without applying for an Act of Indemnity. But hours and even moments pressed, and we did authorize the Bank of England to issue notes beyond the legal number, to a definite amount, and then summoned Parliament to sanction what we had done. If I was surprised by the nature of the panic and by the remedy proposed, I was still more surprised by the effect of that remedy. It was immediate and complete. The panic vanished like a nightmare when a man awakes ; and yet, I could not but remember, not one farthing had been added to the wealth of the country by what we had done. Not one single article that money could purchase or represent, not one item in the food or in the clothing, or in the miscellaneous con- sumption of the people, was increased in quantity or in value by anything we could do. All that we did was to tell the Bank of England that it might violate a law on which great value was set by many — the law, 1857] ABERDEEN AND PALMBRSTON 91 namely, which forbids the issue of paper promises to pay without a certain amount of gold or of securities to back the promise. We told them that they might issue such paper promises to the extent of two millions, even although they had no gold to secure their sound- ness. This did seem to me to be a strange remedy for a general want of trust. It seemed to me more like a new element of insecurity. But there is no arguing against facts, and the follies of the human mind are amongst the most powerful of all facts. All the people that had been rushing for their money at the banks were quite reassured when they heard that the Bank of England had been allowed to issue paper-money, which represented nothing but paper. This made it all right, and the panic ceased. I wondered then, and I wonder still, at the terms of currency and of banking of which these transactions are the result. But it is a difficult subject, and I am glad to leave it, as I left it then. I think that in the autumn of 1857 Aberdeen's mind was a little under the influence of a most natural irritation on account of Palmerston's sweeping success at the polls. In no other way can I account for a sentence in one of his letters, in which he said that we ' deserved to be turned out for India, as much as we did before for the Crimean affair.' I never allowed my love for Aberdeen or my veneration for his character to silence me on such occasions in our intercourse. I made this letter of his, therefore, an opportunity of telling him my matured opinion on the Indian Mutiny, at a moment when the public mind was still agitated by angry and revengeful passions. After telling him that I could not understand his sentence about our supposed delinquency, I proceeded thus : ' In the first place, I never admitted, and I do not now admit, that we deserved to be turned out for the Crimean disasters ; but in the second place, if we did, the Indian business has not yet reached a stage at which anything can be attributed to the Home Government, unless you refer 92 THE DTDIAK MUTINY [ohap. xxx to Palmerston's request to send troops vi^ Suez. Though it seems the best way, I doubt if it would really be the quickest or the most practicable.' I then passed to my ' diagnosis of the convulsion,' which I wish to record here because it was so mature at a very early time. ' The Indian Mutiny is too horrible, but I see nothing to make me doubt that in the main it is a military revolt. The part taken hitherto by the population has been less hostile than might have been expected. When order is suspended and licence reigns, all the vagabonds and ruffians come out of their holes, like other doleful creatures in the dark, and their deeds give an aspect of general revolt, which other facts, I think, contradict. StiU, the fanaticism of the Mahom- medans has no doubt been roused outside the army. I have no fears of the result, not merely with respect to the future Government of the country. People talk very wildly about never having confidence in native troops again, when at this moment we are quelling the insurrection by the help — the efficient help — of the native levies, and when the whole armies of Bombay and Madras seem — as yet, at least — ^to be faithful. There is no doubt that the foundation of the revolt has been laid in a relaxed military discipline throughout the Bengal army, and it is not the first time in the history of the world that the danger of the decay of discipline in armies has been felt. You will see in the Blue-book some very curious evidence as to the extent to which a loose, disorderly, sulky spirit had prevailed, and had been observed to prevail during the last twelve months — an aggravation of the old inferiority of mere discipline which has been notorious for years.' Subsequent events have proved the correctness of this view, but it was one in which I was in a small minority at the time. CHAPTER XXXI 1857-58 LORD PALMERSTON'S ADMINISTRATION The unfinished ' Autobiography ' of the Duke of Argyll ends towards the close of the year 1857. He was then a member of Lord Palmerston's Adminis- tration, in which he held the office of Postmaster- General. Lord Palmerston had become Prime Minister in February, 1855, before the end of the Crimean War, which was terminated by the Treaty of Paris, March 4th, 1856. In his Government, Lord Clarendon was Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and Sir George Grey was Home Secretary. Lord John Russell was ap- pointed Secretary for the Colonies when Lord Palmer- ston's Administration was formed, but he resigned that office a few months later. The suppression of the Indian Mutiny, which had broken out early in 1857, was practically completed by the relief of Lucknow in the month of November, and the work of restoring the country to order was only a matter of time. In consequence of the Mutiny, the question of the reconstruction of the Government of India, which had been before Parliament a few years earlier, now became urgent, and a proposal that India should in future be placed under the direct control of the Crown was under consideration. 93 94 LORD PALMBRSTON'S administration [chap. XXXI The subject of Eeform in Parliamentary Representa- tion was one which the Duke considered to be of paramount importance at this period, and, as he mentioned in his ' Autobiography,' he had already urged on Lord Palmerston the advisability of bringing the matter before Parliament at an early date. Lord Palmerston, however, appeared to be inclined to post- pone the consideration of Home Reform, and to desire to turn political attention to the question of the pro- posed change in the government of India. On this subject, in reply to a letter from the Duke, Lord Granville wrote, October 18th, 1857 : ' I think with you that Pam's great object in mooting the Indian question is to damp the reform of home institutions.' And in a postscript to a letter which the Duke received from him a few weeks later. Lord Granville added (November 7th, 1857) : ' I have seen Pam's plan of Reform. ... It will certainly not destroy the British Constitution.' The Duke was a steady advocate of moderate and circumspect Reform, desiring always to forestall more reckless agitators by means of some limited extension of the franchise. Again and again he urged his anxiety to have the matter at least provisionally settled ; but it was in vain that he, with other members of the Cabinet, impressed on the Prime Minister the necessity of having a Bill drafted, so that he might be able, if questioned in the House, to state that a measure was ready to be introduced when opportunity should offer. To Sir George Grey the Duke wrote as follows (Novem- ber 24th, 1857) : 1857-58] LOBD PALMERSTON AND REFORM 95 ' I think we shall meet a more formidable opposition than some of us seem to suppose, if we use India to shirk the question of Reform. I have a very strong impression that any measure which leaves all the existing constituencies untouched (that is to say, which involves no disfranchisement, and consequently no enfranchisement of new places) will be fatal to the union of the Liberal party and of the Government.' Lord Palmerston seemed so disinclined to treat the question seriously, and thus remove it for a generation from the poHtical arena, that some of his colleagues, and chiefly the Duke of Argyll, made repeated efforts to convince him of the expediency of a well-considered meastire. On the 26th November the Duke had a long interview with his chief, when Palmerston set himself sedulously to persuade his loyal supporter that those members of the Cabinet who were in favour of, and had pledged themselves to. Reform, might be under no apprehension that there was any intention of evading the question. He assured the Duke that he was not using the India Bill as an excuse for introducing a less adequate redistribution and extension of the franchise than he would otherwise have laid before the Cabinet ; and he conveyed the impression that, contrary to a very general expectation and surmise, he was prepared for a substantial measure in this direction. The Duke, in a memorandum to Sir George Grey on the following morning, described this interview as follows : ' Palmerston expressed at first a very decided objec- tion : first, to the £10 for counties ; and, second, to any lowering of the borough franchise. But, to my sur- prise, I found him by no means equally decided against some disfranchisement, though he evidently did not himself contemplate proposing it. ' I then suggested to him that it would be a great thing 96 LORD PALMERSTON's administration [ohap. XXXI if any plan could be devised which would enable him to yield the £10 in counties without involving the dan- gerous consequences to the county constituencies which he feared. He said he saw no such plan, upon which I told him what had occurred to me about the en- franchisement of the principal towns singly, and also in groups, thus removing them from the county con- stituencies, and preventing the swamping effect of large town populations. We discussed for some time the main objections, and I urged all I could in favour of my proposal. He seemed to admit that the matter was well worthy of consideration, and he has asked me to go to his own house to-morrow at eleven to show him the map of constituencies, etc. He told me at first, without reserve, that he contemplated " the break-up of the Government " upon Reform as quite possible. ' I strongly urged upon him the poHcy of at least trying to settle this question, if possible, when he had the power so much in his own hands, and when he could give to changes which are ultimately inevitable a safe and constitutional direction. I told him that I thought his power and influence quite adequate to carry any measure which would afford a tolerable ground of union to the Liberal party, whereas his power would not be adequate to arrest Reform if an obviously inadequate measure were proposed. ' I was very much pleased by the way in which he seemed really open to argument on all the main points ; and if we are tolerably agreed among ourselves, I think he will be led to propose a fairly substantial measure. He fully admitted that it might be desirable to add new members to some existing constituencies, and to en- franchise some new towns ; he fully admitted also that there was no fund from which to derive new seats, except by disenfranchisement. He asked me what ground there was for the assertion that 300 electors had been contemplated in 1832 as the minimum. I could not answer this, but I pointed out that, if we are 1857-58] PROPOSED REFORM BILL 97 to take numbers at all, we could hardly draw the line at a lower figure. ' I am now most anxious to be able to show that the £10 in counties will not materially affect the balance of political power, if we give separate members to the larger towns now represented. We then leave only the small country places to aflfect the county constituencies, and the inhabitants of such towns are all connected with the agricultural classes around them.' After the meeting of Parliament, the Duke renewed the discussion with Lord Palmerston, only to find that he had made much less progress with the Premier than he had imagined. Lord Palmerston was still inclined to treat the matter in an indefinite way, and in a letter to Sir George Grey the Duke expresses his concern that his leader should show so little appreciation of the critical position of the party. To Sir George Orey (January 15th, 1858). ' Before we broke up last evening I suggested to Palmerston that it might be well to have our other bill — namely. Reform — put in the form of a draft as soon as possible. He replied : " Oh, there will be time enough for that ; we cannot introduce it before Easter !" I said I thought it extremely probable that we should not be able to introduce it at all if the India Bill made heavy progress, but that it was important to be able to say that it was ready. ' I greatly fear that he may not have the importance of this sufficiently before him. I think that we shall feel rather uncomfortable under the accusation of insincerity about Reform, imless we can say with truth that the measure is ready and prepared to be intro- duced whenever the state of pubUc business gives any hope of possible success. Pray, if you can, let this necessity be put fully before Palmerston.' VOL. II. 7 98 LORD PALMERSTON'S administration [ohap. XXXI To Sir Oeorge Chrey {January 26th, 1858). ' I think you are to see Palmerston to-day at a Committee. I wish you could find an opportunity of suggesting to him the necessity of putting the Reform BiU in draft. It can easily be done ; and now that the India Bill is virtually settled, it ought to be done if we mean to meet ParHament in a position to defy insinua- tions and accusations which must and will be made. . . . ' I have refrained from raising the question in Cabinet because this would have an antagonistic appearance which I should gladly avoid, and which, indeed, would not be justified by Palmerston' s disposi- tion hitherto evinced to deal quite fairly with the matter. But he is shy of the subject, and procrasti- nates, and we must come to an understanding upon it. I have already mentioned it. Your doing so would have good efiEect.' Parliament had been summoned on December 3rd, 1857, to deal with questions arising from the commer- cial crisis to which reference is made in the ' Autobio- graphy.' The Queen's Speech, besides directing atten- tion to the question of finance, dealt with the subject of the Bill for the transference of the government of India from the East India Company to the Crown, and also promised a Bill on the subject of Electoral Reform. All questions connected with India had an especial interest for the Duke. He had devoted close attention to the subject for several years, and had been charged with the duty of answering for the Indian Department in the House of Lords, as the President of the Board of Control (Sir Charles Wood) was a member of the House of Commons. On February 8th, 1858, a vote of thanks was pro- posed in both Houses of Parliament to the civil and mihtary ofiicers in India for the zeal and ability which 1857-58] DEFENCE OP LORD CANNING 99 they had shown in the suppression of the Mutiny. To the Duke fell the task of meeting the attacks of Lord Derby and of Lord Ellenborough on the Government for its alleged delay in despatching troops to India, and of defending his friend Lord Canning from the insinuations made against him in consequence of his policy. The Duke maintained that the Governor- General had not shown any signs of weakness in his administration, but that he had, on the contrary, given evidence of the most statesmanlike foresight. The following extract is taken from the Duke's speech in the House of Lords, February 8th, 1858 : ' I have taken some pains to examine almost aU the charges brought against Lord Canning, whether in Parliament or in the Press, and I venture to affirm that there is not one of those charges of the least im- portance which cannot be clearly refuted from papers which are already in the possession of the House. Every one of them has emanated from the Calcutta press, whose enmity has been incurred by Lord Canning in consequence of those restrictive measures which at at an early period of the Mutiny he considered it his duty to adopt.' Comparing Lord Canning's conduct with that of Sir John Lawrence in the Punjab and of Mr. Frere in Scinde, the Duke said : ' I am willing, my Lords, to enter upon that com- parison, and I especially desire to direct the attention of the House to one point in that comparison which is of cardinal importance — I mean the proportion which the native bore to the European troops in the different provinces of India. In the lower provinces, being those more immediately under the command of the Governor-General and under the influence of his per- sonal conduct, there were at the time of the outbreak 7—2 100 LORD PALMERSTOK's ADMINISTRATION [chap, xxxi about 29,000 native troops, against whom, in case of disaffection. Lord Canning had to rely on only 2,362 European soldiers. Yet those are the provinces in which alone the Mutiny never assumed those dangerous proportions to which it rapidly swelled in others. It is not enough to say that in the then aspect of affairs Lord Canning acted for the best. It is not less true to say that all our knowledge of subsequent events does but confirm the wisdom and prudence of his moderate and forbearing pohcy. It was that forbearance and the confidence which, by means of it, he inspired into the native troops, that they would not be harshly dealt with or prejudged to be traitors without sufficient cause — it was this alone which prevented an early out- break in Bengal, and saved those provinces from the fearful convulsion which took place elsewhere. The " energetic measures " which were not taken by Lord Canning, and which were so constantly urged on him by the Calcutta public, were, unfortunately, taken at Meerut by men of inferior judgment, and instantly the Mutiny swelled to the magnitude of a rebellion. In the North- western Provinces the proportion between native and European troops was equally unfavourable (about 45,000 to 3,537), and there, assuredly, equal caution and gentleness should have been used. But now let us look to another quarter — to the provinces ruled by Sir John Lawrence. The Mutiny there broke out through no act of his, but in consequence of the events at Meerut and the capture of Delhi. But when it did break out, or threatened to do so. Sir John was in a very different position from Lord Canning in respect to European support. In the provinces of the Punjab and the Sutlej he had 12,424 European soldiers against only 42,000 native troops, showing an enormous difference from the proportion with which Lord Canning had to deal. Sir John Lawrence had also a warhke and well- affected native population, whom his own wise measures had rendered heartily loyal to our rule. I hope it wiU not be thought for a moment by any member of this 1857-58] DEFENCE OF LORD DALHOUSIE 101 House that I am seeking to detract in the smallest degree from the eminent merits of Sir John Lawrence. But since his conduct has been placed in invidious contrast with that of Lord Canning, I think it right to direct attention to the essential difference between the circumstances in which they were placed,' In the same speech the Duke fulfilled his expressed resolution to pay a warm tribute to Lord Dalhousie : ' I cannot omit this opportunity of expressing the deep regret, which I am sure must be shared in by every member of this House, on account of the absence, and, above all, on account of the cause of the absence, of my noble friend Lord Dalhousie, who must take the keenest and most painful interest in these events, and who would have been so able to assist and inform the House in the debates to which they are giving rise. It was inevitable, perhaps, that this great convulsion, occurring so soon after the close of his administration, should subject him to many accusations from those who judge more from impressions than from reasoning or from careful investigation of facts. But I feel assured that when the smoke of this contest shaU have been cleared away, the great reputation of Lord Dalhousie will reappear in the eyes of his countrymen, who ought not even now, during this very contest, to forget that if one thing more than another has contributed to the salvation of India, it has been the Government which Lord Dalhousie organized in the Punjab, and the admirable selection he made of the men by whom that Government has been conducted. To them, and to the other illustrious men who are to be included in our vote to-night, the House and the country may well be grate- ful, not merely for the individual gallantry they have displayed, but far more for the proof they have given that those qualities by which we gained India have not decayed — above all, that the power and art of converting to oux own military use the people whom 102 LORD PALMERSTON'S administration [chap, xxxi our arms have recently subdued is not lost to our military and civil servants in the East.'* Lord Granville characterized this speech as the ' best speech I ever heard Argyll make, right in tone, sub- stance, and length. He carried the House completely with him, and most satisfactorily disposed of the whole attack,' f In connection with the proposed Government of India Bill, which was the subject of debate in the Cabinet during the autumn, the Duke had written to Sir George Grey (November 25th, 1857) : ' I feel somewhat anxious that we should be quite agreed as to the reasons for our Indian measure, as well as with respect to the outline of the measure itself. I do not think that the only defence of the present system has been merely that it " worked well," and therefore should be tolerated. It has been kept up, whether wisely or not, for the sake of some positive advantage which it was supposed to possess, and to avoid some dangers which a change was supposed to involve. ' The main advantage was that it withdrew, or tended to withdraw, the Indian Government from being the direct object of party attacks and party defence in Parliament. This was its main feature. I think that to a great extent it has actually had this effect, and that the effect is in itself good. ' Vernon Smith J expressly says that the Indian Minister requires some support at his back, which he expects to find in a nominated council, vice an elected Court of Directors. ' In this respect, therefore, we cannot assail the * Hansard, vol. cxlviii., p. 843. t 'Life of Lord Granville,' by Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, vol. i., p. 290. X President of the Board of Control. 1857-58] GOVERNMENT OE INDIA BILL 103 present system as radically wrong, but only as need- lessly complicated and as involving unnecessary delays. ' Neither do I think we can say with justice that the Indian Mutiny destroys the claim of " working well." I have seen no attempt to connect the Mutiny with the form of government, nor do I believe that any such attempt could be made with success. ' In those respects in which the Government has hitherto " worked well," it is continuing to work very much as it has ever worked. Even in the power shown by its officers to train and mould to our own use the native soldiery we have never had more brilliant success than during this very Mutiny. ' For any sake, do not let us chime in, or appear to do so, with those vague and illogical declamations against the Indian Government which have proceeded from Young India, and with which we shall be deluged usque ad nauseam this session. ' Nevertheless, I think that aU the real advantages of the present system may be preserved under a more intelligible form of government, and that the use of the Queen's name will be a source of strength. The sup- pression of a great rebellion, and the necessity of re- constituting our armed force, give us at least a plausible occasion for introducing the change. ' But the very moderate reasons which can alone, I think, be urged with truth or justice for a change which will appear so great (and which will be urged forward as if it were very great) will add to the diffi- culty of meeting the charge that we are reaUy doing it to escape from the question of Reform at home by an evasive measure. ' I confess I should be far better pleased to see Palmerston set himself to settle, as he alone could settle, this question, than ride off upon an Indian reform which it would be easy to defer until matters were more fuUy settled in India.P, - ' You think it would be impossible to avoid expres- 104 LORD PALMERSTON's administration [ohap. xxxi sing an opinion on the form of government. So it would be, if we admit the Mutiny to have resulted from the form of government. But it would be easy to say that the form of government ought not to be dealt with until the country is again thoroughly reduced and pacified. ' I suspect the " Company " will show more power of resistance than we expect, especially if they have such a plea to urge.' The Government of India Bill was introduced by Lord Palmerston on February 12th, 1858. The prin- cipal provision of the measure was the establishment of a President and Council for the Government of India, and it further included a proposal to place in the hands of the Viceroy the appointment of the members of the Executive Council in India. A very elaborate Petition had been prepared on behalf of the East India Company, and was presented in the House of Lords by Lord Grey the day before the Bill was intro- duced. The duty of replying to Lord Grey was entrusted to the Duke of Argyll, and, in writing to Lord GranviUe on February 8th, 1858, he discussed the best method of defending the proposed measure : ' I do not feel quite sure which is best for us : that Grey should put off or not. I confess that the notes of V. Smith on the Petition increase my fear that his tone will be hostile, petulant, and recriminatory. He cannot help it. Then, I think Palmerston likely to take some not very safe ground. On the whole, there- fore, I have been rather glad that we should have to open in the Lords first. ' I have been looking very carefully into the best way of supporting our case on the mere question of time, and yet without any allusion to details. I am con- vinced that it can be done, and be done effectively too, 1857-58] PETITION OF THE E. I. COMPANY 105 if one can execute what one intends. But there is always some risk of this. It is sometimes an advantage to be able to say that we cannot follow an opponent into details, when the groxmd for saying so is so obvious as in this case. ' If Grey opposes any measure on the ground of time, and yet deprecates inquiry, he dissents from the Petition, and opens himself to another reply. The same arguments which he will urge against inquiry are equally applicable against that agitation and discussion which delay wiU infallibly give rise to on questions of organic change. ' If the debate takes place in our House, I should Hke to consult with you beforehand exactly on the line which I shoiild take ; I have sketched it out, and what- ever Une Grey takes about inquiry would make no difference ; nor do I think it necessary to indicate one word of the proposed measure beyond the general description already given of the adoption of the name of the Crown and the abolition of that of the " Company." ' Per contra, we must always consider the effect of an able speech from Derby — if, indeed, he knows really much about the subject, which I do not think he does.' On the presentation to the House of Lords of the Petition, on the 11th February, the Duke spoke at length and with effect. The following passage is quoted from his speech : ' We may not, and we do not, think that the argu- ments of the Petition are very strong, far less that they are conclusive ; we may, and we do, think that many of them are of a purely traditional kind, which have come down from one generation to another, and which have been repeated from mouth to mouth long after they have ceased to be applicable to the circumstances of the time. We may think that some of those argu- 106 LORD PALMERSTON'S administration [chap, xxxi ments can be shown to be contradictory, while in respect to others, the best and truest, we hold ourselves at perfect liberty to accept them entirely and to assent to them most cordially, but holding, nevertheless, that they do not justify the conclusions in support of which they are advanced. But on one point in respect to that Petition we can agree with the noble Earl, that the tone and temper of the document is worthy of the great historical body from which it emanates ; that it is temperate and dignified, and worthy of the subject to which it refers. I can only express my earnest and sincere hope that throughout the debates which take place in Parliament upon this question we shall be able on both sides to abstain from everything of a recrimina- tory character, and that we shall be willing to give each other credit for what we aU profess — a desire to serve this great country and its Indian Empire, and to pro- vide such a Government as may be most conducive to the happiness of the millions subject to our rule. And as all public men wiU, I am sure, admit the great obliga- tion which they owe to the permanent civil servants, both of the Crown and of the East India Company, I trust I shall not be deemed guilty of any indeHcacy towards the directorial body of the Company if I express my anxious hope that the two eminent, able, and distinguished men, who are understood to have been mainly instrumental in drawing up this Petition, may continue to give to any future Government which may be provided for India that valuable assistance which they have for so many years rendered to the Government of the East India Company.' In a letter to the Duke a few days later. Sir Charles Wood wrote : ' In the first place, I must tell you how much I admire your speech on India. You have taken the true and only ground on which we can justify our measure, and I wish that you had introduced it.' 1857-58] THE ORSINI AFFAIR 107 But the Duke considered that he had failed to make one point against Lord Grey, and he wrote in haste to Lord Granville, in order that the omission might be made good : ' I shall never forgive myself for one omission last night — among others. Grey abused the stockholders as a constituency, and regretted that they had not been abolished in 1853. But the stockholders are, the Company. The directors are not the Company. There- fore, the very man who presented the Company's Petition and deprecated the change, himself deplored that the Company had not been abolished long ago. What an ass I was not to hit him on this capital error in his speech !' The India Bill, however, which was regarded as likely to be a 'trophy for the Premiership ' of Lord Palmerston, was not destined to pass into law under the guidance of a Liberal Ministry. The defeat of Lord Palmerston' s Government was brought about in a singular and most unexpected manner. During the Christmas recess, an Italian, named Orsini, made an attempt on the life of the French Emperor. There was no doubt that the plot had been hatched in England ; even the bombs used were made in Birmingham. Popular indignation was aroused in France, and the most absurd charges were made against England. The French army, regi- ment by regiment, sent letters of congratulation to the Emperor on his escape, some of which contained in- sinuations against England. These addresses were printed in the Moniteur, which, being the organ of the French Government, gave the impression that the publication of the attacks against England had received official sanction. Count Walewski, the French Foreign Minister, addressed a despatch to Count de Persigny, 108 LOED PALMERSTON's administration [chap, xxxi the French Ambassador in London, which, although somewhat vaguely expressed, seemed to imply a cer- tain responsibility on the part of the British Govern- ment in connection with the machinations against France of refugees from that country. Lord Clarendon, who was at that time Foreign Secre- tary, did not think it necessary to send any official com- munication in reply; but he privately instructed the English Ambassador at Paris as to the opinion of the Cabinet regarding the affair. There was every desire to allay a natural irritation on the part of France, and to ignore language, even if official, which was no more than the expression of momentary passion ; and, after con- sideration, the Cabinet agreed to introduce a Conspiracy Bill. The impression that this Bill was introduced at the demand of France gave some o£fence, as suggesting the idea of dictation from that country. The first read- ing was passed by a large majority. When, however, it came up for the second reading, on the amendment of Mr. Milner Gibson, censuring the Government for not having repUed officially to Count Walewski's despatch before submitting the Bill to the House, the Govern- ment was overthrown (February 19, 1858). Thus, the second Administration of which the Duke had been a member came to an end, and with it all the Liberal projects for reform at home and in India, The Prime Minister placed his resignation in the hands of the Queen, who immediately called upon Lord Derby to form an Administration. On the subject of the resignation of the Government, Lord Aberdeen wrote to the Duke as foUows : ' The propriety of your resignation, I suppose, was unquestionable, but I had not taken it for granted. It is, however, certainly comical that a man who for so 1857-58] DEFEAT OP THE GOVERNMENT 109 many years had upbraided me for unworthy concessions to Foreign Powers should at last have been overthrown for an act of this kind. It is a lesson to be careful in making such accusations.' A few months later the Duke received the following letter from Lord Palmerston : '94, Piccadilly, 'My dear Argyll, ' ^^^^ ^*^^' ^^^^ 'I did not answer the very handsome letter which I received from you some time ago, because you were going to wander on the Continent, and the event to which it related was not hkely to happen. I myself never thought that the majority in the House of Commons which so unceremoniously turned out our Government would be in a great hurry to put it in again ; and I saw no prospect of stability for our Government, if immediately restored, because the same combinations which had overthrown us in February would probably have thwarted us in June, July, or August. I was therefore prepared, and am so still, to see the present Government stick in much longer than many people expect. ' With regard to yourself, however, aU I can say is, that if at any future time the Queen shotdd call upon me to construct a Government, I should consider that Government wanting in a most essential element if you did not consent to become a member of the Cabinet. ' My dear Argyll, ' Yours sincerely, ' Palmerston.' When the new Ministry entered office on the 1st of March, Lord Clarendon had an opportunity of vindi- cating the poUcy of the late Government, which he did in an able speech. The Duke Avrote the following day to Lord Aberdeen : 110 LORD PALMBESTON'S ADMINISTRATION [chap, xxxi ' I dare say some of our friends will find out new cause for censure in Clarendon's speech last night — new dangers to the cause of liberty. But it made a great effect on the House in the opposite sense. Derby sent Malmesbury across to express his astonishment that so good a case had not been brought forward in time, adding that if Clarendon had made that speech before, there would never have been any defeat. ' The truth is that Palmerston mismanaged the House. He did not argue at aU. ' Derby's plan of waiting for legislation tiU he gets an answer would be ridiculous if it were not dangerous. ' Campbell now says our Bill is unexceptionable ! I must say Gladstone's peroration in the Commons seems to me directly the reverse of the truth on this question. The reaction he speaks of in Europe is in a great measure due to these crimes ; and if they can be checked, infinite good wiU be done to constitutional freedom — always supposing, of course, that the Bill is in itself just, and within the rules of our evidence. Who can deny that it is ? It clearly and indisputably is, and his assertion that it is in the slightest degree retrogressive is mere misrepresentation of its provisions. ' I prefer a fall on this, where I think we were clearly right, to a fall on such things as the Privy Seal.'* * On which Lord Palmerston's appointment was likely to be ch^lenged. CHAPTER XXXII 1858-59 THE DERBY ADMINISTRATION Lord Derby was faced by considerable difficulties in forming a Government, and, as he was in a substantial minority in the House of Commons, he had to frame his policy accordingly. The Conspiracy Bill was quietly dropped, and the intention of the Government to introduce an India BiU and a Bill for the Reform of the Franchise was announced. The India BiU was introduced by Mr. Disraeli on March 26th. Like Lord Palmerston's Bill, it provided for an Indian Council, but with a larger number of members, only half of whom were to be nominated and the rest elected, partly by certain British constitu- encies, and partly by residents in England who had interests in India. A letter to Lord GranviUe shows what the Duke thought of this BiU : ' Clieveden, Maidenhead, 'March 28th, 1858. ' I am boiling over — foaming at the mouth — about this new India Bill with its Council, and I shall speedily perish unless I get out a speech for the assault thereof. ' I have seen nobody but Grey, who agreed with me on the mischievous nature of the proposal, but thought it should not be opposed on second reading. We in 111 112 THE DERBY ADMINISTRATION [chap, xxxii the Lords have nothing to do with that question, but we cannot possibly wait till July in silence on such a Bill ; and what occurs to me is to move, as soon as the House meets again, for certain returns, which will open a discussion, that is to say, that would serve as a peg for a speech upon the general question.' In reply, Lord Granville wrote : ' March &8th, 1858. ' Very many thanks for your letter. How little one must believe accounts of predictions ! The India Bill seems to meet universal reprobation. I believe you are more thoroughly versed in the subject than anyone, therefore one should be slow of offering counsel to you. Abstractly one should say that it might be questionable policy to raise the question in the House, . where, with Derby and Ellenborough for speakers, they would probably cut a much better figure than in the other House. You will naturally, however, confer about this with others. I wonder what the result will be. As to future arrangements, I think that naturally Palmerston is head of the position ; if he is sent for, he ought to offer Johnny the next place to his own, and if it is not accepted, it cannot be helped.' From Lord Granville. ' London, 'March 29th, 1858. ' My Argyll, ' This beginning is unintentional, but I rather Hke it ! ' Lord Lansdowne, the Chancellor, Clarendon, Labou- chere, G. Lewis, and I met at Pam's. They were all against anything being done in the Lords till the second reading of the Bill in the Commons. There was a division of opinion as to rejecting the Bill, which is detestable, on the second reading : Palmerston, Vernon Smith, Gladstone, and Chancellor for rejection ; Lans- 1858-59] THE NEW INDIA BILL 113 downe. Clarendon, Labouchere, and I doubting the expediency of it, unless we were certain of a majority, and that Derby would not resign upon defeat. It was resolved to settle nothing till the end of the holidays. When I got home, I found G. Byng, with a message from Ivanowitch.* John the son of John had first thought it would not do to oppose the India Bill, but now thinks it imperative to do so. He is inclined to move the rejection himself, but will not commit himself till he knows whether he would be supported by the late Government. ' I called on Pam, over whose noble countenance a shade had passed when I first mentioned the proposi- tion ; but he agreed that it was the best way of doing it, and I am going to write to that effect to G. Byng.' From Lord Palmerston, 31st March, 1858. ' My dear Dttke of Argyll, ' Lansdowne, Cranworth, Clarendon, Granville, Lewis, Labouchere, Vernon Smith, met here yesterday. We all agreed in an opinion similar to yours about the Government India Bill, and our conclusions pointed towards rejection on second reading, dependent upon communication with Lord John Russell. After our meeting, Granville saw young G. Byng, who came with a message from John Russell to ask whether we would support him if he were to move rejection of the Bill on the second reading upon the ground of in- surmountable objection to the new constitutional principles which it would introduce. This seemed to me an offer which we could not refuse without implying either personal objection to John Russell or predilection for the BiU. GranviUe, Lewis, and Lansdowne con- curred (we were not able to consult the others), and we agreed to send word to John Russell that we are ready to support him. Such a combination will insure defeat * Lord John Russell. VOL. II. 8 114 THE DERBY ADMINISTRATION [chap, xxxii of the objectionable measure, and combined action between us and John Russell will please the Liberal party in the House of Commons. My belief, however, is that the Government will not wait to be attacked, but that, hearing how universally their scheme is laughed at and condemned, they will of their own accord withdraw and alter it. ' I do not believe that even if they stood by their measure and were beat they would on that account resign, but I should not be uneasy if I thought they would. TiU lately I thought that there would perhaps be an advantage in their remaining in till next year, so that they might bring in and carry a moderate and reasonable Reform Bill ; but the specimen we have now had of their absurd and fantastic style of legisla- tion leads me to the opinion that it would be better that the present session should be their last. ' It is desirable that we should say nothing about our arrangement with John Russell for the present.' To Lord Granville. ' Clieveden, Maidenhead, ' My dear Granville, '^^'"'^ ^^^' l^^^- ' Have you yet heard anything more of Johnny's intentions on the India Bill ? ' I have heard from pretty good authority that the Government means to give up the city-election.* Indeed, the tone of Derby's speech leads one to suppose that they mean to give up anything and everything that may be requisite to secure a majority. ' We must be cautious what we do, else there can be no doubt that the Bill, in spite of future promised concessions, should be opposed on second reading. Because it is not as if no other Bill were before the * The Bill provided that the elected members of the Indian Council should be partly chosen by five constituencies — viz., London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Belfast. 1868-59] THE NEW INDIA BILL 115 House. There is another Bill, and wherein No. 2 differs from No. 1 it is essentially wrong in principle. Pam sent me a letter from Bethell, in which that legal dignitary took, I think, rather too high ground against any mixture of the elective principle in the Council. I prefer greatly pure Crown nomination, but we should use no argument which would preclude us from adopt- ing, if necessary, some mode of election other than EUenborough's. From Lord Palmerston, 6th April, 1858. ' My dear Duke op Argyll, ' I have received your letter of the 1st inst., but I own I go the whole length of Bethell' s arguments, and think that it would be at variance with a funda- mental principle of our constitution that any persons who form part of the executive Government of the country should be appointed by any authority except that of the Crown, or of some officer appointed by the Crown ; and I see nothing in the nature and circum- stances of India which woiild require or justify a departure from that elementary principle. ' The only difference between India and any other beyond-sea possession of the Crown is that peculiarities of races, habits, and religions render necessary on the part of the Cabinet (that is to say, the executive and responsible Administration) local knowledge which can scarcely be possessed by persons who have never been to India ; and therefore the Minister for the Indian Department ought to have advisers to furnish him with such local knowledge, and with opinions founded on that knowledge, to be submitted for his judgment and for that of his colleagues. ' For this purpose the Crown should have the power of appointing a Council ; but as that Council is to advise the responsible advisers of the Crown, it is right that the choice of those advisers should rest with the Crown and its responsible Ministers, and should not be vested 8—2 116 THE DERBY ABMINISTRATION [chap, xxxii in other persons, who have a less interest in choosing good men, and less means of judging who would be the fittest for the duty. ' In giving to the Crown the appointment of the Councillors, we are not only conforming to the prin- ciples of the British constitution, but we are following exactly the precedent of the hitherto existing state of things. ' The directors are appointed, and not elected. It is a complete mistake to consider the directors as an elected body in the sense in which it is proposed that a portion of the Councillors should be elected. The Crown gave to the East India Company a lease of the Sovereignty of India, and during that time the Com- pany became the pro tempore Sovereign of India. The Company would not as an aggregate body administer and govern. The Company, therefore, was empowered by law to appoint an executive and administrative body to govern India ; but the only way in which the Company could make such appointments was the way in which all associations consisting of a number of persons must necessarily act — that is to say, by the majority of the votes of the members of the association or Company itself. It was, then, the Sovereign of India for the time being that appointed the directors ; and now that the Queen is to become the direct riiler of India, it is the Queen who ought to appoint all the persons concerned in the administration of Indian affairs. If the Court of Directors, or any part of them, had been appointed by election by any other body, such as the voters of great towns, or the holders of 3 per cent., or the shareholders of canals or railways in England, then, indeed, such a state of things might have formed a precedent (though one to be avoided and not to be followed) for continuing a similar state of things when India is transferred to the Crown ; but the precedent and analogy go quite the other way. ' Nor can the arrangement of 1?53 be quoted in favour of the elective principle, because what was done in 1853 1858-59] THE INDIA COUNCIL 117 was simply this : The Crown — that is, the owner of the fee simple of India — though it continued during the pleasure of itself and Parliament the lease of India to the Company, yet introduced into the governing body an additional element of its own, over and above the control of the India Board, and obtained the right of appointing a certain number of the directors. But the change then made went in the direction of nomina- tion by the Crown, and not in the direction of election by any third party. I shall certainly be prepared to argue strongly against giving to any extraneous body, constituted as it may be, the power of deciding who shall be the persons whom the Crown and its Ministers shall look to for advice to assist them in performing the duties for which those Ministers are to be responsible to Parliament. . -^t- . , Yours sincerely, ' Palmbrston. ' P.S. — I believe Ayrton will move the rejection of the Government Bill, but the Government will not go out merely because their Bill is thrown out.' To Lord Palmerston. ' Clieveden, Maidenhead, ' April 8th, 1858. ' My dear Lord Palmerston, ' I am so entirely satisfied that Crown nomina- tion is by far the best and almost the only practical mode of selecting the Indian Council that I am very little disposed to question any argument among the many which may be urged in favour of that plan. If you can succeed in convincing the House of Commons that, besides being useless for any one purpose and injurious in many respects, the plan of election is also unconstitutional, so much the better. It is of great advantage in this argument that the only constituency which has been proposed is manifestly absurd. All I mean to say is, that if there were any body of men whose 118 THE DERBY ADMINISTRATION [chap, xxxii choice would probably tend to secure fit selections for the Council, you might find it difficult to prevent their being employed for that purpose on the somewhat abstract argument of constitutional principle. ' The distinction you point out between election as applied to the present directory and election as applied to any part of the new Council is very important, and I quite agree with you that election in the latter case would involve quite a new principle. ' The fundamental error of these schemes is the idea that the Indian Council is to check and control the Minister, whereas the only real object is that the Council should advise and assist the Minister. If this were clearly seen, the clamours for election would cease, unless it could be shown that better advice could be secured for the Minister by some mode of elections. If that could be shown. Parliament might be disposed to waive the strictly constitutional argument which BetheU urges, on the ground that the Indian Council partakes of a legislative as well as of a purely executive character. ' The intrusion of any sort of popular election by English popular constituencies seems to me perfectly monstrous. This would clearly imply a total miscon- ception of the whole object and functions of the Council, which is not to represent either home interests or English opinions, but to afford Indian experience and Indian advice. It is the intention of the Govern- ment, I know, to throw over the plan as to the city constituencies ; but I can't well understand how they are to go on if they are beat on the second reading. That vote will imply that in all respects in which their scheme differs from ours it differs for the worse. Surely no Government can go on with any honour or credit after such a vote. I am glad to know the line of argument, as well as the line of action, you propose to take, as we shall soon have discussions in the Lords. Many^persons^were till lately disposed to look favour- ably upon some kind of selection for a part of the 1858-59] INDIA BILL PASSED 119 Council, without having considered how or for what purpose. ' EUenborough's absurd scheme will have done much to diminish this feeling, and I think we can attack the principle of election from many different sides. ' Yours very sincerely, ' Argyll.' The India Bill met with general disapproval. At the meeting of Parliament after the Easter recess (April 12th), Lord John Russell brought forward a proposal to proceed with legislation for India by way of Resolutions. This afforded the Derby Government an opportunity for withdrawing their own Bill, and the India Bill, as amended and reconstructed in terms of Lord John Russell's Resolutions, finally became law on August 2nd, 1858. The subject may be fittingly closed with an extract from a letter to the Duke from Mr. Gladstone (June 21st) : ' The political sky looks quiet. The Government, after obtaining strong majorities against nomination in the Indian Council, has ended by proposing what very little differs from it. They thus give a fair handle to Lord Palmerston, who says, " Why, for so small a matter, depart from the common practice ?" Lord John, on the other hand, says it is so near nomination that he will take it as a substitute.' On May 25th the Duke started for Carlsbad, where he had been recommended to go, in order to take a course of the waters. He travelled with the Duchess by Antwerp and Brussels, and broke his journey at Heidelberg to visit his friend Baron de Bunsen, of whom he wrote to Lord Aberdeen from Carlsbad : ' Bunsen especially desired to be remembered to you. He has grown older : his hair is now quite white, which 120 THE DERBY ADMINISTRATION [chap, xxxii it was not when he left England ; but he seems tolerably well, and very busy with his new translation of the Bible. I am always struck with the amazing amount of his knowledge, and with its variety and accuracy, in contrast with which the vagueness and theoretical character of his opinions on all practical questions is not less remarkable. On this account he was very little appreciated in England, but he is surely one of the most remarkable men of our time.' Turning to home affairs, he continued : ' I am not sorry to be away from England just noM% where there is little in public affairs to give anyone any satisfaction. ... If Gladstone had joined them, the Derby Government would have become really good enough for all practical purposes. I rather shocked Bunsen by telling him I hoped Gladstone would join Derby. He thought it would be a great fall on Mr. Gladstone's part. But I hold that whatever injury to himself Gladstone might do in this way is done by his supporting Disraeli ; and if he supports him, I cannot see why he should not serve with him. I am indeed amazed at Gladstone's high moral sense of feeling being able to bear with Dizzy. But he does so, however strange it may be. I can only account for it on the supposition, which I suppose to be a true one, that personal dislike and distrust of Palmerston is the one absorbing feeling with him, and that he is willing to sacrifice every other consideration to keeping him, if he can, out pf office. Admitting aU that can with any justice be said of Palmerston, I hold this feeling to be not even rational. I have no hesitation in saying that, comparing Lord John with Lord Palmerston, the latter is, in very many respects, the safer man of the two, inasmuch as he is more amenable to the opinion of his colleagues. During the last three years I have several times differed materially from Palmerston on several points of importance, and I have had occasion to ex- 1858-59] PARLIAMENTARY REFORM 121 press that difference to himself ; and I must say I have always been struck with his willingness to be guided by the common opinion of the Cabinet, with his candour and his perfect good-humour. Now, with Lord John, though he is superior to Palmerston in knowledge of most home politics, one never can be sure for twenty-four hours that he will adhere to what has been agreed upon, or that he wiU not be guided rather by personal advisers than by his colleagues. In short, I see no good ground for the violent personal prejudice which is the sole ruling motive of Gladstone and Graham's course.' The Duke left Carlsbad on July 12th, and spent a few weeks travelling in Germany and Austria, returning to London on August 6th. For some time negotiations had been going on among the members of the Liberal party with a view to determining upon some united policy, especially with regard to the question of Parliamentary Reform. On March 15th, 1858, Mr. Sidney Herbert had written to the Duke as follows : ' What I wish is that disagreements should cease. I look forward to a gloomy future. I had rather make no contrasts between the faults of possible Prime Ministers. There is too much material of that kind to make it either difficult or pleasant. ' In the meanwhile the present people seem inclined to try and outbid the Liberal party — a course which wiU be justly fatal to themselves, and, what is more important, wiU be fatal to the country too. Whatever they propose our friends must cap. If Derby goes for universal suffrage, Palmerston or Johnny will produce the women and children. ' It will require cautious steering on the part of those who prefer the interests of the country to the interests of the party to prevent mischief being done 122 THE DERBY ADMINISTRATION [chap, xxsil between them all, I look upon you as one able and willing to take an important part in so regulating matters ; and I, though wearied and disquieted with politics and politicians, would contribute what I can towards this desirable but, I fear, unattainable object.' The Duke's thoughts were at this time much engrossed by the consideration of some scheme of domestic reform which he believed would forestall the policy of the extreme Radical party ; but he was willing to accept an adequate measure even from the Con- servative Government, in preference to leaving the question to be dealt with by the extremists. On the 9th of August he wrote to Lord Aberdeen : ' I have spoken to no one on this subject yet, and I know many would consider it a sort of treason. I wished Palmerston to settle it, and believed I saw a way of doing it ; but now that we have lost the opportunity, I rather wish to see it settled by Derby, if he can with such colleagues produce an honest measure.' To Lord Aberdeen {August \Qth, 1858). ' I know Grey's hostility to Reform. But it must come, and I am not afraid of it, provided the Govern- ment which deals with it is united and the measure be an honest one. ' I took an active part in the late Government on the question, and with some success. I have a plan which I am satisfied would be attended with many advantages, especially this : that it carries within itself a tendency to render much further change impossible as regards distribution of seats — a most important object to aim at. ' But every scheme propounded and not carried is one added to the list of schemes damaged and rendered impossible, and I am not willing to see this plan proposed 1858-59] NEW REFORM BILL 123 at all unless under such circumstances as are likely to secure success. I would far rather help Derby against the Radicals than work with the latter, by whose help I fear some of our Liberal friends would seek to recover power at any sacrifice of their principles.' A rumour reached the Duke, who was then ' at Inveraray, that Lord John Russell and Sir James Graham had been drafting a Reform Bill, and on August 31st he Avrote to Lord Aberdeen : ' It is all very well to feel one's way to what each other would support, but I am against any sort of move on this subject until we shall have seen what the Government means to propose. If Dizzy has his way, infinite evil may be done by a " Conservative Govern- ment " proposing what others will have to bid up to, if not beyond. But we can't now help this. Such is the position of the Opposition that the evil would only be aggravated by any premature move on our side of the House. I hear Lord Grey is " all over of a shake " as to what wiU happen when Dizzy has Reform in his hands. But we must not follow Grey's line. He is far too nervous, and too full of grand " compensatory " schemes which will never be carried, though not in theory otherwise than reasonable. " Representation of minorities," which I recollect you called a " conun- drum," is one of such items. The English people are too practical and unideal ever to understand that sort of thing. I am persuaded, which is more important, that it is not necessary, and that the advantage aimed at can be otherwise attained. ' I wish to have some communication among our- selves, yet I hardly know how to set about it. You can advise better than anybody else.' Some political significance had been attributed to a visit which Lord John Russell had paid to Lord Derby at Knowsley, but the Duke, being himself willing to 124 THE DERBY ADMINISTRATIOlSr [chap, xxxii co-operate with the Conservatives to secure a moderate measure of Reform, did not disapprove of the idea of an approach being made to their leader. He alludes to the subject in a letter to Lord Aberdeen on 12th October, 1858: ' Lord John going to Knowsley is like him. I dare say he is indignant at the Morning Post article, and would go in spite of the world. This is just his kind of pluck. But, to say the truth, although the form in which the report is put is absurd, I suspect there is some sort of foundation for a suspicion. Nor can I say that I object. For the public interest, this Reform question ought not to be made the shuttlecock of party ; and if Lord John sees his way to any combina- tion that may secure a settlement, I see no blame to him. He is free of his former party, as they seem to have loosed themselves from him. I happen to know that Lord John has been talking of " some fusion of parties " as necessary. But this is in confidence.' On the same subject the Duke wrote to Sir George Grey (October 21st, 1858) : ' My DEAR Sir George, 'Inveraeay. ' As far as I can make out since I came home from abroad, we are stiU in chaos, and no prospect of an end to this condition of things " without form and void." ' Lord Aberdeen seems to think it more than possible that the Government may decline attempting Reform altogether. But this I do not believe. They will propose something ; and after our experience of the India Bill, it is impossible to say how far it may not be an extremely Radical Reform in at least some things, while aimed in others at strengthening the Tory interests. ' I am not in the least disposed to wish that we should play into Bright's hands by proposing democratic 1858-59] PARLIAMENTARY REFORM 125 amendments, if the Bill of the Government is a tolerably fair one. On the contrary, I should be glad to see the question settled, at least for a time, by them. ' But in any case, whether for moderate changes or for total opposition, we ought to have some under- standing among ourselves as to the line we should take, and in order to do this we should have some definite idea of what we should ourselves aim at as regards the principle of any measure. I am all against making any definite proposal or propounding any definite plan when we have no prospect of carrying it into effect with the authority of a Government. But this is quite a different thing from basing our opposition, or our criticism of actual amendments, on definite views as to the object to be attained, and, so to speak, the direction of our fire. ' We know perfectly well the main conditions of the problem which every Reform Bill must deal with. We know that to some extent both county and borough franchise must be dealt with, and we know, too, that the existing distribution of seats must undergo modifi- cation. ' That the latter should be well and wisely dealt with I regard as even more important than the first, and if we are agreed on the outline which we had sketched for ourselves, we have, to a certain degree and in an im- portant respect, a base-line of operations.' To Sir George Grey {October 25th). ' Many thanks for your letter. I agree very much with you, save that, though no Reform Bill can, or ought to be, aristocratic in tendency, it may be essen- tially Conservative as regards the great principles of our representation ; and as large meanings are attached to the word " democracy," I am against assenting to the proposition that any Bill " must be democratic." ' If we keep firm hold of the great middle class of constituencies which lie between those purely city 126 THE BERBY ADMINISTRATION [chap, xxxii (commercial or manufacturing) and those purely agri- cultural, we shall keep what will save us to a great extent from mere democracy. But I shall write more fully on this subject afterwards. Meanwhile, I write chiefly to say that I feel sure Lord Aberdeen will give you every information in his power. He is on the move just now. I don't quite know the day he is to be in London, but he is going there immediately. He writes as clearly as ever, though perhaps the manual part of it may be sometimes a little fatigue to him. But I shall tell him that you have thoughts of con- sulting him. ' In the autumn Mr. Bright had been very active delivering speeches throughout the country — speeches which the Duke characterized as containing ' some fallacies, but marked by considerable oratorical power ; speeches that will, no doubt, do some mischief with the ignorant and unreflecting ; and, as Carlyle says, " there is an immense plurality of blockheads," ' While on a visit to Lord and Lady Kinnaird at Rossie Priory, the Duke performed the ceremony of opening the Dundee Corn Exchange and Public Hall. His speech on this occasion was a direct answer to Mr. Bright' s attacks on landowners and on the House of Lords. It is impossible to give an adequate idea of this speech without quoting at too great length, but an extract is added here : ' Mr. Bright was good enough the other day to turn his eyes northwards to this poor naked land of Scotland, and he mentioned as one of the great evils of our con- dition that there were various persons in this country whose mainstay was oatmeal porridge. Now, I remember Dr. Johnson, who always hated Scotland and Scotsmen, used to talk about that kind of grain which was food for horses in England and for men in 1858-59] SPEECH AT DUNDEE 127 Scotland, and Mr. Bright seems very much to partake of the same feeling. Now, I can only say to Mr. Bright that I wish he had one-half the chance of good health and long Hfe and vigour of many of those healthy mountaineers whom I have seen bred up on oatmeal porridge. But I freely admit that, without counting oatmeal porridge among them, we have many evils affecting our social state. . . . ' I see that the various classes of society are uniting together, as I see them united here to-night, for the purpose of rectifying those evils and of endeavouring to meet them. . . . ' The distinguished orator to whom I lately referred, speaking in the name of peace and progress, and taking, as I think, these great names in vain, has been en- deavouring to raise animosities which are now extinct, and to divide those whom the good providence of God and the course of events have year by year been bringing more and more close together. . . . ' I do earnestly trust — no man trusts more earnestly or hopes more anxiously — that for the purpose of prose- cuting those great works of social and poUtical improve- ment in this country we may long continue to enjoy the blessings of peace. . . . ' I repudiate the doctrine which has been held by Mr. Bright that the wars of this country have been mainly due to any one class of the community. I appeal to himself — was it not but three or four weeks ago that he directed his observations against the working classes of this country for those generous sympathies which made them unite heart and soul in the late great war with Russia ? ' I hold it to be a false and narrow philosophy which, whether in domestic or foreign politics, sees no hope for the future except in a wild and indiscriminate de- nunciation of the past. How different is the feeling with which our history and our institutions are re- 128 THE DERBY ADMlNISTRATIOlSr [obas. xxxii garded by foreigners, who are earnestly longing to enjoy some portion of the liberty which we have so long enjoyed. I remember some four years ago being present at the opening of the British Parliament at a period of great excitement, and standing close beside one of the most distinguished foreigners who has ever lived in our country — one of the many who is longing to impart into his own some part of those noble institu- tions under which we have so long flourished as a nation — and as he saw that great spectacle, aU orders of the State represented in the assembUng of the British Parhament, I heard him say, far more to himself than to me, in language of deep emotion : " Happy is that people between whose past and whose present no gulf of forgetfulness has been fixed, whose progress has been a steady progress under the guidance and protection of their ancient laws — no national element of Hfe rejected, no national memory forgotten." And such, I say, may be our progress still. ' It is one of the many evils of violent language, addressed either to one section or to another section of the community, that, acting by irritation upon the minds of some and by timidity on the minds of others, it induces some men to doubt the end and others to mistake the way ; but I see in such evidences as this great meeting a clear proof of the social progress oi our people.' This speech was received with enthusiasm through- out the country. Congratulatory letters poured in upon the Duke, and an extract from a letter of Lord Clarendon's (November 27th, 1868) may be quoted here : ' I read with great pleasure and admiration your speech the other day in answer to Bright, who, it must be admitted, has done service by showing how little steam is to be got up for Reform. It may be said of him, as Lord Byron once said of his mother-in-law, 1858-59] LAURISTON CASTLE 129 Lady Noel : " She has been dangerously ill — she is now dangerously well again." ' Derby talked to me in glowing gratitude of the service Bright had rendered him at Birmingham, and said that, though there was no such man as a real re- former, and though no one wanted a measure of Reform, yet that a measure there must be, and that it must not be a sham one, which would only irritate and lead to extensive demands, ' I heard that you were very unwell after you re- turned, and am rejoiced that you can now give a good report of yourself.' From Lord Aberdeen {November 24:th, 1858). ' You have taken the field with good effect against Bright, and the Press of all degrees seems to be with you.' The Duke refers to this speech in a letter to Lord Dufferin, written from Lauriston Castle, in the neigh- bourhood of Edinburgh, which he had taken for the winter : ' December IWi, 1858. ' We often wonder what has become of you and the little mother — bless her and preserve her, dragged about by a wild Irish boy ! I know no sadder fate in the wide range of ills which flesh is heir to. ' Here we are, all in a pie, in a castle overlooking the Firth of Forth on one side, and the regal towers and outlines of Edinburgh on the other. Our great first parent, the mother of us all, and the Duke are here, soon to disperse, they to Trentham, we to Rosneath, for Christmas. We return when the boys go to school again. They are getting on very well. . . . ' Since you left these shores I have been spouting at no allowance — a speech de omnibus rebus at a new hall in Dundee, which was rather a success, and another on VOL. II. 9 130 THE DEEBY ADMINISTRATION [chap, xxxii India here, which I think will have been useful in its way. I am next going to lecture on geology in Glasgow. We shall remain chiefly here, to be with the boys, till Parliament meets, when I must go up to be present at the general scrimmage which doubtless will be. How I envy you the blue skies and the bluer seas of the Mediterranean ! I used never to tire looking into that wonderful water, its softness and intense colour. But it can be an angry sea, and I should like to hear of you safe, not having implicit confidence either in the machinery or in those who manage it. There's for ye ! ' Have you heard of the infamous behaviour of Uncle Graham, the big Baronet of Netherby ? Last autumn Johnny Campbell came to Inveraray and reported the big Baronet as having, along with him, landed at the pier and gone to the inn without saying one word to me, an old colleague. I walked down, fuming. He had gone out walking ; I followed and chased. At last, in the deep dusk of the evening, I looked down the long avenue ; no one but I or a bat could have seen, but I did fancy that far, far down in the shade of the old beeches I could discern what, nearer, must have been an " ample presence "; so I walked down, and sure enough came on the delinquent walking with Lady Hermione. He had no good excuse, but about clothes and a pilgrimage to Ardkinglas. So he came, and the next morning went off — very bad conduct. . . . ' I hear various little bits of gossip and scandal, but I should tell them all wrong if I were to try. I trust to the little mother's correspondence to keep you going on that subject. Has she really got all her dogs and parrots with her ? — that odious, deceitful beast of a poll that invited the end of my finger, and then bit it. I hope it is drowned ; give it my malediction. As for the mother, tell her how sorry I am for her. Let us hear, from you. ' Ever thine, ' Argyll.' 1858-59] LORD JOHN RUSSELL ON REFORM 131 On November 24th, 1858, the Duke received a letter from Lord John Russell on the subject of Reform : ' I believe we should agree very well on the important subject of Reform ; but while agreeing in Bright' s ends, I cannot approve of his means. I know not, however, that any measure can be devised which shall prevent a further extension of it twenty years hence. I shall be glad to know your views upon this. ' My view is a very simple one. I wish to amend and preserve the Reform Act, not to build up a new system of representation. The Bill of 1854 was consistent with this opinion, but I must own that the necessary omission of the minority clause would change its aspect very considerably. ' I imagine Bright has no expectation of carrying his measure, and that if he introduces it, or tries to intro- duce it, he looks to the future and not to the present. He admits, I understand, that the best he can expect is to have no legislation next year. Thus, the field is open to Derby, who, I hear, is working upon the details himself. When we have seen his scheme, we can nurse it or strangle it, as the majority may think proper. Any previous action would, I fear, be time and trouble thrown away. ' When I say this, however, I by no means intend to say that it will not be useful to exchange views on the subject on terms of perfect reciprocity. I have been in correspondence myself with G. Lewis and C. Wood on this subject. I shall be delighted to hear anything you can suggest. Other issues will rise up before Parliament meets, and I cannot imagine that the present Ministry will be able to dodge through the session.' From Lord John Russell {December 1st, 1868). ' I think with you that it is very desirable to turn our minds to the consideration of some substitute for 9—2 132 THE DERBY ADMINISTRATION [chap, xxxil Derby's measure, in case his Bill should not prove acceptable to the House of Commons or to the country. I am sorry to say, however, that those with whom I have communicated show in general an indisposition to discuss what they call details. Graham, Gladstone, and G. Lewis are all of this mind. C. Wood alone has intimated an opinion similar to yours, and founded on the same reason — viz., the prospect of permanency. I cannot say I have at all made up my mind ; but, agreeing in the object you have in view, I have my doubts whether you will attain it by the proposed method. For (1) the small boroughs themselves hate their neighbours most intensely, and would generally prefer a place in Schedule A, in which case they belong to the county at large. (2) One of my main reasons for preserving small boroughs is that Tamworth, Tiverton, Morpeth, Midhurst, Huntingdon, etc., have sent some of the best members, and I fear that in destrojdng local influence you would lose such men. The canvass of four or five small towns leads to intrigue and com- promise. (3) In Scotland, though clusters of boroughs exist, I do not believe they are popular ; you know this, however, better than I do. (4) Roebuck's objection of the expense of agency goes for something. ' Of course, with opinions so unfinished as mine, I expect to be to a great degree guided by the nature of Derby's measure and the reception it meets with. I will only say, therefore, that your proposal is a better one than mine of 1852, for the reasons you give. . . . Gladstone says Reform cannot be blinked.' The Duke was inclined to take a favourable view of the intentions of the Government, but he began to doubt the ability of the Ministry to produce a satisfac- tory measure, and on 29th December he Avrote to Lord Aberdeen : ' So you think the Government will carry their Reform Bill easily. If it is a reasonable Bill, I hope 1868-59] DISRAELI INTRODUCES THE BILL 133 they will, for I am not anxious to see this question kept open, or, as Derby called it, " dangling " any longer. But I fear the Government is incapable of producing anything but some cross between Toryism and Radi- calism, and that won't succeed. ' Charles Howard the other day met Bright on his return from the Scottish campaign. He was in great good-humour, and pretended to think he had said nothing at all violent — urged the opportunity for the Whigs to come forward and "do it handsome " ; thought Lord John ought to write another letter — on the Durham pattern ! I suppose he meant rather the famous Corn Law letter from Edinburgh, which, I recollect, Peel said '.' did not tend to diminislx the diffi- culties of his position." Lord John, I hope, wiU keep quiet and watch. That is clearly his game, and not bad cards in his hand, either. ' There is a rumour that Derby means to allow the ballot — I mean to make it optional with constitu- encies. . . . Have you heard this ? I have a very strong feeling — I think a strong opinion also — against the ballot. . . . The motives under which men act in secret are, as a general rule, always inferior to those under which they act in public. ' I see no sort of reason to suppose that this rule will be reversed in respect to the more ignorant and less reasoning classes. It seems to me that it might succeed in counteracting some of the most legitimate influences exerted by one class of society over another, but that it will leave the poorer classes open to aU the influences of corruption by which they can be moved.' The Reform Bill was introduced on the last day of February, 1859, by Mr. Disraeli, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It had the effect of reuniting the Liberal party in a common cause, and Lord John Russell, Mr. John Bright, and the Duke, from different points of view, were equally opposed to it. On the 8th of March the Duke wrote to Sir George Grey on the situation : 134 THE DERBY ADMINISTRATION [chap, xxxn ' Your letter, which from some mistake at the P.O. did not reach me till this morning, was a great relief ; for, from what Palmerston had said to me when I saw him on Monday, I was in great fear that he had made up his mind to oppose Lord John and support the Government. Nothing but the folly of the Govern- ment in insisting on the forty-shiUing clause would have saved us from this, because Palmerston made no secret to me that he dreaded any course which might lead to Lord John being called on to form a Government which he could not join, and should be obliged to oppose. So far as this is founded on a personal feeling that he could not serve under Lord John, there is nothing to be said ; but as regards the public question, I urged that there need not be any insuperable diffi- culty, because, in spite of Lord John's alarming words about " the great body of the working classes," I believed him to entertain moderate opinions as to the lowering of the borough franchise, as well as on the dis- franchisement of seats. On the first point I thought an £8 occupancy would probably satisfy him, and on the latter that he would not insist on more than we ourselves had half agreed to propose ; but that if Lord John were opposed by his old friends he might be easily driven into Radical hands, Palmerston, as I have always found him, was straightforward and reasonable enough, but I could see that, behind, there lay a settled resolu- tion that, if possible, he would checkmate any move- ment for the overthrow of the Government on the question of Reform. He spoke, however, in decided opposition to the forty-shilling clause, and this now turns out to be virtually the principle of the Bill. ' I feel convinced that the Bill will be thrown out. The secret or half-avowed desire of many of our friends to help the Government in passing a Bill less Liberal than we ourselves could have ventured to propose, is a feeling which can never be brought into successful action on such great Parliamentary questions in the face of public discussion, especially when the main 1858-59] LOED JOHN RUSSBLL'S AMENDMENT 135 objection is one so formidable and affects so large a part of the constituencies. In one or two it is nearly one-half ; in a great many more one-third ; and in a still larger number one-fifth. ' I hear the paragraph in the Times about Lord John's resolution, or, at least, his meeting, is not true. Yet it sets forth a course of action which I think good and safe.' On the second reading of the Bill (March 21st), Lord John Russell brought forward an amendment, to the effect that freehold franchise in counties should not be interfered with, and that the £10 household suffrage in boroughs should be lowered. The Duke wrote to Mr. Gladstone (March 22nd) : ' This Grovernment can't possibly survive long — at least, such is my firm belief — and however glad I should be, as would many others, to see Reform settled at once, I can see no reason in pretending that Lord John's resolution is more directly aimed against the Government than any amendment would be, which the Government cannot admit. Lord John's opponents argue as if the Bill could be " hcked " into any shape in Committee. But concession on the part of the Government must find some limit. They have pretty clearly indicated a line beyond which they dare not and cannot go ; and if the amendments which people assume might be carried in Committee are really admissible, then the Government might as well accept the resolution at once. So that, in truth, the result comes to be the same, and the Bill must fall — a great opportunity lost irrecoverably as regards this Govern- ment, and perhaps as regards every other.' After a debate extending over several nights, Lord John Russell's amendment was carried against the Government by a majority of thirty-nine (April 1st), 136 THE DERBY ADMINISTRATION [chap, xsxii and on April 5th it was announced that the Ministry would dissolve Parliament and appeal to the country. At the General Election which followed, the Conserva- tives gained some seats, but when the new Parliament met, the Derby Administration was again in a minority. In the meantime the Liberal leaders had sunk their differences, and were acting together loyally. The first effect of this reunion was the defeat of the Govern- ment. Lord, Hartington, on the meeting of Parlia- ment, proposed an amendment to the Address, which was virtually equivalent to a vote of want of confidence, and it was carried by a majority of thirteen. Lord Derby resigned oflfice, and the question of the choice of a Liberal leader was in the hands of Her Majesty for solution. The compromise concluded among the members of the Liberal party had been to the effect that either Lord Palmerston or Lord John Russell would be willing to serve under whichever of them should be sent for by the Queen. Her Majesty endeavoured to evade the difficulty by sending for Lord Granville, and he, as in duty bound, tried to form a Government, and failed. The Queen then sent for Lord Palmerston, and Lord John Russell loyally accepted the decision, and took office as Foreign Secretary. CHAPTER XXXIII 1859-60 LORD PALMERSTOn's SECOND MINISTRY The new Ministry formed by Lord Palmerston in June, 1859, was a very strong one, representing as it did all sections of the Liberal party. The Duke had accepted the office of Privy Seal ; Sir Charles Wood was Secretary for India ; Mr. Gladstone Chancellor of the Exchequer ; Mr. Cardwell Irish Secretary ; and Lord Granville President of the Council, The affairs of Italy had engrossed public attention since the beginning of the year 1859. Considerable excitement was aroused in Europe when it was known that, at a reception of Foreign Ambassadors on January 1st, the French Emperor had remarked to Baron von Hiibner, the Austrian Ambassador : ' I regret that our relations with your Government are not so good as they have been hitherto.' The feeling of apprehension was further increased by the unconciliatory nature of the speech made by Victor Emmanuel at the opening of the Sardinian Chambers on the 10th of January. On January 12th, 1859, the Duke wrote to Lord Aberdeen : ' I need hardly ask you what you think of the Sardinian speech ! I imagine it to be unprecedented for one 137 138 LORD PALMERSTOn's second ministry [chap, xxxm Sovereign to speak of the subjects of another Sovereign, at peace with himself, as having cause to utter a " cry of anguish." This is, of course, a direct incentive to rebellion, and would justify a demand for explanation from all the other Itahan Sovereigns. ' I feel all this to be true, and yet the peculiarity of the case accounts for (for it cannot justify) so strange a departure from the ordinary obligations of inter- national conduct. The total and absolute want of any sort of amalgamation between the German rulers and the Italian people, notwithstanding so many centuries of possession, constitutes a state of things which is a perpetual source of disquietude and alarm.' It soon became apparent that the intention of the French Emperor was to join the King of Sardinia in an attempt to free the Italian provinces of Lombardy and Venetia from Austrian rule. Events were pre- cipitated by the conduct of Austria in demanding the disarmament of Sardinia, which resulted in a declara- tion of war on April 23rd, 1859. Hostilities commenced two days later, and were terminated, after a duration of three months, by the Peace of Villafranca, on July 11th. After the publication of the Italian Blue-book, at the conclusion of the war, the Duke, under the name ' Investigator,' wrote two letters to the Times dealing with the subject, in which he criticised the conduct of affairs by Lord Derby's Government, which had been in office at the time of the outbreak of" the war : . „ ' July %5th, 1859. ' The Italian Blue-book has not been discussed in Parliament. Before it was published, the Minister who conducted the diplomatic correspondence on behalf of England had been removed from office. Thus, hostile criticism was disarmed before it could be 1869-60] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 139 brought to bear. It is the common talk of the par- tisans of the late Government that if this Blue-book had been published sooner, the verdict of Parliament on the question of confidence would not have been the verdict actually pronounced. Many who are not par- tisans of the late Government have received a general impression that Lord Malmesbury* has come well out of the correspondence, and that no very definite justi- fication is afforded for the mistrust with which he was regarded by the public. ' I am one of those who have derived from the corre- spondence a very different impression. ' Those whose sympathies lie mainly on the side of Austria are accustomed to attribute the war entirely to the conduct of the Sardinian Government. I speak here of the conduct of that Government as distinguished from its nature and constitution. It must be ad- mitted by all parties that the mere existence of such a Government in Italy, with a free Press and a free con- stitution, was one of the main causes of the war. Without any direct action on the part of that Govern- ment beyond its own territory, it was necessarily a standing cause of excitement and agitation among the adjacent Italian populations which are subject to Austrian rule. But no one blames Sardinia for having been in this sense a cause, and a main cause, of the agitations which led to war. What she has been blamed for (I do not now say whether justly or unjustly) were her direct efforts to produce revolt in the Austrian and other States. ' The speech of the King at the opening of his Parlia- ment on the 3rd of January was the first public act of this nature which arrested the attention of Europe. But the expressions in that speech were vague. The " groans of Italy " might refer, not to the internal administration of any State, but to the system of * Minister for Foreign AiFairs in Lord Derby's Government. 140 LORD PALMERSTON's second ministry [chap, xxxiii foreign intervention which has been so long an ad- mitted grievance, and which the King of Sardinia had a clear right to denounce. But no such limited inter- pretation could be put on another act of the Sardinian Government which soon after followed — I mean the framing of the memorandum of the 1st of March. That document openly assailed the existence of Austrian dominion in any part of Italy. It declared that no measures for the relief of Italy could be more than mere palliatives which left any part of the Penin- sula under Austrian rule. It is impossible to exag- gerate the gravity of such announcements by any Power, in respect to the legal dominion of another over its own hereditary possessions. In the circular ad- dressed by the Austrian Government to its agents at other Courts, justifjdng itself for going to war with Sardinia, special reference is made to the issue of this memorandum by the Sardinian Minister, as of itself justifying an appeal to arms (Blue-book, p. 389). Similar language has been held in our own Parliament, and that, too, by men who in the next breath eulogized Lord Malmesbury for his exertions in the cause of peace. Yet one of those exertions was to elicit by direct request from the Sardinian Government this famous memo- randum, and to give it, also by direct request, the special direction so obnoxious to Austria. ' I have seen with astonishment that this fact has never been alluded to in Parliament, and has hardly been noticed in the Press. ' It was in compliance with the demand made upon her by the English Government that Sardinia drew up the famous memorandum of March, which Austria sub- sequently declared to be of itself a sufficient justifica- tion of war. Lord Malmesbury was not responsible for what that document contained, further than that common-sense might have led him to anticipate what its general character would be. But he is responsible 1859-60] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 141 for such a document having been issued at all, and it is this which constituted the complaint against Sardinia. If she were to give her opinion at all on Austrian dominion in Italy, that opinion could not be different from that which was set forth in the memorandum with distinguished ability and force. But the issue of such a document at all, in reference to the legal dominion of another Power, was undoubtedly an act not justifiable by the ordinary rules which govern international rela- tions. For this, I repeat, Lord Malmesbury is directly responsible, and it is difficult to understand how he could afterwards scold Sardinia for not having confined herself to her own affairs, and for having by inter- ference with her neighbour " invoked the storm." ' This is one instance in which the best intentions have not saved Lord Malmesbury from a serious blunder, or England, under his guidance, from a serious responsibility.' To the ' Times ' {July 26th, 1859). ' I am not one of those who think that the mere fact of Austria having been the first to begin hostilities is sufficient of itself to throw on her the whole responsi- bility of the war. There is much to be said in favour of the position that Austria was justified in considering war to be inevitable, and in holding that she herself was not bound to wait until the preparations of her enemy were complete. But whoever else may hold this language. Lord Malmesbury cannot. In one of the most careful of the documents he has laid before Parliament, Lord Malmesbury has recorded it as the solemn judgment of his Government that this act rendered Austria responsible, not for the whole con- sequences of a conflict which, so far from being in- evitable, was then actually on the eve of being averted. . . . No man ought to have known better than Lord Malmesbury that no possible change or modification of form could prevent the proposed measure of Austria 142 LORD PALMERSTON's second ministry [chap, xxxm from being an irrecoverable declaration of war. He knew that Sardinia had been, and still was, unwiUing to allow her own disarmament, even as a part of a general arrangement. He ought to have known that any attempt on the part of Austria " to take this question into her own hands " was the very thing that the war-party in Sardinia most desired to see. No hocus-pocus of any sort or kind, such as calling it " asking " rather than " summoning," could conceal the import of such an act from the sharp eyes of Count Cavour.' Among the first questions to be considered by Lord Palmerston's Ministry were those which arose out of the Italian war and the unexpected Peace of Villafranca, which had been concluded between the Emperors of France and Austria on July 11th, 1859, The Duke, who as Lord Privy Seal was free from such duties of administration as might have kept him in London, had spent the autumn at Inveraray, and was therefore not present at a series of Cabinet meetings at which the Italian question generally and the Emperor's suggestion of a congress were discussed ; but he was kept well informed of the course of events by Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville. Mr, Gladstone wrote to the Duke on August 31st, 1859 : ' The Cabinet parted for the vacation, after you had left for Scotland, on the 17th, We had then no idea of any early proceeding of importance with respect to the Italian question. But on the 21st it seems that Lord John presented to the Queen a draft despatch with something like a new map of Italy. The Queen objected, and the Minister withdrew the draft at once — no very signal proof of the deliberation with which it had been prepared. He then substituted a proposal[to'communicate to the French Government an important despatch of July 25th, written in answer 1859-60] PROPOSED CONGRESS 143 to the French invitation that we received to state our views respecting a congress or conference. This despatch, it seems, went off with a closing sentence desiring Cowley not to make it known to the French Government until after the proceedings at Zurich should have been completed. This prohibition Lord John had specially mentioned to the Queen as sug- gested by the Cabinet and approved by him. The truth, most of us thought, was this : that the Cabinet had simply thought there should be a passage inserted in the despatch reserving our liberty to decide about a congress after the Zurich proceedings should have come to an end. But Lord J. had understood them to desire a prohibition, and had so put it, and so stated it to the Queen. This being so, she, on receiving his second pro- posal (at least the second ; we could not make out quite clearly whether there was not some other or others between), not unnaturally said : " This prohibition was deliberately adopted by you all and approved by me ; I cannot reverse my approval unless the Cabinet is consulted and reverses too." ' It was agreed to summon a Cabinet to consider this affair. There was a general opinion when we met that the despatch might very properly be communicated, for the prohibition was never intended to enforce secrecy, but merely to reserve our freedom about a conference entire ; and, besides, we then thought affairs at Zurich would be over in a few days, whereas they were now threatening to extend almost to months. But mean- time Lord John had brought down, in lieu of the pro- posal he had made to the Queen, a new draft with a good deal of fresh matter. . . . ' We aU agreed against the new draft. Lord John was then very desirous to know what he was to say to France after Zurich, if she proposed a conference, as he wished to go for five weeks at least to Abergeldie, distant 550 miles ; whereto we answered that in such case there should be a Cabinet. . . . 144 LORD PALMERSTON'S second ministry [chap. XXXIII ' The conduct pursued has been hasty, inconsiderate, and eminently juvenile ; one is led to fear that it may have left behind disagreeable recollections. Sir G. Grey, we trust, will prove highly emoUient.' The Duke replied to this letter on September 3rd, 1859: ' I have only time to-night, having just got your letter, to say that it, with another from GranviUe giving very much the same account, has filled me with great anxiety, only in some degree relieved by finding that you take the view you do, which I cannot doubt, from the facts you and G. concur in relating, is the correct one. ' I have been amazed lately to observe that (either) the decision of the Cabinet in respect to drafts is not given effect to, or it is misunderstood, and that what is said seems to leave the vaguest possible impression on Lord John's mind. Then, we are kept in entire ignor- ance of what is going on until the last moment. Why should not the state of the negotiations be laid before us, by printing the despatches up to the latest possible dates ? ' As far as I can make out from the newspapers, all goes well in Italy — better, probably, than it would do if we interfered too actively. It seems to me that the course of events is leading naturally to the results which are most to be desired. I object altogether to our constructing new maps of Italy. Our doing so will encourage others to do the same — others whose maps will be constructed on a different principle. ' I look much to you to keep the peace, because your position in reference to Italy will render it very difficult for Lord John to persist in any line you may dis- approve. But I do greatly fear that with so much new impulsiveness and so little desire to take his colleagues along with him, there will be some unhealable breach soon. 1859-60] ITALIAN AFFAIRS 145 ' I agree with you in my recollection that the Cabinet did not impose secrecy as a condition in reference to the despatch of July 25, which, as far as I recollect, was one sufficiently " non-committal," as the Yankees call it, to have been communicated at once. It was merely reserving to ourselves our decision as to a congress, but rather implying that in certain events we had no insuperable objections.' To Mr. Gladstone {September 9th, 1859). ' Your letter the other day was very interesting as regards what had been going on, but you said little as to your own view or opinion of what is going on in Italy. I see no European objection whatever to a kingdom embracing Sardinia and all Central Italy, Do you ? I conclude that nothing short of force will now suffice to make either the Tuscans or the Lega- tions give up their desire, and I would fain hope that our most timely protest, determined on at the last Cabinet I attended, will have served to decide the course of France against the employment of force, or wiU, at least, have so increased the difficulties of her allowing it as to render it practically impossible.' From Mr. Gladstone {September 12th, 1859). ' As to Italy and the F.O., the sentiments both of your former letter and of this one are mine — not that you have stolen, but that I adopt and countersign. About F.O. I am fearful, from former recollections, that what has happened will happen again. About the Duchies and even the Legations my hopes now, as weU as all through (unless at Villafranca) have been, to use Longfellow's words, overmastering my fears.' England declared for a policy of non-intervention, and the Duchies, notwithstanding the Peace of Villa- franca, refused to take back their rulers, and unani- mously voted for annexation to the new kingdom VOL. II. 10 146 LORD PALMERSTON's second ministry [chap. XXXIII which was forming itself in Northern Italy under the King of Sardinia. The British Cabinet was divided in its sympathies, and on the question of intervention there was a differ- ence of opinion. Lord Palmerston and Lord John RusseU were credited with having formed public opinion in this country in favour of Italy, notwith- standing the opposition which they had to meet in their own Cabinet. The Duke advocated the doctrine of non-intervention, and, as the event showed, that was the wisest course. Towards the end of 1859, speaking at a banquet given in Edinburgh on October 26th, in honour of Lord Brougham, the Duke said : ' I will only say that I trust we shall be able to maintain the interests and the honour of the country : that, on the one hand, we may be preserved from the great error of undue interference, when neither these interests nor that honour is concerned ; and that, on the other hand, we shall be preserved from that other error — the policy of selfish isolation, which would deprive us of our just influence in the counsels of the world ; and, lastly, that when that influence is called for, and when it can be exercised with propriety, it will be given in favour of those principles of justice, of humanity, and of freedom, which are the mainsprings of all our blessings.' An important consequence of the Italian War was the annexation by France of Nice and Savoy, which were claimed by the Emperor, practically as a reward for his active assistance to the Italian cause. These provinces, the transfer of which had been agreed upon at the Secret Treaty of Plombieres, in 1859, were finally ceded to France by the Treaty of Turin, March 24th, 1860. Lord John Russell protested, but without avail, against this transaction, which had a profound 1859-60] DISPUTE WITH CHINA 147 effect upon public opinion. A warlike feeling was aroused in Great Britain, where the possibility of invasion called forth a Fortification Scheme and revived the Volunteer System. While Lord Derby's Administration was still in office, a difficulty with China had arisen, out of the somewhat too rigid instructions given to our Envoy, Mr. Trederick Bruce, by the Foreign Secretary, Lord Malmesbury. Mr. Bruce had been sent to Pekin at the same time as the French Envoy, to ratify the conditions of the treaty negotiated the previous year by Lord Elgin, at the conclusion of the preceding war with China. It had been arranged that the Envoys should ascend the Peiho River, as far as Tientsin, in a British man-of-war. This was designed to impress the Chinese with the power of the European allies ; but the Chinese, unfortunately, were not impressed in the way desired, and beUeved that they had a right to indicate the route by which the Envoys should approach the capital city. Admiral Hope, who had been instructed to support the Envoys, demanded that obstructions, which had been placed in the Peiho River by the Chinese, should be removed. This demand was refused ; an attempt to force a passage was repulsed disastrously, and Britain had another little war upon her hands. Opinions at home differed regarding the situation. The Cabinet could not approve of the instructions issued by the late Government, and disliked even more the way in which those instructions had been carried out ; but it was impossible to repudiate the Envoy, and it was necessary to vindicate the honour of Western civilization. The Duke sought information on the subject from Lord Elgin, who replied on September 29th, 1859 : 10—2 148 LORD PALMERSTOir's SECOND MINISTRY [chap, xxxiii ' That we should have suffered ourselves to be beaten by Chinamen is indeed one of the saddest of occurrences, but I do not think we are yet in a position to answer aU the questions you put as to what may have been the intentions of the Chinese Government in respect to the ratification of the treaty. After what happened last year, I suppose that they were anxious to show that they could cut off access to their capital by way of the Peiho River. The Admiral told my brother that he could with perfect ease remove the obstruc- tions. It is a bad business.' The Duke thought that Mr. Bruce had ' acted foolishly, and the Admiral with stupid bravery.' He wrote to Lord GranviUe : ' Inveraray, , ,^ ^ ' September, 1859. My dear Granville, ' We were very sorry to hear of Lady Granville's illness and of your sudden call on that account to Carlsbad. Pray write me a line to say how she is ; address here. ' I have been kept from attending any of the late Cabinets, but I have heard of them in tolerable detail from Gladstone. Not trusting very much to German posts, I hold my peace. Johnny has made a very prudent speech — what the Yankees call a non-com- mittal speech — at Aberdeen. In respect to the Chinese, I am aU against submitting to any nonsense such as they seem to have practised on the Yankee Minister, who was sent up to Pekin caged in a van, like one of Womb- well's wild beasts. Better to have none at all than submit to this. It is supreme nonsense to talk as if we were bound to the Chinese by the same rules which regulate international relations in Europe. ' Gladstone has lately been writing a review of Tennyson's new poem.* But he finds time for doing everything. I have been writing — you would never ?'' ' Tennyson's Poems ' {Quarterly Review, No. 212, October, 1859). 1859-60] DISPUTE WITH CHINA 149 guess on what subject — " Navigation of the Air " ! But I am attending also a little to sublunary affairs. ' Tell me who are at Carlsbad. Are you in the King of England ? I think I shall be back there some of these days. ' My Duchess goes on perfectly well. I trust we shall have a good account of your wife, and with kindest regards to her, « i ^m, yours ever, ' Argyll.' Mr. Gladstone wrote to the Duke on September 18th, 1859, giving some account of a meeting of the Cabinet : ' In the Cabinet yesterday we had a satisfactory dis- cussion. There was not the slightest indication any- where to treat the present question, which is entirely new, according to the traditions of the last — I say " traditions," because opinions are not legitimately transferable from one to the other. There was a unanimous disposition to send a powerful force, and, on the other hand, a great deal of doubt about Bruce' s proceedings. I wish I could feel sure that he was up to his very difl&cult work. It was determined to get an opinion as to the principles of law on which he acted, and it remains in reserve to what extent and in what form satisfaction, as well as obtaining ratifications, are to be made the objects of the force. ' Lord Palmerston, with his taste for discussing military measures, opened a little the question what they might be, but himself proposed the adjournment of decisions (beyond directions for sending force and what I have stated), and behaved with much tact and fairness.' To Mr, Gladstone the Duke replied on Septem- ber 23rd, 1859 : ' I see a Cabinet is called for to-morrow. China, I suppose. We must, I suppose, fight those rascals. But at the same time I don't think our proceedings 150 LORD PALMBKSTON'S second ministry [chap, xxxiii will stand the test of international law, as applicable between civilized States. But it would be madness to be bound on our side by that code with a barbarous people, to whom it is unknown, and, if known, would not be followed.' The war did not last long enough seriously to dis- organize the national finance. Lord Elgin was sent out, accompanied by Baron Gros, the French Pleni- potentiary, to secure the ratification of the treaty he had negotiated, and the allied forces took possession of Pekin. A new treaty was concluded, by which Tientsin became a ' Treaty port,' and the right of having repre- sentatives at Pekin was conceded to France and Great Britain. Mr. Gladstone conveyed the news of the ratification of the treaty to the Duke on December 15th, 1860 : ' It is with joy that I snatch a moment to tell you Lord John has just brought in to us, after the Cabinet had ceased to sit, a telegram come this day from St. Petersburg. It gives news from Pekin to November 9th (our mail was only to October 14th). Peace had been concluded, and the ratifications exchanged on Octo- ber 26th. The allied army left Pekin November 9th. This really seems to be sure ; let us thank God for His goodness. We had just before determined to take another million in consequence of the winter occupa- tion ! This is gone ; and never did I get a million with greater pleasure than I surrender the chance of this one.' To this letter the Duke replied : ' Your note was the first announcement we had of the Chinese Peace, and I cordially rejoiced with you on the news. But the accounts of those horrible murders and barbarities have made my blood rather boil against the Chinese authorities, and I wish to hear that some 1859-60] BEFORM 151 of the villains who perpetrated these crimes have been made due examples of. ' What a curious account of the kindness of the Chinese criminal prisoners ! I suppose there is a great difference of character between the native Chinese and the ruling Tartar race.' Towards the close of the year 1859 the Cabinet was engaged in the consideration of another Reform BiU. Lord John Russell, who had particularly associated himself with the interests of Reform, reinforced the arguments of the Duke of Argyll and others, who had long urged the importance of such a measure, and a Cabinet Committee was formed to inquire into the effects of a reduction of the borough franchise. As a member of this Committee, the Duke was in frequent correspondence with his colleagues. To Sir George Grey he wrote on November 10th, 1859 : ' I think it clear that no step taken now can be a resting-place, even for a few years, which leaves wholly untouched the existing distribution of seats. Those who propose a Bill of this kind do so avowedly on the ground that by means of a lower franchise they wUl succeed better in securing a sweeping disfranchisement of existing constituencies. I don't feel quite sure that they would succeed in this so easily as they expect, because the small constituencies would be somewhat strengthened. StiU, I think it would be a great evil to bring in a BiU which is avowedly one dealing with half the question only. ***** ' If we could, I should be disposed to go much further in the redistribution of seats. I am convinced that such a redistribution might be made on a much larger scale with immense advantage to the character of the repre- sentative body. . . . But I fear that Parliament is not prepared for any extensive schemes of this kind.' 152 LOED PALMERSTON'S second ministry [chap, xxxin On November 16th, 1859, the Duke wrote to Lord Granville, who was then at Carlsbad : ' We had a first meeting of our Committee on Reform yesterday. Lewis* has taken the sensible plan of having a Bill put in print — at least, an outline Bill, which makes discussion more definite ; and I think we shall probably do pretty well, although there are some strange symptoms of uncertainty, not to say infirmity, of purpose in the Richmond direction. The character of the present Parliament makes any good plan doubly difficult.' The Duke appreciated the difficulties in the way, not only of framing a good measure, but of passing any measure ; and, as the event proved, his fears were justified. He was active in promoting the Reform pro- posals in the Cabinet, and his correspondence at the time showed how thoroughly he worked out the subject. The Bill when brought before the House proved to be a moderate and simple scheme of Reform, pro- posing to lower the county franchise to £10, the borough franchise to £6, and to make a redistribution of seats. The introduction of the Bill on March 1st by Lord John Russell excited little interest. The second reading was moved on March 19th, when Disraeli condemned the measure, which continued to be debated languidly for a month or two. Finally, on June 11th, Lord John Russell announced that the Bill was to be withdrawn, but stated at the same time his intention of dealing with the franchise at the earliest possible period. Mr. Gladstone's Budget of 1860 was a very important one, comprising as it did the repeal of the paper duties and the removal of taxes on several articles of * Sir G. Cornewall Lewis was Home Secretary. 1859-60] MR. COBDEN AND FRANCE 153 food. The financial arrangements for the year in- cluded a proposal for a commercial treaty with Prance, which had been the subject of negotiation for some months previously. The Duke was strongly in favour of this project, as he considered that a commercial arrangement would add to the mutual interests of the nations and diminish the chances of war. ' I should be inclined,' he wrote to Mr. Gladstone (September 9th, 1859), ' to hope a good deal from any measure which largely increased the commercial dealings between France and England ' ; to which Mr. Gladstone replied (September 12th) that the letter had come in good time, for he had just had a visit from Mr. Cobden on the same subject, and added : ' We have had a long walk and harmonious talk, and he stays for the evening. Well, I confess I greatly cling to the idea that something may and should be done next year when the annuities fall in.' Mr. Cobden' s visit to Hawarden resulted in his pro- ceeding, with the approval of Lord Palmerston, to France, where he had a meeting with the eminent French economists and Free Traders, Michel Chevalier, M. Fould, and M. Rouher. He was also commanded to St. Cloud, and in an interview with the Emperor was successful in convincing him, that such a treaty would be beneficial to France and an ornament to his reign. On December 24th, 1859, Mr. Gladstone wrote to the Duke : ' Cobden has really made way in France. This, you know, is a secret in the closest sense. If he succeeds, what a service he wiU have performed ! Would you object to his being made a Duke for it ? You see the itch for nonsense is incurable.' 154 LOED PALMEKSTON'S second ministry [chap. XXXIII The mere rumour of the proposed international ar- rangement surprised people of the most various poHtical opinions, chiefly on the ground of its inconsistency with our general policy towards France. The Duke wrote to Mr. Gladstone on February 3rd, 1860 : ' There is a story going about town which has been repeated to me — " that Gladstone now expresses un- bounded confidence in the Emperor, even to acting stoker in his train " — a weak invention of the enemy, but showing the direction of attack, and indicating the danger, in the present state of the pubHc mind, of defending the treaty in any degree on a defence of the Emperor. ' I hold the two questions to be wholly irrespective of each other. The treaty is good in itself, whether the intentions of the Emperor be bad or good. It tends, in course of time, to found the relations of the two countries on the felt interests of their respective populations ; and the more precarious are the present relations between the Governments, the more anxious we should be to found those relations on a more sohd and durable basis. ' Therefore I hold Graham's antithesis to be non- sense. He says : " The treaty implies confidence ; your estimates and preparations imply suspicion." ' The treaty, in my view, is perfectly consistent with any amount of distrust in the present condition of things. It does not necessarily imply confidence in the Emperor, and I think we shall run considerable risk if we do not steer entirely clear of this hne of argument. ' I don't mean to deny that the fact of the Emperor signing such a treaty, and exposing himself to consideB- able risk in France, does give me some confidence that he means peace ; but I would not rest a feather's weight of argument upon this as a defence of the treaty. ' Have you read a remarkable article on the treaty in the Revue Contemporaine ? Violently hostile, it makes some very important statements as to the pro- 1859-60] MR, Gladstone's bctdget 155 tectionism of the Corps Legislatif, and, consequently, of the danger the Emperor would have run if he had not avoided their hostility by adopting the treaty form.' On February 10th, 1860, Mr. Gladstone introduced his Budget, in a speech of great eloquence. The Duke had had frequent interviews with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject, and his opinion, expressed long before the Budget was presented, was that it would add greatly to the reputation of its author. A day or two after the great Budget speech had been delivered. Lord Carlisle wrote to the Duke : ' How right you were about the Budget ! I felt sure that you were. I think the whole thing a great glory, and now, perhaps, I have a foolish want of any mis- giving. How I envy those who heard G. ! I was not so wrong when I told you he must be the next Premier, perhaps after Johnny.' The Duke's opinion of the Budget is conveyed in a letter to Mr. Gladstone : ' You managed your task with infinite skill last night, as all testified who heard you. I hope you are none the worse. Already I hear of members saying they would prefer to keep the paper duty and get off the penny income-tax.* But, as a whole, I think the Budget will be carried. At the same time, the paper duty did not tell in the House much. I don't thiiJj; that in the House it is the most popular remission, despite the vote.' No one could have been more hearty in his congratu- lations than the Duke was, and no one was more zealous in support of the whole project. The Budget and the treaty were subjected to severe criticism in both * In the Budget it was proposed to add Id. to the income-tax. 156 LORD PALMERSTON'S second ministry [chap. XXXIII Houses, and in the House of Lords the burden of their defence fell mainly on the Duke, who spared no effort to make himself master of aU the details. In the debates that followed the Duke stood by Mr. Gladstone throughout the thick of the fight. Speaking on the Budget, he said : ' I am not willing to speak with bated breath either here or elsewhere of the financial policy of the Govern- ment, which I beHeve to be sound in principle. It proceeds, not on matter of experiment, but on the result of actual experience. Measures precisely similar to those which we are now recommending have contri- buted, in past years, to the comfort and contentment of the people, to the simphcity and productiveness of the financial system, to the creation of new rewards in every branch of industry, and, by adding to the wealth of England, they have likewise increased her military power. We are therefore prepared to recommend these measures to the adoption of the House, though we do not at present ask for the expression of an opinion upon them.' Replying to Lord Cranworth's attack on the com- mercial treaty with France, the Duke said : ' There are many prejudices against the Budget which are connected solely with misapprehensions in respect to that treaty. There is, especially, one great mis- understanding as to what has been called the political aspect of the French treaty. In the earlier debates of this session we were accused of sometimes denying and at other times admitting that the treaty had a political bearing. The simple truth is that, though it had some political bearing, yet that was not of the kind or nature which some noble Lords supposed. I say distinctly and emphatically that in drawing up that treaty there was no intention to express any opinion, nor even any feeling, in regard to the foreign policy 1859-60] DIKECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION 157 either of the existing Government of England or of the existing Government of France. It is true, indeed, that the private opinion of the remarkable man who now presides over the French Empire is in favour of Free Trade, but beyond that, I say the opinions of the French Government have nothing to do with the objects of the treaty. The object of the treaty, in so far as it was poUtical at all, was simply to increase the commer- cial relations between the people of England and the people of France, without the slightest reference to the political relations between their respective Govern- ments, or to the foreign policy of either the one country or of the other. ' Whatever may be the result of our policy as regards the two Governments, we earnestly trust it will be the foundation of more amicable relations and feelings between the two populations. . . . ' It was one of the objects of my right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to gain a revenue, not merely by the imposition of new taxes, but also by effecting a saving in the establishments of the country. Now, I have been informed by the officers who preside over the Customs Department that, of the duties which necessitate the employment of a skilled and expensive class of officers, the silk duty stands far above all others. And this for obvious reasons — because a large class of skilled officers have to be em- ployed in protecting the silk revenue by watching other fabrics into which silk enters, but of which it does not constitute the sole material. It is desirable to get rid of that class of officers, but their services cannot be dispensed with unless the silk duties are repealed. I mention that as only one instance of the manner in which these taxes have been selected. . . . ' I come to a point of great importance with reference to the question of direct versus indirect taxation. It is a very common error to suppose that because there 158 LORD PALMEBSTON'S second ministry [chap. XXXIII are many items in our Customs tariff, they have the effect of dispersing the revenue over a great number of articles, and of thus broadening the basis on which our indirect taxation rests. I hold in my hand the amended tariff of Mr. Gladstone's Budget. It has greatly alarmed some noble Lords. There are only forty-eight articles altogether retained in it. That fact, I believe, makes the hair of many of my noble friends stand on end. " What a revolutionary measure !" they say. " How it endangers the whole system of our indirect taxation ! But have those noble Lords considered from how many of the existing articles the great bulk of our revenue is raised ? I have inquired into this matter, and the result, I confess, surprised me. I took the whole Customs revenue for the year before last, 1858. There were then about 420 articles on the tariff, yielding a revenue of £23,299,570, and I found that the whole of that vast sum, with the exception of only £850,000, was raised from eleven articles alone ! Is it, then, very revolutionary to sweep from a long list of articles some 370 which produce on an average very little more than £2,000 apiece, and yet add in no in- considerable proportion to the total cost of collection ? Now, how has Mr. Gladstone treated the eleven articles which, as I have shown, contribute all but a fractional part of your entire Customs revenue ? He has abolished only two of them, and these among the smallest — butter and silk ; while at the same time he has made one not unimportant addition to the number. Among the various reductions made in recent years, that which appears most to have failed in respect to the replacement of revenue was the reduction of the duty on coffee. Several reasons have been assigned for this, but the principal one is that coffee has become adulterated to a very large extent with chicory. Now, so careful has Mr. Gladstone been, not only to strike off unproductive duties, but to select for retention those which really pay, and to build up others which appeared to decay from causes capable of being removed, that 18S9-60] THE PAPER DUTIES 159 he has endeavoured to aid the revenue from coffee by imposing a new duty on chicory, calculated to yield from £90,000 to £100,000 a year — an amount, as the House will see, that will fully compensate for the dis- appearance from the tariff of many dozens of trumpery articles hitherto included in it. I mention this case, my Lords, as an instance of the care and the knowledge displayed by Mr. Gladstone in his revision of the tariff — a care and knowledge which stands in marked con- trast with the vague fears and loose assertions with which my right honourable friend has been assailed.' The central attack of the Opposition on the Budget was directed against the proposed repeal of the paper duties. This proposal, in accordance with the procedure of the time, was made the subject of a separate Bill, which passed the House of Commons, but with dwindling majorities. When the measure was sent to the Upper House, Lord Monteagle immediately gave notice that he would move its rejection ; and on the motion of the second reading by Lord Granville on the 21st May, the BiU was rejected, after a long debate, by a majority of eighty-nine. The Duke made an able speech in its defence, from which an extract is given : ' I am not going to deny the legal power or right of this House to refuse any BiU which may be sent up for your assent. Unlike, perhaps, most members of this House, I have never had the honour of belonging to any other assembly, and my own feelings are as warmly interested in maintaining the powers and privileges of this House as those of any other member can be. I fully admit you have the legal power and the legal right to refuse your assent to any Bill that seeks it. But surely legal power and legal right are wholly different from constitutional practice. It is vain to deny that many, perhaps most, of those who will support the amendment to-night are aiming at 160 LORD PALMERSTOn's second ministry [chap, xxxiii the condemnation of a policy of which this is but a single and almost the last remaining step. The repeal of the paper duty stands on precisely the same grounds as the repeal of the soap tax, the repeal of the glass duty, and of the duty on bricks. I contend, therefore, that you are aiming at the condemnation of a policy which has been eminently successful, and which on repeated occasions has received your own assent. But there are objections applicable to the paper duties which did not apply to the other taxes to which I have alluded. Unlike almost any other tax, the paper duty has been twice condemned by the House of Commons. It has been condemned by an abstract resolution, and afterwards by a BiU passing thruogh aU its stages. Surely this is a very strong reason why, in the exercise of a wise discretion (to put it on the lowest ground), your Lordships should not exercise your strictly legal right. But there are grounds somewhat higher. I fully admit that there is no technical distinction be- tween rejecting a Bill imposing a tax and a BiU repeal- ing a tax. But every noble Lord must feel that it does make a very serious substantial difference in respect to an unusual exercise of power whether it be exercised in relief or in the imposition of a burden on the people. The very gist of my objection to such a course is that the danger of it does not lie on technical grounds ; it Hes on substantial grounds. In opposing the repeal of this duty you are going to the very heart and root of the constitutional powers of the other House of Parliament. You are not invading their technical privileges ; you are not transgressing your own technical privileges ; but in truth and in substance you are striking at the very root of the constitutional usage which has hitherto regulated the relations between the two Houses. It is not that this is a money Bill merely. We have rejected many BUls which involved taxation. But there is a plain dis- tinction between a mere money Bill and a Bill of supply. There are money Bills of every kind and degree, from 1859-60] SPEECH ON THE BUDGET 161 those partaking of the nature of a "tack" — against which this House has always protested as an invasion of your own privileges — to others which, though involving taxation, involve also questions of general poHcy. I believe if you examine the precedents brought forward to-night by the noble and learned Lord, it win be found that, although they were aU money Bills, not one of them was, in the proper sense of the word, a Bill of supply, I happened last week to see the same Hst. I went with some care over each of them, and I believe I am correct in sajring that not one of them was in the nature of a supply Bill. ' The noble Lord made rather light of another circum- stance, which, though I ftilly admit it has no technical force in this House, constitutes surely a very strong moral obhgation. It is true that, as far as the Govern- ment is concerned, they did not set the penny additional iacome-tax as against the repeal of the paper duties ; but it does so happen that ia the House of Ciommons a distinct motion was made on this subject by a distin- guished member of the Opposition, and an important division was taken on that occasion. It was then decided that the additional penny of income-tax should be imposed rather than that the repeal of the paper duties should be abandoned. But if the House of Commons had foreseen the decision your Lordships are now called upon to pronounce, they might have taken another course from that which they did take, not doubt- ing that the usual practice of Parhament would be observed, I do not say that is a technical objection to your proceeding, yet surely it is but fair, when the House of Commons came to a distinct and decided vote against one tax as compared with another, we should consider it as an additional obhgation to decide the question before us with very strict reference to the constitutional practice of the two Houses, ***** 'The noble and learned Lord who spoke at the commencement of the evening indicated that the VOL. n. 11 162 LORD PALMEKSTON'S second ministry [chap. XXXIII popularity of the financial proposals of the Government was now somewhat on the wane. In answer to that statement I am perfectly prepared to admit that there has, naturally enough, for some weeks past, been a cessation of those songs of triumph which were chanted throughout aU the commercial cities of the country when the scheme of the Government was first propounded, and which resulted from the almost universal apprecia- tion of its value. If any change in pubHc opinion with respect to it has since taken place, I can ascribe that change only to misinformation as to certain, failures which, it is industriously circulated, though I believe without any foundation, are hkely to arise in connection with the commercial treaty with France. My own belief, however, is that no such change has in reaUty been brought about, and that if there be any apparent difference in the sentiments now entertained by the pubHc as contrasted with those which at the outset prevailed, in regard to the proposals of the Government, that difference is to be attributed to the fact that the people at large were confident that the passing of the Budget was a thing perfectly secure. They were animated by that confidence because they placed rehance on that constitutional usage through which we are now invited to break, and because they were actuated by a spirit of faith in the proceedings of the Legislature, which I am afraid we shall, if we reject the BlQ, be doing much to turn into a spirit of distrust. I may add, in reply to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord opposite, to which I have just alluded, that during the last week or two time has been afforded to individual interests, some of which are injured by every great scheme of reform, to work their way to the sm-face, and to exhibit that apparent change in the current of popular opinion in relation to proposals of the Govern- ment to which he has drawn our attention.' The rejection of the Paper Duties Bill by the House of Lords was received with mingled feelings. The repeal of 1859-60] FINANCIAL QUESTIONS 163 the duty was by no means a popular measure, but the action of the House of Lords raised the important constitutional question of the control of the House of Commons over money Bills. The rejection of a proposal to repeal was, Mr. Gladstone was ready to demonstrate, equivalent to a reimposition. He protested against the rejection of the Bill, in a speech in which he foreshadowed the discomfiture of the House of Lords at no distant date. This he accompHshed in the next session, by consolidating aU money Bills into one measure, and thus ingeniously offering the House the alternative of accepting or rejecting the whole Budget. It was not only in this instance that the Duke afforded Mr. Gladstone powerful assistance in matters of finance. There were long debates between Lord Palmerston and Mr. Gladstone on the subject of the increasing expendi- ture, and, in particular, expenditure on armaments. Regarding the question of national defence, the Duke endeavoured to bring about a compromise between Mr. Gladstone and the Prime Minister, though not altogether with success ; but his influence was of service in keeping the Chancellor of the Exchequer from resigna- tion on more occasions than one. A Royal Commission, appointed in 1859, had reported the following year that extensive works, involving large expenditure, were necessary for the protection of our arsenals, and it was proposed that the expenditure, some nine miUions, should be met by a loan to be repaid in twenty years. Mr. Gladstone objected both to the pro- posed fortifications and to the manner of meeting the cost. During the whole session the Duke accepted the role of peacemaker. He had many opportunities of dis- cussing the matter, as he and Mr. Gladstone frequently met at Cheveden. Li the Duke's diary he mentions some 11—2 164 LOBD PALMERSTOn's second ministry [ohap. XXXIII of the attempts he made to influence Mr. Gladstone on these points : 'Walked with Gladstone . . . trying to persuade him to some yielding.' ' Wrote to Palmerston about a compromise on fortifi- cations.' ' Drove with Gladstone towards home, trying to persuade him to jdeld on the fortification question.' When Mr. Gladstone threatened to resign, the Duke wrote to protest strongly (Juae 19th, 1860) : ' My dear Gladstone, ' I hope to be able to attend the next Cabinet — a prospect which, under existing circumstances, I do not look forward to with pleasure, ' The more I think of the whole matter, the more keenly anxious I am that your individual secession from the Government should be avoided. I do not think I speak merely selfishly when I say this, although it would undoubtedly deprive me of far the largest part of my own interest and pleasure in the Government. But I feel much more strongly its injuriousness, not so much to yourself individually, but to your position and usefulness in pubKc Hfe. I ventured to say to you at this place last year how strongly I felt that your powers were to a great extent thrown away and lost when you were out of ofiice, and I never can teU you how invaluable I have always felt them to be when harnessed in the public service. ' The moral, of course, I wish to impress is the duty, if not to yourself, at least to others, to make every concession which you feel to be at all within reach, to effect a compromise on this question. ' I have again written to Palmerston in the same sense. He replied to the one I showed you, that fortify- ing two only of our great dockyards was like bolting two 1859-60] FORTIFICATION PROPOSALS 165 doors and leaving half a dozen others open : to which I have replied that the cases are not analogous, inasmuch as the dockyards are not " doors " of invasion, but points of attack in themselves — that there were 500 other doors of invasion better for that purpose than the dockyards ; but that, as the fortification of each dock- yard is a complete operation in itself, it cannot be said that the immediate fortification of Plymouth and Ports- mouth falls short of the complete attainment of a most important object, diminishing the remaining risks, and limiting them to points comparatively unimportant ; that with respect to Chatham, etc., the plan is con- fessedly but an incomplete one as regards all the approaches to the capital, and not one in respect to which we could say, " The plan, the whole plan, and nothing but the plan." ' But to make any such plan of compromise possible, I do hope you will come down with very definite pro- posals, and include Plymouth as well as Portsmouth. In fact, I suspect Plymouth is now far more open than Portsmouth. You also once told me that you did not entertain the same objection to the purchase of land by loan that you entertain to defraying the cost of works by loan. But if you ride a high horse, objecting to the whole principle of making the great dockyards into strong places, I am satisfied you will not be sup- ported by pubhc feeling ; at least, I own that I cannot see my way to any objection to such fortifications, which would not tell against a slow expenditure from votes, as strongly as against similar works executed more rapidly. ' Pray excuse my bothering you with such a screed, and attribute it to my anxiety that you should not again be lost to that position in the Government which I regard as peculiarly your own, and which I consider it as a public calamity that you should leave. ' Ever yours, ' Argyll.' 166 LORD PALMERSTOn's second ministry [chap, xxxm In the end, a sort of compromise was arrived at in the matter of the fortifications, under which the cost was to be met by annuities extending over thirty years, and the House sanctioned an immediate expenditure of two millions in one year. The success of the Budget was imperilled by the great expense of the Chinese War, which threatened entirely to disorganize the finance of the year. The opponents of the Chancellor of the Exchequer openly rejoiced at his discomfiture, and even Mr. Gladstone himself wrote to the Duke in a fit of depression, as if the whole scheme of reduction had been a failure. The Duke, with a truer perception of the proportion of things, replied on September 8th, 1860 : ' I was very glad to hear from you, and much inter- ested in your retrospect of the session ; but I think you judge yourself with uonecessary severity on several points. ' In the first place, I do not think that either the expense of the China War or the expense of the fortifica- tion scheme, even if both of these had been fully fore- seen, ought to have stopped your proposed remission of taxation. These remissions were founded on a prin- ciple whose operation has now been fuUy tested and ascertained, that operation being remunerative in respect to revenue ; and if the two millions which fell in from the long annuities afforded an opportunity of carrying to completion a financial policy which has proved to be so beneficial to the revenue, I cannot see why that opportunity should have been allowed to pass because two extraordinary and temporary causes of expenditure lay immediately ahead of us. I still think that even if you had fully foreseen both these causes, your course was right.' The war eventually proved less expensive than had been anticipated ; the Chinese had to pay an indem- 1859-60] PROFESSOR OWEN 167 nity, and the Government had the substantial satisfac- tion of applying the excise duty on paper (renewed for one year only) to meet the expenses of the war. On December 3rd, 1860, the Duke delivered his opening address as President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Four years later Professor Owen wrote to congratulate him on his closing Presidential Address to this Society, quoting in his letter some sentences of the Duke's on that occasion which he had especially admired : ' British Museum, ' ^^d December, 1864. ' My dear Dtjke, ' Your experience of the official demands for the winding-up works of the year at this session in such an organization as ours will make excuse for the shortness of my acknowledgments of the important " Address " with which you favoured me by an early copy. I read it carefully and comfortably by my fireside last night, and felt under great obligations, as aU equal students of Nature will feel, to the clear and deep thinking writer. As happens to such writing in maturity of power, sentences fall that become " apothegms " : ' " Words which should be the servants of thought are too often its masters." ' " There are no fictions in Nature — no jokes." ' " Everything that is done in Nature seems to be done, as it were, by knowing how to do iV ' But I must refrain from jotting down much that your address suggests, and conclude by confessing that the only adequate end conceivable by me of the busi- ness of this planet is the evolution of powers and con- ditions available for the purposes of their Creator in another and higher sphere of vital and intellectual forces. One true soul, like one seed of corn thab grows and one egg of spawn that develops, is a rare exception — for " narrow is the gate." But it pleases the Great First Cause so to operate, and to our minds very slowly, 168 LOBD PALMERSTON's"SBOOND_^MmiSTRY [ohap. xxxin gradually, we may say, patiently. Whether, however, the " failures " have the fate reserved for them by Pusey may be another question. ' A happy Christmas to the circle at Rosneath is the wish of your Grace's ' Always trtdy, ' RicHABD Owen.' CHAPTER XXXIV 1861-62 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR The outbreak of the American Civil War occurred early in 1861. The feeUng in England as regards the contro- versy was largely in favour of the cause of the Con- federate States. There were some, however, whose sympathies were entirely with the North. Foremost amongst these stood the Duke of Argyll, who main- tained throughout the whole course of the war his strong conviction of the righteousness of the Federal cause. This was based not only on his detestation of slavery, but also, more profoundly, on the essentially ' unionist ' political principles which in later years led him to oppose Mr. Gladstone. ' No Government,' he said, ' had ever existed which could admit that right to renounce allegiance to it which was claimed by the Southern States.' The Duke, as he mentions in his ' Autobiography,' had corresponded with several of the leading American Abolitionists for some time previous to the date when the victory of Lincoln at the polls became the signal for the revolt of the slave States. On May 14th, 1861, the Duke wrote to Mr. Motley as follows : ' Since I saw you last night I have heard that the French Government entirely concurs in the absolute 169 170 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv necessity of admitting your " rebels " to the position of " belligerents " ; and reminds us of a curious fact, which I have not had time to verify, that when the American colonies revolted from England we attempted to treat their privateers as pirates. But we very soon found this would be out of the question, and the English Government acknowledged its own revolted colonies, as they were then considered, as entitled to the rights of a belligerent. ' This is a strange case. The truth is that the rights and interests of humanity demand that the rules and principles of some admitted law should be immediately applied to all such contests, and the rules affecting and defining the rights and duties of belligerents are the only rules which prevent war from becoming massacre and murder. ' I don't think the neutral Governments of the world have any choice in this matter. But how far the system of privateering may be modified is a separate question. Why should not your Government agree with the Paris Convention, and abolish privateering ?' After the faU of Fort Sumter, President Lincoln de- clared the Southern ports to be in a state of blockade, which he proceeded to enforce. This raised for the consideration of the English Government the question of the recognition of the Confederate States as belli- gerents, which is alluded to in the letter just quoted. On May 6th, 1861, it was announced in the House of Commons that this right was to be conceded to them. The fact that the blockade cut ofi the supply of raw cotton, on which Lancashire depended, helped to excite a strong feeling in England in favour of the recognition of the independence of the Southern States ; but the Government declared its intention of maintaining ' a strict and impartial neutrality ' — a resolution which displeased both parties in America. The North, relying 1861-62] QUESTION OF NEUTRALITY 171 on the traditional attitude of Great Britain towards slavery, had looked for active sympathy ; and the South, relying, on the other hand, on the expressions of public opinion in this country, had confidently ex- pected recognition as a sovereign and independent State. The North forgot that as yet war was only being waged to prevent secession, and the South failed to realize that rebels cannot achieve a position of indepen- dence until they are successful. At first success seemed to crown the Southern arms, and the rout of the Northern levies at Bull Run on July 21st, 1861, increased the desire in England for the recognition of the South. The feeling soon became so strong that some members of the Cabinet wavered in their opinion as to the advisability of maintaining a strict neutrality. Chief among those who stood firm upon this point were Lord John Russell and the Duke of Argyll. Lord John wrote to the Duke on Septem- ber 13th, 1861 : ' I have no intention of recognising the Southern Confederacy for a long time to come. If the United States utterly fail in subduing them, a question will then arise as to what is to be done. I should think that in April of next year we shall be able to judge on which side, conquest or independence, the probabilities lie. . . .' In a letter to Mr. Gladstone of August 23rd, 1861, the Duke alludes to the grounds of his adherence to the cause of the North : ' Have you seen a letter from Mrs. Stowe to Lord Shaftesbury ? I think it good ; but she fails to see, what is surely obvious on her own statement, that the North is not entitled to claim all the sympathy which belongs to a cause which they do not avow, and which 172 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv is promoted only as an indirect consequence of a contest which, on their side, at least, is waged for other objects and on other grounds. Still, I agree with her that that cause is reaUy and substantially at stake, and I take my side accordingly.' From Mr. Motley, Boston {June 2Sth, 1861). ' My dear Duke, ' i ' I remember that you expressed a wish to hear a word from me as to my impressions on residing in this country. I consider it a privilege to be allowed to do so. . . . You will perhaps not have forgotten that on the last occasion when I had the pleasure of seeing the Duchess and yourself at Campden Hill I expressed my fears that a rupture between our two countries was not an impossible event, and that I regarded such a con- tingency with greater horror than I did even the civil war already existing at home. . . . ' There is no need of my saying a word to you of my love and veneration for England, of my deep respect for the English character, for the very name of Britain. A war between the American Republic and the British Empire seems to me a calamity too awful to contem- plate. Ruin and desolation to at least one whole generation of men would be the results to my own country ; triumph to the lovers of despotism and to the despisers of national self-government, despair to the hearts of all who cherish human freedom, would be the consequence to the world at large. Its dis- astrous effects upon England I will not discuss, for I know that I am addressing one in whose heart I can find entire sympathy on this great occasion. * * * * * ' Never did I feel more intense gratitude for the friend- ship, very far above my deserts, which has been accorded to me in England than I do now, when, perhaps, I may be the instrument, in however limited a degree, of 1861-62] LETTER PROM MR. MOTLEY 173 promoting a more friendly feeling between the two comitries. * Men did not wish assistance. They would have scorned material aid. But they did expect sympathy. They thought that some voice in high places would have been lifted up to say, " We are sorry for your trials ; we are compelled to look on with folded arms, but your cause is noble. Our hearts are with you. You are right in resolving upon two things— first, to prevent the farther extension of the system of African slavery, which you had the constitutional power of doing ; and, secondly, to maintain your nationality, your unity, which is all that saves you from anarchy and barbarism. We know that the conspirators and traitors, although noisy, dangerous, and desperate, are comparatively few in number, and that they cannot hope long to cope with the overwhelming power of the Government." Instead of all this, there came denim^ciations of the wickedness of civil war — as if the war had not been forced upon the Government. . . . :ts * * * * ' The cause of this rebellion is slavery. Already one great step in advance has been taken. Slavery wiU never make another inch of progress on this continent. Slavery is dethroned for ever from the dominion which it has exercised over American affairs for these forty years. It must remain a local, municipal institution henceforth, and the attempt to make it national, to spread it over the territories and over the free States, has been completely and for ever foiled. But there is no intention of interfering with it in the States where it constitutionally exists, because to confiscate £400,000,000 sterhng of property would be a stu- pendous crime, and to make such a compensation would be an impossibihty. We have gone to war to maintain the constitution in its integrity, because we believe that, with a few trifling modifications, it would be 174 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [ohap. xxxiv difficult to improve upon it at present. But if the question be death to the republic or death to slavery, if the conspiracy makes a foreign alliance or protracts the anarchy and civil war into which it has plunged us beyond a reasonable time, then the great law of self-defence will cause that sword to be drawn, the unsheathing of which causes us aU to shudder. ' Observe that I am not giving my own opinions, but I am communicating to you what is the deUberate con- viction of the most intelligent and the most influential men with whom I speak as to the necessary sequence of causes and effects. . . .' In a speech to his tenantry in October, 1861, the Duke compared the secession of the South to the habits of ' a curious animal in Loch Fjne which I have some- times dredged up from the bottom of the sea, and which performs the most extraordinary, innocent and able acts of suicide and self-destruction. It is a pecuhar kind of star-fish, which, when brought up from the bottom of the water, and when any attempt is made to take hold of it, immediately throws off aU its arms, its very centre breaks up, and nothing remains of one of the most beautiful forms in nature but a thousand wriggling fragments. Such, undoubtedly, would have been the fate of the American Union if its Government had admitted what is called the right of secession. . . . We ought to admit, in fairness to the Americans, that there are some things worth fighting for, and that national existence is one of these. And then, if we look at the matter from the Southern point of view, difficult as it may be for us to do so, I must say also that I am not surprised at their conduct, if they befieve, as they loudly proclaim that they do beHeve, that slavery is not an evil which is to be tolerated only and brought to an end as soon as possible, but a divine institution for the benefit of mankind, to be maintained and, if possible, extended, and which, if it is assailed even in a single 1861-62] SPEECH AT INVERAEAY 175 outpost, imist be defended to the death — then, even though the citadel of slavery be not assailed, but only an important outwork, it is but natural that the South should rise in its defence. But, of course, ia this, as in aU other revolutions, those who take part in them must be judged finally by the moral verdict of mankind upon the justice of the course which they have risen to assert. ' But, whatever may be our private sympathies, we, as a nation, must take no part whatever in the contest. Most earnestly do we trust and pray that it may be brought to a speedy end ; yet I confess that there is another wish which, I think, in our minds ought to stand even before this one, and that is the wish that the end of this war, whenever it does come, be it soon or late, may be such as shall be worth the sacrifice and the cost — such as shall tend to the civilization of the world, and promote the causes of human freedom.' This speech was very heartily welcomed by many in the Northern States, as an assurance of sympathy and as a sound expression of opinion on the political principle involved. The Duke received many letters of thanks. Of these, the following from Mr. Motley is of chief interest : ' Legation of the United States OF America at Vienna, ' 16th November, 1861. ' My dear Duke, ' The day after my arrival in this place I had the great pleasure of reading your admirable remarks in regard to our affairs in the course of your eloquent speech to your friends and tenants at Inveraray. ' You may imagine with what a thrill of delight we read such noble words coming from such a source. ***** ' As you so well say — and alone among English statesmen you have said it — " there are some things worth fighting for, and national existence is one of 176 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv these." It is a pleasure to me to -write to you on the subject, because I know that you look upon this dread epoch in America with the earnestness and respect which it deserves. ... "No more tremendous issues," to quote again from your speech, " were ever submitted to the dread arbitrament of war than those which are now submitted to it upon the American continent." For observe, this word "secession" is a sham. The South, foUed in its attempt to frighten the Free States out of electing the antislavery extension candidate last November, seceded — not in order to get out of the Union, but to reconstruct it on the basis of slavery. All the States were invited to join the new confederacy, whose comer-stone was slavery, and it was confidently ex- pected by the South that aU but New England would do so within six months. Thus, in place of the old Union was to be a new United States, with slavery for the law of the whole land, and aU of them slave States ; while the hated New England was to be thrust out into Canada, or held as a conquered province, as might seem most advisable to the slave-holders. To accompHsh this great scheme the slave-holders went to war. * 4: * 4s * ' I firmly believe that all that is noblest and truest in the noble English heart feels for America in this the hour of its fiery trial. We shall go through the ordeal and come out purified, but we shall sacrifice vast treasure, and drain much of our best and dearest blood. But the prize wiU be worth the sacrifice, and a people can only be redeemed by suffering. ' Meantime, I earnestly trust and believe that your own great personal influence and talents wiU be used to prevent that most dreadful of calamities — a war between America and England.' The Duke started for the Continent on Novem- ber 22nd, 1861, with the Duchess and some of his family. TraveUing by Boulogne to Paris, and breaking the ^^^^-62] MENTO]SrB 177 journey at Lyons, Avignon, and Toulon, they arrived at Cannes on December 3rd. After a few days spent there, the journey was continued by carriage to Nice and Mentone. From Boulogne the Duke wrote to Mr. Motley as follows (November 22nd, 1861) : ' We are on our way to Genoa to escape the depth of winter in England. I received your very kind letter last night before I left the old coimtry, and am very glad to hear that my speech has afforded you any satisfaction. I considered many of the speeches made in England so unfair that I thought it was due to America to point out that the war, whatever may be the prospects of its duration or of its success, was at least a war for important objects, and, indeed, a matter of necessity for the Federal Government. . . .' To Mr. Gladstone {December 10th, 1861). ' Mentone. ' What a dehoious place and chmate we "are now enjoying ! Mural precipices of hmestone rise high overhead, falling down into lower hiUs covered mth ohves of noble growth, and gardens of orange and lemon. We have just retiu^ed from a drive to Monaco, the Bang of which we met on the road. It is quite a place of fairy beauty. The road to it is along the almost precipitous sides of a mountain, but every inch of soil supported by terraces growing the finest olive and carrouba trees I ever saw, with immense quantities of lemon and orange. Below, one looks into the clear blue water of the Mediterranean. On the little promontory which supports the town the precipitous sides are cut into little walks, steps, and terraces full of the aloe, cactus, and red geranium in full flower. I think this place by far the most charming I have yet seen on this coast. One is bored — at least, we are — by this bit of purely Italian country being now French. The people VOL. II. 12 178 fiElB AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chaf. xixiv shrug their shoulders when one asks them if they approve. At Nice the popular language seems to be French, but here it is pure Italian. . . . We intend to go to Genoa on the 14th and to Turin on the 17th. Next day we hope to be joined by our boys from Eton. I had intended to go home with them slowly along this delicious coast, but now I think I can do no more than accompany them to Genoa, and then go back over the Mont Cenis to England, leaving the Duchess to take the homeward route at leisure along the coast. I have had a very bad cold for the last two or three days, but hope to be fit for the journey home from Turin. I should not like being away when the discussions arise on the American reply. Pray write to me either to Genoa or Turin, telMng me how matters stand, and your own impression. I am relieved to hear to-day from the Duchess of Sutherland that you seem in good heart as to averting war. ' War with America is such a calamity that we must do all we can to avoid it. It involves not only ourselves, but aU our North American colonies.' The second critical difficulty with which the Enghsh Administration was confronted, arising out of the American Civil War, was what came to be known as ' the Trent affair ' — the seizure of certain Confederate Envoys on board an English vessel. These men, Shdel and Mason, had been charged by the seceding States with a mission to the European Powers, from whom they were to attempt to obtain international recog- nition of the rebels. Having embarked on the Trent at Havanna, they were taken prisoners on November 8, 1861, by Captain Wilkes of the U.S. sloop San Jacinto, in contempt of the fact that they were sailing under the red ensign. The action of Wilkes was at once pronounced illegal by Britain, and immediate apology and release were demanded. 1861-62] THE ' TBENT ' AFFAIR 179 Unfortunately, however, the excited Americans did not at first see the matter in the same light. Captain Wilkes was thanked by the House of Representatives, and became a popular hero. The British Government therefore thought it advisable to prepare for war, and troops were hastily despatched to Canada. The Duke was at Avignon when the news of the Trent affair reached him. He immediately wrote to Mr. Gladstone (November 29th, 1861) : ' I am all against submitting to any clear breach of international law, such as I can hardly doubt this has been. Even the doctrine of contraband of war, as applicable to civilian passengers, would surely not apply in the case of a vessel going away from both of the belligerent Powers. ' I write chiefly to beg that you wiU send me a line to say how it is decided that we are to act.' From Mr. Gladstone (December 3rd, 1861). ' I must write to you in haste, and let all antiquities, scenery and the like, and all good wishes and even inquiries about health and well doing, stand over. ' The Cabinet determined on Friday to ask repara- tion, and on Saturday they agreed to two despatches to Lord Lyons, of which the one recited the facts, stated we could not but suppose the American Govern- ment would of itself be desirous to afford us repara- tion, and said that in any case we must have (1) the Commissioners restored to British protection, and (2) an apology or expression of regret. The second of these despatches desired Lyons to come away within seven days if the demands are not complied with.' 4: H: H: H: * To Mr. Gladstone (December 1th, 1861). ' Nice. ' I got your letter yesterday at Cannes. The tele- grams in the English and French papers have made 12—2 180 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv me sure as to the course which the Government would take, and must take. The latter reconciled me in some degree to my absence, because, so far as I can see, we could not possibly submit, and I do not think that our resistance could take any milder or more pro- crastinating expression. If such an act as that com- mitted by the San Jacinto be allowed, I see nothing which would prevent any European Government seizing on board of our ships any refugees from their revolted provinces, who might be coming to England (as so many do) to excite popular sympathy with their cause. Kossuth, for example, came from Hungary, probably in a British Mediterranean steamer. If Captain Wilkes be right, an Austrian frigate from Trieste might have taken him out of the packet as " contraband of war." ' To this letter Mr. Gladstone replied on Decem- ber 11th : ' I am very glad to hear that you mean to come home after Christmas. Let me advise you not to lose a moment after Christmas Day. It is perfectly possible, indeed, that we may not have the reply of the American Government until (as far as I under- stand) about the last day of the month. But this is on the supposition of their not sending the reply until the term of seven days has expired.' On December 20th the Duke wrote to Mr. Glad- stone : ' It is quite clear that if the American Government are carried by the votes of popular passions around them into a war with us on the Trent affair, it will be against their wish and desire. Seward desired Adams to say that Wilkes had acted without orders, and the Government had given no approval, waiting to know first what we thought of the transaction. ' Could anything show more clearly that they desired 1861-62] THE ' TRENT' AND ' SAN JACINTO ' 181 to avoid, collision, to keep open a door for their own retreat ? If that door has since been closed, it will have been closed by the action of the people " out of doors." Yet, of course, we have to deal with ultimate decisions, not with half-formed intentions. Neverthe- less, the clear absence of any previous intention to offend ought a little to be remembered in our action, in any way consistent with the maintenance of an essential principle.' To Mr. Gladstone {January \st, 1862). ' No one feels more strongly than I do the total im- possibility of submitting to Wilkes' act. Indeed, I have all along taken a stronger and less technical objection than the English Press generally, agreeing with the French argument that a vessel plying between neutral ports cannot contain contraband of war at all, and that packets such as the Trent must be held free from seizure by any belligerent Power. ' The news by the Africa is good. Congress seems to be alarmed, and though voting thanks personally to Wilkes on the score of zeal and good intentions, has declined to pledge itself to the legality of his act. This I apprehend to be virtually the meaning of what they have done. ' I rejoice, of course, not merely in the prospect of peace, but specially in any loophole of escape out of a war in which nolens volens we should have been the ally of the Confederates.' To Mr. Motley the Duke wrote from Cannes (Decem- ber 5th, 1861) : ' We have heard this wretched news of the San Jacinto and the Trent. I have always told you that, however unsympathetic the English people and Press may have been to the American Government, there was no danger of a quarrel coming from us, but that 182 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv the danger lay in your Government doing something at variance with the law of nations and rights of neutrals. So it has been. As regards municipal law, the Government has perhaps been compelled by sheer necessity to override it by military force ; but as regards international law, Seward ought to have been more than usually scrupulous. I can't conceive that your Government will be so foolish as to drive us into a quarrel about this absurd seizure of men whom it will have done them no good whatever to have caught.' Wiser counsels, however, soon prevailed in the United States. The action of Wilkes was recognised to be wholly indefensible, and the Confederate Envoys were released on New Year's Day, 1862, and sailed immediately for Europe. The Duke on January 8th wrote to congratulate Mr. Motley on this fortunate release from the menace of war : ' A few hours ago we received, to our great joy, the telegram giving us assurance of peace with your Government. I am sure I need not tell you how sincere our joy has been, and all the greater as the previous accounts had seemed very hopeless. ***** ' As regards the merits of the Trent affair, I hear that Sumner had early expressed privately his agree- ment with the verdict at once given by the Prince de Joinville that the arrest was wholly illegal. ***** ' From the first moment, when I wrote to you from Avignon, I always took the broad ground adopted by the French — that a neutral vessel going from one neutral 'port to another, bond fide, cannot be subject to arrest at all, else no refugee would be safe anywhere in the world. This is so clear that I cannot conceive any American disputing it, because the American Government would never have allowed its own vessels 1861-62] DEATH OF THE PRINCE CONSORT 183 to be violated under similar circumstances. I hear that Joinville took precisely the same illustration that I took in my letter to you — the case of Kossuth passing from Hungary in a Mediterranean packet. Under the principle of Captain Wilkes he would have been arrestable by an Austrian ship of war. ' And now will it be peace, or only a temporary truce ? I find the idea rooted in many minds here that your Government meant to force us into a war. Such folly is inconceivable — I mean the folly of be- lieving this ; but the converse belief is quite as strong on your side of the water, and I hold it to be equally grovmdless. There is much in the popular language here, as well as there, with which I have no sort of sympathy ; but I have all along said that the only danger of war arose from the possible recklessness of the American Government in a time of intense excite- ment. ' However, I don't write to scold either my own countrymen or yours for their respective follies, but to tell you what a relief the news of to-day has been to us, and how sincerely I trust and pray that this sharp passage and narrow strait of danger may remove many dangers for the future. I see that your Press for the most part denoimced us, and declared that vengeance is only postponed. But when the American people have had time to know the unanimous verdict of impartial Governments, I have no doubt this feeling will pass away.' The Duke's return from the Continent was accele- rated by the sad tidings of the death of the Prince Consort on December 14th, 1861. This unexpected blow which had fallen on the Queen and country was deeply felt by the Duke, not only on account of his intense sympathy with his Sovereign, but because of his high appreciation of the great abilities of the Prince, and the admiration he felt for his beautiful character 184 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv and stainless life. In a letter at this time the Duke wrote : ' The whole nation is mourning as it never mourned before '; and referring to his last interview with the Prince, which had taken place after a Privy Council at Windsor, shortly before he left England, he writes of the ' great kindness of the Prince Consort's manner ' to him on that occasion, and adds : ' The extraordinary beauty and sweetness of his parting smile will remain engraved on my memory for ever.' The Duke often spoke of the many interesting con- versations he had enjoyed with the Prince, which had greatly impressed him with the extent and ver- satility of His Royal Highness's knowledge and in- formation. The Prince had also corresponded with him on a variety of subjects — literary, scientific, and political. From these letters the following extracts are taken : ' Balmoral, ' My dear Duke, 'September 9,0th, 1858. ' I have to thank you for the kind transmission of your article on Hugh Miller, the perusal of which has given me the greatest pleasure. You have enabled your reader quite to identify himself with your hero and to appreciate the peculiarity of his talent by the judicious extracts from his works. '.'I am glad to hear that you were pleased with your visit to Berlin. The Princess had spoken to us of the pleasure it had given her. ***** ' Believe me always, yours truly. ' Albert.' ' Balmoral, 'My DEAR Duke, ' October 7th, ^859. ' The paper which you have sent me has very much interested me. You seem to have absolutely 1861-62] BALMORAL 185 mastered the nature of the birds' flight, and the causes which stand in the way of aerial navigation succeeding on the principles as yet followed. I am not sure whether the flight of some insects would not throw additional light on the question. Take the heavy beetles — for instance, the cockchafer, etc. Their wings are very small in proportion to the body ; the body is very heavy ; they have no tail, no plumage, nothing to support them in the air but muscular action ; their flying-wings carry, when expanded, very heavy cover- ings, and yet they fly very fast and with great force. The action of their wings is certainly perpendicular, but their power is obtained by velocity of stroke. You should foUow up your theory. ' We are starting in half an hour for the top of Ben Muich-Dhui ; the weather looks promising. We cannot rise much higher in these isles, unless we are supported by an aerial machine ! ' Ever yours truly, ' Albert.' Early in May, 1862, the Duke went to Balmoral as Minister in attendance upon the Queen. Shortly after his arrival he wrote to Mr. Gladstone in answer to his inquiries about Her Majesty : ' I thought the Queen more low than when I saw her in February at Osborne. When I first went in and asked Her Majesty how she was, she seemed unable to speak — merely shook her head. But in the course of the hour I was with her she was able to talk with even some eagerness. She spoke of the many things sent to her with the kindest intentions which were but poor comfort, and I hear from others that one may easily say things which go against her, even when one least suspects it. This makes one's work in talking difficult and delicate. Out of doors here she says she feels soothed, but the house is most trying 186 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv to her, associated solely with days of happiness, and of his happiness especially. She says she feels borne down by its very atmosphere. How can one get oil or wine to pour into such wounds as these ? There is but one thing which tells upon her spirits— the hope of reunion ; and all that may enter in by that door, and along with that hope, is received with pleasure. She said one thing so touchingly : "I am sure they [the dead] see our sorrow, but they see it as we see the sorrows of children. They see the end at the same time." I spoke to her of the infinitesimal shortness of our life as yet compatible with its reaHty and greatness, to which she responded very heartily. I have sent her to-day some very striking Hnes quoted in Macmillan from Mrs. Browning's " Last Poems" — "De Profundis," the lament of which is exactly the language of the Queen, and ending by a beautiful verse of thanksgiving. After all, what one gives her must have some relation to her own present frame of mind. . . . Dr. Robertson (the factor here) has just been to me, sajdng that he hears the Queen has had a day of the deepest waters to go through, and the Princess Alice is quite knocked up. The Queen is now, however, out driving, and when out, the Duchess of Athole tells me, she seems to enjoy it. How humble and truthful she is ! Surely the comforts and consola- tions of His Spirit will come in time to this most broken heart.' To Mr. Gladstone {May 1th, 1862). ' When I saw the Queen on Saturday last she spoke to me of the Countess Bliicher as one who was the greatest comfort to her, and said she would show me some things sent to her by the Countess. These I was anxious to see, it being clear from the way she spoke that the influence was considerable. ' It was therefore with the greatest pleasure I found that the papers the Queen sent me were quite excellent. One was simply a transcription of a passage 1861-62] QUEEN VICTOBIA 187 from Butler's " Analogy," but the other was apparently by the Countess herself, and was thoroughly simple and thoroughly Christian, founding all it held out in respect to the future world on our Lord's words, direct or indirect, and not on metaphysical reasoning of any sort or kind. ' I returned them to the Queen with a letter ex- pressing pleasure and gratification in finding that these papers had afforded her so much comfort. ' Last night, after dinner, the Queen sent for me, and I thought her far better than I had yet seen her. I did not wait to let her talk about herself, but led the conversation at once to the hills, birds, and waterfalls I had seen during the day, and in a few minutes she was talking quite cheerfully, with interest and (at least) momentary enjoyment, constantly referring to her husband, the birds he liked, the roads he had made, his speeches, etc., but all as if he were still with her, and with the sweetest smUes of grateful memory — a most enviable power ! I never saw it, even among the poor, in the same degree.' To Mr. Gladstone {May llih, 1862). ' I have been with the Queen for upwards of an hour to-day, and I do think there is perceptible im- provement. She was much moved after the service, but was calm and even cheerful in her long conversa- tion with me. The talk with the country people and his favourite gillies, and the coimtry itself are, I think, soothing to her. Her health. Dr. Jenner tells me, is much better than when she came. She was very nervous before the journey. This is why she felt she could not see Canning. She was both unwell and low. ' Since I wrote to you, besides my talks with her, she sent me down one day a long and most touching letter, which I shall show you when we meet. Part of it is an injunction to make her views known on the 188 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv impossibility of ever joining in the " frivolities of a Court." I replied to her in a way to indicate that the love borne to her by her people is one so un- common, and so valuable to them and for them, that a response to it, in some form or other, by allow- ing her people to see her and testify their feelings, would be some day one of her public duties. This was very guardedly expressed, but the drift was clear, and she sent me a message which showed that she liked being reminded of a sympathy and affection of which the Prince was proud, and which she herself appreciates.' A letter from Mr. Richard Cobden to the Duke is an evidence of the sympathy felt for the Queen by her subjects of all shades of thought and opinion, and shows a touching appreciation of Her Majesty's posi- tion in the years following the death of the Prince Consort : ' Never was Her Majesty more beloved than now by those whose devotion is her real strength, and the knowledge of which, if made known to her, ought to be her great consolation. For myself, the most dis- interested of courtiers, I never knew how loyal I was until I saw the Queen, in her great sorrow, visiting hospitals and poorhouses, offering sympathy to indi- vidual suffering and rebuking cruel amusements, whilst all the while she is unequal to the pageantries of her office, which a less earnest nature would, under the plea of duty, have flown to for distraction,' During the spring and summer of 1862 the American Civil War continued to engross attention. The Southern States were, on the whole, victorious ; but they were unable to follow up their successes, and the final issue remained uncertain. The success of the South was received with acclama- tion by the majority of the British people, but it 1861-62] EFFECT ON BRITISH INDUSTRIES 189 gradually became evident that the struggle was one in which the mastery would fall into the hands of the side which could longest support the dreadful waste in blood and treasure of a devastating and protracted civil war. As soon as it was certain that the conflict could not be decided by a few critical engagements, there remained the inevitable conclusion that the resources and population of the North must eventually overwhelm the Confederate cause. In a letter to Mr. Gladstone, April 29th, 1862, referring to the destitution in England caused by the war in America, the Duke points out the effect of the war on British industries : ' How oddly the American (just and righteous !) war tells in different ways ! I heard yesterday that it was telling severely in lowering the price of cheese. I supposed by the withdrawal of the Northern market ? Not at all. The Northern cheeses are eaten " down South" in general, but they can't be so eaten now. So the Northern cheeses are sent over to England instead — coarse but low-priced, cheap and nasty — and so they lower the price of the products of our good rainy pastures. ' Not even this sad effect, any more than the loss of cotton, makes me anxious for a new nation whose " corner-stone is slavery." ' By-the-by, I have been wondering ever since I read it what you could mean by saying that " we have no confidence in free institutions being estab- lished by the sword." It seems to me that free institutions have hardly ever been established except by the help of the sword at some stage or other. They were so in this country, as well as in many, many others ; and I have a firm conviction that the sword is doing good and solid work now in America — work which it behoved to be done, as Carlyle would say.' 190 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv In spite of the terrible privation caused by the cotton famine, the working men of Britain were generally in favour of the North. Among statesmen there were, besides the Duke of Argyll, some warm champions of the anti-slavery cause, such as Mr. Cobden, Mr. John Bright, Mr. John Stuart Mill, and Sir George Lewis. At the same time, the South had many sympathizers, and it was not until General Lee had surrendered to the Federal arms that many of them would admit that the North was really vic- torious. Prior to that event the Government was constantly petitioned to acknowledge the independence of the Confederate States, but the Ministry was firm, and maintained a strict neutrality. To Mr. Gladstone, on May 13th, 1862, the Duke wrote : 'Your corrected speech in re America has nothing in it which is not true, in a sense ; but then that sense appears to me to be irrelevant, and to pass by altogether the essential issues of the great contest in America. " Free institutions imposed on a people unprepared to receive them": all such phrases have a very distant application to the position of slavery in the United States. ' That this war is having a powerful, a daily increas- ing effect on the hold of slavery over opinion in America is, in my judgment, a fact so evident, and is so natural and so necessary a consequence of the whole circum- stances, that I cannot understand its being questioned. The war, however, is not waged directly for this object, neither does it need this as a justification. The doc- trine of secession is simply the doctrine of anarchy; its hand is against every Government, and the hand of every Government must be, and ought to be, against it. " Them's my sentiments." ' 1861-62] England's position 191 From Mr. Gladstone (August 3rd, 1862). ' I came away from the Cabinet yesterday with rather a bad conscience, seeing that the question to move or not to move in the matter of the American Civil War was still in discussion ; and, like other people who visit upon others the consequences of their own shortcomings, I want to now beg you of your charity to let me know at what point the matter was left. ' My opinion is that it is vain, and wholly unsus- tained by precedent, to say that nothing shall be done till both parties are desirous of it ; that, however, we ought to avoid sole action, or anything except acting in such a combination as would morally represent the weight of impartial Europe ; that with this view we ought to communicate mth France and Russia, to make with them a friendly representation (if they are ready to do it) of the mischief and the hopelessness of prolonging the contest in which both sides have made extraordinary and heroic efforts ; but if they are not ready, then to wait for some opportunity when they may be disposed to move with us. The collusion of other Powers would be desirable if it does not en- cumber the movement. Something, I trust, will be done before the hot weather is over to stop these frightful horrors.' Early in August, 1862, the Duke received a long letter from Mr. Motley, which contained the following passage : ' I thank you for your very kind and cordial ex- pressions both with regard to us and to the United States, and I cannot but think that you will always rejoice as long as you live (and I sincerely hope that that will be very long) for the noble words that you have publicly spoken on the great subject of the age, and the unwavering attitude which you have main- tained in regard to the merits of the controversy.' 192 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap. xxXiV Replying to this letter, the Duke wrote on August 10th: ' I have maintained unshaken my opinion of the merits of the contest ; and I told Tennyson the other day that my motto was taken from him : " Better to have fought and lost than never to have fought at all." . . . At least, the war will have established the doctrine that secession is revolution, to be maintained only at the cost of war, and this is the doctrine which has always appeared to me to be essential to your existence as a nation. . . . ' One result of the contest which I have always foreseen has been abundantly realized — viz., its increasing and intensifying anti-slavery character. But on this subject I must say one word in explana- tion of what is so commonly and so foolishly said in England, that slavery has nothing to do with the war. People who say this are denying, not what you or I assert, but what they suppose us to assert. It is always supposed in England that we who sympathize with you on the subject mean that the war is carried on as a war against slavery. It is this which is so commonly denied in England in language which goes much further. But people here confound two dis- tinct propositions — viz., the proposition " that slavery is the cause of the war," and the proposition " that the abolition of slavery is the object of the war." But I have generally found the first proposition ad- mitted when it was clearly explained that the second was not intended or supposed to be involved. ' I am not sure that you will be satisfied with me on this point. But I have always freely admitted to my opponents that the anti-slavery character of the con- test is, and will be, the result or development of events, rather than the consequence of any principle of policy consciously entertained by the Federal party. ' On the other hand, I have always found that the most effective argument in support of the view that, 1861-62] MR. Gladstone's sympathies 193 on the whole, the cause of the Government is the cause opposed to slavery is this : "I am content to accept this on the testimony of those who know best — viz., the Southern States themselves. They have declared that, in their opinion, slavery was in danger. The danger must be indirect and distant. But they teU us it was real — so real that it justified them in seceding." I have never found any answer to this. But in justice to the vulgar view in England, it ought to be admitted that the sympathy which may be claimed on behalf of a poHcy consciously entertained is different from the sympathy which is due only on account of indirect and unintended effects. ' In my opinion sympathy is due, to some extent, on both grounds. But to appreciate this, more accurate knowledge of the history of American parties is required than our people generally possess. So much I say in explanation of a state of feehng and opinion in this country which I have much regretted.' The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Gladstone, as their correspondence shows, held diametrically opposite views on the American question, and in later years the Duke used to say that he had never been able to understand Mr. Gladstone's sympathy with the cause of the Southern States. To Mr. Gladstone {September 2nd, 1862). ' As regards the origin of the war and its essential character, I retain my opinion unchanged that on the part of the Government of the United States it was just and unavoidable, and that no war which we have ever waged during the many centuries of our existence has been more just or more necessary. ' I dissent, also, from the view you express as to the conduct of Americans in respect to their alleged inconsistency on the subject of revolts. It is not VOL. II. 13 194 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv inconsistent to sympathize with revolts which are just, and to fight against other revolts which are unjust. I confess this is my own state of mind. Who ever heard of anybody supporting, avowedly, revolts as such, without reference to their cause and object ? If Americans ever did so, they were wrong ; but no American would admit that they ever did so, apart from the supposed merits of the case in hand. ' Apart, however, from any opinion which you or I may have on the merits of the quarrel, there are many considerations which make me most reluctant to interfere with it. To my mind it has all the marks of one of those great events in history whose issues lie beyond and above the intentions of the parties fighting. ' You sometimes tell me, as I see others saying, " For the anti-slavery cause nothing so good as separa- tion," an opinion which may or, quite as probably, may not be true — an opinion which I may receive as a matter of speculation, but which would be utterly unjustifiable as a basis of any action in the direction of interference. When I see a great contest going on, one of the parties in which represents, if any cause ever did, the very impersonation of all that is corrupting, my wishes and my opinions are not affected by the assurance that it is much better that the devil should succeed, for he will all the sooner be hanged afterwards. ' I do not think that the English people are now as alive as they ought to be to the moral aspects of this contest, nor to the terrible effects which the slave system is producing on the character of the American people. My firm conviction is that it is rotting the very heart and conscience of the whites, all over the Union, in direct proportion to their complicity with it. This war can't go on without intensifying the antagonism which has arisen out of these causes, and the more intense that antagonism becomes, the better. 1861-62] SPEECH IN EDINBUEGH 195 I would not interfere to stop it on any account. It is not our business to do so ; and even short-sightedly, it is not our interest. Do you wish, if you could secure this result to-morrow, to see the great cotton system of the Southern States restored ? Do you wish to see us again almost entirely dependent on that system for the support of our Lancashire population ? I do not. ' No one has a greater horror than I have of parsons preaching about judgments. But there is one case in which we are safe in forming an opinion. Where great calamities arise visibly out of certain natural causes and the operation of natural laws, we may safely pronounce on their character. The laws of Nature are the laws of God, and the consequences which result from their violation are His judgments on the earth. If ever there was a case of such judgment, this war is one of them. When its natural issues have been reached by the exhaustion of the war, then I should not object to help in the terms of peace.' To Mr. Gladstone {September 8th). ' If the Confederates gain such successes as seriously to imperil Washington and the possession of Maryland, what wiU the effect be ? I watch with intense interest these ebbs and flows, thinking it a matter of supreme wonder how those ends are to be accomplished which, I am convinced, are the ends (or some of the ends) in view. The Duchess has had an eloquent letter from Mrs. Stowe, which you would think very unjust to England. I wish I could think the same. But she says : " I do not know whether God is with us, but I am sure He is with the slave," and this " heartens her trust " in the cause she at least has most at heart.' In a speech made at a banquet given in Edinburgh to Lord Palmerston on April 1st, 1863, the Duke said : 13—2 196 THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv ' As my noble friend at the head of the Govern- ment told the meeting he addressed last night at Glasgow, " we may all have our individual opinions as to the merits of the contest in America." I, for one, have never concealed my own. As a Government and a people, we must be what we have always been — absolutely neutral. We must take no part whatever in that contest ; only, let me remind you, the peace and goodwill we are all desirous should be main- tained between these two great countries does not depend only — nay, does not depend principally — upon the conduct of the Government. My noble friend [Lord Palmerston] has spoken of the miseries of civil war, as well he may ; but no word has ever fallen from his lips which implies that anyone was entitled to cast censure on the American Government for the contest in which they are engaged. ' Who are we, that we should speak of civil war as in no circumstances possible or permissible ? Do we not remember that our own liberties have been secured through every form and variety of civil war ? How much blood has been shed in the streets of this ancient capital of Edinburgh ! How many gory heads have been nailed up in its streets ! How many victims of civil war crowd our churchyards in every portion of the country ! How many lie upon our mountains with nothing to mark them but the heath or the cairn ! What do we say of these men ? Do we consider their course to have been an evil one ? Do we not rather txu-n back to these pages of history with the loving chisel of Old Mortality, to refresh in our minds the recollection of their immortal names ? Yes, gentlemen, if it be true — and it is true — that the blood of the martyrs has been the seed of the Church, it is equally true that the blood of the patriots has been the foundation of the liberties of our country. Let us extend, then, to our brethren in America the liberal interpretation which we seek to be given to our own former annals. I, for one, have not' learned to be 1861-62] HENRY WARD BEECHER 197 ashamed of that ancient combination of the Bible and the sword. Let it be enough for us to pray and hope that the contest, whenever it may be brought to an end, shall bring with it that great blessing to the white race which shall consist in the final freedom of the black.' Referring to this speech, Mr. Gladstone wrote to the Duchess of Sutherland on April 6th, 1863 : 'That was a most strikingly eloquent speech of Argyll's, and well deserved reading.' The following appreciation by a visitor from Wash- ington who had heard the Duke on this occasion is quoted here : ' Although Lord Palmerston's speech was the prin- cipal attraction of the evening, the Duke of Argyll is by far the best speaker of them all. I send you a report. He made a most beautiful and telling defence of America, and was much applauded. There was not a man there who spoke with his grace and fluency. He is very young-looking, his fair complexion and Hght, almost golden, hair adding to the youthfulness of his general appearance. He has also a fine, noble countenance, and altogether impressed me more favourably than any of the other speakers.' From many well-known Americans the Duke re- ceived letters of warm thanks for his support of their cause. From Mr. Henry Ward Beecher {July 9th, 1863). ' When our war is over and we are once more at peace, I could wish that you might visit America, and that I might go before you to proclaim : " What shall be done to them who, in places of power, stood 198 THE AMEBIC AN CIVIL WAR [chap, xxxiv firm and faithful to our cause, amidst the faithless ?" I am sure that you would see that a Republican welcome can be more royal than any that is ever given to royalty. ' At any rate, it may not be displeasing to you to know that your name wiU be held in love and honour henceforth for your great kindness to us in our dark hour of trial.' From Mr. Motley. ' We all read with admiration your speech at Edin- burgh. How glad I am that one whose utterances on great subjects are so noble and so genuine is friendly to my country in this hour of her agony !' From Mr. Whittier, the poet {April 6th, 1871). ' Hast thou never thought of making a visit to the U.S. ? Our people would welcome thee as their friend in the great struggle for Union and liberty, and in our literary and philosophical circles thou wouldst find appreciative and admiring friends. ' Believe me, very truly and with the highest respect, ' Thy friend, ' John G. W. Whittier.' In the summer of 1862 the Duke visited Cambridge to receive the honorary degree of LL.D. of that University. In his diary the following mention is made of the occasion : ' 1862. June 9. — A day of functions. Went to Senate House at two with Chancellor and other LL.D.'s. Brougham was the favourite. Armstrong received with tremendous applause. In evening dined at Queens' in a beautiful old gallery. Replied for House of Peers. Dinner most picturesque. Walked back with Sir Edmund Head. 1861-62] DEGREE AT CAMBRIDGE 199 ' 1862. June 10. — More functions. Lunched at Caius. Flower Show in gardens. Great dinner in Trinity Hall in evening at seven. Spoke for the Peers who had been doctored, successfully. Home at twelve. Much congratulated by John Manners, young Stanley, and Mr. Walpole.' CHAPTER XXXV 1862-65 FOREIGN POLITICS In 1862 a question arose in connection with the Civil War in America which assumed serious proportions for the British Government. The Northern States, though not hitherto very successful in the field, were slowly overcoming the Confederates by the blockade of the Southern ports, while Northern industry and commerce continued to prosper. The Confederates endeavoured to retaHate by striking at the sea-borne trade of their antagonists, but they had no ships, nor any means of building them, nor had they access to the sea. They were therefore compelled to purchase their commerce-destroyers abroad, and many vessels were laid down to their order in English yards. The North asserted that to allow these ships to be built and to set sail for such a purpose was an act of hos- tility, but the sentiments as well as the interests of English shipbuilders made them willing to assist the Confederates. The dispute came to a crisis over the Alabama, which was built on the Mersey, and, partly owing to an unfortunate chapter of minor accidents, was allowed to sail before the British Government had decided that the evidence as to its destination was suflftcient to justify the detention of the vessel, in compliance with the demands of the American 200 1862-65] THE 'ALABAMA' 201 Minister, Mr. Adams. It was ascertained, when too late to prevent the departure of the Alabama, that legal opinion was on the side of the American de- mands. Earl RusseU, acting on a suggestion made by the Duke of Argyll, proposed, with a view to avoiding any unfortunate consequences, that orders should be given to detain the Alabama at any British port at which she might touch. The other members of the Cabinet, however, refused to sanction the proposal of the Foreign Secretary. The following letter, written by the Duke to Earl Russell ten years later (December 5th, 1872), refers to the situation at this period : ' Let me call to your recollection one circumstance, of which I have a vivid recollection. You and I had a conversation one day about the " escape " - of the Alabama, and I urged on you that, though she had fraudulently escaped when you had meant to seize her, that was no reason why we should not detain her if she touched at any of our ports. You agreed with me in this view, and you drew up a despatch directing the colonial authorities to detain her if she came into their power. ' If this had gone forth, one great plea of the Ameri- cans could never have been urged against us, and the American claims would, perhaps, have never been made at all. ' But what happened ? When you brought it before the Cabinet there was a perfect insurrection. Everybody but you and I were against the proposed step. Bethell was vehement against its " legality," and you gave it up. ' The correlative of this opinion is that America had reason and right in complaining that the Alabama was received in all our ports, and that so far we were in the wrong.' 202 FOREIGN POLITICS [chap, xxxv There is now no dispute regarding the facts of the case. The Alabama was built for the Confederates, equipped in English waters, and manned principally by an EngHsh crew. She frequented British ports in various parts of the world, and eventually greatly injured the Northern ocean trade. From the first escape of the Alabama in 1862 until the final settlement of the question by arbitration at Geneva in 1872, the Duke consistently maintained that England was in the wrong. The Foreign Enlistment Act had been passed to prevent British subjects from breaking the neutrality existing between Great Britain and other States by ' the equipment of vessels for foreign service.' In the case of the Alabama, however, it was found that the terms of this Act were not sufficiently explicit to be effectual, but the British contention was that the Act was a piece of domestic legislation, not to be altered at the suggestion of any foreign nation. This attitude was maintained until the Derby Administra- tion took up the quarrel in 1866, and some years later the Act was amended. On April 27th the Duke wrote to Mr. Gladstone : ' The more I think of it, the more clear I feel that the doctrine that our inaction with regard to the Alabama was no violation of international law, but only of municipal law, is a doctrine which will not stand investigation, and will certainly not be consistent with the maintenance of peace, when- ever other nations are strong enough to resent it. ' It would follow that we might repeal our Foreign Enlistment Act to-morrow, and thereupon every one of our ports might be busy building, fitting out, and arming whole fleets of war-vessels to be commissioned by the Confederates, without giving any groimd of offence to the American Government. 1862-65] THE ' ALABAMA ' AFFAIR 2(J3 ' In like manner, if we were blockading the coasts of France, the American ports might furnish to Prance any number of armed ships to be commissioned by her. Do you beUeve we should stand that without remonstrance ? I do not. It is a doctrine in the highest degree dangerous to ourselves, and against all reason and common-sense. ' Peace between two Governments would be per- fectly compatible, on this doctrine, with systematic war between their respective subjects. ' I agree with Goldwin Smith when he says : " Inter- national law nowadays is carrying things rather high." ' The Duke, in a letter to Mr. Motley (July 24th, 1863), aUudes to the attitude of Mr. Sumner with regard to this vexed question : ' We have had a frequent correspondence with Sumner of late. He scolds and denounces us all furiously ; but he is so excellent and true-hearted that we take it aU very willingly. We have also seen Henry Ward Beecher, whom I Hked, and we had a very pleasant morning's conversation with him in the garden here.' During the early months of 1863 two ironclad rams were built at Liverpool for the purpose of destroying the vessels which blockaded the Confederate ports. Mr. Adams pressed Lord Russell to detain these ironclads, but for a long time in vain. The Duke wrote from Inveraray on September 4th, 1863, to Mr. Gladstone : ' We have had Adams here. He is very temperate in his language, but much concerned — and justly, I think — about the ironclads. He teUs me that he pro- cured from the French Consul an immediate denial of the rumour that they were built on French account. 204 FOREIGN POLITICS [chap, xxxv The assertion that they were so built is of itself a strong indication of fraud. I hear that Laird* says that, if oflficially asked, he will declare the destination of the ships.' To Mr. Gladstone {September IQth, 1863). ' I have long been in correspondence with head- quarters about the ironclads, and have urgently pressed the duty and necessity of detaining the ships. If we are beat for want of evidence before a court of justice, it will, at least, not be our fault. But if we allowed them to go without an effort to prevent them, I think we should have been open to just complaint. Roundell Palmer told me that the evidence he had seen pointed to a French destination, and that the French Consul claimed them. I was greatly relieved by this informa- tion. But Adams told me the other day here that he had at once procured a denial and disavowal from the French authorities.' On September 8th Lord Russell informed Mr. Adams that he had given instructions for the deten- tion of the vessels. The American Ambassador wrote on October 17th to the Duke : ' The detention of the ironclads has done wonders in conciliating my masters in America, for it shows the will, which is of more consequence even than the power.' In reply to a letter from the Duke congratulating him on his action in the matter. Lord Russell wrote as follows : ' Pembroke Lodge, ' My dear Duke, ' ^^^''^^^ 1^^^' l^^^- ' I thank you heartily for your kind letter. It was a difficulty, and I felt bound to solve it. Now * The shipbuilder. 1862-65] INTERNATIONAL LAW 205 we shall either have a verdict or full proof that the law requires amendment. ' But I wish the North would clear the West of the Mississippi, establish freedom in Maryland, etc., and then let their wayward sisters go in peace. ' Yours truly, ' Russell.' From the Duke's correspondence with Mr. Glad- stone at this time the following extracts are given : To Mr. Gladstone {April 1th, 1863). ' Tell me, pray, if you hear of any question likely to arise about, or under, the Foreign Enlistment Act. I see that " Historicus "* puts an interpretation on it which cannot be the one adopted by our law officers. He maintains that not even full arming and equip- ment constitute any infringement of the Act, unless the persons so arming and equipping are also the persons intending to employ the vessel in hostile acts. Of course, this interpretation makes the law absolutely nugatory, because the persons building and equipping are never the same persons as those who use the vessel after it is built. The whole subject requires review. No two men seem agreed on the object or principle of the law. No doubt the simplest footing would be a universal understanding that armed vessels, as well as small arms and guns, may be freely supplied to either party as subjects of commerce. But there are circumstances in v/hich this doctrine and practice would not be stood by the injured nations. Probably we should be the first to resent and punish the adoption of such a practice by the subjects of friendly Govern- ments. But if it were the acknowledged doctrine of all States, it would save much of the evil of the present state of things.' * The name under which Mr., afterwards Sir William, Harcourt wrote to the Times. 206 POEEIGN POLITICS [cjhap. xxxv To Mr. Gladstone {September 28th, 1863). ' There is no doubt of the immense difficulty of the question of the ironclads. But I think the difficulty arises mainly from the (as I think) unfortunate state of public feeling, so largely sympathizing with the South. I mean that the difficidty is rather due to the impediments in our way in doing what is right than in seeing what is right to be done. ' As regards executive action, I do not see why the export of armour-plated ships should not be pro- hibited for the present, as the export of other contra- band of war has often been prohibited before. As regards legislation, probably the simplest way would be to require that the builders of all such vessels should be required to declare for what Government they are built, a false allegation to be checked by an appeal to the Government for which the vessel is said to be built. ' Of course, iron-plated vessels cannot be built for private persons. No private persons are in a position to use them. They must be built for some Govern- ment entitled to carry on war. Such an enactment would not interfere with a great number and variety of vessels capable of being converted into war-vessels. But we cannot reach by any possible enactment this kind of operation. ' I question whether any Act is workable which proceeds on proof of " intent." How can it be proved, any more than it is proved in this case ? Aii iron- clad can be intended only for war. It must, therefore, be intended for some Government entitled to wage war. If all other Governments disclaim the com- mission, as they do, what Government can it be intended for except that which is waging war against the United States, with whom we are at peace ? The allegation that such vessels are for a private individual, in any other sense than as he may be the agent for some Government, is so clear a fraud and evasion, that, imless the law can reach it, it is a useless law, and 1862-65] OTJR LAWS AS TO SHIP-BUILDIKG 207 society is helpless against a crime seriously endangering its peace. ' If this were felt, as it ought to be felt, by the public and by Parliament, there would not be much difficulty in devising means for securing ourselves against such acts. ' Sumner has made in many respects a very foolish and inexpedient speech. But he puts the matter of ships strongly and weU. He asserts — and, I fear, truly — that English ports ha,ve become the naval base of naval operations.' It afterwards transpired that the American Govern- ment had, without the knowledge of Mr. Adams, sent two representatives to England on a secret mission, the object of which was to endeavour to outbid the Confederates, and to purchase from the builders the ironclads in question for the use of the Federal States. This project was, however, eventually abandoned by those entrusted with the mission.* On December 20th, 1864, Mr. Gladstone wrote to the Duke : ' There is another subject touching our relations with the United States on which we ought now to make up our minds. Is the state of our laws with respect to the building ships of war satisfactory, or ought it to be more stringent ? If we are clear that it ought not, well and good. But I for one am not quite clear. And if there is anything to amend, this is the time to think of some plan for amending it, whether by ourselves or in concurrence with the United States or with other coimtries.' To this the Duke replied on December 23rd : ' I do not think the law, as it at present stands, is a law which enables us, as a Government, to fulfil our * ' Charles Francis Adaras,' by his son, Charles Francis Adams, p._320. 208 FOREIGN POLITICS [chap, xxxv neutral obligations with sufficient facility and certainty. Unfortunately, however, the exact condition of the law was not tested by any judicial decision. . . . ' Enough, however, was seen of it in the course of the argument to show that it does not arm the Execu- tive with powers sufficiently definite and precise to be brought easily into operation, and that in this respect it is inferior to the corresponding American Act. ' RoundeU Palmer spoke to me as if a very slight alteration in the wording of the Act would be sufficient for the purpose. He should, of course, be consulted on the subject. But on one thing I feel sure : that our obligations as a neutral are not, and cannot be, measured by our powers as a Government under the municipal statute, and if the latter is defective, falling short of the powers which the Executive ought to have to enable it to fulfil its neutral obligations, I never could understand the objection to an amendment of the law. Yet, as a matter of fact, I think there is ajdeep-seated reluctance — the old John Bull nolumus feeling — which makes the question a very delicate one to handle. Matters would be made much worse by the failiire of any attempted legislation. ' I am sure all Americans bear us an insuperable grudge on account of the Alabama, and I confess I do not think their feeling unnatural and unreasonable. We should feel exactly the same in their place. I think every Government ought to have full power to prevent the national interests being compromised by the rapacity of individual merchants, and that there is an essential and inherent distinction between arms, ammunition, etc., and ships.' On December 26th, 1864, the Duke replied to a letter from Mr. Gladstone, who had urged him to ' stir up Lord Russell ' on the subject of the Alabama : ' I wrote at once to Lord Russell on receipt of your letter, all the more readily as I have always taken the 1862-65] LORD RUSSELL AND THE ' ALABAMA ' 209 same view of the expediency, if not of the duty, of making our mimicipal law more clear, and bringing it up more abreast of what I think is our international obligation. But the difficulties are considerable, and I feel sure, as I said before, that an abortive attempt to legislate would put us in a worse position than that in which we now stand. ' The amendment you suggest is very much that which I mentioned to you last year when you were at Balmoral — viz., that where ships of an acknowledged or provable war character were being built, the builders should be obliged to declare by what Government they were ordered, and that building such ships, except on such order, should be illegal after the Queen's procla- mation. I think something of this kind was pointed at by Cobden. It seems to me to be clearly reason- able. ' Lord Derby hinted last session an objection to any legislation on the subject, which does not appear to me to hold water. It was this : that any alteration of the law effected during the contest must injuriously affect one or other of the belligerents, and is, therefore, pro tanto, a departure from neutrality. The idea of neutrality on which this objection is founded is a very strange one, but it seems to be very commonly entertained. It is the puzzle-headed notion that the duty of neutraHty is to keep the balance as even as we can between the belligerents, and the perpetual observation is that our neutrality is one-sided, because its practical operation is (in some respects, at least) adverse to the weaker of the two belligerents.' Lord Russell's reply to the Duke concerning the Alabama question was regarded by his colleagues as inconclusive. He considered that the British Govern- ment could not at that moment proceed further in the matter. The next step should, he thought, be taken by the United States, to whom proposals of VOL. n. 14 210 FOREIGN POLITICS [chap, xxxv mediation had been made — proposals which, as yet, had neither been accepted nor rejected. In the month of October, 1865, Lord Palmerston, who was in his eighty-first year, died somewhat suddenly, after a few days' illness. He was suc- ceeded as Prime Minister by Lord Russell, and the Administration continued as before. No decision had been arrived at with regard to the Alabama claim, and the Duke was particularly anxious to have the question fairly faced and finally settled, as he considered that, until that had been done, there was no guarantee of permanent harmony between the two nations. He wrote to Mr. Gladstone, Novem- ber 27th, 1865 : ' Pray do give your mind to the important question whether we should or should not amend our own Foreign Enlistment Act. Lord RusseU's despatch of November 3rd admits that " on trial it had not proved efficacious." But what follows hardly amounts to a formal invitation that both countries should amend together. Even, however, if the invitation were formal, I feel pretty sure that in their present temper the Americans would refuse. They have some reason to say that their law is better (though R. Palmer thinks not) ; but, at aU events, their executive action is a little more free than ours, and they may deny that their own law " has proved not ef&cacious on trial." ' The question, then, will remain for us : Shall we keep our law as it is, after experience and public con- fession that it is ineffective, or shall we, irrespective of all other interests than our own, proceed to amend it ? ' For doing nothing there are powerful inducements acting, at least, on the Foreign Office. First, there is the disposition to procrastinate and put off all 1862-65] LORD RTJSSBLL'S ADMINISTRATION 211 difi&cult questions — " anything for a quiet life." " Suffi- cient unto the day is the evil thereof," as in the San Juan case. ' Secondly, there is the controversial temper con- sequent on the correspondence with Adams. This is the ground taken by Lord Russell in his note along with Palmer's Draft Bill. It seems to me a very weak ground. ' Whatever may be the relation between a Foreign Enlistment Act and international obligation, there can be no doubt that the fundamental principle is self- protection, not the protection of other people. The preamble of the statute declares this distinctly. ' To delay amending a law which is intended for our own protection, after we had declared that " on trial it has proved inefficacious," is surely the height of foUy. ' After all, our amending the statute now will afford no sort of triumph or argument against us to Adams. The Alabama escaped long before our law had been brought to trial. It was the case of the rams, long subsequent to the evasion of the Alabama, which really tested the inefficiency of our law, and we surmounted the difficulty only by purchase. ' But, really, the argument for action lies in a nut- shell. The statute is both municipal and inter- national in its bearings. In both it is important as a means of preserving peace. We admit it to be, in its present form, inefficacious. Can there be any doubt of the duty of a Government under such circum- stances to amend the law ?' Lord Russell's Administration was short - lived, lasting only from November, 1865, to June, 1866. On his resignation, Lord Derby became Prime Minister for the third time, and Lord Stanley was Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He did not follow the policy of his predecessors — Lord Russell and Lord Clarendon — but 14—2 212 FOREIGN POLITICS [chap, xxxv admitted responsibility for American commercial losses, and arbitration was formally proposed. This the United States accepted, but on the condition that all questions at issue between the two countries should be included in the reference. The American diplo- matists wished, also, to submit, as one of the issues, the question of the right of Great Britain to recognise the Confederates even as belligerents. At this point the negotiations for the time broke down, and when they were renewed in the following year, at the in- stance of the American Ambassador, Mr. Johnson, it fell to Lord Clarendon to accept the final terms, the Derby Administration having in the meantime re- signed, after defeat at the polls. It was at this moment, when the difficulties seemed in a fair way towards solution, that Mr. Seward made a speech denouncing the conduct of England during the Civil War. The result was that Congress refused to ratify the Convention, and matters reverted to their former chaotic condition. One of the points at issue between the two Govern- ments was a question as to the Canadian Fishery Rights in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and on the eastern coast of the United States. Lord Granville, who had become Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the death of Lord Clarendon, proposed that a joint High Com- mission should meet at Washington for the settlement of the question. President Grant accepted the sugges- tion, and at the same time proposed that all questions at issue between America and Great Britain should be submitted to the same Commission. This proposal was agreed to by the British Government, and the Commission, which met at Washington on February 27th, 1871, resulted in the Treaty of Washington. 1862-66] THE GENEVA AEBITRATION 213 The terms of the Treaty provided for the settlement of the Alabama claims by a tribunal, consisting of five arbiters, which was to meet at Geneva, and to decide all the questions submitted to it. These arbiters were : Sir Alexander Cockbum, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, Count Frederic Sclopis, Monsieur J. Staempfli, and Baron d'ltajuba, and they met for the first time on December 1 5th, 1871. The tribimal found England responsible for the acts of the Alabama, and awarded a sum of £3,250,000 sterling to America as compensation and final settle- ment of aU claims. Eventually it proved that this compensation was excessive, as, after satisfying all demands, America was left in possession of £1,000,000. During the period of Lord Palmerston's last Ad- ministration, foreign affairs occupied a prominent place, and until the question of Reform was again taken up under Earl Russell's premiership, the poHtical stage was fiUed by Italy, the United States, Poland, and Denmark. Poland was seething with discontent and ready for rebellion, when Russia laid on the Poles a last intoler- able burden, by converting the annual conscription lists, made up by lot, into a proscription of all the young and active men who were suspected of sympathizing with revolution. An insurrection broke out, and the insurgent Poles waged a guerilla warfare against the Russian forces, striving, as their only hope of success, to keep alight the flame of revolt until the Western Powers should have been forced by the sympathy and indignation of their peoples to intervene. Lord Russell, in a despatch, vindicated the right of England to interpose under the terms of the Treaty of Vienna, but this step was without effect on the 214 FOREIGN POLITICS [chap, xxxv situation, and there was no question of any practical interference on the part of England. The French Emperor proposed a Congress to discuss the European situation, but the proposal was not accepted. The refusal to meet his views gave con- siderable offence to Louis Napoleon, and rendered negotiations with France more difficult at a later period, when a question with regard to the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein engaged the attention of Europe. On the occasion of a motion in the House of Lords, brought forward on July 13th, 1863, by Earl Grey, asking the Government for further information on the subject of Poland, the Duke, in reply to Lord Clanricarde, spoke as follows : ' Unless we are in a position to do absolutely nothing, and to say not a word in favour of Poland or in repro- bation of the cruelties of which she has been the victim, no other course can be taken than that pur- sued by Her Majesty's Government. If it is our duty to speak at all, we are bound to limit our sugges- tions within the four corners of the Treaty of Vienna. But my noble friend [Earl Russell] has not main- tained that we are bound to restore Poland to that position in which she was constituted by the Treaty of Vienna ; he merely said that the Treaty of Vienna gives us a locus standi which entitles us to speak on the PoHsh question along with the other Powers of Europe. It follows, however, that we cannot propose to the Emperor of Russia to part altogether with his Polish Empire. As to the policy of doing nothing, silence under certain circumstances need not imply consent. It may be that we have no relation with a part of Europe which is the scene of great horrors, and in which great cruelties are being perpetrated ; but if we have a locus standi for speaking upon the 1862-65] SOHLESWIG AND HOLSTEIN 215 condition of that country, and yet offer no opinion, we should be guilty of a great dereliction of public duty. This is the position of the Government in the present instance. I do not know what the noble Marquis of Clanricarde meant by the speech he has just made, but he seemed to advocate a doctrine which ought to be repudiated — namely, that England ought never to speak unless she is prepared to foUow up her speech by broadsides of shot and shell, and ought never to use her moral influence on the side of any people unless she is prepared to go to war in their favour. Now, we are often inclined to exaggerate our advantages as compared with those of former times ; but one of the advantages and the blessings which we now enjoy is certainly an increase in the power exercised by pubhc opinion. In our day public opinion acts much more powerfully and rapidly, and with much greater certainty, upon the councils of the world than it ever has done before ; and it would have been a grave dereliction of public duty if England, representing as she does, to a great extent, the feeling of Europe, had held her tongue upon the subject of Poland. It is worthy of remark that during the whole debate no course has been pointed out other than that pursued by the Government, except the policy of total and, I must add, of ignominious sUence.' Towards the close of the year 1863 a point of dispute concerning the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein began to assume prominence. These Duchies had been for hundreds of years an appanage of the Danish Crown, but not part of the Danish kingdom. Holstein was purely German in its population, and formed part of the German Bund ; Schleswig was half German and half Danish. The more ardent Danes, instigated partly by the Scandinavian populations behind them in Norway and Sweden, desired an incorporating and not a merely personal union. On the other side were 216 FOEBiaN POLITICS [chap, xxxv the German nationalists, who considered that the German population in the Duchies was subject to Danish oppression. The Danes were responsible for some violations of the Treaty of London, which had been signed in 1852 by England, France, Austria, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, and by which the Duchies were united to Denmark. On the death of Frederick VII. of Denmark, the Crown devolved upon Prince Christian of Schleswig Holstein Sonderburg Glucksburg, who, in default of direct heirs of the late King, had been chosen by the Great Powers of Europe to succeed Frederick VII. on the throne of Denmark. At the time this arrange- ment was concluded by the Treaty of London in 1852, the Duke of Augustenburg, who was then a claimant for the Duchies, agreed to renounce any rights he might possess as regards Holstein and Schlesmg ; but his son. Prince Frederick, now renewed these claims, and Germany resisted the idea of the incorporation of the Duchies by Denmark. While at Balmoral in June, 1864, the Duke of Argyll wrote a memorandum on the subject of Schleswig-Holstein for the Queen, which explained the situation during the eleven years that followed the Treaty of 1852. From this memorandum the follow- ing passages are quoted : ' I have never felt called upon to defend the ex- pediency of the Treaty of 1852. We found it existing, and it was clearly the duty of all the signatories to that Treaty to act upon it in good faith. ' At the same time, the principle of that Treaty is one which has often been acted upon in Europe. The claim of the Augustenburgs to the Duchy of Holstein, and still more to the Duchy of Schleswig, was not an undisputed claim. On the contrary, it was open to 1862-65] THE SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN QUESTION 217 doubt, and, as a matter of fact, was violently con- tested. This doubt was not confined to those who were in the Danish interest. A Commission appointed by the King of Prussia reported against the claim. This fact is, to my mind, conclusive proof that it was a claim open to real doubt. At any rate, it was a claim founded on the highest and purest doctrines of legitimacy. These are always held to be subject to limitation and control from practical political con- siderations. ' Europe, therefore, had before it the prospect of a disputed claim, and probably of a war of succession. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that it was not unreasonable or unjust that the Great Powers of Europe should agree to recognise and support some one principle of settlement which would be most con- sonant to the general interest. ' If, however, the Treaty of 1852 had broken down really and bond fide from the opposition of the people of the Duchies and from nothing else, there would have been no feehng in this country leading us to insist on its being maintained. ' I entirely agree that England has no selfish or personal interest in the matter. A German fleet is quite as Hkely to be friendly with us as a Danish fleet, perhaps more so. ' But England, as one of the Great Powers, has a general interest in supporting justice and fair dealing among Continental States, and especially in supporting the independence of the smaller monarchies. ' The present strong feeling in England has arisen from the belief that if the German Powers had acted in good faith in support of the Treaty which they had signed, it might have been maintained, consistently with full security for the hberties of the people of the Duchies. 218 FOREIGN POLITICS [chap, xxxv ' It seems to me open to a fair doubt whether Denmark has violated the promise not to incorporate Schleswig ; but I do not dispute the right of the German Powers to exercise a reasonable check on Danish action in this respect. ' This right, however, ought to have been acted upon with great reserve and moderation, because Schleswig does not belong to the German Confederation, and in the correspondence of 1851 and 1852 it is over and over again acknowledged that Germany has no federal right of interference whatever. ' Consequently, the right of interference rests merely on the natural sympathy which Germany may have with a German population which has settled in an ancient Danish province. This sympathy is natural, and would be respected in England if acted upon with reasonable moderation. But the violent and bloody war waged upon Denmark, on account of her conduct, however foolish, in Schleswig, is a mode of action beyond all moderation and against all justice. ' This, at least, is the feeling in England. ' At the same time, the English public are too apt to forget that Prussia has been able to play this game only because a great part, at least, of the people of Schleswig are hostile to the Danish Government. This is a fact, and we must recognise it as such. It proves that there can be no durable peace on the basis, pure and simple, of the Treaty of 1852.' Mr. Gladstone wrote to the Duke on December 31st, 1863: ' This afternoon a telegram acquaints me we are to have a Cabinet on Saturday. Considering your know- ledge of, and interest in, the Danish question, I think it likely you may be there, notwithstanding the distance. I shall therefore say very little.' 1862-65] THE SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN QUESTION 219 Lord Palmerston had stated, in reply to a question as to the intentions of the Government with regard to Schleswig-Holstein in 1863, that he was convinced that ' if any violent attempt were made to overthrow the rights and interfere with the independence of Denmark, those who made the attempt would find in the result that it would not be Denmark alone with which they would have to contend.' These words, coming from the Prime Minister, were supposed to imply that England would intervene on behalf of Denmark, although that intention was not definitely stated. The Cabinet, indeed, came to the conclusion that intervention on the part of Britain was out of the question, as it was obviously impossible for a country, which could do no more than put in the field an army of 20,000 men, to fight two military empires such as Germany and Austria. This decision on the part of England, combined with the attitude of France in holding aloof, left Denmark at the mercy of the united armies of Austria and Prussia, which entered Holstein early in 1864. At the suggestion of Lord Russell, it was arranged that a Conference of the Powers who had signed the Treaty of London was to be held in London on April 25th, 1864. In a speech in the House of Lords on the 9th of April, the Duke, in reply to Lord Campbell, defended the policy of the Government with regard to the ques- tion of Schleswig-Holstein : ' I am anxious to hear what my noble friend means by " more decided action in support of the protocol of 1852." I have no doubt that he means that the Government might have prevented the war altogether if, in fact, they had only threatened to take part in 220 FORBiaN POLITICS [OHAP. XXXV it. The question put is, Why did not the Govern- ment prevent the war ? But the real question which my noble friend wishes to put is. Why has not the Government taken part in it ? The critics of the Government have always one story : they never avow that they are in favour of a war policy, but they say that if the Government had done this or the other we should have prevented war. But it is equally open to the Government to say that if we had adopted a different course we should have increased the chances of bloodshed and the miseries that have resulted. I maintain that it is sufficient for the Government to show that we have adopted and have adhered to some definite line of policy, which we are able to support and maintain in Parliament and to justify before the country. I protest against the doctrine that, primd facie, there is any case against the Government of this country for not preventing a Continental war, even supposing it may have broken out under cir- cumstances of much injustice. England has a great position in Europe, not only on account of her material power, but from the just impression that prevails that, on the Continent at least, she has no selfish interests whatever to serve, and that so far as our interests, which are principally commercial, are con- cerned, they are bound up with the prosperity of the whole world. But England is not the general arbitress in the quarrels of Continental nations. There may be wars under circumstances of the greatest injustice waged there, but that is not a prima facie case against the English Government for not having interfered in them. . . . ' It should be remembered that we were not dealing with the Government of Germany alone. We were dealing to a great extent with forces which took their origin in the revolutionary passions which were then existing on the Continent ; in short, I do not believe it would be too much to say that we were dealing with two fanatical democracies. These were not powers 1862-65] SPEECH ON SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN 221 accessible to reason, and I am therefore convinced that, if we had taken that course, we not only should not have averted war, but we should have been forced to join in the war, should have increased the blood- shed, and should have brought on new and compli- cated dangers. It will be admitted that any course which should isolate us from France would be very dangerous. As long as both countries go together, there are few things which they cannot secure in the way of peace ; but if isolated action were once adopted by either, there are contingencies which might impel them more and more in opposite directions, and might lead to the greatest perils to the peace of Europe. ' I am sure it is with feeHngs of absolute aflfliction that every member of the House has read the daUy accounts of the cruel and useless slaughter. It is absolutely certain that every object sought by the war might have been obtained by negotiation. During the last ten years we have witnessed three great wars in which there has been great bloodshed, but in respect of aU three great issues were at stake. In the case of the Russian War, in which we were parties, the question was whether the same Sovereign should reign at St. Petersburg and Constantinople. In the case of the Italian War, the question was whether one of the great nations in Europe, with an ancient literature and a noble history, and the highest capacities for political hfe, should continue to be for ever nothing but the favourite camping-ground of German soldiers. With regard to the war now raging on the other side of the Atlantic, however they may deplore it, extend- ing as it does over such a vast territory, and as yet giving no indication of its approaching end, no man can deny that there are great issues raised, all of which, probably, can only be settled by the results of war. But, in contrast to these, the war in Denmark has for its object issues that could certainly be settled by other means. What is the object set before them by 222 FOEEIGN POLITICS [chap, xxxv the German Powers ? I do not depreciate to the Schleswig - Holsteiners the value they set upon their liberties — ^they have as good a right to their liberties as we have to ours — but is there a single object in respect to them which could not be as well obtained by negotiation and without effusion of blood ? ' We are going to the Conference with three great objects. The iirst is to restore peace to the North of Europe ; the second, to secxire the legal rights of the Duchies ; and the third, to reconcile with those rights the integrity and independence of Denmark. There is one argument which might be fairly urged against taking what is called a " more decided course," and that is that there is some doubt as to the merits and justice of the original quarrel. I mU not dwell upon the weak points of the Danish case. The Danes are a gallant people, more sinned against than sinning. But those who have read the papers must remember that we have been compelled to make admissions on the subject of the constitution which is the immediate cause of the war — admissions which raise some doubts as to whether the Germans might not have had some fair grounds of dispute with the Danish people. But feeling the duty of impartiahty in the present position of the Government, I am much more disposed at present to point to just grounds of complaint against the German Powers. ' It is the desire of Her Majesty's Government to go into the Conference, not as partisans of the one side or the other, but impartially. They desire nothing but to restore peace to Europe — no doubt compatibly with the local rights of the two Duchies, and consistently, if possible, with the integrity of the Danish monarchy. They wish the balance of power in Europe to be maintained, and the rights of aU the parties to be preserved. These are the objects which Her Majesty's Government have had in view in times past, and in their efforts to avert war I believe 1862-65] ENGLAND AND DENMARK 223 they have had the approbation of the country, and will have the support of Parliament.' During the deliberations of the Conference of the Powers, hostilities were suspended. The Conference, however, broke up without having arrived at any agreement. The following extracts are quoted from a speech by the Duke on July 8th, 1864, in the House of Lords, defending the policy of the Government, in reply to a vote of censure proposed by Lord Malmesbury. A contrast having been drawn by Lord Malmesbury between the attitude of France and that of Eng- land, much to the disadvantage of England, the Duke said : ' I do not see how the assertion can be accounted for that the position of England is humihated in consequence of the course we have adopted towards Denmark, while the position of France is perfectly upright, fair, and honourable, except by those party feelings which lead men to attack their own country through the existing Government. I do not know how this contrast can be drawn between the two countries. We were co-signatories of the same Treaty. We were bound by precisely the same obligations. I wiU go a step further, and, speaking for myself, declare my firm conviction that England has no selfish or material interests whatever in the question. I deny the proposition of Lord Derby, that the vital interests of this country are concerned in the maintenance of the integrity of Denmark. I deeply sympathize with the Danes. There is no member of the House, I venture to say, who sympathizes with them more deeply than I do ; but I say that we in this country have no selfish or material interests whatever in the maintenance of the Treaty of 1852. I do not say the same of France. I think France has a material 224 FOEEIGN POLITICS [ohap. xxxv interest in preventing the advance of the German Confederation along the waters of the Baltic. . , . ' I ask, What is the position of the two countries ? England has recoiled before the risk of war with the whole of Germany, when that war must be carried on alone. France has recoiled before the fear of a war with Germany which would have been carried on in close alliance with England, one of the greatest Powers of Europe. France has recoiled before that war when her own material interests were nearly con- cerned, at a time when England, who had no interests, was prepared to join her. I am not blaming the Emperor of the French. He is at perfect liberty to be the judge of his own interests and actions. But I say that the contrast drawn between the positions of England and of France is simply ridiculous, and founded upon a gross misrepresentation of the relative position of the two countries. ***** ' The noble Earl repeatedly referred to a particular time when he thinks we ought to have adopted a more decided policy. He, of course, warned the House — ^as he always took care to do- — ^that he did not say he would have done this himself ; but he thinks that if it had been done, peace would have been secured. What was the particular juncture at which the noble Earl suggested, though he did not advise, that we should have gone to war ? When the German Powers were about to cross the Eider ? Think of the position that England would have been in. He did not say a word about France. He said England might have done this, and would have done it with complete success. What was the time of year when the in- vasion of Schleswig took place ? It was in the month of February, when hard frost was prevailing, and the Baltic was entirely inaccessible to our ships. What probability of success, then, had England at that time if she went to war with Germany ? In such circum- stances England, with her 30,000 or 35,000, or, at 1862-65] SPEECH ON DANISH QUESTION 225 the outside, 40,000 men, would have been called on to meet the united German force of perhaps 250,000 men, which would have been ranged against her in a single week or ten days. ***** ' There is one part of the subject I wish to deal with before I close. I wish to speak of those opponents of the Government who condemn us, not on the ground which the noble Earl has avowed — that of wishing to drive us from office that he may occupy our position himself — but who oppose us on a definite ground of principle and of policy. These noble Lords are the advocates of a war policy. And again I say I deeply regret the absence of Lord EUenborough, who has spoken in that sense more than once with all the vigour of his great powers. I do not deny that there is in the country, I will not say a large party, but a great number of persons who feel bitterly dis- appointed that England has not gone to war for the sake of Denmark, This is a feeling which has much of my sympathy and all of my respect. I confess that in deaHng with this subject I feel that the fate of the Government is a matter of very small importance. What is important is that the English people should be satisfied that, if we have refrained from war, it has not been merely because we have recoiled from difficulties and dangers to be incurred by ourselves, but from much higher considerations — considerations connected with the peace of Europe and the difficulties which lay in the way of enforcing the cause of justice. I beg noble Lords who participate in this feeling to consider what it is that men mean when they talk of going to war for Denmark. It is commonly said that going to war for Denmark means going to war to support the Treaty of 1852. But those who speak thus seem to have forgotten that practically the Treaty of 1852 has long ceased to be a living question — at all events, since the first meeting of the Conference it has ceased to be so. It was not by us, but by the VOL. II. 15 226 FOREIGN POLITICS [chap, xxxv Danes themselves, that the Treaty was abandoned. It has often been said that it was a Treaty of recog- nition and not of guarantee, and this, at least, is now generally understood. But this is not the point on which I now wish to dwell. It was a Treaty of recog- nition, but what was it that it recognised ? It was a recognition of a personal union between the Crown of Denmark and the Crowns of the two Duchies, and not of a union of the countries or their institutions. It was simply a recognition that the King of Denmark should also be the King of Schleswig and Holstein — a recognition of what has been called a personal union. But directly the Danes entered the Con- ference they said : " We wiU have no personal union ; we will not be satisfied with a personal union." Now, I am not blaming the Danes for taking up this position. On the contrary, I think that they were perfectly right in doing so. It was said last year by Lord EUenborough that Schleswig was a province which had belonged to Denmark for 400 years. That is perfectly true in one sense, but not in another. It is true that it was a fief of the Danish Court, but for many hundred years it was divided between the different occupants of the throne ; and it was not until the year 1720, the date of our own guarantee of part of Schleswig, that the whole of that Duchy was united to the Crown of Denmark, and then it was united solely by a personal union. Remember that, as long as Denmark was a despotism, a personal union was a real union, because, as far as regards external relations with foreign countries, a despotic Sovereign wields the whole power of all his Crowns, and in this case the King of Denmark had all the power of the Duke of Schleswig and the Duke of Holstein. But the moment you introduce respon- sible, liberal, and democratic government, the case is entirely altered. Personal union ceases to be luiion for any practical purpose whatever ; and unless the three Parhaments agree, the King of Denmark has 1862-65] SPEECH ON DANISH QUESTION 227 not, as he formerly had, the power of the three kingdoms imited. '5 Now, if you are to fight for Denmark in the present war, you would be going to war to force the Sohles- wigers not to be united, as formerly, by a personal union, but to be incorporated with Denmark. Is that an object for which England could go to war ? I wiU put aside aU question as to our power to meet alone the whole German Confederation ; I will put aside all questions as to the danger and inconveniences which might be incurred by England in such a war ; I wiU even go the length of supposing that it was within our power easily to effect our object ; and I ask. Is it an object which we have a right to go to war to effect, or which we have the smallest chance of effecting with any regard to justice or good pohcy ? I apprehend that there can be but one answer. It is not an object that we could propose to ourselves ; I believe it is an object that we could not have effected. And I am satisfied that when the people of England find that this is the only result for which they would have con- tended if they had gone to war, they wiU see that the Government has abstained from war not merely from selfish or imworthy considerations, but because we reaUy had not an object which it was within our right or competence to contend for. ' My Lords, I hope it wiU not be supposed that in anything I have said I intend to bear hard against the Danish Government or the Danish people ; much less that it wiU be imagined that I have the slightest sympathy with the course taken by the great German Powers. I beHeve there is not a single partisan of Germany in your Lordships' House. We may think, and we do think, that the Danes have committed great errors and great faults, but we are also of opinion that those errors might have been corrected without violence, and certainly atoned for without blood. . . .' 15—2 228 FOREIGN POLITICS [ohap. xxxv This speech produced a great effect on the House, and the result of the division is shown by an extract from the Duke's diary : ' We divided at 2 a.m., beating them by four in the House, but they had a majority of nine by proxies. Heard of the majority in Commons — eighteen. Great excitement.' The vote of censure in the House of Commons on the same date had been moved by Mr. Disraeli, in reply to whom Lord Palmerston made a most striking speech in defence of the whole poKcy of the Govern- ment. At the conclusion of the Conference the Austrian and Prussian armies had recommenced hostihties against Denmark, with the inevitable result that Denmark was defeated, and compelled to resign all claim to the Duchies. CHAPTER XXXVI 1866-67 REFORM After the withdrawal of the Reform Bill of 1860, no other measure in this direction was introduced during the lifetime of Lord Palmerston. But after his death, in October, 1865, when Lord Russell became Prime Minister, there was a general expectation that some proposals of Reform would be laid before Parliament. The change in the Premiership did not greatly affect the personnel of the Government. Lord Claren- don succeeded Lord Russell at the Foreign Ofl&ce, while his place as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was filled by Mr. Goschen. Sir Charles Wood, who had been obliged to resign the India Office on account of iOness, was succeeded by Lord de Grey, and Lord Hartington became Secretary for War. Soon after the General Election of 1865, which re- sulted in the return of the Liberal party with an in- creased majority, the Duke wrote to Mr. Gladstone : ' Yes, our majority is too big by half for " resting and being thankful "; and I have thought for some time that, even if this had not been so, we still ought to be considering some practical measure on the question of Reform. I think we could carry any reasonable measure ; though, of course, a new Parlia- ment wiU not; hke^ anything which would ^compel another dissolution soon.' 229 230 REFORM [CHAP. XXXVI The Bill, which was introduced by Mr. Gladstone on March 12, 1866, was very moderate in tone. It proposed to reduce the county franchise from £50 to £14, and the borough franchise from £10 to £7, and included a clause for the enfranchisement of lodgers. As in the case of the Bill of 1860, Parliament was indifferent on the subject, and even Mr. Gladstone's eloquence failed to arouse the interest of the House. The Conservatives were united against the Bill, and accused the Government of introducing only half of the measure, and of concealing in the meantime the part dealing with Redistribution. The Bill passed its first reading two days later, and the second reading was announced for April 12th. In the interval, Mr. Gladstone addressed a great Reform meeting at Liverpool on April 6th, and the Duke, who was present, refers in his journal to ' the magnificent speech ' made by Mr. Gladstone on this occasion. At a banquet held on the previous evening, the Duke, repljdng to the toast of the ' House of Lords,' spoke in support of the Reform Bill. Three days before the second reading of the BiU the Duke wrote to Mr. Gladstone : ' I am very unwilling to give up " grouping,"* even though it be on a small scale, and only as a commencement. ' As regards the line of disfranchisement, I see no insuperable objection to Lord Russell's double rule of a minimum of 5,000 population and 300 ten- pounders, although, of course, the latter test is open to the cavil that you sho\ild take the voters under the new franchise and not under the old. But the * This refers to the proposal to group small boroughs together instead of disenfranchising them. 1866-67] MK. KINGLAKE'S MOTION 231 ten-pounders are equally good as a test of relative size and importance. ' This double test will take in Colne and Wilton, to leave out which would seem to be ridiculous. As regards this limited grouping, I would simply take this rule : Add aU the boroughs deprived of exclusive representation to the nearest borough of population under, say, 10,000. ' I should greatly prefer your more extended plan of grouping. But if it be assumed that this is hopeless, I would not reject grouping altogether because it can only be commenced on a small scale. ' Let us remember that we are very likely to be obliged to appeal to the country, and with the coxmtry a tolerably bold scheme is more likely to help us than a small one.' On April 11th, 1866, Mr. Gladstone wrote to the Duke : ' Have you made any progress in further investi- gating the rate of growth in the £10 constitu- ency ? I should like much to know any new results attained, and if there are none, to have once more the paper you kindly lent me. ' My brother speaks warmly of the effect of your visit to Liverpool.' When the BiU came up for the second reading on April 12, it was met by Mr. Kinglake's adverse motion, ' That it is not expedient to go into committee on the said Bill until this House shall have before it the expected Bill for the redistribution of seats.' The Government agreed that the Redistribution BiU should be laid before the House without delay. The Reform Bill passed the second reading by a majority of five only. Meanwhile the Duke was endeavouring to avert the 232 REFORM [CHAP. XXXVI calamity which, he saw was rapidly approaching. On April 26th he wrote to Mr. Gladstone : ' As on the subject of Redistribution you intend to show what our opponents really mean, and what they aim at, so, on the subject of the Franchise, I think you may well show up what some, at least, of our opponents mean and aim at. ' They denounce what they call a " blank re- duction." I find this objection very common. What is aimed at is a " discriminating reduction " — that is to say, one figure for small boroughs, and another for large towns. ' They assume that all the small boroughs are cor- rupt and all the big ones pure. ' It would be well to show up this common notion by the fact, notorious to all, that bribery has been detected in more large towns than in small ones. ' To deny a vote to a householder at Arundel who has a good house for £7, and to give it to a room- holder in Liverpool who pays the same rent for two rooms, would be a violently unjust proposal. Yet this is what is aimed at. Let bribery be severely dealt with where detected, but don't let it be made a pretext for wholesale injustice.' On the 19th of June the Government was defeated, on an amendment brought forward by Lord Dun- kellin, and the Ministers tendered their resignations to the Queen. Her Majesty at first asked them to reconsider their decision, but several members of the Cabinet, including the Duke of Argyll, were strongly of opinion that it was undesirable to carry on the Government, on account of the absence of unanimity in the party. The Queen therefore accepted Lord Russell's resig- nation, and Lord Derby was sent for and asked to form an Administration. 1866-67] VISIT TO ROME 233 After the resignation of the Liberal Government, the Duke went to Scotland, and remained at Inveraray for some months. Towards the end of October he travelled with the Duchess and some of his family to Rome, where he had arranged to spend the winter. Mr. and Mrs. Gladstone and the Cardwells were in Rome at the same time, as well as a number of other friends. The Duke greatly enjoyed his visits to the different galleries and churches, his delight in art making him keenly appreciative of the treasures to be found in Rome. The notes in his diary record his impressions at the time, but they are, unfortunately, too brief for transcription. In addition to English friends, the Duke had many Italian acquaintances in Rome, and while there he was received by the Pope, and visited the King, in company with Mr. Gladstone and Mr. CardweU. He also became acquainted with several of the Cardinals. He was especially attracted by Cardinal Grassellini, whom he described as a ' charming old man.' They met frequently in Rome, and had amicable discussions on religious questions, regarding which their views were necessarily entirely opposed. They were, how- ever, in sympathy on broader issues, as is shown by a letter which, after his return to England, the Duke received from the Cardinal, to whom he had sent a copy of his book, ' The Reign of Law.' Cardinal Grassellini wrote as follows : ' Excellence, ' J'ai a peine acheve la lecture du charmant livre que vous avez voulu m'envoyer, et je me hate de prendre la plume pour vous remercier, et pour vous assurer du plaisir et de 1' admiration que j'ai eprouve 234 KEFOKM [chap, xxxvi en le lisant serieusement. Vous avez choisi un grand et bien important argument — La loi c'est dans le Monde Physique et dans le Monde Moral la pensee de Dieu, le doigt de Dieu, sa Creation, sa Providence, son Omnipotence. Vous avez tres-bien promene ce doigt de Dieu par tout le Royaume de la Nature et par tout la Societe Civile, vous avez encore su le retrouver dans les profondeurs de I'ame et dans I'intelligence de la Creature, image et ressemblance de Dieu. A la belle analyse de ces grands sujets vous avez ajoute une constante clarte, un ordre, une elegance, une richesse de connaissances qui rendent votre livre tres - interessant et tres - instructif aux grands penseurs, comme aux gens du monde. Je vais en repeter la lecture, et je me trouve maintenant encore plus heureux de notre voyage d'Ancone a Rome. ' Agreez, etc. Toujours avec I'espoir de vous revoir a Rome ' Votre serviteur devoue, ' Le Cardinal Grassellini.' The party in Rome broke up early in the New Year, and the Duke and Mr. Gladstone returned to London in time for the opening of Parliament in February, 1867. The British electors had not shown much enthusiasm about Mr. Gladstone's Reform Bill of 1866, but pubUc interest was now aroused, even in the most remote districts of the country, and this accounted for the action taken by the Conservative party on the subject of Reform. The question had been a matter of dis- cussion between the Duke and Mr. Gladstone when they were together in Rome, and they agreed in the opinion that the country would not accept from the Tories a measure of Reform as moderate as Mr. Glad- stone had proposed. The Bill, however, which was 1866-67] LIMITATION OF SUFFBAGE 235 brought forward by Mr. Disraeli, proved to be a thoroughly Radical measure, which, by the intro- duction of Household Suffrage, involved the enfran- chisement of a much larger number of citizens than had been proposed in Mr. Gladstone's Bill. The Liberals were naturally totally unprepared for the introduction by a Conservative Government of a Radical measure so much in advance of any reform of the franchise which they had contemplated, although the Bill was eventu- ally carried by the help of a section of the Opposition, who voted with the Government. The Duke's letters to Mr. Gladstone show that he held to the idea of limitation of the franchise. On April 23rd, 1867, when recovering from a short attack of illness caused by a severe chiU, he wrote : ' Till within the last two days, it has been a labour to me to write at aU, else I should have written to you long ago to say how much I felt for you in the desertion of so many who ought to have behaved better. I really believe that cowardice about a disso- lution was more at the bottom of it than anything else, coupled with some cowardice about being supposed to vote against " Household Suffrage." But besides these feelings there is a thoroughly discontented spirit, and a great desire to limit by every possible and plausible device anjrthing like a large enfranchisement. ' I can't help thinking that on some main points the Liberal party will yet be compelled to vote straight. But probably you are right in supposing that the chances of this wiU be increased if you appear simply as supporting the amendments of individual members. ***** ' I mean to go to Scotland in the first week of May, when I have some county business, and I look forward to this as more hkely to set me up again than anything else. I ought to be at Inveraray for a meeting on the 236 REFORM [chap, xxxvi 8th May, and I hope to get a fortnight there among the hyacinths. Nothing will come up to the Lords till July, I suppose. ' I like the idea of an amendment of which MacLaren has given notice, having for its object to define " house " so as to require a certain minimum of decent accom- modation. People seem to forget that at present a " house " may be a garret or a cellar, with a whole family pigging together, including thus the lowest of the population.' To Mr. Gladstone {April 21th). ' I hope to meet you on Wednesday at Chiswick. I fear that any effort on your part now to get rid of " Household Suffrage " would again divide and pro- claim the division of the Liberal party. But I don't say that this is a conclusive argument against it, if you make up your mind that as " house " is now defined this suffrage will be a real risk to the country. ' I confess I don't like it at all, considering that " house " means any room or cellar which has a separate entrance, and the more chance there is of succeeding in getting rid of the Government restric- tions, the more need there is of some definition which shall help to exclude the very lowest and most ignorant class. 4: * * * * ' Someone has sent me a review of my book* in the Guardian, and I am very much pleased with the clear and accurate account or abstract it gives of the main argument. I wonder who writes it ?' During the debate in the House of Lords on the Government measure, on July 23rd, 1867, the Duke said: ' The noble Earl [the Earl of Derby] did indeed, in moving the second reading, explain to us last night * 'The Reign of Law.' 1866-67] SPEECH ON EBFORM 237 how it came to pass that the Government had pro- posed this measure, but he said nothing to allay the fears which he and his colleagues have awakened in the minds of Parliament and of the country with respect to any measure which should swamp the present constituencies by the mere power of numbers. He told us that he introduced this Bill because he was unwilhng to be a stop-gap, but he failed to tell us why, rather than be a stop-gap, he had deemed it to be his duty to become a weather-cock, ***** ' Do not let us conceal from ourselves the magnitude of the changes to which we are now about to give our assent. It is no mere matter of opinion, I apprehend, but matter of simple fact, that we are about to agree to the second reading of a Bill which, not twelve months, but six months ago, at the beginning of this session, no member of this House would have ventured to propose, and which, if it had been proposed, would have been met by your Lordships with a unanimous shout of "Not content!" It does, indeed, at times occur in matters of long controversy that some new and happy thought removes aU difficulties and recon- ciles all opinions, but it is not with a case of that nature that we have now to deal. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack [Lord Chelmsford] talked of a compromise, and this Bill is, I admit, so far as the redistribution of seats is concerned, a compromise — or, rather, it is a mere makeshift ; but so far as relates to the borough franchise — that great subject of contest between different parties — let us not conceal from ourselves the fact that the BiU is no compromise, for on that point it is a measure of entire and complete surrender of every opinion that has ever been held or expressed by the Conservative party in this country. ***** ' You will, therefore, have under the operation of this Bill a total of 440,000 electors belonging to the 238 REFORM [chap, xxxvi working classes, as against 249,000 belonging to the middle and upper classes of society. That, my Lords, is the nature of the change to which we are asked to give our assent, and to which we are asked to give our assent, too, by a Conservative Government, the leader of which told us a few years ago that he con- ceived it to be his mission and that of his party to stem the tide of democracy. H: 4: 4: * 4: ' I have no confidence whatsoever in these new schemes for a complete reconstruction of the British Constitution. Last year we heard a great deal about " Americanizing " our institutions. I suppose we shall hear of it no more. As regards American insti- tutions and our own, what is the essential difference between them ? Has it not been this : that ours have been a growth, theirs have been emphatically a device — a device admirably contrived, indeed, by some of the greatest statesmen and politicians that ever spoke the English tongue, but necessarily adapted to the circumstances of a new country ? Ours is a system which has grown for many generations, and although you talk of the balances of the Constitution, they are balances which arise from the condition of society, from the feelings entertained by one class towards another, and not by legal powers placed by Act of Parhament in the hands of one class to check the action of another. * 4s * iK * ' May I not suggest, however, that it is possible that the great poUtical change we are now called upon to assent to, by which the political influence of the working classes will be largely increased, will also stimulate and increase the regard in which these claims will be held by those above them ; that it wiU tend to bring about a more friendly consideration of their claims, a greater sympathy with their complaints, a more candid allowance even for their prejudices and 1866-67] SCOTTISH REFORM BILL 239 errors, and that in this way a most beneficent result may follow from our labours ? . . .' After a debate which continued for two nights, the Bill passed the second reading without a division. The work of Parliamentary Reform was continued by the introduction, in the following year, of a Reform BiU for Scotland. The main feature of the Bill was the increase in the number of representatives for Scotland. The measure was introduced in the House of Commons by the Lord Advocate for Scotland (Mr. Moncrieff*), and in the House of Lords by Lord Malmesbury. The Government proposal had been to add the extra Scottish members to the numbers of the House, but an amendment was carried to disfranchise seven of the smallest boroughs in England, and transfer the representation to Scotland. On the subject of the Scottish Reform Bill many letters passed between the Duke and Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone intended to oppose the proposal of the Government to increase the number of Scottish representatives. The Duke implored him not to do this, warning him that such a course would lead to Scottish members voting for the Government, which would simply aggravate the disorganization of the party. A letter to Mr. Gladstone from the Duke (January 30th, 1868) indicates the position of affairs : ' I saw MoncriefE. He told me that his own private opinion has been that all party action which might involve vital issues should be avoided till the new Parhament met. But he said he had been persuaded by the arguments used, or at least by the opinion expressed, at the meeting with you. ' Now, I know well the influence exercised by your * Afterwards Lord MoncriefF. 240 REFORM [chap, xxxvi face and earnestness upon those who hear you. But I know also that sometimes when they leave the room they have misgivings as to whether they have been convinced, or merely carried away, and my impression is that Moncrieff is even now in this condition of mind. ' I therefore must beseech you to have this matter again carefully considered. My own view is decidedly that during this coming session no attempt should be made to test party fidelity. But even if it be deter- mined to apply any such test, surely it would be unwise to select for the purpose a vote on which Scottish members would have to choose between party fidelity and running the risk of losing for Scotland additional representation. ' I admit the necessity sooner or later of putting an end to the condition of things in which a normal leader is regularly deserted by his men at the moment when he orders a charge. But all I say is, postpone till the new Parliament all attempts to rally or to test party allegiance, and above all choose a vote on which the tendencies of our party are as far as possible undivided.' To Mr. Gladstone {February 1st, 1868). ' My own impression is that the failure in our own Reform Bill, and in the fight of last session, arose mainly from the false position in which so many men had placed themselves by their own timorous and cowardly policy. But whatever the cause may have been, it is a cause operating still, and it will operate so long as the present Parliament lasts, upon all questions connected with Reform. The less they are tried or trusted the better. It may be possible to do something towards laying better foundations in the next Parliament.' 1866-67] SCOTTISH REFORM BILL PASSED 241 To Mr. Gladstone [February Srd, 1868). ' As regards the expediency of trying some testing question before the dissolution, much depends on the temper of the party. I fear it is as bad as ever. All the causes of estrangement which operated last session are in operation still. They feel that they treated you ill, and the whole subject of Reform with insincerity. ' Clarendon, I take it, is as good a judge as most men of the temper of those around him. I asked him a couple of months ago (in writing on another matter) what impression he had from seeing people during the late autumn session. His reply was that he thought the party as disorganized as ever, and people as cross as ever. ' If this is the case, it would only be to court defeat to fight with such troops. Of course, battle forced upon you must be accepted, but not otherwise. ' I look for a great change in the new Parliament. Although Reform may not be out of the way, because of the redistribution question, yet its disorganizing in- fluence will be abated, and I agree with the Daily News that yoxir hold over the country is a very different thing from your hold over the present House of Commons.' No serious opposition was offered to the Bill, which passed both Houses, and became law on July 13th, 1868. VOL. 11. 16 CHAPTER XXXVII 1867-69 DISBSTABLISHMEJiTT OF THE IBISH CHURCH Two changes of great moment in the world of British politics occurred before the General Election in November, 1868. Mr. Disraeli succeeded Lord Derby as head of the Government in February of that year, and. Lord Russell having in December, 1867, annoimced his intention of retiring from public life, Mr. Gladstone became leader of the Liberal party. It was now generally understood in Liberal circles that Mr. Gladstone's first move would be in the direc- tion of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. In his letters to the Duke, Mr. Gladstone had repeatedly urged the consideration of that question, and the matter was also frequently discussed between them. To Mr. Gladstone, on October 12th, 1867, the Duke wrote : ' Events seem to be moving quickly in favour of total secularization, though, I confess, I think this a violent course. Yet, if the Irish people do not care to keep tithes for something in the nature of what they regard as " pious uses," I feel no objection to seculari- zation.' On the 10th of March, 1868, a motion was brought forward in the House of Commons, by an Irish mem- 342 1867-69] THE SUSPENSORY BILL 243 ber, on the social disorganization of Ireland, where there had been a widespread and dangerous Fenian movement. The situation was, indeed, serious enough to justify some strenuous attempt towards the re- moval of the causes of discontent, and Mr. Gladstone took advantage of this opportunity to introduce his proposals with regard to the Irish Church. He was supported by the Liberal party, which, being in a majority, carried these motions against the Govern- ment. The eventual result of this Liberal victory was the dissolution of the Government the following autumn. In the meantime Mr. Gladstone followed up his series of resolutions by a Suspensory Bill, provid- ing that no new vested interests should be created. This Bill passed the House of Commons, but was thrown out by the House of Lords. On June 29th, 1868, the Duke made a speech on behalf of the measure, from which the following passage is quoted : ' I sincerely believe that a great deal of the disaflfec- tion of the Irish people is purely traditional. There is a wonderful continuity in the Hfe of nations — terrible where the antecedents have been bad ; happy, even blessed, where the antecedents have been good. And herein consists the folly (I do not use the word in a disrespectful sense) of connecting the cause of the Irish Church with the cause of the Established Church in England. Of the Church of England it may be said that she has been the symbol of national Hfe at great periods of our history, and that she has been, and I trust still is, the standard-bearer of the Protestant feelings and opinions of the people. But can it be said of the Irish Church that she ever has been the symbol of national life to the Irish people ? Can it be said that she represents the religious feelings of the people ? No ; the contrary is the fact. And if 16—2 244 DISESTABLISHMENT OF IRISH CHURCH [chap, xxxvii the disaffection of the Irish people is a purely tra- ditional disaffection, at least you must admit that the Established Church is a traditional remembrance of the miseries and oppressions of their former history. In this respect I cannot for a moment doubt that it will, to a very great extent, pacify and conciliate the thinking and moderate people of Ireland that this great anomaly and injustice, as we think it, should be removed from among them.' Towards the end of July the Duke, with his family, left Argyll Lodge for Macharioch, Campbeltown. While there he suffered from the first attack of gout which he had ever experienced. A month later the Duke and Duchess proceeded to Inveraray, and from there he wrote to Mr. Gladstone (September 5th) : ' Of the six weeks we have had in Scotland I have been spending about four in bed or on a sofa. But I am nearly sound again. . . . ' Lord and Lady Russell came the day before yester- day. He was tired by the journey, and I see he is feeble. I can also see from Lady Russell's manner that she is anxious. But he is cheerful and full of anecdote and conversation. ' When do you open your lips again ? This inter- regnum is a most disagreeable time.' To Mr. Gladstone {September 12th). ' Do I gather rightly from your letter that you have been ill ? ' Lord Russell picked up very much after the first day here — he had been tired by an eleven hours' journey — but he is physically feeble and very deaf. Lady Russell told me it was a great trial to him. . . . ' I had a good deal of talk with him. He shows some little irritation about the Suspensory Bill, but 1867-69] DEATH OF DTTCHESS OE SITTHERLAND 245 assumes that it might be continued from year to year, and keep the Church in a state of suspended animation between life and death. ' I told him I entirely agreed with him in thinking that this would be most mischievous, and that I knew you held the same opinion : that the Suspensory Bill was a mere temporary expedient — ' 1. To convince the Irish people that we intended action and not mere talk. ' 2. To place all parties in a position compelling them to come to terms. ' He fully admitted the force of these reasons, but he returns always to the same position. ' He has, of course, the same desire which all the old Whigs have to keep the Irish Church bound to the " Royal Supremacy." But he has no clear idea how it is to be done, and, so far as I can see, no such idea is attainable or desirable. ' Lady Russell spoke as if she, at least, had been thinking of a winter abroad for him. But she said that the interest of politics was too absorbing to him, that she could not get him to think of it, especially at this time. He was most agreeable and charming in conversation, and his memory is as strong as ever, ' I am off on Monday to stay a week on lona, where I have estabhshed a Uttle inn. I wish to see it in its morning and evening aspects. The outline of the " everlasting hills " and the colours of the sea are wonderfully beautiful there.' While he was at Inveraray Lord Russell planted a small tree, grown from an acorn which he had picked up and given to the Duke during a walk which they had had together at Pembroke Lodge. This tree still flourishes, and has now attained to a considerable size. On October 18th the Duke was called to London, 246 DISESTABLISHMENT OF lEISH CHURCH [chap, xxxvii owing to the serious illness of his mother-in-law, the Dowager Duchess of Sutherland, who died about a week later. Her death was a great loss to the Duke, as a devoted attachment existed between them. After the funeral had taken place at Trentham, the Duke re- turned to Scotland for some weeks. From Inveraray he wrote to Mr. Gladstone, while the General Election was proceeding (November 19th, 1868) : ' I feel inclined to say to you, as I heard Bright say to Auberon Herbert, " Now, do be quiet," for if you don't you will kill yourself. I am wondering how much of you is left, on the modern doctrine of science about the equivalents of force. So much brain-work can only be done at the expenditure of so much of physical force as is expended in the nerves, etc. Two speeches a day, for three or four days in succession, each different from the other, and each discharging red-hot shot — where does the equivalent come from that is to restore you to what you were ? How much Gladstone has been worn away ? ' Our wedding is to be on the 23rd of December, and we hope you and Mrs. Gladstone will be at it. Only don't say anything about it, as we must keep it as quiet as we can. We know what she* would have wished, and, indeed, did say she wished.' The marriage here alluded to was that of the Duke's eldest daughter to Earl Percy, now Duke of North- umberland. The General Election resulted in a large majority for the Liberal party. Mr. Disraeli resigned office before the meeting of Parliament, and Mr. Gladstone , was summoned to Windsor on December 5th to receive Her Majesty's commands to form a Government. In the new Administration the Duke held the office * The Dowager Duchess of Sutherland. 1867-69] DISENDOWMENT AND COMPENSATION 247 of Secretary of State for India ; Lord Clarendon was Secretary for Foreign Afifairs ; Lord Granville, Secre- tary for the Colonies; and Mr. Cardwell, Secretary for War. The main issue on which the General Election had been decided was the question of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, Mr. Gladstone's policy on this subject having already been outlined by the resolu- tions proposed by him and carried against the Con- servative Government. When the Bill was actually introduced in the new ParHament (March 1st, 1869), the interest lay chiefly in the questions of compensation arising out of dis- endowment. The Bill passed the House of Commons, and, during the second reading in the House of Lords, on June 18th, the Duke advocated the measure in a long and eloquent speech. He said : ' We are bound to remember, and I trust we do remember, that in the discharge of what we believe to be a pubUc duty to the Sovereign and the people, it has been our lot to propose to Parliament a measure which is opposed to the dearest associations and to the most cherished convictions of a large portion of the House. I think, also, we are bound to remember not only the greatness of the change which we propose, but, I admit, its apparent suddenness. I say its " apparent suddenness," because to those who have been watching the causes which operate on the public opinion of the country, and ultimately determine the course of Parliament, the wonder is, not that this measure has come so suddenly, but rather that it has been so long delayed. But I admit that to those who have been walking in the by-paths, so to speak, of pubHc hfe, and have not been watching the causes which determine the course of public feeling, this change must appear to have been brought about very 248 DISESTABLISHMENT OP IRISH CHURCH [chap, xxxvii suddenly. And with regard to the greatness of the change, I agree that no measure which has been brought into this House in the present century may compare with this in the importance of the issues which it involves and the interests which it affects. Not the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts ; not the great measure of Catholic Emancipation ; not the repeal of the Corn Laws and the Reform of Parhament ; not any one of those questions involved issues so im- portant, or cut so deeply into matters affecting such cherished associations and opinions of great portions of the people, as this measure for the disestablishment and disendowment of the Irish Church. I admit, also, that so short a time as three years ago it is extremely probable it could not have been proposed by any public man with any prospect of success. I think it is perfectly natural, therefore, that one in the position of my noble friend who moved the rejection of this measure, finding this great rapid stream of public opinion dashing past him, and sweeping away institu- tions which he had been accustomed to consider as most sacred and most secure, should open his eyes with infinite surprise and ask, as my noble friend did ask in his opening speech, " How has all this come about, and how has this measure so suddenly been brought forward ?" But the more you examine this question, the more clearly you will see how absolutely final and irrevocable is the verdict given on this subject by all the great political parties in this country,' Repudiating the assertion that the Bill originated in the individual will of Mr. Gladstone, the Duke con- tinued : ' That is to attribute effects to the will of my right honourable friend which neither his nor any other individual's will was competent to produce. We have also been told to-night that the present House of Commons was elected merely to bring Mr. Gladstone 1867-69] SPEECH ON IRISH CHURCH BILL 249 into power, and that it was under the influence of his genius and of admiration for his character that the elections were held. Now, what I wish to point out is that Mr. Gladstone's influence was, at least, not predominant in the late Parliament, in which this proposition was first brought forward. I desire to direct your attention to the circumstances under which this measure was proposed. The House of Commons became, after the death of Lord Palmerston, thoroughly disorganized and demoralized. We are at liberty to speak of the late House of Commons with as much freedom as of a Parliament in the time of Charles II., and I say that it was a Parliament which had no faith in any principle, no enthusiasm in any cause, and no fidelity to any leader. It was under these circumstances, when the vessel of the State had no way upon her, that suddenly a cry arose that this Irish question, which had been so long asleep, was again alive. It was then said that something must be done for Ireland — the old Irish difficulty was again before our public men, and it became clear that ParHament must make up its mind as to what should be done for the benefit of the Irish people. What was the answer to that cry ? I am not going to quote the words of Lord Mayo or of any man, for I may say that the answer was in the air : it was in the very atmo- sphere of our political life. There were two alterna- tives in reference to the Irish Church — indiscriminate endowment, and disestabHshment with disendowment. What was the effect of that announcement ? The immediate effect was that out of absolute chaos there came order, and an assembly which had been thoroughly disorganized became well drilled and fitted for effective political action. It was like the action of a powerful magnet passed over a mass of what seems mere dust and rubbish, but which nevertheless contains elements capable of attraction. The raising of that standard of disestablishment at once collected under it all the elements of liberal opinion in the 250 DISESTABLISHMENT OE IRISH CHURCH [chap, xxxvii House of Commons. I ask the noble Duke, who attributes to so small causes these so grave effects, what is the explanation of that phenomenon ? Was it the personal influence of Mr. Gladstone in the late House of Commons ? No. It was the powerful action of causes which lie deeply seated in the history of the country. . . . My noble friend (Earl Russell) said, on a memorable occasion, that " the aristocracy of this country were strong in the memory of immortal services." My Lords, I trust we are strong in better things. We cannot live on the memory of the dead. We must show that we are able to appreciate the great currents of public feeling which have formed the great parties of this country, and determined the coujse of political action. We must show that we are as able as the other House to appreciate the teaching of events. And if ever there has been a course of events which seemed more than another of a providential character, and to lead to one foregone conclusion, it is that series of events which, with apparent suddenness, but with long previous prepara- tion, has brought this great measure to the table of your Lordships' House. Noble Lords opposite may say with truth that not all movements are movements of progress, and that there may be such things as movements in the wrong direction. I admit that. I believe in the decay and in the fall of States. It is the duty of the Liberal party in this country, and in every other, to question themselves and others care- fully from time to time whether the movements in which they take part, and before which they are sometimes driven, are movements in a right or in a wrong direction. But, measured by all the criteria which distinguish strength from weakness, justice from injustice, political energy and life from political decay, I avow my conviction that the movement in which we are now engaged is a movement in the right direc- tion. It is a movement due to enlightened reason, and, better still, to awakened conscience. We desire 1867-69] BILL PASSED 251 to wipe out the foulest stain upon the name and fame of England — our policy to the Irish people. We wish to signify our adherence to the great principle that religious truth is not to be supported at the cost of political injustice. We desire to bring into the domain of politics the great Christian law of doing to others as we would be done by. These are the great principles upon which this measure is founded, and I say that these are not the indications of political decrepitude or decay. This House has been repeat- edly advised to assent to the second reading of this measure, mainly because it is pressed on us by the convictions of the people. But I have a higher ambition for your Lordships' House ; I desire to see this House share in the great honours of their time, and my firm conviction is that in the course of a few years the passing of this measure will be looked upon as one of the greatest triumphs of constitutional government, and as a step forward, and that a long one, in the most difficult of all works — the wise and the just government of mankind.' The second reading of the Bill in the House of Lords was carried by a majority of thirty -three ; but it was amended in Committee, and, although the House of Commons made some minor conces- sions, the provisions of the measure were substan- tially the same when it was sent back to the House of Lords. On the second occasion it was thrown out by a majority of seventy-eight, but eventually a compro- mise was effected between the leaders of the two parties, and the Bill became law on July 26th, 1869. During the Easter recess the Duke had spent some days in the Isle of Wight, where he visited the Poet Laureate at Farringford. While there he had some discussion with Mr. Tennyson on the Irish Church 252 DISESTABLISHMENT OF IRISH CHURCH [chap, xxxvii question, which he mentions in writing to Mr. Glad- stone (March 31st, 1869) : ' You will be glad to hear that the report you heard about Tennyson's opinions was quite false. We told him of it yesterday, when he repudiated any dis- approval of your Irish policy, and said he always con- sidered the Irish Church as a great " injustice." ' He read to us the new poem of the " Sangreal " — very fine. He is writing another, a preface to the Arthurian cycle, which will then be completed.' The Duke spent the autumn months at Inveraray, during which time he made an expedition to the island of lona, accompanied by the Dean of Westminster and Lady Augusta Stanley. At the end of October he returned to London to attend to the work of the India Office. He was recalled to Inveraray early in December by the sudden and dangerous illness of the Duchess, who had left town the previous week. On his arrival he wrote to Mr. Gladstone : ' I find my dear wife recovering, but recovering from an attack of that terrible malady which has just carried off her sister. Lady Blantyre.' For a time the Duke contemplated the resignation of his Office, as he doubted the possibility of life in London for the Duchess in the future ; but he was urged by his colleagues to reconsider the matter, and as, after some weeks of great anxiety, the Duchess recovered a fair measure of health and strength, this step was rendered unnecessary. CHAPTER XXXVIII 1870 THE IRISH LAND BILL Eably in 1870, Mr. Gladstone brought forward an Irish Land Bill, of which the three ' grand pro- visions,' as defined in his own words, were as follows : 1. The confirmation of Irish customs. 2. The assertion of the principle that improvements made by the tenant were the property of the tenant. 3. That damages for eviction were to be paid to the tenant. The foUovdng correspondence with Mr. Gladstone about this period indicates the Duke's views on the subject of the Bill : To Mr. Gladstone {November 26th, 1869). ' I had to defend ourselves and you last night from the charge of being low and depressed. We shall have to put our foot down firmly soon about Ireland. ' With regard to the Irish Land, I do not think we can or ought to pass any Bill which does not leave a large discretionary power to some cheap and local tribunal. The Act can do no more than lay down general principles. The appKcation of these to each case must depend on a thousand circumstances, which can only be judged of by a local tribunal. ' For example, even in the strongest case of per- manent improvements, if these were made under a long lease at a low rent, the improvements have either 253 254 THE IRISH LAND BILL [ohap. xxxviii been already wholly compensated for, or compensated for in greater part. So, in the case of bad cultivation, the landlord must have opportunities of proving damage to his property. ' I had a letter to-day from Spencer, saying that he does not think that my objections to the " Ulster Custom " as the basis can be answered. ' He says we shall have to give him fresh powers to deal with Fenianism. Let us go with what is right, but at the same time show the teeth of a strong executive.' From Mr. Gladstone {November 29th). ' Give to Irish Land all the thought that India will let you. I go with Lord Spencer if he accords to your argument on the tenant right all the praise of clear- ness, vigour, and decision. But forgive me if I say that it does not, and cannot, conclude the question, because it does not grapple with the allegation on which the advocates for tenant right found them- selves.' To Mr. Gladstone (November 29th, 1869). ' I am all against sitting in perpetual sackcloth and ashes because the Irish are violent and disaffected. It is true, no doubt, that Ireland formerly has been ill- used and ill-governed ; and it is true also that the diseased condition of the country is due in some measure to those old sins of England. But for the last two generations at least there has been a general dispo- sition to deal justly with Ireland, and not only a dispo- sition, but a steady progress in legislative reform. ' I feel quite sure that the language of self-reproach and humiliation may very easily be overdone in the present state of Ireland, and that it is entirely thrown away on the spirit of Fenianism, and I think it tends to make men, already highly excited, expect sweeping changes, corresponding in importance to the depths of 1870] TENANT RIGHT 255 the repentance we express. I agree with you in not expecting success from " heroic remedies." But if we cannot save hfe or property except by exceptional measures, surely it will be right to take them. Spencer writes to me that he thinks he must have fresh powers. ' I feel as anxious as anyone about the state of Ireland. But I am quite as afraid of heroic remedies in the way of legislation as in the way of executive action.' From Mr. Gladstone {December 1st, 1869). ' Your letter would lead by its terms to the suppo- sition that you dissent from the proposal to recognise what Dufferin calls anticipated profits, and from the Chancellor's recognition of the same thing in another form ; but I believe this is not so. ' The advocates of tenant right in Ireland, as I understand them (I mean such of them as your minute deals with), rest their argument on certain allegations : ' 1. That the land of Ireland, when not so governed, is grossly under-cultivated. "' 2. That want of confidence and security is the main cause of this under-cultivation. ' 3. That there is a treasure in the soil, if brought to a tolerable standard of culture, which will pay the present rents or more, the present tenant's profit and much more, and the charge of the tenant right also. ' 4. That this practical confidence and security are given by tenant right. ' The third of these propositions is more fully set out in a paper sent herewith for perusal. I drew it in the course of some long and very satisfactory com- munications with Halifax. ' I treat them, you will observe, as allegations, not as facts, and I am doing all in my power to get to the bottom of them. ' As far as I understand your arguments, they do not in any way touch the subject-matter of any of them. 256 THE lEISH LAND BILL [chap, xxxvm ' Have you read much on Irish tenure and disturb- ances ? I would recommend it ; for the matter is very grave, and, feeling my own inadequate knowledge, I hope all others will get as much as they can. ' I think you will be surprised at the evidence as to the extent of country on which some kind of tenant right is familiarly known, and was practised, though scarcely with consent or knowledge of all parties, in Ireland.' The Duke wrote to Mr, Cardwell on December 29th, 1869: ' My dear Cardwell, ' On the day on which I was called away from London I had a long conversation with Gladstone on the Irish Land question. ' I suppose that we are all agreed that some recog- nition must be given to the Ulster custom where it now exists. Bad as I think the custom is, I do not think we can help giving to it the sanction which would probably have been already accorded to it if it had existed in England. ' I therefore intimated to Gladstone my assent to this proposition. ' But, further, I intimated assent, also, to this second general proposition, that local custom and usage is the safest basis of legislation everywhere. It has the obvious advantage of evading and avoiding to some extent the discussion of abstract principles, and of limiting the proposed legislation to Ireland, by the very fact of professing to be founded on Irish customs. ' The question, then, becomes one of evidence how far beyond the Ulster area customs of tenant right can be proved to prevail with more or less assent and con- sent, or, at least, connivance. ' I cannot judge on this question with anj^- con- fidence, but I observe that the Devon Commission 1870] TENANT EIGHT 257 gives rather a strong assertion as to its prevalence in the South and West. ' But now comes the difficulty. What is to be done where there is no evidence of custom at all ? ' In reply to this question, I am disposed to take the ground generally indicated by the Chancellor : that, as regards tenants at will below a certain size of holding, there should be statutory compensation for eviction. ' Two further questions arise if this be conceded. First, what sort of scale of compensation shall be given ? and, second, what should be the upward limit as to the size of holding ? ' In reply to the first of these questions, there wiU be obvious convenience in regulating the scale by that which actually now prevails where tenant right exists. In reply to the second question. Lord DuflEerin agrees, I find, that ten acres is much too low a limit. This is a question of degree. I should not be disposed willingly to go above, say, £50 of rent. In Scotland, generally, tenants below £50 are tenants at will, seldom holding under lease. Of course, I do not think it convenient, or otherwise than open to great objection, to give even so high a limit as £50 as the Une tip to which tenants in Ireland are to be considered as so poor and dependent that they require special pro- tection from the State. But there is an immense difficulty in drawing this line, and the great object is to include so large a proportion of the small tenantry as to give general satisfaction to that class. ' If landowners are to have the benefit of loans from the State at a low rate of interest for the payment of these tenant-right burdens, they may practically be gainers, as compared with the present state of things. ' The difficulty of defending statutory compensation for eviction, where no custom can be proved, is a difficulty which must be faced, whether we draw the line at ten-acre holdings or at double that amount. ' Gladstone was inclined, I thought, to make much use of the logical argument derivable from the now VOL. II. 17 258 THE IRISH LAND BILL [ohap. xxxviii general assent to retrospective compensation for im- provements — I mean the argument that this involves the most direct and undeniable violation or invasion of the existing rights of property. If I buy to-day in the Encumbered Estates Court an estate on which a tenant has built a house last year costing £200, I become, by the purchase of the estate, the owner of that house, and can evict the tenant and appropriate the house. Such is the law under which millions have been invested ; and yet, as it seems by general consent, we are going to enact that, even retrospectively, this shall not be allowed, and that improvements made by tenants, but now legally belonging to the landlords, shall be given back to the tenants who made them. ' This is an argument which will, no doubt, be of use in debate ; but it will not do to say : " You have agreed to this particular invasion of the existing rights of property ; you need not, therefore, strain at any further invasion we may propose." ' In the first place, the doctrine of natural justice is so strong and undeniable in this case that the pro- posed change of the law can hardly be opposed, and the existing state of the law is almost considered as accidental. ' Practically, the condition of society is such that purchasers in the Encumbered Estates Court cannot take advantage of the law in the great majority of cases. It is stated that Mr. Pollock paid as much in buying out the tenants as he paid in the purchase of the estate from the owner. He gave £300,000 for the estate, and had then to lay out another equal sum before he could do what he liked with his own.' To Mr. Gladstone {January IMh, 1870). ' I rather agree with George Campbell on one point (at least, I think his suggestion well worth consider- ing) — namely, that the fact of a tenant having executed all the improvements on a farm (unless, of course, 1870] COMPBNSATIOlSr FOR IMPROVEMENTS 259 under express stipulation) might be taken as of itself a proof that he has had a status requiring damages for eviction. There is a principle in this — a principle which stands in close connection with the great pecu- liarity of Irish occupation ; and I think a far safer and sounder argument could be maintained in favour of this principle than in favour of any arbitrary line of rental, whether it be the " danger of pauperism line " or the " free bargain Hne." ' Both these lines are in reality purely arbitrary, and have all the aspect of being intended to justify a fore- gone conclusion. ' Of course, under the term " improvement " I would include the most wretched cabins and the most foolish fences, if these had been the means whereby (at least) the occupant has been able to pay his rent. ' I recognise a principle of justice in this idea, which in practice every just landowner recognises, and it stands very much on the same level, as an argument, with the agreement by which we must defend retro- spective compensation for improvement.' While the BiU was passing through the House the Duke wrote to Mr. Gladstone : ' I hold that none, or very few, of the threatened amendments would have the effect of making the Bill otherwise than efficient in doing justice. ' As long as full compensation is given for all improve- ments, retrospectively and prospectively, and as long as eviction is of itself to give a claim to compensation, within limits to be judged of by a court with large compensation powers : as long as the Bill gives all this, I hold that it is an ample Bill. The duration of lease which is to exhaust the claim is, no doubt, an important element, and I so far agree Avith you that a danger would arise out of any strong temptation to landlords to change tenancies at will with leaseholds summarily and, as it were, by compulsion. But unless 17—2 260 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xxxviii the term of lease to be offered under the Bill be shorter than twenty years, no such danger would practically arise, because it would never be the interest of an owner to give such leases to the very small holders, or, indeed, to any holder under the £50 line. It is far more for the interest of an owner to keep them tenants at will subject to increments of rent up to the point at which the tenants would prefer to claim as under an eviction. 'As to any more "efficient" — that is, more violent — measures, they could only be carried after some form of revolution, and very possibly a civil war. ' As regards all new tenants — I mean tenants taking farms after the passing of the Bill — I hold it to be as clear as dayhght that every advantage you try to give to them by artificial laws will simply be discounted in the rent, or in other conditions of the bargain. ' The efficiency of the Bill is, therefore, really con- fined to the existing race of tenants, as, in my opinion, it ought to be.' To Mr. Gladstone {January 31st, 1870). ' Discussion often changes and modifies one's opinion ; but my own impression is strongly in favour of strengthening the Irish executive by giving to it exceptional powers. ' Just as in the case of evictions it is said with truth that the number of actual evictions is no measure of the insecurity of tenure in Ireland, so in respect to agrarian crime the number of actual murders, or attempts to murder, is no measure of the lawlessness which prevails, and of the insecurity of life. ' The reports of the Irish poUce tell us that detection was never so utterly frustrated, and the number of threatening letters which come to light are a mere fraction of the number concealed. ' In some counties society seems paralyzed, and the most just rights of property cannot be exercised. 1870] CRIME IN IRELAND 261 ' Under these circumstances, I think we ought to enable the Lord Lieutenant to suspend the Habeas Corpus locally, where, in the opinion of the Govern- ment, this course is rendered necessary by the amount and character of crime. I believe this would paralyze the Ribbon conspiracy and all other conspiracies which are connected with it. ' We are stronger to do this than other Governments, when we are about to bring in a measure giving such new and important rights. ' We require in Ireland not merely to intimidate the conspirators, but to encourage the loyal and honest, and for the latter purpose nothing is more needed than that the Government should show determination. Such are my impressions, and I doubt whether even a threat in your speech Would be enough for the purpose.' On the Duke's return to town on February 8th, he found that several members of the Cabinet were ill. In his diary is noted : ' Called on Gladstone at eleven ; found him seedy, and heard of the illness of Bright, Clarendon, and Granville.' The same evening he received the following note from Lord Granville : ' My dear Argyll, ' It is impossible to be too much alarmed at the state of health of the most eminent of the Cabinet. ' Poor Bright is gone as far as this session is con- cerned. Clarendon was only saved from gout in the stomach by strong stimulants to his feet. Gladstone told Bessborough yesterday that he felt sometimes alarmed for his own head. i' ' Cardwell at the last Cabinet sat close in to the fire. 262 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xxxviii looking as if he wished to cut his throat, which was probably only the beginning of an influenza. ' I cannot say how sorry I am about Bright. ***** ' Yours, 'G., ' with head and throat stuffed up by cold.' A statement of his views on the Irish Land Bill is given in a letter from the Duke to Sir Roundell Palmer (April 23rd, 1870) : ' My dear Sir Roundell Palmer, ' I hope you mil not think I am taking a great liberty in writing to you about the Land Bill, in con- sequence of our conversation a short time ago. I intended to do so some time ago, but some heavy business in my own office has hitherto prevented me. • As you may suppose, I have looked at the question from the beginning from a point of view somewhat different from most of my colleagues — I mean not only from a landowner's point of view, but from the position of a landowner who has had to deal with a tenantry of small holders exactly like the Irish in many of the conditions under which they live. ' Free contract is the system estabhshed in Scot- land, and is far more severely carried into effect than in England. But the very first consideration which I have had to recollect in the Irish question is the fact that, as regards the small holders — say below £50 — we do not, and we cannot, even in Scotland, deal with them on the same principles. We cannot, and we do not, put up such possessions to competition, and practically we cannot evict them (especially the £10 to £20 people) without giving them compensation. ' Then, I have had to recollect that in Ireland this class have a pecuhar claim from the fact that, generally and as a class, they have done far more than in the 1870] LETTER TO SIR ROUNDELL PALMER 263 Highlands towards the original improvement of the land. ' And yet, considering that these improvements have been of a somewhat indefinite character, effected by labour and not by capital, they are not easily separately valued, and I admit that, in equity, occupa- tion under such conditions assumes a peculiar char- acter, and that eviction from it becomes frimcl jade a case for compensation. ' And thus I have been brought to the conviction that in some form or other the law would do no wrong, and violate no essential principle, in recognising a claim for compensation for mere eviction, under the regulation of a court fizrnished with large equitable powers. ' I have, however, attached value to some recog- nition of the principle that length of occupancy for the future should be admitted to satisfy this claim and to exhaust it. ' And here I have been led to modify the opinion which at first I held, and on which you laid stress in your conversation with me, that the length of this term of occupancy, as defined by the Act, is a matter of first importance. ' I hold, indeed, that if we were starting afresh, and if we were legislating without reference to the opinions and feelings which have arisen out of custom, the term of twenty-one years, so common in Scotland, is long enough for any agricultural purpose. But, on the other hand, I never would give leases to the very small holders, and I never do so. They impede the consoHdation of small possessions, and they give no greater real security of possession than custom already gives to this class. If I were an Irish proprietor, deahng with my tenantry under this Bill, I should not care whether it indicated twenty years or thirty years as the term which was to exhaust tenant right. To the small holders I would give neither. I would let them sit as tenants at will, keeping myself free to 264 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xxxviii deal with them in the way of consolidation as oppor- tunities may arise, and keeping myself free also to realize increments of rent, from time to time, up to the point at which the tenant would prefer to go, and to claim as under an eviction. ' Then, also, I admit that it would be a great evil if anything in our BiU were to hold out a strong artificial inducement to owners to insist on all their small tenants at will becoming leaseholders. They hate it, and we must take some account of the general traditional feelings of a country. Even in England the tenants dislike and refuse leases. They feel more secure under the customs of the country. In Ireland this feeling has been intensified to an extraordinary degree. ' I admit, therefore, that it would be a positive evil, almost unbalanced by any practical good, if we were to name a short lease in our Bill as one which is to satisfy, exhaust, and get rid of the claim we give to compensation on eviction. ' I am, therefore, satisfied with the recognition of the principle, almost in any form, that whatever claims Irish occupancy may have given, those claims are capable of being equitably satisfied by a lease of some definite duration. ' Many excellent Irish landlords declare to me that they have no sort of objection to twenty-one years as this term. Lord Bessborough wishes it to be longer. Lord Portsmouth holds the same language, and recog- nises tenant right even at the expiry of those leases. ' The clause which made twenty-one years the term for £50 farms when the landowner had done aU the improvements was one to which I attached great value, and, in fact, I was the author of it. But this has now become superfluous by the much better pro- vision which brings down the free contract line to £50 tenancies. ' This was a great concession on Gladstone's part, and in my opinion one of immense importance. 1870] LIMITS OF FREE CONTRACT 265 ' The " tender " clause was also in some degree mine. But I don't care much about it, since other concessions have been made, and I admit that in the form in which it stood it might have been used as an instrument of evasion, and of general disturbance to the minds of the Irish tenantry. ' Lastly, I have been influenced — I hope not unduly — by a very strong sense of the political situation, and of the serious danger of an agrarian revolution in Ireland. It is impossible to consider the proposals made by men of position and character in Ireland on this question without being impressed by the fact that the anchors of opinion, on which all rights of property depend, are dragging, and have lost their hold. Our Bill is by far the most moderate proposal that has been made. I do not think it violates any essential principle. It leaves every landowner free to raise his rent to any amount up to the point at which the tenant wiU prefer to say, " I would rather go." Considering the intensity of their local attachments, we know what a power this is. The scale is not immoderate, and it is a maximum — reducible by all equitable considerations applicable to the case. The free contract line has been, or is to be, brought down to £50, and even below that line, down to the smallest class of holding ; all tenants taking farms after the BiU is passed wiU have to discount all artificial advantages, in the form of increased rent or otherwise. Free contract, therefore, is not reaUy interfered with at all. Only the existing holders are lifted to a higher level in dealing with their land- lords, and all future holders must be free contractors. All this is, to my mind, satisfactory — in substance, although every possible land Bill is open to more or less objection. ' But, on the whole, our BiU is more open to objec- tion on the part of those who claim tenant right than on the part of those who resist it. ' I dread the loss of this Bill more than I can say ; 266 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xxxviii and I, as a landowner, am satisfied with the con- cessions made. I do not think Gladstone can safely do more.' In supporting the measure in the House of Lords (June 16th, 1870), the Duke said : ' I have come to the conclusion that this measure is just and necessary in itself, that it interferes unduly with no right of property, and that it is due in justice to the people of Ireland. . . . ' A custom has grown up by means of which tenants have by their landlords been encouraged to look for- ward to continued occupancy. You must, therefore, in some degree give some security to this expectancy outside, as well as inside, Ulster. Briefly, I would say that the principle of oiir Bill is this : We legalize the Ulster custom where it can be proved to exist, and where its existence cannot be proved, we supply a new rule of compensation containing all the equities of the Ulster custom without its abuses and extravagances. . . . Can it be said that great social and political questions are not connected with the state of the land question in Ireland ? Is not that the whole ground on which we propose to interfere ? I am not arguing that Parliament ought to interfere with the freedom of contract. I quite admit that such interferences ought to be exceptional, and that the onus probandi rests upon those who propose such measures. But I venture to maintain that if we are to legislate upon the land of Ireland at all, we must admit that there are great social and political considerations connected with the occupation of land in that country which justify and call for exceptional legislation in respect to contract. Now, what is the extent to which we inter- fere with freedom of contract ? There is no com- pulsion in this Bill compelhng Irish landlords to con- vert tenancies at will into leaseholds.' 1870] DR. J. H, NEWMAN 267 The Bill, after some amendment by the House of Lords, was passed, and received the royal assent on August 1st, 1870. In the midst of important official work, the Duke paid a hurried visit to Oxford, on the 21st of June, to receive the Honorary Degree of D.C.L. During the spring of this year the Duke, who num- bered among his private correspondents men of all ranks and shades of opinion, exchanged some interest- ing letters with Dr. Newman (afterwards Cardinal Newman), who had sent a copy of one of his recently- published works to the Duke. To Dr. Newman. £ -r, oi ' India Office. Rev. Sib, ' Your kindness in sending to me a copy of your new work, " The Grammar of Assent," affords me the opportunity, which I have long desired, of expressing the admiration and the large amount of personal sympathy with which I have regarded you, ever since I read your " Apologia " some years ago. ' I have been brought up in a school of opinion more absolutely opposed to your Church than perhaps any other connected with the leading Churches of the Reformation. Your writings have not affected in any degree my opinion on the great issues which lie between Protestantism and Rome. But it has been a pleasant surprise to me to find how often I can agree with you, and how much I can sympathize with the spirit in which you write. ' I have not had time to master the elaborate and difficult, but most interesting, argument which occupies the earlier part of your last book; but I may be allowed to say that I have read the two last chapters with the deepest interest and delight. They seem to me to handle with power and with characteristic charm some of the best arguments for the Christian faith. 268 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xxxviii 'Mr, Gladstone has asked me to say that he also has a letter of thanks to you on hand, but the pressure of his work is such that he has little time to devote to studies in which naturally he takes the most deUght. ' I am, Rev. Sir, yours sincerely, ' Argyll.' From Dr. Newman. ' ThK OraTOEY, BlllMINGHAM, ' March 30th, 1870. ' My Lord Duke, ' The kindness with which you have received the book which I ventured to offer to your Grace is the best justification to my own feelings of my having intruded myself upon your notice. I was encouraged to do so by some words which you used of me in public some time ago. ' Of course, it has been a real pleasure to me, then and now, to read the favourable criticisms upon me of one who is himself so brave and powerful a champion of revealed religion, and certainly not the less pleasure because in many things he differs from me so much. For it suggests the welcome reflection that, in this unhappy age of division, luiity of faith and communion is best promoted by the cultivation, in the first place, of an ethical union among those who differ. This is a levelling-up which may some day make controversy comparatively easy, as laying the ground for strong foundations, which will have no cause to fear dangerous settlements. ' Mr. Gladstone has been so kind as to fulfil the purpose conveyed in the message you gave me from him. ' I am, my Lord Duke, with great respect, ' Your Grace's faithful servant, ' John H. Newman.' CHAPTER XXXIX 1868-74 INDIA In Mr. Gladstone's first Administration, the Duke, as has been stated, was Secretary for India, an office for which his peculiar fitness was well known, as for many years he had taken a deep interest in Indian affairs. He had answered in the House of Lords for that department. He had also written on the subject ; and although his articles in the Edinburgh Review, subsequently republished in book form, were in the main a historical vindication of the Administrations of Dalhousie and of Canning, they indicated the principles which would be Likely to govern his policy at the India Office, particularly with reference to the questions of expansion and of the critical relations which existed between India and Afghanistan. To Lord Mayo, who had been appointed Viceroy of India by the Disraeli Government, the Duke wrote (December 18th, 1868), on accepting the portfolio : ' You will have heard before this reaches you that I have received the seals of the India Office in the new Administration. ' Indian pohtics are, fortunately, for the most part, unconnected with party struggles at home, and I hope that there will be nothing to prevent me from having open and confidential communication with you on every question affecting the government of 269 270 IlSTDIA [chap. XXXIX India. You will always find me most anxious to know your views in time upon all questions on which you may wish or may require to consult the Govern- ment at home.' The period of the Duke's tenure of the India Office was a time of peaceful and constructive economic reforms. The official despatches, and the even more frequent private letters, are concerned chiefly with matters regarding land cess and local taxation ; with our relations to Native States ; with the difficult question of appointments ; and with all the complex details of Indian administration. In the Duke's first despatch to Lord Mayo he dealt with the question of Indian Military Eeform, in which he pointed out that, notwithstanding the decrease in the forces since the Mutiny, there was a considerable increase in the expenditure, Under Lord Mayo's able rule some reductions were effected, but the opposi- tion of the War Office and of the Indian Council pre- vented the carrying out of any extensive military reforms. An important work instituted by the Duke was the founding of a college in England for the training of civil engineers for India. This supplied a want much felt by the Indian Council, as difficulty was experi- enced in obtaining properly qualified men for the Public Works Department. Previously the training had been most inadequate, some of the candidates requir- ing to be instructed in their work after their arrival in India. The college was built at Cooper's Hill, and was opened by the Duke in August, 1871. Under the presidency of Colonel Chesney, of the Bengal Engineers, who was selected by the Duke for the post, the students attained that high degree of proficiency 1868-74] AI^CIENT ORIBKTAL CITLTlTRB 271 which is now associated with the training for the Indian Civil Service. At the time of the Duke's appointment as Secretary of State for India, he had some correspondence with Professor Max Miiller, on the subject of ancient Oriental culture in which the Duke had for many years been much interested. From Professor Max Miiller {December \^th, 1868). ' As for more than twenty years my principal work has been devoted to the ancient literature of India, I cannot but feel a deep and real sympathy for all that concerns the higher interests of the people of that country. Though I have never been in India, I have many friends there, both among the civilians and among the natives ; and I believe I am not mistaken in supposing that the publication in England of the ancient sacred writings of the Brahmans, which had never been pubUshed in India, and other contributions from different European scholars towards a better knowledge of the ancient literature and religion of India, have not been without some effect on the in- tellectual and reUgious movement that is going on among the more thoughtful members of Indian society. I have sometimes regretted that I am not an English- man, and able to help more actively in the great work of educating and improving the natives. But I do rejoice that this great task of governing and benefiting India should have fallen to one who knows the great- ness of that task and all its opportunities and re- sponsibilities, who thinks not only of its political and financial bearings, but has a heart to feel for the moral welfare of those millions of human beings who are, more or less directly, committed to his charge. India has been conquered once. But India must be con- quered again ; and that second conquest should be a conquest by education.' 272 INBIA [oHAP. XXXIX One of the chief questions affecting Indian affairs which occupied the Duke's attention was a scheme for the Government construction and administration of railways. He approved of the principle of State control, but on that point he had to meet with the opposition of the railway companies. One of his first letters to Lord Mayo deals with this subject : ' I am myself disposed to think that as regards rail- ways we might now dispense with the agency of companies altogether. We could raise the money on our direct security at 4 per cent., whereas we guar- antee 5 per cent, to the companies ; and, besides this, we sacrifice our right to one-half of any possible surplus of profits over and above the 5 per cent. ' Why should we sacrifice the large sums which are involved in this method of raising money ? ' The companies must be regarded, first, as agencies for the raising of the money, and, secondly, as agencies for the expending of the money. What advantage do they give us in either of these ways ? ' As to raising the money, we could unquestionably raise it at a cheaper rate. And as regards the ex- pending of it, I do not see that they have any advantage over us. Indeed, the Indian Government has many special advantages in its hands both as regards the raising and the expending of the necessary loans. ' A great political object would be gained if we could induce the natives of India to invest more largely in our loans. Let me direct your attention to the fact that the share they now hold in our public debt is diminishing. At one time it was nearly one-third. It is now only about one-fourth ; and as regards the railway loans, the natives have supplied not much more than one million out of the eighty millions invested. ' Might we not succeed in inducing the natives to invest more largely by the plan I suggest of dispensing 1868-74] NEW RAILWAY POLICY 273 with the agency of companies ? I wish you would turn your attention to this question and report to me what conclusion you come to. It is clear that the guarantee we give of 5 per cent, removes to a great extent the motive to economy in expenditure which is one of the great advantages of " private enterprise." Guaranteed companies do not represent private enter- prise, and o£Eer none of its advantages. ' You will understand that as yet this idea of dis- pensing with companies is my own only, and not to be considered as an official suggestion. I am at present inquiring into the subject, and hope soon to address you more formally in regard to it. I should like to see one great railway department formed, raising separate loans exclusively directed to railway works, expending the money by contract under an efficient corps of engineers, and dispensing altogether with the " double government " of directors, etc., who can only do what we could do far better.' He was able a few months later (July 30th, 1869) to inform Lord Mayo that he had announced this new departure in policy : ' I have announced in Parliament the new railway poHcy, apparently with general approval. But I am not insensible to one argument against us — namely, that Government never does execute works without endless delays, and that the guaranteed companies were at least bodies whose sole business it was to push on the lines, whereas under Government there is no body which has any such interest. ' We shall all be much discredited if we do not prove that such objections are groundless. It is not without anxiety, therefore, that I hear from private letters that the Lahore and Peshawar line, taken in hand by Government more than a year ago, is practically at a standstill, nothing being done, the staff of engineers " kicking their heels " and discouraged. All this may VOL. II. 18 274 INDIA [OHAP. XXXIX be untrue. But I hope you will report to me what is being done. We must have every line completely surveyed and estimated before it is begun. This may give trouble at first, but will save time and expense in the end. ' No more important work Ues before you than the organization of this new railway work, that the lines may be done speedily, cheaply, and substantially. One good man should be trusted with the survey of each line, and no divided responsibility allowed.' On January 17th, 1870, the Duke wrote to Lord Mayo: ' I took up the question of direct Government con- struction long before I knew that Lawrence supported it, and that his Government strongly recommended it. I came to that conclusion on general grounds ; and on sending for the head of the Public Works De- partment, Mr. Thornton, and telling him of my view, I was surprised to find that he was equally strong in favour of Government agency. It was after this that I found from the papers already in the ofl&ce that it was only in despair of this course being sanctioned that the Government of India was pressing for at least some improvement in the extravagant conditions allowed to the guaranteed companies. Soon after that I consulted the Cabinet, who sanctioned the proposal of the larger change.' The principle of State control was accordingly applied by Lord Mayo to the new lines constructed during his administration. The following letter (October 4th, 1871) from the Duke to Sir Richard Temple deals with the question of finance : ' I have just received your letter, in which you ask me whether I wish to see the repeal of the export 1868-74] DEATH OF LORD MAYO 275 duties proposed in the next Budget, even though it cannot be afforded without incurring a deficit, or largely increasing a deficit otherwise existing. I am not prepared to say that I wish you to make the proposal under such conditions. But as an export duty, upon an article of which India has no monopoly whatever, is undoubtedly a duty exposed to all the economic objections which attach to such duties, it is un- doubtedly one of the first duties to be remitted when it can be afforded ; and if there is reason to beHeve that the theoretical objections do practically apply, and that the trade is being limited and the industry of the people checked by the duty, then it might be worth while even to run the risk of deficit to abolish the impost. But the Government of India argues that there are no signs of its incidence being so heavy as seriously to limit the trade in grain. ' I shaU take the opinion of the Cabinet on the question which you raise, but in the meantime I have no hesitation in saying that the economic objections to a large deficit in a country where new taxes are so difficult, and even dangerous, are more serious and more to be avoided than the continuance of some evil from the export duty.' On the 12th of February, 1872, a terrible event occurred in India. The Viceroy, Lord Mayo, was assassinated by a convict, when he was inspecting the penal settlement on the Andaman Islands. The Duke had the sad duty to perform of announcing this painful intelligence to the House of Lords. In the course of his address, after alluding to the fact that he and Lord Mayo had taken up office almost at the same time, the Duke added : ' I am happy to say that from that time our negotia- tions have been most friendly and most cordial. 18—2 276 INDIA [CHAP. XXXIX ' I may say I believe with perfect truth that no Governor-General who ever ruled India was more energetic in the discharge of his duties and more assiduous in performing the functions of his great office, and, above all, no Viceroy who ever ruled India had more at heart the good of the people of that vast Empire. . . . ' I believe his death will be a calamity to India, and that it will be sincerely mourned not only in England and in his native country, Ireland, but by the weU- affected millions of Her Majesty's subjects in India.' The Duke's words were received by the House with marked emotion and sympathy. After Lord Mayo's tragic death. Lord Northbrook was appointed Viceroy, and proceeded to India the following summer. One of the first letters written by the Duke to the new Viceroy was on the subject of the proposal made by Lord Cardwell to increase the proportion of the military expenditure borne by India : ' I have been busy preparing a reply to a letter of the War Office, in which Cardwell threatens to claim from India a share in all sorts of army expenses at home— a theory which I am determined to resist, but which I strongly suspect you were aiding and abetting when you were at the War Office ! It will be a righteous retribution upon you if you now find that all your efforts at reduction in India are liable to be frustrated by new charges being laid upon India to pay a share of aU home military outlay, under the pretext that India is a " partner " in all the benefits. It is a 'pestilent doctrine, and I think I shall be able to upset it. And now at least I presume you will be disposed to help me.' On this question the Duke fought strenuously, and on the whole secured his point. There was no con- 1868-74] ZANZIBAR AND MUSCAT 277 troversy about the cost of maintaining troops in India, as that naturally fell on the Indian Treasury, The main question at issue was the proportion of the general military expenditure, for recruiting and similar purposes, which India should be called upon to pay; and the Cabinet was disposed to reduce military estimates by imposing more than a fair share upon India. This injustice the Duke succeeded in averting to a consider- able extent. On the subject of a disagreement which had arisen between the chiefs of Zanzibar and Muscat, the Duke wrote as follows to Lord Northbrook (October 12th, 1872) : ' The Cabinet to-day sanctioned an arrangement of which you ought to have early intimation and an early explanation. ' One of the first things I had to deal with when I came into ofl&ce was the question arising out of the arrangement Canning made by the authority of the Government of India between Zanzibar and Muscat. ' The Indian Government would not allow the two chiefs to fight out their own quarrel. In pursuance of the policy it has always pursued of interdicting mari- time war in those seas (as being dangerous to British commerce), it stepped in between the two brothers, and said, " We will not allow you to fight, but we will mediate between you, and decide as arbiters upon a just settlement of your quarrel." ' Of course this mediation was an enforced one, and having undertaken it on this footing, we became some- thing more than arbiters. We became parties in the whole transaction, and bound more or less to en- force our own award. ' Accordingly the money was really extracted by us from Zanzibar and paid over to Muscat. ' All this was done and arranged by the Indian Government with no reference whatever to slavery. 278 INDIA [chap. XXXIX It was purely and simply in the interests of commerce to heef the peace of the seas. ' But when I came into office a case had arisen which had not been foreseen. The Imaum of Muscat had been murdered, and the murderer had usurped the throne. ' The Sultan of Zanzibar then remonstrated against our forcing him to pay a subsidy to the murderer of his relative. He argued that it was intended for the Sovereign of Muscat only so long as he was of the family of the old Imaum, and that it would be un- just to make Zanzibar pay it to a stranger and an assassin. ' I thought there was much force in this, and I took the opinion of the Cabinet, which decided to exact no longer the subsidy from Zanzibar. ' The Government of India never acquiesced willingly in this decision. ' But now comes a counter-revolution in Muscat, and another member of the old family regains the throne. ' He claims^the subsidy from Zanzibar, and I cannot deny that to him the subsidy is clearly due under Canning's treaty and engagement. ' It seems to me that we have but two courses — either to stand aside and let the two States fight out their own quarrel, thus sacrificing the peace of the seas, or to enforce the subsidy on Zanzibar. ' The first course is not, I suppose, to be thought of. The interests of commerce would be too gravely compromised, and we should give up our standing policy in those seas. ' The enforcement of the payment from Zanzibar is also very embarrassing. It is a perpetual excuse for keeping up the revenue he gets from the slave-trade ; and even apart from this consideration, it is not easy to get the money regularly paid without resort to measures which our Government is not very willing to take. 1868-74] SIB BARTLE FRERE AND ZANZIBAR 279 ' Then comes the Foreign Office demanding, very properly, the reArision of an arrangement which is notoriously a cover and an incentive to the slave-trade. The Queen has given a promise in her speech from the throne that she will take more active measures to suppress it. ' Under all these circumstances, the embarrassment of which arises a good deal from the action of the Indian Government and from the engagements into which it entered, I have thought it right to bring the whole question before Council, with a view to our taking the Zanzibar subsidy on ourselves, provided the Imperial Treasury would take one-half of it, and also provided that by relieving Zanzibar from it we could get a thoroughly satisfactory new treaty in respect to com- merce and the slave-trade. ' The Cabinet has agreed to this arrangement, and so has the council. ' Sir Bartle Frere has been selected by Granville to go out on a special mission to Zanzibar to negotiate a new treaty, with powers to make the above arrange- ment, if it should be found necessary for the purposes I have indicated. ' Of course, I regard the contribution of India as made in respect to our old policy of keeping the peace of the seas, and the contribution made by the Imperial Treasury as made in respect to its desire to suppress the slave-trade, and to remove all difficulties in the way of doing so. ' But I may say, in passing, that whilst I think the Imperial Government ought to take the cost of suppressing the slave-trade on itself, yet that I do not think that any branch of the British Government (which the Government of India is) ought to take the line of saying, "This is a matter in which we have no interest and will take no concern." ' Especially does this language seem inappropriate when it seems clearly proved that Indian subjects and the capital of Indian merchants are largely concerned 280 INDIA [chap. XXXIX in all the pecuniary resources by which the slave-trade is carried on along the East Coast of Africa. ' On this, however, I do not dwell, because what I feel most is that the Government of India is the Government of the Queen, and the Queen's Government everywhere ought to do its best to help to suppress an iniquity so monstrous and so desolating in its effects as the East African slave-trade has been now proved to be.' In this mission to Zanzibar, Sir Bartle Frere was suc- cessful, the Sultan agreeing to the proposed treaty for the suppression of the slave-trade. The question of Land Settlement was one which constantly occupied the attention of the Secretary of State and the Government of India. The following letters from the Duke to Lord Mayo and Lord North- brook show the peculiar difficulties with which they had to contend in dealing with this matter : To Lord Mayo {November 1st, 1869). ' The last mail took out the despatch on the Punjaub Tenancy Act, which for some time you have been ex- pecting from us. ***** ' My own opinion on the general principle of the Act is favourable, but I must direct your attention to one part respecting which I entertain the gravest doubts. I refer to the power given to aU occupancy tenants to sublet their holdings either in whole or in part. ' I need not point out to an Irish landlord the dangers which are connected with such a power. No doubt these dangers depend on the conditions of society. Hitherto in India the competition for land has not been such as to lead to mischievous sub- division. On the contrary, under former Govern- 1868-74] PUKJAUB TENANCY ACT 281 ments I believe the difficulty has been to get tenants who would occupy and cultivate. But you must recoUect that our settled rule has brought in wholly new conditions. We shall have fewer wars, and I hope, also, fewer famines. Under peace and plenty the population must increase at a rate not before known, and if a low kind of food is available, such as the potato, we may have in the Punjaub the same pressure of the population on the means of subsistence which led to so much misery in Ireland. ' My attention has been the more called to this circumstance because I see in the papers special notice taken of the fact that the holdings are already extremely small in the Punjaub — not more, on the average, I think, than four acres.' To Lord Mayo {April 28th, 1871). ' You know the great objections entertained by many persons of high authority to any permanent alienation by the State of its right to adjust the tax of the rent which it exacts, according to the increasing value of land. My own opinion is that permanent settlements are good, but only on the condition that the increased wealth which is thus left in the hands of individuals shall be made accessible to taxation in other forms ; and the great strength of the argument against such settlements has always turned on the assumed impossibility, or extreme difficulty, of de- vising any new source of revenue in India. But if this difficulty can be overcome, then I think per- manent settlements are advantageous in the long-run. And I think that the difficulty will be overcome if the principle of our despatch on local taxation be care- fully guarded and adhered to. ' But this is quite essential. We are only at the commencement of a time which must be a new era as regards the value of land and of all its products in India. The railway system, and the discovery of new uses for 282 INDIA [chap. XXXIX the various products of the soil, are already telling on the prices of everything in India, and the value of land may soon come to be manyfold what it has hitherto been. ' This increased value had much better be left in the hands of the people than appropriated by the Government, provided it be admitted to be legitimately taxable for the necessities of local administration. ' A permanent settlement is a great stimulus to private enterprise and to the investment of capital, with confidence on the part of the agricultural classes that they will enjoy the fruits of their skill and enter- prise.' To Lord Ngrthbrook {May 23rd, 1873). ' A despatch goes out by this mail to which I attach much importance. . . . ' The real object of the despatch is to fire a shot across the bows of the school, now so strong and active, which deprecates all property in land, and advocates a land revenue system, destructive of proprietorship, as distinguished from mere occupancy. Campbell, in his report, mentions that he was doing all he could to persuade zemindars and other owners to give per- petual leases to their tenants at fixed rates of rent, this being, in his opinion, the most satisfactory footing on which different interests in land could be adjusted. ' I wrote a private letter to him, pointing out the mischiefs of such a system if it became general, and the certainty that it would remove from the improve- ment fund of the country the whole fixed rental of the proprietors. ' Ever since I have been looking out for an oppor- tunity of sajdng in a public form what I think on this matter. Such an opportunity arose naturally out of your despatch, enclosing Colonel Haig's report on the Orissa Works and Campbell's memorandum there- upon. ' Accordingly, I have taken this opportunity to give 1868-74] INCOME-TAX AND LAND QUESTION 283 a little lecture on poKtical economy as applied to the land question in India. It has been drawn with great care, and has been readjusted so as to receive the unanimous assent of the Council, although I do not think Maine likes it, because he is rather of the Mill school on these questions. But he could not object to any one of the paragraphs. ' I hope it will strengthen your hands in defending property when it has, fortunately, grown up under our system. I feel confident you will agree with the general principles that it lays down.' A letter to Lord Northbrook (June 27th, 1873) shows the connection between the Duke's scheme for an income-tax and the land question : ' My despatch of May 22nd on the general prin- ciples involved in the land question of India will enable you to see how entirely my opinion runs in the direc- tion of Hghtening and modifying the land revenue system. But I beg you to recollect that this opinion is inseparably connected with that other opinion on which I have written so fuUy — namely, that the growing wealth which will arise out of fight assess- ments must be held to be accessible to taxation in other forms. Unless this principle is upheld, it wiU be true, instead of being false, that the State loses aU that private persons gain. This is the pestilent doc- trine of the new school on the theory of land tenure. It is entirely false, but it is false only on the supposi- tion that private wealth shall continue to be taxable in other ways than by the exaction of increasing rents foUowing increasing values. ' Now, I am a little afraid that the abolition of the income-tax tends to discourage one important channel of access to the legitimate taxation of wealth. ' I am also a little afraid that your nervousness about local and municipal taxation may have the same effect in another direction. Of course, I agree with 284 INDIA [chap. XXXIX you that cesses should be applied very cautiously. I cannot say I feel at all sure that the Bengal municipal- ities should be exempted from cesses to which the rural districts are subjected. ' If we are to make our land revenue light, and, above all, if we are to make it permanent at a low rate, we must have recourse to other forms of taxation.' The following letter from the Duke to Lord North- brook concerns the proposed Rent and Revenue Acts for the North-Western Provinces. These Acts were designed to amend the existing laws affecting the ownership and occupancy of land. ' September Ytth,\mQ. My dear Northbbook, ^ ' One of the last mails brought me your letter of August 11th Avith the North- Western Provinces Rent and Revenue Bills. ' I have been reading them carefully with the relative documents, and am bound to tell you that I entertain very great doubts about some of the new provisions, especially about the new class created of privileged tenants. ' I can well conceive that it might be expedient to deal specially with the cultivators whose proprietorship was confiscated by ourselves after the Mutiny, although, even as regards them, you are breaking faith with those who bought the proprietorship set up to sale by yourselves Avithout any notice of the reserved rights kept in the hands of the former proprietors. ' But a general provision both for the past and for the future, that all bankrupt proprietors who have to sell their interest in their land shall have special " protection " in order to keep some part of that right of property which they profess to sell, seems to me a provision against all reason, and very impolitic. ' Yet these Bills, as now framed, give up and abandon all protection to the confiscated class, the only class 1868-74] RENT AND BE VENUE BILLS 285 on whose behalf Sir WiUiam Muir speaks in the extract sent with the papers, and gives the protection to every idle or extravagant proprietor who may get into debt, profess to sell his property, and then get the State to give him back so much of it as may keep him in a favoured position as a tenant. ' Could a better law be devised for weakening and destroying the motives which make men careful, industrious, and thrifty ? ' The provision seems to be confined (1) to village community owners ; (2) to these owners only in respect to the land in their own actual occupation. No doubt this limits the operation a good deal, but, as I under- stand that a large part of the whole country is owned by \dUage communities, the operation wiU be extensive enough. ' The object seems to be to bolster up the system of village ownership against the natural causes which are at work to break it up and to bring on the system of individual ownership. ' Is this a wise attempt ? Is it an attempt which can possibly succeed ? ' What are the causes at work ? The papers explain them. Peace, order, and good government are giving a value to OAvnership which it never had before ; that is to say, a great number of owners find that they can get a good price for their ownership, and are desirous to get it. A great many other persons are, of course, desirous to give that price. ' The State steps in, and says to the owner : " You must not sell your ownership. We wish to keep you as owner, and, even although you have already sold, we will not allow the bargain you have made to stand. We wiU ' protect ' you from that bargain ; we will insist that you shall keep at least a part of the owner- ship which you meant to sell, and which another man meant to buy, and thought he had bought, and, more- over, however careless and extravagant you may be, whatever may have been the follies which compelled 286 INDIA [chap. XXXIX you to sell, still, we regard you as so invaluable to the State, that we must insist on your keeping, and never selling, the part ownership which we restore to you." ' Is this reasonable language ? Yet is not this a plain statement of the real feelings which dictate this legislation ? ' I object also very much to the clauses which prevent enhancement for so long a term as thirty years, and which do not recognise the increased value of produce (as distinguished from increased product- iveness of the land) as a legitimate ground of enhance- ment. ' I can understand the policy of recognising no ownership in land at all, the policy of taking the whole rent to the Treasury, and leaving nobody connected with the land except cultivating tenants. I believe this policy to be pestilent in its consequences, and fatal to the growth of national wealth as well as of political strength, but it is a consistent policy, and at least intelligible. ' But there is neither policy, nor consistency, nor intelligence in a system which professes to recognise ownership in land as distinct from occupancy, and then endeavours to thwart and destroy the natural opera- tions of commerce in that ownership. If you do admit ownership, admit it to be freely saleable. Do not tell a man that he is owner, and forbid him to sell when he finds it his interest to do so. Still less is it wise to tell a man when he has sold that he will be " pro- tected " in getting back part of what he professes to have parted with, and this, too, without giving back any part of the price ! ' The whole system is, I think, thoroughly wrong. By all means let our courts respect and enforce " custom " in the legal sense. But do not let us go on passing new Acts, professing to protect men against the inevitable results of social progress, which are breaking up, and will break up in spite of you, the old antiquated systems of land tenure in India, 1868-74] INCOME-TAX IN INDIA 287 'Perpetual entails are being denounced in Europe by land reformers where those entails are in favour of large owners. You are now proposing to introduce them in India in favour of a pauper and bankrupt class of peasant proprietors ! " Heritable, but not transferable, rights of privileged occupancy." What is this but a bastard ownership, perpetually entailed upon a class which in the " struggle for existence " which the progress of society involves, and without which no progress is possible, is being found too weak to hold its own ? ' The exacerbation between owner and occupier which some of your collectors report as now prevailing is due, in my opinion, to the laws we have passed, which profess to protect men against changes which are inevitable, and against which no artificial protec- tion is possible. But so long as we profess and promise protection, the progress of these changes will be marked by very natural discontent.' In this letter the Duke mentions his objection to granting fixity of rent for so long a period as thirty years. This view was shared by the Lieutenant- Governor, Sir William Muir. When the Acts were finally passed by the Legislative Council, this clause was altered, and a fixed rent was secured to the tenant for a term of ten years only. The Duke advocated economy, but he also advised, as a means of increasing the revenue, the adoption of the income-tax, which had been so successful in England. This tax was levied in India in 1870, and, from the first, proved to be unpopular, although the Duke was incHned to think that it aroused the opposition of the official class only. On June 29th, 1872, he wrote to Lord Northbrook : ' As regards the income-tax, I am still of opinon that, if possible (that is to say, if it can be done con- 288 INDIA [chap. XXXIX sistently with the state of public feeling), the income-tax ought to be kept at a low rate permanently, but that it should not be operated upon from time to time with reference to the temporary exigencies of the Budget. Under a permanent income-tax, many of the most objectionable features would disappear ; and as regards the objection that it is a tax upon a very small portion of the community, it is to be remembered that this is only because there is a very limited number of persons in India who have an income above £50 or £100. But this does not seem to be any reason why this limited number should not be taxed. A tax which is levied on a limited class is of course objectionable, if it be considered alone. But it is not necessarily objectionable if it be considered as a part of a general system of taxation which aims, as a whole, at equality in proportion to means. ' We made one great mistake about the income-tax, and that was when the Government of Lord Mayo doubled it in the middle of a year. This gave the impression of its being an implement of finance to be perpetually brandished and brought down upon the heads of the people whenever the Government found itself even in a temporary difficulty, and I do not believe that the same feeling would ever have arisen if it had been kept at a low fixed rate.' The defeat of Mr. Gladstone's Government by a majority of three (March 11th, 1873), on the question of University Education in Ireland, resulted in his resignation ; but, as Mr. Disraeli refused to form a Government, Mr. Gladstone resumed office. During the last days of 1873, India was threatened with famine, owing to the failure of the rice crops in Bengal and Behar, which was due to drought. The Duke supported Lord Northbrook in the relief measures which he instituted, and urged the Viceroy 1868-74] MR. DISRAELl'S GOVERNMENT 289 to err rather on the safe side, and not, from financial reasons, to be in any way niggardly in the provision of relief. In January, 1874, the Ministry determined on a dissolution ; the Liberal party suffered a crushing defeat at the General Election ; and Mr. Gladstone, following Mr. Disraeli's precedent of 1868, resigned office before the meeting of Parliament. In the new Government which was formed by Mr. Disraeh, Lord Derby again occupied the post of Foreign Secretary ; Lord Carnarvon was Secretary for the Colonies; Sir Stafford Northcote, Chancellor of the Exchequer; and Lord SaHsbury succeeded the Duke of Argyll at the India Office. In his last official letter to Lord Northbrook (February 13th, 1874) the Duke referred to the over- throw of the Liberal Government as foUows : ' Personally, I can't regret it. PoUtically, too, there are many compensations to me, as I am not a Radical, and many of the extreme joints of our tail had been wagging too much.' To Lord Northbrook {March 10th, 1874). ' To my mind, it is capable of proof that in no previous case of Indian famine or scarcity has there been even an approach to the timely, thoughtful, and systematic operations with which your Government has met this failure in Behar. This statement will be made good, and whenever my turn comes to speak, you may depend on my doing what I can to make this clear to the pubHc. [^? | ' I must, however, leave town and Parhamentary work early in May, as I wish to have a fuU spring and summer in the country. ' I have had some very full and satisfactory talks VOL. n. 19 290 INDIA [OHAP. XXXIX with Salisbury, and have placed our correspondence at his disposal. I think this is good policy towards you and towards India. Personally, I like Salisbury very much.' From Lord Northbrooh to the Duke {February I9th, 1874). ' The news of the defeat of the Government at the late elections, and their consequent resignation, hardly surprised me. Our Government has been a little in advance, upon several great questions, of the general opinions of the mass of the people, and the change to a period of comparative quiet, if this should be the policy of the Conservative Government, contrary to their action of late years, would, I think, be popular, and not without some advantage ; but my speculations upon general politics from this distance, and with different objects of absorbing interest before me, are hardly worth writing down. ' I write principally to thank you for the generous confidence and support which I have received from you since I have fiHed the office of Governor-General, and for the full and free manner in which you have written to me upon important matters, and for the little amount of the references from home upon matters of minor importance. This latter has been of no small advantage to me, for the^work is very heavy, and the more it is confined to questions of real importance, the more easily and the better it can be done. ' Especially ia the questions relating to the land settlement and other similar matters of discussion your views have, I am sure, had a great and salutary weight in the Government of this country which will remain afterwards.' On April 24th the Duke spoke in the House of Lords in defence of Lord Northbrook's pohcy. Referring to this speech, Lord Shaftesbury wrote (April 25th, 1874) : 1868-74] LORD NORTHBROOK'S FAMINE POLICY 291 ' Your speech last night was most satisfactory to everybody in the House, and it ought to be so to yourself. Yet non nobis Domine. Everything was good, indeed first-rate — delivery, language, substance, and manner. Moreover, you fully proved your case.' The following letter from Lord Granville refers to the period of the Duke's tenure of office as Secre- tary of State for India, and the Duke's reply shows how entirely he approved of the poHcy pursued by Lord Northbrpok during his administration of Lidian affairs : From Lord Granville {January \1th, 1875). ' Thanks for your note. ' Dizzy impudently at the Mansion House stated that the credit of dealing with famine rested exclusively with Northbrook and Salisbury. Am I wrong in supposing that you appointed Northbrook, that from you he received his famine instructions, that from you he received unlimited support against a great cry ? How far has the Council at home any merit either as regards you or Sahsbury ? and had Salisbury any merit but maintaining your and Northbrook's policy ?' ' Inveraeay, 'January \dth, 1875. ' My dear Granville, ' Of course we appointed Northbrook. ' His policy was from the first right — entirely ap- proved and supported by me, I doing nothing more than urging even increased precautions. Moreover, in so far as Northbrook did hasten his steps at all, they were hastened before Salisbury came into office. For instance, the sending of Sir R. Temple to the spot — which was the effective step — was taken long before I left office. So far as I know, nothing new was done by Salisbury. 19—2 292 INDIA [CHAP. XXXIX ' I don't wish, however, to wrangle in any way against Salisbury, who behaved Hke a gentleman, and would be the first, I think, to acknowledge that all measures were settled and in full progress before he came to the ofiice. ' The Council simply supported Northbrook and me. They have no independent or initiative action. ' Yours ever, ' Argyll.' CHAPTER XL 1870-74 THE FRANCO-PRTJSSIAN WAR — ARMY REFORM— EDUCA- TION — CHURCH AND STATE During the period of the Liberal Administration (1868-1874) important events had occurred on the Continent. In August, 1870, war was declared between France and Prussia. This war originated in the objection raised by France to the acceptance of the offer of the throne of Spain by Prince Leopold of HohenzoUern, and although this acceptance was afterwards with- drawn, the refusal of Prussia to give any guarantee for the future was made the pretext for hostilities between the two countries. In the contest which ensued, the Duke's sympathies were on the side of Prussia. He wrote to Mr. Gladstone (August 31st, 1870) : ' What a war ! but I am thoroughly German. . . . StUl, I think the Germans would make a mistake if they took Alsace.' A Cabinet had been summoned to meet on Sep- tember 30th, to consider the question of mediation on the part of England between France and Prussia. The Duke, who had been crmsing in his yacht on the west coast of Scotland for some weeks, wrote to Mr. Glad- stone on his return to Inveraray (September 28th) : 293 294 THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR [chap, xh ' We returned from a cruise yesterday. I guessed that about this time there would be a Cabinet. ' But, as bad luck would have it, I have been attacked by gout, and I am so lame that I don't expect to be able to move to-morrow, although I must go up to London as soon as I can, at any rate, on some Indian matters. ' If I am not at the Cabinet, I can only say that, as regards foreign affairs, I cannot see how we can as yet do any good by arbitration, or even the offer of it. The French have not yet come down to the level of common-sense. The sacrifices they were prepared to inflict on others they seem to think quite impious when threatened to themselves. ... I am myself disposed to think that Germany makes a mistake in asking for Metz and Strasbourg. The line of the Vosges is more reasonable, but, on the whole, I believe their wisest plan would be to be content with the destruction of Strasbourg as a fortress. But who has a right to dictate terms to Germany after all the risks she has run and the tremendous victories she has gained ?' The day after this letter was written, the Duke was able to travel to London, and he was present at the Cabinet at which it was decided that England should refrain from mediating between the hostile countries. The Duke wrote to Mr. Gladstone (November 25th, 1870) : ' I have myself never argued in favour of the German annexation of Alsace and Lorraine, but only against our having any right to oppose it otherwise than by the most friendly dissuasion.' To Mr. Gladstone {October 24, 1870). ' We move up to London — all, very soon. As you may suppose, I have " urgent private affairs " at present. 1870-74] FIRST ElMPEROR OF GERMANY 295 ' On Foreign Affairs I vote a vote of confidence in you and Granville* readily.' The ' urgent private affairs ' alluded to in this letter were connected with the arrangements for the impend- ing marriage of the Duke's eldest son, the Marquis of Lome, to H.R.H. Princess Louise, the fourth daughter of Queen Victoria, which took place on March 21st, 1871. The Franco-Prussian War terminated early in 1871, when Paris capitulated after a three months' siege. The terms of peace gave to Germany an indemnity of two hundred millions sterling, and the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine. At the beginning of this year, the King of Prussia was proclaimed )^mperor of-^^JTSPHrany. Some corre- spondence between the Duke and Professor Max MiiUer at a later period gives the Duke's impression of the first Emperor ef-German}? ^. From Inveraray {April 11th, 1888). ' My dear Professor, ' I read your speech the other day on the Emperor William with great interest. It brought back to me my dear old friend Bunsen and all his excitement about German unity in 1848, when he was universally laughed at in London. He came one day to a breakfast at our house with great tricolour rosettes of the German colours, and hideous they are as a combination of colours. ' But you mention some things in your speech which, if I understand them, are new to me. You seem to say " that Bunsen advised the then King to yield to the Berlin mob, and to order off the troops ! Is * Lord Granville had been appointed Minister for Foreign AflFairs on the death of Lord Clarendon on June 27th, 1870. 296 THE FRANCO-PRUSSIAN WAR [ohap. xl this SO ? I do not recollect hearing of it at the time. I do recollect meeting the present Emperor,* then a youth, at Stafford House, and his telling me that he felt inclined to " break his sword " when the troops were " retired." ' When you say that the late Emperor was greater than the greatest of all his predecessors, I pause. Do you really think so ? Was he as great a man person- ally as Charlemagne ? I doubt it ; but he chose Bismarck, and that was an imperial ofl&ce and an imperial recognition. For the rest, wonderful oppor- tunities offered — but this is always so with the world's great actors. ' I have been reading your reviewer, Stephen, and I don't like what he says. It is meagre. He agrees with you where, I confess, I venture to differ. I cannot identify language and thought except in the sense in which I can identify a flower with " vegetable vitality." Language seems to me a product of thought, or, if you like, a vestment, an embodiment, an efflorescence. But thought lies underneath, behind, above — something independent of expression in scimd. Every day the scientific men are coining new words to try to overtake the invasion of new concepts which discovery is suggesting. ' Does anyone in Germany think anything of that strange philosophical sect represented by the " Philo- sophy of the Unconscious " ? Wild as it is in some ways, I think there is a great deal in it, and its percep- tion of the anti-materiaHstic aspects of Nature is refreshing in these days of a corrupt Darwinism. ' I have had a severe attack of gout, and am just recovering. Pray excuse my desire to have a moment's chat with you about my dear old friend Bunsen as well as on other matters. How charming Bunsen was ! You say truly he was never understood by the John BuU element in society. I shall never forget his * The Emperor Frederick. 1870-74] FIRST EMPEROR OE GERMANY 297 enthusiasm in 1848, and the sadness with which, in later days, he once said to me, speaking of the unity, " It will come some day." \dz-i I have always been heartily in favour of it — as the best check on France. But I have doubts how far unity under one Oovernment is at all sure to stand. Are you sure of it ?' Professor Max Miiller rephed (April 14th, 1888) : ' My DEAR Duke, ' I did not wish to imply that Bunsen advised the King to jdeld to the Berlin mob. Bunsen, as far as I remember, was not in Berlin at that time. Of course, hke everybody else, Bunsen was a Uttle off his balance in February, 1848, and he thought that what happened in 1871 ought to have happened in 1848. I beUeve he exercised an excellent influence on the Prince of Prussia at that time, and his advice has borne good fruit. ' When I spoke of the late Emperor as great, I thought I had made it clear that I spoke of his work, not of his personal gifts. But that was the very lesson I wanted to teach — that a very ordinary lever may be used in history to Hft the world out of its old hinges. He had a good horse to ride, and he proved himself a good jockey. In his character, so far as I knew him, there was much to admire. He never was self-indulgent ; he was very humble, very industrious, very truthful. How different from Napoleon le Grand ! As to Charlemagne, we know very Httle of his private character; what we know of his family hfe does not give one a very high idea. But, great as the work is which he achieved, it seems to me that a united Ger- many in the centre of modern Europe is a greater work ; and the difficulties were enormous. No doubt the Emperor had Bismarck's assistance. But Bismarck, too, is personally — so I am told — a very ordinary mortal, and far less free from human weaknesses than the Emperor. But he too knew how to ride his horse, 298 AEMY REPOBM [ohap. xl and a splendid horse it was. In the end it was the German people, and, in one sense, the German school- master, who really did the work. But that is under- stood ; and when we say that the Emperor won the Battle of Sedan, we mean his generals, his officers, his soldiers down to the smallest drummer-boy. I have great faith in the future of Germany. If only England would take a leap, and openly join the league of peace, I do not see how war for some time to come would be possible. Where I admire Bismarck's cleverness is in his allowing so much home rule to Saxony, Bavaria, Wiirtemberg, etc., and yet reserving all imperial interests for the Reichstag. That showed a bold hand and real political genius. I hope that no attempt wiU be made to simplify matters, as they call it, and to swaUow up some of the minor principalities. They are centres of life and very useful, without being dangerous any longer. ' I was so sorry to hear of your attack of gout. Sir Andrew Clark teUs me I suffer from suppressed gout. I only hope he may suppress it altogether.' One of the questions which engaged the attention of Parliament in 1871 was a scheme of Army Reform, which included a provision for the abolition of the purchase of commissions. Mr. CardweU, the Minister for War, introduced a Bill on the subject, which passed the House of Commons and was sent up to the House of Lords. The Duke of Richmond met the second reading with an adverse motion (which was carried by a majority of twenty-five) to the effect that the House of Lords declined to read the Bill a second time xmtil a more comprehensive scheme of army reorganization had been laid before the House. In the course of a speech on this motion, in which the Duke defended the Government proposals, he said (July 17th, 1871) : 1870-74] ABOLITION OF ARMY PITRCHASE 299 ' In the first place, to look at purchase in its ex- ternal aspect, as compared with other institutions, I suppose it cannot be denied that it is a system whoUy exceptional. It does not exist in the navy, nor in any other army in the world, nor in the scientific parts of your own army. It is a system which you confess you would never have thought of introducing ; and, lastly, it is a system which, as now practised, is illegal and contrary to law. These are facts which you cannot deny. ... I am speaking of the system of purchase as it is now practised, of which over-regula- tion prices are an essential element. I am not speaking on my own authority in saying that the over-regulation price is an essential part of the system, and cannot be disentangled from the regulation price, for it is pointed out by the Royal Commissioners that the two are inseparable. It is obvious that when you allow men to bargain for a valuable commodity, and do not interfere with their bargain, you cannot practi- cally regulate the price that will be paid ; they may pay the regulation price overtly, but behind your back they will make what additional bargain they please. ' In the second place, how shall we define purchase in itself Adthout reference to other institutions ? Indignation has been expressed at its being called a system of promotion by money, not by merit. I do not wish to adopt any term impljdng anything in the nature of a prejudice ; I wish to use language, in so far as I can, which noble Lords opposite wiU recognise as a fair representation of the facts ; I say, then, that purchase is promotion by seniority quahfied by money. Again, it is promotion, I will not say irre- spective of merit, but irrespective of comparative merit. The senior officer who has the money has the right ; and whether he be a man of superior merit or a man of very inferior merit is a matter of pure chance. Purchase is a system of promotion, carried up to the command of regiments, by seniority quahfied 300 ARMY REFORM [chap, xl by money, without any reference to comparative merit. . . . ' I will give you a third definition of purchase. My noble friend [Lord Northbrook] has excited vehement objurgation by describing the purchase system as a " spider's web of vested interests." I beUeve, however, offence was not taken at his saying it was a web, but at his calling it a spider's web, because a spider is an unpopular insect. I therefore drop the spider, and say that the purchase system constitutes the army one vast web of vested interests. Is it possible to deny that ? You have from eight million to ten million pounds sterling invested by some 5,000 or 6,000 officers. Does not that necessarily imply an intricate system of vested interests ? It is impossible to touch the army system at any point without touching the vested interests which officers have acquired. . . . 'I would say, therefore, to noble Lords opposite, who admit that purchase is not to be defended in principle, that they wiU not be allowed to get off by the use of such vague expressions in this House, and that they will be brought to book by more critical assemblies. Unless you can defend the purchase system by argument, when the pubHc come to know, as they must know (and I wish to use nothing in the shape of clap-trap, nor make any appeal to popular prejudices), that the system is by your own admission indefensible, you will find that it Avill be impossible to maintain it. I counsel you, then, to give it up in time. What is the use of fighting for a system which all men of intelligence know to be dead and gone ? What is the use of prolonging the contest in favour of that system when you yourselves confess that we now propose to abolish it by means of a scheme which gives liberal and ample compensation to the officers ? . . .' The doom of purchase was not long delayed. It existed by virtue of a royal warrant, not by virtue 1870-74] EDUCATION IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND 301 of an Act of Parliament, and, at a meeting of the Cabinet on the day following the adverse motion in the House of Lords, it was decided that Her Majesty should be advised to cancel the existing warrant, and that another warrant, abolishing purchase, should be issued. The consent of the Crown to this course was announced to the House of Commons on July 20th. The BiU was afterwards passed by the House of Lords, in order to seciire the compensation to the officers which the terms of the BiU provided. In the subject of education the Duke was deeply interested, but he did not enter into the debates on the EngHsh Education Bill of 1870. His attention was naturally more engrossed by the Education BiU for Scotland, the responsibiUty for which rested largely with him. A Royal Commission, of which the Duke was chairman, had been appointed in 1864 to inquire into the condition of education in Scotland. In 1867 that Commission, which is generally known as the ArgyU Commission, issued a Report, showing that the existing parochial system was in several respects defective, and required amendment. A Bill embodying the recommendations of the Commission was therefore drafted, and was introduced in the House of Lords by the Duke on February 25th, 1869. The substance of his leading speech on the subject consisted of a critical exposition of the diflEerences between education in Scotland and education in England. ' You must have been struck with the very great difference which exists between the condition of pubUc opinion in Scotland and in England upon this great subject of popular education. I think it cannot but surprise some members of this House to be told that a Commission, consisting of men of aU poUtical parties and of aU reUgious denominations in Scotland, has 302 EDUCATION [chap, xl unanimously recommended the giving to a Central Board such large and arbitrary powers of imposing additional rates for educational purposes, enabling it to go to great cities like Glasgow, having an important municipal body, and direct the erection of a school in any particular street or ward. How has this great difference of feeling arisen ? You wiU recollect the terms in which, last year, when the noble Duke opposite [the Duke of Marlborough], then President of the Council, introduced his Bill, he referred to per- missive rating, the strong objections he urged to it, and how impossible he thought permissive rating in England. I reaUy beheve that if we were to propose a Bill for England, with powers of compulsory rating such as these, each particular hair on the noble Duke's head would stand on end ; and I do not believe it would receive the assent of anything like the same proportion of men of aU. political parties in this country. The question naturally arises. How has this great difference of opinion between the two countries come about ? How is it that the people of Scotland are so anxious for education that men of all parties and of all Churches are willing to ask for such powers as these to be given to a Central Board ? The answer to the question is that this state of opinion is due to some of the great leaders of the Reformation in Scotland. The parochial system in Scotland was founded by John Eoiox, who laid down the principle, which has never faded from the popular mind in Scotland, that it is the duty and the function of the State to insist upon the education of the people. In language of singular eloquence and fervour, which, even at this distance of 300 years, it is impossible to read without emotion, he insisted before the Parliament of Scotland that it was their absolute duty, if they desired that the light of the Reformation should be maintained in Scotland, to found a great system of national education. Nor was it a mere vague suggestion. Every part of the scheme, even 1870-74] EDUCATION IN ENGLAND AND SCOTLAND 303 that which we are now only about to adopt, was laid down in that address by Knox. He provided for the establishment of parish schools ; he desired to see borough schools for the middle classes ; he desired the erection of great colleges and Universities for the higher education to be given to the higher classes. Nay, more, he provided for annual and continual inspection, and he laid down a principle which only very lately has been acknowledged in our legislation, but which, I strongly suspect, is about to play an important part in the legislation of the country — that education in certain classes must even be made com- pulsory. That principle has been adopted by Parlia- ment in aU the Factory Acts, and in other Acts regarding the employment of children ; it has been adopted bit by bit, slowly and quietly ; and I believe there are many persons who are not at this moment aware of the extent to which our legislation is com- mitted to that principle in England. That principle was laid down by the great Reformers of Scotland. The advantages which she has derived from her par- ochial system have all sprung from that source ; and it is due to the memory of these men to say that this system of general education was laid down by them alone ; and, so far as I know, in no other country to which the Reformation extended was it adopted in the same degree, nor was the same importance attached to it. So far as I have been able to ascertain, no one of the English Reformers laid stress upon the education of the people, but the Reformers of Scotland alone. ' I believe that the secret of the difference is this : that in Scotland the Reformation came from below, while in England it came from above ; so that the interests of the people were always foremost in the minds of the Scottish Reformers, and hence they derived their singular clear-sightedness on this question. It is from this source that the Scottish people have derived their strong appreciation of the blessings of education. But, at the same time, I am bound in 304 EDUCATION [CHAP, xl honesty to point out to this House that this Bill, in many respects, widely diverges from the principles laid down by our early Reformers. ' It is unquestionably true that in their time the education of Scotland was designed to be what is now called a denominational system. It was to be both national and denominational — that is to say, it was to be strictly national, but it was also to be strictly religious. Such a system was possible at that time. In the view of John Knox, the whole population of the country was to be of one Church ; and under these circumstances it was natural and perfectly right that the national system should be strictly denominational — that is to say, when the people were all of one religion and of one Church, it would be perfectly natural, and, in my opinion, per- fectly right, that Parliament should connect education with the teaching of that Church. But, unfortunately, we are not now in the position in which John Knox was, or in which he hoped Scotland would be. For though we are not much divided as regards doctrine, yet we are keenly divided on points of ecclesiastical discipline, and we can no longer hope for the establish- ment of a united system of education under any one Church. Under these circumstances, I think a great step is now proposed by the system provided by this Bill : to cut off the connection between education and the conduct of particular reHgious bodies. The in- spectors are no longer to be necessarily members of any particular denomination, and they are not to be confined to the inspection of schools connected with any particular denomination. Above all, it is ex- pressly provided that they are to take no cognizance of religious instruction unless the managers of the schools themselves desire such cognizance to be taken. This is an important part of the BiU, and without it we could not possibly have had that assent to our measure which we have received from all parts of the country. We have full confidence that the ratepayers 1870-74] SPEECH ON EDUCATION BILL 305 will conduct the new schools in respect of religious instruction much in the same way as the parish schools have been conducted. There really is no diflference in the management of the different de- nominational schools in Scotland. It has been proved over and over again that parents do not care in the least degree what is the religious connection of the school to which they send their children. They send them to the best school, whether that school be an Established Church school, or a Free Church, or a United Presbyterian school. We propose, therefore, to take no cognizance of reUgion in these schools. In point of principle, this course is rendered all the more easy by the example set last year by the noble Duke opposite [the Duke of Marlborough], in recognising, for the first time, secular schools in England as entitled to a share in the Privy Council grants. We take no notice of the reHgious instruction taught in any of these schools, except this, that we impose upon all the schools a stringent conscience clause. No public money is to be given to any school that does not submit to such a clause. But the truth is, that here, also, I am glad to say, we are not met with the same difficulties as those which prevail in England. In Scotland it has always been the custom that Roman Catholics may obtain the advantages of secular in- struction at the parish schools, without being com- pelled to go through the rehgious teaching. The same system has been universally adopted in the Free Church schools and in aU others, except, as I have been informed — though I hope it is not true — that the Episcopal Church will not allow secular instruction to be given in their schools without the pupils going through the catechisms of their Church.' The opponents of the Bill, of whom the Duke of Marlborough was the chief, laid stress on the question of denominational education, and in a speech on the VOL. n. 20 306 EDUCATION [chap, xt, second reading the Duke again dealt at some length with this aspect of the subject. ' With regard to denominational education, I never have objected, and never will object, to the principle of denominational education, except upon one ground, and that is that it is incompetent to overtake the educational wants of the country. ' I agree in the opinion that in itself, and in the abstract, it is an advantage that children should be brought up in connection A^dth some definite system of dogmatic teaching. But there is no denying the fact that up to the present time there has been a lamentable deficiency of education in Scotland under a system which may be regarded as at once denomi- national and national. Let me remind the House that in principle the old national system of Scotland was the system of rating — rating on the owners and occupiers of property, and if that system is intended in the present day, you must take all the consequences which flow from the extension of religious dissent. You cannot have a system founded upon rating, among a people who are divided in religious opinion, without more or less impairing your denominational system. But in Scotland, though the people are frequently divided on points of ecclesiastical discipline, there is, for the most part, tolerable unity in points of purely religious doctrine. The national system of Scotland, by a Bill which was passed some years ago, was sepa- rated from the exclusive connection with the Estab- lished Church. The masters may be Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and in some cases Roman Catholics. There is absolutely no restriction upon the choice of schoolmasters.' The Bill passed the second reading, but was altered in Committee, and was returned to the House of Lords so late in the session that the consideration of it was postponed. 1870-74] RELIGIOUS EDUCATION 307 The measure was not brought forward again until 1872, when, during the debate in the House of Lords, the Duke spoke to the following effect : ' Without in the least desiring to utter anything that might be regarded as a threat, I should regard further delay in the settlement of this question with con- siderable fear, lest it should result in the adoption of a purely secular system of education, a result to which I look forward with much dread. Under no circumstances would I be the mouthpiece of a Govern- ment which should propose the adoption of such a system, and therefore I must be held free from uttering that warning in the light of a threat, but I am bound to tell you that I am alarmed at the prospect of this question of education being delayed much longer. Although the Act of 1870 has been wisely accepted as a compromise, both by the Church of England and by a large portion of the dissenting Churches in this country, no one can deny that a very alarming agita- tion has been got up against the principles of that Act, and against any remaining relics of religious education which were preserved by it. Even men for whom I have the highest respect show a tendency to adopt a purely secular system of education. I regard such a system as an impossible ideal, and such, I hope, it will remain — at least, during the present generation. It would be very strange indeed if, in this Christian country, no child were to be allowed to receive any rehgious teaching whatever in our schools ; that they should receive an education without hearing the name of God or receiving a ghmpse of a future state. My objection to the secular system is that it puts positive obstructions in the way of religious education. The advocates of the secular system recommend that the masters should be actually prohibited from giving religious instruction, and that religious instruction should be given neither in the same place nor by the same men as secular instruction. This is putting abso- 20—2 308 EDtrCATION [CHAP. XL lute legislative restrictions upon religious education, and I cannot be one to recommend such a system to Parliament. . . . ' Why, what is the real necessity under which we are called to legislate at all on the subject of education ? Is it not because the Churches have failed to overtake the growing wants of the people ? And therefore, unless the opportunity for religious instruction be given in the national schools, it is almost certain that a large proportion of the people will get no religious instruction at all. On these grounds, then, on the ground of the positive merits of the measure, on the ground that it finds a solution of the difficulties under which we labour, I venture to recommend it to the favourable consideration of your Lordships. It is not without some reluctance that I present to you a BiU which, even in appearance, interferes with the system of education which has existed so long in Scotland, and of which we have been so proud, and which, as far as it extends, has unquestionably done its work so well. But the more you look at this Bill, the more you will see that the edifice it proposes to raise is an edifice raised on the Unes of the ancient Scottish system, with no other changes in it than those which are required by the changed condition of society and the changed relation of the Churches to that society. It has been suggested that we should legalize the " use and wont " of the Scottish people in regard to religious education ; but let us leave religious education to that use and wont, and it will not be departed from, for the use and wont of a people are far more powerful than any law that we can pass. The Westminster Confession has a strong hold on the majority of the people of Scotland, and we may leave the religious instruction of the young to them, with full confidence that under the new scheme all that was good in the old system will be continued and strengthened, and that the education of the country will be permeated by that spirit which has made it so successful for many centuries.' 1870-74] UNIVERSITY TESTS 309 The Bill ultimately became law (August 6th, 1872), and members of the Opposition united with his political friends in congratulating the Duke on his successful guidance of the measure. The Duke of Richmond said in the House of Lords that ' there was no one more competent than the Duke of Argyll to give information with regard to the educational customs and require- ments of the people of Scotland.' •'.] Educational reform was not, however, confined to questions affecting elementary schools, a BiU having been introduced as early as 1868 by the Solicitor- General, Sir J. D. Coleridge, for the abolition of those University tests by which the professors, tutors. Fellows, and scholars of the two great English Universities were required to be members of the Church of England. This Bill did not pass both Houses until 1871. During the progress of the measure the Duke again expressed his views on the relation of religious teaching to education : ' My strong impression is that, while we leave the religious teaching (that is, divinity teaching) at the Universities in the hands of the Established Church, we should not go further in the way of securing the religious instruction of the young men attending the Universities. Some arguments have been used on this side of the House which I confess I do not share in. One right reverend prelate said the other night that he had no fear for Christianity. Neither have I any such fear. Of course, we all have confidence in the ultimate triumph of Christianity, but it is very possible that we may have to go through periods of infidelity, and of the upsetting of everything that has been considered most sacred ; we may have to go through deep waters before we reach the shore. I am also firmly convinced that if such convulsions should happen to the country the calamity will be civil 310 EDTJCATION [chap, xl and political as well as religious, and therefore I am as anxious as any man to see what security can be obtained for the religious instruction of the young men. But I am satisfied that the forms of modern doubt, the difficulties which young men harbour with respect to religious questions, are such as cannot be kept out by safeguards like that which is proposed. I trust that so long as the religious teaching of the Universities is left in the hands of the Church of England, they will be able to provide professors and teachers of divinity who will continue the great work of Butler, and show by argument, following closely the advance of modern thought and the investigations of modern times, that the idea too commonly entertained that the dis- coveries of science have upset the foundations of Christian faith, and that the truths of natural and revealed religion cannot be reconciled, is unfounded. If there are doctors and teachers of divinity who are able to meet their adversaries on this ground, the Church of England wiU succeed in answering her opponents.' The Duke always greatly appreciated the devotion of Scotsmen to learning, and an illustration of the interest he felt in the progress of education among the people on his own estates is given in a letter to Mr. Gladstone, written from Campbeltown in the year 1861 : ' September 9,\st. 'I am not going to write on politics to-day. I wish to tell you of two examples of Scottish education which I have seen lately, and which, I think, would have interested you, as they have interested me. Three weeks ago I was visiting a very remote district of the island of Midi, where the people are very numerous and very poor, and of a pure Celtic breed, English having only lately been advancing at all rapidly among the people. I passed a small side school, 1870-74] SCOTTISH EDTTOATION 311 the teacher of which is paid by a women's society in Edinburgh. I went in and found about a score of young children in a small thatched cottage, and asked the master to let me hear them read. The boys who read were from ten to fourteen years of age. They read a book of extracts, with excellent intonation and observance of punctuation. But as I knew that not one of them ever spoke one word of English at his own fireside, I suspected that they could not understand all the rather long words which they were reading. One Uttle creature, with a rag of a kUt that hardly covered him, read a sentence about the mode of preparing lead ore, and the washing of it " to free it from all extraneous matter." " What is extraneous ?" I asked. Some of the older boys hesitated, but the little fellow with the kilt answered at once, " Not belonging to itself." ' I have asked several people since to define the meaning of extraneous, and not one has given so neat and complete an answer as that urchin. He could not possibly have expected the question, nor have been prepared for it. ' The next example is of a different kind. This district of Argyllshire was the refuge of many Covenant- ing famiHes, under the protection of the Marquis and Earl of Argyll, during the persecutions of Charles and James. Their descendants still fiourish in the district, many of them being tenants on the estate, and forming a strong body of United Presbjrterians, into which most of the old Dissenters have become merged. One family of the name of Huie we visited two days ago in the course of our tour of the farms. They have a small " holding " in the middle of a peat moss, and the houses are of the old fashion now going rapidly out — the fire in the middle of the floor, the smoke curling up through blackened beams to a circular orifice in the thatched roof. We found on the table in a httle " parlour " Sir/W. Hamilton's lectures, Thucydides, and some Latin classics. The sons are the best ploughmen in 312 CHURCH AKD STATE [chap, xl the country, and in the evenings they read hard, one of them having taught himself Greek, Latin, and French, with no other assistance than that which a small parish school could afEord. The father has for the last two sessions been able to send one of the sons to Glasgow University, where he at once took a prize for Greek and French. This lad was out teaching in the borough school to eke out his means. We met him coming home, and I asked him some questions about the Glasgow professors. Of Lushington, the Greek professor, a man of high reputation, this youth reported that, though a good scholar himself, he was not a successful teacher, and " did not bring out fully the beauties of the Greek language." ' They have in the house an old wooden chair, brought with the family when they came from Ayrshire, with the date " 1626 " carved upon it. The father seemed very proud of this Covenanting heirloom, and said that he sat in it every night while his sons read. ' I do not think one meets often this sort of stuff in any other country in the world, and Scotland has good reason to be proud of it.' Two years after the passing of the Scottish Educa- tion BiU, another measure affecting Scotland was laid before Parliament. The Conservative Government, which, as before mentioned, came into power in February, 1874, brought forward a Bill for the Aboli- tion of Church Patronage in Scotland. The intro- duction of this measure was a source of satisfaction to the Duke, who, as he records in his 'Autobiography,' had been interested in the question from his boyhood. Speaking in the House of Lords on the 2nd of June, 1874, in support of the second reading of the Bill, the Duke said : ' It is a Bill which has been conscientiously framed on the ancient principles of the Church of Scotland. 1870-74] CHTJBCH PATRONAGE IN SCOTLAND 313 It has been accepted by an overwhelming majority of the great representative body of the Church ; and it is calculated, if carried, to do great good to Scotland.' The Government measure provided that Church patronage, instead of being in the hands of the patrons of the livings, should in future be vested in the mem- bers of the Parish Church. To this electorate there were added, on the amendment of the Duke of Argyll, certain ' members of the congregation, under regulations which are to be framed from time to time by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.' In the speech before mentioned (June 2nd) the Duke rephed to Mr. Gladstone's assertion that one year's stipend was not compensation enough for patrons : ' It is often said that patronage ought not to be deemed a right of property, but a trust ; but there is no essential opposition between the two terms. There may be a right of property which is a trust, and a trust which is a right of property. Patronage, in the eyes of the law, is a right of property, transmitted to heirs, and purchasable in the markets ; yet it is also, and is generally recognised to be, a trust for public purposes. Patronage had probably the same origin in England and in Scotland ; but since the Reformation the history of the institution has been wholly different in the two countries. The only com- plaint I make is, that in assigning one year's stipend of the living as the amount of compensation, the Duke of Richmond is giving patrons very much more than they could ever get in the market. Patronage in Scotland, ever since the Reformation, has been a right qualified by many and great limitations — at all times by the standing declaration on the part of the Church that no minister was to be intruded on any congrega- tion against its will ; sometimes by a very large dis- cretionary power on the part of the Church courts 314 CHURCH AND STATE [chap. XL to consider objections by the people, and to reject a representee if unqualified for the particular parish ; at other times by the adoption of a system approach- ing to direct election.' It may here be mentioned that the Duke of Argyll was one of those patrons who declined to accept any compensation for the loss entailed by the abolition of patronage. Mr. Gladstone used all his influence to oppose this ecclesiastical reform, and spoke against it in the House of Commons. To Lord Selborne he expressed his conviction that if the Bill were passed ' it would lead to a movement for Disestablishment in Scotland more serious than any that had been known there, and one that would be likely to spread into England.'* On June 20th he wrote to the Duke of Argyll on the subject of the Bill : ' It is true that much consideration of the Patronage Bill has convinced me that it is a precipitate, unwise, and daring measure. It is not unnatural that you should^ — forgive me if I say hastily — ascribe an opinion of this kind to my early prejudices against a Pres- byterian Establishment. However that may be, it is most painful to me to contemplate being dragged into ecclesiastical turmoils. I hope that the blow which has fallen upon me [the death of his brother- in-law. Sir Stephen Glynne] may be some security against words or acts needlessly tending to embitter strife. Above all, I hope that if anyone should compel me to name you, I shall give no reason to complain.' To Mr. Gladstone {June 29th). ' There was a part of your last letter to me on which I was unwilling to touch at the moment I replied to * ' Life of Lord Selborne,' vol. i. 1870-74] CHURCH PATRONAGE 315 it. You say that, if compelled to refer to me, I shall have no reason to complain of the way in which you may do so. Our connection, personal and political, has been a pretty close one now for more than twenty years, and I hope it is incapable of being shaken by differences which may emerge. I wish you to speak as freely as you like, and I shall do the same. But this is a subject on which I feel so strongly that I have a sort of feeling that it would not be open of me did I not tell you some of the aspects in which I regard it. ' You are the only surviving member of the Govern- ment of 1843 who has any political power. That Government resisted my father's Bill, which would have prevented the secession, and generally pursued a course on which, I think, history has already pro- nounced its verdict. Graham expressed more than once before his death the purest doubt, if not re- pentance, of the course which had been taken. ' I don't suppose you had any very active share in anything done, or not done. But in so far as you have spoken at all, it has been in defence of that Government and in rebuke of my condemnation of it. ' It seems to me simply a prolongation of the same injurious policy towards the interests of the Estab- lished Church in Scotland that you should now, at an interval of thirty years, denounce as " daring " a Bin for the abandonment of patronage. I cannot but recollect that on several occasions on which I have lately spoken of the interests of the Established Church, both the Lord Advocate Young and yourself have referred to the hostiUty of the clergy to your Government and party ; and on my representing that the clergy of the Enghsh Church were generally Conservative also, you would never admit the analogy. I think it hard and unjust that when the leading patrons in Scotland have come to see the uselessness and evil of their " property " as it stands, others should 316 CHTTBCH AND STATE [ohap. xl step in to prevent them from accomplishing what is a great act of justice to their countrymen. ' I need not say that I am not now arguing the merits of the question. I am simply explaining certain points of view from which I regard it, in ex- planation of anything that I may feel called upon to say in the course of the controversy which, I can see, is only beginning. ' Many of my tenants are United Presbyterians. I saw yesterday their minister, Dr. Boyd,, a most ex- cellent man, who told me he felt with me the invidious- ness of their opposing the measure, and he had steadily refused to have any part in any petition against it. 'The dread of infection as regards the Enghsh Establishment and patronage is stiU more unjust as an operative motive. The whole principles of the two Establishments are fundamentally different, and each ought to be dealt with in its own spirit. ' In the Lords, however, I abstain from voting or speaking on any question affecting the English Church, not renouncing my right, of course, in an extreme case, but not feeling that my views and predilections make me a fair and fitting judge of its affairs. ' If r have to say anything in the sense of these feelings in public, I should dislike not having indi- cated them to you beforehand.' To Mr. Gladstone [July 6, 1874). ' Columba, yacht. ' There is absolutely no novelty, as it seems to me, in allowing the congregation of the Established Church to select their ministers. Under the Act of 1690 (which was the revolution settlement, and of which the Act of Anne was a Tory violation) the congregation had the control of the appointment, first, in that the Kirk Session had a voice in proposing, and the con- gregation, as such, had the final " approval or dis- approval." 1870-74] CHURCH PATRONAGE 317 ' Give the congregation this, and then patronage ceases to have any significance one way or another. ' It seems a strange idea that an essential feature of an Estabhshed Church should be that its enemies and opponents are to have the power of " intruding " ministers on its congregations ! ' This idea is piirely " Anghcan," and seems to me altogether unreasonable in theory, as well as un- founded on historical fact. ' We have had four days of tremendous weather, violent gales and torrents of rain ; but we landed and went to a fishing-lodge in the Isle of Mull, where the house seemed likely to be blown down about our ears. ' I hope to post this at Oban. I shall wait at Oban probably till I hear — as I hope to do — that you and your voluntary and other Radical allies have been well ^* ®^ ■ ' Yours most sincerely, ' Argyll.' The BlU was actually carried the day this letter was written, by the large majority of 307 to 109. Two months later (September 11th, 1874) the Duke wrote to Mr. Gladstone with reference to a recent speech by him on the Patronage question : ' I have far more to say about your ecclesiastical speeches than I can say in a letter. I must reserve it to the time when we may meet. I may say, however, that, as regarded the Scottish one, no one sentence in it seemed to me to be valid argument, except the passage in which you spoke of the needlessness and risk of making the change. But you underrate the scandal which has arisen from " Disputed Settlements " under the Aberdeen Act. Still, I not only admit, but have long urged, the danger of any Parliamentary movement on such subjects. But 200 years ago I might have advised a low country laird not to move or display his cattle if Highland rovers were in sight; 318 CHURCH AT^B STATE [chap. xL but what you have done is to denounce this very legitimate operation as a wrong, and to cheer on the rovers to " lift " the cattle ! ' As to motives, I see no evil in a Church desiring to strengthen its position mth the mass of its own people, even though it should be a matter of jealousy to others. ' As to the " compensation " you spoke of, from whom is it due ? ' Clearly from the class which you represent — viz., those who refused in Parliament to give what the majority of the assembly asked. Whereas you repre- sent it to be due from the men who merely assented and submitted to the refusal. This seems to me unjust, and, further, what right have we " Peehtes " to blame Churchmen for having changed their view about patronage under such very different conditions — we who crossed right over from Conservatism to Radicalism, some of us ? ' Nevertheless, there are companies before whom it is unwise to show one's watch or one's purse, and in this sense it may not have been wise in any Estabhshed Church to go to Parliament for anything, however just or (otherwise) expedient. ' So far I can go along with you in your argument, but no further. . . . ' As to your English Church speeches, there was one golden sentence, which I have copied out, to be kept for use — that in which you drew the distinction between the State admitting any abstract right in churches to override the law, and the State in the exercise of its own discretion, adjusting its laws to make them compatible with those principles inherent in the constitution of a rehgious society. Excellent, and a complete answer to all the objections of principle made against the Patronage Bill ! If you only apply this distinction to legislation connected with the Presby- terian Church, which you very properly desire to apply to legislation about the Anglican Church, the questions in dispute will be much simplified. 1870-74] MR. Gladstone and disestablishment 319 ' There Avill be a long fight before DisestabHshment comes, unless there is a split in the English Church. But perhaps a Church which cannot afford to have its existing law enforced, although that law be consistent with a very large comprehensiveness, is hardly a Church which can keep together long.' Following the discussion on the Patronage Bill, a crusade was started in favour of Disestablishment, and the Duke believed that Mr. Gladstone was quite prepared to disestablish the Church of Scotland. With this impression on his mind, he wrote in December to Sir Roundell Palmer : ' I don't suppose that Mr. Gladstone has come to any formal resolution to "go in for" Disestablishment — certainly not in England, though I suspect he is quite ready so far as Scotland is concerned. The campaign opened in Scotland is, of course and avowedly, a campaign against all establishments, attacking the one they think the weakest. But how far Gladstone is ready to support the poHcy as regards England, I cannot say. I think I told you that he wrote to me weeks ago that the two measures passed last session by a Conservative Government had advanced Dis- estabHshment, or brought it nearer, "by at least ten years, out of what number I cannot estimate," or words to that effect. But this is a sort of thing that may be said by anyone. Gladstone's temptation to a DisestabHshment poHcy is his disHke of the sort of legislation to which the Church would be exposed by a Liberal Parliament, the sort of thing that was threatened last session against the Scottish Church in the Liberal amendment, making ratepayers the con- stituency for the choice of clergy. And with the feeling of aversion from this sort of thing, I suppose both you and I would sympathize. But you see the result of this as affecting tendencies of feeHng. It makes the policy of DisestabHshment the best card 320 CHUBCS AND STATE [chap. xL to play, both for the leadership of the Liberal party in politics and for the resistance of Liberalism in ecclesiastical affairs. When so many currents are all found running into one main stream, that stream is clearly destined to become a great river. ' I don't think Gladstone can be said to owe it to his former colleagues as yet to make any declaration on the subject, unless, indeed, he has made up his mind as to a practical course. But we are all free to take our own line, and I will not now consider myself under Gladstone's leadership, especially in ecclesiastical matters.' A letter from the Duke to Lord Selborne (Sir RoundeU Palmer), written twelve years later, refers to the question of Church and State : ' Many thanks for your book ("A Defence of the Church of England "). You put it all very clearly, and in the main I go along with you completely. Some thirty years ago, when I was studying our own history about relations between Church and State, I wrote that the Royal supremacy in England seemed to me to be, historically, the affirmative form of a negative proposition, the negative proposition being that no foreign Prince or potentate had authority in England, and this denial was most conveniently enforced and embodied in the affirmative proposition that the national Sovereign was in all causes supreme. ' I think this is substantially the result of your analysis, and it seems historically undeniable. ' I have as yet only completed Part I., and the only observation that occurs to me is this — that I think you underrate the significance of the change which is involved in the 'proportion in which dissent, unbelief, etc., exists in the people and in Parliament. ' So long as there was practically only one reUgion, the connection between Church and State which exists in England was nothing more than natural. But I 1870-74] CHUBCH AND STATE 321 confess I have not the same feeling about the connection now — as matters actually stand. ' I ought to add that, in my interpretation, the Royal supremacy, besides being a denial of Papal supremacy, was also the only form in which the rights of the laity in Church questions were expressed or asserted. ' This meaning or significance was less conscious than the other. But it is easy to see that implicitly it was involved.' VOL. u. 21 CHAPTER XLI 1876-80 THE EASTERN QUESTION — ORNITHOLOGY The early period of Mr. Disraeli's Administration was mainly occupied with questions referring to home politics. The Duke did not take any very prominent part in the debates, except when the Church of Scot- land Patronage Bill was before the House, until his interest was aroused on the subject of the Eastern Question. He was strongly opposed to the Turkish policy of the Government, as he considered the atti- tude adopted towards Turkey and towards the European Concert a deUberate reversal of the policy, the abstract wisdom of which he always upheld, which led to the Crimean War, and was enunciated in the Treaty of Paris. The Duke entered fully into the history of the Eastern Question in a book* which he published a few years later. The following paragraph, quoted from this book, describes the origin of the difficulties in the East : ' The Eastern Question was raised by native insur- rections in the provinces of Turkey, excited and justified by the gross misgovernment of the Porte. The whole Eastern Question, therefore, as it was then raised, resolved itself into this : how the abuses and * 'The Eastern Qaestion,' by the Duke of Argyll; published \n 1879, 322 1876-80] SPEECH IN GLASGOW 323 vices of Turkish administration were to be dealt with by the Powers which had supported Turkey in the Crimean War, and by those other Powers, embracing all the principal Governments of Europe, which had ultimately signed the treaties of 1856.' On the 19th of September, 1876, the Duke spoke at a great meeting in Glasgow, called by the Lord Provost, and moved the first resolution, which was to the following effect : ' That this meeting of citizens of Glasgow regards with horror and indignation the atrocities perpetrated by the Turks on the inhabitants of Bulgaria and of the other provinces, and denounces the Ottoman Govern- ment for allowing such outrages on humanity, and for not punishing the responsible agents.' After the meeting, the Duke wrote to Lord Gran- ville (September 20, 1876) : ' The meeting was the most formidable I ever addressed. More than 3,300 people, aU men — I don't think there were ten women in the whole hall — largely working men. The row was tremen- dous from the pressure and discomfort, the crowd swaying to and fro in a frightful way under the distant gallery. ' After a few sentences I caught the ear of the meet- ing, and spoke for one how and a half, having to curtail in several points what I intended. They listened attentively to the last.' This speech produced a great effect, not merely on the audience, but throughout the country, and the Duke received numerous appreciative letters, both from friends and strangers. Prom these, the follow- ing extracts are quoted : 21—2 324 THE EASTERN QUESTION [chap, xli From Lord Oranville (W aimer Castle, September 24dh, 1876). ' I am very glad you are going to publish your mag- nificent speech. ' Great as is my admiration for the hostile sex, men are, after all, the best audience. They cheer, which women and Peers do not. ' What is to be the upshot ? I presume not an autumn session. The fact of Hartington and Glad- stone having proposed it makes it more unlikely, and I do not see on what grounds the Government would summon Parliament. . . . We must propose a vote of censure of some sort or other, which would be de- feated in both Houses by large majorities.' From Lord Play fair {September 22nd, 1876). ' Since the Eastern Question rose in prominence I have been travelling in Brittany, and have read with much interest all the speeches in regard to it ; but none have gone to my heart and understanding so much as your Grace's speech at Glasgow, and I am sure you will allow me to say so to yourself. ' Your speech was not declamation, but an admir- able succinct review of the situation, and must do great good.' From the Workmen^ s Demonstration Committee {September 30, 1876). ' Your Grace's speech at Glasgow on the Eastern Question has been the subject of consideration at a special meeting of this committee, and they are of opinion that it is by far the ablest and most effective exposition of the subject that has yet appeared. ' The committee think it most desirable, in order to promote the full understanding of this question, that your speech should be reprinted for circulation amongst the working classes, and they have resolved, 1876-80] THE ABMEKIAN MASSACRES 325 if your Grace will permit, to issue it in a penny pamphlet.' In 1896, after the Armenian massacres of 1894 and 1895 had excited indignation in the Christian world, the Duke published another book entitled ' Our Re- sponsibilities for Turkey,' in which he reviewed the ' Facts and Memories of Forty Years.' As this book contains the Duke's matured views of the policy pur- sued by our Government, a few quotations dealing with the earlier stages of the Eastern difficulty are given here, to explain his attitude with regard to the situation in the East at this period : ' The Treaty of Paris, which terminated the war in 1856, was a concentrated expression of the whole policy on which the war had been undertaken. It made us foremost as a nation in a joint responsibility — by irrevocable deeds and by definite transactions — for the very existence of the Turkish Government as a Power even pretending to independence. Not only did we save Turkey for the moment from entangling engagements with Russia, which would have left her in a position of vassalage and practical subjection, but we determined largely and effectually to disarm her hereditary foe in the whole region of Turkish terri- tory most open to Russian attack. We had exhausted the resources of Russia by a long and bloody campaign, carried on at one extremity of her Empire, We had destroyed her fleet. We had ruined her one great arsenal in the Euxine. But not content with this, we imposed on her a treaty stipulating that this arsenal should not be restored, and that no Russian Black Sea fleet was to be formed again, so that Turkey might dwell in peace. ... In return for these great services, all that we asked from Turkey was an en- gagement that she would afford to her own people some tolerable government corresponding to her new 326 THE EASTERN QUESTION [chap, xu position, some administrative system recognising the fundamental principles of European civilization, and extending to all classes of her subjects some security for life, religion, property and honour. * * * * * ' The Treaty of 1856 gave Turkey a secure and un- disturbed opportunity for putting her house in order. The reforms which she had promised could have been not only weU begun, but well established, during the tranquil course of so long a period. , . . She had no less than twenty years for this purpose ; and how did she employ them ? ' No great draft on space or time is needed to answer this question. One word sums up the whole result of Turkish promises : Nothing. 4: 4: Hi H: 4: ' With this year (1875) we enter the rapids, and are very near the cJataract. Causes long in operation were now to produce their inevitable effects, and events were precipitated with a crash. The stereotyped abuses of Turkish government at last roused insurrec- tions in its European provinces. The not less stereo- typed brutalities of Turkish Governors and troops were employed to crush aU resistance to them. . . . What I wish to do now is simply to point out what, as a nation, we actually did in the crisis which began in 1875 and ended in the Treaty of Berlin in 1878. . . . Although we knew that the insurgents had frightful grievances, and that they demanded nothing more than the most elementary benefits of a civilized government ; although we knew that the Turks were, as usual, committing against them acts of perfidy and deeds of butchery, we actually implored the Porte to hasten to put down the insurrection with their own forces, so as to prevent it from being made the subject of foreign intervention. ' In addressing such an exhortation to the Porte, we did not remember — but we ought to have remembered 1876-80] BULGAEIAN ATROCITIES 327 — that the Turks have only one way of deaUng with all revolts against their own misgovernment, and that is by raising irregular troops, the greatest ruffians in their dominions, and by allowing and encouraging them to butcher men, women, and children as the sign and pledge of victory. Of course, we did not mean this ourselves ; but this is what did actually happen, what does always happen, and what we ought to have known would inevitably happen. Accordingly, the horrible massacres in Bulgaria were perpetrated in May, 1876, at the very time when we were again urging on Turkey the necessity of energetic action to suppress the revolt. ' The Turkish massacres in Biilgaria began in May, but were not authentically known till August, 1876. Mr. Gladstone's celebrated pamphlet denouncing them was published early in September. ' The effect of the massacres in Bulgaria on the public mind is one of the events of history. We were all horrified, with the rest of Europe. But not even then would we join the rest of Europe in active inter- vention. We simply told the Turks that if they were attacked by Russia it had now become practically impossible, owing to the state of pubHc feeling, for us to intervene to save them. . . . Russia behaved with perfect frankness. She told us that if we held back she would act alone. But again she begged us, backed by all the other Powers, to act together and in concert. . . . We absolutely refused. But we proposed a European Congress of special Envoys at Constantinople. This was accepted by all the Powers. At that Congress ... we asserted strongly oiu- right, and the right of Europe, to insist on substantial guaran- tees for the fulfilment of Turkish promises. . . . The Turk resolutely refused to yield. He would consent, indeed, to renew certain promises, but he would allow no practical guarantees. . . . ' Our declared policy was peace at any price, and at any price, be it noted, not to ourselves — for we 328 THE EASTEEN QUESTION [chap, xli incurred no risk — but to the helpless millions over whom we had so long upheld a " profoundly Adcious Government." Fortunately, Russia stood firm, and in a series of replies, each more temperate and yet more conclusive than the last, she told us that she could not and would not any longer tolerate the complete abandonment by Europe of its duty towards the sub- jects of the Porte. ' Then followed the war, which proved more than ever, if there was need of any proof, that Tiu-key could not stand before Russia. ' After a few transient successes, Turkey was beaten both in Asia and in Europe. In a brilliant campaign in the depth of winter, Russia poured her armies over the Balkans, took Adrianople without a struggle, and stopped only when the defensive lines of Constantinople itself were surrendered at discretion. . . . ' Russia might undoubtedly have occupied Constanti- nople, and announced her resolve to keep it. It would have been very difficult for us to turn her out, and the struggle to do so must have involved a tremendous war. But it is a memorable fact that in the Treaty of San Stefano, which she dictated before the open and undefended capital of the East, Russia belied the suspicions with which we had been so long in- flamed. . . . ' The Treaty of San Stefano was nothing short of a new dismemberment of Turkey. It inflicted on her physically a tremendous loss when it deprived her of the geographical defences of the Balkans and the Danube ; but it infficted on her morally and politically a still deeper and more fatal loss when it proclaimed her in the face of the world to be a Power which could not be trusted with the fulfllment of her own most solemn promises, and when it demanded for her subject populations the elementary securities of civilized life as rights which could only rest on posi- tive stipulations with a foreign Power. . . . ' We insisted that every part of the San Stefano 1876-80] THE TREATY OF BERLIN 329 Treaty must be submitted to a European Congress. Russia did not object to a Congress.' This Congress resulted in the Treaty of Berlin, the provisions of which are described by the Duke as follows : ' The Treaty of Berlin is substantially the Treaty of San Stefano in aU its essential features. . . . But we insisted on a change in the Treaty of Berlin, a change which altered immensely for the worse the Treaty of San Stefano. We insisted on reverting to the principle of the Treaty of Paris, which substituted a European for a Russian protectorate. . . . This, obviously, was taking upon ourselves, in conjunction with the other Powers of Europe, a function which we had never been able to discharge even in Europe, and it was stiU more impossible we could discharge in Asia. . . . What was everybody's business was nobody's business, and twenty-two years' experience had proved that this miscellaneous protectorate was quite useless for its professed purpose.' The war with Afghanistan, which broke out in 1879, was, in the opinion of the Duke, the result of the policy of the Government on the Eastern Question. In the spring of 1878, with the view of keeping in check the advances of Russia in Europe, Lord Beaconsfield arranged for the despatch of a force of Indian troops to Malta. Russia's counter-move was to send a Mission to Afghanistan, which was reluctantly received by the Amir. The Duke's view of this action on the part of Russia is given in the following words :* ' I must at once express my opinion that, under whatever circumstances, or from whatever motives, the Russian Mission was sent and was received, it was * ' The Eastern Question,' vol. ii., p. 499. 330 THE EASTERN QUESTION [chap, xu impossible for the British Government to acquiesce in that reception as the close of our transactions with the Amir upon the subject of Missions to his Court. We cannot allow Russia to acquire predominant, or even co-equal, influence with ourselves in Afghanistan. The Cabinet was, therefore, not only justified in taking, but it was imperatively called upon to take, measures to ascertain the real object of that Mission, and if it had any political character, to secure that no similar Mission should be sent again.' In a letter to Mr. Gladstone (November 4, 1878) the Duke wrote : "■ The Times correspondent from DarjeeHng to-day says the Amir has deliberately preferred a Russian alliance. Now, I have seen the official account sent to Lytton of the circumstances under which the Amir received the Russian Mission, and it shows that he did not " dehberately " receive it. On the contrary, he was very reluctant to receive it, and was only bullied into it.' In these circumstances, it was evident that negotia- tions with the Amir would require careful diplomacy. The Duke treated of this point as follows :* 'Considering that, under the circumstances which have been narrated, the sending of the Mission could only be considered a war measure on the part of Russia, and had arisen entirely out of circumstances which threatened hostilities between the two countries ; con- sidering, farther, that, as regarded the reception of the Mission, we had ourselves placed the Amir in a position of extreme difficulty, and had reason to believe and to know that he was not in any way party to the Russian policy in sending it, justice abso- lutely demanded, and our own self-respect demanded, * ' The Eastern Question,' vol. ii., p. 500. 1876-80] AFGHANISTAN 331 that we should proceed towards the Amir with all the dignity of conscious strength and of conscious respon- sibility for the natural results of our own previous conduct and poHcy.' The course adopted by the Viceroy, unfortunately, was not distinguished by the tact requisite to lead to an amicable settlement of the diplomatic difficulties of the situation. Lord Lytton wrote to the Amir, announcing the despatch of a Mission from the British Government to his Court, and requesting him to make the necessary arrangements. The Amir, apparently, was not altogether opposed to the idea of receiving a British Mission, but he was offended by the uncourteous wording of the Viceroy's letter, and asked for time for consideration, especially as he was then in great grief, on account of the death of his favourite son. The Duke considered that more sym- pathy might have been shown with the Amir, as his own account indicates : ' Her Majesty's Ministers were bound to remember that they had themselves brought the Russian Mission upon the Amir and upon ourselves ; and they were equally bound to consider that Shere Ali was not refusing to accept a Mission from the Viceroy, but was, on the contrary, expressing his opinion that " a personal interview with a British Mission would adjust misunderstandings." All that the Amir de- sired was that this Mission should not be forced upon him by open violence in the sight of all his officers and of all his people. They knew that he did not complain of the determination of the Indian Govern- ment to send an Envoy, but only of the " blustering " messages to himself and to his officers by which he had been incessantly plied even during his days of grief. They knew that if ever there had been real 332 THE EASTERN QUESTION [chap, xli mourning in the world, it must have been the mourn- ing of Shere AH for Abdoolah Jan. For this boy he had sacrificed whatever of affection and of fidelity is possible among the children of a harem. With this boy at his side, he had sat enthroned, as an equal, beside the Queen's Viceroy at Umballa. For this boy he had spent his years in endeavouring to procure a dynastic guarantee from the Government of India. Now all these memories and all these ambitions had vanished like a dream. No prospect remained to him but the hated succession of a rebellious son.' Lord Lytton, however, declined to hear of delay, and the Mission left for Kabul on the 19th of September. At an Afghan outpost in the Khyber Pass, the officer in command was informed that the Afghans were prepared to use force to prevent the advance of the Mission, which was therefore obliged to retire. The Viceroy then issued an ultimatum, demanding an ample apology from the Amir, who was also in- formed that he would be required to accept the presence of a resident British Embassy permanently within his territory. It afterwards transpired that the reply of the Amir had been delayed in transmission. The Duke alludes to the contents of this reply in the following words :* ' Well might Shere AH say, as he did say, in his letter of October 6th (" Afghan Correspondence," ii., 1878, p. 18) : " In consequence of the attack of grief and affliction which has befallen me by the decree of God, great distraction has seized the mind of this supplicant at God's threshold. The trusted officers of the British Government, therefore, ought to have observed patience and stayed at such a time." * ' The Eastern Question,'' vol. ii., p. 515. 1876-80] AFGHANISTAN 333 Unless the Government desired to force a quarrel, and were glad of an opportunity to rectify a " hap- hazard frontier " by means of war, there is nothing to be said in defence of the unjust and indecent haste with which they pushed up the Mission to Ali Musjid, even before the forty days of mourning were expired. It cannot be pretended that there was any danger from Russia then. In the meantime, our own position had not long before been described by Lord Lytton himself as a position in which we were " able to pour an overwhelming force into Afghanistan for the vindi- cation of our own interests, long before a single Russian soldier could reach Kabul." The haste with which the extreme measure of war was hurried has crowned and consummated the injustice of the previous trans- actions, and even if the war had been ultimately inevitable — which it was not — ^the Government can- not escape censure for the conduct from which the supposed necessity arose.' In the meantime, no reply from the Amir having reached the Viceroy by November 30th, war was declared by the Indian Government, and the main posts in Afghanistan were soon in the possession of the British forces. Shere Ali fled, and, his death occurring early in 1879, a treaty was signed at Gan- damak with his son Yakub, who agreed to the terms imposed by the Government. Sir Louis Cavagnari was placed at Kabul as British Resident in July, 1879; but three months later the Residency was attacked by a body of Afghans, and, in spite of a brave defence, the little garrison was completely annihilated. This outrage was promptly avenged ; Yakub was made prisoner, and his cousin, Abdurrahman, was acknow- ledged by the Government as Amir. In the spring of 1879, the Duke made an important speech in the House of Lords, condemning the foreign 334 THE EASTERN QUESTION [ohap. xl policy of the Government, in the course of which he said : ' It appears to me that we have arrived at a time when it is possible to look back over nearly four years of negotiations and of war, and to estimate what has been lost and gained during that eventful time in the political history of this country. My Lords, in com- mercial life we all know there are times when men take stock of their proceedings. If noble Lords opposite should object to an illustration taken from commercial life, and should say — as perhaps they will — that we are no longer, under their rule, a nation of shopkeepers, but a nation of warriors, then I will say that even warriors, at the end of a campaign, look to the roU-caU of the living and the dead, and that it is worth while to look to the history of those four years, and to see what are the political ideas which have perished in the conflict, and what are the political opinions which still survive.' After reviewing the Eastern policy of the Govern- ment, the Duke, in allusion to a taunt of Lord Beacons- field, who had characterized the Opposition as a ' Peace at any price party,' continued : ' I am not one of those who are in favour of peace at any price, and I hope I shall not say anything that will be shocking to the House when I say something about my own feeling with regard to war. It seems to me that on all sides there is a certain amount of insincerity in the language too often used on this subject. When we speak of a war which we approve, we talk of its glories. When we speak of a war of which we disapprove, we talk of its horrors. Can we not be honest with ourselves on this matter ? Can we not admit that war is — not seldom, but very often — by far the lesser of two evils ? I see no signs of the millennium. Europe is ringing with the tramp of 1876-80] LORD LAWRENCE' S VIEWS 335 armed men. Men of science are devoting all their time to the invention of some new weapon of destruc- tion. I see no dawning of the day when nations shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning-hooks. War — dear as are aU the lives it sacrifices, many as are the hearts it breaks — war is a necessary evil. I do not blame the Government for having armed the country. What I do blame it for is for having armed it at the wrong time and in a wrong cause.' In concluding the speech, the Duke summed up his arraignment of the Government in the following words : ' It is not we, the members of the Opposition, who are accusing you. Time is your great accuser ; the course of events is summing up the case against you. What have you to say — I shall wait to hear — what have you to say why you should not receive an adverse verdict at the hands of your country, as you certainly will be called up for judgment at the bar of history ?' Among a number of letters received by the Duke, on the subject of his book on the ' Eastern Question,' was one from Lord Lawrence, who shared the Duke's views on the Afghan question, of which he was so well qualified to judge. From Lord Lawrence {11th February, 1879). ' Many thanks for your letter of the 4th and the copy of yoiir work on the " Eastern Question," which I duly received. I delayed replying until I had had read to me that part of the work which related to oxu- dealings with Afghanistan. I think you have completely dis- posed of all the special pleadings and misrepresenta- tions and crooked policy. . . . ' I have seen no criticisms of your book worthy of 336 THE EASTERN QUESTION [chap, xli notice. If you have not given your opponents an absolute quietus, you have, at any rate, given them something difficult to digest,' Lord Dufferin, who had recently been appointed Ambassador at St. Petersburg, wrote as follows (March 16th, 1879) : ' I cannot teU you how glad I was to receive your book. It is a tremendous performance, and I cannot say how struck I have been by its vigour. I have made it my vade-mecum.' In his ' Autobiography ' the Duke speaks of the re- freshment it afforded him to turn from important matters affecting the welfare of the nation, which required strenuous and engrossing thought, to the restfulness of Nature ; and some quotations from his diary at this time show the pleasure and interest he felt in the close observation of that natural world which he described as ' a world of love, of reason, and of law' :* ' Argyll Lodge, April 26th, 1876. — This spring has been a very severe one, from the frequent recurrence of snow and great cold, with warm weather between. In the middle of March there was a great snowstorm in Argyllshire, and in London sleet and rain. On the 22nd there was a heavy fall of snow in London, and on the 13th April another very severe one all over the middle and North of England, as well as in Scot- land. Yet the summer birds of passage, except the swallows, have come as soon as usual. I saw a wiUow- wren in the garden here on the 4th April, and heard the note of the wryneck in Holland Park on the same day. On the same day I also saw and heard the blackcap at Richmond. On the other hand, the * ' Lines to Lord Lilford,' by the Duke of Argyll. 1876-80] ORNITHOLOGY 337 swallows are very late. I saw the first on the 18th, and even now, near the end of the month, there are very few; and I have seen not one martin or sand martin. The first cuckoo was heard at Clieveden on the 21st. ' The little spotted woodpecker has made his appear- ance in the garden here, and one day I saw him in the act of producing his pecuhar rattle. I could see nothing but the action of one " peck "; but since that I have seen the great green woodpecker making the same noise, only far louder, at Clieveden. In this case I could see the vibratory motion of the head, corre- sponding with the vibratory character of the sound. The bird sat on a short, dead, stumpy branch of an oak, near its junction with the bole, and struck the branch with its bill, sitting on the top of the branch and not clinging to it. I do not think the action has any regard to the capture of food. It seems to be simply the pleasure of producing a noise which is grateful or amusing. It is probably, however, con- nected with making love, as I think it is only pro- duced at this season. I had never before heard it produced by the green woodpecker. I have this week had an opportunity at Clieveden of stud3dng the notes of the nightingale, not in full song, but in the short, conversational sort of song that is carried on in the daytime. The variety of notes is very curious ; some- times the long, piercing notes, " twee-twee-twee," are repeated slowly, ending in the characteristic " jubble- jubble "; at other times very peculiar double notes of extreme gentleness and liquidity are repeated in the same way ; again, notes very like those of the common thrush, but always with a peculiar character which is unmistakable when one has got accustomed to the voice. But what interested me most was the dis- covery of the alarm note — a warning note of the nightingale which I never heard before. It is a harsh, craking note, somewhat like the corresponding note of the whitethroat, but very much louder — so much VOL. n. 22 338 ORNITHOLOGY [chap, xli louder, indeed, that it almost suggests a sort of sup- pressed corncrake's note. The power of the nightin- gale to conceal itself is curious. I could not detect the bird, though I knew it was sitting close to me, till it flitted down from a naked beech, on which it had been uttering this craking note. Both cock and hen then flew out of the copse, almost in my face. The fine colour of the tail feathers was beautifully seen in the sun. 'I have seen the wryneck also, uttering its very peculiar note, which it does sitting on a bough Uke any other bird, and not clinging to a stem. It lifts its head, -with the bill pointing to the sky, and the feathers of the throat are much agitated during the emission of the sound. ' A blackcap's nest was found with the hen sitting very close two days ago. It was built on a very exposed bough of a laurel-bush, about four feet from the ground. This seems very early.' ' May \st. — Wolf, the German bird - painter, con- firms my impression as to the woodpecker's rapping sound. He says it is " maldng lof," and is never heard except in spring at the breeding season.' ' May \Qth. — I saw to-day a good example of the instinctive knowledge possessed by birds that the slightest movement attracts the eyes, and that, con- sequently, perfect stillness is the only chance where concealment is desired in the presence of danger. A chaffinch has built in a thorn in the garden. On approaching it to-day, I saw the hen bird ahght near it, bringing food in her mouth, apparently a cater- pillar or two. The moment she saw me, instead of proceeding to the nest to deliver the food, she sat absolutely motionless, and then very slowly and im- perceptibly put herself into the attitude which made her least visible from my point of view. This was effected by pointing her head and bill directly down towards me, in which position she was so foreshortened that she appeared a mere ball or knot upon the branch. 1876-80] ORNITHOLOGY 339 This stillness and constraint of attitude she main- tained for a long time, and would not for a moment relax it until I was fairly out of sight. To suppose that the lower animals know the rationale of such instinctive expedients is evidently absurd. But it is not the less true that there is a rationale in them, somewhat that cannot be explained, except in the terms of reason and of knowledge. ' Sir Kenneth Mackenzie tells me that his brother has identified the gossander as breeding on an island in a secluded lake to the north of Loch Maree ; and I am sorry to say that in order to make sure he shot the old bird and secured the eggs. This may possibly be the only breeding-place ia Scotland, though I should hope that several of the more remote lochs in Suther- land may harbour them. ' Persistent and very cold east and north-easterly winds have much checked vegetation, so that haw- thorns are not yet out, though the flower has long been in bud. The fly-catcher has not come, and, so far as I have seen, the swallow tribe is unusually scarce. ' Soon after writing this paragraph I observed the first fly-catcher in the garden, hawking for gnats from the tops of trees, the larger flies near the ground not yet affording, probably, sufficient numbers to supply food.' ' June 14:th. — When at Brighton a few days ago, I had an opportunity of seeing, on the west pier, among a collection of birds there, a specimen of the long-eared owl and of the carrion crow. The man who keeps the birds seems to have a considerable knowledge of British birds, and told me that the carrion crow always makes its nest close to the trunk of a tree, where a large branch joins it, and not, like the rook, among the upper branches. He pointed out, also, as a dis- tinction, that the colour of the eyes is quite blue. But I think I recoUect that the eyes of young rooks are also very blue. The bird, however, struck me as longer and narrower in form than the rook. The man 22—2 340 ORNITHOLOGY [chap, xli farther told me that his father, who was a dealer in birds, recollects the buzzard as by no means uncommon in Sussex, where it is now very rarely seen, and that he recollected having found its nest and taken its eggs from whin, or gorse, bushes on the Downs. This is certainly a singular place for such a large and con- spicuous bird to have built in, within so recent times. ' The long-eared owl is a very beautiful little bird, much smaller than the ivy owl. The man says it is not very rare in Sussex. The eyes are of a beautiful golden yellow.' ' June 22nd. — For many years a pair or two of reed wrens have built in the garden of Argyll Lodge, and towards midsummer the continuous song of this little bird is very pleasant. On one occasion the nest was built in a lilac-bush, which was then enough in foHage to allow a window into the leafy shade in which the nest was placed ; and I was surprised to see that the cock bird, after the young were hatched, and in the process of feeding them, used to sit on the edge of the nest, with his head downward among the young, and pour out his song, as it were, in their ears. Generally singing-birds cease singing altogether after the hen has hatched the young, and they hardly ever sing in close proximity to the nest, probably from an instinc- tive fear lest its whereabouts should be thus betrayed. ' Last night I heard and saw the reed wren singing beautifully about nine o'clock at night, and beating time to his own music with a fluttering motion of his wings. The action was very pretty, and the song was modulated into a low and pleasant warble, in harmony with the faint light of a warm midsummer night.' ' Inveraray, July 2nd. — On arriving here, I find that a young gull which we took in July, 1874, from the nests near Lismore is only now assuming enough of the mature plumage to make it certain that it is the herring-gull, and not the smaller black-backed guU. The grey feathers on the back have not yet 1876-80] FIEE AT INVEEARAY 341 entirely replaced the spotted feathers of the immature plumage. The bill is still horn-coloured, with no appearance of yellow or red. It thus appears that guUs do not assume the adult plumage until after they are fully two years old.' On the 12th of October, 1877, a fire broke out at Inveraray Castle at five o'clock in the morning. The previous night had been stormy, and a yachtsman who was attending to the moorings of the Duke's yacht saw that the central tower of the castle was on fire, and roused the inmates. The Duke was at Inveraray at the time, with his family and several friends, l3ut everyone in the castle was saved. The fire was confined to the central part of the building, which was entirely destroyed, but, with the excep- tion of one or two valuable pictures, no loss of im- portance was incurred. The Duke described the accident in a letter to Professor Tyndall : ' My bear Professor Tyndall, ' The late fire at Inveraray was attended with circumstances which are curious, and I wish to con- sult your opinion on the explanation which suggests itself to me. ' The house had a great central hall, 80 feet high, with two side halls, opening into the central one by doors, and arches perforated in the solid dividing walls. . . . From the centre of each roof (three in number) there was a long perpendicular brass tube, ending in large gaseliers for the lighting of the haUs. Now, the fire, when first seen from the floor of the hall, seemed to be in a ring round the point of inser- tion of the great gas-pipe in the centre of the roof. . . . ' The night was stormy, and the atmosphere had been all evening highly electric. Brilliant flashes of lightning were seen about 7 p.m., and some thunder was heard. 342 ORNITHOLOGY [chap, xli ' The operating clerk at the telegraph-office received a considerable shock during the evening. At 11.30 my medical man had passed through the hall, when all was right, so far as visible. ' Some time after I had fallen asleep (how long I can't tell, for one can never be sure how long one has been asleep) I was awoke by some very loud crash, so loud and startling that I sat up and exclaimed, " What on earth is that noise ?" When fully awake, I heard that the crash was followed by a loud rattling, as if the shutters had been violently and persistently shaken. But the noise soon passed away, and as I knew it blew hard and was very gusty, I, unfortunately, concluded that the noise was due only to a violent squall. My impression was, and still is, that this happened about an hour or an hour and a half after I had first fallen asleep. That would make it about 1.30 a.m. ' Now, the fire was seen blazing at the top of the castle at 5 a.m. I was roused about 5.15, and in another ten minutes the great gas-pipe and gaselier had fallen in with a perfect avalanche of fire upon the floor of the hall, and the flames were rising high above the roof. ' My opinion is that lightning had struck the gas- pipe at the top of the hall, that at the same moment it injured the pipe and lit the gas, and that the main body of the electric discharge was carried off by the external gas-pipe as a conductor to the ground. . . . ' The crash did awake several people, but they attributed it, as I did, to an unusual gust of wind. My impression, therefore, is that the electric discharge was not of a powerful kind, but that it was something of the nature of those fire-balls and other electric appear- ances which were noticed the same night near London. ' Do the facts above described enable you to form any opinion as to the probability of my theory ? Does lightning ever behave or produce the effects I have supposed ?' f, ^;,^ i- 1876-80] FIRE AT ENVBRABAY 343 In his reply Professor Tyndall stated that the Duke was in all probability right in attributing the cause of the fire to a discharge of electricity, which might have proceeded from a cloud hovering over the central part of the castle. The Duke wrote to Mr, Gladstone a little later as follows : ' The fire sometimes comes back upon me as a horrid nightmare, because there is a wonderful chasm between the actual result and that which might have been the result. We were all sleeping soundly, with a raging fire in the midst of us, going on for hours ; and if the alarm had come twenty minutes later, the lives of many must have been lost. Not many minutes after the girls escaped, the galleries of the haU fell in, and if that had happened before they left their rooms aU escape would have been cut off except by the win- dows, and, [alluding to several people in the castle at the time who were ' very helpless '] ' I don't see how they could have been got out by ladders. So that really the escape of all was a very merciful providence.' After the fire, the Duke removed with his family to Rosneath, Dumbartonshire, while Inveraray Castle was being restored. Early the following year, he went to London to attend the meeting of Parliament, and, with the exception of a few brief visits to the country, he remained in town until the end of May. For some years the Duke's Hfe had been over- shadowed by anxiety regarding the health of the Duchess, which had become very precarious since the serious attack of illness from which she had suffered in 1869. But the blow fell at last with overwhelming suddenness, on the 25th May, 1878, when the Duchess passed away, while with the Duke at the house of Lord Frederick Cavendish. 344 OBNITHOLOGY [chap, xli In November of this year the Duke went with his family to Cannes, where he had taken a Axilla for some months. He remained there until the month of April, when he returned to London, and on the 23rd of May he crossed the Atlantic to visit the Marquis of Lome, who had been appointed Governor-General of Canada the previous year. The Duke also made a short tour in the United States. On his return, after an absence of some weeks, he wrote to Mr. Gladstone (August 27th, 1879) : ' I was very glad to get your letter. I had intended to write to you long ago, but I hardly know where to begin. I was delighted with all I saw in the New World, differing as it did in many ways from any expectation I had formed of it. Of course, I speak only of the aspects of the country, with all that can be gathered from them, for I had little time to see people, and none at all to see the working of institu- tions. The face of Nature is the only face I cotild study, but that was enough to engross all my atten- tion. ' I did see Longfellow, and had a delightful dinner with him. He lives in an old wooden house, which was Washington's headquarters for nine months at the outbreak of the Revolutionary War, and it is wholly unaltered. Longfellow was very well, and as charming as ever. I have always thought his counte- nance such a beautiful one. ' I was made ill by the fearful heat of New York, where the thermometer was 100 in the shade during the two days I was in it. . . . ' As to home politics, I have missed a great deal. But what I did see and hear has not put me in good spirits. I do not think the Liberal party has been showing to advantage. I am glad to hear you say 1876-80] VISIT TO AMERICA 345 that Disestablishment is in abeyance. But I confess I think leaders should lead, and not say, " We shall steer according to the wind." For my own part, I will follow nobody on this, or on many other subjects, on which I am not disposed to the new Radical schools. ' If we are at Inveraray in November, as probably we may be, and if you don't dread our damp climate, I hope you will come. ... I return to Rosneath on the 2nd September to move the family to Inveraray, which hitherto has not been ready for us. I think the outside immensely improved.' CHAPTER XLII 1880-81 THE IBISH LAND BILL In March, 1880, a change of Government took place, the Liberal party having been returned to power by a large majority at the General Election. The question of the moment was whether Her Majesty would send for the oflEicial Liberal leaders. Lord GranviUe and Lord Hartington, or for Mr. Gladstone, to whom the victory was mainly due. The Duke anticipated that his personal friend and connection, Lord Granville, would be entrusted by the Queen with the formation of the new Administration, and he would have wel- comed a Granville Ministry, as his experience of the 1868-1874 Government had caused him to fear that Mr. Gladstone would be forced into immoderate con- cessions to the Radicals. A passage in a letter (January 13th, 1880) to Lord Dufferin, written before the Election, shows the Duke's anxiety on the subject, though he repudiates any idea of a capitulation to the Pamellites : ' Of course I agree with you about Ireland, but I have not yet seen any symptoms of the Liberal leaders patting Parnell on the back. If they do so, I shall part company — which, indeed, I am not unlikely to do on other questions. I do not know how serious the present state of things may be — I mean, how deep- seated the disaffection is. But when men are incited 346 1880] LIBERAL PROGRAMME 347 to believe that they may take the property of others as their own, the doctrine is not unlikely to be widely accepted. What a curious wave of opinion seems to be passing all over the world on this subject !' After the result of the elections had become known, Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville communicated with the Duke. Mr. Gladstone's letter (April 12th, 1880) was on the subject of the future policy of the Govern- ment : ' In respect to domestic legislation, the proceedings of the expiring Government have left the ground more open and easy, as there can only be a short session. The most compKcated of the questions now more or less embodied in the Liberal programme, such as local government and the suffrage, with redistribution of seats, will, I should suppose, have to stand over. But the distressed condition of agriculture, and the return of new representatives of the tenant farmers, will press on the questions relating to land. Indi- vidually, I have been led to the abandonment in principle of entail and settlement affecting the corpus of the property (as distinct from powers of charge) more by moral and social than by political, or even economical, considerations. But I should think this question manageable in extent, and if manageable, then hard and impossible to exclude from the first programme of a new Liberal Government.' Lord Granville (April 5th, 1880) inquired as to the Duke's choice of office : ' You must be as surprised as we are at this wonder- ful spring tide, although you have been one of the principal motive-powers. ' I know what I should do if I were the Queen. But, unfortunately, I am not on the throne, and I have not seen my idea suggested by anyone. 348 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xui ' But it is probable that, in case of a normal Liberal Government being formed, I shall be consulted as to the members of it in the House of Lords. I can write to you as I could to no one but my brother, and as you are not certain to be back yet, I shall be glad if you will tell me in perfect confidence, and without preju(Mce, whether you would prefer a hard-working or an easy office.' On the 22nd of April the Queen sent for Lord Hartington, the leader of the Liberal party in the House of Commons, and the following day both Lord Granville, who was Liberal leader in the House of Lords, and Lord Hartington were received in audience by Her Majesty. The Queen had desired that Lord Hartington should form a Ministry, but it was under- stood that Mr. Gladstone would not accept office except as Prime Minister ; and, in the opinion of Lord Gran- ville and Lord Hartington, it was impossible that a strong Government could be formed which did not include the former Liberal Prime Minister, They therefore advised that the Queen should send for Mr. Gladstone, who proceeded to Windsor the same day to receive Her Majesty's commands. In Mr. Gladstone's new Administration the Duke accepted office as Lord Privy Seal, Lord Granville being Foreign Secretary, and Lord Hartington Secre- tary for India. Mr, Gladstone himself undertook the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Duke, who was all his life a worker, would have preferred an office where his energies would have had fuller scope, but in this matter he left himself in the hands of the Prime Minister, as the following letter to Lord Dufferin shows : ' Long before you get this you will have heard the results. But I do not yet know them. I have left 1880] COMPENSATION FOB DISTURBANCE 349 myself very much in Gladstone's hands. He has many difficulties, although with almost supreme power so far as popular enthusiasm and authority are con- cerned. But there are a great many self-assertors to be dealt with, and I do not desire to be among them. Both Granville and Hartington have behaved very well, and with a great want of self-assertion.' Irish questions practically engrossed the attention of Government during the early years of the Ad- ministration, and soon after the meeting of the new ParUament a measure was introduced deaHng with evictions, which was knoAvn as the Disturbances Act. One of the provisions of this Act was to the effect that the clause in the Land Act of 1870, under which no tenant evicted for non-payment of rent was entitled to compensation, should be modified under certain circumstances, such as agricultural distress. It was proposed to refer the question of compensa- tion to the judgment of the County Court. To many members of the Government this was merely a fore- shadowing of what was to come. Lord Lansdowne, who was Under-Secretary for India, went so far as to resign, and a good deal of active persuasion was needed to prevent the Duke from casting discredit on the Government by leaving it. He actually sent in his resignation in a letter to Mr. Gladstone (June 14th, 1880) : ' I am very sorry to say that the result of my reflection is that I cannot accept any share in the responsibility of recommending to Parliament the measure decided upon by the Cabinet on Saturday. ' I am not going to trouble you by arguing the question over again. It is sufficient for me that I find myself in the position of being whoUy unable to defend the proposal of the Government with a good conscience. 350 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xlii Both as to time and as to substance, it seems to me open to objections so grave that I cannot face them. ' I cannot defend any disturbance of the Land Act of 1870 made suddenly on the summons of Mr. O'Connor Power, when it is notorious that we had determined not to deal with the subject during this session. ' I cannot argue that the particular interference proposed with that Act is a just one in itself. I cannot argue that there is any justice in treating as a capricious eviction an eviction for the non-payment of rent. ' I cannot argue that it is just to place in the hands of a legal court the power of compelling an owner to pay a fine of from five to seven years' rent to a tenant whom he may be compelled to remove for insolvency. ' I cannot pretend that the Hmitation of the measure to^two years' duration is otherwise than iUusory. Such a step once taken is not Hkely to be easily retraced. ' Neither can I argue that the hmitation to cases where insolvency has arisen from one particular cause, even if that could be ascertained, is a limitation which can be maintained. ' I cannot argue that the adoption of such a measure, preceding the issue of a commission, can fail to fore- judge a question of the gravest kind in point of principle. ' I cannot deny that the measure looks in the direc- tion of (what is called) extending the Ulster custom to the whole of Ireland. That is to say, because we have secured certain advantages to men who had acquired them by purchase or inheritance, we contemplate giving them to other men who have never had them either by purchase or by inheritance. ' I cannot deny that so sudden a resolution on the part of the Government, in the face of an anti-rent agitation in Ireland, wiU give the impression of weak- ness and irresolution in the defence of even the most equitable laws. ' These are but specimens of the insuperable diffi- 1880J PURCHASE CLAUSES 351 culties under which I find myself when I think of what I can and what I cannot say upon the decision of the Cabinet. ' Under these circumstances, I feel that I have no choice. I must ask you to place my resignation in the hands of the Queen. I hope I need not teU you what this determination has cost me. Nothing but the absolute necessity under which I find myself could have induced me to come to it. ' I should be glad that you should allow my col- leagues to see this letter.' This protest brought from Mr. Gladstone two letters, which are quoted here. From Mr. Gladstone {June 14:th, 1880). ' While I do not presume to measure beforehand the effect on your mind of any considerations I can offer, I think I may fairly ask you not at this moment to give to your letter the rigidity of a final announcement. ' I ask you also to consider them in the spirit of candour which you would undoubtedly exhibit on almost every political subject. ' Would it be quite equitable to press against the Cabinet the proposition that "it is notorious that we had determined not to deal with the subject during the present session " ? ' I aver that the only subject we had determined was not to deal Avith the purchase clauses of the Irish Land Act. We never considered the question of ejectments connected with the present distress in Ireland. ' For myself, I can most strictly say the proposal of O'Connor Power has had no other effect than to draw my attention to a question which, hke many other questions with strong claims, I had not considered, and had had no time to consider. ' I must also say of that question that the evidence in regard to it grows and varies from day to day. 352 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xmi ' I was under the impression that ejectments were diminishing, but I now find from figures first seen on Saturday that they seem rather to increase. I find also that they are attempted wholesale. ' This state of facts entails on me — and I think many colleagues might be disposed to say the same thing — the duty of inquiring where I had not previously known there was urgent cause to inquire. ' On inquiry, I find reason to believe that many ejectments are on account of an inability to pay rent, caused wholly by destitution, and that destitution due to the circumstances of the last harvest, ' Thereupon I have to ask myself a twofold question : ' 1. In a country where we have numbers of occupiers living strictly from hand to mouth, and where the harvest has in certain districts been so destroyed as to cause frequently an absolute though temporary destitution, is it quite just that, on an ejectment served for not paying that which the man could not pay, he should forfeit entirely the little estate or interest in the land which was created for him by us under the Land Act of 1870 under the name of compensation for disturbance ? 2. Is the adoption of such an extreme proposition consistent in spirit on the part of those who in 1870 admitted that for tenancies under £15 then existing the fact of ' exorbitant ' rent, without any distinct condition of inability to 'pay, should operate to prevent the destruction of the principle of disturbance in cases of ejectment for non-payment ? ' My answer to question 1 is, " No, it is not just " ; to question 2, " No, it is not consistent." ' Then I put question 3 : Am I to shrink from doing what is just and consistent because, as I admit, I shall be told that I am doing it at the bidding of O'Connor Power ? ' It is a sound and just rule that we should discard the fear of being thought afraid. ' It may, perhaps, be said this is a casus omissus in 1880] THE duke's PROPOSED RESIGNATION 353 the Land Act. I seriously think it is less in dis- paragement of the ordinary rules of property than what we did in the Land Act. ' I have lost no time in writing. Pray let me see you to ascertain the exact amount and breadth of any difference between us.' From Mr. Gladstone {June 15th, 1880). ' Believe me, there is not any need for your assur- ances as to your feelings in this critical affair ; they speak for themselves. No one who knows you can mistake or undervalue them, true though it may be, as to myself, that under the ruthless pressure of hoiu-ly business I may seem to force my way through it all with a stony indifference. Nothing can alter my feeHng of gratitude.' The Duke's letter was shown, as he had requested, to his colleagues, and drew from Lord GranviUe the following letter (June 14th, 1880) : ' Your note filled me with dismay. I saw Gladstone, Hartington, and Spencer on the subject of it. I try to put aside my feehngs of regret at losing you as a colleague, and at missing your counsel about foreign affairs, and your support in defending our pohcy in the Lords. But it appears to me that the responsi- biHty you are taking is very great — to aim such a blow so soon at Gladstone's Government, to give such a triumph to the Tories, and to give such a stimulus to the House of Lords to put themselves in coHision with the House of Commons, with aU the results that may happen in Ireland. I do not go into the merits of the question. There is much to be said on both sides ; many of your arguments are logically excellent. But even from that point of view, by going away are you strengthening the principles which you desire to VOL. n. 23 354 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xlh maintain ? Are you not playing the game like Car- narvon did with regard to the Eastern Question — weakening Derby and leaving the field more open for those who have the most extreme objects in view ? Gladstone will be most anxious to meet you, but do not press him too far.' It was no doubt partly due to Lord Granville's warning against throwing their chief into the hands of the extremists that the Duke consented to reconsider his determination to leave the Cabinet. In a letter to Lord Duflferin he wrote : ' I see that in resisting I shall ultimately stand alone. What I may do under those conditions I do not know. I wish and long to be out, but I have to consider the political position and the certainty that Gladstone may be driven to extremes.' To Lord Dvfferin. ' I do not care how much fighting I have with the enemy, but I hate having to squabble with colleagues.' In the end the resignation was withdrawn, and certain amendments were made in the measure, but the Disturbances Bill was decisively rejected by the House of Lords (August 3rd, 1880). Mr. Gladstone was of opinion that this rejection changed the situation in Ireland irretrievably for the worse, and, together with the hard winter of 1880-1881, made a Land Bill inevitable. To his expression of this belief the Duke made the following rejoinder (November 3rd, 1880) : ' A Government which has failed to carry any par- ticular measure is under great temptation to ascribe all the evils of humanity to its loss. But I fail to see 1880] OWNERSHIP AND OCCUPANCY 355 what harm the loss of the Disturbance Bill has done, except to give room for abuse of the Lords. ' The BiU was to check unreasonable evictions. Forster says that none such have been going on. But before the Bill was lost, even when it was on the stocks, we had " drifted " into the position of considering a new Land Bill necessary — why, I never could see, always excepting any measure to extend ownership. But the plan now is to destroy ownership, and con- found it more and more with occupancy, a drift which I think purely mischievous. ' I am open to conviction as the result of inquiry, but I see no sense in a foregone conclusion that because PameU has opened a campaign for separation and dismemberment of the Empire, therefore we should confess our own work of 1870 to be an " old almanack." ' For the next few months, the forthcoming Land BiU was the subject which most engaged the attention of Ministers. During this period the Duke wrote fre- quently to Mr. Gladstone, and their correspondence gives a fair history of the formation of the measure. Most of the letters, however, are concerned with details, many of which did not appear in the final resvdt. Out of a large number of letters, only those are selected which express the Duke's views most syste- matically or throw light on the BUI itself. From Mr. Gladstone {November 29th, 1880). ' 1. What objections are there to free sale, or to sale by Irish tenants of their interest in their occupa- tions ? ' 2. Can we not . . . give to the Irish occupier an increased security of tenure, and yet avoid the mischief of a recurrent State interference for the determination of rents ? 23—2 356 THE lEISH LAND BILL [chap, xui ' 3. Must we not again get a fixed starting-point by an interference once for all, and may we not build this interference upon a renewal and some extension of the clause in the Land Act about exorbitant rents ? ' The state of Ireland is so serious that I do not know what form our deliberations may take ; but for my own part I am very desirous to keep, if possible, on the lines and basis of the Land Act. ' It was, I think, originally Carlingford's idea to check the arbitrary exercise of power by fixing it. It is now Longfield's idea. I always liked it from the first, and I should like now to make it our basis, as the mildest form in which we can have a medium of sufficient strength. ' From my point of view, I do not see much difficulty in drawing preHminary resolutions, and they may be very useful in giving us time, which cannot fail to be greatly needed. ' One of my chief alarms is a seriously divided Commission. I did not think Forster dreaded it as much as I do. ' Be this as it may, land is my great anxiety. The disturbances are temporary, but in this we ought at least to aim in good faith at permanence.' To this the Duke replied on the following day : ' I am very busy reading the evidence. Meanwhile I reply to your questions. ' 1. " Free sale " by tenants is sale of what is not their own. In Ulster there are always limitations. These limitations have the aim and effect of keeping up the right of the owner to reasonable increments of rent on fit occasions. ' You have boasted that the Land Bill of 1870 has not prevented such reasonable increments being realized. Yet now this very fact is quoted as showing that the Act has " failed." Mr. C. Russell quotes cases to show that some increments have been un- 1880] CRITICISM OV THE BILL 357 reasonable. But his facts do not bear out the allega- tion. ' At aU events, unUmited sale and , ^ unrestricted competition prices for goodwill do, and must, tend to eat up aU right to increment of rent. ' It is a transfer to ownership and the reduction of owners to rent-chargers. Of course, when sale is allowed by owners and regulated by them, it is com- patible with periodical revisions of rent. This is Lord Portsmouth's case. But if allowed, or rather bestowed by statute, it could not be regulated. It would be " free sale." I have the strongest objections to this one of the " three F's." ' 2. The principle of the Land Act of 1870, that of discouraging and checking evictions by imposing a fine under the name of " disturbance," is of course a principle which could be carried further. ' But, on the other hand, if it be carried so far as practically to render revisions of rent impossible, it would be a complete departure from the aim and object of the Act. This is one of the cases in which the principle Ues as much in the limitation put on it as in the general idea involved. ' 3. Some extension of the clause about exorbitant rents is certainly within the principle of the Act, and I am not at aU prepared to say that the extension may not be reasonably proposed. But the mischief is that the legislation aims at something wholly different, and I doubt now whether any measure which is not revo- lutionary wiU be accepted by the tenants under the excitement into which they have been thrown. ' Speeches hke Bright' s have done great harm. They raise vague expectations, and imply statements as to existing facts which are not true. As far as I have gone, the evidence does not prove that increments have been arbitrarily made ; on the contrary, the evidence is the other way. ' Dowse clearly holds that ownership consists in the receipt of a rent-charge. Moreover, he lays down the 358 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xlii wonderful doctrine that what we have to do is to satisfy the existing occupiers, and never mind the interests of the people who may wish to become occupiers in the future. A most convenient doctrine truly. ' I hope to put my notions into some more systematic form soon. But one must, at least one ought, to read the evidence. As regards the opinions mooted, it is pretty nearly chaos. And this is one of the most alarming features. It is a complete unsettlement of all fundamental ideas of property. ' I like Abercorn's suggestion that the purchase clauses should be extended to the purchase of per- petuities. " Fixed " tenures and " fixed " rents when bought are at least not confiscation. I see no objection to them. The tenants of Ireland (except the cottiers) are quite able to buy what they want to get. Let them buy it.' From Mr. Gladstone {December 3rc?, 1880). ' I agree very much in your objections to free sale as you understand it. But by free sale may be under- stood sale not subject to veto. Therefore, my question referred to " free sale, or sale." The question to be solved is. Can there be a free — i.e., non-permission — sale such as shall not encroach on the property of the landlord ? I am inclined to think there can, and to find the means of it in the Longfield idea. ' I am working constantly on this subject, and, un- fortunately, there is a great deal to read besides the evidence upon the Commission. ' What we really want is to get below generalities, and to touch the testing points and forms of the question. For this purpose I put challenging pro- positions. ' For example, I am disposed to hold the following proposition, to which we made approaches in the Land Act and in the debates on it : ' " In a country like Ireland, in many parts of which 1880] OWNERS AND OCCUPIERS 359 employments are so little diversified as not to leave a real freedom of choice, the occupation of land upon living terms is itself money's worth, and is also money's worth of a kind that ought not to be represented in the rent." ' Pray turn this over in your mind.' To Mr. Gladstone {December 6th, 1880). ' I confess I have the greatest difficulty in under- standing your proposition — that " occupation of land in Ireland is money's worth." ' To whom ? Of course it is money's worth to the occupier. But unless he pays rent it would not be money's worth to the owner. ' You surely don't mean to affirm that aU Irish occupiers have a right to live rent free. It seems to me that a great deal too much is made of the peculiarities of Ireland. The Highlands have no manufactures and no big towns in them, and railways now afford egress and access to all classes to the general labour markets of the kingdom,' To Mr. Gladstone (December 1th, 1880). ' I have been pondering over your proposition. I fear I am very stupid, for I really cannot understand its terms, unless, indeed, it have a meaning which I can hardly believe you entertain. ' The only interpretation I can put on it is one which would tend to encourage and perpetuate a cottier population on the verge of pauperism. ' " The occupation of land on living terms " I in- terpret to mean " on terms which afford only a bare living." Then follows the proposition respecting such occupiers, that they should be charged nothing for rent. ' Of course, if this doctrine is established it will give a new lease of life to the semi-pauper cottiers, a new premium on all the lowest standards of Hving, which are the curse of such a population. They would breed 360 THE IRISH LAND BILL [ohap. xm and feed upon potatoes until not even a bare living remained. ' I hold, on the contrary, that no occupation of land ought to be encouraged which does not afford a surplus for rent over and above a decent and comfortable livelihood. So much for poHcy, but now as regards justice to the owners of land. Take the case of Carraroe. The rent paid by these poor people averaged only 30s. a head. ' For this they had land enough to grow plenty of potatoes, besides a not inconsiderable flock of sheep and cattle, ' Every artisan in England and Scotland, every work- man even, pays more for the rent of perhaps one or two rooms, which simply affords shelter, but no food or clothing. The Irish cottier has for his 30s. plenty of the food he is accustomed to, as well as some saleable articles. ' He goes habitually to England to earn wages. Why should such a cottier be pitied for paying 30s. for a home, and for at least a tolerable supply of food ? ' I therefore dispute the proposition altogether — if I understand it, which, however, I suspect I do not, ' Pray do not trouble to reply ; I only write to teU you what occurs to me. Why on earth should I wish landowners not to pay income-tax on their actual rent ? It is monstrous and absurd that they should pay only on Griffith's valuation when they often get easily three or four times that valuation. ' This of itself is a premium on " increments " of rent, which may be perfectly legitimate, but surely ought not to be specially exempted from taxation. This is a by-point, but not whoUy unimportant.' The following letter (December 15th, 1880) to Mr. Gladstone deals with the principle of the BiU : ' I write one Une to prevent a misunderstanding which might arise. When I first read your memo- 1880] OCCUPANCY AKD ' LIVING TEEMS ' 361 randum in the Cabinet-room I saw that in its general aim and tenor it was adverse to revolutionary changes, and in favour of keeping within the main Unes and intentions of the Act, or, at least, of the Bill, of 1870. ' Seeing this, I said at once to you that I agreed with it. But I did not understand that under the words " right of assignment " there lay one of the " three F's "—namely, " free sale." ' My impression has always been, and still is, that any of the " three F's " carries or wiU carry the other two. An abstract resolution, therefore, which affirms that it is desirable to give free sale to all tenants in Ireland, even below a certain value, is in my mind a most formidable proposition. At all events, it is one entirely outside both of the Bill and of the Act of 1870. ' As an alternative to landlords for the penalties of "disturbance" it would take a subordinate place, but as one of a few abstract propositions on what is desirable it seems to me to be open to very formidable objection.' To Mr. Gladstone {December 24:th, 1880). ' I wish only to write a hne on the definition of principle on which you have based a general recog- nition of a right of sale. At a time when a chaos of opinion is one of the main evils to be dealt with, such definitions of principle assume unusual importance. ' The upshot of your principles is that farms in Ireland should never be let at " fuU letting value," but should always be so let as to afford a fine, or a saleable interest, over and above the ordinary profits of occu- pation. ' This result is reached through the argument that occupancy "on Hving terms" ought not to be repre- sented in the rent. ' Surely this is an argument of indefinite elasticity. Who is to define " living terms " ? I suppose it means 362 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xlii " terms that will afford a livelihood." But what kind of livelihood ? Is it to be the bare life supported on potatoes and salt herring ? Or is it the livelihood that will afford a much higher standard of Kving ? Or is it, still further, what one of the witnesses demands — a livelihood that will afford a comfortable and sub- stantial income out of which sons can be provided for and daughters portioned ? A principle of this kind, once sanctioned and definitely formulated, will have a great chance of being followed to its logical conse- quences. The Land Act of 1870 founded itself on a very different principle — namely, that, as a matter of fact, the right of sale had been extensively acquired in Ireland by purchase or some other form of legitimate expectation, that it was to be recognised as a fact, and should be extinguished where it had been bought up and paid off. I need not say that the introduction of it where it has never existed as in itself a good thing is the antithesis of the principle of the Act of 1870.' From Mr. Gladstone {December 25th, 1880). ' Though God knows I have little time for writing, I must not leave you under a grievous misunderstanding which I had hoped to avoid. ' " Living terms " are surely terms on which a tenant can live ; and those in Ireland have been and are largely worth paying for, and in not a few cases they have been unduly paid for in rent ; and they, with improvements, constitute an interest; and this interest is a fair subject of sale, and its assignment was, I believe, allowed (it did not require to be enacted) by the Land Bill as we adopted and introduced it. ' This is qtiite apart from customs and from customs bought up. ' My doctrine does not in the least interfere with " fuU letting value." ' Pray read an article by Trevelyan which I have asked Knowles to send you in proof. 1881] INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT 363 ' I wish there were more men in the Cabinet who had tried to read up the history of Irish tenures. ' I meant to have begun with wishing you a happy Christmas (if Minister can at this time send Minister such a message of peace) ; let me end with it. ' Affectionately yours, ' W. E. Gladstone.' ' P.S. — Rely upon it, in the matter of land the real question is not whether there shall be less than I propose, but whether there shall be more.' On January 5th, 1881, Lord Dufferin wrote to the Duke : ' All of us landlords, and I may say everyone who holds a shilling of property, whether in land or in the funds, ought to present you with a crown of gold for the vigorous stand you are making against such tremendous odds.' During the Christmas recess the Duke had been giving close attention to the Bill, and on January 28th he wrote to his chief : ' I have been trying during the last week to put my thoughts in order as weU as I coidd on your outline of a Land Bill. ' Two great provisions stand out conspicuously — (1) a court with authority to review and revise and determine existing rents, and (2) an absolute and universal prohibition for the future against too frequent increments of rent. ' I need not say that both of these provisions are interferences with contract which were never contem- plated in the Land Act of 1870, and may fairly be described as wholly outside the Hues on which that measure was drawn. ' Nevertheless, I am not prepared to say that either of them can be whoUy avoided. Both of them ought. 364 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xm I think, to be placed under exceptions and limitations, which are only reasonable, if not absolutely necessary. ' For example, I cannot think that existing rents, which have remained unaltered for a long time, and against which no recent or frequent increments can even be alleged, ought to be open to State revision. Some limit ought, I think, clearly to be imposed. I should say that rents which have not been aug- mented at aU since the Land Act ought to be assumed as " fair rents." Or, it might be said, for a period of fifteen years. This would limit the excitement and agitation which must be raised if every tenant in Ireland is encouraged to hope that he may get off from a bar- gain which he made long ago, and which he has been fulfilling easily until the recent agitation. ' Again, as regards the future increments of rent, aU cases must clearly be excepted where such incre- ments are due on a definite contract connected with the reclamation of land, or the accruing benefit of other improvements. Your proposition probably does not contemplate interference in such a case. So far I see no very serious difficulty before us. ' But when I come to other points I do see difficulties very formidable indeed. ' The universal right of " free sale " establishes the principle of joint ownership where it has never been acquired equitably or by any legitimate expectation. ' Against the consequences of this right a landlord can only defend himself by bringing a sort of legal action against every one of his tenants for the purpose of shovdng how much more rent he might have charged, and consequently how much of the saleable value ought equitably to belong to him. I cannot conceive any proAdsion more certain to embarrass the courts, to demoralize the tenants by tempting them to false swearing, and to cause universal discontent. ' This plan seems to me to meet none of the funda- mental objections against a great statutory transfer of proprietary right from one class to another, although 1881] OBJECTIONS TO BILL 365 in theory it aims at giving some compensation for that right. ' But, further, I gather from your outhne that you contemplate abandoning the following leading principles in the Land Act : (1) That above a rental which was assumed to mark roughly the Une of com- parative weakness and dependence, contract should be left whoUy free ; and (2) that leases should be an equivalent both for disturbance compensation and for improvement compensation, with the exception of per- manent buildings, and that this principle should be abandoned, even for the larger tenants, who are perfectly able to defend themselves. ' I hope you have read the most recent rebutting evidence on the subject of the alleged confiscation of improvements. The Commission quotes especially the evidence of a Scotsman of the name of Robertson. His allegations refer chiefly to cases on the Leinster estate. Mr. Hamilton, the agent, has shown that Robertson's statements are scandalous misrepresenta- tions and suppressions of the truth. ' I do not dweU further on this now, only saying that in my opinion there is no evidence whatever that the Land Act of 1870 has failed to secure aU that is justly due to tenants above the^fSO line on the score of improvements. ' Nevertheless, again, I do not object to weighting the scale of 1870 a little more heavily, as a fine on disturbance. ' To sum up : '1. I do not object to legal revision of rents under certain Hmitations. '2. I do not object to a statutory Hmitation of the time within which rents can be legally raised. '3. I do not object to weighting the scale of dis- turbance more heavily than it was weighted in the Act of 1870. ' What I do see the strongest possible objections to are : 366 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xlii ' 1. The universal right of sale where it has never been legitimately acquired. ' 2. The abandonment of the line of free contract. ' 3. The abandonment of the principle that time exhausts aU claims except the permanent buildings. ' I stiU think that one " F " will carry with it both the other two, and that the proposal of free sale will destroy all the virtue of ownership, and render im- possible the only operations which have hitherto produced improvement among the cottier tenantry of the west.' To his friend Lord Dufferin the Duke wrote (February 1st, 1881) criticising the Bill : ' I wrote to you about a fortnight ago giving an outline of Gladstone's proposals. Since then aU kinds of pressure have been put on him to go in for the three " F's." He wiU. not do so in form, but I fear he will go very near it in substance. ' He says we cannot help giving " free sale," but he thinks it can be Hmited (1) by letting landlords show how much of the saleable value belongs to them, and (2) by declaring their right to increments of rent at intervals. Now, the first of these checks involves an aggressive action on the part of landlords against every tenant, to show how much is underrented, while the second check is only too Hkely to give way before agitation. ' The result is that I am getting more and more dis- gusted with our position, and more and more anxious to be out of it if I could. ' Of course, he retains a "reasonable veto" — reason- able in the judgment of a court. ' But the most extraordinary part of his proposal is that any tenant may apply to the court to have his farm put under the protection of the court, whereupon, if the court agrees to take it under its protection, every- thing falls under the power of the court. It may give the whole three " F's " at once. It may regulate 1881] REVISION OF RENTS 367 everything — tenure, rent, and fixity of rent as well as of tenure. ' The court is allowed, to refuse, and even encouraged to refuse in certain cases, as, for example, when the estate is weU managed, and the exception of one farm would be mischievous to the management. Glad- stone's notion is that court management wiU soon be intolerable to both parties, and they will agree to get out again. ' But the tenant would seek it in order to get the three " F's," and after having got it, would seek to get out again in order that he might have that freedom which has been refused to the owner. ' I have no idea how such an idea can be embodied in a BiU, and I am in hopes that its absurdity will then appear. ' Richmond's Commission* has signed a report in the vaguest terms, but clearly indicating that a court should have power to check rents. This is aU they say, except adding a sentence which implies that well- managed estates are a small exception in Ireland ! ' Nothing could be worse or more shabby than this report. It looks Kke a desire to admit all that is alleged against the present law, and to give no help whatever by any suggestion. ' It is reported that Dizzy is ready to dish the Whigs again by a stronger Land Bill than they would agree to. I do not know whether this is true, but I have my suspicions. I hear that Bath (who, however, is quite honest) says he does hope we shall, produce a good strong BiU. What this word means people don't seem to care to define to themselves. ' Gladstone's proposals so far are confined to yearly tenancies. But I suspect he wiU propose that when a lease ends the tenant shall at once come imder the * A Royal Commission to inquire into the condition of agricul- ture in the United Kingdom, of which the Duke of Richmond was chairman. 368 THE IBISH LAND BILL [chap, xlii protection of a general law which gives him more than his lease ! U\ ' Verily we are being scourged for our former sins. I have been unwell all day, and perhaps write in the blues more than usual. But it is the perplexities around me which have made me feel ill. I have told Gladstone of the immense temptation I feel to be free to expose the gross lies told by the witnesses before the Commission, and the claptrap of the report.' To Lord Dufferin {February 23rd, 1881). ' I never felt in such a fix in my hfe. Gladstone is the only barrier between us and the deep sea. He will not agree to the three " F's " — that is to say, in form. But he sees his way to elaborate provisions which must, I think, end in them, and are very little short of them now. On the other hand, he argues steadily against extreme views, and denies joint ownership, and keeps, or wishes to keep, some power of management in keeping the right of eviction subject to a fine, as under the Act of 1870. This is the only principle of the Act, or nearly so, which is not abandoned. ' The power of sale is to be checked by a right to refuse to accept purchase on specified grounds, among which is any custom hmiting the rate. Also by a right on the part of the owner to share in the price, if he has established cheapness or lowness of rent. But any yearly tenant may apply to court for a fixed lease, or to have his farm put wholly under " supervision " or protection of court. It is the most wonderfully elaborate scheme you ever saw. All the Radicals pro- noimce it fundamentally deficient, inasmuch as it does not give fixity, but keeps up the power of eviction, although under increased rates of fine. What they want is to deprive ownership of aU power of manage- ment. This Gladstone will not agree to, but he does agree to transfer all power to a court, if the court thinks fit to accept it. Thus it places every landlord in 1881] THE 'bLUNDERBUS ARGUMENT' 369 Ireland at the mercy of the court, which may or may not accept this power of protectorate ! Gladstone's own idea is that this will be so intolerable an alternative to all parties that they will not apply, and will prefer free contract, because the tenant will also be prevented from free sale in this case, and will still be liable to eviction if the court approves. ' I do not see my way to be an advocate of such a measure as it stands, but it is not settled yet, and there may be great modifications. ' It is weary work — such ignorance of all that landed ownership ought to be and is.' The Duke's wide practical experience of land- holding among a Celtic people gave him an insight into the difiiculties and dangers of legislation with regard to land tenure in Ireland which no theoretical know- ledge could supply ; and there was more similarity between the conditions in the West Highlands of Scot- land and the South and West of Ireland than Mr. Gladstone could bring himself to believe. To Lord Dufferin {April 1th, 1881). ' I have found it impossible to use the arguments necessary to defend Gladstone's Bill, which is reaUy the " three F's" under a temporary and thin disguise. At least, it is potentially the " three F's " to every tenant who desires to have them, and who chooses to run the very small risk of having his rent raised by the court to which he must apply. ' The measure may be necessary to appease Ireland, which is in a dangerous condition. It may, if accepted, do good even to owners, who are in danger of losing all. But this is an argument from political necessity which, as a Minister, I cannot conscientiously use. It is the " blunderbus argument " — a very strong one, but not one easy to defend on the part of those who hold the blunderbus. VOL. n. 24 370 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xlii ' I have felt also that being a party to this Bill as a Minister would fatally embarrass me in questions still before us.' From Mr. Gladstone {March 28th, 1881). ' As far as I have been able to gather, your main point of difficulty in the matter of Irish land is the " right of sale." You do not, I think, stumble at the interference of the court with rent, which, in my mind, is a far more advanced proposition. ' As to this right of sale, I think it quite an open question in principle whether when the court limits rent it should also limit the price of the tenant right. It stood so in my original draft. ' But, apart from this, I earnestly beseech you not to arrive at any hasty conclusion adverse to the law of sale. ' I have gone through this part of the subject fully in my mind. I must deal with it in the coming monster speech at great length, and I am convinced that the argument is overwhelming.' This correspondence with Mr, Gladstone shows the divergence of opinion existing between him and the Duke, on fundamental points affecting the government of Ireland. When the Duke was finally convinced that Mr. Gladstone was determined on a course of policy which he could not conscientiously approve, he resolved to leave the Government, rather than become responsible for such a measure as the Irish Land Bill. The letter containing the Duke's resignation is dated March 31st, 1881 : ' My deak Gladstone, ' After every effort to do so, I find myself unable to face the position in which I should be placed if I were to be one of those who recommend to Parliament the Land Bill for Ireland now adopted by the Cabinet. ' I will not weary you with arguments on the subject. 1881] DOOM OF OWNERSHIP IN IRELAND 371 The time for that is past. It is enough for me to say- now that I cannot use, with honesty, almost any of the counter-arguments which must be used in order to justify some of the main provisions of the Bill. ' On questions of minor importance this is a position which, in the course of public hfe, must often be accepted and submitted to. But in questions of such far-reaching consequence as those involved in this new Irish Land Bill it is a position in which I cannot place myself with a good conscience, or even with tolerable peace of mind. Under these circumstances, I have no choice but to ask you to lay my resignation before the Queen.' Mr. Gladstone again urged delay, pointing out certain concessions which had been made. But the Duke wrote (April 15th, 1881) stating his objections to the very principle of the BiU : ' I heard of the little amehorations consented to on Saturday. But I confess I am more struck by the fact that the Cabinet had ever consented for a moment to omit " market value " as the ultimate standard of rent than by the fact that it has been restored. The Irish Secretary has been steadily opposed to this and to every other mitigation of the extreme doctrines of tenant right. ' But I stand back from the picture and look at it as a whole. ' The BiU is an organic whole, " compacted by that which every joint supplieth," and instinct with a hfe which is death to ownership of land in Ireland, as owner- ship is enjoyed and understood in every civilized country. Again and again I have tried to ride at this fence with my eyes shut. Again and again I find myself recoiUng from it as a fence which I cannot take with a good conscience. The blunderbus argument is the only one I could use with sincerity. I don't deny its force. But Ministers, in using it, are themselves the 24—2 372 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xlii holders of the blunderbus, and I can take no share in presenting that powerful weapon of logic at the heads of those who will address to us appeals which I cannot answer. Perhaps I can best explain my position and feelings about this Bill by asking you to go back a few years to a time which I remember well, by asking you to suppose yourself member of a Cabinet which adopted a fortification scheme on an immense scale, to be pro- vided for by a loan ! Or at the present time if the Cabinet were to decide in favour of a " differentiated " income-tax, carrying out the principle of Northcote's " exemptions " to its logical conclusions ! I am con- vinced that no loyalty to colleagues or any other con- siderations of personal feeling, to which I am deeply sensible, would induce you to face the position of defending these measures in Parliament. It would be to you a moral and intellectual impossibility.' On April 8th, 1881, Mr. Gladstone wrote to express his regret at the inevitable separation : ' I am sorry to admit that I can offer no objection to your confirming to-night on your own, the highest authority, the very melancholy intelligence of your resignation. ' Were there any proceedings of Cabinet to disclose, you would, as you will well recollect, require the special permission of the Queen to speak upon them ; but as there is nothing to state but your dissent from some of our proposals in a measure now printed and circulated, I do not think there is any difficulty. ' I write this note, alas ! beside your chair in the Cabinet-room — now vacant. ' God bless you in all things.' In two letters to Mr. Gladstone, dated April 20th and April 26th, the Duke vindicated his position : ' You ask me to reconcile two passages in my last letter to you — one in which I distinguish between what 1881] ARGUMENT WITH GLADSTONE 373 I can submit to or accept as a peer, and what I could be responsible for proposing as a Minister ; the other passage in which I say I must speak out in defence of what I think on the merits. ' You ask what meaning remains in the first passage after the second. ' Surely you cannot think that a pubhc man, because he submits to the inevitable, is bound to do so in silence. This would be unreasonable even if every- thing is inevitable. ' But besides the freedom of every man to point out the unreasonableness of that which is submitted to for the sake of peace, or for the avoidance of greater evUs — besides all that, it is possible that fair argument may induce Parliament at least to modify some of what appears to me to be the unreasonableness of parts of the proposal. ' Considering the chops and changes which the Bill underwent up to the very last moment, in the Cabinet and out of it, you surely cannot be prepared to argue that, as it stands now, it is a work of perfect and almost divine wisdom, so that no man ought to speak against any part of it. ' I have no doubt that I shall be obliged to submit to or accept much which I think wrong and injurious. But it does not at all follow that we should all hold our peace about the extent of sacrifice which such submission really involves. ' I pass to another part of your letter, which I under- stand much better. ' You enumerate the political dangers, arising out of the condition of Ireland, which compel you to reopen the Irish Land question and to propose this Bill. I am very far from undervaluing the argument of political danger arising out of the condition of Ireland. You then go on to say that, looking at these dangers, " were I the greatest poltroon on the face of the earth, I should for one be driven forward by forces. ..." ' You have no reason, certainly, to fear being charged 374 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xlu with poltroonery. Since I first sat with you in Cabinet I have admired more than anything your political courage, of which the extension of the income-tax to Ireland was the first conspicuous example which I saw. In the very last Cabinet meeting in which, I fear, I shall ever sit with you I saw the same spirit in the desire you showed to attack the exemptions from income- tax which weaker Ministers have given or extended. ' These instances of a spirit rebellious against mere popular clap-traps, and disposed to assert and to stand by sound principle against them, have been too numerous in my own observation of your course to be forgotten by me. ' But I am sure you do not expect me to regard this Irish Land Bill as an example of political courage. ' It is, what you say, a concession to political danger, and the fear of Parliamentary opposition is not the fear to which you are in any way exposed. ' The Duke of Wellington, in recommending Catholic Emancipation, once said, " I'm afraid of Ireland." ' This seems to me the only argument in favour of parts of the Bill. ' But this is an argument which you will not use in public, and so you are driven to the use of arguments on the merits, which I cannot at all agree in. ' I must, therefore, be free to speak on the merits of the proposals in themselves, which is all the more necessary, as arguments for the Bill on its merits are sure to be applied more or less logically elsewhere than in Ireland. ' I hope you will not mind my using this freedom. I care little for office now. I care a great deal for my freedom, both in pen and tongue, to say what I believe to be true in matters of public interest. ' You said I represented " extreme opinions." I represent your own opinions in 1870, and I deny alto- gether the validity of the arguments which you now use to vindicate a change so fundamental as this Bill involves.' 1881] ARGUMENT WITH GLADSTONE 375 The second letter is as follows : ' Since writing to you last night I have been thinking over the imphed construction, in abatement of my freedom on the Land Bill, which you put on my words that " a man may accept what he can take no share in proposing." ' I do not wish to engage you in any argument on these words. But I am anxious that you should under- stand my own view, which is that these words clearly leave my own judgment unfettered as to how much I can ultimately " accept " as a peer when the time comes to consider that very serious question. ' You are able to draw some distinctions in which I cannot follow you. For example, you said that if the Bill were to give the " three F's " you could not your- self propose it ; but you implied that Forster might do so, you remaining Prime Minister. ' Well, I myself cannot understand such a distinction as that. I could not act upon it. ' On the other hand, I can see an enormous distinc- tion between being member of a Cabinet which proposes a Bill and being merely a peer who says, " There is much in this BiU which I disapprove, but in the position in which we are now placed I am not prepared to run the risk of throwing it out." ' But the position just now is whoUy different from both these cases. It is now the case of dissension with a view to reasonable modifications one way or another. ' In this preliminary dissension I feel myself to be absolutely free. The whole circumstances under which the Bill has been drawn up were such as placed me and others in a most disadvantageous position — driven to the last moment — never sure what was and what was not finally decided. ' I do not complain, because .1 know the exigencies under which you conceived yourself to be. But, as a matter of fact, I did keep myself open, by means of 376 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xlii repeated memoranda to the Cabinet contesting several main points of fundamental consequence. ' I confess that my own feeling of obligation lies in a different direction. I feel more bound by the conduct, the language, of the Cabinet of 1870 than you seem to do. In my opinion, we ought not to unsettle so completely what was done and said then, unless under clear evidence of the failure of that Act to secure what it aimed at securing. I see no such evidence. ' On the contrary, I see abundant evidence that it did very nearly all that it was just to do in that direction. ' Even in your speech of November 9 at the Guildhall you gave no sign of intending to go as far as you have done. Under all these circumstances, and many more which it would be tedious to go into, I do feel wholly free to discuss the land question with perfect freedom, whatever I may ultimately be obliged to accept as the result of what I think is a needless surrender of much that ought to have been tenaciously held. ' You deny being influenced by the Duke of Welling- ton's motive, " fear for the peace of Ireland." ' I do not understand this, because your last letter but one dwells almost wholly on the political dangers of the condition of that country. ' My opinion of the authority you wield is such that I believe a fearless serious departure from the Act of 1870 would have been quite enough if you had put your foot down as firmly as in the Cabinet. ' You did so in argument against the " three F's." This Bill is "potentially" the "three F's" to all present tenants, and I think, and fear also, to future tenancies. ' You cannot blame anyone who sticks to what you laid down in 1870, if he sees no adequate reason for lapsing in the evidence before him. I left you, not only because I could not be a proposer of the Bill, but quite as much, perhaps even more, because I foresaw the use of arguments which I regard as rotten to the core. 1881] THE duke's RESIGNATION 377 ' What is a man to do under such circumstances ? I cannot agree to complete silence. I shall be obliged to leave unsaid much that I think.' On April 8th, 1881, the Duke made a statement in the House of Lords of his reasons for leaving the Government, from which the following extract is taken : ' I have a few words to address to the House of the nature of a personal, and, I am sorry to say, a very painful explanation. I have resigned the office which I have held in Her Majesty's Government, and that resignation has been accepted by the Queen. It is usual for a Minister, tmder such circumstances, to give some explanation in Parliament of the causes for the course which he has taken. There are, however, some great difficulties, and, indeed, insuperable difficulties, in the way of my giving on the present occasion any explanation which can be really satisfactory to your Lordships or to myself. My differences with my colleagues concern, and concern only, a measure which is now before the other House of ParUament, and, quite obviously, it would be improper for me now to enter upon the discussion of that BiU. I can only, therefore, say, in very general terms, that whilst I approve and heartily support every measure which can reason- ably be taken to increase the number of owners of land in Ireland, I am opposed to measures which tend to destroy ownership altogether, by depriving it of the conditions which are necessary to the exercise of its functions. It has been one of the professed objects of the Liberal party for many years to get rid, as much as possible, of these restrictions which constitute what is called " limited ownership " in land. My opinion is that the scheme of the Government will tend to paralyze the ownership of land in Ireland by placing it, for all time to come, under new fetters and limitations under which it^is not placed in any other civilized country in the world. Under this scheme neither the landlord nor 378 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xlh the tenant will be owner. In Ireland ownership will be in commission or in abeyance. I regard this result as injurious to the agricultural industry of any country, and especially injurious to a country in the condition of Ireland. I am not able to develop this opinion or to defend it now, but I trust at least it will be recognised by your Lordships as an opinion which represents an objection fundamental in its character, and affecting, more or less directly, several leading proposals of the Government. Holding the opinion I have indicated of the Government scheme, I felt I could not, as an honest man, be responsible for recommending that scheme as a whole to the adoption of Parliament. I have only further to say that I have taken this step Avith deep regret, on account of the separation which it makes between myself and my noble friends near me, and especially the separation which it makes between my- self and my right honourable friend at the head of the Government. I have had the honour of a close political connection with my right honourable friend now for the long period of twenty-nine years — a con- nection on my part of ever-increasing affection and respect. Nothing but an absolute sense of public duty, in relation to a question of immense and far-reaching consequence, could have compelled me to take the step which I now most reluctantly communicate to your Lordships.' The Duke received many letters expressive of regret at his resignation, from members of the Cabinet and others. From Lord Spencer {April 10, 1881). ' Do not trouble yourself to answer this, but I want to write a few words to say how much I regret the step which has removed you from the Cabinet. ' Your absence will be a great, very great, loss to us, for we have no one^who speaks so fearlessly his view, and is able to express it so forcibly as you. 1881] LETTER FROM MR. BRIGHT 379 ' I have no doubt that on general principles your view is quite just and strictly right, but I see no policy for Ireland which has a chance of restoring law and quiet and order which does not deal with the land question, and if it must be dealt with, I see nothing short of what Gladstone has proposed wliich will have a chance of success. H: Hi 4: 4: iN ' As an admirer of yours of some years' standing, I wanted to say to you how sorry I am that you have left the Government. . . .' From Mr. Bright {April 8, 1881). ' My dear Duke, ' I cannot let the day pass away without telling you how much I am grieved at the conclusion to which you have come to withdraw from the Government. ' I had hoped that you might have consented to remain with Mr. Gladstone under the pressure of the political necessity which rests upon him ; but I acknow- ledge the difficidty of your position in the House of Lords, expected to support a measure to some portions of which you have insuperable objections. ' I cannot condemn your course ; I can only regret it. At the Cabinet this morning all present felt and expressed this regret. I am sure you wiU be glad if we succeed in the attempt to put an end to the sad discord existing in Ireland, although you are not able to give us the powerful assistance which was expected from you. I hope, however, that you wiU be able to support many portions of the BiU, and especially those which are intended to increase the number of pro- prietors of land in Ireland. ' I shall still have the advantage of reading your contributions to the Review, and I hope at times, not rarely occurring, the pleasure of meeting you as here- tofore on the terms of friendship which you have so kindly permitted, and which I have so greatly valued.' 380 THE lEISH LAND BILL [chap, xlii From Lord Granville {April 5, 1881). ' My dear Argyll, ' I am really touched at your having been in- duced by anything I said to think over your position. ***** ' I have often, when younger, taken a bigger fence than I liked, merely because the brook on one side and the rail on the other appeared to me still more dangerous. ' A man is the best judge, in the last resort, of his own honour, but there are very few occasions on which he would not act more wisely after consultation with real friends. ' Pray have it completely out with Gladstone and the Chancellor before you finally decide. ' Yours affectionately, 'G.' From Lord Dufferin {April 19th, 1881). ' My dear Lorne, ' I have just got your second letter of April the 13th. ... I only add a line to what I said yesterday to urge you once more to take your place in the Govern- ment. I am sure that, both for the sake of the country as well as for your own, it will be best that you should do so. ' How pleasant it would be to have you for a master ! but, apart from any consideration of this kind, who is there in either House whose presence in the Cabinet would be a better guarantee for a sober, high-minded, and conscientious policy ? To speak plainly, the ten- dency of the extreme section of the Liberal party is to buy the support of the masses by distributing amongst them the property of their own political opponents, and it is towards a social rather than a political revolution that we are tending — at least, if what is taking place in Ireland is any indication of the future, and a precedent established there is almost 1881] BBSSBOROUGH COMMISSION 381 sure to be applied elsewhere. Now, what a bulwark against the impending flood will be your name, your courage, and your authority ! As it is, look what the clause you introduced into the Irish Land Act has done towards maintaining alive in Ireland the principle of freedom of contract, which otherwise would have been entirely lost. It at once stamps the whole Bill with the character of abnormal and exceptional legisla- tion, which is the only theory upon which it can be justified ; and your power for good in the Cabinet would be ten times more than what it would be as a friendly critic outside. ' And now good-bye, dear Lome. Don't bother too much about me, for I will know how to possess my soul in patience. ' Yours affectionately, ' DUFFERIN.' When the Report of the Bessborough Commission, which had been appointed to investigate the working of the Irish Land Act of 1870, was laid before the House of Lords, the Duke, on July 1st, made a long speech, calling the attention of the House to the Report of the Commission. On the 7th of July the Queen wrote the following letter to the Duke with reference to this speech : ' Dear Duke, ' I am anxious to know how you are, and if you have not suffered from your exertions on Friday. I read with much interest your fine speech, which Lord Granville said was " magnificent." . . . ' What has been the effect of these last nights in the House of Commons ? I should be grateful if you could enlighten me. ' Ever yours affectionately, ' V.R. & L' 382 THE IRISH LAND BILL [chap, xlii The Irish Land Bill passed the second reading in the House of Commons by a majority of two to one. There was some opposition in the House of Lords, but eventually the Bill became law (August 22nd, 1881). The Duke did not allow political differences to inter- fere with the private friendship which had existed between him and Mr. Gladstone for so many years. The following letter touches on this point : To Mr. Gladstone (November 29th, 1881). ' I shocked some of your faithful adherents lately by writing a letter to the effect that the Irish Land Law was " barbarous legislation, only excusable, if it could be excused at all, by the barbarous condition of Ireland." ' But I feel more and more every day that this is within the truth. So, you see, I am wicked and un- repentant, hut— Uberavi, and I don't wish to bother you any more about it in any correspondence we may have. ' I have been at the sad work of looking over old letters, and this has made me see how many our letters have been, and through what discrimina rerum for more than thirty years. We can afford to differ on the Land Act, as well as on some other things. I am putting your letters together, and they are a very big bundle.' The following quotation from a letter, written by Mr. Gladstone to a friend, shows the feeling he enter- tained for the Duke during the years of their political comradeship : ' Enmity itself has never been more tenacious than Argyll's friendship and support.' In the month of August, 1881, the Duke was married to Mrs. Anson, widow of Colonel Anson, V.C, and 1882] THE MANTUAN MEDAL 383 eldest daughter of Dr. Claughton, Bishop of St. Albans. After his marriage, he spent some weeks cruising in his yacht on the west coast of Scotland and visiting his island properties, and the following winter was spent quietly at Inveraray. The Duke returned to London in time for the meeting of Parliament in February. During the session he spoke on several occasions in the House of Lords. In the month of July, the Duke was presented by the Prince of Mantua with the Mantuan Medal in gold. The accompanying letter from the secretary explains the history of this distinction : 'Sir, ' The Council of the Prince of Mantua and Mont- ferrat's Medal Fund have awarded you the medal for distinguished piety and virtue, as a token of the high esteem they have for your long life devoted to God and your fellow-men. ' These medals were instituted in the fourteenth century by Louis Gonzaga, Captain of Mantua, and for four hundred years were continued by his suc- cessors. . . . ' The Prince of Mantua and Montferrat, the present male representative of the house of Gonzaga, has lately recovered a book which records the gift of medals to about one thousand eminent persons of all nations by his ancestors. . . . ' His Highness would like to add your autograph letter to the collection of the great names of the past, and your photographic portrait also, if you deem this occasion worthy of them.' CHAPTER XLIII 1881-86 THE FRANCHISE BILL — THE SOUDAN — LIBERALISM AND RADICALISM The Duke, being now free from the responsibility of Office, was in a more independent position, and his release from a situation of growing difficulty was very welcome to him. In a letter to Lord Granville, two years later, he wrote : ' I value nothing so much now as my political inde- pendence, when I see daily more and more the disposi- tion of " Liberals " to follow and not to lead, and to be silent when they ought to speak out.' As regards the Duke's attitude towards his late col- leagues, he was not antagonistic to the Foreign Policy of the Government, although he disapproved of the Irish Land Act. During the rest of the Gladstone Administration he continued to be on good terms with his former leader, and their correspondence, except on the question of the Land Act, was as cordial as ever. He acted with his party in general, but he no longer hesitated to criticise when he disagreed. During the dispute with the House of Lords over the Franchise Act of 1884 and the undisclosed Redistribu- tion Bill, he acted as an intermediary and peacemaker between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Gladstone, and his efforts contributed to bring about a compromise, 384 MANTUAN MEDAL. [To face p. 384, vol.1, 1881-86] REDISTRIBUTION 385 and thus to avert a movement against the House of Lords. To Mr. Gladstone {July Uth, 1884). ' Excuse an ebullition of conscience on reading your Downing Street speech. You reproach Salisbury severely for describing the position of Redistributionists (after the passing of a Franchise Bill) as that of men " fighting with a rope round their necks." You re- present this as an insult to the new voters, and generally as an unfair description of the position. Yet, as it seems to me, you proceed to make an explanation which is tantamount exactly to the same thing. You say that you cannot pass any Redistribution Bill un- less the Opposition is placed under the pressure of some motive ; and you further explain that motive to be this — that, unless they take your Redistribution Bill, " they may go without." ' This seems to me to be simply a frank confession of the truth of Salisbury's description of the position everyone will be in as regards Redistribution. ' I am not denying the wisdom of the tactics, as such. But it does not seem to me to be fair to blame Salisbury for describing the position in words which mean nothing more than you yourself indicate it to be. ' You argue that the friends of the Franchise Bill would be in exactly a Uke position if they consented to tie the two measures indissolubly together. ' If this be true, then the question reduces itself simply to this : one or other of the two parties must consent to fight with a rope round his neck. Which is it to be ? ' Rather a melancholy result of party Government is the readjustment of matters fundamental in the working of the Constitution. My only ground of hope is that, from what I know of your opinions, I have good reason to expect from you a scheme of Redistribution which shall be within the lines of tradition and of VOL. II. 25 386 THE I'EANCHISE BILL [chat, xliu Constitution, and in this expectation I wish to vote and speak. ' But the whole position is one in which reasonable methods of procedure are sacrificed to the need, real or supposed, of dexterous tactics, in the management of opposing factions. This may be the fact, but it is not a pleasant one,' In the course of the debates on the Franchise Bill in the House of Lords, the Duke spoke in support of the Government measure. To Mr. Gladstone (July 25th, 1884). ' I have had many indications, both in conversation and in letters, of the great anxiety of moderate men on both sides to see some escape from the present state of things. ' My speech, setting forth the principles you had indicated, and the significance thereof, has had far more effect than I at all expected, while, on the other hand, my expression of belief in the reality of the assent given to the new franchise by the Conserva- tives has greatly conciliated them. ' Among others, I have to-day a letter from Lord Wharncliffe, who was chairman, I think, of SaUsbury's meeting at Sheffield, in which he says : " Gladstone has only to satisfy us as to the character of the Redis- tribution Bills and all bother is over." ' Looking to aU the admissions you have made, and all the offers you have sanctioned, acknowledging the justice and expediency of a close succession between the two measures, and of both being dealt with by the old constituencies and not by the new, I do think that you should now prepare to " condescend " upon particulars in the autumn. ' If this great measure of Reform in its two parts is, as you seem to wish it to be, the last great measure of your political career, it is surely a very great object 1881-86] FRANCHISE AND REDISTRIBUTION 387 to get it passed with something approaching to general assent. ' I have replied to Lord Whamcliffe that I firmly believe you to be the only man with authority enough to effect a reasonable settlement in this way. ' The Franchise BiU is every day more and more accepted as settled. This you have gained, and what all men now want to be assured of is the otlxer half.' To Mr. Gladstone [July 29th, 1884). ' I have had a final letter from SaHsbury, shy of making any proposals himself, which he says he could not do without consulting his House of Commons friends, but adding that, without some "P.O." be- tween parties, any Redistribution BiU will be hard to pass, " and passed it must be, by hook or by crook, within a very limited time, as you say." ' This sentence seems to me to admit and to dwell upon the virtual acceptance of the new franchise, as already putting all parties under the compulsion on which you reckoned as the only means of passing the new Bill. ' It is true that the new voters are not actually admitted, but the universal sense that they cannot be kept out for any length of time seems to me to be a consciousness of imminence which wiU, and must, pro- duce pretty much all the pressure on which you reckon. ' Hartington's confession that the new franchise with the old distribution " would not produce a fair representation of the people " is really a confession of the whole case ; and if all parties are equally sensible of this, and if all of them, consequently, dread the one Bill passing into operation without the other, what more can be desired in the way of " rope "?' To Mr. Gladstone {September 6th, 1884). ' I have been in no communication with the Opposi- tion of late. But, of course, I see that the storm of 25—2 388 THE FRANCHISE BILL [ohap. xuii oratory on both sides is tending, as it always does, to exaggeration and mutual injustice. ' I have not yet had time to read your speeches very carefully, but I dispute altogether the fairness of several things you have said about the position of the House of Lords. Personally, I don't care. Some- times I have had almost a wish to end my days as a member of the House of Commons. But so long as the House of Lords exists I shall stand up against prejudice and misrepresentation of its character. It has its own merits, which are substantial ; and the recent tendencies of the House of Commons are well calculated to set off those merits by contrast. ' I have lately had suggestions from distinguished men in your House which show that they look to us to do what they would like to do in the Commons, and which they have not the courage to propose, or, at least, to stand by. ' So long as I write to you on politics, I must write freely, as things occur to me. I do not think the con- tention of the Lords so monstrous as you represent it. The balance of argument is against their course on the whole. But this is my opinion mainly because of my expectation of your handling of Redistribution, and because of my dread of its falling into weaker hands. ' Otherwise they have much to say for themselves, and your candour in explaining that you have wished all parties to be under the halter on that subject, in order that they may all more readily agree to your terms, places Parliament in a position which it may weU resent. It presents Parliament as a body to be dealt with through its fear of consequences ; to be driven by force of circumstances, and not by force of reason. Quite true of almost all bodies of men. But can any Minister insist on such tactics as self-evidently just and reasonable ? ' Meanwhile, I shall continue to do what 1 can to persuade to temperate courses. ' I hope to send to you to-morrow, or next day, copy 1881-86] GENEBAL GORDON AND THE SOUDAN 389 of a paper* in which I have explained the poUcy I have pursued on my island estates towards the " croft- ing " population for thirty-five years. I hope you will find the facts not without interest, although you once did tell me that they had no bearing on questions on which, in my view, they do bear very closely.' The negotiations between the leaders of the two parties on the subject of the Franchise and Redistribu- tion Bills, in which the Duke had taken an important part, were eventually brought to a successful issue. The Franchise Bill passed towards the close of 1884, and the Redistribution Bill shortly afterwards. Early in 1884, when the Mahdi had established his power in the Soudan, the Government sent out General Gordon to rescue the garrisons of Khartoum and some other outlying places, and to ' arrange for the evacua- tion and administration of the province.' On arrival. General Gordon found that it was necessary to ask for some troops in order to demonstrate that he had the support of the Government, and he further tele- graphed : ' If Egypt is to be quiet, the Mahdi must be smashed.' The Government, however, remained inactive, and it was not until popular anxiety for the safety of General Gordon was strongly aroused that a force was despatched for his relief (January 26, 1885). But the delay had been fatal. Before the troops could reach Khartoum, it had fallen, and its brave defender had perished, to the bitterness of death having been added the bitterness of the thought that he had been abandoned by his country. The Duke's opinion regarding the critical position in which General Gordon was placed, owing to the * ' Crofts and Farms in the Hebrides, being an Account of the Management of an Island Estate ' (D. Douglas, 1883). 390 THE SOUDAN [chap, xliii vacillation of the Government, is expressed in the following letter to Lord Granville (April 25th, 1884) : ' My dear Granville, ' I cannot think that all this verbal fencing of Gladstone about Gordon and Khartoum can be wise. Of course, in the case of complicated military opera- tions, it is dangerous to give notice even pi intentions. But this is not a case of that kind. There are certainly only two, probably there is only one way of relieving Gordon by any military operation, and neither of those can possibly be impeded by any knowledge on the part of the Arabs. On the other hand, where moral effect is aimed at, and where it is really aU in all, these per- sistent efforts at circumlocution are simply mischievous. They irritate people at home beyond all endurance, and they dishearten people in Egypt equally. I think I can see what is going on — our chief is retreating with his back to the wall, as he used to do with Palm's Fortifications. He disputes every inch of the ground. His suggestions of delay are of inexhaustible fertility. His power of belief m what he wishes is inexpugnable, but you are dealii^'with dangerous elements in all this. My belief is that a few firm and determined words would do a world of good both in Egypt and in England. I don't want any reply. I write merely to tell you what I think.' On the same subject the Duke wrote (February 25th, 1885) to Lord.Selborne : ' I cannot go up to vote for the Government. I am glad to be away, because, if I voted at all, it would be against the policy and conduct of the Government about the Soudan. ' On the 10th of May last year Gladstone came to dine with me, and as Mrs. G. said he did so to rest, I avoided politics. ' But at the eleventh hour (literally) he suddenly asked me what I thought of the Egyptian papers. 1881-86] GENERAL GORDON 391 ' In the conversation which ensued he expressed himself determinedly and almost bitterly against any military measures for the rehef of the Soudan garrisons, although he admitted the personal claim of Gordon. ' I said to him : " When you speak on Monday, I hope you won't say what you have now said to me." ' I have never been able to sympathize with or to do otherwise than condemn this feeling and policy. ' I think it was our bounden duty, when we in fact imposed the policy of evacuating the Soudan on Egypt, to see to it that the garrisons were withdrawn. ' And even restricting ourselves to the admitted personal claim of Gordon, I see no excuse, or, rather, no sufficient justification, for the long delay from April to August in determining to do what we are now doing — too late. ' It was clear in April that Khartoum was so be- sieged that we could get no open communication witli Gordon. We ought to have concluded he was in great danger, and if the preparations had been begun then, we might have been at least one month earlier, or more. ' It it now the greatest mess that any nation was ever in. ' I fully admit the great difficulties of the question you had to deal with. Every alternative was beset with great objections. But there is one principle by which I hold, and which would have guided you right, and that is our moral responsibility for the whole position after we took the position of dictating the policy of Egypt, and after we had been led (unavoid- ably, perhaps) to destroy her army. ' In this principle I may be right or wrong ; but, holding it to be sound, as I do, I feel it to be as im- possible to vote with the Government on this question as I did on the Irish Land Bill.' The Duke on one occasion had a long interview with General Gordon (then Colonel Gordon) without know- 392 THE SOUDAN [chap, xliii ing that it was the great soldier to whom he was speaking. Colonel Gordon had called at Argyll Lodge to consult the Duke upon a subject unconnected with his official work. It was only after he had left that the Duke discovered that his visitor was the Colonel Gordon whose name was already renowned for his great services to his country, and he always regretted that he had not been aware of the identity of Colonel Gordon at the time of his visit. The following account of his impression at this interview is given in the Duke's own words : ' It was before the time of his greatest fame, but when in a very distant region he had done enough to indicate what manner of man he was. There was, however, nothing in his outward appearance to arrest attention. There was no aspect of command. There was no look of genius in his almost cold gray eye. There was no indication in his calm manner of the fires of God that were slumbering underneath, of the powerful yet gentle nature which was equally at home in the " confused noise " of battle, in the teaching of poor children, or in the comforting of a deathbed. Yet General Gordon was one who even then had saved an Empire, and had rescued by his own individual example and force of character a whole population from massacre and devastation. Not, perhaps, very tractable in council, sometimes almost incoherent in speculative opinion, he was beyond all question a born ruler and king of men — one who in early ages might have been the founder of a nation, the chosen leader of some chosen people on the way from inter- tribal wars and barbarism to peace and Government and law.'* When Parliament met in the month of February, after the tragic death of General Gordon, a vote of * ' Scotland as It Was and as It Is,' p 298. 1881-86] DEFEAT OF THE GOVERNMENT 393 censure was carried against the Government in the House of Lords by a majority of 121. A similar vote in the House of Commons was defeated ; but although the Ministry continued in office, the prestige of the Government suffered from the discredit cast upon Mr. Gladstone's policy in the Soudan, and there was a general feeling of indignation throughout the country when the inevitable result of that policy became known. On June 8th, 1885, the Government was defeated on Mr. Gladstone's Budget BiU, and a C!onservative Ministry was formed under Lord Salisbury. To Mr. Gladstone {July l^th, 1885). ' " The sphere of political opinion " is, as you say, apart from " that of fact and history," and I lose no time in assuring you that in the sphere of fact you write to me under a complete misunderstanding of what I said on Friday night. ' You quote me as ha^ang said that " you had derived your opinions on Free Trade from Sir R. Peel." ' I said nothing of the kind, and I am not reported in the Times as having said so. I am reported as having said that you " had learned the principles of fiscal legislation, which you have carried to so great a development, in the Cabinet of Sir Robert Peel." ' This is a very different thing, though even this may not be verbally accurate. I did not mean that you had learnt them from Sir Robert Peel personally. I simply meant that you had learnt them when you were a member of Sir Robert Peel's Administration. That this was my meaning is rendered clear from the context, where I said that when Peel's fiscal reforms began, his Government knew little of the subject, which is, and has always been, your own testimony. 394 LIBERALISM AND RADICALISM [chap. XLHI ' I am the last man to have said anything in forget- fulness of the originality of your financial genius, or of the motive force which has always lain in it. ' You have, indeed, mistaken the whole point of my reference, which had nothing to do with any distinc- tion between Sir Robert Peel and yourself. My point is equally well served by attributing the whole work to you, because you entered upon that work and carried it on in a Conservative Administration. ' You know as well as I do, and a great deal better, that the leaders of the Liberal party at that time did not take up Free Trade as a party policy till they were forced to do so by party necessities. ' Sir Robert Peel's Administration was formed on the basis of resisting the proposals of Lord John Rus- sell. My sympathies were entirely with you at that time, and they followed you in that gradual sur- render to the Free Trade doctrines of Mr. Cobden, which surrender made that Conservative Government illustrious. ' My sole object was to enforce the doctrine that in the " sphere of history and of fact " we cannot afford to disparage unduly any one of the great parties in the State. They have all contributed something to the progress of the nation, and I have always maintained that the changes initiated by Sir Robert Peel's Ad- ministration were in the highest degree honourable to him and to you, because they were not dictated by mere party interests. * No one was more opposed than I was to the late Opposition when it was last in power. But, as you have yourself said, "it is now the Queen's Govern- ment," and I only follow you " in looking to its future, and not to its past," and in thinking it is a common " duty to support and assist it in doing right, and not to anticipate that it will do wrong." ' I hope there are many other subjects as well as " facts and history " on which we shall always be as able as ever to speak quite freely to each other.' 1881-86] DISCUSSION WITH MR. GLADSTONE 395 To Mr. Gladstone {September 28th, 1885). ' I have been intending to write to you for ages, but I could not do so when we were both yachting. I was yachting, as it so happened, very much in your com- pany, as I had on board a copy of your " Gleanings," and I spent much of my time in reading articles and papers which I read thirty or forty years ago. I did so with immense pleasure, not only for the sake of " auld lang syne," but for their own sake. Some of them are delightful, especially, in my opinion, those which deal with persons, biographies, and examples of human life. ' On the other hand, you •will \mderstand that a few others set up aU my back, and these the oldest and earliest of the series. However, my main desire to write has been with reference to public affairs, in an aspect a httle above any of the momentary questions of the day. ' You recollect your controversy with Lowe in the magazines about the county franchise. I never took much interest in it, because the assimilation of the franchise seemed to me as inevitable as the sunrise or the sunset. But I was struck with the absolute con- fidence you always expressed that all fears of danger from the new constituencies were chimerical and absurd, and that the institutions of the coiuitry would only be strengthened aU round. I never felt the same confidence, but I did feel that we must all just make the best of it. . . . ' So matters rested with me till I got into corre- spondence with you last winter about the dispute with the House of Lords. In one of those letters you ex- pressed very solemnly and very distinctly a feeling of prophetic uneasiness. ... I was much struck and impressed by it, because, although you said you would be " out of it," you predicted a rough time for those who live through the next twenty-five years. Again, in your very last note to me, at the end of this session, 396 LIBERALISM AND RADICALISM [chap, xun you expressed the same presentiment, only adding " perhaps not from the causes which you contemplate." Now, although I am not sure what this meant, I can suppose that the dangers you see ahead are father from above than from below the level of the new democracy. ' Well, I don't care just now to question the main direction of the danger ; probably there are, as usual in storms, two oppositely electrified thunder-clouds. ' But what I do wish to say to you is this : that you have not yet sounded in public any note of warning or alarm. ' I think it cannot be doubted that many of the doctrines now popular are subversive of society as it has hitherto been organized in all civilized countries, and I look in vain for any sound reasoning in favour of those new doctrines. I have never heard you say one word pointing in their direction. . . . ' Your own " manifesto " breathes a dignity of tone and a moderation of sentiment which are worthy of you, and this may affect the atmosphere of the dis- cussions to come. But I do think it is time that, when you speak in greater detail, you should give to the future of our pohtical path something to influence and guide it away from at least gross error. ' Your long fight with " Beaconsfieldism " has, I think, thrown you into antagonism with many political conceptions and sympathies which once had a strong hold upon you. Yet they have certainly no less a share of value and of truth than they ever had, and perhaps they are more needed in face of the present chaos of opinion. ' It is very unlucky that the new franchise comes into operation contemporaneously with a universal depression in all industries. . . . ' It has cost me something to write this letter, because I have been afraid you might think it assum- ing. But I rely on our long friendship, and on my desire that since you have been forced by circum- 1881-86] MR. GLADSTONE AND RADICALISM 397 stances to go into harness when I know you hoped to be out of it, your voice shall be quoted in after- times as having given a permanent and wise direction to " wandering thought." ' To Mr. Gladstone {October 2Ath, 1885). ' Pray do not think that the wee bit of politics in my last letter was intended to convey what you have construed out of it — namely, that I wished you to retire now, and refuse the lead. I do not feel the least entitled to give any advice on that subject, and, moreover, I am far too sensible of the gravity of the position all round to be able to make up my own mind conclusively one way or the other as to what is most desirable. But one thing I can say sincerely, which is this : that if you really mean to steer, even though you cannot handle the ropes, you may do an immensity of public service, but on one condition — that you make your own mind and will a real force in determining opinion, in leading it in right directions. ' What I pointed out in my last was simply the fact that, while the moderate Liberals have been swearing by your programme, your Radical allies have not been treating it with even decent respect, wherever it fails to please them. ' What I foresee as a danger is that they will use your name and influence to secure the reversion of leadership, and the future of opinion, in their own favour. ' There are subjects on which silence is not enough to prevent this. ' In theological questions I observe one prominent teaching of yours — namely, that each generation can- not go back on the " fundamentals " for itself ; that the past gains of mankind and of the Church must be accepted, and not re-discussed and re-proved over and over again. Don't you think the same sound Con- servative doctrine is applicable in politics ? 398 LIBERALISM AND RADICALISM [chap, xuii ' Yet the fundamentals of personal liberty, and of property, and of legislative authority are now all thrown into the crucible of discussion, and the worst heresies are taught by the men whom you are to lead. ' " Let us postpone this " is the word of command now. I don't think this is possible, nor, if it were possible, do I think it enough. Men's minds are being led to consider certain proposals as " open questions " which ought to be as much " closed " as the Deca- logue.' To Mr. Gladstone {December 9th, 1885). ' I cannot lose a post without asking you, What on earth has the aristocracy been doing that you should write such a scream of woe over them ? Has there been any sudden desertion by peers from the Liberal party ? I have heard of none. ... I have not heard of any event to account for your attack. ' I am where I was. I agree almost wholly with the creed which I beHeve to be the creed of men like Goschen and Hartington. ' I have known you now intimately for some thirty- two years. During all that time, never but once have I heard you say one word of an intolerant kind on subjects of religion, even as regards those with whom you differed most. Yet now, on politics, you write in private and you speak in public as if all who differ from your party must be either rogues or fools ! "It was not always thus." I have been just reading over my old political letters. I see that in 1856-1858 you seemed to all of us who were then in a (so-called) Liberal Government on the point of rejoining the Con- servatives, and at that time it was beheved by us that if Herbert and Graham would have gone with you, you would have done so. ' Well, why not ? You disapproved of our policy, you disliked isolation. I could not have blamed you. But nothing of this kind is happening now with any peers, so far as I know. 1881-86] THE GOVERNING CLASSES AND REFORM 399 ' Has it come to this, that we cannot disagree with wholly new doctrines advocated by ill-liberals with- out being denounced by you ? Does all the moral element in politics point in favour of these new doc- trines ? ' You once broke out to me in private against the bias of " property." Has leadership no bias ? The tactics of keeping men together for a time who are really driving at wholly different ends ? And must aU of us who have brains of our own keep an absolute sUence when those whose views form opinion are forming it in a thoroughly wrong and false direction ? ' I have written this in a hurry, without weighing every word, or indeed any word much. But must we deal in these assumptions of superior rectitude and wisdom at this moment ? We have a greater crisis before us than any since the Revolution. ' I am determined not to move in any direction except towards keeping the peace with each other till we have disposed of the common enemy.' To Mr. Gladstone (December 18th, 1885). ' I must not delay longer answering your last political letter, because I see that you don't in the least under- stand the attitude of mind which is my own, and which I believe to be the attitude of many, many others. ' I find in your letter three propositions. To No. 1 of these I give my " imfeigned assent and consent." No. 2 I reject, like dear old Sir R. Inglis, when he took the P.O. oath, with a deep grunt of assent, " as a damnable doctrine." Of No. 3 I can only say that it is at least open to reply. ' The three propositions are these : ' First, that it is most important that the old " governing classes " and aristocracy should continue to be among the leaders in progress and reform. To this I say Amen. ' Second, that these classes must accept whatever 400 LIBERALISM AND RADICALISM [chap, xliu may be accepted by the " Liberal party " as con- stituting Liberalism from time to time. ' I never can and never will accept this doctrine. I have seen too much how it comes about that this, that, or the other policy comes to be part of the programme for the time being. ' I repeat what I said last year — that, with the single exception of .your own early financial reforms, which were due to pure intellectual conviction, every item of Liberal policy for many years has been taken up under the pressures and inducements of some party move. You know it was so with the Whigs about Protection in Peel's time. It has been so ever since ; avowedly so in respect to the county franchise. Tre- velyan proclaimed it openly when he first took it up. ' The ultramontane theory of the Catholic Church asserts a corporate consciousness which develops doc- trine under Divine guidance, and all Catholics are to bow to its decrees as new dogmas become ripe for definition. ' As regards theology, you have repudiated this doctrine and denounced it. ' Yet, in pohtics, you seem to have adopted it, and your " Liberal party " comes into a place and authority analogous to that of the Catholic Church. Rosebery expressed it with beautiful simplicity when he said in some speech this year, " Whatever wave of public opinion we see advancing, for Heaven's sake let us be on the crest of it !" ' And this is called leadership ! This brings me to proposition No. 3 which I see in your letter. It is this : that it is the withdrawal or secession or cooLaess of the old Liberals that deprives you of the means of resisting Radicahsm. . . . ' To this let me apply my own experience, which is, that the coolness of old Liberals has followed after, and has not preceded, a manifest giving way to heresies and " deviations " of all kinds from the sound Liberal creed. 1881-86] GLADSTONE AND RADICALISM 401 ' I speak from a painful personal experience. I left you, after a great struggle, on one particular question. But for months before, from the moment our Govern- ment was fairly under way, I saw and felt that speeches outside were allowed to affect opinion, and practically to commit the Cabinet, in a direction which was not determined by you deliberately, or by the Government as a whole, but by the audacity and want of poHtical honour of our new associates. ' Month by month I became more and more uncom- fortable, feeling that there was no paramount direc- tion, nothing but slip and slide — what Scotsmen call " slithering." ' The outside world, knowing your great gifts and powers, assumes that you are dictator in your own Cabinet. And in one sense you are so — -that is to say that when you choose to put your foot down others will give way. ' But your amiability to colleagues, your even ex- treme gentleness towards them, while it has always endeared you to them personally, has enabled men playing their own game and sitting loose to former codes of honour to take out of your hands to a great extent the formation of opinion. . . . ' I maintain, therefore, that it is not Liberal seces- sion that can or does sincerely cripple you in resisting Radicalism. It is simply silence and sufferance on your own part, a too passive attitude, which does not do justice to the immense influence over opinion which you are capable of exerting. . . . ' The assumption that every man calling himself " Liberal " is a greatly superior being to every man calling himself " Conservative " is an assumption which I see to be at variance with fact and truth.' VOL. n. 26 CHAPTER XLIV 1881-93 HOME RULE The greater part of the Duke's political correspon- dence during the critical years immediately following the introduction of the Irish Land Act had reference to affairs in Ireland. The policy of the Government made the gulf between him and his former leader an ever widening one. The Duke had acquiesced in the Land Act of 1870 in order to avert social disturbance, which would have been an even greater evil ; but he could not consent to be a party to the Act of 1881, and he had accordingly resigned. To Mr. Gladstone he wrote (December 6th, 1881) : ' Those who are alarmed, as I am, by the condition of Ireland have, in the meantime, to support the Govern- ment in suppressing the reign of ruffianism. I may think, and I do think, that where the disease is a universal unsettlement of mind and of opinion it was a terrible aggravation of the evil to speak and to legislate in a way so alien to clear and definite concep- tions on the fundamental principles on which society rests. Some day I may have something to put down on this aspect of the question. But in the meantime I wish to be silent if I can, and to limit my endeavours to prevent the spread of the mischief which has been done.' 402 1881-93] CONCESSIONS TO IRELAND 403 To Mr. Gladstone [May 2^th, 1882). ' I know you set a small value on the opinion of men who are " up in a balloon " ; nevertheless, it may not always be a bad post of observation. ' I write one line to express an opinion only on one point, and that is, the immense importance, as it seems to me, of not giving way on the duration of the new law for the protection of Hfe and property in Ireland. Be the apparent success of any such law what it may, it cannot effect the work of settlement in one year, and the annual debates on questions which cut so deep are a supreme evil. It is really despairing to see how men's opinions on the necessity of such measures are affected by the daily bulletin of crime from Ireland. If there are four or five con- secutive days without a murder or other conspicuous outrage, people begin to breathe, and say, " Oh, things are on the mend !" It is possible that the fear of this new measure may of itself, for a moment, produce an abatement. But I should have no confidence in its continuance, and if the whole controversy is to be renewed from session to session, there wiU be no paralysis of crime, but only a too certain paralysis of ParUament. ' I have heard no rumour of any intention on your part to give way on this point. But it is just the sort of compromise which the Radical section will be apt to grasp at and to press upon you.' Shortly afterwards the Duke, in a letter to Lord Dufferin (August 1st, 1882), implied that he did not exonerate his former leader from aU responsibility for Irish disorders : ' I believe Gladstone eases his conscience by the argument that had it not been for the Irish Land BUI there would have been a universal strike against rent all over Ireland, and that he has saved the landlords 26—2 404 HOME EULE [ohap. xuv from a great social revolution at the sacrifice of an average 20 per cent. ' This is all very well, except that it omits the fact (as I believe it to be) that the social revolution was greatly due to the language of his own party, and (at least) to his complicity by silence.' To Mr. Gladstone {April 25th, 1886). ' The only temptation I feel to Home Rule is the temptation of getting rid of the Parnellites at West- minster. If experiments in the government of man- kind were a legitimate amusement it would be most entertaining to see what follies an Irish Parliament would indulge in. I should aUow them to try " pro- tection " much rather than leave them free to try " plunder." All this would be most amusing ! ' But one cannot indulge in such play with a good conscience. At least, I cannot. I believe in what you told us of the PameUite party in 1881 and 1882, and up to a more recent date, and I have seen no evidence whatever to justify or account for any change of opinion. This being so, it is with me a matter of personal honour not to hand over Ireland to their sway, merely to get rid of a bad crew from Westminster, or to look on upon an experiment which wiU involve the liberty and property of our feUow-countrymen.' To Mr. Gladstone {May Ath, 1886). ' Your letter of April 29th only reached me this morning, having been forwarded from Scotland. It has surprised me very much, because, until I received it, I did not know that any doubt could be entertained as to the truth of my statement that up to the last General Election "you had been loud in your denuncia- tion of the PameUite policy, both social and political." You now ask me for a proof of this allegation, and I at once respond to your appeal in so far as, on the instant, I have the materials for doing so at hand. 1881-93] THE PAENBLLITE POLICY 405 ' "The Parnellite policy" has been expressed in a thousand different forms from the commencement of yonr last Government. It became exceedingly active and pronounced after you had accomplished the passing of your last Land Act. In defence of your own Act, you took the field against the Parnellite policy, de- nouncing its author and all his works in many speeches, which were as unsparing in their severity as they were truthful in their description. ' These speeches were delivered chiefly in the year 1881, but the substance of them was repeated in the House of Commons on the 25th of May, 1882, in a speech in which you denounced the Parnellite policy in the person of Mr. Dillon, and in which you described his demand for the abandonment of coercion as a demand " that no Bill of restraint is to be introduced against any evil-doers whatever in Ireland." ' From this date to the close of your last Govern- ment, the Parnellite policy was under the strong restraints which you then placed upon it, and both the legislative and executive action of your Government superseded the necessity of farther speeches. ' When your last Government feU, and when, a few months afterwards, the General Election came on, you appealed, I think in more speeches than one, to the Liberal party to give you such a following as might enable you to command an ample majority even over a Tory and ParnelHte combination. ' I have not now before me all those speeches, but I have a distinct recollection of one in which you said you would not trust your own party itself, if it were placed in such circumstances of temptation as to have to lean upon the support of the Parnellite party. ' The severity of tone in which you spoke of the ParnelHtes, when occasion led you to do so, did not, to my eye, present any contrast or even any change since your speeches of 1881 and 1882. There seemed to be a perfect continuity, and in one speech, delivered, I think, in Edinburgh on November 23rd, 1885, I find 406 HOME RULE [chap, xuv a passage in which you spoke almost bitterly of the personal power, amounting to compulsion, which you expected Mr. Parnell to exercise over voters in Ireland. No one cotild have anticipated from that speech that you should now characterize the late election in Ireland as specially a " constitutional " expression of national opinion. The words I refer to are these : " Let him order every Irishman to vote against every Liberal, let him pour out floods of vituperation and abuse, yet he and his party know perfectly weU that all these actions, all these words, will not have the slightest effect on the policy of the Liberal party," ' Taking these words in connection with a whole series of transactions, perfectly continuous, through the whole period of your last Government, and in con- nection with the farther fact that, as far as I know, you had never given any indication of any change of opinion respecting the Parnellite policy, I submit to yoxu" fairness that I had reasonable grounds for my assertion that "up to the last General Election you were loud in your denunciation " of that policy.' When Mr. Gladstone, in reply to this communication, argued that his silence between 1882 and 1885 regard- ing the Irish members showed that he did not entertain such opinions as the Duke ascribed to him previous to the opening of the Home Rule question, the -Duke replied, first in a personal letter, and secondly in a letter to the Pall Mall Gazette, both of the date May 6th, 1886. To Mr. Gladstone. ' Your letter places me in a difficulty, because it puts a value and a significance on your silence between 1882 and November, 1885, which you may have a perfect right to place upon it, but which, on the other hand, no one else can be expected to recognise who was not in the secrets of your mind. 1881-93] MR. Gladstone's silence 407 ' The natural course would be to publish our corre- spondence with a reply from me to your last. But I don't think that your letters were written with this in view, or in terms exactly suitable for publication. ' Therefore, I think my best course would be to write a letter to the Pall Mall setting forth the grounds of my original allegation, and then simply admitting as a fact that during the interval between the release of Mr. Parnell and the late election you had abstained from denunciations of Mr. Parnell and his party. I wish to avoid personal controversy with you, but I cannot give up my contention that your party and old friends have just ground of complaint against your leadership on the Irish question, and I need not say that this complaint I regard as much deepened and aggravated since you have denounced us all in your late manifesto. ' But for any sake let us keep free from private and personal controversy. I therefore confine myself strictly to the acknowledgment of a fact, leaving all further comment to public utterances on a public matter. ' I send you now a copy of the letter I am prepared to write to the Pall Mall. If you prefer a publication of the whole correspondence, I could easily turn it, in form, into a letter to you.' A letter followed (May 9th, 1886) in which the Duke acknowledged his blindness as to the meaning of that silence. It was not the silence which meant the continuance of old opinions, but the silence that covered a profound change of opinion : ' We may have all been moles and bats not to read between the lines both of your abstentions and of your utterances. But, as a matter of fact, we were all absolutely blind ; and though I thought you might propose something new on the lines of " local govern- ment," not one of us outsiders had the slightest 408 HOME RTJLE [ohap. xuv conception that you would think of a separate Parlia- ment. This is as much a fact as your interval of silence towards Parnell. ' There is only one general consideration which I wish you to bear in mind, and that is that un- avoidably the controversy must turn largely on your utterances, for the simple reason that you are almost the only moving force in the political changes of the day. . , . ' This is a condition of things which distresses me extremely, because of the personality which it imports into poUtics. I hope you wiU recognise the fact of your own pre-eminence leaving us no choice whatever. When you fire red-hot shot into aU who differ from you on this great constitutional contest, we must be free to reply with aU the arms in our hands.' The Duke did not allow his opposition to Mr. Glad- stone's Home Rule policy to interfere with his personal friendship for his old leader. In letters to Mr. Bright he expresses his feeHngs on this subject, knowing that they would be understood and shared by one who was also strongly attached to Mr. Gladstone. To Mr. John Bright {January 3rd, 1887). ' I have several times, during the last year, been on the point of writing to you, if only to tell you of the satisfaction it gave me to see the line you have taken in the great controversy which our common friend Gladstone has sprung upon us aU. ' I observe with entire sympathy the reluctance you have expressed to speak aU your mind upon the subject, because of your old love and regard for him. I have felt this most deeply, perhaps aU the more because in private life I have had more constant and intimate relations with him than with any other for the space now of nearly forty years. 1881-93] LETTER EROM MR. BRIGHT 409 ' But I hold that both the nature of the question at issue, and the intemperate manner in which he has handled it, as well as the freedom he has taken himself in dealing with his old friends, set us all in a position of equal freedom to deal with both the question on its merits and with the tactics he has brought to bear upon it. ' With this feeling I wrote to him last spring a passage (in a letter) of which I enclose a copy. ' I confess to much anxiety about the result. He has the advantage of an aUiance with a powerful disinte- grating element in the heart of the House of Commons. People are much inclined to say, " Anything better than a continuance of this," ' From Mr. Bright (January 9th, 1887). ' My dear Duke oe Argyll, ' I must thank you for your friendly and interesting letter, and yet I know not what to say in reply. ' There seems to me in Mr. Gladstone's conduct on this great question so much that is doubtful and blameable that I find myself unable to discuss it in public without sajdng what must be as painful to him to hear or to read as it would be to me to speak. ' I am anxious about the result. The weakness of the Government as a Government is apparent, and their weakness in the House of Commons on the Treasury Bench is deplorable. I wish Lord SaUsbury were in our House instead of in yours. I am anxious, too, about the coming " conference." Harcourt and Morley will speak and act for their chief, and may have positive instructions ; but I do not know for whom Chamberlain and Trevelyan will speak and act. ' It is not said that they have consulted Lord Hartington, and if the result of the conference is to bring Chamber- lain and Trevelyan to support Mr. Gladstone as against the Government on questions apart from Irish affairs, 410 HOME EULE [chap, tltv then we may not have a change of Government, but another dissolution of Parliament, and confusion worse confounded. Mr. Gladstone has broken up three Governments and brought about two dissolutions within twelve months. I know of no Minister or statesman in our history who has done so much and caused so much disorder. If the constituencies think Ireland only is in fault, they may, in disgust, give Ireland what her rebel party ask for ; if they discover that their great statesman is in fault, they may in a more signal manner withdraw their confidence from him. ' As to the Land question, I do not see what more can be done. The last Act — Trevelyan's or Lord Ash- bourne's — ^is extravagant in its concessions to the tenants, and hardly less so to the landowners, and it makes progress ; and but for the rebel conspirators it would do all that is necessary to enlarge the number of proprietors, which for thirty years past I have urged as the true pohcy in deahng with Ireland. ' I have lately been reading the hves of Wolfe Tone, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, and Robert Emmet. They were mad enough in purstiit of an impossible object, but I think they were better men than ParneU and his immediate followers. They did not seek to destroy all sense of honour and honesty, nor did they succeed so completely in demoralizing the people who trusted in them. ' I thank you for your good wishes. Pray accept mine for yourself and yours.' To Mr. Bright {January Uth, 1887). ' I feel all the difficulty you feel as to speaking or writing quite freely, when, of necessity, much that has to be said must be directed against our old friend. ' But I would very earnestly impress on you, as I try to do on myself, that the interests of truth and righteousness are very much concerned in all that is now at stake, and that even our best " partial affec- tions " must not be allowed to stand in our way. 1881-93] LETTER TO THE ' TIMES ' 411 ' Gladstone himself certainly sets an example of extreme freedom in dealing with all who refuse to follow him.' From time to time the Duke delivered powerful speeches, both in Parliament and in the country, on the question occupying public attention. He also wrote occasional letters to the Times, deaHng with con- troversial points. Two letters are here quoted on the subject of Home Rule : To the ' Times ' {December 26th, 1885). ' There is no more striking proof of the unprepared- ness of the public mind on the whole of this subject than the innocence with which we see the question asked : " Why should we not let the Irish manage their own affairs ?" sancta simplicitas ! The as- sumption that we can solve as easily as a child's puzzle one of the most difficult, intricate, and complicated problems that can arise in the science of human govern- ment is an assumption indicative of that profound ignorance which does not see even the first conditions of the problem. To perambulate the marches of local authority, to draw the line between that which is and that which is not of imperial interest in a society which is to be one Government over its own people, and in the face 6f the world — this is a work requiring the very highest skill and the very deepest insight. Hitherto none of us have been called to deal with it, or even to think of it. Is it possible that men's thoughts have become so loose and slovenly on the functions of government that foreign affairs are roughly assumed to be aU that is of Imperial interest ? Is it possible that our notions of Empire are so degenerate that we do not think it an essential part of it that all the subjects of the Crown should live under equal laws, and be assured of the primary conditions of human freedom ? Do not let us be led astray by false analo- 412 HOME EULE [chap, xliv gies. Our relations with otir colonies have nothing to do with it. Those of them to whom self-government has been committed are virtually independent States. Nothing but bonds of sentiment unite us, together with some, I hope, growing feeUngs of a common interest. These in time may produce a Federal Con- stitution of some sort. But the inexorable conditions of physical geography, as well as social and economic differences of condition, forbid that in the strictest and fullest sense we can ever form with them one Govern- ment. The same inexorable conditions of physical geography are reversed in the case of Ireland, and absolutely demand there a kind and a measure of con- nection which is impossible farther off. The United States alone, of aU the nations of the earth, must in this matter be our great exemplar. Let us consider for a moment some of the differences between that case and the case of Home Rule in Ireland. ' The spirit in which all human institutions are con- ceived at first, and in which they are worked from in- side, makes the whole difference between success and failure. If the spirit be one not of attraction but of repulsion, it is more than questionable whether any mere machinery wiU keep nations or States together. But, again, look at the sort of machinery which, so far as we know, has as yet been contemplated. Sup- posing the lines to be well and firmly drawn between affairs which are Irish only and affairs which concern the honour and interests of the Empire, who is to enforce respect to those fines ? Who is to keep the marches ? There is to be a veto, it is said, or assent is to be required to Irish Acts, given by an Imperial Cabinet or by an Imperial Parliament. ' Does any man imagine that it will be possible to keep this question of assent or of veto out of the region of party pofitics at Westminster ? And if not, then how much of the time of Parfiament would continue to be occupied by Irish affairs ? Would not one or other of two things inevitably happen : either that we 1881-93] LETTER TO THE ' TIMES ' 413 should wash our hands of all responsibility and give our assent as a matter of course to everything done, however unwise and however unjust, or else that we should keep our responsibihty at the cost of continual strain and of increasing exasperation ? 'And, then, have we considered what sort of measures we should assuredly have either to assent to or resist ? Protective duties and a hostile tariff have been an- nounced already. One eminent Liberal is said to have threatened retaUatory duties on our side as inevitable in such a case. This is a concession to fair trade which curiously illustrates the reaction on our own pohtics which wiU certainly arise. ' Then, again, there is the whole question of religion. For my own part, I think we have sinned in this matter. Both as regards the priesthood and as regards denomi- national education, we have forgotten that Ireland is what is called a " Cathohc " people. Our voluntarjrism and our ultra-Protestantism have combined to force upon them what passes for Liberalism in these matters. ' Again, on questions lying deeper stUl — on the funda- mental principles of all civihzed societies, questions affecting the freedom of industry, the security of pro- perty and of personal liberty in every form — are we prepared to take even that share of responsibihty which is imphed in a formal assent to all that may be done in Ireland ? Is there no share of oiir own honour involved ? Are we to confess that what the British Constitution has hitherto guaranteed to aU its people we are henceforth unable or unwilUng to maintain ? And then let us ask further, Axe we to make this con- fession, not only with respect to Ireland, but with respect to Great Britain also ? Are Irish members, besides being supreme over their own affairs, to be allowed to hold the balance over ours too ? If not, then we must have a new Constitution, framed for the ParUament at Westminster, as well as for the Parha- ment in Dublin. The line of division between that 414 HOME RULE [chap, xliv which is imperial and that which is not imperial must be drawn again, so as to exclude here that which is included across the water. Who is sufficient for these things ? Is there any party to which we can, with the least confidence, commit a task so entirely novel, so absolutely without precedent or preparation in any part of our national history ? Nay, it may well be asked whether in the very nature of things such a problem is not insoluble, and whether the only possible result of attempting such impossible combinations would not be an infinite preference on both sides in favour of total separation ? H: if: dt: ^ if: ' Of one thing the Irish may be sure, and that is that the estrangement is all on their side. There is nobody of the least consequence on this side of the Channel who does not desire above aU things in domestic politics to see them prosperous and con- tented, sharing in the glories and in the duties of an Empire which so many Irishmen have nobly served in ParHament, and in the field, and in the walks of literature and of science.' To the ' Times ' {June Uth, 1886). ' If ever there was a work requiring more absolutely than another the very highest gifts of intellect and of reason, the widest historical knowledge, and the severest training in the observation of affairs, it is the work ujidertaken by the Ministry with a light heart and without time to prepare their own minds or the mind of the nation. ' The result has corresponded with such levity and presumption. I will not say with Mr. Spurgeon that the scheme is one which might have emanated from the brain of a madman. This is an exaggeration of the pulpit or of the platform. But it may certainly be said with absolute truth that the scheme shows none of the great mental powers and gifts which are alone 1881-93] LETTEB TO THE ' TIMES ' 415 adequate to deal with such a task. If it had been necessary to draw up a paper Constitution for some perfectly new community, good-natured, sweet-blooded, and willing to be subordinate to Great Britain, with no previous history, no passions, no animosities, and no special temptations to violent conduct or to an- archical opinions, the Constitution drawn up by the Ministry might have been about as good and about as bad as the most commonplace poUtician could have invented in a week. Such ingenuity as there is seems to be drawn from ecclesiastical organizations, whose objects, diflficidties, and conditions are aU absolutely different from those of a Parliamentary Assembly. ' I do not stop, however, to argue this matter. It has been settled by authority. If there be such a thing as authority in the poUtical instincts and reason of an ancient and a glorious pohtical society, it has pronounced in this case, by almost universal consent, against the whole of the confused machinery and the unworkable devices of the Ministry. Mr. Bright' s declaration is literally true — ^that not twenty men in the House of Commons would have ever stopped to look at it if it had come from any other work- man. . . . ' The very first thing which the Ministry set its prentice hand to do was to devise a new " funda- mental law," a new written Constitution for Great Britain and Ireland. At some six weeks' notice this wonderful structure was elaborated within some room in Downing Street by a few selected Ministers, and with, I suppose, a draftsman. With this preparation and Avith this apparatus, the Constitution, which has been growing for a thousand years, is puUed about and meddled with in the very keystones of all its arches. The structure of Parliament, the powers of taxing, the principles of representation, the relations between executive and legislative functions, the power of local bodies to dispose of the liberty and property of the Queen's subjects on principles imknown to the civihzed 416 HOME RULE [chap, xliv laws of our ancient imperial realm, the exclusion of a whole kingdom from aU concern in some of the highest functions of Government — all these deep things and foundation-stones of every poHtical society are tossed about and tumbled with a Hght heart, and with as light a hand, until the result is presented to our astonished gaze in one great shambling and unsightly building, which we are to adopt and accept as a sub- stitute for the ancient palaces of a Constitution known and loved for centuries. . . . ' The intellectual quaHties exhibited in these sayings and proposals do indeed excite our astonishment. But I venture to think they do not challenge our admiration, stiU less do they attract our confidence. And surely our misgivings must increase when we encounter another fact, which is this, that the master builder of this new erection tells us that he is unable to solve the one great problem which he took in hand. That problem is to provide for two great political bodies a place of common habitation, but of separate and adjusted work. For this purpose it is the first necessity of a successful organization that the scheme should indicate with some tolerable clearness that which is to be done by one of them and that which is to be left to the other. The distinction between what is local and what is imperial is of the essence of the whole scheme. Yet, strange to say, the Prime Minister declares : "I have thought much, reasoned much, and inquired much, with regard to that dis- tinction. I had hoped it might be possible to draw a distinction, and I have arrived at the conclusion that it cannot be drawn. I believe it passes the wit of man ; at any rate, it passes, not my wit alone, but the wit of many with whom I have communicated." This would at least be modest if it were also con- sistent. But here, again, we are met by another wonder. The distinction which it is impossible to draw at Westminster is assumed to be easily drawn in Dublin.' 1881-93] OPINIONS ON HOME RULE 417 The first of these letters to the Times is referred to by the Duke of Bedford and Mr. Goschen as fol- lows : ' Dear Duke of Argyll, ' Let me thank you most gratefully for having spoken at a moment when action is becoming neces- sary and requires guidance. Timemus populum ! Plebs lapidabit nos ! appears to paralyze our poli- ticians. ' I was looking about for a leader when you wrote. ' Yours very truly, ' Bedeord.' From Mr. Goschen {December Slst, 1885). ' I admire your letter to the Times immensely, and agree with every word of it. I think it cannot fail to make an impression. The point now is to awaken the country to what the Irish demands really mean, and to analyze what it means to allow the Irish to " manage their own affairs." I saw some merchants, etc., from Dubfin yesterday, who came over to see me, and expose the dangers of Home Rule from their point of view. I told them that nothing was more important than to convince the Enghsh pubHc that the question is not one of landowning merely, that there are menaces, not only to unpopular landlords, but to property of every kind. . . . ' It wiU be a curious thing if within a few weeks of the meeting of Parliament Gladstone should be speaking on one side and the rest of us on the other as to the Irish demands.' These words indicate the increasing divergence of opinion which was separating Mr. Gladstone from many of his former supporters. The Duke always repudiated the idea that the Unionists were dis- sentients ; he looked upon Mr. Gladstone and those VOL. n. 27 418 HOME RULE [chap, xliv who adhered to him as having abandoned the old Liberal faith. This is the subject of a small volume which was published by the Duke in 1888, entitled ' The New British Constitution and its Master Builders,' from which the following passage is quoted : ' A few leaders of the Liberal party have fallen with him under this foreseen temptation. . . . They have carried with them — reluctant, helpless, strugghng, distracted, protesting, and openly dissentient on points of primary importance — a large number of old ad- herents. The former leader has now to confess that his following is "a shattered and disunited party." It is so because they have been led against the im- pregnable batteries of truth and duty. Fortunately, not a few of our former leaders, and some of the very best, are our leaders stiU. Our former friends have left the great cause in which we fought together. From that cause they have been deserters. In so deserting, we think they have been untrue to the great traditions of pubhc virtue, without which freedom and hberty are but empty names. We remain con- sentient with those traditions. We are consentient with aU the great men and with aU the great generations which have built up the pohty of one great Empire out of three united kingdoms. We shall respond to any and to every appeal which may be made to us to con- sider this tremendous subject of Irish government in a reverent and a reasonable spirit. Nothing shotdd be refused to Ireland which in itself is just. In educa- tion, for example, as one great subject of local govern- ment, I think we have failed, and Mx. Gladstone has failed, conspicuously. But we recognise no such reasonable spirit in the demand of any man or of any party to be allowed to dig down to the " very roots of our Constitution, both civil and poUtical," upon a claim of purely personal confidence. Still less do we recognise any such spirit in a haughty refusal to tell us what they mean to do or to propose when they 1881-93] CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL 419 have been hoisted into power. Our demand to know all this beforehand is a demand upon which it is our duty to insist. That it should be refused and resisted as a " trap " seems to us to be unjustifiable in the highest degree. If party leaders have rights, they have also duties. It is not one of those duties to start suddenly upon the people of this country a new paper Constitution, which its author admits to involve principles as absolutely novel to them as the differential calculus. We have now had time to look at that production, round and round ; we see that it involves proposals which offend our reason, and which revolt our conscience.' Speaking (July 15th, 1887) in the House of Lords, in support of the second reading of the Criminal Law (Ireland) Amendment Bill, the Duke said : ' No man can deny the state of things in Ireland, whether or not he may choose to call it terrorism. Terrorism has been rendered so perfect that crime has ceased to be necessary. Is there any remedy for this state of things ? I listened carefully to the speech of my noble friend the leader of the Opposition, as I thought he might say what they say out of doors : " We have got a remedy in our pockets which will do everjrthing." He did not say that he had a measure which would render this Bill unnecessary, but I wish to press this point upon your Lordships' attention, that on the part of the leader of the Opposition there is no alternative scheme for the redemption of the people from the thraldom of the system under which they are now suffering. It is most important that the pubHc should understand that there was a scheme : that two BiUs were produced, the production of which ended in the complete defeat of the Government in ParHament. The very first thing they did after- wards was to announce that both those BiUs were gone. I say that they are not entitled to claim that 27—2 420 HOME RTTLE [chap, xliv they have an alternative scheme. They have vague and empty phrases- — ambiguous phrases which no human being can understand. But it is most im- portant the public should understand there is no rival scheme before the country to put an end to the crime in Ireland. We had two most remarkable speeches last week — one by Mr. Gladstone and the other by Mr. John Morley, the two great apostles and prophets of the PameUite party in this country. Both clearly show that the great principles on which the scheme of Mr. Gladstone was based have been aban- doned. We do not know — can any human being tell us ? — whether there is any scheme before us. But, on the other hand, we do know that the Irish members wiU be retained in this ParHament. That is at the root of the whole question. Most people will think that Mr. Gladstone was originally quite right, that if there was to be a separate Parliament in Ireland, we ought not to have the Irish members here to dictate to us. But Mr. Gladstone has now made an announce- ment on the subject, though in very ambiguous terms. Poor Mr. John Morley undertook to explain the other day what Mr. Gladstone said at Swansea, and the upshot of his explanation was that Mr. Gladstone's proposal was now the converse of that made by Mr. Whitbread. That is all we know of that part of the scheme which lies at the root of the whole business. But they resort a great deal to general phrases. A favourite stock phrase is " the management by the Irish people of exclusively Irish affairs." There are a great many people who open their eyes wide and believe that they have got something better than the east wind when they have swallowed that phrase. They offer no definition of Irish affairs, and we do not know what they mean by it. Is it purely an Irish affair that Irishmen shotild hold the property to which they are entitled ? Is it purely an Irish affair that, under the Imperial Government of the Queen, every Irishman should be free to dispose of his property and 1881-93] SPEECH IN HOUSE OF LORDS 421 his liberty as he pleases, and not as a secret con- spiracy pleases ? Then we ask you to explain what is an exclusively Irish subject. When the Land BiU was before the House of Commons it was pointed out in a powerful speech by Sir Henry James that under Mr. Gladstone's scheme every part of the Land Act of 1881 might be put in question. I understand Mr. Gladstone to say that that was a mistake, and was not so intended. I beHeve the truth was that there is to be a clause prohibiting the Irish ParHa- ment from deahng with the landlords. Surely these things ought to be made known. I should like to know whether it is a purely Irish question whether men who hold land under charters dating from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries are to be deprived of their property. I certainly should regard that question as one of imperial and not of merely Irish interest. We have a state of things in Ireland that is terrible, and the leaders of the Opposition do not pretend that they have a scheme that will put an end to that state of things. ' I am not now talking of mere changes of opinion which must happen from time to time. There has been a complete forgetfulness of everything, a com- plete repudiation of those things which go down deep to the very foundation of society. We have seen during the last eighteen months four or five gentlemen sitting round a green table at Westminster and drawing up a new edition of the British Constitution. Such a thing has never been adopted before, go back as far in our history as you please. There have been no brand - new constitutions given to the foundation of society ; and it was, therefore, unprecedented, unjustifiable, immeasurable presump- tion. The greatest of Mr. Gladstone's construc- tions was the famous Budget of 1853. I do not deny that the measure disestablishing the Irish Church showed immense constructive power, but in that case he had to deal with a Christian Church, and all he 422 HOME RULE [chap, xuv had to do was to divide the spoil. In this case he has attempted to reconstitute a whole Constitution, to make a brand-new system of government for the three kingdoms. Not even he was adequate to these things. I shall vote for this Bill, because I wish to secure for every individual of the Irish people the liberties which have come down to them under the imperial system. I wish that every peasant in Donegal and every peasant in Kerry shall be free under an imperial system to dispose of his property and of his labour as he thinks fit.' From another speech in the House of Lords (July 12th, 1888) : ' Great constitutional questions are now being agi- tated. It is now little more than two years since the leaders of the then Liberal party — or, rather, I should say, a few of the leaders of the Liberal party — announced their sudden conversion to the ParnelUte doctrine with regard to the government of Ireland. My Lords, I am not going to deny the legitimacy of any sudden conversion of that kind ; I only wish to point out that there had been, so far as I know, no precedent whatever in our poHtical history for so sudden and so violent a conversion. Many of us are old enough to recollect — perhaps too many of us, according to the hint given by my noble friend on this side of the House the other night — perhaps too many of us are old enough to remember two other occasions in which great conversions took place — one on CathoHc emancipation and one on the repeal of the Com Laws. Neither of these conversions could com- pare with this. On both those great questions there had been long preparation and discussion. Very bitter feehngs, no doubt, were aroused by the conver- sion in both cases, but there was in them nothing so sudden, nothing so violent, nothing that affected such fundamental questions as this sudden conversion of 1881-93] MR. GLADSTONE AND PARNBLLITE POLICY 423 Mr. Gladstone and two or three of his friends to the Parnellite policy with respect to Ireland. Again, my Lords, I say I am not going to contest the perfect good faith in which that conversion was effected. We aU know that in the history of the world there have been many sudden conversions. The Christian Church itself affords a notable instance of the sudden con- version of a man who was undoubtedly one of the greatest men that ever Uved in the world, and who was suddenly converted to preach a doctrine which, during the preceding part of his Hfe, he had always done his best to destroy. That man was converted by a light which shone upon him. The Hght which shone upon him was a Hght from heaven, and the course of eighteen hundred years has gone far to prove the truth of his conversion. The Hght which shone upon my right hon. friend and a few of his colleagues was a Hght which shone from the Irish members of the House of Commons, and we may be pardoned for doubting whether the locaHties from which the Hght shone in these two cases of sudden conversion were identical. The change proposed by Mr. Gladstone involved the disintegration of the Empire. That is disputed, but there is one thing which is not disputed, and that is that it did mean the breaking up of the Imperial ParHament. The breaking up of owe Im- perial ParHament is directly involved in the change which was so suddenly determined upon two years ago, and the breaking up of our Imperial ParHament involves the making of a new Constitution. My Lords, I ventured some time since, through one of the usual channels of information, to warn my countrymen of two things : the first was that such a change would involve the drawing up of a new Constitution, and nothing short of it ; and the second was that there was no man and no group of men competent for such work. The Constitution of this country, my Lords, has not been made : it has grown. During eight hundred or nine hundred years, by additions here and 424 HOME KULE [chap, xuv additions there, by developments here and develop- ments there, from very small beginnings it has been built up into the glorious structure we now have. AU OTir revolutions have been in the nature of develop- ments ; all our revolutions have been the assertions of a previous right. None of our statesmen are or have been accustomed to, or are capable of, thinking out and drawing up a new Constitution. I do not for a moment deny that the Constitution drawn up by Mr. Gladstone was exceedingly clever and exceedingly ingenious, and, what is more, I will venture to say that it is a great deal better than any of the other reforms which I have since seen indicated in the newspapers. But that has nothing to do with the question. It was an unworkable Constitution ; it was a paper Constitu- tion ; it was a Constitution made of pasteboard, in- capable of resisting the tremendous pressure of human passions which would have been brought to bear on it. ' One word more with reference to Mr. Gladstone's Constitution and the events which followed it. I think that men who have committed such a tremendous political fiasco are not men who are entitled to appeal to the country on the ground of personal confidence. We cannot entrust the government of this country into the hands of men who have proved their own incompetency by producing a plan which they were at once obhged to abandon amid the derisive shouts of all parties. I must now touch upon a somewhat delicate matter — the question of comparative autho- rity. Who were the men who adhered to Mr. Glad- stone, and who were the men who revolted from him ? In the first rank of political fife none of his old col- leagues adhered to him except Sir William Harcourt. With him also was Mr. John Morley, who had joined the Government recently, having come from Hterary circles, a man of great ability, and an eminent author in the region of philosophy. I may say that I attach great weight to his opinion, and if we are to have new 1881-93] MR. GLADSTONE AND HIS OPPONENTS 425 men devising new Constitutions for us, I should not be disinclined to take the opinion of the right hon. gentlemen. But who were against Mr. Gladstone ? There was John Bright. Now, whatever differences of opinion any of us may have had -with him, we must aU acknowledge his vigorous, his masculine honesty, his perfect freedom from narrow party jealousy, Ms manly character, and his possession of that charac- teristic of common-sense which belongs pre-eminently to the highest class of Enghsh statesmen. Then I wiU take Lord Hartington. He also has a masculine honesty, and a singular sagacity in foreseeing the probable resTilts of political changes. Then take Mr. Chamberlain, a man who has been brought up in the management of a great city, and who palpably and before our eyes has grown in pohtical stature and wisdom. Then there is Mr. Goschen, about whose great abilities and knowledge of financial affairs I need not say a word ; and I should mention also my learned friend Sir Henry James. I wish the Enghsh people to understand that it was a mere fraction of the Liberal leaders who adhered to Mr. Gladstone. By far the best men who adhered to him were my noble friends upon the bench below me ; but in the House of Com- mons all the most distinguished, and certainly all the most independent, members of the Liberal party re- pudiated and opposed his scheme. I now come to another point of great importance in connection with the resolution which I shall venture to move. We have done with the Constitution to which I have been alluding. All the followers of Mr. Gladstone declare that it is dead and buried, although I, for my part, doubt it very much. I believe that we shall see the greatest part of it revived if we ever come to discuss the possibilities of a new Constitution for this realm. If two Parliaments should ever be set up, you will find it impossible not to retain some of the points of that scheme. But in the meantime, at any rate, it is spoken of as dead, and we have a new campaign— 426 HOME BTJLE [chap, xliv the appeal to the masses as against the classes. I admit that there are some subjects as to which I would rather trust the instincts of the masses of the people than the instincts of the educated classes, and in the course of the last thirty years there have cer- tainly been occasions when my sympathies were with the masses and not the classes. But when the framing of a new Constitution is at issue, is there a man in his senses who would appeal to the instincts of the masses rather than to the educated minds of the classes ? To draw up a new Constitution for the government of a country is the most difficult of all tasks. It was not done by the masses in America, but by the most eminent of their public men, and not without great difficulty. I say it is unreasonable to appeal to the masses with regard to the form of our future Constitu- tion. When Mr. Gladstone talks about the classes as opposed to the masses, he means, I suppose, that the higher classes have a certain bias against which they have a difficulty in struggling, and which interferes with their candid consideration of certain questions. But we must remember this — that pohtical leaders are a class as much as any other, and that they are subject to the most tremendous temptations. . . . ' I find that the present interim that we are enjoying between the abandonment of Mr. Gladstone's last Constitution and the production of his next new Con- stitution is being given up by the Gladstone party to two things — grievous misrepresentation of the history of the past and of the acts of the Government of the present. Mr. Gladstone has charged us with being ignorant of history, and especially of Irish history. It so happens that when I was a boy, the first scene I witnessed in the House of Commons had reference to Irish affairs, and I remember seeing the gigantic form of Daniel O'Connell as he came out in a great state of excitement after a severe defeat obtained against him by one whom he always termed " that scorpion Stanley." Ever since that time, at frequent 1881-93] HENRY Vni. AND IRELAND 427 intervals we have all been compelled to study the history of Ireland, and turn our attention to the state of things in that country. I must confess that I have thought it odd that Mr. Gladstone, with whom I have been in close communion for a great part of that time, should now accuse us of being ignorant of the history of Ireland. The results of my own reading of Irish history have certainly not been agreeable to the doc- trines of my right hon. friend. . . . ' Nothing more mischievous could be done at the present time, I think, than to tell the Irish people that it was the power of England that forced upon them the land system under which until recently they Hved. There is absolute proof against the proposition of my noble friend, and there can be no doubt whatever that the system under which the land was held in Ireland under native chiefs did infinitely more injustice than could be done under any feudal laws. Upon this point I do not wish to detain your Lordships by quoting authorities. I will merely refer to the authority of Hallam and the words of Prendergast, who may be said to have been quite a ferocious Irishman. " The Irish," said Prendergast, " knew no such thing as tenure, nor forfeiture, nor fixed rent. At this they repined, though wilUng to offer such tribute of victual as was required, and to let their chieftains eat them almost out of house and home. Hence the saying, ' Spend me, but defend me.' " Such was the condition of the Irish tenants, which my noble friend represents as having been made much worse by the measures of Henry VIII. What is the real truth about Henry VIII. ? Nothing is more strange than the great contrast be- tween the personal characteristics of the great Tudor monarchs and the effect which their measures had on the history of the country. There are many passages in the life of Henry VIII. in which we can think of nothing but his t5a'anny ; but, still, in other things he displayed a pohtical wisdom which enabled him to contribute to the noble structure of English history. 428 HOME RULE [chap, xliv In a letter which he addressed to the Earl of Surrey in 1520 he said : " Show unto the Irish people that of necessity it is requisite that every reasonable creature should be governed by law. Show them that of neces- sity they must conform the order of their Hves to the observance of some reasonable law, and not live as they have done heretofore." It was the absence of law that characterized Ireland in the reign of Henry VIII., and what he sought to impress upon them was that they must live according to some reasonable law.' Speaking five years later (September 6th, 1893) on the Home Rule Bill, in the House of Lords, the Duke said : ' I venture to say that when this Bill passes — if it ever passes — nothing in our Constitution will stand as it stood before — certainly not the unity of the kingdom — and I agree with the Duke of Devonshire as to what was said about the distinction between that utterly vague and meaningless phrase about the unity of the Empire and the unity of the kingdom, certainly not the unity of the kingdom ; certainly not the dignity of the Crown ; certainly not the authority of ParHament ; certainly not the respon- sibility of our Ministerial system ; certainly not, by the ponfession of my noble friend opposite, the purity of pubHc life ; and last, not least, certainly not the liberties of the people. Every one of these great interests must be profoundly affected, and profoundly affected for the worse. Are we all agreed upon this point as to the immense importance of the subject ? My noble friend. Lord Spencer, said last night, in that speech which was so full of that charm which belongs to his personal character, his moderation, courtesy, and good feeHng, that " at least we are all agreed upon the importance of the subject." I do not think that we are agreed. Nothing in my noble 1881-93] ANSWER TO LORD SPENCER 429 friend's speech gave us the least hint of the enormous effect which such a measure must have on the prac- tical working of our Constitution. As I said before, that speech was fuU of kindness and of courtesy to us aU — there was not a bitter word in it — but we cannot deal with this question with rose-water. It is too serious. I could not help being reminded, when I heard my noble friend's speech, of two celebrated lines addressed by his illustrious namesake, who wrote much about Ireland in the days of Queen Elizabeth. Courtesy and moderation of tone are not the weapons with which this subject has been fought outside the walls of this House. My noble friend may dehght his hearers — and it is always very pleasing to hear what he says — but I could not help being re- minded of the Hues : ' " A glow-worm lamp, it cheered mild Spenser, Called from Faeryland to struggle through dark ways." When we heard the excuses which he made as to the abandonment of conditions which only a few years ago he upheld on the subject of the land in Ireland, and of the retention of Irish members at Westminster, we had a measure of the dark way through which the Spencer of our day has been drifting. We are not agreed, therefore, upon the importance of this subject. Did your lordships hear the Duke of Devonshire last night reafl&rm the pleas which Mr. Gladstone has lately denounced ? The noble Duke quoted them one by one, showed that, though Mr. Gladstone had caricatured them aU more or less, substantially he adhered to them. What did Mr. Gladstone say of those pleas as to the Union ? The Duke of Devon- shire did not refer to them, but, so far from admitting those pleas — ^which are the pleas which prove the importance of this measure — -Mr. Gladstone said that those pleas were " hideous and monstrous falsehoods." I hope none of us will be accused of using strong language after that illustrious example. 430 HOME RULE [chap, xuv because after it we can use any language we like. I rejoice myself, because I do not in the least object to this language on the part of Mr, Gladstone. I know it to be perfectly sincere ; he is absolutely sincere, and I am not quite sure whether he is not the only member of the Government who is sincere. I look upon the head of the Government as a sort of Mahdi among the dervishes of the Nile. He is a pure fanatic, who cannot look on this subject with moderation, or even with common temper. It proves to us what would be the state of mind of that man in whose hands the Parhament of this country would be if your Lord- ships do not perform your duty to the people. It is perfectly clear that Mr. Gladstone does not admit the enormous importance of this measure. He treats it, as aU along he has treated it, as a comparatively light thing — that is to say, as if it were simply the setting up of a new municipaHty in the country. , . . ' I stand here to say, speaking to the people of the United Kingdom and to the people of America and the Continent, that men have a right to refuse to agree to the transference of their allegiance from one authority to another. I repeat what I stated in this House upon a recent occasion, that the duty of allegi- ance and the extension of protection are correlatives in all civilized societies. If you give up protecting men — ^their lives, their liberties, and their property — you lose the right to their allegiance. The Liberal party ought to acquiesce in this doctrine. I am myself the descendant of men who resisted authority and suffered death in defence of the liberty of the subject. I therefore cannot hold the doctrine of passive obedience in aU circumstances. If you throw over the people of Ulster and commit them to the authority of men who you confess have done constantly what my noble friend Lord Spencer calls discreditable acts — I say that if you treat the people of Ulster in that way, you will lose your right to their obedience. I have but little more to say. I must, however, tax 1881-93] ANSWER TO MR. GLADSTONE 431 your Lordships' patience a little longer in order to refer to a favourite theme of the Prime Minister's. The Prime Minister says we must submit to the inevitable. He says it is quite inevitable that this separation should come — that this breaking down of the Imperial Parliament is inevitable. I have a great respect, my Lords, for men who submit to the in- evitable — for men who bow their heads to Fate and receive the stab from the swords of their enemies— but I have no respect for men who make things in- evitable, who make inevitable misfortunes which they could easily avoid by a little manliness and courage. I maintain that nothing like this BiU is inevitable. On the contrary. My Lords, do not let us think that to-night we are fighting for the last time in a losing battle. I believe we are winning in a great campaign. I believe that the future is on our side. Ours are not the times when great empires are being broken up into petty principalities. Ours is the era, ours is the century of union, of strength by union, and I beheve that our strength will lie in the maintenance of this Union. Inevitable ! Why, I have been spending the last few weeks in a part of Scotland whence we look down upon the hills of Antrim. We can see the colour of their fields, and in the sunset we can see the glancing of the light upon the windows of the cabins. This is the country, I thought the other day, when I looked on the scene — this is the country which the greatest Enghsh statesman teUs us must be governed as we govern the Antipodes. Was there ever such foUy ? I agree with Thomas Carlyle when he said in his own picturesque style, that England, Scot- land, and Ireland are one by the ground-plan of the world. By geographical propinquity, by common brotherhood, by common blood, we are one. We want nothing but equality — equal laws on both sides of the Channel. My Lords, if there is a single grievance remaining in Ireland at the present moment, it is entirely due to the present Prime Minister. That 432 HOME RULE [chap, xuv grievance is this — that the Roman Catholics of Ireland have not been allowed any Universities. Why was that ? It was because Mr. Gladstone introduced an absurd BiU a few years ago, which my noble friend opposite took a leading part in defeating, having, no doubt, the guidance of the professorial spirit. And since that day what has Mr. Gladstone done ? Nothing. . . . ' We wish, my Lords, for a union of hearts ; we wish for a union of interests ; we wish for nothing more and nothing less. We desire and are determined that this Union shall be maintained — not a nominal Union, not a Union under the Crown merely, but a Union of Parliaments, a Union of Executives, a Union of the judiciary, a Union of one system of just and equal laws.' The following extracts from letters received at the time refer to this speech : ' September 21st, 189S. ' Your Grace, ' On behalf of myself and many co-reHgionists and Liberal Unionists in Ireland, I take the hberty of tendering to your Grace warm and sincere thanks for the splendid service which you rendered to the United Kingdom, and more particularly to Ulster, by the magnificent and crushing speech which you lately delivered in the House of Lords, in opposition to the nefarious and revolutionary Home Rule Bill. . . . ' Among the historic utterances of the present crisis, your own speech, for hard hitting, dialectical skiU, and oratorical finish and effect, must ever occupy a high and memorable place. ' Your Grace wiU kindly pardon me for taking the liberty of writing you on this subject ; but gratitude prompts me to express my sense of the obligations under which we have been laid. I have always been a constitutional Liberal, but never before have I 1881-93] MR. DANIEL o'CONNELL 433 been so ready to adopt the old formula, " Thank God for a House of Lords !" ' I have the honour to be, your Grace, ' Most respectfully and gratefully yours, 'N. M. Brown, D.D., ' Ex-Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland/ From Mr. Daniel O'Connell {September 9th, 1893). ' My Lord Dtjke, ' As you considered it worth mentioning in your Grace's most able speech in the House of Lords on the 7th instant that " a son of O'ConneU had signed a petition against Home Rule," I venture to forward the report of an interview I had with a representative of the Kent Coast Times, which shows that I am a sincere Unionist and gives some of my reasons for being one. ' I am happy to remember that my father always repudiated crime in his agitation. I fail to find that the present leaders of the misguided portion of my countrymen have ever, in their speeches or writings, discouraged it. ' I canvassed for Mr. Lowther at the last election here, and, to the best of my abiHty, worked for him. ' I beg to remain ' Your Grace's obedient servant, ' Daniel O'Connell.' On April 19th, 1886, the Duke wrote to Mr. Glad- stone : ' It was very kind of you to call so soon to see one of those whom Herbert calls " Secessionists," and I trust we shall continue to keep our old relations, joining hands across the cracks which are now yawning into chasms. ' For, truth to say, it is not now so much on par- ticular measures as on the whole methods of argu- voL. n. 28 434 HOME BULE [chap, xliv ment and treatment in politics that I differ from you. ' I think it is Cardinal Newman who says, in regard to faith, that the human intellect, when applied under certain methods, is a " universal solvent." ' This, as it seems to me, is what yotir intellect is becoming in all matters politic. It is a purely de- structive force, lifting all old anchors and laying down no new ones in their place. I say this to explain, not to argue — to explain the root idea in m.y own mind in its antagonism to yours. ' As all this difference is now not on speculative matters, but on practical proposals of enormous con- sequence, we must all speak out, and speak freely, as you are doing. ' You wiU understand, therefore, that, whatever I may say, I am where I was as regards yourself per- sonally. Fortunately, the two spheres are wide apart : that in which we are now divided, and that other in which we have shared together a good many of the joys and of the sorrows of life.' To Mr. Gladstone {September lOth, 1887). ' I have been away in the Islands, living at the foot of a volcano, which is fortunately extinct, the condition in which Dizzy once humorously described you and your then colleagues. ' I return to the mainland to find the fiery cones of Hawarden in full activity, and one little jet of hot material running in my direction. ' I write to send you a mild remonstrance against words which refer to certain counter-arguments to yours being described as " attacks " upon you. I hold to the principle I took up in a letter to you two years ago (nearly), that in the profound differences which separate you from your former associates, and not less from your former self, the two spheres of politics and of private friendship are absolutely 1881-93] MR. GLADSTONE AND HIS FRIENDS 435 separate. I will illustrate this doctrine by an anecdote which I have never told you, but which I have often told to others, and which I repeat often now, when I hear political hostihty degenerate into personal abuse. ' You may perhaps recollect complaining once to me in your Cabinet of 1870 of your difficulties in per- sonal deaUngs with " Bob Lowe." I suppose there was no one of your then colleagues less sympa- thetic with you, less in tune with your opinions and enthusiasms. Nevertheless, this happened to me with him. After you had resigned, and when we were in office only tiU our successors came in, Lowe opened to me one day on the subject of your relations with your colleagues. He spoke in terms of warm admira- tion, and, to my great surprise, ended by saying, " I have the same kind of feeling towards him that I can suppose must be the feeling of a dog for his master." ' Lowe would not have said this if he had not felt it, and, I will add, he would not have said it to me unless he had known that I could sympathize. ' And I did. I don't suppose that any man ever conciliated and commanded so much personal and political affection from colleagues as yourself, and this, moreover, was entirely separate from mere private friendship. ' I hold that aU this is perfectly consistent with the most vehement opposition to your new opinions, as well as to your methods of argument in support of them. ' You have yourself been firing red-hot shot, in whole broadsides, against all who cannot follow you in a path which, to them at least, is entirely new. You have ascribed a " servile spirit " to those who supported the Crimes BiU ; and very lately you have written of the " shallow, useless, and in many points utterly untrue statements put forward " on behalf of the Liberal Unionists. 28—2 436 HOME RULE [chap, xliv ' I don't object in the least ; you have a perfect right so to speak. ' True, you seldom name persons, whereas your own name is inseparable from the cause you advocate. You stand alone, , , , ' Of course, it would be possible by circumlocutions to avoid naming you. Bat this would only transmute speaking of you into speaking at you, which is odious in my opinion, and is disrespectful, while the strongest direct quotation and reference need not have this character at aU, ' I say all this in explanation, not in argument. I am anxious that you should understand my point of view, even if you cannot take the same. ' Retirement from public Hfe, absolute abstention from the expression of convictions which are largely ethical as well as merely political, would be the only course compatible with not " attacking " you, if the combating of your opinions and of your teaching is to be so construed. ' You may be right, and we may aU be wrong, I sometimes ponder this possibihty, and " gang ower the fundamentals " again and again, always with one result, that your experiment cannot be safely tried. Unfortunately, neither you nor I can Hve to see the results. What we are each doing now wiU have effects " far on in summers which we shall not see." We must speak and write according to our lights, and must reconcile personal friendship as best we may with the inevitable passions of aU great poHtical contests.' To Mr. Gladstone {Inveraray, April 26th, 1892). ' I quite feel with you, and probably for much the same reasons, that we ought not to enter upon personal controversy about politics. But this does not ihter? fere with my desire to answer frankly any question as to my own views that you may put to me. I have 1881-93] SPEECH IN GLASGOW 437 always thought that the Federal Constitution of America is the best model existing of federation under one supreme law or set of laws. ' But, of course, such a system presupposes that existence of previously separate and independent Governments such as the Colonial Governments had been. ' Pray do not conclude that I think the Federal Constitution of the U.S.A. is one to which it is easy or even possible to adapt the United Kingdom. But this would lead me into the thick of the controversy. And besides the indisposition to enter into this with you on the grounds alluded to by you, I have this additional feeUng, that the position of a party leader makes it quite hopeless to argue with him, because on many points which are fundamental he is generally not open to argument at all. I am continually annoyed and vexed by the inevitable necessity in your case of founding almost all reasoning on what you have said, or have omitted to say — a necessity arising from the indubitable fact that you are not only the head and leader of the party, but you are the party, nobody else even approaching you either in the sincerity of your convictions or in the influence you exert. It is really ridiculous what nonentities all around you are. I only say this to explain how impossible I have found it to avoid combating your action and your speeches as the only ones which it is worth while even to consider.' On November 1st, 1893, the Duke spoke at a great Unionist demonstration in the City Hall, Glasgow, on the Irish question. From this speech the following extract is taken : ' I rejoice to know that you are thinking of the great wave, as I beheve, of pubHc opinion which is now ready to support the House of Lords in saying that this law for the misgovernment of Ireland, this Bill 438 HOME RULE [chap, xliv for the sale of the Hberties of our fellow-subjects, shall not receive your approbation, any more than it has received the approbation of the House of Lords, You will readily understand, therefore, that I have not come here to apologize. I have hardly come here even to explain, and if I do explain, I shall explain by telling you of an incident that has occurred to myself within the last few days. You know that in the High- lands of Scotland, where I live, behind the blue range of mountains which encircle the Firth of Clyde, we stm retain what you Lowlanders are sometimes pleased to call our ancient superstitions — some of them, at least. We beHeve — some of us believe — in second sight. Some of us beHeve in visions of the day and of the night. Some of us believe in the remarkable words of the patriarch Job, that " in a dream, when deep sleep falleth upon men, then He openeth the ears of men and sealeth their instruction." ' Well, the other day, when I was thinking what fragment of this great subject — for it is an immense subject — I should address you upon to-night, I fell, if not into a deep sleep, at least into a deep reverie. I had a vision and a dream. Will you allow me to tell you what the dream was ? I dreamed that I and a great number of my fellow-countrymen of all classes were about to set out on a long journey in an immense railway-train, through a country which I knew was wholly new, and along a line which no passenger-train had ever passed before, made over bogs, and sand, and quicksands, and forests, and precipices, and every kind of dangerous ground. And before entering the train 1 went up to some of the ofl&cers of the company, and I said : " Have you got a careful driver ?" " Oh," said the guard of the train, " we have the oldest hand in the employment of the company." I said: "That does not satisfy me. Great age is of itself no guarantee for nerve, and therefore I am not satisfied with that." " Oh," he said, " we have a grand old engineering hand to 1881-93] SPEECH IN GLASGOW 439 guide us." But he said also, to my great relief : " We have an additional precaution. We have made up what we caU a brake compartment. We allow the passengers to have a few of their number in that brake compartment, and we give them the power, if any- tToing very dangerous should appear, to apply the brake and to stop the train." " Oh, well," I said, " I shoTold be very glad indeed of that," and he pro- posed that I should be one in that brake compartment. WeU, we went on for some time very well and pros- perously, but we saw it was a very dangerous country, and at last, towards dark, the train began to slow on a rapid turn in the hne. We aU looked out, and we saw we were stopping at a station, which I saw was invaded by a great crowd of wild-looking men, armed with blackthorns. They were cheering loudly and making an infernal row, waving handkerchiefs and sticks. As we drew up to the platform, I saw them waving a flag. I could not quite see the motto at first, but at last I made it out to be " Through plunder to disintegration." Then I saw them go up to the engine. At first our grand old engineer repelled them with much dignity and power, but a short time afterwards we were alarmed to see secret signs passing between our grand old engineer and this mob. We saw him allow a whole lot of them to take possession of his engine, and then we suddenly started again. Well, gentlemen, we had no sooner started under these inauspicious conditions than we felt the train sway most dreadfully from side to side, as if we were going to run off the line. We saw that we were rushing past stations at which we should have stopped. We looked out and saw that we were rushing against danger signals without taking the least notice. At last we looked at each other and said : " We must apply the brake." We all jumped together, and with a long puU, a strong pull, and a puU altogether, we stopped the train. Then followed a scene which I shall never forget. I saw it as distinctly as I see this 440 HOME BULE [ohap. xliv vast assembly just now. The line was covered with passengers, who came to thank us for having saved their lives. In the middle of this came the grand old engineer, with a frown upon his face. He said this was not a time for violence, hardly even for vehe- mence ; but he asked us, shaking his fist in our faceS, " Why did you interfere with my driving in this way ? I will smash you up next time." That is the position, I feel, in regard to the House of Lords. We were in the brake compartment, and we stopped the train for the best of all reasons. S|S ^ ^ S(! ^ ' I ask you now to look at the specimen we have of Gladstonian argument in the speech delivered in Edinburgh the other day. It is a perfect specimen — I choose it because it is a perfect specimen — of what I caU Gladstonian tactics. It is a policy of red herrings to distract the attention of the people from the merits of his Bill. His proposal is to keep it out of sight ; to draw a red herring across the track ; to attack the House of Lords. That is the whole object and the whole gist of that speech. Complete silence on his own BiU — absolute silence ; a violent attack on the House of Lords to distract attention. Now, that is the secret of aU jugglery. I had a relative in early life who had paid a famous juggler to teach him his secrets, and he told me that he was often much struck with the philosophy that was in it. The whole secret of legerdemain is to misdirect the attention of the spec- tator either by words or by actions ; to distract the attention of the audience to one spot while the trick is being performed in another. This is the whole secret of conjuring, and it is the secret Mr. Gladstone has been working now for eight years in order to keep the people of this country hoodwinked and bamboozled into the acceptance of his proposals. ' I am not going to be led off by Mr. Gladstone's tactics into any disquisition before you as to the constitution of the House of Lords. That question 1881-93] PEEKS AND PRIVILEGE 441 can wait. But I will say a few words in passing about my own feelings concerning it. We Peers are sup- posed to have an immense privilege. Yes, we have a piivilege in one sense of the word, but we have also an immense disabihty. We are unable to sit, even if we desired to do so, for a constituency of the people. Duiing my fifty years of pubUc life I have often been tempted to wish that I had had the higher privilege that, strange to say, belongs to Irish Peers — ^that of refusing to sit in the House of Lords and of appeahng to a constituency of the House of Commons. The Irish Peers have that privilege. Lord Palmerston was one of them who took advantage of it, and you know with what splendid results. I feel that we are trustees for the people — for the nation as a whole. We do not represent one constituency alone, but what we think is the general impulse and impression of the people of the whole nation. I am told that it would be well to have the House of Peers remodelled, and its basis enlarged and broadened. I shall have no objec- tion to the process, provided, of course, that it is done on lines which are consistent with the experience of other nations and with the first principles of human society. But I beg you to observe what is the language of many of our opponents. They have no objection to our constitution ; their objection is to our exer- cising any discretion whatever. The assumption is that wherever a second Chamber differs from the first it must be in the wrong. And not only that. I can excuse men for saying, " We are always right ; our opponents are always wrong." That is very natural language ;'but the language of many of our opponents seems to be that a second Chamber should have no opinion of its own whatever, that it should be per- fectly dumb, and foUow exactly the votes of the first Chamber. WeU, I say that if that is the doctrine, a second Chamber is of no use whatever. . . . All the countries in Europe that have invented a Constitution, as well as America, have desired to have a second 442 HOME RULE [chap, xuv Chamber ; and America, as you know, has a second Chamber much stronger than ours, and they set immense value upon it. I cannot help thinking that the recent transactions and Mr. Gladstone's conduct have thrown a new light on this very important sub- ject, because I used always to feel that the great object of a second Chamber was to prevent hasty and impul- sive legislation ; but there has been no popular impulse in favour of this Irish Bill anywhere — ^none whatever. The danger that we are suffering from is not popular excitement in favour of any particular measure. That measure has never raised any excitement or any enthusiasm in any part of the country. What we are suffering from is a danger which no one of us foresaw, and that is the possibility of a very cunning party leader bribing and manipulating various factions by giving one this, the other that, giving hopes here, giving hopes there; and so, by mere cunning, by mere dexterity, by what he himself would call " old Parhamentary handism," manufacturing an artificial majority which shall thrust its proposals down the throats of Parha- ment. I thank Mr, Gladstone for having given us the great example of a danger which is new, or almost new, in the history of the world. ' There is one important truth in Mr. Gladstone's Edinburgh speech. He did say one thing which is deeply and profoundly true. He says that in our Constitution we trust entirely to the good sense and moderation of those who possess abstract rights and legal powers. Quite so. We have no written Con- stitution, as the United States have. Considering the great interests which are at stake in poUtical affairs, the great interests which are at stake in the wise and the just government of mankind, it is no blasphemy to quote the words of Scripture, and say that, as " the kingdom of heaven is within you," so the British Constitution is within the breasts of the British people. Though you search all the libraries in Glasgow, and search all the dryasdust tomes that have been 1881-93] MR. Gladstone's policy 443 gathered for centuries, you will not find the British Constitution. It has no written record — nothing which Mr. Gladstone admits to be even fundamental. No treaty of union with England ; nothing, in his opinion, is a fundamental law. Everything depends upon the moderation, the temper, and good sense with which the legal powers are exercised by the various authorities. I turn this against himself, and I say you are now opposing Mr. Gladstone on account of a want of common-sense and even of decent moderation in his policy and in his method. He has abused the powers of party leadership. He has abused the doctrine of reserve, of secrecy from the people. He has abused, lastly, the wielding of party majorities. If party government is to be conducted in this country on honourable and pubhc hnes, surely some degree of openness is necessary between the followers and the chief. Surely it is due to such men as John Bright, and Lord Hartington, and Mr. Goschen, that they should have been told of the new secret which, to use his language, was hatching in his mind. None of these things was done, and I understand that the other day in the House of Commons he openly avowed that in 1882 he sent a private and confidential message to Mr. Pamell that he would not in future oppose his object. I say that was a betrayal on his part. Let me teU you this. Mr. Bright has gone from us. I was his colleague during a good many years. I was his personal friend for many more. We were divided on many subjects. I did not always agree with him, but I never knew a more thoroughly honest or more thoroughly mascuUne understanding. He came to me in the last year of his hfe, and he sat with me a long time in my garden in London, and I assure you he expressed an opinion to me about these Irish pro- posals which almost took my breath away, so vehe- ment was he that they would be ruinous to England and ruinous to Ireland. He was the author of the best part of the Irish Land Bill, the only part which 444 HOME BTJLE [chap, xliv is worth anything — the Purchase Clause. Yet to this great man, for such he was, the tribune of the people, the foremost man in the Liberal party, Mr. Gladstone gave no confidence, but opened secret negotiations with Mr. Pamell. Mr. Gladstone said that every Govern- ment must have reserve. Of course, they must have. On such matters as the Budget they must have secrets. Every man of you who is engaged in commercial pro- ceedings knows that to reveal the Budget would dis- turb commerce and great interests. But I maintain that when great constitutional changes are in question the people ought to be taken into confidence — -whole and open confidence. That is the only course which a statesman ought to pursue. He says : " Oh, the people take in great ideas ; they do not take in details." What does he call great ideas ? Let us compare what he is doing now with the three questions which I am about to mention. Take Catholic Emancipation ; take the Reform of Parliament ; take Free Trade. All these great measures involved great and simple ideas, which the people were perfectly able to take in. There was no haste. Catholic Emancipation had been before the country something like thirty years ; the Corn Laws had been longer, and so on with regard to Free Trade and the Reform of Parliament, All these were simple ideas, and the people were fully cognizant of the prin- ciples underlying them. But what were the great items of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule plan ? The only idea I can give is this : that Irish afiairs are to be dealt with by the Irish, and that means that Irishmen may muzzle each other, and cut each other's throats, and boycott each other, and tear the eyes out of each other, in every way, and it is no concern of ours ; it is an Irish affair. That is a great idea which I do hope the people of this country wiU never tolerate. Mx. Gladstone says we are foreigners to the Irish. I say we are flesh of their flesh and bone of their bone. We are responsible for their liberties, and we will not betray them. 1881-93] THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION 445 ' Mr. Gladstone has used some very violent language lately of us Unionists. He said the other day, talking of our objections : "I believe them to be enormous, monstrous, and hideous falsehoods." Now, that is pretty well. I hope you are satisfied with the mild- ness of the language. He goes on to say : "I am bound absolutely to believe in their sincerity." He is very kind. Now, I want to say this to you, that, in my opinion, this language is full of an important truth, and the truth is this : the word " falsehood " is generally applied to falsehood in fact, but is not generally applied to fallacious arguments. We use the word " fallacy " for that, and not " falsehood." But I agree with Mr. Gladstone that there are fallacious arguments which are in the nature of falsehoods, and as much to be condemned as a falsehood in matters of fact. I see that I am addressing a great many young men as well as elderly men, and I would impress upon them this truth^ — ^that the spirit to enlarge in yourselves, above aU things, is the spirit of truth, and that you should hate a fallacy in argument almost as much as all honourable men hate a lie in fact. The world wiU be better off when it comes to this, and democratic government by the masses of the people will be consistent with the highest interests of man- kind when public men address themselves in this spirit, and in this spirit alone. ' Now, I have only further to say before you retire from this place, you may well be tired of Glad- stonian speeches, but you have to deal with an immense subject, even the remodelHng of our British Constitu- tion. Go and look in your libraries to the great works which have been written by our American brethren in framing their Constitution. Compare the splendid logic which they used, the calm and dignified and foreseeing wisdom with which they laid the foundation of their great Republic ; compare with that the loose language, the slovenly thinking, of the Gladstonian party — ambiguous words concealing, and 446 HOME RULE [ohap. xmv intended to conceal, mischievous and ambiguous pro- posals — and then you will see what a great study is before you. Above all, remember your duty to your fellow-countrymen across the Channel. Remember, it is literally true that Mr. Gladstone's proposals give less security for life and liberty and property to the people of Ireland than the laws of the United States give to her emancipated negroes. That is literally true. I should be glad to prove it to you if I could have a separate address at some future time. Re- member your duty to your fellow-men across the Channel. Help us who have done our best to resist this invidious and iniquitous attempt. Without your help we can do but little, and I beg you to imitate Mr. Gladstone at least in one thing, and that is passion. Be as passionate, but more logical and more careful than he is. It is legitimate to be passionate when there are great interests at stake. There is the Constitution of your country at stake, that which secures the liberties of every man and woman and child under the Imperial Government. Remember, you are responsible ; you have consciences and in- tellects of your own to discharge your duty to your God and to your country.' The Duke received many letters congratulating him on this speech, from some of which the following extracts have been selected : From Lord Salisbury {November 9th, 1893). ' I read with great satisfaction your proceedings at Glasgow, which seem to have been in every way most successful and encouraging. It is gratifying to see that you put Mr. Morley into a most unphilosophic passion.' 1881-93] MR. THOMAS HUGHES 447 From Mr. Thomas Hughes* {November Uh, 1893). ' Dear Dtjke of Argyll, ' Thanks for yours. As to the speech, I was quite upUfted by it. Nothing that the Duke of Devonshire or our converted Joseph, or Balfour, or Goschen have said — good and staunch as they have all been — has fetched me so, . . . ' I am glad that you threw down the gauntlet to the Radicals, Fabians, and sich, on the question of what party has done most for industrial and philan- thropic reform and legislation. Probably there will be " wigs on the green " over this part of your speech, so if I can be of any further use you have only to let me know. I have been behind the scenes ever since 1848, so maybe able to clear up mists for you in these, as you have for me in the region of the higher politics. ' Pray don't think of answering. ' Ever most truly yours, ' Thomas Hughes. '. ' P.S. — My wife reminded me at breakfast that, when I was made Q.C. twenty-five years ago and had to go to Court, she advised that I should ask the leader on our then side with whom I most agreed to present me, and that accordingly I appHed to you, and you kindly did the business. I had forgotten it, but was pleased to be reminded that at any rate some of one's old pohtical behefs hold water stiU.' From Mr. Walter {November 3rd, 1893). ' Forgive me for writing a line to say how much I have enjoyed your speech at St. Mungo's City. I wish you would some day give us your reminiscences of some of the other pohtical heroes with whom you have Hved, such as Brougham, Derby, and Lyndhurst, the cleverest of the lot. ' Your dream, or second sight vision, was an excel- lent parable.' * Author of ' Tom Brown's School-days.' 448 HOME RULE [chap, xuv From Sir M. E. Grant Duff {November 4ih, 1893). ' You really must allow me to congratulate you on your Glasgow speech, which I have only read this morning. ' For many years I have been accustomed to think and to say that you, Bright, and Gladstone stood in a class by yourselves amongst the orators to whom I have listened ; but I very much doubt whether you ever pronoimced a wiser or weightier speech than this one.' From Mr. Bosworth Smith {November ItJi, 1893). ' My Lord Dtjke, ' I must send you one line to tell you of the supreme pleasure which your splendid speech at Glasgow gave me. I read every word of it aloud to my wife and daughters, who, I think, were as sorry as your audience must have been when it came to the end. The personal reminiscences were intensely in- teresting. I happened to be going over the Natural History Museum with Sir William Flower on the afternoon on which it appeared in the Times. Of course, he was delighted at the use you made of your visit there with him. I don't think Sir George Trevelyan will pay a private visit to those scattered vertebrae. The creature ought to be named after him on the lucus a non lucendo principle. ' How I would have hked to have heard you ! Apparently, we are not to hear of Home Rule again from Mr. Gladstone for a long time to come. ' Believe me, ' With much respect, ' Yours very sincerely, ' W. Bosworth Smith.' To this letter the Duke replied (November 9th, 1893) : 1881-93] letter to mr. bosworth smith 44^ ' Dear Mr. Bosworth Smith, ' Many thanks for your kind note. We had a splendid meeting — 4,000 people, all men, largely working classes. . . . The House of Lords cheered to the echo whenever named ! ' Yours truly, ' Argyll.' VOL. II. 29 CHAPTER XLV 1885-96 SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT — THE ARMENIAN QUESTION After Mr. Gladstone's resignation in June, 1885, he was out of office for a period of eight months, and during this time he dehvered a number of speeches in Scotland in which he foreshadowed his future policy. The impression he gave that it was his intention to bring forward the question of the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland created a feeling of alarm in the country, and meetings were held to protest against the principle. The Duke was asked to speak on the subject at a meeting in Glasgow on October 20th, 1885. The Earl of Stair occupied the chair on the occasion, when the Duke opened his address by proposing the following resolution : ' That, in the opinion of this meeting, there is no desire on the part of the people of Scotland for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of their National Church.' In the course of his speech the Duke said : ' The Government of this country is a Christian Government, and when a man passes from his private house into the council chamber of the city, into the Cabinet-room of the Queen, or into the Houses of Parliament, he is bound to carry his Christianity with 450 1885] VITAL IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION 451 him. And he uses his powers as best he may in con- siderations of wise Christian expediency for the further- ance of the interests of the Church of Christ, . . . ' I know no nobler characteristic in man's mind than that of keeping his mind open to be taught by the teachings of Providence and life. I desire for myself to maintain that attitude of mind, and I rather rejoice to remember that all the opinions I have held most strongly in Ufa have been opinions taken up against first impres- sions, and not in unison with them. But I say that there are certain universal instincts of the human mind agaiast which, if any given doctrine sins, there is the highest probability that it is false. I say that, looking back in the history of the world, I know no age and no country in which nations have not considered their rehgions an intimate part of their civic and pubhc poUcy. Even heathens raised temples to the gods, and opened and shut their gates in peace or war. Is the great instinct to faU under the Christian reHgion ? This feeHng has no root in the history of Scotland, or in the hearts of the Scottish people. Nor is it the doctrine of any one of the Presbyterian Churches as Churches. Before I depart from this subject, I wish to say one word in regard to the principles of volun- taryism regarded from rather a higher point of view. I have been spending much time during the past few years in tracing the bonds of communication between different departments of human thought, and I declare to you, as the result of my investigation and my thought, that I know no doctrine in the world so abso- lutely opposed to the truth of Nature and to the truth of God as any doctrine which establishes a sharp and absolute hne of separation between the sacred and the profane^ between the natural and the supernatural, between the material and the spiritual, between the duties of our rehgious and the duties of our daily hfe. . . . ' Now I pass from abstract principles, and I ask. Why is it that we are here to-night to defend the 29—2 452 SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT [chap, xlv Church of Scotland ? I have come here to defend the Church of Scotland because, as matter of historical fact, the estabHshment of Presbyterianism in Scotland has been the glory of our national history. ' I wish to impress upon the people of Scotland the national character of this Church. Let me put a case. Suppose some foreigner were to come to this country with something of a sympathetic historical mind, a mind Hke the late Dean Stanley. Suppose such a man were to come to me and say : " Show me some- thing which is typical of the national history and the national character." Where should I take him ? Not to our mountains, beautiful as they are, for there are finer mountains in other parts of the world. Not to our medieval castles, interesting as some of these are, for there are finer elsewhere. I should take him, beyond all doubt, if I wished to show him something which should interpret to his eyes the history and the character of the Scottish people — I should take him to that long historical street which stretches from the ancient palace of Holyrood to the Castle Hill, and I should show him the procession of the Royal Com- missioner coming to open the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I can conceive him saying : " What is this procession ?" I would answer that it is the visible symbol and the homage paid by the Imperial Crown of this realm to the noblest and purest popular triumph ever gained in any Christian country in the world. And when we had followed that pro- cession outside the waUs of the General Assembly, I am not sure but I would present him inside with another spectacle. I could conceive him to say : " I suppose this is an assembly of the clergy ?" My answer would be : " Not at aU. It is an assembly of the Church, but not of the clergy. In our country the foundation-stone of the Presbyterian Church is that the character of the people is the Church, and the 1885] ' A FREE CHURCH IN A FREE STATE ' 453 Church is the character of the people. These are the mimsters of the Chioxch, but they are in large propor- tion laymen, and so thoroughly are these men repre- sentative of the Scottish people that actually every borough in Scotland, by foundation and immemorial usage, has a right to send its representatives to that assembly, as it did to the ancient Parliaments of the country. There is the Royal Commissioner paying the imperial homage of the Crown ; not interfering with its business, having no power to do so, but simply recognising the constitutional triumph of the people of Scotland, ratified by repeated Acts of Parliament." I appeal through this great meeting to the people of Scotland to remember what an absolutely significant and peculiar privilege they have in this great august ceremony — ^the consummation of some hundreds of years of bitter and laborious strife, in which the people of Scotland secured this great homage to the Church of their country. ' Our nation is free, our Church is free, and we realize that dream of the great Italian statesman Cavour, who, on receiving extreme unction on his death-bed, said : "I wish to see a free Church in a free State." That is what Scotland has long realized. Now, gentlemen, I have one word more to say. We are told that we must give up this Church in the name of religious equality. Well, I am for equality too, in so far as you find it in Nature, in the providence of God, or in the history of man. I am for this equality, that I would give to every man and to every Church that which he or it has fairly earned. Well, are we to say that there are other Churches in this country the equal in our history, the equal in our regard, the equal in the power of building up our national constitution, of the Presbyterian Church ? Do not think that I am wishing to revive sectarian jealousies when I re- mind you simply of historical facts, What is the 454 SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT [chap, xlv equality of the Roman Catholic Church ? What has the Roman Catholic Church done for Scotland ? She burned our martjn^s. What did the Episcopal Church do for Scotland ? She tried to suppress our liberties. What has the Presbyterian Church of Scotland done ? She has done for Scotland that which I have en- deavoured to describe — she has married civil with religious freedom. She has given to the world a sample of a Church, free as the winds and yet con- nected with the State, such as has never existed before, and will be a model for future time. Well, gentlemen, I know what your voice is. Your voice and my voice may be overborne, but let us say for ourselves, and for all whom we can influence or affect, that we will take our part : we will not help to haul down this great flag of Scotland, we will not help to haul down this great national flag. We will, on the contrary, resist to the last.' Alluding to this speech, in reply to a letter from Mr. Bosworth Smith, the Duke wrote (November 5th, 1885) : ' I will send you a copy of my speech in Glasgow when it is separately published, as I expect it to be in a few days. Mr. Gladstone's reply is, of course, quite valueless for the future.* He speaks only for himself and for the day after to-morrow. He is now a mere " opportunist," as every man must be who seeks no more than to lead for a short time so very motley a crew. The friends of the Established Church should relax no exertions, although, of course, I fully admit that, if her position is really so strong as to be unassailable, it would be best to sit absolutely still, saying, " Let them rave." That I don't think is quite her position. An adverse vote in a disorganized House of Commons might easily be got on a " Resolution," * Speech on Disestablishment, delivered by Mr. Gladstone in the Free Assembly Hall, Edinburgh, November 11th, 1885. 1892] SPEECH IN EDINBUEGH 455 and this would have a bad effect on the future of the question. The two Estabhshed Churches rest on different bases, and are open to different kinds of attack. But pure " voluntaryism," as a principle and almost as a dogma, is equally fatal to both, and this is the strongest enemy in Scotland.' Mr. Gladstone's third Administration was formed on February 3rd, 1886, when the Conservative Govern- ment was overthrown on an amendment to the Address. Four months later the Liberal party was defeated on the Irish Home Rule BiU, June 8th, 1886, and, for the moment, the danger of Disestablishment ceased to be imminent. A few years later (1892) the Duke made a speech in Edinburgh, at a large meeting of the Laymen's League, which had been organized to oppose the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland. In this speech the Duke, who spoke for upwards of an hour, sketched the history of the Church from the days of the Reformation. In concluding, he said : ' I have a very few more words to say. I do not know whether my appeal to the people of Scotland which I have made to-night, which I endeavoured to make wholly unsectarian, addressed to all branches of the Presbyterian Church — for I should freely com- municate with them all — I do not know what the results of that appeal may be ; but I must teU you that, for myself, my part is taken. The doctrine of the Reformation in Scotland, in regard to the nature and functions of the Christian Church, and, as a con- sequence of it, the doctrine of the Reformers upon the relations between the Church and the State, when I first learned them and understood them, awoke the interest and enthusiasm of my early life. They hold the homage of my declining years. If I did not hear the voices of the living saying to me, 456 SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT [chap, xlv " Do not scatter the religious patrimony of the poor," I should still hear the voices of the illustrious dead saying, " Do not sacrifice that which it cost us so many tears and so much blood to gain." And, if I did not hear those two voices, I should hear a Voice greater than them all, calling on us not to sacrifice in Scotland that living embodiment of an eternal truth, and that possession by Scotland of an ever- lasting faith.' For the Duke, freedom from office did not imply freedom from work. His life was as full as ever of occupation and interest. Constant demands were made upon him to speak in public on questions of national importance. He was consulted by men of all classes upon a great variety of subjects — political, scientific, and theological. To all who sought his counsel he responded without fail, to the working- man as readily and promptly as to his personal friends : one working-man alone claimed to have received a hundred letters from him. He never spared himself if he thought a word from him could bring help to another, or advance the cause of truth. Literary work occupied his spare moments, and in 1886 he was engaged in the preparation of a book on Scotland, which was published the following year, under the title of ' Scotland as It Was and as It Is.' With reference to a point in ecclesiastical history in connection with this work, the Duke consulted Lord Acton, who, in replying, assured him of the accuracy of his knowledge of the history of the early Church, and added : ' I shall look out for your volumes with much in- terest, but I will say quite frankly that I regret you are not in Downing Street at the head of a coalition.' 1887] LETTER TO MR. BRIGHT 457 In sending Mr. Bright a copy of his book on Scotland, the Duke alludes to the political situation at the time : ' Inveraray, ' November %%ni, 1887. ' My dear Mr. Bright, ' When you are called to form a Cabinet, you may offer me a seat ! ' I almost entirely agree with your last two excel- lent letters. I recollect saying to you in 1881 that I would do anything to increase owners, but I would not agree to destroy ownership. ' That is what the Act of 1880 did. ' Still, I agree with you that the multiplication of fuU owners should now be left to natural causes, with the enormous help of the Ashbourne Act. ' I was on the point of writing in the same sense to the Times when your letter appeared, and only de- layed doing so tiU I had got oflE my hands "a little book on the Irish question, which wiU be pubUshed shortly. ' Meantime, I send for your acceptance my late volume on Scotland. ' You may find a good deal with which you don't sympathize, but also, I hope, a good deal that you will at least understand. ' If such an Act as the Irish Act of 1880 had been passed 150 years ago, Scotland would have been a rabbit warren of paupers worse than any part of Ireland. ' The worst fallacies of Protection are embalmed — alas ! not mummified — in the Act of 1880. The stupid, the idle, and the lazy are aU protected, not against foreigners, but against the more intelligent and capable and industrious of their own neigh- bours. ' Meantime, let me thank you for your wise and timely counsels. . . .' 458 SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT [chap, xlv Mr. Bright, in thanking the Duke for his book, wrote : ' . . , I have found it highly interesting and instruc- tive. It contains a history of Scotland, economic, social,, and agricultural, as interesting and important as any portion of its political history.' The Duke's position at this time with regard to the policy of Mr. Gladstone is very clearly defined in a letter to Lord Granville, in which he briefly reviews his own political career : 'June 22nd, 1881. ' My dear Gbanvillb, ' If you will look back thirty years, you will see that I have as often acted apart from Gladstone as with him. ' I began as a Peelite ; but I left the Peehtes when I thought them unreasonable, and stuck to Palmerston. We were then daily in expectation that he — Glad- stone — would have joined Derby, and he would, if others had gone with him. ' In his own Cabinets I stuck to him " like a brick " till our final severance on the merits of a great measure. I have a note from him saying, " Constancy is too weak a word for the support you have always given me." ' But latterly I have felt more and more that his " drift " was simply anarchical. He did not lead. He simply allowed others to commit " the party " to this, that, and the other ; and then fell in, and called it " leading." ' His wheel upon Irish Home Rule has been accom- panied by circumstances — by a violence of language, by a contemptuous treatment of aU who could not follow him, by perversions of historical fact, and by the free use of aU the Irish revolutionary cant — which constitute together an unequalled series of provo- cations. 1887] LETTER TO LORD GRANVILLE 459 ' In all purely personal relations Gladstone is as perfect as a man can be. But he never allows those relations to interfere with his policy — on the contrary, he treats all opponents as dirt under his feet. Look at his last speech to Nonconformists ! He told them that the Crimes Bill was carried by a servile spirit in the Commons ! ' Assuredly the " servile spirit " is with those who HAVE followed him, not with those who have been revolted. Why should I, or others, do what he never does — allow private friendship to interfere with public duty ? That duty calls on all now to speak out what they think. You say I never lose an oppor- tunity of attacking him — you mean his teaching. Quite true. Yet I have said far less than I think, and have been restrained in much that I feel. But I look on his teaching as reckless, passionate, and destructive. I don't doubt his sincerity, but it is a fanatical sincerity, largely tinctured by dislike of opposition and the mere spirit of " fight." You are not in a position to enable you to understand my course. You think far more of " party " than I ever did, or could. Moreover, you have had a chief part in persuading Gladstone to keep to his leadership when he ought to have retired, and I quite see that you can't desert him now. ' I did not leave the Cabinet of 1881 to subside into a back-bench nonentity — dissenting, but silent. I wish to influence opinion if I can, and I am besieged by applications to write and to speak far more. It is odious work. I would much rather be in Scotland writing on other subjects. But, being quite as con- vinced as Gladstone, and hardly less eager in my con- victions, I am afraid I must continue to act as I have done — feeling that I am not only entitled, but bound to do so — considering the interests that are at stake. ' I am, my dear Granville, ' Yours very truly, ' Argyll.' 460 SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT [ohap. xlv The Duke had been asked to speak at a banquet in Westminster Hall, which was to follow a Unionist meeting in London on December 8th, 1887. He was rather reluctant, for several reasons, to leave Inveraray at the time, but he received very urgent letters from Sir Henry James and Lord Hartington, who pointed out that the Duke's name having been announced as one of the speakers on the occasion had resulted in ' hundreds of applications for seats,' and that without his presence ' the whole affair would be a failure.' He therefore arranged his plans so as to enable him to attend the banquet, where he replied to the toast of ' The Unionist Cause.' The following year the Duke spoke at a large poHtical meeting at Cambridge (March 14th, 1888). The weather was unusually severe for the season, and the train by which he travelled to the North, after the meeting, was stopped by a snowdrift. The Duke was rescued from his unpleasant position by the hospitality of a fellow-traveller — Sir James Joicey — at whose house, which was not far off, he spent the night ; but the cold journey resulted in a chill, which brought on a bad attack of gout after his return to Inveraray. During his convalescence he wrote the following letter to Lady Verney (May 8th, 1888) : ' Inveraray, ' May 8th, 1888. ' I have not yet thanked you for your last letter, with Sir A. Clark's diagnosis of me, which amused me much. He is quite wrong on one point — my not being able to understand opponents. He little knows ! Most of my opinions have been reached against early prepossessions, and after having seen and felt, only too painfully, " the other side." 1889] THE MARQtnS OF DUFFERIN 461 ' But, of course, convictions thus reached are the firmest of all. ' Still, it is a fault to leave this impression on the minds of others. ' I am getting slowly over a very tedious attack of gout. Not sorry to be kept here to see the glories of the spring on woods hung up on hills, so as to exhibit every separate top as the opening touches reach it. I am not able to move yet. ' I was glad to see your husband at the Westminster Hall banquet last December. He seemed to me the youngest man there ! ' We have been reading " Layard,"* and shut the book much in love with Khatun-jan Khanum,| a striking portrait of an Aryan wife and mother.' During the months of June and July, the Duke took part in the debates in the House of Lords on several occasions, and on his return to Scotland he delivered some lectures in his own county, on scientific subjects, in the course of the autumn. Early in 1889 the Duke's great friend. Lord Dufferin, returned from India, having resigned the position of Viceroy at the conclusion of four years of office. The Duke wrote on the 19th of February to welcome him on his return to England : ' I have not written to you, nor you to me, for an age. And now I have to haU you as a sort of retired Alexander, the conqueror of millions and the absorber of new empires ! Well, I knew you would do right well. But I did not expect this. What a destiny it is, " The policy of annexations," as it used to be called. . . . * ' Early Adventures in Persia, Lusiana, and Babylonia,' by Sir Henry Layard, 1887. t Khatun-jan Elianum was the principal wife of Mehemet Taki Khan, the Bakhtiyari chieftain, whose guest Sir Henry Layard was in 184<0-1842. 462 SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT [chap, xlv ' I wonder what I shall see you ? You will see me old and lame. Yet I feel as young as ever in spirit, and if I had only legs would be as active as ever ; but gout has lamed me much. I am off to-morrow to Edinburgh to address the students of the University in a lecture course. My subject is the small one of " The Love of Truth, and on some methods of attain- ing it." It is to advise the analysis of words. ' I have had much to trouble me since we met, and consequently my hair has lost that glorious tinge that used to dazzle all my friends. It is " betwixt and between " — a bad mixture. ' Dear old Tennyson has been dangerously ill. I hope you will see him. He looms larger and larger upon me every time I open his books, as one of the great poets of the world. . . . ' I am longing to see you, but I don't know if, or when, I shall. I am not going to town.' The Duke, with his intense love of Nature, always greatly enjoyed spending the early springtime in the country, and watching the renewal of the earth. Writing to Lady Tennyson in April, 1889, he says : ' I must go South to oppose the Wife's Sister BiU on May 9th, whereon I am sorry to know that your husband is not orthodox. ' I am so delighted your husband has seen the primroses again. They are the joy of the year — no scent so delicately delicious, I think.' In May the Duke went to London to attend the House of Lords, where he spoke against the De- ceased Wife's Sister Bill, a measure to which he was always strongly opposed. Later in the session he made a long speech on the question of evictions in Ireland in connection with the Olphert estates. In the month of February, 1890, the Duke delivered 1890] LECTUBE ON GEOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHY 463 a lecture to the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, of which he was president, on ' The Border - lands between Geology and Geography.' A member of the society, aUuding to this lecture, said that the Duke was ' an admirable scientific lecturer,' and that he ' described diagrams with a facility which showed that public lecturing was to him as easy as to any Univer- sity professor.' A letter from the Duke to Dr. Schmidt (who had at one time acted as tutor to his sons) gives some details of his daily life at that time : ' Inveraray, ' February 9»th, 1890. ' My dear Hbrr Prelat ! ' I am delighted to hear of all your new dig- nities, although I do not exactly know all their import. I presume you are practically a Bishop, or an Arch- hisJwp, or a Protestant Cardinal — if there be such a creation — for you appear to join secular dignity and functions with spiritual offices and authority. ' I am now going off to London for a week to deliver an address to the students of the University of London, at the urgent request of my friend Mr. Goschen, who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer. My subject is to be " Economic Science in its Relations to Historic Study." If it is separately printed I shall send you a copy of it. But I am not writing it out, intending to speak from notes only. I find that reading is wearisome both to reader and hearer, and one can't keep the attention of an audience as one can by speaking. ' I have been much interested this winter in tracing the ghosts of organisms in out rocks here. Hitherto I have only found worm borings or tubes, which can be proved. But we find limestones very crystalline — marbles — ^in which we see ghostly outlines of organisms most difficult to determine. Hitherto we have not 464 SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT [ohaj. XLV been able to identify any distinct forms. But I go to London with one which I think cannot be acci- dental. . . . ' Your old vivarium is still standing in its old place under the larch-tree in the garden. But it is generally empty now. It stands only " in memoriam." But you must come and see us when your prelatical functions allow you, and then we shall get it fiUed. Our loch has now been found to be full of wonderful luminous shrimps, living at great depths. I don't know that they would Uve in shallow water full of light. Luminosity appears in two Httle discs on each segment of the body, with one also behind each eye. These discs are exactly like the eyes of the pecten, which you will remember weU.' The Duke mentions in this letter that he proposed to deUver his lecture on poUtical economy merely from notes, without writing it put beforehand. This was the method he invariably adopted, except when addressing societies where the custom was that the lecture should be read. He always felt that, in public speaking, a set form of words hampered the develop- ment of thought, and words came so readily at his bidding that it was unnecessary for him to give pre- vious consideration to the language in which his ideas should find expression. In the summer of 1891 the Duke spoke in the House of Lords on the question of the most advisable manner of legislating on behalf of the crofter population in the congested districts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. The speech was delivered to a very full House, there being a general desire to hear the views of the Duke on a subject which he had had such exceptional opportunities of studjdng. Towards the close of the year (November 10th) the Duke was present at a meeting of the National 1892] THE FIGHT FOB THE UNION 465 Liberal Union at Manchester, where he was the principal speaker. The subject discussed was Home Rule, and his address was characterized at the time as not only ' closely reasoned,' but ' brilliantly epigram- matic and statesmanlike.' The Liberal Unionist party reHed so much on the Duke's assistance in fighting the battle against Home Rule, that his time was greatly occupied in addressing meetings in different parts of the country, in defence of the Union. In 1892 he addressed a large meeting in Edinburgh on the subject, in which he described the contest as ' the greatest that has taken place in this country since the Revolution of 1688,' and his concluding words were : ' We fight for the authority of the Crown, for the power of Parliament, for the integrity of the Empire. Yes, we fight for all these, but we fight for something better. We fight for honour and truthfulness and openness and candour among public men. We fight for the fundamental principles of liberty, on which all our rights depend. We fight for everything by which " Kings reign and Princes decree justice." ' Professor Knight, of St. Andrew's University, one of the presidents of the LibeBal Unionist Association, wrote to the Duke after the meeting : ' Will you allow me to express to you the enthusi- astic delight with which I listened to your noble speech in Edinburgh on Friday night ? ' I have heard many speeches on this great question of the century, but nothing I ever listened to was so good as your plea, both from a historical, an ethical, and a political point of view. ' I sincerely trust that your speech will be published in a pamphlet form and circulated broadcast over the country.' VOL. n. 30 466 SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT [chap, xlv Professor Butcher, Edinburgh University, wrote with regard to the same speech : ' Much as I have now heard said upon Ireland, I never listened to anything which seemed to me so eloquent and impressive at the moment, and so worthy of being read and thought upon afterwards. All whom I have spoken to who were among your audience feel it an occasion to be remembered. Some have said they never before realized the full gravity of the question.' On August 9th, 1892, Lord Salisbury's Government was defeated on a vote of want of confidence, and Mr. Gladstone then formed his fourth Administration, which lasted until March, 1894, when he finally resigned office. He was succeeded as Prime Minister by the Earl of Rosebery, under whose leadership the Government remained in power until the following year (June 22nd, 1895), when it was defeated on a question concerning the Estimates, with reference to the War Department, and Lord Salisbury was again called upon to form a Ministry. One of the first measures brought forward by Mr. Gladstone's Government was an Employers' Liability Bill. This BiU provided that employers should be liable for injuries sustained by their workmen in the course of their employment, unless ' contributory negligence ' on the part of the workmen could be proved. After the measiire reached the House of Lords, Lord Dudley moved an amendment, to the effect that, when a mutual agreement for insurance against injury existed between employers and work- men, the arrangement should be allowed to stand if desired. The Duke of Argyll cordially supported this amendment, which was carried by a majority of 120, 1892] THE ELSWICK DEPUTATION 467 but its subsequent rejection by the House of Com- mons led to the withdrawal of the Bill the following year. The Duke received a number of deputations of working men on the subject of the Bill. He was especially impressed by the clear and just view of the question expressed by Mr. Foreman, the spokesman representing the Elswick Mutual Insurance Company, with whom he afterwards had some correspondence. In replying to the Elswick deputation, the Duke said : ' The figures and facts which you laid before me proved conclusively that the free contracts you have made, and which you advocate, are not relinquish- ments on your part of any valuable privilege which the law secures, but are, on the contrary, contracts securing for yourselves and your families, in a better form and more adequate degree, those very advantages which the law aims at providing for you, but is wholly unable to afford in anything like an equal degree. ' I venture to suggest to you the necessity of your now taking such steps as you may think right, to make your voice heard on this question in some public form. ' The House of Lords has done what it could to retain for you those personal liberties which we all value so much, and which you are so well competent to use for your own benefit, and for the benefit of the great industrial system in which you discharge most important functions. I have no right to speak in the name of any political party, but I have a right to tell you of my own personal opinion that the Peers cannot maintain this contest on your behalf, unless they are supported and unless you make it apparent that we have been acting faithfully in the interests of a great mass of the most skilled, the most educated, and the most intelligent of the working classes.' 30—2 468 SCOTTISH DISESTABLISHMENT [chap, xlv From Mr. Foreman to the Duke {March 2nd, 1894). ' Feeling that you have shown the spirit of a true friend toward us, in that you have gone out of your way to help us in the furtherance of our claim for a contracting clause to be added to the " Bill," so that there should be freedom of action on the part of work- men with their employers, we tender you our thanks for the kind and especial interest thus shown on our behalf. We feel that we owe you much for the trouble and pains you have taken, not only to make yourself acquainted with the question, but also for your efforts to establish equity and justice thereon. ' The letters you have written to us reveal your earnest desire to assist us in obtaining what we so much wanted. Although the efforts thus made failed to persuade the Government to add such a clause, yet the pressure was so strong and the arguments so con- vincing that what was asked was also right, it re- sulted in the withdrawal of the " Bill," and, of course, the continuance of " freedom of contract." This leads us to hope that if another Bill is brought for- ward, we can rely on your practical sympathy with us to have it so framed that " freedom of contract " shall continue to exist.' From Mr. Foreman {August 3rd, 1895). ' Permit me to express the gratification I feel that the country has so completely and definitely sustained the action of the House of Lords in refusing to yield to the dictates of the late Government, which en- deavoured to force on the people of this country measures that it did not want, and which were not in harmony with justice and liberty.' During the last weeks of the year 1893, the Duchess of Argyll, who had been for many years an invalid, had an attackToff acute illness, produced by a chill. 1896J THE ARMENIAN QUESTION 469 and the New Year had hardly dawned when her death brought a new sorrow to the Duke. In the month of April he went for a short cruise in the Mediterranean, but while at Corfu he was laid up with a touch of fever ; he therefore gave up the idea of prolonging his tour, and returned to London early in May. The Duke spoke in the House of Lords in the course of the summer of 1894 on the Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Bill, the Budget Bill, Tenants' Arbitration (Ireland) Bill, and the Local Government (Scotland) BiU. In July, 1894, massacres by the Turks of the Chris- tian population again broke out in the Armenian pro- vinces, and much indignation was, in consequence, aroused in England. Mr. Gladstone and the Duke were united in their efforts on behalf of the persecuted Armenians, with whose cause they were both much in sympathy. It had been arranged that a meeting on the subject of Armenia should be held in St. James's Hall on May 7th, 1895, at which the Duke was asked to preside. On April 18th he wrote to Mr. Gladstone : ' I should be delighted to pay you a visit were it not that I am stUl in an invali(ish condition, due chiefly to an attack of influenza, and I am hardly fit to inflict myself on others as a country guest. I con- sented reluctantly to take the chair at the Armenian meeting, mainly because, as one of the only two sur- vivors of the Crimean War Cabinet, I wish to testify to my strong feeling of our absolute responsibility for insisting on reforms in Turkey, since we did then, and again at a later date, interfere to keep up Turkey as a ruling Power. ' The few words you have felt yourself at liberty to say imply and involve a great deal. When you have 470 THE ABMENIAN QUESTION [chap, xlv said that no promise from Turkey is worth the breath with which it is made, you say all, if it be only a little unfolded.' To this Mr. Gladstone replied (May 5th) in a letter which was read at the meeting : ' I hope that the meeting over which you have kindly undertaken to preside wiU produce an effect proportioned to the gravity of the causes which, have led to its being summoned. ' What I desire is peace and tranquillity through the whole world, and it is with most sincere grief that now, when it appears that the extremes of shameful outrage in Armenia can no longer be treated as matter of doubt, I for one contemplate the infatuation of the Turkish Government, determined, it would seem, to do everything it can to produce its own ruin. ' It seemed reasonable to hope that the crimes in Bulgaria of the year 1876, together with the signal retribution they brought upon Turkey, would have the effect of preventing a repetition of like, and perhaps even more flagrant, horrors in Armenia. ' The duty incumbent on aU Europe, to place no reliance upon mere words, but to prevent by effectual measures any further recurrence of such terrible de- linquencies, seems clear enough. I feel confident that this country will not shrink from her duty, and I trust also in her having the firm co-operation of France and of Russia. If other great Governments remain inac- tive, it is perhaps most of all to be regretted on their own account. ' I will not trouble you with many words, but I could not help sending an expression of my strong sympathy, and of my hope that by the use of moral means, if possible, and if not, then by other means, rather than not at aU, ample security will now be taken against any fresh resort in the future by the Sultan and his advisers to their deeds of shame.' 1895] SPEECH AT ST. JAMES'S HALL 471 From the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Benson {April 3rd, 1895). ' I hope very earnestly that in your great effort, so important poUtically, religiously, and socially, on which you solemnly enter, you will make it absolute that all the Eastern Christians shall be brought under protection along with the Armenians. ' The " Assyrians," or Nestorians, whom you so materially aided some years ago, live in no less danger than the Armenians. One word from headquarters to the Kurds, and the possibly oldest of national Churches would be extinguished in Turkey.' In the course of his speech at the meeting in St. James's Hall, the Duke said : ' There is a party in this country — I will not say a party, but a great number of persons — who do not fully understand what the responsibility of this country is with regard to all these atrocities in the Turkish Empire. I have come here mainly to impress upon you this conviction, which is deeply impressed upon my own mind — that we, the people of this country, as a nation, are directly responsible for the govern- ment or misgovernment of Turkey. . . . ' I stand before you as one of the only two survivors of the Cabinet which waged the Crimean War (my right honourable friend Mr. Gladstone is the other), and I wish to set right a very common popular misappre- hension as regards the objects of that war. I believe there are very many persons who say — I have even read some articles in reviews written by educated men lately — who say we waged the Crimean War in order to support the Turks and the Turkish Empire, and for no other purpose. ' Well, that is a complete mistake. The whole object of the Crimean War was, not to support Turkey as an empire at any cost, but to establish this as a European principle : that, whatever might be the fate 472 THE AEMENIAN QUESTION [chap. XLV or the future of Turkey, that fate and that future were to be in the hands of Europe, and not in the hands of Russia alone. . . . ' Now, I want to read to you three short documents which will place on an absolute certainty the state- ment that I have just made as to our object in the Crimean War. Here is what Lord Aberdeen said, who was the head of the Government : ' " Notwithstanding the favourable opinion of many, it is difficult to beUeve in the improvement of the Turks. It is true that, under the pressure of the moment, benevolent decrees may be issued ; but these, except under the eye of some foreign Minister, are entirely neglected. Their whole system is radically vicious and inhuman. I do not refer to fables which may be invented at St. Petersburg or Vienna, but to numerous despatches of Lord Stratford de RedcUfEe himself and of our own Consuls, who describe a frightful picture of lawless oppression and cruelty." ' Can there be a stronger expression than that, so far as concerns the head of the Government which waged the Crimean War ? WeU, I come to the next authority on this subject, and that is Lord Russell, who was Foreign Minister during part of the time, and took an active part in all the negotiations con- nected with that war. Having read to you the opinion of Lord Aberdeen, which shows what the object of the Cabinet was not, I now come to what that object really was. ' " The Cabinet of Lord Aberdeen," says Lord Russell, " while actively defending the independence of Turkey, felt that in objecting to the separate inter- ference of Russia they were bound to obtain some guarantee for the sectirity of the subjects of the Porte professing the Christian faith, whether Greek, or Roman Catholic, or Protestant, whether Christians by descent or Turkish converts." ' Here the doctrine is laid down distinctly that the object of England in waging that war was to set up 1895] THE WAR OF 1876 473 a European protectorate over all Christian subjects of the Porte — not, observe, the Armenians only, but over aU Christian subjects. Then I come to the third authority, which, you wiU admit, is a remarkable one. The great Prince who stood nearest and dearest to the throne at that time, and who regarded everything with a thoroughly intellectual and philosophical mind, wrote this, which has since been made public ; I do not recollect having seen it at the time : " The can- celling of aU previous Russian treaties, and the sub- stitution of a European for a Russian protectorate of the Christians, or, rather, of European protection for a Russian protectorate. . . ." ' But the real truth is that our responsibility does not depend on the words of any treaty. It depends upon the broad fact that we did intervene, and saved the Turks from complete defeat and ruin by Russia. After the destruction of the Turkish fleet at Sinope, Tiirkey was practically in the hands of Russia ; and when we stepped in and saved her and gave her a new lease of hfe, we undertook a responsibility from which we cannot possibly escape. If there had not been a single line of treaty, a single intimation given to us, a single promise vouchsafed to us, the responsi- bility would have been just the same. It arose out of the fact of our position, and the action we took in a great Russian crisis.' In alluding to the war of 1876, the Duke said : ' That war arose distinctly out of the crimes of the Turks. The Bulgarian atrocities excited aU Europe, and Russia especially ; and Russia, as the other Powers did not seem willing to come forward and act as pro- tectors of the Christians of Turkey, waged war upon Turkey. Well, after a very gallant resistance — for the Turks are brave soldiers — Russia was at the gates of Constantinople, and forced upon Turkey the Treaty of San Stefano. In that treaty Russia bound herself 474 THE ARMENIAN QUESTION [chap, xlv alone to protect the Christians. Russia would have had the right to an exclusive protectorate of Turkey, and would have acquired for herself that rich and glorious inheritance of the East. At this moment our British Government intervened, and said : " You shall not have this treaty. It is true you overcame the Turks ; you have wrung from them this treaty ; but we say you shall not have it. We will take it out of your hands, and insist that Turkey shall give these promises to all of us which you intended should be given to you alone." That was our attitude at that time. There, again, we saved Turkey, and gave her a new lease of life, restored her power, and that, if there were not a single word of treaty, imposed upon us a solemn obligation to defend the Christians of Turkey. After that we have rested on our oars. That promise was given by Turkey, and you observe the terms of it — that the Porte was periodically to make known the steps taken to this effect to the Powers, who will superintend their application. Now, the Turks have never fulfilled that promise, and I am sorry to say we have never fulfilled our part of the obligation to the Christians of Turkey. . . . ' Mr. Gladstone says in his letter he wishes peace and tranquillity all over the world. So do we aU, but not at any cost. And I must say I think it the abso- lute duty of this Government to keep the people of this country informed upon the facts of the case. Open the windows, open the doors ; let in the Hght ! Whatever other action we take, let us at least make the people of this country know what they have to deal with, and the horrors for which they are indi- vidually and collectively responsible. . . . ' I have the honour of addressing a great many who were not born forty-five years ago, a great many more who were very young at that time, and perhaps a very small number of men who remember all the circum- stances of the case. They are burnt in upon my heart and memory, and this I may say — that we did 1895] SPEECH AT ST. JAMES's HALL 475 not urge this country into that war. On the contrary, the country urged us on into that war. . . . ' I have only further to say that it is to me a very special and painful recollection to look back to that period when all those with whom I acted, except Mr. Gladstone, are dead and gone. It is the fate of those who have arrived at my time of life to have that sadness very often forced upon them. ' " The clouds that gather round the setting sun Do take a sober colouring from an eye That hath kept watch o'er man's mortality." But, looking back to that time, I say distinctly that I cannot see that we took any step at that time that we ought not to have taken, or that we failed to establish any principle which was not right and just. The words I often find myself repeating, the touching words of our late Laureate, are : ' " Come memory, with sad eye. Holding the folded annals of my youth." Yes, they are folded — folded in much sorrow for those we have lost, for the remarkable men with whom I have worked, and who are now gone ; but they would be folded not in sorrow and regret only, but in remorse and shame, if to the last hour of my life I did not tell the people of this country of the immense responsi- bilities which they took with us, and which they forced us to impose upon them.' The Duke wrote to Mr. Gladstone (May 8th), giving an account of the meeting : ' We had a large meeting, and your letter was received with great applause. We had an Archbishop and some Bishops, but the meeting was predominantly Nonconformist, as was shown when a Mr. Clifiord rose. He was received as if he were a demi-god. ... I 476 THE ARMENIAN QUESTION [chap, xlv went this morning to read all the political morning papers, and I found that aU were favourable to us except the Morning PosV To Mr. Gladstone {August 5th, 1895). ' I am glad to see you are to speak on the Armenian question this week. ' I have felt it due to the Foreign Office to be silent till we could know what it had done or was doing, and until one could see the correspondence it was impossible to judge. I felt sure of at least one good result — it was impossible to have such a negotiation going on at all without the Powers being committed more and more to some express acknowledgment of responsi- bility, and this acknowledgment will carry inevitably its own result. ' But, so far as we can judge by published documents, I thought the scheme of the Foreign Office hopelessly complex. It was a scheme which would be unwork- able even with goodwill on both sides, and futile where there is no goodwill at all or honesty on the part of the Turks. Of course, my own belief is that no remedy can ever be effectual till the Turks fall " bag and baggage," as regards the Government. But the time is not ripe for this, I suppose ; and in the meantime some one good governor for those provinces seems the simplest solution.' To Mr. Gladstone (December 10th, 1895). ' I know nothing of the diplomatic situation as it now stands on the Eastern Question ; but privately I have no doubt of the chief elements in the situation. ' 1. We cannot get at the seat of trouble by a military force of our own. It is inland, and we have no army to undertake an Asiatic campaign. Even if we had, the Turk could cut every Christian throat before we could reach the country. 1895] England's position 477 ' 2. Consequently, we can only exert the pressure of physical force at headquarters at Constantinople. ' 3. But Russia will not concur — nay, even threatens to oppose any act of force — at least, at present, ' 4. The Turk, if backed by Russia, wiU certainly resist, and a Russian army is near enough to occupy Constantinople and hold it — nominally for the Turk, really for herself. ' These are as ugly cards to play with as were ever placed in the hands of any Government. ' I suspect and believe that SaUsbury is practically compelled to drag in other Powers from step to step, towards some joint form of action at Constantinople. The Turk knows only too well how Russia is disposed to back him against force — at least, at present. I am afraid he counts, only too securely, on a purely selfish policy on the part of that Power. ' Por myself, I would greatly prefer allowing, and even inviting, Russia to take possession of all the Armenian provinces of Asiatic Turkey. Would you not ? . . . ' I ought to add that I thought Kimberley's plan of protection for the Christians utterly unworkable. Probably he had the same difficulty in getting Russia and the other Powers to agree on anything. I have not seen the utterance of the Emperor of Germany to which you aUude. But all the Powers except our- selves are as cold as ice on the score of humanity. They are thinking of nothing but of their own mutual jealousies, and of the postponement of a war of terri- torial redistribution in the East.' To this Mr. Gladstone replied (December 15th, 1895) : ' I agree with you that we cannot send an army to Armenia, and cannot — i.e., ought not to — go to war with the great Powers. ' There is a third course, which we followed in 1880 with complete success. We threatened to seize Smyrna 478 THE AEMBNIAN QUESTION [chap xlv and stop its revenues. This brought about the exten- sion of Montenegro, and gave Thessaly to Greece. But Russia then behaved very well. ' The horror of the whole case is beyond belief, and the Sultan is the man who does it.' To Mr. Gladstone {June 22nd, 1896). ' The only thing I recollect was being much amused by the " pussy " way in which Granville had got Bright to consent to the naval demonstration on the Albanian coast, because I felt that when fleets are sent they must fire in certain contingencies, and Bright might have been committed to an act of war. Of all the rest I recollect nothing, and probably, as you say, never knew. In the Armenian case force could only have been applied in the Sea of Marmora, and that was a much more formidable thing than lajring an embargo on Smyrna. Still, I have a feeling that greater determination on our part would, or might, have dragged all the other Powers with us. Mean- time, we are not at the end, and I have some hope that my argument may be of a little use in giving direction to public opinion. ' Eruptions seem to be breaking out all over the corrupt Turkish body, and things will not easily be composed without great changes. But we ought to make friends with Russia as far as possible.' On August 17th, 1896, the Duke wrote to Mr. Glad- stone, expressing his estimate of Austria : ' I did not say anything in my last letter about the Eastern question, to which you referred. I assume it to be true that Salisbury refused the infamous proposal that we should join in a blockade to prevent the Cretans getting outside help. That would have been indeed intolerable. ' But, further, I hope it is also true that Salisbury has approached Russia in some friendly way, and I 1896] POSITION OF AUSTRIA 479 flatter myself that my pamphlet has had some influence upon him. ' He dined with me a few weeks ago. I did not like to " speak shop " to him, but he volunteered to teU me that he had read my pamphlet, and " that he did not know anything in it from which he differed, except about the Crimean War." I said that was ancient history now, and irrelevant. ' But what has surprised me most, and disgusted me, has been the part played by Austria. Russia has temptations about all popular movements, how- ever righteous ; but Austria has acted with in- credible baseness and cowardice. Her Minister has expressed his horror of the Armenian massacres, but always coolly adds that such sacrifices for the peace of the East and for the postponement of a break-up of Turkey must just be endured. ' What she is afraid of, I don't know. She governs Bosnia (so lately Turkish) admirably, and the Maho- medans and Christians are living now together in perfect peace. A recent book by a Scottish archae- ologist (Brown) gives a most satisfactory account of the country. Why can't other provinces be equally well managed ? I used to think Austria the most respectable of all the old Governments of Europe, but she has been really infamous in this last Eastern crisis. I met her Minister* here lately, a gentleman, but cynical, I suspect, as regards any question of humanity. ' Our foolish seizure of Cyprus in 1878 damages us seriously now. The Powers are suspicious of our intentions to grab more. If we could persuade them all that we don't want another acre for ourselves, they would be more amenable.' It was at this time that the Duke published his book, ' Our Responsibilities for Turkey.' Regarding this little volume, he wrote to Mr. Gladstone (June 13th, 1896) : * Count Deym. 480 THE ARMENIAN QUESTION [chap, xlv ' I have desired Murray to send you an early copy of a little book I am publishing on the Turkish question. It is to show our national responsibilities arising out of our national deeds for the last forty years. ' As far as possible, I have avoided party distinc- tions, although by so doing I have sacrificed some part of the strength of the case. I don't expect you to differ at all from the arguments.' From among the appreciatory letters concerning this book the following is quoted : From Monsieur Naville {the eminent Egyptologist). ' MiLOBD Duke, ' When I was in England a month ago my friend Lord Reay strongly advised me to take with me and read the book which your Grace had just published on England's responsibilities for Turkey. I found it so interesting, and it seemed to me such a very important contribution on the burning question of the day, that I thought it could not but interest also keenly my countrymen. Therefore, I wrote an article upon it for one of the leading papers of Switzer- land — Le Journal de Geneve. It is this article, which was published in two consecutive numbers (second page), which I venture to send to your Grace. i): 4c N: H: :): ' My name is perhaps not quite unknown to you in connection with Egyptian research. I have been working more than ten years in Egypt for the Egypt Exploration Fund.' CHAPTER XLVI 1860-93 SCIENCE The Duke's great interest in science brought him into correspondence with many of the eminent scientific men of his time. Some of these letters, relating as they do to isolated scientific facts, are now of little general interest ; but the following extracts, which are grouped according to subject-matter and date, have been selected, as illustrating both the wideness of the Duke's range of scientific thought, and the thorough methods he employed in pursuing his investi- gations and inquiries after truth. The extracts are mostly taken from his correspondence with Sir Charles LyeU, described by the Duke as being at that time ' the great law-giver in the philosophy of geology '; Sir Richard Owen, the distinguished anatomist ; Sir WiUiam Flower, the successor to Sir Richard Owen in the superintendence of the Natural History Depart- ments of the British Museum ; Sir John Murray, of the Challenger expedition ; Mr. Herbert Spencer ; Professor Tyndall ; and Lord Kelvin. Organic Evolution. Organic evolution, to the consideration of which the Duke devoted much thought and study, and on which he wrote a treatise, published in 1898, is the subject of the following correspondence : VOL. n. 481 31 482 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLVi To Sir Charles Lyell {February 29th, 1860). ' I wish I had been able to talk over Darwin's book.* It is a most delightful one, suggesting endless subjects for discussion and inquiry. I think he fails fundamentally in these two cardinal points : First, in shoAving that in the existing or contemporary world breeding does effect any changes such as tend to the formation of new species. Second, he fails to show that in the past worlds there is any proof or clear evidence of such gradations of change as his theory reqmres. ' I am thoroughly dissatisfied, too, with the explana- tions by which the latter difficulty is met. Most ingenious argument is expended in trying to show how it was that such gradations should have been lost; but I wonder his result did not suggest the over- ingenuity of those arguments, when it is summed up in the assertion that " Nature has, as if on purpose, concealed her periods of transition." ' As regards the effects of breeding, I think the facts he gives in respect to pigeons tell more against than for his theory. ' Does he not teU us that by crossing a pure white and a jet black in two generations the progeny reverted to the weU-known original type of the blue rock, with its double black bar on the wing coverts. What a wonderful fact ! How many generations off from the original wild stock were these reverted birds ? ' Then, there is another fact which I think he omits. Pigeons have been bred, he tells us, for some 3,000 years. Yet how Httle, how infinitesimal, has been the change in the more essential habits and instincts which specifically distinguish the wild stock from other Columbidse ! Take, for instance, its non- arboreal habit. Pigeons are now everywhere, in woody countries, surrounded by trees ; yet who ever sees * ' The Origin of Species.' 1860-93] BAR win's ' ORIGIN OF SPECIES ' 483 a tame pigeon light on a tree ? Did you ever see one so light ? I never did but once, and that under very peci:diar circumstances. ' There are some chapters in DarAvin's book which are invaluable, on the migration of species, natural selection, etc., and the whole is so fuU of curious information that, whether his theory is right or wrong, it is a perfect storehouse of knowledge. ' Of course, Darwin appUes his theory to man among other Mammaha. But the record of geology is con- fessedly more complete in the later times, during which the species Homo must have been in course of " selec- tion," from among his Quadrumanous progenitors. ' My beUef is that all the yet ascertained facts are against such theories of development. ' I should vastly Hke to see some of Mr, Darwin's stores, illustrative of his curious information and experiments.' From Sir Charles Lyell {March 1st, 1861). ' I am very much delighted with your address, both that part which treats of the flints and that on the more difficult and dehcate question of Darwin's " Origin of Species," which you have entered on without timidity, and yet in such a way as no reasonable man can object to, least of aU Darwin himself. The difficulties have nowhere been more clearly or candidly stated. . . . ' I could write on for ever, but must conclude. I am glad you paid a parting compUment to Darwin's book, which has done so much to promote science. The subject can never go back to where it was before he wrote.' To Sir Charles Lyell {March 2nd, 1861). ' I am very glad you approve of what I have said — at least, as regards its pertinence on the Darwinian theory. 31—2 484 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi ' I cannot see how single centres of " creation " or " development " can be reconciled with his view of the mode in which new species take their origin ; but this is a point of great importance, which requires to be carefuUy thought out. ' The truth is that, even on the supposition that some pre-existing species has always been employed, so to speak, as a means of introducing derivative forms, we require, for the law under which such deriva- tion arises, some suggestion or clue which Darwin fails to supply.' From Sir Charles Lyell {January 25th, 1865). ' My deab Duke of Abgyll, ' I have to thank you for a separate copy of your most interesting address to the Royal Society, Edinburgh, which I read at Berlin, to which place the Proceedings were forwarded to me. I have never seen so clear a definition of the various senses in which the term " law " is used by scientific writers ; and I think you have done a real service to the scientific and theological pubhc by showing, what I am convinced is most true, that there is no tendency to materialism in the reasoning or speculations of modern naturalists and physicists, but quite the contrary. Your objec- tion that Darwin has in some parts of his book made natural selection do more in the way of originating or creating than is admissible, or even consistent, with his own explanation of natural selection, was felt strongly by me, and at page 469 of my " Antiquity of Man " I said : " If we confound variation or natural selection with such creational laws, we deify secondary causes, or immeasurably exaggerate their influence." You have put it much better, but I felt as strongly that Darwin is incHned to beheve that he has made a greater step in the direction of discovering and origiaat- ing cause or law than he has really made.' 1860-93] OBNAMENT IN NATURE 485 To Sir Charles Lyell {January 31sf, 1865). ' I do not agree with you when you say that when use is discovered in any form of which we knew only the beauty before, a rebuke is administered to the idea that beauty is an object in the works of Nature. Would it be a rebuke to the idea of the carving on the handle of a war-club being for ornament, that we should dis- cover the said carving to be also intended to give a better hold to the hand of the savage ? Surely not. I have no doubt whatever that most of the beautiful forms in Nature are married to use in some way or another, just as in human art we combine ornament with adaptation to use. ' For example, some of the most beautiful surface ornaments on shells are simply the lines of the shell's annual growth. In like manner in the vegetable world some of the most beautiful lines are lines con- nected with structure and growth. ' I believe ornament to be pursued in Nature very much on the same principle on which man pursues it in his own works, and no amount of connection between use and beauty would afiEect my view of it. ' Have you ever thought of the extreme intricacy of the arrangement by which any given ornament is effected in the case of birds' feathers ? For example, a bar of white on a bird's wing can be made out only by a great number of separate feathers being partly white in such degree and at such a point of their length as to fit the pattern when the bird's wing is extended or folded. Then, again, how curious the number of filaments in each feather, which must be coloured differently in different parts of its length to fit the corresponding differences of the other filaments, so that the whole shall produce a given effect. The " eye " of an Argus pheasant's wing or of a pea- cock's train is made up out of single filaments so coloured that, when lying in contact, the " eye " results.' 486 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLVi To Sir Charles Lyell {March 22nd, 1865). ' I had previously heard of a case where pigeons had been tempted and seduced (by corrupting arts and in- fluences being brought to bear upon them) so far to forget themselves and what was due to the memory of their ancestors as to settle on trees. ' But the fact remains that this is a rare exception, and that the specific instinct of the rock-dove remains a characteristic of all its descendants of every variety of shape and form. ' I saw in the Field the other day the account of a woodcock perching in a spruce-fir. But -these acci- dental instances of miscondtict do not affect the character of the species. ' It will be observed, too, that in the case of pigeons settling on trees they always settle on the large boughs, which are sometimes as broad and almost as steady as the ridges of rock which are their real specific resting- places ; whereas all the true arboreal doves light habitually on mere twigs, as other perching birds do. I often see the ringdove sitting on the top shoot of a fir. ' The most abandoned character among tame pigeons would never do this.' To Sir Charles Lyell {May 1st, 1867). ' The general tenor of your letter supposes an an- tagonism on my part to the " natural selection " doc- trine, which I do not entertain, so far as regards the preservation and extinction of species once " born " or once " created." My point is that natural selection can in no way and in no degree account for the par- ticular direction which variations take, that direction being a determinate one, so that the new forms are " correlated " with external conditions, with a view to their success and establishment in Nature. ' I specially point out that this argument, though most important in the philosophy of the subject, is in no way necessarily antagonistic to Darwin's theory, 1860-93] ANTHEOPOMOBPHISM EST THEOLOaY 487 though it shows it to be incomplete, and I go so far as to say that my conclusion is one which Darwin may very possibly be wiUing to accept. ' But I stick to one point which you dispute— viz., that in order to the establishment of a new form, and the starting of it on its way, there must be a corre- sponding change in both the sexes. Considering the close " correlation " of the sexes, I have no doubt that this is always the case.' From Sir Charles Lyell {19th September, 1868). ' I have just read with great interest your spirited and clearly-written article in reply to Wallace on nidification. If I did not feel sure that portions of it will be embodied in some of your future works, I should grudge its being placed in a periodical just struggling into existence, though it may perhaps be most usefully published in the same journal as the paper which it controverts. . . . ' I cannot beHeve that Darwin or Wallace can mean to dispense with that mind, of which you speak, as directing the forces of Nature. They, in fact, admit that we know nothing of the power which gives rise to variation in form, colour, structure, or instinct.' On March 10th, 1875, the Duke delivered a lecture on ' Anthropomorphism in Theology ' to a Presby- terian college in London, which he mentions in a letter to Professor Tyndall on April 23rd, 1875 : ' I have sent you a copy of a lecture lately read by me before the young men connected with a college in London. I hope you wiU find nothing in it incon- sistent with the sincere respect I entertain for your love of all discoverable truth. I have taken no part in the outcry about your Belfast address, because I thought it greatly misunderstood, and that its ten- dency is rather to spiritualize matter than to material- 488 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLvi ize thought. But I need not say that by this route we may come round very much to the same goal, and I think we must always keep separate in language the two most separate things which can be conceived in thought.' With Sir William Flower the Duke had many in- teresting discussions, especially on the question of the ' prospective character of rudimentary organs,' a sub- ject which deeply interested him. To Professor Flower {June llth, 1883). ' I am very glad if my questions have directed your attention with definite results to the curious problem as to the prospective or retrospective character of rudimentary organs in the Cetacea as well as in other animals. ' I am not sure that I quite understand your argu- ment ; but it will be best understood by seeing speci- mens, and I should be very glad some of these days to attend at the Museum and see any that you could show me. ' In the processes of ordinary generation it is quite clear that the future organs must be in the germ, and must in time have incipient parts, whether they are visible or not. Transmutation involves the supposi- tion that the whole line of future development must be similarly present in all germs, potentially at least, with beginnings of actual structure visible at certain times. A priori, therefore, one would expect such structures to appear in any complete series of organ- isms. ' If they do not appear, I suppose we must take refuge in that convenient " bolt-hole " the " imperfec- tion of the record." ' That aU limbs should begin with integumentary foldings, unsupported by any internal structure, seems very strange. 1860-93] EUDIMENTAKY AND DEVELOPED STRUCTURES 489 To Professor Flower {June SOth, 1883). ' I have read with great care your most interesting lecture, so far as published. ' I see that the principle for which I am looking as probably to be found in biology is virtually involved in a fact which has long been recognised in compara- tive anatomy, and which you specially dwell upon as exemplified in the whales, that fact being this — that in all cases of highly-speciaHzed organs they are nothing more than an abnormal development of rudimentary structures, always to be found in the generalized forms. ' Thus you trace the baleen, which is a most peculiar specialization, to a development of certain " papitlse " which are to be found in the palate structure of aU the mammalia. ' I need not say that this, so far as it goes, agrees with my idea that on the evolution hypothesis we ought to find structures on the way to functional im- portance, as well as structures on the way to final dis- appearance and extinction. Of course, papiUse are mere germs, but they are germs with a " potential " value, and are, as it were, the roots of growths which could not have arisen without the previous estabhsh- ment of the roots.' To Professor Flower {July 8th, 1883). ' Your second half is to me even more interesting than your first half (lectures on the whales). I see that the toothed whales have the least or smallest remnants of the quadrupedal limbs, whilst the whalebone whales have the largest and most distinct remains of those Umbs. ' I suppose that on the theory of loss by atrophy and disuse this fact would poiat to the whalebone whales being the nearest to the parent stock — the youngest, because the least aberrant from the original 490 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLvi mammalian type — so far as limbs are concerned. If so, how does this doctrine apply to the appearance and development of whalebone as opposed to teeth ? Clearly, as regards them, the whalebone whales are the most aberrant, the most differentiated from the original type, whilst as regards the limbs, they are the least differentiated, the least aberrant. ' You showed me some whale skeletons in which the whalebone was combined with teeth in full functional use, some in which the whalebone was quite sub- ordinate as regards use. Are we to conclude that these are on the road to be full whalebone whales, or are these again cases of aborted and dying out remnants of growths which were once more fully developed ? ' As regards functional use, I can't believe that small fringes of whalebone are at all required for the capture of ordinary fish-prey. Whalebone is a mar- vellous adaptation for the capture of minute organisms, but for this alone ; and, therefore, the half-whalebone whales look very much like creatures having a special development beginning before its utiUty, or at least its necessity, has actually arisen. ' Until we can come to some conclusion on these questions, we may be quite sure, indeed, of the general fact of evolution, but we can know nothing of the tracks which it has followed. ' In marine animals, if anywhere, the record may be comparatively complete, and in the whales we may possibly recognise the line which development has followed.' The Duke always rendered justice to the great know- ledge and abiHty of Mr. Charles Darwin, although there was a wide divergence of opinion between them ; and Mr. Darwin expressed to a friend his sense of ' the courtesy and deference ' with which he was received by the Duke at Argyll Lodge. 1860-93] DAEWIN ON THE 'CREATION THEORY' 491 The following letters from the Duke to Professor (now Sir George) Darwin contain allusions to his father, Mr. Charles Darwin : To Professor Darwin {January Vlih, 1888). ' Many years ago I recollect being struck, and at the moment puzzled, by a passage in one of your father's books in which he said that the teleological or " creation " theory " would explain anything.'''' ' At first sight this seemed a strange objection, but on farther thought I soon saw that your father was quite right in stating it as an objection, because an explanation which will cover everything in general can hardly be an explanation of anything in par- ticular. ' Subsequently, it has appeared to me that the theory of " natural selection " was so vague and metaphorical that it is itself open to precisely the same objection. There is no phenomenon in biology to which the formula may not be made to apply with, perhaps, a little stretching. ' Now, both my papers in the Nineteenth Century were written before your father's Life was pub- lished. ' In the last of these I have referred to the " explain anything " argument, admitting its force, but pointing out its equal applicability to metaphors which do not represent the physical causes. ' When, therefore, I came to read the Life, I was amused and interested to see that some nameless friend had brought this objection before your father, who calls it " rather a queer objection." He must have forgotten his own old observation to the hke effect. I do not think he saw the exact point of it. He says, " I quite agree with it." ' As the point has not been, I think, much noticed, if at all, I was rather curious to know who the objector was.' 492 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi To Professor Darwin (a few days later). ' What I mean by " explaining anything " is this : that, for example, in the case objected to by your father, " pro\dsion of Nature " will " explain anything." It explains " why," but not " how." It has no bear- ing on physical causation. ' In like manner, " natural selection " wiU explain anything, because, as Herbert Spencer now admits, it does not represent any true physical causation, or, at least, deals with it on assumptions which can be applied to anything. ' It applies to all improvements in human machines quite as well as to animal mechanism. ' And as regards animals, it can be applied to every kind of variation equally. If, for example, among the snipes, one bird's bill bends down and another bends up, and a third is twisted sideways (as actually happens), we can account for each equally well by assuming some unknown special use as determining both the origin and the preservation of the special form. ' I don't know any monstrosity of form, if actually propagated, which might not equally weU be ex- plained by the same assumptions.' The point alluded to in this letter is dwelt upon in the Duke's treatise on ' Organic Evolution Cross- examined ' (p. 88), as foUows : ' The truth is that the phrase " natural selection," and the group of ideas which hide under it, is so elastic that there is nothing in heaven or on earth that by a little ingenuity may not be brought under its pre- tended explanation. Darwin in 1859-1860 wondered " how variously " his phrase had been " misunder- stood." The explanation is simple : it was because of those vague and loose analogies which are so often captivating. It is the same now, after thirty-six 1860-93] NATURAL SELECTION 493 years of copious argument and exposition. Darwin ridiculed the idea which some entertained that natural selection " was set up as an active power of deity "; yet this is the very conception of it which is at this moment set up by one of the most faithful worshippers in the Darwinian cult. Professor Poulton, of Oxford, gives to natural selection the title of a " motive power " first discovered by Darwin. This develop- ment is perfectly intelligible. Nature is the old tra- ditional refuge for aU who wiU not see the work of creative mind. Everything that is, everything that happens, is and happens naturally. Nature per- sonified does, and is, our aU in aU. She is the universal agent, and at the same time the universal product. What she does she may easily be conceived as choosing to do, or selecting to be done, out of countless alter- natives before her. Then, we have only to shut our eyes, bhndly or conveniently, to the absolute difference between the idea of merely selecting out of already existing things, and of selecting by prevision out of conceivable things yet to be — we have only to cherish or even to tolerate this gross confusion of thought, and then we can cram into our theories of natural selection the very highest exercises of mind and wiU. Let us carry out consistently the analogy of thought in- volved in the agency of a human breeder ; let us emancipate this conception from the narrow limits of operation within which we know it to be humanly confined ; let us conceive a strictly homologous agency in Nature which has power not merely to select among organs already so developed as to be fit for use, but to select and direct beforehand the development of organs through many embryonic stages of existence, during which no use is possible ; let us conceive, in short, an agency in Nature which keeps, as it were, a book in which " aU our members are written, which in continuance are fashioned, when as yet there are none of them": then the phrase and the theory of natural selection may be accepted as at least some- 494 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLVI thing of an approach to an explanation of the wonder- ful facts of biological development.' The assumption of the Darwinian school of thought that all structures which we now find to be imperfect or functionless are remains of structures once in full use, but now in course of gradual effacement, was challenged by the Duke, who considered that they might be in many cases rudimentary organs in process of development for future use. On this point he wrote two articles, which appeared in the Nineteenth Century of March and April, 1897. These articles touched on a difference of opinion between Lord Salisbury and Mr. Herbert Spencer, and they contain a clear expo- sition of the Duke's views on evolution. In connection with the question of rudimentary organs. Professor Cossar Ewart's researches on the subject of the electric organs of the skate excited the interest of the Duke, who wrote to him (October 4th, 1888) : ' I suppose the result to be that the electric organs of fish obey the general law that all highly-specialized organs are not new inventions, so to speak, of Nature, but simply normal elementary structures, specially developed for some special functions, or, in other words, are apparatuses made out of common materials for an uncommon purpose. This is a most interesting generalization, and seems to me to help greatly in reconcihng the facts of development with the idea of creation. . . . ' This I apprehend to be thte general result, with this further interest — that the change from the ordinary motor apparatus to the highly-specialized electric apparatus is a change gradually made, so that the electric apparatus can be detected " on the rise," being made while as yet its utility Hes wholly in 1860-93] ELECTRIC ORGANS 495 the future. This is fatal to the Darwinian idea of "selection" as the physical cause of such struc- tures.' To Professor Gossar Ewart {January 22nd, 1889). ' I have read with great interest your paper on the rays — -the last sent to me. You have got hold of a point having the highest interest in biology and philosophy, and I hope you wiU work it thoroughly. It is not improbable that these organs will be found to exist more widely than is now suspected. ' I was telling an old fisherman of mine here about the skate, when he told me that he now thinks that the common skate does give a shght shock when handled by the tail. But he confessed that he was hardly able to distinguish between such a very slight shock and the mere concussion produced by flapping and wrigghng. The dislike of all fishermen to handle the skate is notorious. He reminded me that, as several species were unarmed as to spines, it could not be dread of them that caused the reluctance to handle the fish. ' You observe in your paper that if the organ could be traced to heredity, all difficulty would be removed. But I don't admit this, because that would only remove the difficulty a few generations farther back to the Jirst Placoid that began to institute these organs. ' The explanation you suggest — that aU muscular action involves electric discharges, and that these organs are merely a specialization of this fact — is, I have no doubt, the true explanation. ' Evolution absolutely demands the assumption that aU highly-specialized organs must begin in germ, or potentially — that is, before use is possible. ' Hence " natural selection " can never explain the origin of anything. Electric organs are no exception really, but their rarity strikes us, and exhibits very 496 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLVI clearly the fallacy of putting actual use forward as a physical cause of the organ that is to be used. ' I hope you will prosecute the subject thoroughly, and describe the organs of the Nile Siluroids. The variety of parts in different fish which are converted into batteries is a point of special interest in the general argument.' The correspondence between the Duke and Mr. Herbert Spencer shows that, although on some im- portant subjects their views were widely opposed, their public controversy on these points did not affect the Duke's admiration of Mr. Herbert Spencer as a philo- sopher. In a letter to Mr. Spencer (March 4th, 1893) he wrote : ' I always read your books and papers with the greatest interest, often with partial, and sometimes with entire, agreement. . . . ' I differ from you in thinking that the admission of the hereditary transmission of " acquired characters " can lift natural selection out of the difficulties and insufficiencies which you specify as affecting it when that transmission is not allowed. In my opinion that metaphor " natural selection," as used by the Dar- winian school, labours under inherent incompetencies to account for, or "explain," the phenomena of Nature, which are not at aU remedied by the mere admission of the power of " acquired characters." But I am all the more grateful to you for " showing up " these incompetencies in any form or under any conditions. ' Meanwhile, we can all desire to ascertain facts.^ To Mr. Herbert Spencer {December 1th, 1893). ' You keep the philosophic tone and temper more perfectly than any writer I know. 1860-93] MR. HERBERT SPENCER 497 ' It SO happens that at the present moment— when- ever I can get a moment from politics — I am engaged in a close examination of your " Biology," and I think the tone I refer to is very conspicuous there.' From Mr. Herbert Spencer {January llth, 1897). ' Dear Duke of Argyll, ' That much would have been added to my gratification had the list of names in the Times* been reinforced by the name of one so distinguished in various spheres, it is needless for me to say ; but its absence is more than compensated for by the ex- pression of regret which you have been so kind as to send me. As being joined with the expression of partial disagreement, this is more to be valued than did entire agreement prompt it. This manifestation of sympathy between those whose opinions are in considerable degrees at variance is a favourable trait in our times, amid many traits which are unfavour- able.' To Mr. Herbert Spencer {September 26th, 1898). ' It is very kind of you to send a copy of your last volume to such a heretic as I am. I shall read it with great interest. There is always in your writings miich that I agree with, and often I feel as if — behind a screen of highly-specialized phraseology — there was a great deal more of the same coincidence of con- ceptions.' A clear statement of what the Duke refers to as the ' coincidence of conceptions ' between himself and Mr. * An address of congratulation had been presented to Mr. Herbert Spencer, signed by a number of eminent men, in recog- nition of the successful completion of his ' System of Synthetic Philosophy.' VOL. n. 32 498 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLVI Spencer is given in ' Organic Evolution Cross-ex- amined ' (p. 114) : ' Let us, however, provisionally at least, accept the belief that organic life was first called into existence in the form of some three or four or five germs, each being the progenitor of one of the great leading types of the animal creation in respect to peculiarities of structure— one for the Vertebrata, one for the MoUusca, one for the Crustacea, one for the Radiata, and one for the Insecta. Let us assume, farther, on the same footing, that from each of these germs aU the modifica- tions belonging to each class have been developed by what we call the processes of ordinary generation. Then it foUows that, as all these modifications have undoubtedly taken definite directions from invisible beginnings to the latest results and complexities of structure, the original germs must have been so con- stituted as to contain these complexities, potentially, within themselves. This conclusion is not in the least affected by any influence we may attribute to external surroundings. The Darwinian school in all its branches invariably dwells on external conditions as physical causes. But it is obvious that these can never act upon an organic mechanism except through and by means of a responsive power in that mechanism itself to follow the direction given to it, whether from what we call inside or outside things. ' This is no transcendental imagination, as some might think it. It is a conclusion securely founded on the most certain facts of embryology. It is the great pecuHarity of organic development or growth that it always foUows a determinate course to an equally determinate end. Each separate organ begins to appear before it can be actually used. It is always built up gradually for the discharge of functions which are yet lying in the future. In all organic growths the future dominates the present. All that goes on at any given time in such growths has exclusive reference 1860-93] MR. HERBERT SPENCEr's THEORIES 499 to something else that has yet to be done, in some other time which is yet to come. On this cardinal fact or law in biology there ought to be no dispute with Mr. Spencer. Numberless writers before him have, indeed, implied it in their descriptions of embryo- logical phenomena and of the later growth of adapted organs. But, so far as I know, no writer before Mr. Spencer has perceived so clearly its universal truth, or has raised it to the rank of a fundamental principle of philosophy. This he has done in his " Principles of Biology," pointing out that it constitutes the main difference between the organic and the inorganic world. Crystals grow, but when they have been formed there is an end of the operation. They have no future. But the growth of a living organ is always premonitory of, and preparative for, the future dis- charge of some functional activity. As Mr. Spencer expresses it, " changes in inorganic things have no apparent relations to future external events which are sure or likely to take place. In vital changes, how- ever, such relations are manifest."* This is an ex- cellent generaHzation. It only needs that the word " relations " be translated from the abstract into the concrete. The kind of relation which is " manifest " is the relation of a previous preparation for an in- tended use. Unfortunately, Mr. Spencer is perpetually escaping or departing from the consequences of his own " manifest relations." In a subsequent passage of the same work he says,f " Everywhere structiires in great measure determine functions." This is exactly the reverse of the manifest truth — that the future functions determine the antecedent growth of struc- ture. This escape from his own doctrine on the fundamental distinction between the organic and the inorganic world is an escape entirely governed by his avowed aim to avoid language having teleological * Spencer's ' Principles of Biology,' vol. i., ch. v., p. 73. t Ibid., vol. ii., ch. i., p. 4. 32—2 500 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi implications. But surely it is bad philosophy to avoid any fitting words because of implications which are manifestly true, and are an essential part of their descriptive power. ' If, therefore, we are to accept the hypothesis that all vertebrate animals, whether living or extinct, have been the offspring, by ordinary generation, of one single germ, originally created, then that original germ must have contained within itself certain innate properties of development along definite lines of growth, the issues of which have been forearranged and predetermined from the first. I have elsewhere* shown how this conception permeates, involuntarily, aU the language of descriptive science when specialists take it in hand to express and explain the facts of biology to others. Huxley habitually uses the word " plan " as applicable to the mechanism of all organic frames. ' This is a theory of creation, by whatever other name men may choose to deceive themselves by calling it. It is a theory of development, too, of course, but of the development of a purpose. It is a theory of evolution also, but of evolution in its relation to an involution first. Nothing can come out that has not first been put in. It is not less a theory of creation which, whether true or not, gets rid absolutely of the elements of chance so valued by Darwin's more fanatical followers, and of the mere mechanical neces- sity which seems to be favoured by Mr. Spencer.' Miscellaneous Zoology. The following letter to Professor Owen is an evidence of the thorough manner in which the Duke investigated every subject on which he might be called upon to express an opinion : * ' Philosophy of Belief,' ch. iii. 1860-93] COEKESPONDENOE WITH PEOEESSOB OWEN 501 To Professor Owen {July 4ih, 1854). ' Discussions have repeatedly arisen in Parliament in reference to the prohibition of dog-carts, upon the point whether or not dogs are physically unfitted for use as draught animals. Perhaps this question can- not be answered in the abstract, as local conditions, and the great power of adaptability found in breeding for a specific purpose, may enable dogs to be used, as in Siberia and other Northern regions, for purposes of draught, without doing great violence to the physical capabilities of the animal. ' The question must probably be answered, therefore, with special reference to the Mnd of use to which dogs are put, as draught animals, on the hard, dry roads of England. ' I am putting to you a leading question to a certain extent — that is to say, I have the strongest impression on my mind that the physical organization of the dog does not point it as intended for this sort of use, and that the circumstances and conditions under which it can be so used are the exception and not the rule. ' I should very much like to have your opinion upon this matter. Next Monday there is to be another dis- cussion on the subject in the House of Lords, and a division probably on a proposed prohibition of dog- carts.' From Professor Owen {March 6th, 1865), acknowledging an article by the Duke on the Flight of Birds. ' My DEAE Duke, ' I have had very great pleasure in the perusal of the enclosed ; it is the best account of flight with which I am acquainted. The very few impulses to a marginal note have been made with misgiving and a query. With many thanks, ' Most faithfully your Grace's, ' Rd. Owek.' 502 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi To Sir Richard Owen {March Uh, 1885). ' Many thanks for your letter, from which I gather that you consider the Australian " dingo " to have been an immigrant along with the featherless biped, and not an indigenous mammal in Australia. ' My reason for asking is that I have had a letter from an Australian Bishop (not indigenous, clearly), finding fault with my statement that there was no native dog, but only a horrible caricature of our dear carnivore, alluding to the " tiger wolf." ' The non-indigenous Bishop thinks that I have for- gotten the " dingo "; but as that was clearly non- indigenous, I was right enough.' On the movement of diatoms, which he had been studying with the microscope, the Duke wrote to Sir John Murray (March 15th, 1887) : ' It is not like mere ciliary movement. It is thoroughly under apparent control, with many inci- dents truly animal in their character. I saw one form fairly kick at some adherent dirt, with signs of im- patience and irritation quite Gladstonian. The means of movement are inscrutable. I have watched them in a fine light, and with so high a power as to show all the flutings, etc., and flagella of adjacent organisms. Yet I see no signs of cilia or of currents in the water. Pure volition !' Inveraray is situated on the shores of Loch Fyne, which is noted for the extraordinary abundance of herring to be found in its waters. The movements of these fish are sudden, swift, and capricious ; the shoals appear and disappear in what seems to be an almost wholly arbitrary manner. These mysterious migra- tions greatly interested the Duke, and he mentions the subject in a letter to Sir John Murray (November 17th, 1891) : 1860-93] LOCH FYNE FISHERIES 503 ' I was away all last week. Before I left there was some play of herring fry in the loch — indeed, a good deal — but no big fish. When I came back last Satur- day I heard that the big herring were in the deep. One boat got a good many near Strone Point. That night lots of boats came up from Skipness, Carradale, etc., and on Sunday there was a fleet at the pier. I went out last night in the launch, and saw them setting the drift-nets all over the loch. Trawlers got none," but drifters got a good fishing. To-night we counted one hundred and fifty boats between this and Kenmore. They say they feel them in the deep. How the deuce did they come ? It was a glorious sight this evening at sunset. All down the loch the boats in groups aU along the shore and in mid loch. Wouldn't you like to come to see the fleet and expis- cate the facts ?' To Sir John Murray {November 10th, 1893). ' Have you been dredging at all this year ? These Loch Fyne herrings are a profound mystery. For the last three weeks there seemed to be none here ; no boats ; reports of their being down at Otter. Sud- denly this afternoon (a lovely one) a whole fleet ap- peared, and their sails and their smoke and their oars in the still water were too beautiful. No artist has ever been able to represent such a scene. I was driving along the road, and stopped the carriage to ask what it was all about. " Plenty of herring !" one boat shouted out. But they did not know exactly where. They had been " felt " by one or two crews accidentally, and some very fine fish were at breakfast this morning ; but the fleet was " at sea " as to where to catch them, so they were watching aU the bays and creeks. ' They seem to move about with great speed, or else to " lie low," and then suddenly " rise." ' 504 SCIENCE [CHAP. xLvi ' April lOih, 1896. My dear Murray, ' You may commit any manner of poaching out- rage you like on my salmon waters. I want much to know about kelts : what they do, where they go, and what they eat in the sea. I think one case is known of a salmon caught by a herring-net some forty miles off the land on the East Coast. ' The flat-fish caught in great numbers by lines in the Sound of lona is a largish fish, of a yellow-brown, with very large spots of an orange-red. They are good when very fresh, but the flesh is very soft, and the bottom they affect is pure sand. ' I have caught in Loch Fjnie very large flounders with similar large spots, but the ground colour is much darker, perhaps from assimilation to a darker habitat. ' I wish I could dredge with you. I should like much to see the fauna well searched. The large flounders are common near the head of the loch, in the shallower water of that region. ' You know that salmon don't ascend our rivers till late — the middle of June or so.' From the Duke's letters to Mr. Harvie Brown on the subject of ornithology a few passages are quoted : To Mr. Harvie Brown {March 2nd, 1888). ' I have never seen any notice of the pecuUar habits of the heron at the pairing season. All birds, as you know, have some peculiarities of manner at that season. Storks and cranes seem (at the Zoological Gardens) to dance and caper on their long legs. The herons fly round in circles with a soaring flight, fre- quently stretching out their necks at nearly full length, which they never do in ordinary flight. The balance of the bird seems to require the long neck to be folded. But at this season, when love-making, they extend the neck and float about in the air in wheeling circles, round and above the trees where they are to nest. 1860-93] ORNITHOLOGY 505 ' Yesterday morning, which was fine and sunny, there were nine herons floating and soaring in wide circles above the castle here, and in front of the steep wooded hiU on which they build. ' The roller was first seen by me here on October 3rd, 1887, in the wild ground of the deer park. Its habits were markedly pecuUar. After lighting on a tree it sat quite stiU, like a shrike, and then darted suddenly to the ground, returning to its perch like a fly-catcher. ' When it flew over my head, I saw that the flight was also very peculiar. Its wings were much longer than our jay, the primaries well separated at the tips, but not forming a very round-ended wing, Hke a jay or a crow. Its flight was flappy, but very strong, and it had the habit of descending before rising to a perch as jays do. ' It remained for more than a week in the same locality, and on one occasion was seen close to a keeper's cottage feeding with the poultry. It was very wary, and the keepers could not get at it. ' The great grey shrike has been seen by me twice here, and on the last occasion I got the bird, and it is now stuffed in the hall. On both occasions it came in November. ' The great spotted woodpecker has been shot here twice, once about fifty years ago, and again about fifteen years ago. I have both specimens. ' The osprey I have seen once. The black-throated diver comes sometimes to the small moor lochs on the hiUs.' To Mr. Harvie Brown {February 5th, 1889). ' The story about my starlings is very simple. Having seen the bird in America, and having read accounts of its habits, it struck me that if any American bird could be introduced into Europe and established there, this would probably be a species likely to thrive. It is very pretty and very hardy in the New World. 506 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi ' Accordingly, I asked a friend in New York to send me a small consignment of the red-shouldered starling alive. He did so three years ago. The birds arrived in good condition in October, but I thought it would be better to keep them till spring before turning them out, as migratory instincts might interfere if they were let out late in autumn. They throve qaite well all through the winter, only two or three having died. In May about seven couple were turned out. They were seen about the place for a few weeks, and then disappeared. One or two were recorded as having been seen and shot in different parts of Scotland. My keepers think they saw a small party next autumn, and one or two were recorded that autumn as having been seen at one of the lighthouses in the South of Ireland, as if they were trying to migrate across the ocean. None have ever been seen since in this neigh- bourhood. As there is here a good deal of swampy meadowland, with bushes, in one of the glens, I thought they might have found a habitat such as, I believe, they principally afEect in America. ' The attempt to acclimatize or naturalize the species has, so far, been a complete failure ; but, as all new birds are speedily shot, or at least fired at, in this country, the failure is hardly surprising. I had hoped, too, that they might have consorted with the common starling, and thus escaped special notice, but the types are too distinct for this.' To Mr. Harvie Brown {March 8th, 1889). ' I have not got your book on the capercailzie, and should be delighted to have it, if you are kind enough to send it to me. Some came here about fifteen years ago, and established themselves for a few years ; but they have disappeared, several having been killed against the wire fences. None were shot. ' Squirrels were unknown here in my younger days, and I have no idea how they came. But they have 1860-93] BIRDS AT INVERARAY 507 been established for at least twenty years, and became so numerous as nearly to ruin my fine silver firs, on which (alone, I think) they are most destructive. I have now shot them down to a. small number, and the silver firs are already recovering. I was born and brought up at Ardencaple on the Clyde, and never saw a squirrel till I went to England. They are now common both at Arden Caple and at Rosneath. ' The same thing is true of the starHng. There were none on the Clyde or here when I was a boy. Now they are abundant in both places. Here they have come within the last fifteen years, and are increasing. ' The yellow-hammer is decreasing, alas ! rapidly. I hardly ever see them here now, and they used to be common. ' In 1841-1845 the swaUow-taUed kite was abundant here. I have seen nine saiHng round the castle. They have disappeared absolutely — all kiUed off by the keepers. No doubt they were very destructive.' To Mr. Harvie Brown {November SOth, 1890). ' I have not seen the harrier for many years. They also have been destroyed. But about twenty years ago I found the nest and eggs on one of our moors here, The kingfisher comes at intervals. We had a couple here this last September. I saw them myself. ' The gray shrike I have seen twice, both times in November. The last one I " secured," and it is now stuffed in the hall here. This was about five years ago. . . . ' The black-throated diver I have seen several times, once on a moor loch, and last winter in Loch Fyne. ' I am distressed by the diminution in our cole-tits. They were numerous here till the severe winter of 1886, but they have never recovered it. The tree-creeper, also, is rarer than it was. The quail has been re- peatedly shotjn Kintyre, but not of late years.' 508 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi To Mr. Harvie Brown {February 8th, 1891). ' Two friends of mine have been shooting in my island of Tiree, and the account they give of the wild- fowl there is wonderful. On one fresh-water loch they counted one hundred and five wild swans, besides packs of fifteen and twenty on other lakelets. They killed three Gadwall ducks, but the geese were unapproach- able. Snipes in enormous quantity. They killed six hundred and forty-one in seven days. Turnstones and stints were there, but only one greenshank. This bird is getting rarer.' To Mr. Harvie Brown {March 2Uh, 1891). ' I was just about to write a line to you to tell you of the brambling stiU making an occasional appear- ance. I saw one yesterday — the latest in the year I have ever seen. But the severity of the weather both south and north of us keeps birds here which do not wish to face such conditions. The golden-eyes here show no signs of leaving us. . . . ' I saw a fine pair of buzzards yesterday wheeling round a ravine in which they used often to breed. I am desiring my keeper to let them alone.' To Mr. Harvie Brown {September 30th, 1891). ' It may interest you to know that we are now honoured with the presence here of a large snowy owl. My keepers seem to have seen it for three or four days, but yesterday it flew across in front of the Duchess, who, with a party, all stopped to see the wonderful big white bird, which seemed to her as " big as a white heron." ' It is in my deer park, preying probably on rabbits, which abound this year. Late south-west gales of great violence have probably brought it from the Outer Hebrides. ' I have just heard that the stormy petrel was seen yesterday on the loch, the first I have ever heard of.' ] 860-93] leaf-beds in the isle of mull 509 Geology and Paleontology. Geology was one of the Duke's favourite scientific studies. ' This,' he once wrote, ' is the particular branch of science with which I am best acquainted ; none other affords such signal illustrations of that in which all science consists ; its triumphs, its limita- tions, its temptations, and its weaknesses, have been all equally conspicuous.' His paper on the ' Leaf Beds in the Isle of MuU,' read before the Geological Society of London on January 8th, 1851, will, in the opinion of scientists, always be remembered by geologists as first establishing, by means of the leaves of tertiary plants found buried beneath basaltic rocks, the im- portant fact that large volcanic outbursts have taken place in the British Isles so lately as in tertiary times. From Professor Owen [January 2Qth, 1859), in reference to a lecture which the Duke had delivered at Glasgow. ' I everywhere hear your lecture spoken of as an extraordinary summary of the main points of actual geology in so limited a space.' From Sir Charles Lyell {May, 1859). ' I have been reading your lecture on geology Avith much pleasure at spare moments during a tour of ten days in HoUand. To have conveyed so much information accurately, without the use of technical language, is alone a great point gained.' To Sir John Murray {February lOth, 1888). ' I think I told you of the working-man geologist who has turned up at Campbeltown. He has made an interesting discovery of organic remains in the old red limestone strata near Campbeltown. So far 510 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi as I know, this is the first time they have been detected in any old red strata in the West Highlands. I know the bed well. It is a well-marked one in the series between the Mtdl of Kintyre and the coal-basin to the north. It is a highly crystalline and even sihcious limestone of a yellowish-white, much burnt for lime at several places. I have often looked for fossils, but its compact silicious fracture left little hope of it. But this man has found a weathered surface which reveals, by solution of the lime, the silicious casts of a richly fossiliferous rock. I am much pleased with this discovery, and I want you to tell me to whom I should send the specimen in Edinburgh as the best authority. I want to keep it as a Scottish discovery ; but I don't know any expert in Scotland to be com- pared with Etheridge at the British Museum. ' I am sure that if the specimen were sliced the fossils would be seen, not only on the weathered sur- face, but all through the rock. I think I can now just detect and trace them in the fresh fractures, crystal- line though they be. I have written to congratulate Gray, to encourage him, and have told him I would communicate it to the Royal Society of Edinburgh,' To Sir John Murray {September 26th, 1888). ' I am much excited. I have just discovered organic remains in one of our quartzite beds here ! Never was there such a proof that our eyes can only see what the mind prepares them to see. Here am I, having passed this rock by carriage on one side of it and by boat on another side of it, and I never saw what to-day I have seen at the first glance when I went prepared to see. ' On my late cruise I had been reading about the " fucoid " bed in the Sutherland quartzites. I had it in my head to look to see whether such obscure markings might not be detected in the very few beds of like material which exist here. Then, a road sur- 1860-93] FOSSILS 511 veyor had broken a fresh surface for " metal." I passed it to-day, sent my servant to bring a bit, and lo ! I saw not only some obscure markings, but lots of very clear plant remains in red oxide of iron, " picked out " against the pure white silicious grains of the rock. ' I don't think I can be mistaken. The fossil consists of small ramifying tubes of oxide of iron and of seed-vessels on small stalks ; the tubes, when broken, show a vascular and linear structure on the inside. The berries or capsules are unlike any plant I know — small oval bodies on stalks.' These fossil forms were the subject of much dis- cussion with several authorities. It was eventually decided that they were ' old annelid tubes sheared by rock movements.' Specimens of the fossils were after- wards placed in the Geological Museum in London. Another discovery was announced on January 10th, 1890: ' My dear Mtjebay, ' I write a hasty line to teU you that to-day I have discovered a bed of schist full of well-preserved corals. They are very striking — -pure white carbonate of Hme, quite crystalUne, flattened, but with the surface flutings not destroyed. The effect of the pure white plates interf oliated in blue mica schist is very beautiful. ' They are near the summit level of the pass over to Loch Awe, in a wee quarry opened for road metal, and the coach passes it every day, the wheels almost in the rubbish. ' It is the more curious as only yesterday I got from Geikie four specimens of Norwegian schist showing obscure casts of coral, and a letter advising me to look whether any holes in our rocks might not be corals. I saw white spots in driving past to-day to see the sunset on Cruachan, and on retiirning got out 512 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi and looked. I was astonished to see a whole slab of rock covered with interleaved, flattened, linear cakes of pure white marble. . . . ' What a mystery these rocks are ! Some so meta- morphosed, others so unaltered. This bed looks like squeezed mud, argillaceous, shiny, soapy, greeny. A little above it is a bed of limestone, blue, destitute of fossils, so far as I have seen yet. I now suspect it to be a triturated coral rock, metamorphosed by some agency, yet the next bed below in the series is what I have described.' Geographical Discovery. The great advance made in geographical research during the last fifty years of the nineteenth century opened up the African continent to European enter- prise. First among the names of explorers in that region is that of David Livingstone, whose imperiaUy- minded projects the Duke always advocated. From the heart of Africa, Livingstone wrote letters full of statesmanlike insight, describing the difficulties which he was so heroically surmounting, and urging the Duke to support his representations to the Govern- ment. Dr. Livingstone always showed grateful recog- nition of the support and encouragement he had received from Inveraray. From Tette Dr. Livingstone wrote (March 5th, 1859) : ' The renewal of the slave-trade, on the pretence of carrying out the French emigration scheme, has forced the conviction on my mind more strongly than ever that an English colony ought to be attempted in the interior of this country. You threw out this idea once when I had the honour of calling on you, and every day since then the scheme has grown in im- portance.' 1860-93] CHRISTMAS ISLAND 513 As President of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, the Duke had occasion to write officially to Mr. Henry Stanley on his return from Africa in April, 1890. In his letter the following passage occurs : ' We desire to congratulate you most heartily on your safe return from Central Africa. Personally, I have a special interest in your great success, for I cannot forget that you brought back to me the last letter I ever received from my dear friend David Livingstone, when, with equal courage and determina- tion, you had reached and succoured him in the same regions.' Referring to Sir John Murray's scheme for the annexation of Christmas Island to the British Crown, and for the exploitation of its rich deposits of phos- phates, the Duke wrote (February 26th, 1888) : ' I am much amused by your proposed alliance between science, commerce, and the Foreign Office. I wiU do aU I can to help you. If the island is in the Indian Ocean, I suppose it would be considered ours. At least, I doubt whether we shovdd " see with in- difference " (to use the regular phrase) any other Power take possession of an island in the Bay of Bengal or anywhere off the Indian coast. . . . ' I should write to Lord SaUsbury at once, advising him to make one of our ships take formal possession. As to giving a " concession" of it, I don't know how these matters are settled under our system. But the national possession is the first thing to be looked to. . . . ' Lyon Playfair is the man who turns his science to commercial use most of all the men I know. He would swoop down on your islet Hke an osprey !' To Sir John Murray {a few days later). ' I wrote a private note to Lord Salisbury, telling him he had better annex Christmas Island, and he has set on the Admiralty.' VOL. n. 33 514 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi Raised Beaches : Glaciation. From. the Duke's Natural History Diary, 1876. ' I have to-day examined more carefully some of the raised beaches on the west side of Jura, near the mouth of Loch Tarbert. I found that the level of the first or lowest, at the point where we anchored, was about 50 feet above the level of the present sea, as measured by an aneroid constructed for such measurements. This beach is so perfect that the back curve of the wave, or, rather, back slope, is as perfect as if the surf had left it yesterday. The next beach above it was about 75 feet ; and a third, very well marked, from its forming a sort of embankment across a natural hollow, was, as nearly as I could make out, about 125 feet. After returning to the yacht, and when trawling on the Tarbert Bank, it seemed to me, judging by the eye (which, however, is very deceptive as to levels), that several of the raised beaches further to the north along the same line of hiUs were decidedly higher in elevation ; and I therefore believe my recollection is correct that Captain Bedford, the surveying of&cer, reported some of them as reaching the height of 160 feet. They are indeed most striking objects, and one speculates whether the elevation of the land which they indicate was general or local. It is clear that they are the marks of a sea which is retiring and not advancing, because a rising sea would have obliterated at each successive stage of sub- mergence the terraces of rolled pebbles which had been made previously. I think it clear, too, that the elevation was by hitches. The pebbles at the 50-foot level are much more completely rolled than at the 75-foot level, and, again, the highest one of all, which I visited to-day, was more completely roUed than the 75-foot. ' The quartz strata in the island of Islay are tilted to nearly the perpendicular, whereas in Jura they are 1860-93] A PEEHISTOBIC DWELLING 515 much less steeply inclined, and dip to the north-east. It is evident that the Sound of Islay marks a line of structural disturbance, whatever agencies may have taken advantage of this line to deepen and widen the disconnection. I think I can trace on the Islay shore two series of quartzites with mica slate and hmestone intercalated between them, as in the typical Suther- land section. ' July 22nd. — On the 17th we visited the island of Eilean an Naoimh, which is now identified with the Insula Hiruba of the Columban Age, and found it very remarkable, both archseologically and geologically. The island and the islets all round consist of stratified rocks highly inclined to the north-west, presenting a precipitous face to the opposite coast of Mull, and a sloping face towards Scarba on the east and south-east. The beds on the eastern shore, which must be the upper ones of the whole, are of a conglomerate unhke any other conglomerate I have seen. The pebbles are much more thinly distributed in the embedding paste, and they are of quite different materials from those of the neighbouring conglomerates near Oban. ' Archseologically, the most interesting remain is a beehive house, of which I have never before seen any specimen. The whole structure is shaped Hke a beehive, formed of slaty stones, each course or layer projecting sHghtly beyond the lower one, and thus gradually approximating along the hues of a dome- shaped roof. The entrance appears to have been hke a covered drain entering the basement. Those who entered it must have had to creep on hands and knees. The orifice of this entrance is complete, being built of well-fitted flagstones, but I did not take the measurements. It reminds me very much of the mode of entrance provided in the winter houses of the Eskimo. It is built on a ledge among outcropping strata of the natural rock, and when complete must have been almost invisible from any distance. At 33—2 516 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLVi present it attracts attention from the sea because one side has fallen down, and the rest of the structure presents the aspects of a cave mth its mouth fronting to the east. ' There are several other buildings, aU apparently of a much later date, for all of them present the usual gable ends of an ordinary cottage. One of them, indeed, has one end only constructed with rectangular walls and the other end rounded. This cottage is also curious in that one-half of its interior is built up with stones to the level of a high platform — as high as a man's breast. This half is the one terminating in a rounded wall, and looks very much hke a dormitory raised from the ground for the sake of dryness.' To Lord Kelvin, then Sir William Thomson {June 12th, 1883). ' Have you any physical explanation of the pro- cess — of any conceivable process — by which the land can have been let down to the extent of at least 2,000 feet during the great glacial submersion ? I beheve you have arrived at the conclusion that the crust of the earth has a very high degree of rigidity, comparable to that of some of the metals. Of course, material of this degree of rigidity wiU bend under adequate stress ; but what can have been the stress under which the crust first sunk and then rose again, so as to account for the glacial submersion ? I assume the fact. It is impressed upon me by innumerable facts which seem to me not otherwise to be accounted for. Yet geologists and physicists seem to me all to shirk it as a fact to be accounted for.' To Sir John Murray {August 8th, 1890). ' Have you ever seen the parallel roads of Glen- roy ? If you have not, I wish you would go and examine them. I am secretly convinced that the 1860-93] THE GLENROY ROADS " 517 accepted explanation of glacier — dammed lakes — ^is a false theory. At least, I have a very strong im- pression that it is so, and that the terraces, after all, are due to marine action during a re-elevation by hitches. It is purely the difficulty of reaUzing this cause that forces men to invent ice-barriers which assume ice-sheets on a scale that probably never existed. The difficulty that used to intimidate me is that such marine action ought to have left similar marks elsewhere. But I see my way round this objection. There are other phenomena elsewhere. The grand raised beaches on the west side of Jura are " parallel roads " in more senses than one, and no maniac even will pretend that glaciers dammed up the sea there. ' Forbye, such terraces are only formed and kept under very peculiar conditions, and it is no wonder that these are uncommon.' To Sir John Murray {October 2nd, 1890). ' Many thanks for the Glenroy series. I have read Darwin's paper with astonishment. It seems to me admirable and unanswerable, and yet he abandoned it aU, under the influence of the ice mania, without any attempt to answer his own former reasoning. ' I am now thoroughly convinced that the Glenroy roads are old sea-lochs, when Scotland " sat low in the water " of the glacial sea, and strong tides raced through the cross channels which divided the whole country into a group of islands. ' The argument, "Why should the sea mark Glenroy alone ?" is answered by the abundant evidence that there are similar Hnes elsewhere in many places ; but aU are now equally explained, not only by ice-barriers, but by ice-walls, both sides, or one side, being assumed to have been the sides of ice-sheets ! ' Then, Greenland is always quoted, when Green- land ice does not do the work assigned to the mythical ice-sheet.' 518 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi To Sir John Murray {April 25th, 1893). ' How long one may live in a country and not see all that is to be seen, if the mind is awakened to some one point ! I have just awoke to the curiosity and significance of the extraordinary difference be- tween the two parallel glens here of the Aray and the Shira. The glen of the Aray is one mass of glacial mounds and of erratics of aU shapes and sizes. Glen- shira is quite free of glacial mounds, and has only a few scattered erratics, just enough to show that they are not covered up and concealed in that way. ' Why this difference ? In what do they differ to account for it ? Glenshira opens from the higher mountain land of the two. There is no mountain mass above, or at the top of Glenaray anything Hke the mountain mass of Benbuy and its outlying ridges. Therefore, if the Glacial Age was marked by greaA local glaciers, Glenshira must have been occupied by a more powerful mass of ice than Glenaray. In fact, Benbuy is the typical local mountain for sending off a local glacier. Yet the glen has no glacial mounds at all, and the erratics on its flanks and sides are com- paratively few. ' What, then, is the difference between the two glens ? One difference is patent. Glenaray is open at the top towards the north-north-west. Glenshira is shut up or closed in that direction by a high screen of steep mountain ridges. ' In short, it is a glen sheltered from a north- north-west drift of heavy floating floes, which, in my opinion, was the agency during the "great sub- mergence" which did most of our polishing, scraping, and scratching. ' Be it observed, however, that the materials in Glenaray are all local. I have only found one stone — a boulder — which is of Cruachan granite, and the peaks of Gruachan look right down the glen, but from across the deep hollow of Loch Awe. If a glacier had come 1860-93] MARINE DEPOSITS 519 direct from Cruachan to the low col at the top of Glenaray, of course it would have carried lots of Cruachan granite to us. But there are no indications of this ; one small boulder is all I have seen from that quarter. The other boulders are angular lumps of all kinds, and are all fragments of the local walls, which are high and steep. ' Glenshira is low in the floor, the local lake once reaching up four miles, now only one mile from filling up. So here, again, we see that a local glacier will not dig out or excavate even very soft material, unless, indeed, the lake deposits have all been post-glacial, which is impossible.' To Sir John Murray {April 3rd, 1895). ' You seem to have done full justice to my paper, although a dissenter. ' I am an obstinate man ! Each new discussion only confirms me, because of the (to me) weakness of the objections. How can any man maintain that marine deposits most always contain marine organisms ? Is it not notorious that, as a fact, they do not ? We have lots of admitted " raised beaches " all round the coast, consisting of sands and gravels, and not a single shell. Diatoms I don't know about. They have never been exhaustively searched for. But even as regards them, would you really give up the marine origin of raised beaches because no diatoms exist in them ? I don't beHeve you would. Why, then, use this argument as of any real weight when applied to higher levels ? I should Hke to impose on you the labour of searching with a microscope for diatoms in unquestioned beach gravels and sands. ' Then, as to floe-ice not scratching because a few individuals have not seen it doing so : what evidence is this against that of Arctic navigators, who tell us how they saw floes of great thickness piled up against each other and lifted over reefs in Smith's Sound, 520 SCIEKCE [CHAP. XLVi whilst all the shore ice is armed with stones, frozen into their lower surfaces ? What more effective grind- ing machine could be devised ? ' Again, how can perched blocks on the tops of ridges be accounted for by " free sheets "? Nordenskiold says the idea is ridiculous as apphed to the Greenland ice-sheet. ' In short, I feel to stand " four-square to all the winds that blow," or, at least, that have hitherto blown.' This theory of the general submergence of the land since the time of the first appearance of man upon the earth is further developed by the Duke in an article entitled ' The Glacial Theory,' in the Nineteenth Century of 1894, and in a commttnication to the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1895, under the title of ' Two Glens and the Agency of Glaciation.' Physics and Chemistry. To Professor Tyndall {December 31st, 1875). ' Will you forgive me bothering you on a question of definition, with regard to heat and light ? ' The definition of purely scientific ideas constitutes a sort of borderland between physics and metaphysics, which is of extreme interest and importance. ' Sir W. Grove has objected to calling by the name of Hght any rays (or undulations) which do not pro- duce the sensation of Hght on the human retina. This, however, is a purely verbal question, and it seems to me that if the undulations which do not pro- duce the sensation are precisely of the same general character and quality as those which do, differing only in period, it is the most true representation of the facts to call them by one general name. ' This, therefore, is not the kind of difficulty I feel in admitting the alleged identity of heat and hght. 1860-93] THE SUN AND GRAVITATION 521 Light, as I understand it, is an undulation in piire ether, and would be Hght to sensation i£ no other medium existed. ' But heat — that is to say, sensible heat, heat that is measurable by dilatation of substances, heat that does mechanical work — is not producible by the ethereal undulations until they come into contact with other substances, and until they set up in those substances corresponding tremors. ' But the undulations of the ether which excite or produce this motion in other substances can no more be called heat than the vibrations of a harp-string can be called sound where there is no atmosphere to convey sound. ' Now, is this a correct analogy ? If hght alone — the pure ethereal undulation, whether visible or not — ^were the sole factor in what we know as heat, then we could not have the most intense cold in interstellar space, as we know there is. I can understand saying that light is the cause, or an essential condition, of heat, but not that the two are identical.' To Lord Kelvin (February 9th, 1882). ' My attention was drawn to the paragraph I en- close some months ago. Is there any truth in the statement that organic matter has been found in meteorites ? ' I have been much puzzled about the strict accuracy of your recent statement about the sun as the ultimate source of all our terrestrial energy. Gravitation seems the ultimate source to which we can trace most forms of energy, possibly even those of heat and hght. Of course, the sun is the body to which the earth gravi- tates, but, on the other hand, all terrestrial bodies gravitate to the earth's centre, and to this gravitating force almost all terrestrial energies are due. ' Even the energy of the solar heat lifting water in the form of vapour would be useless as a source of 522 SCIENCE [OHAP. XLVi energy were it not for the existence of terrestrial gravitation, which makes it fall again as rain. If we knew the physical cause of gravitation, we might identify a source of energy one step farther back; but until this cause is known it seems to me that gravitation is (to us) the ultimate source of energy in matter. Is this not true ?' To this question Lord Kelvin rephed : ' Yes, I believe it is.' He also answered in the affirmative the Duke's proposition regarding gravitation as the source to which most forms of energy, including heat and light, might be traced : ' Yes, and the sun owes his energy to mutual gravitation between portions of matter coming together to form his mass.' Referring to the energy of solar heat. Lord Kelvin noted : ' But mechanical work can be got from sun heat here without intervention of terrestrial gravity.' To Professor Tyndall {November Ylih, 1882). ' I found in London that you had been kind enough to send me a copy of your paper on the relations of vapours to radiant heat. I have read it with much interest, and I have just now also read yoiu" little paper in Longman, which touches on the same subject. I write now to thank you very much for your kindness in sending to me the first of these papers, and also to ask you a question which arises out of a paragraph in the second. ' It happens to touch a matter which it has fallen in my way to think about lately. ' I refer to the " atomic " theory of the constitution of matter. You say that this atomic theory is the direct outcome and result of the discovery of the law of multiple proportions in chemical combinations. ' Now, as a matter of fact, we know that the ancient philosophers had reached the conception of atoms as 1860-93] THE ATOMIC THEORY 523 the ultimate constituents of matter, although they knew nothing of the laws of chemical affinity. ' You must mean, then, that the atomic theory has been raised from a mere speculation to a consistent and strictly scientific conclusion by the discovery of the combining law of miiltiple proportions. ' The reason you give and vindicate is that nothing else but atomism would account for such breaches of the law of continuity as are involved in the numerical leaps made by chemical combinations. ' Now, this rather puzzles me. I think it clear that, granting or assuming the atoms, their existence does not in the least account for the multiple proportion in which they combine. Why ten rather than eleven atoms of any element should combine with certain others, is in no way accounted for by the mere fact that matter does consist of atoms. ' The converse proposition seems to me equally true : that, as atoms don't account for multiple proportions, so multiple proportions are conceivable without atoms. The idea that definiteness in quantity must involve definiteness in the number of indivisible atoms is an idea which does not carry conviction to my mind. ' Then, a doubt often occurs to me : Is the law of multiple proportions so certainly and definitely ascer- tained as to justify the theory ? ' Of course, the facts on which the law of multiple proportions is founded are facts of measurement by weight and volume. But have we any instruments for measuring either, which could inform us if two or three half-atoms, or even dozens of whole atoms, less or more, were to be found in any given combination ? ' I apprehend certainly not. The atoms are far too small to be detected in this way. Therefore, although you conclude that, when we roughly (very roughly) measure combined elements, we find that they jump from weight to weight by leaps of multiple proportion, it seems to me we never can be sure that the exactness of our measurements is sufficient to exclude the possi- 524 SCIENCE [OHAP. XLVi bility of fractional variations in such units as you are dealing with in atoms. Scientific heresy ! I dare say you will exclaim. ' A vague belief in the perfection of numerical laws in Nature may carry us over this difficulty, and we may conclude that if, by all means of measurement known to us, definite numbers do prevail in combina- tions, then we may be certain that Nature is more perfect than our instruments, and the numerical rela- tions which we can measure are reaUy absolutely accurate along the whole way which we cannot measure. ' WeU, this may be true ; but it is an act of faith to believe in it absolutely.' To Professor Tyndall {April 8th, 1887). ' I am very sorry to see the intimation of your retire- ment, and especially of its cause. I dare say the faculty and the opportunity of communicating knowledge viva voce must be a great pleasure ; but rest is a great pleasure, too, after hard work, and I hope you may long enjoy it. ' There is always plenty to learn, even to the end, and we are in the fuU stream of discovery and of specu- lation just now. And yet, somehow, it never seems to come to much on the problems which are fundamental. ' I agree with you entirely in what you say about Ireland. I wish we could all retire to some high plat- form like Hindhead, and look down philosophically on the " madness of the people." ' To Professor Tyndall {April llth, 1887). ' Reading your lecture has reminded me of a ques- tion which has often occurred to me. In one of your former lectures you speak of trying to form a distinct physical image of physical facts. There is no difficulty in doing this, as regards what is called a " wave " of sound, which, as I conceive it, is merely a series of con- 1860-93] THE ' IMAGE ' OF SOUND 525 densations and corresponding rarefactions following each other like undulations. As regards any one given sound, this is an idea easily " imaged." The only difficulty as regards sound arises in my mind when we try to "image" a great many different sounds all running together at the same rate and at the same time. I can't " image " this. I suppose a distant analogy would be the case of small wavelets or ripples, running on the surface of large waves, which are quite common. But, then, they do not seem to go at the same rate, or to reach any given point at the same time. On the other hand, as regards sound, the notes of aU the different instruments in a large orchestra reach the ear simultaneously, and also, to a fine ear, so separately as to be distinguishable. 'I cannot "image" this with any distinctness ; can you ? This, however, is not the question which I wished to ask you chiefly. There is another question, kindred, but distinct, which arises in respect to Hght. Of course, the same difficulty appHes to this case as regards the multiplicity of motions which are con- veyed simultaneously in the same medium, resulting, to my mind, in the same " unpicturabUity." But, besides this difficulty, which is the same in both cases, there is quite a separate difficulty to me connected with the conception of " vibrations transverse to the direction of the ray." ' This difficulty does not arise with sound. It is easily conceivable ; indeed, it is the " natural " con- ception that vibrations or undulations should travel in the direction of the force which originates them. ' But, to my mind, there is a complete unpiotur- ability in the alleged relation between the " ray " and the vibrations which are transverse. The only " linage " I can form of that relation is the image of soHd particles, of infinite number and smallness, shoot- ing through the medium and causing radials or diver- gent vibrations in all directions round its own intru- sive path. Now, this is an " image " which combines 526 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi the old " emission " theory of light with the undulatory theory. The " ray " would represent the " emitted " particle, whilst the undulations would represent the " row " (disturbance) set up all around its " path." This is the only " image " conceivable to me, and, of course, it is the image suggested in the language used. It is a physical image of what is called the " path," and it is quite easily conceivable that a particle of matter, however fine, pursuing a " path " through any medium with enormous velocity should, would, and must set up transverse vibrations. ' Of course, our power of " picturing " is dependent on the resources of sight, directly or indirectly. I don't know that any example is visible to us of any " thing " or any " motion " passing through a medium and setting up no vibrations except transverse to its own " path." ' If there is no such phenomenon visible, it would account for the unpicturability of the alleged action of light, which I assume to be fully proved.' A note of January 29th, 1891, to Professor Tyndall contains the following remark : ' I wish Huxley would not write so offensively. I can understand the agnostic frame of mind perfectly, but I can't understand making it so aggressive. He writes as if every believer in Christianity were no better than the blackbeetle beneath his feet.' About the year 1864 the Duke made the acquaint- ance of Professor Max Miiller, whose attention had been attracted by an article on ' The Supernatural,' written by the Duke in the Edinburgh Review. A corre- spondence followed, which was continued throughout the period of a whole generation — ^from 1864 to 1898. In a letter to the Professor, July 8th, 1864, the Duke criticised the naturalistic theory. 1860-93] PHILOSOPHY OP LANGUAGE 527 ' Generally, if not always, I have observed that metaphysical writers speak of the supernatural as a thing, as if they knew exactly what the " natural " includes, and could, therefore, determine or define what lies beyond it. In this sense, the supernatural is not only unbelievable : it is inconceivable.' To Professor Max Miiller (November 11th, 1864). ' What is the ultimate derivation of the word " law " — lex ? My attention has been drawn lately to the extreme vagueness of the senses in which this word " law " is used now in science. I wish to get at the root idea.'' Among many letters on technical points in philology, there are others of more general interest, from which the following extracts are taken : To Professor Max Miiller {January 25th, 1875). ' We are all deeply grieved by Kingsley's death. It is a great pubHc misfortune, and an irreparable loss to all who knew him personally. ' I have been reading over again, with great interest, your lecture on Mr. Darwin's philosophy of language,* in consequence of having been engaged myself in writing on a kindred subject, and I find a great deal which I had not noticed before, so much does the mind bring with it in all reading. I have also been looking at your lectures on the science of religion, with refer- ence also to the same subject, and I am tempted to put a question to you which I cannot clearly answer for myself after reading the latter lectures. ' You seem in some passages to imply that the earliest historical rehgion has been monotheistic, and * Contemporary Review, November, 1874, p. 894 ; January, 1875, p. 305. 528 SCIENCE [chap, xlvi that polytheism has been a degradation of it ; but in other passages you seem, on the other hand, to admit the theory of development, to the effect that mono- theism has been a stage, though a very early stage, of religious growth. ' You reject altogether the idea of any primeval revelation. ' Now, there can be no question that, as far as history goes back, including the constructive history founded on the science of language, monotheism is the earliest belief we know of. I do not know what is the earliest date you would assign to any sacred writing, or whether any Vedic hymn is quite certainly much older than the Book of Job ; but when you say that three thousand years before Agamemnon our Aryan forefathers wor- shipped a " Heavenly Father " (Dyaus-pita), you must refer to a time long antecedent to any existing writing (unless to some Egyptian hieroglyphic), and that wor- ship was surely monotheistic in the highest and purest form. ' Of course, you may say, as Darwin says : " The very earliest historic man is a modem creature as com- pared with the really earliest progenitor of the race." But this is theory. It is not yet an ascertained fact, and so far as the direct evidence brought forward in your lectures is concerned, monotheism is the earliest known worship of mankind. ' What I want to know is whether this is your opinion or not. Do you know of any religious appel- lation earlier than that of the Deus Pater or Dyaus-pita of our earliest Aryan ancestors ?' To Professor Max Muller {February 2nd, 1875). ' I cannot see that any science has as yet discovered any proof that reUgion began, with some semi-brutal man, in the shape of a " suspicion of something beyond what he saw." This seems to me as purely theoretical (derived from a priori ideas) in respect to the origin 1860-93] HUMAN ORIGIN 529 of religions, as Darwin's theory is as to the origin of the human body. ' In fact, I am quite unable to understand why you oppose Darwinism so much as appHed to language, when your view as to religion seems to me essentially Darwinian. If man was born of brutes by insensible gradations, it is quite natural to suppose that he can have had no primitive intuition of the existence of his Maker. But if he was in any sense a special creation, or if he was born " with a leap " from some lower form, I cannot see why he may not have had such an intuition, which is a primitive revelation. ' It is curious that those who cannot swallow the Darwinian theory as applied to man's body have all different and separate difficulties connected with each man's special study, and so in like manner, your special study being language, you dweU on it, although to me this is but the symbol of other differences. But if man's religion has grown up from the lowest beginnings, why not also everything else ? Why not his power of forming concepts, and his associated power of ex- pressing them by sounds which become " roots "? ' I confess I am wholly puzzled to know what your view of human origin is. There are but three con- ceivable modes of origin : (1) That of special creation, as Genesis is at least supposed to teach ; (2) birth, hut at a leap. Nature making a saltus in this case ; and (3) development through births on the Darwinian theory. ' The last is the only one which stands in natural connection with the theory that man's religion has been a growth from the lowest and obscurest begin- nings ; but you seem to hold this theory as regards religion, and to deny it as regards language. I cannot see any hkelihood in this. ' I am, I confess, not able to dismiss as completely as you do aU idea of the substantial truth of the Mosaic representation of creation. I am" quite ready to believe^ that the language is highly " metaphorical," VOL. II. 34 530 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLvi or " accommodative," or " poetical," or whatever other word you like to apply. But I mean that the idea of man being created, or made, or born, at first with a childlike knowledge and intuition of the God- head as his Maker and Father in heaven is, in my opinion, a natural and probable correlative of his special creation in any shape or form ; and that those who deny this primeval intuition give up their belief in the only thing which makes it difficult to assent at once to Darwinism pur et simple. I could never care to fight against that conclusion for the sake of " language," or " concepts," or anything else, if it be admitted as regards the most fundamental of all concepts— that of a Supreme Being.' To Professor Max Muller {February 18th, 1880). ' The only parts of your Hibbert Lectures in which I disagree with you are those parts in which you have condescended too far to the materialists, and those parts in which you tacitly assume that the idea of personality in superhuman agencies is necessarily a growth out of vague conceptions of the " infinite " and the " invisible." ' I hold, on the contrary, that the idea of personality is the most natural, and therefore the earliest, of all ; and that, consequently, the idea of a God may well have been strictly primeval. ' The truth is, that what you call the " infinite " is meant to include an infinite Being. It is better to say so at once. Infinite space, infinite time, in- finite numbers of any given unit, wiU never beget the idea of a God. ' Our own personaHty is the nearest, homeliest of all conceptions, and the transfer of it to other agencies than our own is probably strictly primeval. ' Of course, if you assume that man was evolved from a beast, then a transition stage must be assumed. But of that stage we can form no conception. 1860-93] LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT 531 ' We must begin with man developed, as regards his facvdties, to the rank of man ; and if we begin there, it is safe to assume that the idea of a God would be one of the very earliest intuitions. ' You escape no difficulty by calling this idea " the infinite." On the contrary, you aggravate every difficulty, and do not one bit conciliate the materialists. ' Of course, I agree with you about all that is in- volved in " simple " sensation as it exists in man. To show that was the work of Kant. But the effect of that work is to show that we have intuitions of many categories, and I see no use in even seeming to give up the ground he won. ' I have been writing on the subject, and am very anxious to know the earliest evidences on the nature of sacrifice. HhB food-offering is probably the earHest notion, all flowing from 'personality as founded on our own experience of it. ' But, of course, the earliest Vedic literature may be very far from primeval, although I am inclined to think the symptoms are those of a true childhood.' From Professor Max Miiller {April \Uh, 1888). ' On philosophical questions I should like to write to you more fully than I can at present. It requires an effort to see the inseparableness of language and thought. It has taken me a whole life to perceive it. People imagine that I hold that language and thought are identical. There is no sense in that. No two things can be identical. But they can be inseparable, neither can exist without the other — that is what I mean. We imagine that we can think without words because we can distinguish between the sound and the meaning. So we can between an orange and its skin, but in rerum natura there is no skin without an orange, nor an orange without a skin. You were one of the few men in England who I thought would see what I meant. But it requires an effort, 34—2 532 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLVi and it is only a historical study of language in all its phases that has at last led me to the conviction that the Greeks were right, and that what really makes us men and distinguishes us from the animal is the logos — i.e., the gathering, or, as Hobbes said, addition and subtraction. ' . . . I am in no hurry, but I feel perfectly certain that what I have put before the world is true, and will be accepted in due time, ' I know Uttle about Hartmann's philosophy, but I beUeve he has considerable influence in Germany, though not among the professors.' To Professor Max Muller {November 29th, 1888). ' " I hae ye noo, Harry !" ' Can you translate that into some identity of thought ? ' It is the phrase said to have been constantly used by a dull friend of Harry Erskine, a great wit, when he (the dull friend) at last took in the drift of one of Harry's jokes, and exclaimed, perhaps half an hour after, " Oo, I hae ye noo, Harry !" ' So I am your dull friend, and your last letter has made me exclaim as above, because it supplied to me one link towards an understanding which I had not seen before. ' I could not make out why you attached so much value in philosophy to the tenet of " identity." I did not feel sure as to the use to which it would be put — as to the edifice to be raised on this " foundation- stone." But now your letter has explained it, because you go on to ask whether it is not time to be more careful as to definitions of language ; and you ask whether the vague use of certain words, such as " Nature," " Natural Selection," " Home Rule," etc., has not done mischief enough in science, politics, and philosophy. \ ' " Hear, hear !" I exclaim in Parliamentary emotion. 1860-93] LANGUAGE AND THOUGHT [533 I entirely agree in the fallacies promoted by, and often consisting in, the lax and confused use of words ; and if your theory helps you to expose this source of aU human error, I am glad of it. ' Only, please let me say that, so far as I understand it, your theory would not help me one bit in this great and most needful work. On the contrary, the fallacies hid under language seem to me to point, not to the identity of thought and language, but to their essential separabiHty. Why is " Home Rule " a fallacy ? Why is " Natural Selection " another fallacy ? Because thought is infinitely more subtle than speech ; because language is infinitely too blunt for the purposes of really accurate thought. ' If you mean no more than that words exercise a great power over thought, by means of their ambiguities, then I agree cordially ; and not only agree generally, but agree specifically in the pro- digious importance of verbal analysis as one of the most powerful instruments in the detection of errors and the discovery of truth. ' So much so that I have been resolving in my mind for some time on an article, to be called "The Weapon of Analysis," on this very subject. It is one which has long struck me as of immense importance, and in all my pursuits in politics and in science I have long used this " weapon " with great satisfaction to my own mind, if not to others. ' But, again, I venture to say that this weapon, and the need of using it, does not imply any identity, but, on the contrary, a constant separability between thought and language, and a constant difficulty in the way of making them really or accurately co- incident.' To Professor Max Muller {December \Qth, 1888). ' I write one line to say that the impression left on my mind by the reports [of your lectures] is one which 534 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLvi I do not believe you intend to produce — namely, that you regard religion as a product of the human mind, having ; no definite relation with any external or objective facts. ' " Geology " is the logos of facts in the history of the globe, and the logos consists in reducing these facts into an intelligible order, in so far as it can be done. ' In like manner theology is the logos of rehgious facts and spiritual existences, and we can only talk of the origin of theology in the same sense in which we talk of the first efforts of men to ascertain and correlate facts in any science. ' Such, at least, is my philosophy ; but if we are to consider religion as a mere product of the human mind or imagination in any other sense, then, in my opinion, no such thing as religion exists as a logos. ' My impression of your teaching may be quite wrong ; but a few words would set it right, if the reports are at all correct.' To Professor Max Muller {January 21th, 1889). ' Having now delivered my soul on the point on which I differ from you, I am about to deliver my other soul upon the more substantial issues, as I think, on which I agree with you. I have been asked to deliver an address to the students of the University of Edinburgh at the opening of a union which they have formed among themselves for mutual improve- ment and recreation — lectures and addresses among other things. ' I intend to address them on " The Love of Truth, and on some methods of attaining it." ' The method on which I mean to dwell is the analysis of words and phrases, showing how the mere analysis of what certain phrases mean, the mere noting of the ideas expressed therein, is often enough to overthrow no end of fallacies and to establish important truths. 1860-93] BOOTS 01' WORDS 535 ' Now, may I ask you a question on what you call roots "? You say that all roots express acts and not things, by which I understand you to mean that all the oldest words you can trace are words which signify some self-conscious acting of the individual person, and not mere external objects. Taking the word wealth, I see that Skeat, in his " Dictionary," says that the root is the same as well and will, the root idea being " that which we will to have," or (in other words) that which we desire to possess. Well is, then, the result of having what we will or wish. ' But now comes the " suffix " or " affix," which converts the act of willing or wishing into the " thing wished for." In the case of this word the change is effected by two letters, th, as in many other English words — e.g., strong, strength, etc. Can it be affirmed in such cases that there ever was a time when there was no word for the external object wished for, although there was a word for the act of wishing ? ' Or, is the idea of a verbal " root " consistent with admitting that the " root " never existed without its offshoots and simpler derivations ? It seems to me that the abstract concept of " things wished for " is now, and must always have been, inseparable from the concept and consciousness of " willing to get the things wished for." But this is not, I think, incon- sistent with the idea that the primary element or " root " is in the conscious act of willing. I take this word as an illustration, as it expresses primeval desires, actions, and, probably, words. I only want to be sure exactly of what you mean. ' That thought and language are identical, in the sense of words being the vesture, the embodiment, the record, and the history of thought, I see more and more ; and I want to point out how the " weapon of analysis," applied to words and phrases, is a weapon as powerful in the discovery of intellectual truth as chemical analysis is in revealing the elementary con- stitution of matter.' 636 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLVI To Professor Max Muller (March 3rd, 1889). ' My conclusion is that we differ too little to make it worth while to carry on the controversy. You say that a true concept cannot be clear and definite until it has been first named. I say, on the contrary, that such a concept cannot be named until after it has been first mentally conceived. This seems a direct antithesis ; and yet the practical conclusion we aim at is the same : that phrases are becoming increasingly deceptive, and that the analysis of words would clear up the thoughts of all of us immensely. ' You and I both agreed in this ; and I think this practical conclusion looks more in the direction of, stands in closer relation to, my abstract proposition than to yours. ' If words are such pitfalls, if they are so deceptive, if they need to be analyzed and purified, and kept up to the mark of accurate thought, how can it be main- tained that they are necessarily identical with thought ? How can it be denied that, so far from being identical, they are very apt to become separate, even antago- nistic, and fuU of deceptive power ? ' Meanwhile, my address to the students of the college in Edinburgh was enthusiastically received by them, though I saw it puzzled them. But it was not reported at all, or only in the barest abstract ; so the chairman. Professor Campbell Eraser, of the Chair of Logic and Metaphysics, has asked me to reproduce and pubHsh it ; and as I spoke it and did not write it, this odious work of writing is now occupjdng me in all my spare time. I shall, of course, send you a copy when it is published. ' I find some very interesting dicta by Berkeley in his " Commonplace Book " on language. In one place he says that language is so pestilent a source of fallacy that if men could dispense with language altogether they would never mistake ! In another place he speaks of language as indispensable for 1860-93] OBIGIN OP BELIGION 537 thought. It would be easy to quote him on either side of our logomachy. But the drift of his analysis always is to show how deceptive words are, and he was started on his course of thought by the word " reality." What does it mean ? What constitutes a real thing ? My own resiilt is that language is the coinage of thought, stamped with its " image and superscription," coined automatically, unconsciously, and absolutely needed as the " medium of exchange." But that it comes second, and not first.' To Professor Max Muller {April lUh, 1892). ' Inveraray. ' I have just completed a rather careful reading of your Glasgow lectures, and am glad to recognise in them what seems to me a very substantial contribu- tion to the great subject of natural theology. What I note as of primary importance is, first, that your view is definitely and distinctly that religion is not an invention, but a discovery ; that it is not the develop- ment of an imagination, but the development of a recognition, so that the subject-matter of rehgion is fact. Secondly, I note your language about a 'personal God as essential, as much so as a personal soul ; thirdly, that abstractions must be the abstracts of facts ; and, lastly, that philosophies are not reHgions. ' I note these as leading thoughts of immense im- portance. ' But now, since you challenge and write criticisms either as to historical faith or as to logical conclusions, I wish to say frankly that, in my opinion, your treat- ment of what you call " physical miracles " is not logical. ' If there be a Supreme Being, we cannot logically confine His methods of operation so as to exclude what is usually called the " supernatural " — a word which I disHke, and which you rarely use, but which you do use a httle. I entirely dissent from your 538 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLVi doctrine that it is no longer now a question of evidence, but that miracles are proved impossibilities. ' My own chapter on the supernatural in the " Reign of Law " stiU expresses my own view ; and even Huxley admits that there is no a priori disproof possible. ' Of course, immense consequences foUow from your rejection of all the " supernatural " elements in Chris- tianity. In my opinion this does reduce it from a religion to a mere philosophy. ' Of course, I can't go into this subject now — it is an immense one ; but I could not write on the subject at all without expressing my entire dissent from aU this on logical grounds.' To Professor Max Muller {April 2Mh, 1893). ' I have completed my first reading of your last book, and have been extremely interested, thinking that it adds some valuable reconstructive elements to natural religion. There are many parts of the book with which I find myself in special agreement, such as the passages about types in organic structure, on which subject I had written some passages only last week which are almost a transcript of your own. ' The main point on which I do not find myself in agreement is neither any fact to be disputed nor any deduction to be rejected. You challenge replies on either ground. But my feehng of dissent, or at least of great doubt, has reference to an iU-defined, but felt, atmosphere of an assumption or preconcep- tion which pervades many passages. ' You dissociate abstract conceptions from all ob- jective facts more than I can understand, and more than I can admit to be truly philosophic. ' Thus, consider the general and abstract idea of Christ being the Incarnate Word. You dwell on this at great length as of the essence of Christianity, which, no doubt, it is. Yet your language leaves it doubtful 1860-93] SCIENCE OF EELIGION 539 whether on this account you think it at all needful to accept as historically true any one fact of His recorded life. " GaUlsean legends " is a phrase you use, without specifying which or what you mean ; and your language gives the impression that, in your mind, you can divorce altogether the satisfaction you feel in the abstract idea, from belief in, say, the fact of the Resurrection. ' Now, this is a frame of mind I cannot even under- stand. Abstract ideas are poor stuff unless they are abstracted from real objective facts. In hke manner, constantly you use the words " mythological forms " for aU attempts to personify, or to embody, abstract conceptions. Of course, many such personifications are pure myth ; but not all are myth, and my philo- sophy teaches me that all abstract ideas have some embodiment in objective facts. They are only " mytho- logical " when those embodiments are fanciful and unreal. But you seem to treat aU kinds and forms of embodiment as equally mythology. ' I am pleased and amused by one pas3age,|injwhich your words imply that thought comes before words, and seeks in a vocable its own expression. This seems to me the order of Nature ; and I know as a fact that I frequently can recall an idea, and even handle it in reasoning, while, nevertheless, its name has vanished from my memory. ' On the great leading idea of the book — the mischief of supposing that Christianity is to be defended by pretending that all its ideas are novelties in the world, and in the use you make of St. Paul in this connection — I heartily agree with you. ' Your love of the mystics amuses and interests me. It is correlated with the love of abstract conceptions which is common to aU students of philosophy, but it has inspired some of the most striking passages of your book.' Another subject which the Duke discussed with Professor Max MiiUer was the question of the antiquity 540 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLVi of man, considered in the light of the evidence gathered from the history of language. To Professor Max Muller [February 20th, 1868). ' You say that it is certain that there was a time when the ancestors of the Greeks, Latins, Germans, Indians, etc., dwelt under a common roof, because they have all the same words to express the primary relationships of life and the most ancient of the domestic animals. ' But the question arises, Have we any measure of time to enable us to guess when this " common roof " was the home of the ancestors of all those races ? Have we any link connecting time-relative with time- absolute ? ' One step towards this would be to estimate how far back, in years, the diverse dialects of the Indo- Germanic language can be traced in well-marked separation from each other. The evidence of monu- ments, and of something like history, seems to go back as far as the twenty-eighth century B.C., on the most moderate computations of Egyptologists. But beyond this, aU trace of time, measurable by years, seems to be lost. What is the farthest-back date to which you think we can reach by the evidence of language ? ' The rate of growth of dialects in early stages of the world, when there were few arresting causes, must be as much matter for conjecture as the rate of growth in geological formations. But it may be possible to fix a minimum, if we know such a date as I have referred to.' Professor Max Miiller replied that ' every attempt at translating the periods of natural growth or struc- ture into the language of definite solar chronology has proved a failure ' ; and the Duke, continuing the subject, wrote on February 25th, 1868 : 1860-93] ORIGIN OF LANGUAGE 541 ' About 1200 B.C. we have the Sanskrit language, in the Veda, perfectly formed and reduced to writing. We also have evidence that the Greek language was already in a similar condition about the same period. Now, both these languages bear traces of ^having come from a common stock, different from either, and the oldest forms of Greek and Sanskrit show an increasing approximation. ' But the very fact of a language becoming a written one indicates a stage at which an arrest would be put upon the causes of change. Therefore, it is impossible to measure the rate of changes before a language became written by the rate of change after it became written. You raise a question of immense interest when you say that the history of language is only the history of decay. Do you mean to say that language is higher and more perfect as we go back in time ? And, if so, in what sense was it higher ? Or do you only mean that, though language becomes always more perfect in its adaptation to thought, its materials are the detritus of older and ruder forms of speech ? " Decay " in this sense does not mean degeneracy, but only crumbling. The oldest forms may be the rudest, and the youngest may be the most perfect, although these last are made out of the " decay " of the first. ' What I always feel about time, measured geo- logically, is, that if the causes of change were more rapid in pre-Adamite time than now, all measure of time-absolute is lost. So, likewise, if, before language was reduced to writing, the causes of change were much more rapid in their operation, no man can say how great those changes may have been when men were nomads, diverging rapidly from each other in place and habits. No man can say what changes and developments of speech may have arisen in 3,000 years, under such conditions of the race. ' I hope you will give a lecture on this great subject of time-relative in its relations with time-absolute.' 542 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLVI ■ In all his writings on scientific subjects, and in any part he took in controversies regarding disputed points, the Duke's chief aim invariably was to maintain that the most fearless investigation of every new discovery, brought to light in the progress of knowledge, should be welcomed. He held that no proved truth could touch the belief in the Divine Source of all truth, but that each one formed a new link in a chain reaching back to the great First Cause, without the recognition of Whose guiding Hand no theory could be constructed to explain the earliest dawn of life. In the early and mid- Victorian days, a wave of infidelity appeared to follow in the wake of scientific discovery. The new hght thrown upon the forces in Nature had revealed a new earth, and with the old earth there had passed away, for many, the old heaven. To those who found that doubt was ' as lead upon the feet of their most anxious will '* the firm stand made for the faith by a man like the Duke, who had kept abreast of all in- tellectual progress, and in whose great abilities and powers of judgment men placed confidence, formed a ralljring-point when they had lost the old landmarks, and were in danger of missing the path in the darkness of infidelity. Many letters addressed to him testify to the help he had afforded to others, by his counsel and by his writings. A number are from clergymen of the Church of England, who were, by their office, specially called upon to deal with the spiritual diffi- culties of the age, and who gladly availed themselves of the weapons provided by his reasoned arguments to resist attack. The ex-president of a secular society, who had been led to repudiate atheistical doctrines, wrote to the Duke stating that his long experience in * George Eliot. 1860-93] RELIGION AND DOGMA 543 connection with this society had shown him how great an influence for good the Duke exercised over the work- ing population, amongst whom a low-class infidelity- had been spreading. A letter from the Duke to Lord BramweU on July 31st, 1863, refers to a theological discussion : ' You are a judge, and you are accustomed when on the bench to throw your mind into the judicial attitude, both as to facts and principles. ' I hope you wiU endeavour to deal with yourself in the same way when you are brought face to face with the problems of what you call theology. ' You need not quote to me a passage from Sir W. MaxweU, in which he refers (probably) to the doings of the Inquisition in Spain or in the Low Countries. ' There is an older author than Keir, who has put this matter into terser words — Lucretius : " Tantum religio pottiit suadere malorum." ' The conclusion from this great fact seems, in your mind, to be this : " Religions or religious dogmas are the source of all evil." ' If you looked into the question judicially your con- clusion would be very different. It would probably be something like this : ' " Men's conduct has in all ages been determined fundamentally by their beliefs. It has been bad in proportion as these beliefs have been false ; it has been good in proportion as these beliefs have been true." ' Consequently, the line of Lucretius and the senti- ment of Keir are equally true when made to face the other way : " Tantum reUgio potuit suadere bonorum." ' Just as false religion and false dogma have been the source of tremendous evils, so have true religion and true dogma been the source of aU that is best and highest in human conduct and in human institutions. ' This is as much a fact as the converse proposition. 544 SCIENCE [CHAP. XLYl ' It is the idlest of all occupations to rail against beliefs. They will exist, and they will exert their power. Even the purely negative belief that there is no true religion, and no knowledge respecting it, is a belief which will have its own tremendous power. ' I submit, therefore, that the duty of all men is, not to despise questions of belief, but to study them, and, as far as may be, to solve them. ' As a matter of fact, the fundamental institutions of our law are, in aU their moral aspects, more or less directly moulded on Christian belief, and I have never yet seen any other foundation even suggested which has the same strength or the same truth.' The following words, written by the Duke, allude to the recognition he received of the help afforded to others by his literary work : ' I have had letters from the most distant parts of the world — from the backwoods of America and the bush of Australia, from men whom I have never seen, nor can see, in this world, thanking me for having lifted from o£E their spirits that deadly nightmare of a rigid, fateful, and mechanical necessity seated on the throne of Nature.' CHAPTER XLVII 1866-1900 LITERARY WORK — JUBILEE — QUEEN VICTORIA — NATURAL HISTORY — POETRY — CHARACTERISTICS The best-known of the Duke of Argyll's writings are, perhaps, the three volumes entitled ' The Reign of Law,' ' The Unity of Natiire,' and ' The Philosophy of Belief,' the publication of which extended over a period of thirty years, the first having been published in 1866, and the last in 1896. Of this series, the author wrote in the preface to the last volume : ' Although each of these works may stand indepen- dently by itself, they are yet very closely connected. They represent, in the main, one Hne of thought on the greatest of all subjects — namely, the philosophy of religion in its relations with the philosophy of science. ' The first of these treatises, " The Reign of Law," deals with the question how far the idea is rational that physical laws are the supreme agencies in Nature, or whether, on the contrary, mind and will are seated on that universal throne. ' The second of the series, " The Unity of Nature," starting from a fresh point of view, deals mainly with the problem how far our human faculties are com- petent, on this matter, to give us any knowledge whatever, or whether they must leave us in conscious, yet helpless, and hopeless, ignorance on the whole of it, and on all that it involves. ' The third and last of the series, " The Philosophy of Belief," applies the reasonings and conclusions VOL. n. 645 35 646 LITERARY WORK [chap. xlvU which have been thus reached to an examination of the relation in which the great conception of natural law, when properly understood, stands to religion in general, and to Christian theology in particular.' The system of thought which the Duke developed in these volumes extends over a very large area. The phenomena of the inorganic world, the structures and functions of organic life, human character and volition, the growth of civilization, history, and literature, social and political institutions — all come within the field of his vision, and serve to illustrate the main argument in countless ways, the fundamental idea being simply that of St. Paul's introduction to the Epistle to the Romans : ' The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His Eternal Power and Godhead.' The argument in ' The Reign of Law ' is so close and consecutive that it is difficult to quote from the book without breaking the connection of thought ; but a passage may be given indicative of the line of reason- ing adopted by the author : ' The Reign of Law. Is this, then, the reign under which we live ? Yes, in a sense it is. There is no denying it. The whole world around us, and the whole world within us, are ruled by law. Our very spirits are subject to it — ^those spirits which yet seem so spiritual, so subtle, so free. How often in the dark- ness do they feel the restraining walls — bounds within which they move, conditions out of which they can- not think ! The perception of this is growing in the consciousness of men. It grows with the growth of knowledge ; it is the dehght, the reward, the goal of science. From science it passes into every domain of thought, and invades, amongst others, the theology 1866-1900] THE 'PHILOSOPHY OF BELIEF' 547 of the Church. And so we see the men of theology coming out to parley with the men of science, a white flag in their hands, and saying : "If you wiU let us alone, we will do the same by you. Keep to your own province ; do not enter ours. The Reign of Law which you proclaim we admit — outside these walls, but not within them. Let there be peace between us." But this will never do. There can be no such treaty dividing the domain of Truth. Every one truth is connected with every other truth in this great universe of God. The connection may be one of infinite subtlety and apparent distance — running, as it were, underground for a long way— but always asserting itself at last, somewhere, and at some time. No bar- gaining, no fencing off the ground, no form of process, will avail to bar this right of way. Blessed right, en- forced by blessed power ! Every truth, which is truth indeed, is charged with its own consequences, its own analogies, its own suggestions. These will not be kept outside any artificial boundary ; they will range over the whole field of thought ; nor is there any corner of it from which they can be warned away.' In the ' Philosophy of Belief,' which deals especially with law in theology, the following words occur, which harmonize ivith the thought expressed in the above passage : ' The correspondence between the intelUgence of man and the structure of the universe could not stop where mechanical explanations ended. It must extend to higher things. The wings of thought must be as much an adjusted mechanism as the wings of flight. This was an idea which justified and encouraged some kinds of doubt, whilst it acted as a powerful solvent upon others. On the one hand, it encouraged and justified a reasonable scepticism on every dogma of the schools which is reaUy obnoxious to the instructed reason or to the enlightened conscience ; on the other hand, it 35—2 548 LITERARY WORK [chap, xlvii put an end to that bottomless distrust of all thought, and of all reasoning upon spiritual things, which is, as it were, a suicide of the soul.' The summing up of this volume, the last philo- sophical work given by the Duke to the world, is added here, because it expresses so entirely his own assured belief, which could not in any other words be so well defined as in his own : ' Perhaps the greatest testimony of all to the supreme rank of Christian belief as a system of philosophy is in its evidently unexhausted reserve of power. The great things it has accomplished in the reform and elevation of human life and character are little, indeed, compared with the results which it would obviously accomplish if it were really understood, and if its dominion were thoroughly established. Christianity is infinitely greater than all Christians, and than all the Churches. Corruptions entered almost at the beginning. Persecuting doctrines and practices have defamed its history, and the most hideous cruelties have been esteemed duties enacted by its commands. Yet every abuse of this kind is now seen to have been condemned by some one or more of its fundamental principles. And so it will be with every other abuse which may come to be detected in the course of time. " fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken "* — these are the words recorded by the Apostles as addressed to two of the disciples by their risen Master. They are words which may well have to be repeated often to other disciples from age to age until that unexhausted teaching of His has come, slowly and gradually, to be better comprehended. Of no other teaching, of no other philosophy, can this be said. It, and it alone, among the many which have passed across the stage of human history, seems large enough to be capable of containing all the yet unknown * Luke xxiv. 25. 1866-1900] THE DITKE's MARRIAGE 549 treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Its whole spirit is the spirit of devotion to truth— to truth in conduct. It hates every form and shadow of untruth. It classes with the most hideous sins " whatsoever loveth and maketh a lie."* It loves knowledge, and it loves the love of it. It sets before its disciples, as the greatest of all their rewards, the hope of " knowing even as they are known." f It takes special note of the unsatisfied, and apparently unsatisfiable, desires of men as a significant fact in their mental con- stitution. Lucretius calls it " the thankless nature of the mind," and adds the beautifully plaintive line : " Nee tamen explemur vital fructibus unquam." With irresistible reason Christian philosophy correlates that fact with the inexhaustibiHty of the Creator's works, and regards this unappeasable hunger of the human soul as the natural result of the correspondingly immense capabilities of a creature made in his image, and always, in proportion to the awakening of its faculties, finding intense delight in the appreciation and understanding of His mind and works. The practical use it makes of this correlation, and the practical inference it draws, is the thoroughly intelli- gible and rational assurance that " eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man to conceive, what God hath prepared for them that love Him." ' On Tuesday, the 30th of July, 1895, the Duke was married in the private chapel of The Palace at Ripon to Ina, youngest daughter of Archibald McNeill, of Colonsay, Argyllshire, and Private Secretary to Queen Victoria. A quotation from a letter, written by the Queen the day previous to the marriage, shows the kind interest Her Majesty felt on the occasion : ' Dearest Ina, ' I think of you much, and shall especially on Tuesday.' * Rev. xxii. 15. f 1 Cor. xiii. 12. 550 LITERARY WORK [ohap. XLvn On the occasion of his marriage, the tenantry on his estates in Kintjrre presented an address to the Duke, which is quoted here, as showing his relations as a land- owner to his tenantry in Argyll, and their appreciation of all he had done for the benefit and advancement of the people on his estates : ' To His Grace the Duke of Argyll, K.G., K.T. ' May it please Your Grace, ' We, the undersigned tenants on the Kintyre estates, and others, hail the present auspicious occa- sion as a fitting opportunity for giving expression to our sincere appreciation of your worth. While we gladly honour your outstanding ability as a statesman, a litterateur, and a scientist, we desire to acknowledge your thoughtful generosity as a proprietor. ' We regard ourselves as fortunate in having as a landlord one who has been ever ready to note adverse influences and changing conditions in agriculture and to render assistance in the most helpful form. Through your favour the revaluation of your estate resulted in reductions of rent, in keeping with agricultural values ; improvements in farm steadings, labourers' cottages, fencing, draining, etc., have, through your liberality, been carried out at great cost, and with the most satisfactory results. ' We are deeply grateful for the encouragement given by you to the breeding of Clydesdale horses, and the improvements in the methods of dairy farming; and we are not unmindful of the fact that we obtained, long before we were entitled to it, the benefit of the Ground Game Act, ' In conclusion, we trust that you and your Duchess may long be spared to enjoy every blessing.' The address bears the signatures of about one hundred and eighty of the tenants in Kintyre. 1866-1900] EXPENDITURE ON IMPROVEMENTS 551 The Duke, as a large land-owner, had given much attention from an early age to the study of land- tenure, and of questions affecting the security and prosperity of rural populations. As he stated in his autobiography, he was a ' land reformer,' and he derived the greatest pleasure from seeing the change effected on the appearance of tracts of country, where excellent farm-houses and steadings had replaced old thatched dwellings, and improved agriculture had given to the face of the land a smiling aspect. He truly fulfilled his part towards rendering the posses- sions of his forefathers, as he used to express it, ' a goodly heritage.' In connection with his work and responsibiUties as a proprietor of large estates, the fact may be men- tioned, to which allusion is made in the autobiography, that during the period of fifty years — from the time of his succession to the Argyll estates in 1847 to the year 1897 — he expended, out of income, a sum amount- ing to over £554,000* in the improvement of his pro- perties ; and, owing to his wise and far-seeing poUcy in the management of his estates, they were doubled in value during the period of his ownership. The Duke's economic studies, which were first prompted by the duties of his position, were after- wards extended over the history of Scotland, as viewed from an economic standpoint, and the results were embodied in a volume entitled ' The Unseen Founda- tions of Society,' pubhshed in 1893. In the preface to this work, he wrote with regard to his interest in the science of poUtical economy : ' My own education on the subject began with the circumstances which brought about the memorable * This fact is quoted from a legally attested statement, drawn up by desire of the Duke in 1897. 552 LITERARY WORK [chap. XLvn conversion of Sir Robert Peel. I was a constant and attentive listener, under the gallery of the House of Commons, to the great debates which preceded and followed his attainment of power in 1821.' A letter written by the Duke when he was between sixteen and seventeen years old, to Mr. John Campbell, gives a description of one of his early visits to the House of Commons : ' February ^Tith, 1840. ' I came to London in time to hear the two last nights of the debate upon Sir T. Bulwer's motion. On the first of these I heard Lord Stanley deliver the very fine speech which you have, of course, read. On the second I heard that splendid oration of Sir R. Peel. I waited from five o'clock in expectation of hearing him, and was gratified as soon as the great " Dan "* sat down, which was at twelve o'clock. The three hours he occupied with his speech passed like half an hour, and the moment he sat down, which was at three o'clock in the morning, I bolted, just turning my head enough to see that John Russell was on his legs. " Hech, sirs, it's time to be afif noo !" The character of the illustrious Dukef at the end of Peel's speech was really beautiful, and -so impressively delivered.' A few quotations from ' Unseen Foundations of Society ' give an idea of the Duke's views on economic questions. In the preface to the book he states that ' the doctrine of Burke, often praised by Cobden, and since epitomized by Mr. Morley, seemed to me the only sound doctrine — ^namely, this : that it is a " futile and mischievous system to deal with agriculture as if it were different from any other branch of * Daniel O'Connell. t Duke of Wellington. 1866-1900] POLITICAL ECONOMY 553 He further adds : ' I have never been in anything Hke complete sym- pathy with what was called the " Manchester School." Not a few of them seemed to me to be tainted with the narrow and erroneous teaching of Ricardo, and their language too often implied the curious delusion that Protectionism was the special and the evil device of land-owners. They seemed whoUy forgetful of the fact that the trading and manufacturing classes had been the earliest, and for centuries continued to be the most vehement, supporters of Protection and monopolies. Again, the language of that school con- cerning War, and their complete oblivion of the great part it has played in the progress of mankind, always struck me as unnatural, and especially as unhistorical. Above all, the coldness, to say the least, with which they regarded the contest that ended in the passing of the Factory Acts convinced me that their views of poHtical economy moved within a comparatively con- tracted circuit of ideas.' The following passage, which occurs in the book itself, refers to the Duke's earlier study of poHtical economy : ' In reading the old orthodox economists, with how- ever little critical resistance, I had always been more or less conscious of a want — almost on every page — which, even to myself, I could hardly specify or define. They seemed to me like men always sounding in abysmal waters, always busy in recording depths, but wholly unconscious that their lead had never touched the bottom. I felt constantly as if, down below the short limit of their line, there were deep currents running of which they took no note whatever. " We start, for soul is wanting there," was a line of Byron which kept constantly repeating itself in' my ear. Many superficial facts were admirably observed, and a tremendous superstructure was often built upon 554 LITERARY WORK [chap. XLVii them. Far more fundamental facts, strictly relevant and cognate, were left, because less gross and palpable, in obscurity and neglect.' In the summing up of this work the Duke refers more directly to the great subject of Free Trade : ' We all know that in our own time the battle of economic science has been chiefly fought round the question of what are called Protective tariffs. This is only one of the many questions of policy upon which economic science has a special bearing. I do not seek to deny or to detract from the great importance at- taching to that question. . . . Neither do I wish to compromise or conceal my own opinion that the argu- ment in favour of Free Trade, or free exchange, between nations as between individuals, is as a general principle triumphant all along the line. But it is very far from the be-all and end-all of economic science. Even when considered in itself alone, there are some limita- tions on its universal applicability which, in general terms at least, are admitted by the most rigid members of the Cobden School, whilst there are a few of these limitations which I have found specially excepted by the same set of economists.' In connection with this subject, the following letter to Lord Playfair is of interest, as in it the Duke dis- cussed the question of Free Trade, regarding which he used to say ' the last word has not been spoken ': ' Inveraeay, ' March 9th, 1888. ' My dear Playfair, ' I have read your article on the depression with great interest, and I have no doubt your explanation is the right one. ' Free Trader as I have always been, I see that the whole theory has not yet been thought out. 1866-1900] FEEE TRADE 555 ' What do you make of the facts you quote about beet-sugar ? Are you sure that this great trade and great item of production would ever have been brought to what it has become if Napoleon had not pampered it by fiscal protection ? ' I doubt it. At all events, his measures have had this effect. ' Then, again, " depression " means cheapness. It won't do, then, to argue that mere cheapness is always and necessarily a benefit. ' Yet it must be always a benefit to those whose means of purchase remain the same. But this, again, is exactly the " Fair Traders' " argument that too great cheapness does diminish the purchasing power of large producing classes. ' And this is true, within certain limits, and to a certain extent. Then, again. Free Trade may and does extinguish productions at particular places. The " Free " reply is, " So much the better ; the produc- tion will go on better elsewhere." Yes ; but suppose India extinguishes the jute factories of Dundee ? The Dundeeites won't like it !' The year 1897, which was memorable as the year of the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria, was also the fiftieth year since the Duke's accession to the Argyll title and estates. In the month of May the Duke, at the request of his wife, \prote the following lines to be illuminated and framed for Her Majesty's birthday : ' Thou earnest with the May — this month of flowers — Thy birth a dower of blessings for thy land ; May He who gave thee then now keep thee still Safe in the hollow of His Holy Hand !' Afterwards, thinking over his first meeting with the Queen, when he was a boy of fourteen, he added some verses, the first written forming the last verse of the 556 QUEEN VICTORIA [chap. XLVii little poem which was sent to the Queen. Her Majesty in reply wrote : ' My dear Dtjke, ' Thank you so much for your charming lines for my old birthday.' 'TO THE QUEEN. A Memory of 1837. (1897.) ' Deep in the shade of Windsor's forest leaves, When thy young steps had climbed this Island throne, I saw thee passing with that aged friend* Whose loyal counsels first inspired thine own. ' Thy Form to me seemed slender for the weight It had to lift among the crowns of Earth ; I could not know the sweetness and the strength Enshrined in thee — as if by right of birth. ' One thing I saw, for as I bent my head Thou gav'st the wand'ring boy a gracious smile ; It seemed a radiance of the sun to him, And lives in mem'ry though a long erewhile. ' And then, midst light and shade of many years, I've seen thy Queenhood in a golden age, Unfold the story of thy reign, and tell Thy sorrows, too, in one pathetic page. ' But never have these sorrows dulled thine eye For those who suffer pain in all thy realm ; Few hearts have bled like thine, yet few have known To speak as thou where troubles overwhelm. ' Thou earnest with the May — this month of flowers — Thy birth a dower of blessings for thy land : May He who gave thee then now keep thee still Safe in the hollow of His Holy Hand.' * Lord Melbourne. 1866-1900] LETTBBS FROM QUEEN VICTORIA 557 The Queen's long friendship Avith the Duke was marked by an extensive correspondence, but, although Her Majesty graciously granted permission for some of those letters to be reproduced in the autobiography, many are of so private a nature that it is deemed advisable only to quote one or two, as evidences of the Queen's great regard for one who had so long served her with such single-minded devotion : From the Queen [February 6th, 1884). ' Dear Duke, ' Pray accept my best thanks for your book,* which looks most interesting, and which I shall like to read when I am a little more quiet. I always admired all you wrote so much. The drawing of the little bird is very pretty. I always think of you when I see any of your favourite birds at Balmoral. , . . ' Beheve me always, ' Your affectionate ' V. R. & I.' ' July 13th, 1893. ' My dear Duke, ' I feel so grateful to you for helping me in my difiicult position, as I feel so utterly alone. And from your high position, your experience, your wisdom, and your near connection with me you are so suited to give me good advice and to help me. I thank you so much for your letter. ' Ever your affectionate ' V. R. &. L' In commemoration of the Diamond Jubilee of the Queen, the Duke restored a large hall at Inveraray, which had been built about the middle of the previous century, on the banks of the River Aray, at a short * ' The Unity of Nature.' 558 JUBILEE [chap. XLVii distance from the castle. It was originally used as a riding-school and theatre, until it was partially de- stroyed by fire in 1817. It was now intended to be used for entertainments and lectures for the benefit of the tenantry. On the occasion of the opening of the hall, a ball was given, at which the county and tenantry were entertained. At the commencement of the pro- ceedings, addresses of congratulation were presented to the Duke by the Provost and magistrates of the Royal Borough of Inveraray, by the tenantry, and by the Kirk Session. In these, allusion was made to the ' pride ' with which his people, ' in common with the whole of Scotland,' had watched his ' brilliant career in statesmanship, philosophy, science, and literature ' during his long pubUc life, and they concluded with expressions of attachment, and grateful recognition of his ' many acts of generosity and kindness.' In his reply, the Duke, while expressing his gratifica- tion at the touching addresses he had received, made a point of stating that the festivities were primarily in honour of the Diamond Jubilee of ' our beloved and incomparable Queen.' A few weeks later, the Jubilee Hair was again in requisition on the occasion of the inauguration of a Literary Society at Inveraray, when the Duke de- livered an address* on the subject, ' What is Science ?' which was illustrated by diagrams painted by himself. This lecture is alluded to in a letter to Lord Duflferin, who, with Lady Dufferin and one of his daughters, had left Inveraray a few days before : ' Your visit here was a great pleasure to me. It brought back old days so nearly and dearly, and at our age such repetitions are precarious. , . . * This address was afterwards published. 1866-1960] LECTURE ON SCIENCE 559 ' Last night I had a triumph very astonishing to myself. I had engaged to deliver a lecture, and ex- pected to speak about an hour, when, lo ! and behold, when I sat down I found I had spoken exactly two hours — a perfect torrent of talk, and my voice as strong as it ever was in my life ! I could not have believed it possible beforehand. It is the longest speech I ever made in my life.' From his childhood, natural history had been a great interest in the Duke's life, as he relates in his auto- biography. Perhaps no sensitive child, growing up to boyhood and youth in Argyllshire, could ever afterwards be altogether deaf to the voices of wind and water, or blind to the suggestions of mountain and mist and sea. The mystical emotion aroused by these influences was interwoven with his thoughts on all the varied questions of high import which so early engrossed his mind. It blended with his religious belief, and even tinged with poetry his speculations on those branches of science which seem to have the least affinity with the imaginative faculty. Gradually he was led to take up the study of the natural sciences one after another, and to follow their rapid develop- ment with unwearied zeal to the end of life. It is in some of his poems that his feeling for Nature finds its fuUest expression. In one of his later poems he describes Glenshira, near Inveraray : ' I hear the sound of torrents, and the air Is full of liquid murmur from the hills ; I see delaying clouds on summits bare. The wand'ring fountains of a thousand rills. Beneath my feet the low, soft music tones Of crystal waters from the dash and fall Now rise from ripples over silver stones. Slow passing into pools which hush them all. 560 POETRY [chap. XLVIX There, trembling for a while beneath the fern, They glide beside fair banks of meadow-sweet, Repay the patience of the watching hern With crimson-spotted trout ; and then they greet Their own great father by the mountain-side That looks for ever on his rhythmic tide.' Of the song of the willow-wren he wrote : ' It hath some mystic power to raise Dreams of a world unknown.' And of the wind on the lonely moor : ' I know not whence it came Nor how its accents fell ; But the blessed words it spake to me — These I remember well.' The Duke's close observation of Nature is illustrated by the following story, told in his own words, of his discovery of a very rare fungus in a fir-cone carried by a raven in flight : ' A raven flew over my head the other day at Inveraray with something in his bill. I shouted, and he dropped it. I found it was a fir-cone presenting an unusual appearance, from being covered on the inside of each scale with a small parasitical fungus. I know nothing of the fungi, but I guessed that if the raven thought it curious it probably was so. I sent it to Sir William Hooker, and he writes to me that it is the Parichena strdbilina, of which only one other specimen has ever been found in Scotland, and that it is very rare anywhere ! Had the raven a private museum ?' The study of ornithology always possessed a great attraction for the Duke. He looked on birds as almost human in their alert intelligence. ' I am satisfied,' 1866-1900] EARLY LETTERS 561 he wrote to Professor Palgrave, ' that the lower animals, and especially birds, do enjoy immensely the " aspect of Nature," though they don't write poems thereupon.' His observation of bird life began very early. At the age of thirteen he wrote the following letter to Sir James Stewart of Allanbank : ' AllDENCAPLE, J ,, „ T 'January 17th, 18S7. My dear Sir James, ^ ' I received the other night by Sir James Eiiddell the valuable box which you have been so kind as to send to me, and know not how to thank you for so handsome a present. Your etchings and the plates of Jenmark are the most beautiful things I ever saw, but it will be a long time before I can copy the latter, though I have begun painting birds from nature. The accuracy with which each pattern of the birds is delineated surprises me a good deal, and makes me long to be able to do the same. I think the stuffed specimens you sent me very beautiful, especially the shrike, which is really a very beautiful bird. The other day I had the falcons out at Rosneath, and had the pleasure of seeing one flight at a partridge, but it got into cover too soon to give the hawk much chance. He happened to pass close to me, and the noise he made in the air was hke a rifle-bullet. It was really a beautiful sight, and I wish you had been there to see it. The flight of the trained eagle which you describe must have been very grand, though the sport must have been rather a dangerous one. This severe weather has sent away all the woodcocks from us, and I think they have gone further west, where the weather is in all probability more open ; however, it has brought more divers into the loch, and yesterday, whilst crossing over to Rosneath, the head of a great Northern diver appeared close to the boat, but I could not get a shot at it. It kept an amazing VOL. II. 36 562 NATURAL HISTORY [ohap.xlvu time under water, and then put its head above, and then down again immediately. I have sent the game- keeper to-day to Rosneath along the shore to see if he can get anything new for my pencil, the plates of Jenmark having made me ten times more anxious to be able to paint birds well. Sir James Riddell is going to give me a beautiful specimen of the wild swan, which will arrive, I hope, to-day ; I am very anxious to see it. You mention in your letter that Adelaide* seems determined to go to Canada with Lord Arthur, but I hope that either the suppression or suspension of Papineau and his companions in rebellion will dispense with the necessity of sending out any more troops, and release poor Adelaide from such an ordeal. ' With kindest remembrances to Lady Stewart, and many thanks for her kindness, ' I am, dear Sir James, ' Yours sincerely, ' George D. Campbell. ' P.S. — I have painted the blue-tit, the cole-tit, the longtailed-tit, the green linnet, and yellow-hammer with pretty good success. ' G. D. Campbell.' In 1839, at the age of sixteen, he wrote again to Sir James Stewart : ' My dear Sir Jambs, ' I have given up drawing landscape, and have' turned my attention more successfully, and much more to my taste, to the drawing and painting of birds. To do this well I have a great ambition, as ornithology has ever been my favourite study, and in this I am glad to think that I am writing to a sympathizer. I have reaUy succeeded beyond my expectations in this way, and hope you will agree with me when you have an opportunity of seeing some specimens of my powers. * Lady Arthur Lennox, cousin to the Duke. K u o t— I ^ < g X < Q 9 S E CO '^ 1866-1900] THE DUKE AS AN ARTIST 563 Only think of my arrogance when I tell you that I am contemplating having a lithograph taken of a drawing and painting I have made of a peregrine falcon, one of those which a gamekeeper near us has trained to hunt in the old style of falconry ! I have taken a regular ornithological drawing of this mag- nificent bird, having deHneated each feather, and with what success I hope sooirto enable you to judge. ' The cross-biUs have liow left us — at least, I have not seen or heard of any for a long time. I was amused with your description of the frigate bird, but you have drawn a deduction from the length of its wings and smaUness of its body which I am afraid will not hold good. You seem to think that its flight must in consequence be very quick or, to use your own word, " prodigious." Now a bird's flight is in the inverse ratio to the size of its wing in proportion to the weight of its body, as you may see by comparing the flight of the heron (whose wings are enormous in proportion to the weight of her body) with that of the red-throated diver (whose wings are so small that it requires the bird to make them go like a fly-wheel to keep her up at aU). You will find that the latter goes at a tremendous rate, while the former goes in a slow and laboured manner; the greater the bird's downward tendency in proportion to its supporting power, the quicker the bird flies, because the greater is the impetus which the wings have merely to direct and support.' Painting continued to be one of the Duke's favourite recreations in later days. He preferred oil to water- colour as a medium, and as he was a very rapid worker, he possessed many records of beautiful scenes which had impressed and delighted him. Of his pictures it may be said that they showed truthful observation of Nature, both in colour and form. His sketches were not only portraits of the places depicted, but even the 36—2 564 NATURAL HISTORY [chap, xlvii special character of the passing clouds was noticed and portrayed. His geological drawings were remarkable for their accuracy and reliability for scientific purposes, and his knowledge of geology caused him sometimes to criticise the works of artists, in which, however beautifully executed, rocks were depicted of a for- mation unknown in the locality represented. The study of birds, which was his first intellectual interest, possessed the same fascination for the Duke all his life. On March 2nd, 1896, he wrote to Lord Lilf ord : ' I hope you will allow a very old friend as an orni- thologist to introduce himself to you as a friend also in that personal acquaintance which I have long desired, for I wish to congratulate you on the beautiful and charming book on the birds of Northamptonshire which I have been reading with delight for several days, having read also all you have written for many years on that branch of natural science which has been my great attraction since I was a child. ' There are many points in your book which have interested me greatly ; one especially — namely, your success in establishing or increasing the little owl. It is a most difficult thing to do, to establish any species in a new habitat. I made a gallant attempt some twenty years ago to introduce the nut-hatch (a great favourite of mine) in Argyllshire. I have there woods of oak, beech, and pine of great age and size, and very extensive in range. I bought at Brighton some dozen or more nut-hatches, let them out in May, when the insect life was becoming abundant, but not one was ever seen again ! Yet they must have traversed miles and miles of open mountainous land in order to escape southward. Is it possible that they can all have been of one sex ? I don't think so, although I do not know very weU how far the sexes are different in plumage in that species. 1866-1900] LETTER TO LORD LILFORD 565 ' Anent the dipper, I need not say how I agree with you in loving them. I have three salmon streams in my estates which they hannt. I never allow one to be shot. We have many pairs, but they never seem to increase much. As to their propensities, I have had ocular demonstration that they eat fish, and that greedily. Twice I have seen a dipper with a fish in his bill — one was a trout or salmon fry, the other was a small flounder. This was in the sea-pool of the river Aray below my house. The flounder was, of course, a small one, but it was as broad as the white waistcoat of its devourer. I had a good glass, and saw the dipper emerge with the little flounder in his bill. He then took it to a large boulder-stone near the bank, and began beating it to death against the stone. Twice it slipped off into the stream, and each time it was firmly pursued and brought back to the block ! All aquatic piscivorous birds seem to have a way of doubling and folding up the flat fishes they catch so as to get them down, but I did not see the feat performed in the present case. Do you think the Httle owl would live if simply turned out at Inveraray ? I have some fear lest, though we have plenty of mice, the comparative scarcity of the larger Coleoptera, such as cockchafers, would make Hving di£&cult for them in Scotland. You seem to have supplied food to them for a considerable time, I bought two " civette " in Rome, and took them in a cage with me home. We travelled with Gladstone. He was immensely captivated by the brilHant yellow eyes of the birds. They fastened them on Gladstone's brown eyes with a fixed stare, and he took it into his head to try if he could stare them out of countenance. He continued to joke all the way from Rome to near Perugia, and at last the owls gave it up and looked away. He seemed as delighted as if he had won a great Parhamentary triumph. The Italian " civetta " is not, I think, the same species as our " little bird," but I have never seen this bird in " the flesh." I did not know 566 POETRY [CHAP. XLvn till last year that we possessed the long-eared owl in Argyllshire, but one was caught last spring in a trap set to guard some young pheasant chicks.' To Lord Lilford. ' I send you a little volume of poems* I published a few years ago, for the sake of some verses on birds which you will find in it. You will see what a favourite of mine is the dipper. The story of the swallow at Danbury is literally true. ***** ' Is it not true that the rattle of woodpeckers on rotten trees is the only instance of instrumental music in nature ?' From the volume above referred to, the following poem is quoted : ' SONG OF THE WATER-OUSEL (DIPPER). ' My home is on the rivers That run among the hills, Through all the sloping valleys, Down all the moorland rills. ' But clear must be the waters As they glide and rush along. And the woodlands must be lonely That harken to my song. ' For there my rhythmic numbers Are spread among the stones, And the listening water answereth In its own low murmuring tones. ' And thus we keep such melody As the world has never known, For the river never ceaseth To love me as its own. * ' Burdens of Belief and other Poems,' published January, 1894. 1866-1900] SONG OF THE WATER-OUSEL 567 ' I love it for the gladness It speaketh in my ear, In all its wayward windings Through the cycle of the year. ' For in the months of summer, When its gentlest currents run In streams of liquid amber All golden in the sun ; ' And in the months of winter, When every stone is set In fretted sheets of silver That have not melted yet, ' We keep our music sounding When other birds are still, Singing, singing, evermore At our own sweet will. ' And when the primrose opens Its soft and steady eye, We then begin our nesting. My merry wife and I. ' We choose some bank o'erhanging. And weave a wondrous dome. Where she can hear the waters And watch the specks of foam ' That come from all the breakings, Though they be miles away, Yet never miss the eddies That bring them by her way. ' And all the days of summer We dive into its breast ; And we rout among the pebbles. And feed the teeming nest. 568 POETRY [chap. XLVii ' And we love to see the shimmer As it rushes overhead, And we flutter in the noises That gurgle from its bed ; ' And we scatter little cataracts That tumble through our wings When we shake the drops from off us In a shower of silver rings. ' And when we see the movings Of little wings that strive, We never need to teach them Or how to swim or dive. ' For the music of the river Has taught them ere we know, As came their glossy feathers. As came their breasts of snow. ' For the pleasant river loved them Before they left the nest ; It laves them in its ripples, It bears them on its breast. ' And from its banks of blaeberry The tall, white stalks of grass Bend down their plumes to watch us And cheer us as we pass. ' Then we hunt the golden shallows, We sound the crystal deeps. And rest where round some boulder stone The languid current sleeps. ' At last, a merry family. We face the autumn weather, And spread all up the mountain rills. By banks of fern and heather.' 1866-1900] LOBD LILFOBD 569 From Lord Lilford {March ISth, 1896). ' Dear Duke of Argyll, ' Thank you most cordially for your letter of the 11th about the " Burdens of Belief and Other Poems " just received. I have only as yet had time to dip into your preface, which requires close attention and careful thought ; but I may say that your " Dipper's Song," the " Danbury Swallow," and most of all " Selborne," have given me most pure dehght. 4: 4: 4: 4: 4: ' I should say that, unless you admit feathers as instruments, the woodpecker's rattle is the only instance of mechanical bird music, in this country at all events. I trust that you are better, and remain ' Yours most truly obliged, ' Lilford.' The correspondence with such an eminent ornitho- logist was a great pleasure to the Duke, as their tastes were in such perfect sympathy, and he deeply regretted the death of Lord Lilford, which took place only a few weeks after the letter quoted above was written. On June 24th, 1896, Lady Lilford wrote: ' I feel I owe a debt of gratitude to you ; your letters were a great pleasure to him, and your book of poems. The one to Gilbert White delighted him. He said there was " refreshment " in it to him. He read it often to me, and only two days before his sudden ill- ness.' A letter from the late Lord Selborne (September 21, 1893) refers to the same poems : ' I am very glad that you are taking steps for the publication of your poems. They are well worthy of 570 POETRY [chap. XLvn it, and will be widely read. I am not prepared at present to say which I like best. " Selborne " is very good, but I am not sure that it is best.' The first verse of the poem on the ' Selborne ' of Gilbert White, which has been specially alluded to, is here quoted : 'SELBORNE. ' How oft in sickness, when the languid brain Longed for the freshness of a summer wood, And the tired reason could not bear the strain Of ordered thinking which before it stood, Have I, so longing, just re-read the page Of him who wrote of Selborne and its birds, To whom through years of slow and peaceful age Did kindly Nature whisper all her words. Of spring and summer and of autumn sheaves. Of strange soft days in winter out of place, When wakened swallows flew without the leaves, And stranger wings had lit in Wolmer chace.' The Duke was an ardent lover of poetry, and, as his published poems show, he was himself practised in the art of verse, with which he sometimes beguiled spare moments in his busy life. His poems express chiefly the thoughts of a student of Nature, but some are tributes to friends. In choice of subject, as in attitude of mind, the Duke was a pupil of Words- worth, as he mentions in a letter to Professor Palgrave, to whose criticism he frequently submitted his verses : ' You are quite right,' he wrote, ' as to the early source of any poetry I may have in me. All the earlier part of my life I was a Wordsworthian.' At a later date, when the star of the great poet Tennyson had risen on the world, the Duke placed 1866-1900] TENNYSON 571 him far before all other poets in his estimation. They met first in the house of Lord John Russell, on the evening of March 3rd, 1851, and the acquaintance then made ripened into a warm and close friendship, of which a record is preserved in the many letters which passed between them, some of which have already been published in the memoirs of Lord Tenny- son, Avritten by his son. Some hitherto unpublished letters are given here : 'September 9.Srd, 1859. ' My dear Mr. Tennyson, ' I meant to have wTitten to you some days ago, when, to us, an inscrutable paragraph appeared in the papers, to the effect that a Lisbon steamer had brought a lot of bullion and the Poet Laureate. As we had not heard you speak of going either to Portugal or elsewhere abroad, and as just before we left town I had heard from you, on your way to London, I was greatly puzzled, and write to ask what you have been doing and seeing, if you will tell us. ' Meanwhile, how have your idylls flourished ? I found before I left town that Gladstone carried them in his pocket, and I rather think you wiU be responsible for a spoilt Budget ! Beautiful as I thought them at first, I find new beauties every time I read them. By-the-by, Macaulay, when I last saw him, was in great hopes that you would pursue the subject, and particularly mentioned the legend of the Sangreal as one capable of being made much of in your hands, as also the latter days and death of Lancelot. Do give us more, when you can. One's greed is insati- able. . , . ' Yours most sincerely, ' Argyll.' 572 POETRY [CHAP. XLvii To Mr. Tennyson {January 20th, 1860). ' . . . We have mourned over Maoaulay's death. He had dined with us on December 6th, and I never saw him in greater force, or with more abundance of knowledge and anecdote. I have been allowed to choose a book from his hbrary as a remembrance. I wonder which you would have chosen. I " swithered " — do you know that Scottish word for hesitated ? — between two — an edition of Crabbe's " Tales of the Hall " and of Sarpi's " History of the Council of Trent," both full of his pencil notes. ' At last I chose the latter, as most interesting and historical. Your " Sea Dreams " have beautiful descrip- tions, although I do not quite Uke, as I told you, the frame of the picture. By all means let us have in such form of publication, or any other, such bits as you may have beside you ; but I want you to go on with the larger design and the cycle of subjects on which you must have thought so long and much. In the last note you ASTote to me you said you had, long ago, done what Macaulay suggested — written on the Sangreal — and had lost what you had written. Do not leave the subject, pray. There are many vacant places yet at your Round Table. Fill them up, do. ' Sumner was delighted with his visit to you. ' Ever yours, ' Argyll.' To Mr. Tennyson {October 28th, 1861). ' It seems a very long time since we have heard of or from you. What have you been doing ? And what are you doing ? And how is your wife ? ' We did hear a report about " Boadicea " as forth- coming, but we did not believe it, though I should be glad to hear it was all true. We have had such a season as never was, even in this country. Rain, rain, rain — sixteen inches of it in one month ! But now 1866-1900] TENNYSON 573 that we are about to leave, the weather is superb, but cold. The Duchess was so ill last winter that we intend to pass December on the shores of the Mediter- ranean this year. We go southward in a few days, and if you are disposed to be good and charitable, you may give us a little account of yourself addressed to Clieveden, Maidenhead, about the 10th November. Have you seen Auvergne ? I always wish to go there. It must be beautiful — granite craters, and chestnut- woods on lava streams. Do you care much about America just now ? We are far more Northern than most of our friends. Poor Motley had to flee the country. He thought its Southern " proclivities " so irksome. . . . ' WiU you give your wife our kindest regards. I hope she is well, and your two boys. ' Ever yours, ' Abgyll.' The Poet Laureate read to the Duke, at Argyll Lodge, in 1857, the proof-sheets of the ' Idylls of the King,' before they had been given to the world. The Duke, who was greatly impressed by the splendour of the poems, afterwards composed a few lines, which are inserted here, and which were included in a little volume which he dedicated to Lady Tennyson : ' I hear the voice whose organ tones Will sound through Time for ever. While mourning hearts still live in love That Death has failed to sever ; — Strong human voice, deep, tender, true To every mood of sorrow, To broken accents round the grave, And to the calmer morrow ; To blessed memories of the dead : To converse pure and high In fruitful gardens of the soul 'Mid blooms that cannot die ; 574 POETRY [chap. XLvn To clouds that gather in the dark, Then break with flash and thunder In rending strokes that leave us mute ; The mystery and the wonder That wait on death. All chords are thine : They tremble under thee. Oh ! sound again to soothe and bless Sad souls that are to be.' The Duke's poem on ' The Burial of Alfred, Lord Tennyson, in Westminster Abbey, October 12th, 1892,' was written, as he stated in the preface to a small volume of verses* in which it was afterwards included, ' under a painful impression of the total omission, or the very inadequate recognition, in many other obituary verses, of the noble religious and ethical character — the " splendid purpose " — of the great Laureate's writings.' The Duke added that he would hardly have ventured to present these verses to the public, as even an ap- proach to the tribute due to Tennyson on the most majestic aspects of his poetry, had they not been kindly accepted as such by Lady Tennyson. From this poem the following verses are quoted : ' Prophet and Bard, whose every word Will be the home, through coming years, Of all who speak this English tongue In life and joy, in death and tears. ' We lay thee in our sorrow down. Remembering all that thou hast said Of those who hold, in seeming sleep, The vaster knowledge of the dead. ' In daring, yet in reverent thought, Unbound by forms which others need. Thine eyes were fixed with longing gaze On Him who is the " Life indeed." * ' Burdens of Belief and Other Poems,'' published 1894. 1866-1900] TENNYSON 575 ' " Strong Son of God, Immortal Love," Are words which came from out thine heart. We feel them breathing through thy song In all its melodies of Art. ' The mysteries of the world to thee In all its present, all its past, Dissolved in one undying faith That " Love will conquer at the last." ***** ' No voice so strong to spread your fame. Heroic deeds, recorded here, No voice so tender or so true For those who stand around the bier. ' And when the gate of science throws Too wide her door to guesses wild. No tones like thine may call them back " To wisdom as the elder child." ■p Sjfi 3|C 3|% Sfi ' And all to perfect music set. In tones as sweet as silver bells. Or those dear notes in which the thrush His love to quiet woodland tells.' Regarding this poem, Lady Tennyson wrote (Decem- ber 9th, 1892) : ' My dear Duke op Argyll, ' I cannot say how grateful we are for the beautiful poem, nor how still more deeply grateful for the love and insight which it breathes.' On hearing from the Duke that he proposed to pub- lish these lines in the National Review for January, 1893, Lady Tennyson wrote (December 29th, 1892) : ' Best thanks for telling me of your intention. We are delighted, as you wiU know when I say that we 576 POETRY [chap, xlvii were questioning whether we might make bold to ask you if Hallam might put your poem into his memoir, if you had no other destiny for it.' To Professor Palgrave, the Duke expressed his en- thusiastic admiration for the great Laureate in the following words (November 27th, 1892) : ' One feels now, already, how great Tennyson was ! Nobody to come within a thousand miles of him.' The Duke frequently corresponded with Professor Palgrave upon literary subjects, chiefly in connection with poetry, and with regard to the little volume of poems by the Duke, dedicated to Lady Tennyson, Mr. Palgrave wrote as follows (February 9th, 1894) : ' Very many thanks for the very interesting and valuable book. It is perhaps little to say that it is a much worthier publication than nineteen out of twenty books of poetry brought out now that the great voices are silent. If I may say so, its merits both in thought and in art amply justify its appearance.' To Professor Palgrave {September 21st, 1894). ' Many thanks for your very kind letter about my book.* I am much pleased that you regard it so favourably, for, though you do not call yourself a man of science, you are enough of a philosopher to form a sound judgment on the bearing of any argument on the greater questions which lie behind and beyond all the natural sciences.' To Professor Palgrave {June 11th, 1892). ' As Wordsworth says, rhymes should seem as in- evitable as possible. But the most inevitable-seeming rhymes I know are, very often. Pope's ; and this in * ' The Unity of Nature.' 1866-1900] POETBY 577 numberless passages in which they simply put the bells on good common-sense — vigorous expression of thought, comparatively Mw-poetic ! ' But I am not a critic by nature, nor by habit. I know what I admire, yet often find it hard to answer, " Why ?" ' In Professor Palgrave's second series of the ' Golden Treasury of Songs and Lyrics,' he included a small poem by the Duke of Argyll. The following poems by the Duke are given as examples of his style : 'TO TRUTH. ' Amidst the tongues and noises of the way Loud sounds of passion and the thoughtless cries That fill this world, confounding all our day, I cannot hear the wisdom of the wise, Nor that small voice that comes to those who love To catch the lowest whispers of the Truth, With strong desire that cometh from above. And was my Master in my days of youth ; My Master still ; for still I long to see Th' eternal laws on which the worlds repose, Statutes ordained that cannot cease to be, Wreaking their silent vengeance on His foes Whose Will they are, and which He blesseth so, That crowns of Life they wear who find and know.' The Duke was a great admirer of the poems of Mr. William Watson. He did not, however, agree with the sentiment expressed by the poet in the following lines : ' Forget not, brother singer ! that though Prose Can never be too truthful or too wise. Song is not Truth, not Wisdom, but the rose Upon Truth's lips, the light in Wisdom's eyes. 'William Watson.' VOL. n. 37 578 POETRY [CHAP. xLvii In reply to these lines, the Duke wrote : ' Ah no ! my brother singer, thou dost wrong The Poet's empire and the fount of song. It is not aught that lightly comes and goes ; It lieth not in perfume of the rose, Passing, evanescent, like the hues that play On fall of waters in the blaze of day. No surface smile on lip, no glance in eyes Can wield the tender spell in verse that lies. Verse that doth live, sweet-sounding down the years. For those who joy, for those who move in tears. For all whose sense is tuned to catch the beats That come from pulses in the high retreats Where spirit meets with spirit in the lone. And hears the music of th' Eternal Throne ; Then pours it out again, because its strings Still shake with impulse from the heart of things. No links of reason are too strong for thee To weld in thy great light, divinest Poesy ! 'Tis thine to image all the gains of truth In the clear glass of thine immortal youth ; Thy blessed Bards are moved from age to age To sing thy tones in some illumined page : Thy servant, Knowledge, all that she can find Is word and counsel of great Nature's mind. The harmonies unbounded, and the roll Of notes that sound the triumphs of the soul. Sometimes in thunder and in trembling Earth Thou hear'st the powers that gave the planets birth. Nor less thy measured numbers tell the hours That shape the bud and open all the flowers. The tuneful lines that fret the ocean-shell. But chime the years that it has heard the swell In silent stillness, list'ning to the roar Of stormy waters breaking on the shore. Lift up your heads, ye Poets, for in you Shines forth the truth that Beauty is The True. ' Argyll.' 1866-1900] 'AN ISLAND HOME' 579 Two stanzas of a poem entitled ' An Island Home ' are added, as they describe so vividly the islands of the West, which he loved : II. ' Blow, blow, ye winds of ocean, waft to me The gleaming vapours from your fields of foam, The boundless conversation of the sea. The glorious voices of my early home ; And you, ye clouds of heaven, roll for aye The gorgeous pageant of your eve and morn ; Build up your mighty mountains in the sky. And with great lines of battlement adorn The wondrous masonry ye work on high : Nor less come ye, descending from your throne, Come down and dwell on these fair hills of earth, — On capes of ancient fire that were your own, When smoke and bellowing flame proclaimed their birth. Come, too, and drift where now the summer smiles On fragments of a land — these blessed isles. HI. ' To-day — in this dark passage of my years I come to greet your rocks and heath again, Not free, alas ! from trouble and the tears Which follow hard on all the ways of men. The seabird skims along its rifted shores ; I hear the plover from the sandy dune ; The seal floats calmly on her silent oars ; Blue ocean shimmers as in suns of June ; Great Nature takes no heeding of our pains In her calm footsteps to eternal day ; She recks not of our losses or our gains — Hears now no voices calling me away. Fain could I hide this sad and burdened breast Beneath these golden sands where Vikings rest. ' Aegyll.' 37—2 580 OHiiRACTEEISTICS [chap, xlvii Many have spoken of the great charm of the Duke's conversation, the spell of which was felt by all who were included in the circle of his friends. The happy manner in which he could converse on the deepest subjects, clothing them with the simphcity of language in which his thoughts were habitually so clearly conveyed to others — the flow of anecdotes cuUed from a wide and interesting experience, enhanced by the quickness of observation which characterized him — ^the liveliness of his character, and his keen sense of humour — traits which were, perhaps, only known to those who were intimately acquainted with him — all combined to render true of him the words, ' Thy converse drew us with delight.'* The youthfulness of his spirit and his power of enjoyment were lasting possessions. In later years he used to say that he supposed he ought to feel old, but that he never could realize it; only physically did he feel the effect of the years. His was ' the receptive soul for whom the river of life pauseth not, nor is diminished.' f Every hour of his life was full of work, of fresh interest, of added knowledge. He was a learner aU his days, an eager listener to all who could impart interesting information, from the wisdom of stored minds, or the practical experience gained by the exercise of mechanical skill. In a memorial speech, the SheriflE of Argyll (Mr. Ferguson of Kinmundy) applied to the Duke Hnes which were felt to express so well the undimmed ardour of his spirit : ' Who knew no touch of Winter in his Soul, But kept the Greek gift yet in mind and tongue, And who, though having passed life's goal. Loved of the gods, died young.' * ' In Memoriam,' Tennyson. f George Eliot. 1866-1900] LETTER EROM THE BISHOP OE RIPON 581 The Bishop of Ripon, alluding in a letter to a visit to Inveraray, writes : ' It is a pleasure to recall those dear days of refresh- ment and exhilaration, when we sat at the feet of one who could speak so well and so fluently out of the abundance of knowledge and out of the enthusiasm of soul. It was a real pleasiire to meet the Duke and to hold converse with him. His quick and well-stored mind, his long experience of men and affairs, his strong and virile gift of utterance, lifted conversation out of the languid and conventional groove. To talk with him was a mental tonic ; it refreshed and invigorated thought. As for subjects, there were few which did not interest him. He watched the currents of thought, and he marked the bearing of scientific methods upon ancient beliefs, and felt that he could be true to know- ledge and, faith. When he spoke, you knew that he lived in a world which was always wonderful and beautiful to him, and which never ceased to bring its messages of hope and love. ' He delighted in Nature. Whether we drove through the forests aglow with autumn tints, or steamed down the loch and watched the birds skim- ming over the placid waters, or sat with him in a garden-shelter looking out upon soft-spreading lawn or purple hills, his conversation was full of information or suggestive thought. The age and height of trees, the structure of a bird's wing as an instrument for flying, the story of the rocks, or the deposit carried down by rivers, the romance of growth and change and progress, all formed themes for acute comment or briUiant exposition. i^>/ He was a happy and gifted interpreter, and under his guidance Earth's many voices became articulate — fuU of music and meaning.' The following letter from the Archbishop of Canter- bury, who visited Inveraray in 1897, when he was 582 CHAKACTEBISTICS [chap, xlvii Bishop of Winchester, gives his impression on becoming more intimately acquainted with the Duke : ' My dear Duchess, ' I do not know when I have more keenly enjoyed a visit, and my wife is on that point wholly of one mind with me. ' It has been a very real privilege to have the oppor- tunity of hearing and learning so much from the Duke. Surely there is no other of our contemporaries (I do not except even the master of Hawarden) who is at once so able and willing to give to ordinary folk of the wealth of his knowledge and thoughts on all things in heaven and earth and under the earth. ' I can assure you that I, for one, have got no small profit from the intercourse of this last week, and your own untiring kindness made all things bright save the occasional skies.' The Duke was particularly well and strong during the autumn of 1899, and the friends who visited Inveraray remarked on his vigour ; but in the month of December he had an attack of gout, which lingered for many weeks and resisted aU remedies. He made a gallant fight with failing strength ; Hfe held so much for him, and his life was of great importance to many. There was useful work to be done for his fellow-men ; there was his keen interest in the growth of scientific knowledge, in which he took his part ; there was his wise administration of his great estates, on which the welfare of his people depended, and — he was happy. For all these reasons he would fain have stayed here a little longer, but the steadfast faith which had never failed him all his days made rebellion against the Divine Will an impossibility. He recognised with the old French Saint that ' Quand le bon Dieu nous appelle, nous n'avons rien a dire que " Me voioi, 55 5 1866-1900] TRANSLATION 583 and at the call he laid down his arms, after a well- fought field — April 24th, 1900. The impression of the revelation which so strangely came to the child of ten years old had abided with him to the end : ' What do they mean when they speak of death ? There is no such thing as death !' CHAPTER XLVIII 1900 APPRECIATIONS Numerous telegrams, in which the deep regret felt throughout the country at the sad tidings from Inveraray was touchingly expressed, were received from Her Majesty Queen Victoria, members of the E-oyal Family, friends — and clansmen, who mourned the loss of their ' beloved chief.' The Queen who, during the previous anxious months, had written constantly to ask for tidings of the Duke, and to express her great sympathy, wrote without a moment's delay : ' Viceregal Lodge, Dublin, ' Dearest INA, ^ April mh,\m. ' I do not like to miss a post without expressing in writing how truly and deeply I feel for you. It is a sad satisfaction that you have been able to devote yourself to Him through this most trying time, and I pray that you may be further supported in your over- whelming sorrow and desolation. I have lost a most kind friend of more than fifty years' standing, and I shall ever cherish his memory. ' Ever yours affectionately, ' V. R. & I.' From the many letters of sympathy and appreciation received at the time and at a later date, the following extracts are given : 584 1900] EARL OF HALSBUBY AND EARL SPENCER 585 From the Earl of Halsbury, at that time Lord Chancellor. ' Dear Duchess of Argyll, ' I need not say, I hope, with what great sorrow I learned the great calamity which has befallen you and the country itself. The great Duke was one of those men whose genius and eloquence were potent factors in our national greatness. ' I felt much honoured by his friendship, and I most deeply deplore his loss, but to you the loss of one united to you by the tenderest of all ties is one with which I can only wish you to beUeve I can only very imperfectly express my deepest sympathy. There are some feel- ings which no human language can adequately repre- sent. May I ask you to believe that my wife and I desire to join in your sorrow for one whom we so much admired and regarded with such respect and even affection. ' Believe me, dear Duchess of Argyll, ' Very truly yours, ' Halsbury.' From Earl Spencer. ' My dear Duchess, ' I have one letter from the Duke which I greatly value which shows how generous an opponent he was — a letter on my speech in 1892 in proposing the Home Rule Bill to the House of Lords. ' He was sometimes very strong, even bitter, in actual debate, but in private was always generous and friendly, and never made a difference as to his private friendship and kindliness towards an old friend who might be in political opposition to him. 'Yours very truly, ' Spencer.' 586 APPRECIATIONS [chap, xlviii From Mr. Cha/mberlain. 'My dear Duchess, it: if !¥ * * ' May I take this opportunity of saying how much I admired your husband. I say nothing of his oratory — ^now a lost art — although it placed him in the very front rank of speakers, but his courage, his love of justice, his strenuous adherence to the causes he believed to be right, and his far-seeing judgment on the larger movements of political and national life, combine to make him one of the greatest figures of my time. ' BeHeve me, ' Yours very truly, ' J. Chamberlain.' From Sir John Murray, K.C.B. ' I look back on the hours which I have spent in the Duke's company as the most interesting and instructive of my life. He was the most active-minded and many-sided man I have ever known. ' He was always kind to me. His death is a loss not to be repaired.' From Professor Story Mashelyne {formerly the Head of the Mineralogical Department of the British Museum). ' May I be allowed to say how glad I am that there will be a record for those coming after us of the per- sonality and the singularly fine nature of one whom we of the Victorian Era looked up to as a consistent statesman, a thoughtful and original writer on social and similar matters, and, as I can further testify, as a true naturalist. ' And, withal, in what clear diction and native eloquence everything he spoke or wrote was clothed ! 1900] TRIBUTES FROM FRIENDS 587 ' Forgive my taking this occasion to pay a humble tribute to the memory of one whose career I followed with admiration through some forty years, the career of an independent statesman and of a nobleman worthy of intellectual Scotland.' From Mr. Bosworth Smith. ' It is needless to say that I had the greatest admira- tion for the intellect and character of the Duke. His voice, whenever he spoke or wrote, was a voice, and not an echo.' From Canon Macoll. ' I am very glad your Grace is bringing out a Life of the Duke. He was a great man and a great orator. I remember asking Mr. Gladstone in the year 1877 whom he considered the greatest orator in the House of Lords. " The Duke of Argyll, without a doubt," he answered.' From Mr. Dickie {one of the Oldest Tenants on the Argyll Estates, and a Member of the County Council). ' I have had forty-five years' experience of the Duke as a proprietor, and a more kindly, straightforward, honourable nobleman no tenant could sit under. In that time also I have had a great deal of business of a public nature that led me to be mixed up with a great many other proprietors in this district, and for the weal of the general public and his tenantry the late Duke was head and shoulders above the others. Peace be to his ashes ! As a tenant for such a long time of his Grace's, I have had every reason to respect and admire him, and in my opinion he has not left his equal, as a man, in every capacity of life, in Great Britain to-day.' 588 APPBECIATIONS [chap, xlviu The Senatus Academicus and the General Council of the University of St. Andrews, of which the Duke had been Chancellor for forty-eight years, sent the following expressions of the admiration and esteem in which he was held in that ancient Scottish University : ' The Senatus Academicus avail themselves of the opportunity of this, the first Ordinary Meeting after the death of His Grace the Duke of Argyll, Chancellor of the University, to express and place on record their sense of the great loss which the University has sus- tained by that sad event. For almost half a century the University has been honoured by having as its official head one of the most eminent Scotsmen of his time, one who employed the great position to which he was born that he might render signal service to his Sovereign and fellow-countrymen, and might further by his influence every cause which seemed to him just and good. By his gifts as an orator, by his literary and scientific works, full of profound thought, patient investigation, and earnest eloquence, and by his services as a statesman, he added lustre to an ancient and historic name. The Senatus recognise with grati- tude the deep interest which he took in the welfare of the University, evinced not least in the fact that several of his own sons were enrolled among its alumni, and in his readiness to give the aid of his counsel and active effort whenever occasion demanded.' From the General Council of the University of St. Andrews. ' That this Council desires to record its regret at the loss sustained by the University in the death of its Chancellor, the late Duke of Argyll, who, as a states- man of the first rank, one of the most polished orators of his time, and an eminent man of science, presided over the University with great dignity for the long period of forty-eight years.' 1900] CHURCH OF SCOTLAND 589 From the Church in all parts of Scotland came touch- ing expressions of grief for the irreparable loss of one who, like his ancestors, had aU his life been her defender and supporter. Space only permits of two Minutes from the presbyteries being included ; these have been selected as giving the most complete record of the Duke's services to the Church of Scotland. From the Presbytery of Kintyre. ' The members of the Presbytery resolved to record, as they hereby do rceord, their keen regret at the death of the Duke of Argyll, and their deep sense of the loss thereby sustained by the country. ' They recall with gratitude to Almighty God the un- wearied devotion with which, in sunshine and in storm, he gave to the service of the State and of the Church the resources of a mind the brilliancy of whose powers placed him amongst the greatest men of his generation. ' They hold in special remembrance the readiness with which, true to the traditions of his family, he championed the cause of the Church of Scotland in the day of her adversity ; and they will never let out of memory the faithfulness with which, all through a busy life, he defended her against her enemies, and, at the expense of disagreement with political associates, sought to make her as efficient as possible an instru- ment in advancing the kingdom of heaven within this realm, thus evincing alike his piety and his patriotism.' From the Presbytery of Dumbarton. ' It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to place on record the sincere regret of the Presbytery at the death of George Douglas Campbell, eighth Duke of Argyll, and its admiration of the many Christian graces and devotion to duty which characterized his Ufe. The late Duke throughout his long life was ever 590 APPRECIATIONS [chap. XLvni a steadfast friend and loyal son of the Church of Scot- land, and by his many services he increased the debt of gratitude which the Church owes to the House of Argyll. The Presbytery recalls with gratitude his assiduous efforts in helping to carry through ParHa- ment the Patronage Abolition Act of 1874, his generous refusal to claim any compensation from the parishes of which he was the patron, and his recent magnificent gift to the Church of lona Cathedral. A trusted adviser of his Sovereign, a statesman who for fifty years had the good of his country always at heart, a man of unique parts in literature and science, the Presbytery recalls with thankfulness to Almighty God that the late Duke used his exalted position and con- secrated his great talents to the cause of truth, justice, and righteousness.' From the many societies with which the Duke was connected, tributes were received, from which a few extracts are quoted. From the Elder Brethren of Trinity House. ' Madam, ' I have it in command from the Elder Brethren of the Trinity House to convey to you the expression of the deep sorrow with which at their Board yesterday they heard of the death of your illustrious husband, who for many years past, as one of the most honoured members of this Corporation, afforded it his counte- nance and support. ' The Elder Brethren, in venturing to express to your Grace their keen appreciation and esteem of the high character of one who did honoxir to this Corpora- tion, desire me also to convey to you their sincere sympathy with you in your affliction, and their earnest hope that the Almighty may be pleased to comfort you in your great sorrow. ' (Signed) Chas. A. Kent.' 1900] PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS 591 From the Royal Humane Society, of which the Duke resigned the Office of President in 1899, when he was succeeded by H.R.H. the Duke of York {now Prince of Wales). ' I have the honour to express to your Grace the deep regret of the members of the Royal Humane Society at the death of His Grace the Duke of Argyll, K.G., K.T., who for so many years filled the office of President of this Society, and to assure you of their deep^sympathy . ' George, ' President.'' From the Geological Society. ' That the Council desires to place on record their deep sense of the loss which both science and literature have sustained in the death of the Duke of Argyll, who was the oldest surviving past President of the Geological Society.' From the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. * Madam, ' I am directed by the Committee of Manage- ment of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution to tender your Grace their respectful and deep sympathy in the great sorrow which has befallen you and your family in the death of the Duke of Argyll. His Grace had been a Vice-President of this Institution for the long period of thirty-five years, during which time he had on several occasions shown the great interest which he took in the lifeboat cause. ' I am to express the earnest hope and prayer of the committee that He who is the God of the widow and of all comfort may support and solace you in this your sore time of need and grief. ' (Signed) Charles Dibdin, * Secretary.' 592 APPRECIATIONS [chap. XLvra From the Scottish Society of Literature and Art. ' Your Grace, ' I am instructed by this Society, of which your late noble husband was for many years one of the patrons, to express our high regard for his character, our great regret at his death, and our deep sympathy with your Grace in the irreparable loss you have sustained. ' During his long lifetime your husband served his generation well and faithfully, and especially endeared himself to Scotsmen. His gifts were many, and he used them wisely. As the head of a historic house, the chief of a highland clan, a counsellor in affairs of State, and a man of learning and letters, his name must find a place among the great ones of the century. ' With deep respect and sympathy, ' Geo. Middleton, ' Secretary.'' From the Highland Society of London. ' May it please Yottr Grace, ' We are desired by the directors and members of the Highland Society of London to express to your Grace the profound regret Avith which they received the sad intelligence of the death of the Duke of Argyll. He has been a member for nearly fifty years, and in 1853 occupied the position of President. It may safely be said that no member ever enjoyed the con- fidence and respect of the Society in a greater measure than he did. His rare mental attainments and culture, his wide scientific knowledge, his high accomplish- ments as a statesman and as an orator, his keen patriotism and tender kindness of heart, have always through his long and honourable career secured him the admiration and devotion of every member of the Society ; and they, as fellow-Highlanders, rejoiced that his own native talent and personality had gained him a most prominent position amongst the distin- guished men of his time.' 1900] SCOTTISH GEOGRAPHICAL SOCIETY 593 The Scottish Geographical Society paid a tribute to the Duke, who had been President of the Society for several years, in an article, from which the following extracts are taken : ' When on April 24 last the Duke of Argyll died, the Nestor of British politics, perhaps also of British science, passed away. Born in 1823, he took his place in public life very early, having when only nineteen startled Scottish ecclesiastical circles by the views expressed in a pamphlet entitled " A Letter to the Peers from a Peer's Son." ' A witty Scottish nobleman is alleged to have re- marked, when search was being made for a biographer of the late Mr. Gladstone, that it would require a joint- stock company to write Mr. Gladstone's Life. The same remark appHes to the late Duke of Argyll. There was no field of human thought which he did not enter, no region of science which he did not explore ; there was nothing in Nature which did not interest him, and there were few subjects upon which he could not discourse. ^ :{s S|! sfs ^ ' As a field geologist, the Duke achieved consider- able celebrity by his interesting discovery in 1851 of several bands of tertiary strata, containing leaves of dicotyledonous plants, in the sea-cliffs forming the headland of Ardtun, on the west coast of MuU. These leaf-beds were covered by a sheet of basalt, and the Duke's discovery was declared by Sir Charles Lyell to raise the question whether the basalt of Antrim in Ireland and the famous Giant's Causeway may not be of the same age as that of Mull. S|> ^ ^ V •!! ' Not only did the late Duke sail constantly in his yacht and explore the most unfrequented shores of the Western Highlands — not only was every feature of that wild coast familiar to his eye or chronicled in his VOL. II. 38 594 APPRECIATIONS [chap, xlviii sketch-book, but also he took a deep interest in several sciences essential to a thorough knowledge of geo- graphy. As a naturalist — above all, an ornithologist — as a geologist, as a meteorologist, and as an agricul- turist, he held high rank, breaking even a lance with Charles Darwin on the subject of natural selection, and having his objections to Darwin's theory enshrined in Lyell's classic, " Principles of Geology." ' Scotland will miss the intellectual searchlight which streamed from Inveraray Castle, where every leader of science has been a welcome guest during the past half-century, and from whence issued original views upon every subject. There " the Mac-Cailein-M^r "* lived in true Highland dignity and state, but not in luxury or idleness, for every day of his long and useful life was spent in the study of Nature and in the cultiva- tion of his mind.' * 'Son of the Great Colin.' Sometimes erroneously written Mac-Callum-Mor, 'Son of the Great Malcolm.' APPENDIX LIST OF PUBLISHED WORKS, PAMPHLETS, LETTERS, ETC. BY THE DUKE OF ARGYLL Letter to the Peers from a Peer's Son on the Duty and Necessity of Immediate Legislative Interposition on Behalf of the Church of Scotland as determined by Considerations of Constitutional Law. (Anon.) Edinburgh : William Whyte and Co., 1842. A Letter to the Rev. Thomas Chalmers, D.D., on the Present Position of Church Affairs in Scotland, and the Causes which have led to It. Edinburgh : William Whyte and Co., 1842. Church of Scotland. Letter from the Marquis of Lome — i.e., G. D. C. Glasgow (?), 1843. Extracted from the ' Glasgow Herald.' Presbytery Examined. An essay, critical and historical, on the ecclesiastical history of Scotland since the Reformation. London : Edward Moxon, 1848. Correspondence between the Duke of Argyll and the Rev. Andrew Gray, Perth, in reference to His Grace's essay, entitled 'Pres- bytery Examined.' Edinburgh : John Johnstone, 1849. Correspondence between the Duke of Argyll and the Right Rev. W. J. Trower. Glasgow, 1849. On a Fossiliferous Deposit underlying Basalt in the Island of Mull. Brit. Assoc. Report, 1850, vol. ii., pp. 70, 71. Speech of the Duke of Argyll on the Second Reading of the Ecclesi- astical Titles Bill in the House of Lords, July 21, 1851. London : Edward Moxon, 1851. The Twofold Protest. A letter from the Duke of Argyll to the Bishop of Oxford. London : Edward Moxon, 1851. The Twofold Protest. A letter from the Duke of Argyll to the Bishop of Oxford in reference to a protest by the latter and his clergy against the Pope's pretensions to divide England into certain new dioceses. London, 1851. On Tertiary Leaf-Beds in the Isle of Mull. Geol. Soc. Journ., 1851, vol. vii., pp. 89-103. Inaugural Address delivered by the Duke of Argyll on his installation as Chancellor of the University of St. Andrews, March 25, 1852. Edinburgh, 1852. 595 38—2 596 APPENDIX On the Granitic District of Inveraray, Argyllshire. Geog. Soe. Journ., 1853, vol. ix., pp. 260-366. Inaugural Address delivered by His Grace the Duke of Argyll on his installation as Lord Rector of the University of Glasgow. London, 1855. On a Eoche Moutonnee on the Summit of the Range of Hills separating Loch Fyne and Loch Awe. Edin. Roy. Soc. Proceed., 1857, vol. iii., pp. 459-462. Speech of the Duke of Argyll on the Motion of Lord Panmure for a Vote of Thanks to the Civil Service, Army, and Navy in India, in the House of Lords on Monday, February 8, 1858. Extracted from Hansard's 'Parliamentary Debates,' vol. cxlviii. London: Edward Moxon, 1858. Geology : its Past and Present. Being a lecture delivered to the members of the Glasgow Athenaeum, January 13, 1859. Glasgow and London, 1859. Speech of the Duke of Argyll on the Second Reading of the Bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duties, May 21, 1860. London : James Ridgway, 1860. Speech of the Duke of Argyll on the Second Reading of the European Forces (India) Bill, August 10, 1860. London : James Ridgway, 1860. Flint Drift and Human Remains. Canadian Naturalist, 1861, vol. vi., pp. 190-199; Edin. New Phil. Journ., 1861, vol. xiii., pp. 145-147. Opening Address delivered before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, December 5, 1864, on Law in Organic Life. 1864. Edin. Roy. Soc. Proceed., 1866, vol. v., pp. 264-293. India under Dalhousie and Canning. From the ' Edinburgh Review ' of January and April, 1863. London : Longman, Green, and Longman, 1865. National Committee of British Freed-Man's Aid Societies. Speech of the Duke of Argyll at a meeting held at the Westminster Palace Hotel, May 17, 1865. London, 1865. The Reign of Law. 1866. London : Strahan and Co., 1867 ; fifth edition, 1870. On the Trap and Granite in the Island of Mull. Geol. Mag., 1867, vol. iv., p. 553. On the Granites and other Rocks of Ben More. Brit. Assoc. Report, 1867, vol. xxxvii., p. 55. On a Post-Tertiary Lignite or Peat Bed in the District of Kintyre, Argyllshire. Geol. Soc. Quart. Journ., 1867, vol. xxiii., pp. 196, 197; Phil. Mag., 1867, vol. xxxiv., pp. 67, 68. On the Physical Geography of Argyllshire in Connection with its Geological Structure. Geol. Soc. Quart. Journ., 1868, vol. xxiv., pp. 255-273; Phil. Mag., 1868, vol. xxxv., pp. 31-5, 316. Primeval Man. An examination of some recent speculations contained in a paper by Sir J. Lubbock upon 'The Early Condition of APPENDIX 597 Mankind,' and in a lecture by Archbishop Whately on ' The Origin of Civilization.' London, 1869. On Mr. Wallace's Theory of Birds' Nests. Journal of Travel, 1869, vol. i., pp. 276-287. lona. Reprinted from 'Good Words,' with illustrations. London, 1870. On Glaciation, being the Annual Address to the Fellows of the Society. Geol. Soc. Quart. Journ., 1873, vol. xxix., pp. 51-78. On Six Lake Basins in Argyllshire. Geol. Soc. Quart. Journ., 1873, vol. xxix., pp. 508-511. Speeches on the Second Reading of the Church Patronage (Scotland) Bill in the House of Lords, June 2, 1874, and Earl of Camper- down's Amendment, June 9, 1874, placing the election of ministers in the hands of the ratepayers. London, 1874. Address before the Geological Society of London, 1874. Geol. Soc. Quart. Journ., 1874, vol. xxx., pp. 34-69. Speech of the Duke of Argyll in the House of Lords, April 15, 1875, on the Second Reading of the Agricultural Tenancies Bill. London, 1875. The Eastern Question. Speech of the Duke of Argyll on the Conduct of the Foreign Office during the Insurrection in Crete in 1867. Glasgow, 1876. What the Turks are, and how We have been Helping Them. Speech, September 19, 1876. With a preface. Second edition. Glasgow, 1876. The Present State of the Evidence bearing upon the Question of the Antiquity of Man, with Remarks by the Duke of Argyll. By Thomas Hughes. 1879. The Eastern Question from the Treaty of Paris, 1856, to the Treaty of Berlin, 1878, and to the Second Afghan War. 2 vols. London and Edinburgh, 1879. The Afghan Question, from 1841 to 1878. Reprinted from 'The Eastern Question.' London and Edinburgh, 1879. The Result of Four Years' Foreign Policy. Speech on May 16, 1879. Pp. 24. London : Liberal Central Association, 1879. The Bessborough Commission. Speech in the House of Lords, July 1, 1881. London: P. S. King, 1881. Continuity and Catastrophe in Geology. An address, etc. Pp. 32. Edinburgh: D. Douglas, 1883. Crofts and Farms in the Hebrides. Being an account of the manage- ment of an island estate for 130 years. Pp. 83. Edinburgh : D. Douglas, 1883. The Prophet of San Francisco (Henry George). A criticism on his advocacy of the nationalization of land. Reprinted from the 'Nine- teenth Century.' Pp. 22. London: Kegan Paul and Co., 1884. The Unity of Nature. London: Strahan, 1884. The Irish Land Act, 1881. Speech delivered in the House of Lords. June 16, 1884. London: E. Stanford, 1884. 598 APPENDIX Three Acres and a Cow, with Appendix by the Duke of Argyll. By F. Impey. 1886. Scotland as It Was and as It Is. 2 vols. Edinburgh : David Douglas, 1887. The New British Constitution and its Master Builders. 1887. Edin- burgh : D. Douglas, 1888. What is Truth 1 An address. Pp. 143. Edinburgh : D. Douglas, 1889. Some Words of Warning to the Presbyterians of Scotland. Edin- burgh: D. Douglas, 1890. The Highland Nurse. A tale. London : Railway and General Auto- matic Library, 1892. Irish Nationalism : an Appeal to History. London : John Murray, 1893. The Unseen Foundations of Society. An examination of the fallacies and failures of economic science due to neglected elements. London : John Murray, 1893. The Burdens of Belief, and other Poems. London : John Murray, 1894. Our Responsibilities for Turkey. Facts and memories of forty years. London, 1896. The Philosophy of Belief ; or, Law in Christian Theology. London : John Murray, 1896. Organic Evolution Cross-examined ; or. Some Suggestions on the Great Secret of Biology. London : John Murray, 1898. What is Science 1 (A lecture.) Edinburgh : D. Douglas, 1898. Address to British Association for Advancement of Science. N.D. ARTICLES IN MAGAZINES The New Irish Land Bill. Nineteenth Century, 1881, vol. ix. On the Economic Condition of Highlands of Scotland. Nineteenth Century, 1883, vol. xiii. The Prophet of San Francisco. Nineteenth Century, 1884, vol. xv. " A Corrected Picture of the Highlands. Nineteenth Century, 1884, vol. xvi., pp. 681-701. Capital and the Improvement of Land. Nineteenth Century, 1885, vol. xviii., pp. 1003-1010. Professor Huxley and Canon Liddon. Nineteenth Century, 1887, vol. xxi., pp. 321-339. A Great Lesson. Nineteenth Century, 1887, vol. xxii., pp. 293-309. An Olive Branch from America, by R. Pearsall Smith, with Comments by the Duke of Argyll, etc. Nineteenth Century, 1887, vol. xxii., pp. 601-624. The Power of Loose Analogies. Nineteenth Century, 1887, vol. xxii., pp. 745-765. APPENDIX 599 A Great Confession. Nineteenth Century, 1888, vol. xxiii., pp. 142- 160. Isolation, or. Survival of the Unfittest. Nineteenth Century, 1889, vol. XXV., pp. 12-34. The Story of a Conspirator. Nineteenth Century, 1890, vol. xxvii., pp. 733-755 and 1001-1025. Professor Huxley on the "Warpath. Nineteenth Century, 1891, vol. xxix., pp. 1-33. Professor Huxley and Duke of Argyll. Nineteenth Century, 1891, vol. xxix., pp. 685-689. The Glacial Theory. Nineteenth Century, 1894, vol. xxxv., pp. 337- 342. Christian Socialism. Nineteenth Century, 1894, vol. xxxvi., pp. 690- 707. Lord Bacon versus Professor Huxley. Nineteenth Century, 1894, vol. xxxvi., pp. 959-969. On the Flight of Birds. (Letters.) Nature, vol. ix., pp. 381 and 403. The Eeign of Law. (Letters by J. Guthrie and Duke of Argyll.) Nature, 1874, vol. x., pp. 147-263. On the Physical Structure of the Highlands in Connection with their Geological Structure. (British Association address, Section C, Geology.) Nature, vol. xiv., p. 435. Holly Berries and Rare Birds. (Letter.) Nature, vol. xv., p. 273. Hibernation of Birds. (Letter.) Nature, vol. xv., p. 527. A Carnivorous Goose. (Letter.) Nature, vol. xix., p. 554. Ice Crystals. (Letters.) Nature, vol. xix., pp. 274 and 368. The Lesser Woodpecker. (Letter.) Nature, 1880, vol. xxii., p. 95. A Fourth State of the Matter. (Letter.) Nature, 1880, vol. xxii., p. 168. A Fragment of Primeval Europe. (Letter.) Nature, 1880, vol. xxii., p. 407. Struggle of Parts in the Organism. (Letter.) Nature, vol. xxiv., p. 581. Struggle of Parts in the Organism. (Letter.) Nature, 1881, vol. XXV., p. 6. Mimicry in Moths. (Letter.) Nature, vol. xxvii., p. 125. Transit of Venus. (Letter.) Nature, vol. xxvii., p. 156. Hovering of Birds. (Letters.) Nature, vol. xxvii., pp. 312 and 387. Metamorphic Origin of Granite — Prehistoric Giants. (Letter.) Nature, vol. xxvii., p. 578. The Unity of Nature. (Book.) Criticism by G. J. Romanes, pp. 474- 476 ; letter by Duke of Argyll. Nature, 1884, vol. xxix., p. 524. Diffusion of Species. (Letter.) Nature, vol. xxx., p. 462. How Thought Presents Itself among the Phenomena of Nature. (Short letter.) Nature, vol. xxxi., p. 433. lona. (Short letter.) Nature, 1885, vol. xxxii., p. 413. Organic Evolution. (Short letter.) Nature, vol. xxxiv., p. 335. Thoughts without Words. (Short letter.) Nature, vol. xxvi., p. 52. 600 APPENDIX The Scenery of Scotland. (Short letter.) Nature, vol. xxxvi., p. 603. On Darwin's Theory. (Criticism.) Nature, 1887, vol. xxxvii., p. 25. Conspiracy of Silence. (Letters.) Nature, 1887, vol. xxxvii., pp. 53, 246, 293. Letters. Nature, 1887, vol. xxxvii., p. 317, Professor J. W. Judd ; p. 342, Professor T. H. Huxley. Functionless Organs. (Letters.) Nature, vol. xxxviii., pp. 341, 411. Prophetic Germs. (Letters.) Nature, vol. xxxviii., pp. 564, 615. Lob Worms. Nature, vol. xxxix., p. 300. Supposed Fossils from the Southern Highlands. Nature, vol. xxxix., pp. 300, 317. An Unusual Geological Sequence. (Letter.) Nature, vol. xl., p. 642. Acquired Characters and Congenital Variation. (Letters.) Nature, 1889, vol. xli., pp. 173, 294, 366. Araucaria Cones. (Short letter.) Nature, vol. xliii., p. 8. Darwin on the Unity of Eaee. (Short letter.) Nature, vol. xliii., p. 415. The Green Sandpiper. (Short letter.) Nature, vol. xliv., p. 274. Glacier Action. (Short letter.) Nature, vol. xlvii., p. 389. Origin of Lake Basins. (Letter.) Nature, vol. xlvii., p. 485. Glaciation of Glenaray and Glenshira. (Short note on paper read before the Royal Society of Edinburgh, April 1, 1895). Nature, vol. lii., p. 70. The Great Submergence. (Letter.) Nature, 1897, vol. Ivi., p. 173. The Duke of Argyll and and Mr. Herbert Spencer. (Letter.) Nature, vol. lix., p. 246. Professor Meldola and Herbert Spencer as Critics. (Letter by Duke of Argyll.) Nature, vol. lix., p. 317. The Two Spheres — Are there Two? Contemporary Review, 1872-73, vol. xxi., pp. 464-473. On Animal Instinct in its Relation to the Mind of Man. Contempo- rary Review, 1875, vol. xxvi., pp. 352-376. Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875. Contemporary Review, 1876, vol. xxvii., pp. 497-521. Morality in Politics. Contemporary Review, 1877, vol. xxx., pp. 319- 333. Disestablishment. Contemporary Review, 1877-78, vol. xxxi., pp. 217- 255. Ministerial Misstatements on Afghan Question. Contemporary Review, 1880, vol. xxxvii., pp. 492-512. A Few Weeks upon the Continent. Contemporary Review, 1880, vol. xxxviii., pp. 1-24. Agricultural Depression. Contemporary Review, 1882, vol. xli., pp. 177-194, 381-403. The Unity of Nature. Contemporary Review, 1880, vol. xxxviii., pp. 353-371, 521-532, 699-715, 867-883; 1881, vol. xxxix., pp. 1- 14, 186-210, 333-364, 491-505, 665-681, 843-855. APPENDIX 601 Land Reformers. Contemporary Review, 1885, vol. xlviii., pp. 470- 479. The Identity of Thought and Language. Contemporary Review, 1888, vol. liv., pp. 806-825. A Reply to Our Appellant. Contemporary Review, 1889, vol. Iv., pp. 1-23. The Betterment Tax. Contemporary Review, 1890, vol. Ivii., pp. 911- 920. Wolfe Tone. (A note.) Contemporary Review, 1891, vol. lix., pp. 306-308. The House of Lords and Betterment. Contemporary Review, 1894, vol. Ixv., pp. 483-495. A Moral Land Law. (A reply to A. Williams, M.P.) Fortnightly Review, 1887, vol. xli., pp. 764-784. INDEX Abdoolah Jan, ii. 332 Abdul-Medjid, Sultan of Turkey, i. 588 Abduirahman, Amir of Afghanistan, ii. 333 Abercorn, Duke of, ii. 358 Aberdeen, George, fourth Earl of, on Chatham, i. 8 ; his Patronage Bill, 1. 169, 176 ; V. seventh Duke of Argyll's Patronage Bill, i. 178-180 ; at Taymouth, i. 186 ; his support of Peel, i. 273 ; the Duke's friend- ship with and opinion of, i. 302, 364-366 ; on Granville, i. 348 ; the ' only possible ' Prime Minister, i. 363 ; and Russell, i. 365, 463, 464, 508-510 ; his CoaUtion Minis- try, i. 369-388 ; appoints the Duke Lord Privy Seal, i. 371-390; his difficulties, i. 373 ; defends com- position of his Cabinet, i. 389 ; on Sir R. IngUs, i. 416; India Bill, i. 420, 432; and Gladstone's in- come-tax proposals, i. 426-428 ; on Emperor Nicholas, i. 437 ; and Pahnerston, i. 441, 527, 529, 571, ii. 91 ; Erance, i. 443 ; his Crimean War policy, i. 466-460 ; and Bright, i. 469; Russell's Reform Bill, i.^472, 473 ; accused of Austrian sympathies, i. 496 ; the Queen re- fuses to accept his resignation, i. 517, 518; fall of his Mnistry, i. 522 ; retrospect, i. 523 ; ' the prevalent nonsense ' about, i. 528 ; and Layard, i. 535 ; his confidence in Clarendon, i. 538 ; the Duke's allusions to, in inaugural address, Glasgow University, i. 545 ; the Duke's altered footing with, i. 571 ; on Russia's acceptance of ultima- tum, ii. 9 ; and Gladstone, ii. 51, 53 ; the Duke on Reform, ii. 122- 124 ; his letters to the Duke, 1. 371, 631, ii. 108, 129; the Duke's letters to, i. 371, 530, ii. 110, 119, 122- 124, 132, 137 AboUtion of slave-trade, ii. 54 ; Pitt's speech for, ii. 55 Abstraction, the Duke's power of, i. 307 Acropolis, Athens, i. 247, 248 Acton, Lord, ii. 456 Adams, Charles Francis, American Minister, ii. 180, 201, 203, 207, 211 ; an arbiter in the Alabama affair, ii. 213 Addison, i. 358 Adelaide, Queen, i. 30 Adrianople, ii. 328 Afghanistan, war with, ii. 329 ; Russian Mission to, ii. 329, 330 ; British Mission to, ii. 331, 332 Agassiz, Louis, i. 156, 157, 350, 678 Agoni, fish in Como Lake, i. 217 Agricultural Commission, Duke of Richmond's, ii. 367 Alabama affair, the, ii. 200-213 Aland Islands, i. 488, 597 ; ii. 21 Alban Hills, Rome, i. 194, 196 Albano, i. 195 Albert, Prince Consort, i. 184 ; his visit to Inveraray, i. 295-297 ; Exhibition of 1851,"i. 319, 320, 340, 341 ; and Peel, i. 323 ; unjustifiable feeUng v., i. 348 ; meetings of the Privy Council, i. 416 ; his admir- able suggestions during Crimean War, i. 501, 506 ; his views on the Aberdeen Cabinet crisis, i. 520, 521 ; reception of French Emperor and Empress, i. 547 ; on French diplomacy, i. 555 ; on Polish ques- tion, i. 683, 684 ; and the peace pro- posals, i. 599 ; presented by Mrs. Stowe with copy of ' Uncle Tom's 603 604 INDEX Cabin,' ii. 56 ; death of, ii. 183 ; the Duke's last interview with, and letters from, ii. 184 Alexander, Emperor of Bussia, i. 377, 439 Ahce, Princess, ii. 186 Allied Sovereigns in Paris, i. 262 Alma, Battle of the, i. 487, 503, 504 Alsace and Lorraine ceded to Ger- many, ii. 294, 295 Amalfi) i. 198 America, England's dispute with. Foreign Enlistment Act, i. 591, ii. 48, 51 ; the Nicaraguan ques- tion, ii. 47, 48 ; negro slavery and abolitionism in, ii. 54, 55 ; the Trent affair, ii. 178-182 ; the Alabama claims, ii. 200-213 ; the Duke's visit to, ii. 344 American Civil War, ii. 169-183, 188- 198 ; England's neutrality, ii. 171, 190 ; the Duke's speech at Inver- aray on, ii. 174 ; its effect on British industries, ii. 189 ; the Duke's views, ii. 190-196 ; the ironclad question, ii. 203-207 American Stamp Act, i. 394 Amiens, Peace of, i. 33, 36 Anaesthetics discovered by Sir James Simpson, i. 324 Andaman Islands, ii. 275 Anderson, Dr., i. 122 Anglesey, Marquis of (Lord Paget), i. 261, 367, 368 Anglicanism, i. 174, 175 Animal mechanics, i. 76, 77 Anne, Queen, i. 4 Anson, Colonel, V.C, ii. 383 Anson, Mrs. (afterwards Duchess of Argyll), ii. 382 ' Anthropomorphism in Theology,' the Duke's lecture on, ii. 487 Anti-Corn Law League, i. 159 Anti-slavery cause, the Duke and, ii. 190-195 Antiquity of man, the Duke's dis- cussion with Max Mflller on, ii. 539- 541 Aquatic larvae, i. 81 Arbutus on Monte St. Angelo, i. 198 Ardenoaple, i. 46-62, 113 ; rookery at, i. 72 Ardtun leaf-bed, discovery of, i. 350- 353 Argyll, Archibald, third Duke of (Earl of Islay), i. 4, 5, 9, 18, 21, 24 Argyll, Archibald, ninth Earl of, beheaded 1685, i. 3, 16, 23 Argyll Commission on Education in Scotland, ii. 301 Argyll, Duchess of (Mrs. Anson, nee Claughton), ii. 382 ; death of, ii. 468 Argyll, Elizabeth, Duchess of (nee Gunning), i. 12-15, 236; Cotes' portrait of, i. 13 Argyll, Elizabeth, Duchess of (nee Leveson-Gower), i. 185, 263 ; death of, ii. 343 Argyll estates, the Duke's expendi- ture on, ii. 551 Argyll, George Douglas, eighth Duke of: 1823. Birth, i. 55 ; early impressions, 57 1828-1829. Memories of Reform agi- tation, i. 67 ; study of birds, 70, 115 1830-1838. Recollections of Church movement in Scotland, i. 189 ; reflections on life and death, 93 ; speculative thought, 95 ; visit to Leamington, 97 ; first impressions of England, 99 ; return to Ardencaple in 1836, 105 ; death of elder brother, 106 ; religion and theology, 109 ; second visit to Leaming- ton in 1837, 111 ; dangerous illness. 111 ; visit to Lord Boss- more, 111 ; first sight of Queen Victoria, 112 ; return to Arden- caple, 113 ; study of bird life, ii. 561 1839. Interest in chemistry, i. 117 ; political studies, 122 ; death of his uncle, 123 ; Mr. How- son, his tutor, 125 ; impressions of liturgies, 127 ; life in Kin- tyre, 131 ; visit to Tiree, 133 ; the Skerryvore Lighthouse, 141 ; lessons in oil-t>ainting, 181 1840. Visit to London, i. 149; to the House of Commons, 149 ; impressions of leading states- men, 150 ; visit to Hamilton Palace, 155 INDEX 605 1841. Return to London, i. 157 ; dis- like of Whigs, 158; Scottish Church question, 164 ; his own characteristics, 167 ; views on English and Scottish Churches, 176 1842. First pamphlet on Scottish Church Question, i. 177 ; study of Dr. Arnold's ' History of Rome,' 183 ; visit with Mr. Howson to Campsie, 184 ; commands the Celtic Society on Queen's visit to Edinburgh, 184 ; visit to Taymouth, 185 ; journey abroad, Paris, 189 ; Lyons, 190 ; first view of Mont Blanc, 191 ; Avignon, 192 ; Genoa, 193 ; Rome, 194 ; ex- cursions, 195 ; Naples, 196 ; Vesuvius, 197 ; Paestum, 199 ; Sicily, 200 1843. Birds on the Pinoian Hill, i. 201 ; Florence, 202 ; Pisa, 205 ; Venice, 209 ; Lombardy, 210 ; Como and Lugano, 217 ; Lago Maggiore, 219 ; Switzerland, 221 ; return to Kintyre, 223 ; visits at Stafford House, 223 ; study of modem history and philosophy, 224 ; political econ- omy, 227, visit to Mull, 229 ; a deer-drive on Ben More, 231 ; attends lectures in Edinburgh, 235 ; Professor Wilson and Sir W. Hamilton, 16 ; visits to Gosford and Trentham, 236 voyage to Gibraltar, 238 Lisbon, 241 ; Seville, 242 Greece, 245 ; Athens, 247 Marathon and Thermopyls, 249 ; visit to the Constituent Assembly, 250 ; Corinth, 253 1844. Malta and Naples, i. 254; acquaintance with Mrs. Somer- viUe, 255 ; return through Italy, 259 ; visit to Napoleon's battlefields in Lombardy, 259 return by Spliigen, 259 Waterloo, 261 ; marriage, 263 Ufe in London and at Ros- neath, 265 ; disadvantage of not being in House of Com- mons, 269 ; political views in 1844, 269 ; meets Emperor Nicholas, 435 1845-1846. Sympathy with Sir R. Peel, i. 274 ; speeches heard in House of Commons, 276, 277 ; visit to Mull, 286 ; study of estates, 287-291 ; visit to Staffa, 289 1847. Succession to dukedom, i. 293 ; cruise off west coast, 295 ; visit to Dunrobin, 295 ; ban- quet to Lord Dalhousie, 298 ; speech by the Duke, 299 1848. Takes his seat in House of Lords, i. 301 ; first speech in House of Lords on Jewish disabilities, 302 ; meets Louis Phihppe,304; Ufeat Inveraray, 306 ; acquires habit of literary work, 307 ; acquaintance with Americans, 411 ; Charles Sum- ner, 411 ; Emerson, 412 1849. Makes Mr. Gladstone's ac- quaintance, i. 311 ; takes up Mr. Ryland's case, 315 ; inter- view with the Duke of Welling- ton, 316 1850. Acquaintance with Prince Al- bert, i. 319 ; visit to the Hebrides, 320 ; news of death of Sir R. Peel, 323 ; winter in Edinburgh at Bruntsfield Links, 323 ; acquaintance with Professor Wilson, 325 ; Dr. J. Reid, Professor J. Gregory, 327 ; instances of thought- reading, 329 1851. Return to Rosneath, i. 331 ; acquaintance with foreigners in London, 331 ; Chevalier Bunsen, 332 ; opening of Athenaeum in Glasgow, 337 ; London and the Great Exhibi- tion, 337 ; ofEer of office by Lord J. Russell, 341 ; declined, 342 ; visit to York and Castle Howard, 345 ; meets Tennyson, ii. 571 1852. Paper on fossil leaves in Mull, i. 349 ; friendship with Smith of Jordanhill, 350 ; elected Chan- cellor of St. Andrew's, 355 ; Dunrobin, 355 ; fossils at Helmsdale, 356 ; Cromarty, 356 ; visit to Hugh Miller, 357 ; visit to Lord Aberdeen at Haddo, 364 ; attends funeral 606 INDEX of Duke of Wellington, 369 ; visits to Trentham and Ers- kine, 368 ; offered office of Privy Seal by Lord Aberdeen, 371 ; accepted, 371 ; his first Cabinet dinner, 374 ; descrip- tion of colleagues, 375 ; dis- cussion on income-tax, 385 1853. Opening of Parliament, i. 389 ; takes house at Campden Hill, 391 ; attends various breakfast- parties, 401 ; experiences of table-turning at Lord Macau - lay's, 405 ; breakfast with Hallam, 407 ; friendship with Professor Owen, 408 ; and Huxley, 411 ; Sir Robert Inghs, 414 ; Charles Dickens, 417 ; takes up East India Company Question, 419 ; visits to Clieve- den, 420 ; description of Glad- stone's Budget speech, 422- 434 ; visit to Ireland, 461 ; intimacy with Lord J. Russell, 462-466 1854. Retrospect of Eastern Ques- tion, i. 335-352 ; Cabinet ex- periences on eve of Crimean War, 353 ; article in Edinburgh Review on Eastern Question, 473 ; Cabinet dinner at Pem- broke Lodge, 475 ; conversa- tion vrith Palmerston, 477 ; intimacy with Gladstone, 479 ; Cabinet work, 483 ; guests at Inveraray, 485 ; Lord Grey, 485 ; visit to Hebridean estates, 487 ; letter to Lord Clarendon, 489 ; the Cabinet and news from the Crimea, 506 ; inter- view with Prince Albert, 507 ; winter session, 511 1855. Cabinet meeting, i. 516 ; resig- nation of Lord Aberdeen and his Cabinet, 517 ; Queen refuses to accept it, 518 ; visit to Windsor, 520 ; interview with the Queen, 621 ; defeat of Government, 522 ; office offered by Lord J. Russell, 525 ; and declined, 626 ; offer from Pal- merston, 526 ; accepts office of Privy Seal, 530 ; acquaint- ance with Layard, 534 ; Cabinet meetings, 539, 652 ; Cabinet difficulties, 639-545 ; meets the Emperor Louis Napoleon, 546 ; dines at Buckingham Palace, 655 ; letter to Lord Clarendon on proposed treaty with Sweden, 564 ; President of British Association at Glasgow, 573 ; visit to Lord Wrottesley, 573 ; discussion with Lyell, 579 ; anticipation of Darwin's theory, 581 ; at Balmoral, 583 ; letter from Palmerston, 585 ; discovery of papers on Sweden, 591 ; becomes Postmaster- General, 693 ; Cabinet meet- ings, 594 ; visit to Hawarden, ii. 1 ; conversation with Glad- stone on English Church, 2 ; work at Post Office, 4 ; ac- quaintance with Sir Rowland HiU, 5 ; an Irish deputation, 7 ; opening of ParUament, 9 ; account of Lord Lyndhurst's speech on life peerages, 15 ; signing of Treaty of Paris, 24 ; the Duke's opinion of the treaty, 27 ; correspondence with Gladstone, 30 1856. Takes part in discussion of Nicaragua Question, ii. 47 ; speech on maritime law, 50 ; views on the Neapolitan Ques- tion, 52 ; sympathy with anti- slavery movement in America, 64 ; friendship with Mrs. Beecher Stowe, 66 ; her visit to Inveraray, 60 ; visit to Dun- robin, 66 1857. Meeting with Sir R. Bethell, ii. 67 ; speech on the Chinese Question, 69 ; Cabinet meeting, 70 ; General Election, 74 ; Cabinet meeting on Parlia- mentary reform, 76 ; Ros- neath, 78 ; Duke undertakes Indian questions in House of Lords, 80 ; speech in answer to Lord EUenborough, 82 ; acquaintance with Sir Colin Campbell, 85 ; at Balmoral, 86 ; visit to Lord Dalhousie, 88 ; Cabinet and the Bank crisis, 91 ; Duke's views on reform, 94 INDEX 607 1858. Letters to Sir George Grey, ii. 97 ; speech in the House of Lords in defence of Lord Canning, 99 ; views of the Government of India Bill, 102 ; Duke's speech, 104, 105 ; Orsini affair, 107 ; resignation of Government, 108 ; Lord Derby's India Bill, 111 ; cor- respondence with Granville, Palmerston, 112 ; visit to Carlsbad, 119 ; visit to Rossie Priory, 126 ; speech on open- ing of Dundee Corn Exchange, 126 ; correspondence with Lord J. Russell on reform, 131 1859. Accepts office of Privy Seal in Lord Palmerston's Ministry, ii. 137 ; letters to Times on Italian Question, 138 ; speech at banquet to Lord Brougham in Edinburgh, 146 ; correspon- dence on Chinese Question, 147 ; opinion of New Reform BiU, 151. 1860. Opinion of Gladstone's Budget, ii. 155 ; speech on commercial treaty with Prance, 156 ; on Budget, 159 ; peacemaker be- tween Gladstone and Palmer- ston, 163 ; letters on Darwin's ' Origin of Species,' 482 1861. Views on American Civil War, ii. 169 ; correspondence with Motley, 172 ; speech to tenan- try, 174 ; visit to Cannes and Nice, 177 ; correspondence with Gladstone on Trent affair, 179 ; death of Prince Consort, 183 ;. letter on Scottish education, 310 1862. Visit to Balmoral, ii. 185; letter from Cobden, 188 ; opinion of American War and British industries, 189 ; corre- spondence with Gladstone, 190 ; receives honorary degree at Cambridge, 198 1863. Speech at banquet to Lord Palmerston in Edinburgh, ii. 195 ; letter from Henry Ward Beecher, 195 ; letters about Alabama question, 203 ; speech in House of Lords on Polish question, 214 1864. Memorandum on Schleswig- Holstein for the Queen, ii. 216 ; speech in the House of Lords on same, 219 ; speech on Lord Malmesbury's vote of censure, 223 ; Chairman of Royal Com- mission on Education in Scot- land, 301 1865. Correspondence on reform, ii. 230 ; address to Royal Society of Edinburgh, 484 1866. Defeat and resignation of Government, ii. 232 ; winter in Rome, 233 ; pubhoation of ' Reign of Law,' 233 1867. Correspondence with Glad- stone on reform, ii. 235 ; speech in House of Lords, 236 1868. Views on Scottish Reform Bill, ii. 239 ; speech in House of Lords on Irish Suspensory Bill, 243; attack of gout, 244 ; death of Duchess of Sutherland, 246 ; marriage of his daughter to Earl Percy, 246 ; Secretary of State for India, 247 ; works at India Office, 269, 270; correspon- dence with Max MuUer on Oriental culture, 271 ; Indian railways, 272 ; on antiquity of man, 540 1869. Speech on Irish C -urch Dis- establishment, ii. . 1:7 ; visit to Tennyson at Pa ingford, 251 ; Indian railway policy, 273; land settlement, 280; Punjaub Tenancy Act, 280 ; introduces Bill on Scottish education, 301 ; correspon- dence with Gladstone on Irish Land Bill, 253 1870. Correspondence with Gladstone on same, ii. 258 ; speech in House of Lords, 266 ; honorary degree, Oxford, 267 ; corre- spondence with Newman, 267 ; Indian Government construc- tion, 274 ; opinions on Franco- German War, 293 1871. Indian finance, ii. 274 ; Pun- jaub Tenancy Act, 281 ; speech on army reform, 298 1872. Indian famine, ii. 275 ; Zanzi- bar and Muscat affair, 277 ; 608 INDEX ]873. 1874. 1875. 1876. ;877. 1878. 1879. 1880. 1881. 1883. 1884. speech on Scottish education, 307 Indian income-tax and land question, ii. 282 ; Indian Rent and Revenue Bills, 284 ; Indian famine, 288 Defeat of Government, ii. 289 ; speech in defence of Lord Northbrook, 290 ; speech on Church Patronage in Scotland, 312 ; correspondence with Gladstone on same, 313 Correspondence with Max Miiller on philosophy of lan- guage, ii. 527 Speech in Glasgow on Bul- garian atrocities, ii. 323 ; notes on birds, 336 ; study of raised beaches, 514 Mre at Inveraray, ii. 341 ; cor- respondence with Professor TVidall, 341 Opinion of Afghanistan, ii. 329 ; death of the Duchess, 343 ; visit to Cannes, 344 Publication of book on Eastern Question, ii. 322 ; speech in House of Lords on foreign poUcy, 333 ; visit to United States, 344 Lord Privy Seal in Gladstone's Government, ii. 348 ; resigns, 349 ; withdraws resignation, 354 ; correspondence on Irish Land Act, 349 ; criticises Gladstone's Bill, 355 Criticism of Gladstone's Irish Land Bill, ii. 363 ; leaves the Government, 377, 459 ; speech in House of Lords, 377 ; speech on report of Bessborough Com- mission, 381 ; married to Mrs. Anson, 383 ; presented with Mantuan Medal, 383 ; corre- spondence about crime in Ire- land, 403 Writes paper on crofts and farms in Hebrides, ii. 389 ; correspondence with Professor Flower on rudimentary organs, 488 Acts as intermediary between Lord Salisbury and Gladstone, ii. 384 ; speech in favour of Franchise Bill, 386 ; correspon- dence about General Gordon and the Soudan, 389 1885. Controversy with Gladstone, ii. 393 ; letter to the Times on Home Rule, 411 ; speech at Glasgow on Scottish Disestab- lishment, 450 1886. Correspondence with Glad- stone on crime in Ireland, ii. 404 ; letter to the Times on Home Rule, 415 1887. Speech in House of Lords on Irish Criminal Law Amend- ment Bill, ii. 419 ; publication of ' Scotland as It Was and as It Is,' 456 ; speech at Unionist banquet in Westminster Hall, 460 1888. Publication of 'The New British Constitution,' ii. 418 ; speech in House of Lords on Irish Crimes BiU, 422 ; speech at Cambridge, 466 ; opinion of Darwin's discoveries, 491 1889. Speech in House of Lords against Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, ii. 462 1890. Speech to students of Univer- sity of London, ii. 463 ; letter to H. M. Stanley on return from Africa, 513 1891. Speech on crofter legislation, ii. 464 ; speech at Unionist meeting at Manchester, 465 1892. Speech to Laymen's League in Edinburgh, ii. 455, 465 1893. Speech in House of Lords on Home Rule, ii. 428 ; speech at Unionist meeting in Glasgow, 437 1894. Speeches in House of Lords on Land and Local Government Bills, ii. 469 1895. Speech on Employers' Liability, ii. 466 ; receives deputation from Elswick Mutual Insurance Company, 467 ; speech at St. James's Hall on Armenian question, 469; marriage, 549 1896. Correspondence with Lord Lil- ford on birds, ii. 665 1897. Verses to Queen Victoria on Jubilee, ii. 555 ; restoration of hall at Inveraray, 557 ; Literary Society at Inveraray, 558 INDEX 609 1900. Death of the Duke, ii. 583 Writings of. See Appendix, p. 695. Argyll, George William, sixth Duke of (uncle), i. 27, 28, 267, 285 ; death of, 123, 124 Argyll, John, second Duke of, created Duke of Greenwich by Queen Anne, i. 4, 5, 9, 21, 23, 24, ii. 62 Argyll, John, fifth Duke of (grand- father), i. 2, 4 ; his war services, i. 5-7 ; Colonel of the 42nd High- landers, i. 10 ; his devotion to agriculture, i. 11, 16 ; marries Duchess of Hamilton (Elizabeth Gunning), i. 12 ; his farm on the Inveraray estate, i. 19 ; original founder and first President of. Highland Agricultural Society, i. 26 ; M.P. for Glasgow and Dover, i. 27 ; his family, i. 27-31 Argyll, John, seventh Duke of (father), i. 28 ; in the Irish Rebel- lion, i. 31, 32 ; his air-gun, i. 31 ; in France, i. 33 ; description of Talleyrand, i. 34 ; and of Napoleon, i. 34, 35 ; in Geneva, i. 37 ; Madame de Stael and, i. 37-41 ; his adven- ture in Switzerland, i. 41, 42 ; escapes to England, i. 43 ; the Walcheren Expedition, i. 44 ; Ar- dencaple, i. 46-62 ; his first mar- riage to Miss Campbell of Fairfield, i. 33 ; his second to Miss Joan Glassell, i. 55 ; his third marriage, i. 62 ; his indifference to poUtics, i. 64, 69 ; his admiration for Duke of WeUington, i. 65, 69 ; his flag- staff — ' Hech, sirs ! what's come over the Whigs noo ?' i. 67 ; de- voted to animal mechanics — flight of birds, i. 74-76 ; hatching temperature of birds, i. 81 ; a highly skilled artisan, i. 84, 85 ; his handiwork, i. 84-87 ; his illness, i. 123 ; succeeds to dukedom, i. 124 ; takes his seat in House of Lords, i. 149 ; large holder of lay patronage in Scotland, i. 166, 168 ; Ms Patronage Bill, i. 177 ; death, i. 293 Argyll, Marquis of, beheaded 1661, i. 3, 64, 227, ii. 311 Argyll Lodge, Campden Hill, i. 391, 392 VOL. II. Armenian massacres, ii. 325, 469- 480 ; the Duke's speech at St. James's Hall on, ii. 471 Armstrong, ii. 198 Army Reform, abolition of purchase system, ii. 298-301 ; the Duke's speech on, ii. 299 Arno, valley of the, i. 204, 205 Arnold, Dr! Thomas, i. 264, 302, 303, 309 ; ' History of Rome,' i. 183, 190, 194, 195 ; death, i. 184 Arran, Island of, i. 14 Articles of Church of England, i. 90 Ashbourne, Lord, ii. 410 Asiatic cholera in Britain, i. 63 Athens, i. 246, 247 ; Greek Associa- tion at, i. 250, 251 Athole, Duchess of, ii. 186 Atlantic Ocean, ground-swell of the, i. 138 Atomic theory of the constitution of matter, ii. 522, 523 Augustenburg, Duke of, ii. 216 Austria, her rule over Italian pro- vinces, i. 211 ; ' sitting idly by,' i. 489 ; the Four Bases, i. 493, 494 ; alliance overtures from, i. 496 ; timidity of, i. 507, 510, 548 ; peace negotiations, i. 548-557, 593-596 ; England's modifications, i. 602 ; ., ultimatum accepted by Russia, ii. 8 ; war with France, ii. 138 ; and the Armenian Question, ii. 478 Auxerre Cathedral, i. 190 Avignon, i. 192 Ayrton, Mr., ii. 117 Azof, Sea of, i. 560, 589, 597, 599 Baa, Loch, i. 229, 230 BailUe, Charles, i. 185 Balaclava, i. 498, 503-506, 514; charge of the Light Brigade, i. 499 Balfour, A. J., i. 408, ii. 447 Balmoral, i. 583, ii. 85, 185 Bandusian fountain, i. 196 Bank Act, suspension of, ii. 90-92 Barra Head, i. 133 Barrackpore, mutinous symptoms at, ii. 81 Basle, i. 221 Bath, Lord, ii. 367 Beaconsfield, Earl. See Disraeh, Ben- jamin Beckford, William, ' Vathek,' i. 155 39 610 INDEX Bedford, Captain, surveying officer, ii. 6U Bedford, Dowager-Duohess of, i. 391 Bedford, Francis, Duke of, i. 363, ii. 75, 417 Beeoher, Henry Ward, ii. 197, 203 Beecher, Lady (nee O'Niel), i. 53 Bellagio, i. 216 Bellenden, Mary, i. 12, 16 Bellerophon, H.M.S., i. 499 Benbuy, ii. 518 Ben (>uachan, on Loch Awe, i. 220, ii. 612, 518 Ben More, Mull, i. 229, 230, 287, 288, 351 ; a deer drive on, i. 231 ; its recent birth, i. 232 Ben Muioh-Dhui, ii. 185 Benson, Dr., Archbishop of Canter- bury, his letter to the Duke on Armenian question, ii. 471 Benthamite or philosophical Radi- cals, i. 381 Bentinck, Lord George, i. 275, 278, 279 Berkeley, ' Commonplace Book,' ii. 536 BerUn, Treaty of, ii. 329 Bessarabia, i. 593, ii. 8, 21, 23 Bessborough Commission, the Duke's speech on the Report of, ii. 381 Bessborough, Lord, i. 261, 264 Bethell, Richard (Lord Westbury), Attorney-General, afterwards Lord Chancellor, ii. 66-69 Bewick, i. 82, 99 Biography, the attractions of, i. 1 Birds, the flight of, i. 75, ii. 501, 563 ; adaptation of their feathers, i. 78, 79 ; hatching temperature of, i. 81 Biscay, storm in the Bay of, i. 239, 240 Bismarck, ii. 296-298 Black-cap, ii. 336, 338 Black Country, the, i. 573 Black Sea, neutrality of, i. 593, 596, 597, ii. 8, 27 Black Watch, 42nd Highlanders, i. 9, 10 Blanc, Mont, i. 191, 220 Blantyre, Evelyn, Lady {nee Leve- son-Gower), i. 264, 286, 290, 368, 582, ii. 252 Blantyre, Lord, i. 264, 286, 290 Blomfield, Dr., Bishop of London, i. 150 Bliicher at Waterloo, i. 260, 335 Bliicher, Countess, ii. 186 Bologna, i. 208 Bomarsund, fortress of, i. 488, 597, ii. 21 Borelli, ' De Motu Animalium,' i. 75 Bosweil's ' Johnson,' i. 164 Bourg, headland of, i. 351 Bowring, Sir John, British Commis- sioner in China, ii. 66, 69, 71 Boyd, Rev. Dr., ii. 316 Boyd-Carpenter, Dr., Bishop of Ripon, ii. 581 BrambUng (bird), ii. 608 Bramwell, Lord, the Duke's letter to, ii. 643 Breadalbane, Lord and Lady, i. 185 Breakfast parties, i. 401 Brewster, Sir David, i. 330 Bridgewater, Duke of, i. 236 Bright, John, and Lord Aberdeen, i. 469 ; the Manchester School, ii. 28, 70 ; loses his seat, ii. 74 ; and Reform, ii. 124, 126, 129, 131 ; on Scotland and porridge, ii. 126, 127 ; V. Derby's Reform Bill, ii. 133 ; the anti-slavery cause, ii. 190 ; and Auberon Herbert, ii. 246 ; his illness, ii. 261 ; his speeches on Ireland, ii. 357 ; v. Home Rule, ii. 425, 443 ; his letters to the Duke, ii. 379, 409 ; the Duke's letters to, ii. 408, 410, 457 British Association, i. 154, 345 ; meeting at Glasgow, i. 672-676 British Museum, Grenville Library in, i. 396 Brougham, Lord, the mere shadow of himself, i. 157 ; Disraeli's ' extinct volcano,' i. 158, ii. 434 ; and Mrs. Somerville, i. 256 ; and the Great Exhibition site, i. 340 ; the Duke's speech at a banquet to, ii. 146; LL.D. Cambridge, ii. 198 Brown, Harvie, the Duke's letter on ornithology to, ii. 504-508 Brown, Miss, of Coulston (Mrs. John Glassell), i. 51 Brown, Sir George, i. 585 Browning, Mrs., 'De Profundis,' ii. 186 Bruce, IV-ederick, British Envoy to China, ii. 147, 148 Bruce, Robert, i. 130 Brun, M. le, i. 34, 36 Brunelleschi's Duomo, Florence, i. 203, 204 INDEX 611 Bruntsfield Links, i. 327 Buocleuoh, Duke of, i. 298 Buchanan, American President, ii. 48 Bug River, i. 599 Bulgarian atrocities, ii. 323, 327 Bulwer, Sir T., ii. 552 Bulwer, Lytton, i. 446 Bunessan, village of, i. 289, 351 Bunsen, Baron de, Prussian Minister in London, i. 332-336 ; on Palmer- ston, i. 333 ; and Dr. Croll, i. 334 ; the Duke on, ii. 119, 120, 295-297 Buol, ii. 23 ' Burdens of Belief, and other Poems,' i. 202, ii. 566, 574 Burgoyne, General Sir John, i. 502, 503, 574, 600 Burke, Edmund, 122 ; and Marie Antoinette, i. 189 ; on George Grenville, i. 394 ; ' a shameful policy to support the Turks,' i. 438 Bums, Robert, i. 358 ; ' Lament for James, Earl of Glencairn,' i. 62 Burrard, General, i. 585 Bury, Lady Charlotte, i. 194 Bury, Rev. — , i. 30 Butcher, Professor, Edinburgh Uni- versity, ii. 466 Butler, Bishop, ' Analogy of Re- Ugion,' i. 354, 355, ii. 187 Buzzards, ii. 805 Byng, a, ii. 113 Bj^ron, Lord, i. 254 ; and Rogers, i. 393 ; his mother-in-law, ii. 128 ; ' We start, for soul is wanting here,' ii. 553 Cadiz, i. 242 Callander, Mr. and Mrs., of Craig- forth and Ardkinglas, i. 197 Calvin, i. 89 Cambaceres, M., i. 34, 35 Cambridge, Duke of, i. 600 Cambridge, the Duke's political speech at, ii. 460 Campagna, Rome, i. 194, 195 Campbell. of Barbrech, Captain, i. 86 Campbell of May, John E., i. 28, 188, 255 ; the Duke's letter to, ii. 552 Campbell of Islay, Walter, i. 267 Campbell of Eairfield, Miss (after- wards Duchess of Argyll), i. 33 Campbell of Monzie, Mr., i. 267 Campbell of Shawfield and Islay, John, Sheriff of Argyllshire, i. 23, 27 Campbell, Adelaide, i. 59, 61 Campbell, Baillie, i. 66 Campbell, Mrs. Baillie, i. 57, 58 Campbell, Lady Charlotte, i. 27, 29, 31, 42, 267 ; ' Three Great Sanc- tuaries of Tuscany,' i. 30 Campbell, Lady John of {nee Glas- seU) (mother), i. 51-54 ; her chil- dren, i. 55 ; death and burial, i. 59, 60 Campbell, Lord Chief Justice, i. 340 ; ii. 14, 16-18, 219 ; ' Lives of the Chancellors,' ii. 17 Campbell, Lord John Henry (brother), death of, i. 106-109 Campbell, Lord Frederick, i. 27, 45, 301 Campbell, Lome, Duke of Argyll's factor, i. 56, 68, 123, 124 Campbell, Sir Colin, i. 585-587 ; his brilliant campaign in Oudh, i. 587 ; on the Crimean War, i. 600 ; Commander-in-Chief in India, ii. 83-85 ; his father, ii. 84 Campbells of Mamore, i. 16 Campbeltown (now Kilchearon) Loch, i. 131 ; organic remains at, ii. 509 Canadian Fishery Rights in Gulf of St. Lawrence, ii. 212 Canmore, Malcolm, i. 130 Cannes, ii. 344 Canning, Lord, i. 67, 158, 275, ii. 187 ; in Palmerston's Cabinet, i. 540 ; in favour of no advance to Russia, i. 589 ; Governor-General of India, i. 593 ; his advice to the Duke about Post-Offioe, ii. 3, 4 ; and the Indian Mutiny, ii. 78 ; the report of his interference with the religion of Indian natives, ii. 81 ; reckless blame cast on ' Clemency Canning ' — Ellenborough's indict- ment, ii. 82 ; the Duke's defence of, ii. 99, 100, 269 Canton River affair, ii. 66-70 Capercailzie, ii. 508 Cardwell, Lord, i. 427, 539, ii. 70 ; loses his seat at Oxford, ii. 74 ; Irish Secretary in Palmerston's second Administration, ii. 137 ; at Rome, ii. 233 ; Secretary for War in Gladstone's first Administra- tion, ii. 247 ; his illness, ii. 261 ; his proposal to increase amount of military expenditure borne by 39—2 612 INDEX India, ii. 276 ; hie Army Reform Bill, ii. 298-300 ; passed, ii. 301 ; the Duke's letter to, ii. 256 Carlingford, Lord, ii. 356 CarUsle, Earl of, i. 264, 265, 341, 346, 411 ; V. Corn Laws, i. 161 ; Emer- son's lectures, i. 413 ; joins Palmer- ston's Cabinet, i. 540 ; presented by Mrs. Stowe with copy of ' Uncle Tom's Cabin,' ii. 56 ; his letter to the Duke on Gladstone's Budget speech (1860), ii. 155 Carlsbad, ii. 119, 121 Carlyle, Thomas, i. 412, 413, ii. 189, 431 Carnarvon, Lord, Colonial Secretary in Disraeli's Cabinet, ii. 289 Carton, Duke of Leinster's place, i. 461 Castellamare, i. 198 Castle Howard, Lord Carlisle's place, i. 345, 346 Cathcart, General, i. 502 Catherine, Empress of Russia, i. 438 CathoUo Emancipation, i. 63, 64, 66 Cato Street conspiracy, i. 557 Catullus, villa of, i. 210 Cavagnari, Sir Louis, British Resident at Kabul, murdered, ii. 333 Cavendish, i. 324 Cavendish, Lord Frederick, ii. 343 Cavour, Coimt, ii. 142 Celtic Society, i. 184 Chaffinch, i. 338, 339 Chalmers, Dr. Thomas, minister of Tron Church, Glasgow, i. 89, 90 ; his astronomical discourses, i. 89, 94 ; sermon on Princess Charlotte's death, i. 305 ; his enormous brain- case, i. 357 Chamberlain, Joseph, ii. 409, 447 ; V. Home Rule, ii. 425 ; his letter of sympathy on the Duke's death, ii. 586 Chambers, Robert, ' Vestiges of Crea- tion,' i. 580, 581 Chamounix, i. 220 Charlemagne, ii. 296, 297 Charles XL, i. 3, ii. 311 Charlotte, Princess, i. 304, 305 Charlotte, Queen, i. 14 Charteris, Lady CaroUne, i. 233 Charteris, Lady Jane, i. 235 Chartists m 1848, i. 303 Chatham, Lord, i. 7-10 Chatsworth, i. 339 Chelmsford, Lady, ii. 86 Chebnsford, Lord, ii. 86, 237 Chemistry, i. 117-121 ; and physics, ii. 520 Chesney, Colonel, Bengal Engineers, President of Cooper's Hill College, ii. 270 Chevalier, Michel, ii. 153 China, the Canton River affair, ii. 66- 70; war with, ii. 147-150, 166; treaty of peace, ii. 150 Chloroform discovered by Sir James Simpson, i. 324 Cholera in Britain, Asiatic, i. 63 Cholmondeley, Lady, i. 34 Christian IX. of Denmark, ii. 216 Christmas Island, ii. 513 Church, Irish, Disestablishment of, ii. 242-251 ; the Duke's speech on, ii. 247 Church Patronage in Scotland, i. 164- 166 ; Bill for its abolition, ii. 312- 317 ; the Duke's speech on, ii. 313 ; the Duke's correspondence with Gladstone on, ii. 314-319 Church of Scotland, i. 88-91, 163; the Veto Law, i. 165 ; Disestab- lishment of, ii. 319, 450-456 ; the Duke's speech at Glasgow on, ii. 450 Church and State, ii. 312-321 Cintra, i. 241 Circassia, independence of, ii. 22, 23 Civita Vecchia, i. 254 Clanricarde, Marquis of, ii. 215 Clarendon, Lord, Foreign Secretary in Aberdeen's Ministry, i. 386, 387 ; in Palmerston's, i. 536, 598 ; his liveliness and humour, i. 451 ; his tactful ability and straightness, i. 464 ; the Duke's letter on the ' Pour Poiats ' or ' Bases,' i. 489 ; despatch of an officer to Austria, i. 507 ; faithful to the cause of a reasonable peace, i. 538 ; check- mates the French Emperor's schemes, i. 542 ; proposed treaty with Sweden, i. 563, 564, 591, 592 ; under Palmerston's sway, i. 568, 570 ; and the dispute with Amer- ica, i. 591 ; approves Austria's peace proposals, i. 593, 599 ; at Paris Conference, ii. 20-24 ; the Mosquito Protectorate, ii. 47, 48 ; the Bessarabian frontier, ii. 62 ; INDEX 613 the Oraini afiair, ii. 108 ; Disraeli's India Bill, ii. 112, 113 ; vindicates Pabnerston's policy, ii. 109 ; letter from the Duke on his Dundee speech, ii. 128 ; succeeds Russell at Foreign Office, ii. 229 ; on party- disorganization, ii. 241 ; Foreign Secretary in Gladstone's first Ad- ministration, ii. 247 ; his illness, ii. 261 Clark, Sir Andrew, ii. 298, 460 Claughton, Dr., Bishop of St. Albans, ii. 383 Clavering, Colonel, i. 27 Clavering, Douglas, i. 28 ; commander of H.M.S. Redwing, i. 29 Clavering, Lady Augusta (nee Camp- bell), i. 27, 28 Cleveland, Duchess of, i. 150 Clieveden, near Taplow, Duke of Sutherland's place, i. 419, 420, 479, 480 Clyde, Firth of, i. 46, 47 Clydesdale horses, ii. 550 Cobden, Richard, i. 159 ; ii. 28, 209 ; his speech on the Canton River affair, ii. 70 ; loses his seat, ii. 74 ; and the commercial treaty with France, ii. 153 ; on Queen Vic- toria, ii. 188 ; the anti-slavery cause, ii. 190 ; his Free Trade doctrine, ii. 394 ; his school, ii. 554 Cockburn, Lord, i. 174 Cookburn, Sir Alexander, arbiter in the Alabama afEair, ii. 213 Codrington, General, Commander-in- Chief in the Crimea, i. 584-586 Coke, Lord, ii. 15, 19 Colchester, Lord, ii. 6 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, ' Ancient Mariner,' i. 129 Coleridge, Sir J. D. (afterwards Lord), his Bill for aboUtion of University tests, ii. 309 Cole tit, i. 70, 71, ii. 507 Coll Island, i. 133 Colonsay, Duncan McNeill, Baron, Lord Advocate for Scotland, i. 268, 567 Columba, i. 130 Columbidse, ii. 482 Commercial crisis, 1857, ii. 89 Committee of Inquiry into causes and conduct of the Crimean War, i. 536 Como, Lake of, i. 216, 217 Compensation for improvements (Irish Land Bill), ii. 259 Conspiracy Bill, ii. 108 ; dropped, ii. Ill Constantinople, ii. 328 Ooniem'porary Review, Max Miiller's article on Darwin in, ii. 527 Conybeare, ' Life of St. Paul,' i, 125 Cook's ' Voyages,' i. 84 Cooper's Hill College for training civil engineers for India, founded by the Duke, ii. 270 Copper, Craigure, i. 121 Corinth, i. 253 Corinthians, Epistle I. to the, ii. 549 Com Laws, repeal of the, i. 158-160, 270-273; Bill for abolition of, i. 274, 276 Correggio, his frescoes at Parma, i. 258 Cotes, the artist, his portrait of Eliza- beth, Duchess of Argyll, i. 13 Cotton famine (1862), ii. 190 Cowley, Lord (Sir Henry Wellesley), British Minister in Paris, i. 552-555, 596, 598, ii. 143 Crabbe, ' Tales of the Hall,' ii. 572; Craigure copper, i. 121 Cranes, their habits at pairing season, ii. 504 Cranworth, Lord Chancellor (Baron Rolfe), i. 380, 518, ii. 10, 11 ; and Disraeli's India Bill, ii. 112, 113 ; his attack on commercial treaty with France : the Duke's reply, ii. 156 Crimean War, i. 435 to ii. 25 passim ; causes of, i. 435-451; a tangled skein, i. 464 ; united effort for a diplo- matic settlement, i. 467 ; despatch of troops to GaUipoU and Varna, i. 473 ; the ' Four Points ' or ' Four Bases,' i. 483 ; troubles and dis- asters, i. 514 ; reinforcements sent out, i. 515 ; improved condition of army, i. 542, 560, 561 ; peace negotiations, i. 547, 548, 563, 584- 602, ii. 8, 9 ; Conference and Treaty of Paris, ii. 20-25 Criminal Law (Ireland) Amendment Bill, the Duke's speeches on, ii. 419- 422 Crofter Act, i. 294 614 INDEX Crofter question, the Duke's speech in House of Lords on, ii. 464 ' Crofters and Farms in the Hebrides,' ii. 389 Croll, Dr., i. 333, 334 CrossbiU, i. 116, 117, ii. 563 Crows and their habits, i. 73 ; carrion, ii. 339 Cruachan, Ben, on Loch Awe, i. 220, ii. 512, 518 Culloden, Battle of, i. 7 Cumberland, Duke of, i. 5, 6 Cumming, Dr. W. ¥., ' Notes of a Wanderer in Search of Health,' i. 188, 205, 221, 234, 235, 238, 304 Cummings of Logie, the, i. 188 Cuninghame of Craigends, John, i. 62 Cuvier, i. 76, 409 Daily News, ii. 241 Dalhousie, Marquis of, Governor- General of India, i. 51, 280, 298- 300, ii. 81 ; his advice about the East India Company, i. 420 ; chorus of attacks against, ii. 87-89 ; his wife's death, ii. 88 ; the Duke's defence of, ii. 101, 269 Dalhousie, ninth Earl of, i. 51 Dalmeny, Lady Wilhebnina (nee Stanhope), afterwards Duchess of Cleveland, i. 150 Dalton, his atomic theory, i. 118 Dampier, i. 84 Danish question, the Duke's speech on, ii. 223-227 Dante, i. 213 Danubian Provinces, i. 593, ii. 27 Darkwood, Rosneath, i. 115 Darwin, Charles, ' Origin of Species,' ii. 482-484, 486, 487, 527, 529, 530 ; and natural selection, ii. 491-493, 496 ; his ice mania, ii. 517 Darwin, Professor (now Sir George), his correspondence with the Duke, ii. 491, 492 Davidson, Dr. Randall, Archbishop of Canterbury, his letter to Duchess of Argyll, ii."582 Deceased Wife's Sister Bill, ii. 462 De la Beche, Sir Henry, i. 345, 353 De la Chaux, Mademoiselle, i. 42, 43, 221 Delhi, ii. 83 Denmark, the Schleswig-Holstein question, ii. 214-228 Denominational education, ii. 306- 308 Derby, Lord, i. 315, 318 ; his first Government — a Cabinet of raw recruits, i. 360-366 ; his attitude towards the Universities of Scot- land, i. 368 ; V. Aberdeen, i. 389 his attack on Gladstone's Budget i. 432-434 ; on the Foreign Enlist ment Act, i. 512 ; plays into Pal merston's hands, ii. 50 ; leader of the Protectionists, ii. 51 ; and the Canton River imbrogho, ii. 69 ; attacks Canning, ii. 99 ; his second Government, ii. 111-136 ; his glowing gratitude to Bright, ii. 129; his Reform Bill introduced by Dis- raeU, ii. 132, 133 ; on the Alabama claims, ii. 209 ; Prime Minister for the third time, ii. 211 ; and Den- mark, ii. 223 ; another Reform Bill, ii. 236 ; Foreign Secretary in Dis- raeU's Cabinet, ii. 289 Desenzano, i. 209 Dettingen, Battle of, i. 5, 9 Devon Commission, ii. 256 Devonshire, Duke of, i. 338, ii. 447 ; ' Yours truly, Dendrobium,' i. 339 ; and Paxton, ibid.; his garden party at Chiswick in honour of Emperor Nicholas, i. 438 ; and Gladstone, ii. 429 Deym, Count, ii. 479 Diatomaceae, i. 327, 328 ; the move- ment of, ii. 502 Dibdin, Charles, secretary of the Royal National Lifeboat Institu- tion, ii. 591 Dickens, Charles, i. 416, 417 Dickie, Mr., one of the oldest tenants on the Argyll estates, ii. 587 Dillon, Mr., ii. 405 Dingo, the AustraUan, ii. 502 Dipper (water-ousel), ii. 565 ; the Duke's ' Song ' of, ii. 566 Disestabhshment, Irish Church, ii 242-251 ; Scottish Church, ii. 319, 450-456 DisraeU, Benjamin (Earl of Beacons iield), on Peel's ' heavy pleasantry, i. 152 ; Brougham an ' extinct vol cano,' i. 158; rise of, i. 275, 278 281 ; ' the clap-trap phrase " CoaU' INDEX 615 tion," ' i. 342 ; ' to sit supreme,' i. 361 ; against any union of parties, i. 365 ; his first Budget, i. 368, 384, 385, 421 ; Gladstone's reply, i. 369 ; vote of censure on Crimean War defeated, i. 557 ; on Lewis's Budget, ii. 73 ; Gladstone's ' pil- grimages of passion,' ii. 75 ; his India Bill, ii. 111-119 ; and Glad- stone, ii. 120 ; introduces Derby's Keform Bill, ii. 133 ; moves vote of censure on the Danish question, ii. 228 ; his Reform Bill of 1867, ii. 235 ; in power again, ii. 242 ; resigns, ii. 246 ; his Government of 1874, ii. 289 ; on the Indian famine, ii. 291 ; despatches Indian troops to Malta, ii. 329 Disturbances Act (Ireland), ii. 349, 354 D'ltajuba, Baron, arbiter in the Alabama affair, ii. 213 Diver, black-throated, ii. 505 ; red- throated, ii. 563 Dogs as draught animals, ii. 501 Dowse, Mr., ii. 357 Dryden on Shaftesbury, ii. 18 Ducks, Gadwall, at Tiree, ii. 508 Dudley, Lord, his amendment to Employers' LiabiUty Bill, ii. 466 Duff, Sir M. E. Grant, on the Duke's Glasgow speech, ii. 448 DufFerin, Lady, ii. 558 DuSerin, Lord, the Duke's intimate friend, i. 462 ; and Irish Land Bill, ii. 255, 257 ; Ambassador at St. Petersburg, ii. 336 ; resigns Vice- royship of India, ii. 461 ; the Duke's letters to, ii. 129, 346, 348, 354, 366, 368, 369, 403, 461, 558 ; his letters to the Duke, ii. 336, 363, 380 Dumbarton Presbytery, tribute to the Duke, ii. 589 Dujidas, Sir David, and Rogers, i. 395 Dundee Com Exchange and Public Hall opened bv the Duke, ii. 126 Dunkellin, Lord,"'ii. 232 Dunrobin, i. 297, 355 East India Company and its rela- tion to the CrowT; i. 418-420; Palmerston's Bill to abolish, ii. 86, 98 ; petition of, ii. 104, 105 ; the Duke's speech on, ii. 105 Eastern Question, i. 449, ii. 322-336 ; the Duke's speeches on, at Glas- gow, ii. 323, 324 ; in the House of Lords, ii. 334, 335 ' Eastern Question,' by the Duke, ii. 322, 329, 330, 332, 335, 336 Economy, political, i. 227 Edinburgh, i. 323 ; the Duke's great speeches at, ii. 196-198, 454, 465 ; Gladstone on Disestablishment at, ii. 454 ; the Duke's address on ' The Love of Truth ' at University of, ii. 534, 536 Edinburgh Review, i. 310, 473 ; the Duke vindicates Dalhousie and Canning in, ii. 89, 269 ; the Duke's article on ' The Supematirral ' in, ii. 526 Edinburgh School of Medicine, ii. 324 Education, Irish, ii. 288 ; denomina- tional and religious, ii. 306-308 ; University tests, ii. 309 ; Bill for England and Scotland, ii. 301-312 Edward I., i. 266 Edwards, Jonathan, i. 89 Egerton, Lord Francis, afterwards Earl of EUesmere, q.v. Eilean an Naoimh island, ii. 515 Elder Brethren of the Trinity House, their tribute to the Duke, ii. 590 Eleusis, i. 247 Elgin, Lord, Governor-General of Canada, i. 300, ii. 78 ; and the treaty with China, ii. 147, 150 ; his letter to the Duke, ii. 148 EUenborough, Lord, i. 419 ; on the Foreign Enlistment Act, i. 511, 512 ; his Memorandum on Crimean War, i. 544 ; his attack on Pal- merston's Government, i. 559 ; and Cannings, ii. 81, 82, 99 EUesmere, Dowager Countess (Lady Mary Campbell), i. 187 EUesmere, Earl of (Lord Francis Egerton), i. 236, 237, 264, 277, 306, 307, 395 Elswick Mutual Life Insurance Com- pany, ii. 467 Emerson, i. 412 ; his lectures in London, i. 413 Emmet, Robert, ii. 410 Employers' Liability Bill, ii. 466 Enoke's comet, i. 94 Encumbered Estates Court, ii. 258 EngUsh Prayer-Book service, i. 103 616 INDEX English scenery, i. 100 Brskine, Lord Blantyre's place on the Clyde, i. 368, 582 Erskine, Harry, ' I hae ye noo, Harry !' ii. 532 Erskine, Lord, British Minister at Dresden, i. 197 Etheridge, Mr., British Museum, ii. 510 Etna, Mount, i. 200, 245 Euboea, island of, i. 249 Eugenie, Empress, i. 546 Ewart, Professor Cossar, the Duke's correspondence with on the electric organs of the skate, ii. 494, 495 Exhibition of 1851, i. 319, 337-341 Paber, Father WilUam, i. 182 Factory Acts, i. 98, ii. 303, 553 Falcons at Rosneath, ii. 561, 563 Falkirk, Battle of, i. 6 Farringford, Tennyson's place, i. 400, ii. 251 Feathers, adaptation of, i. 78, 79 Fenian movement, ii. 243 Ferdinand II., King of Naples, ii. 52 Ferguson of Kinmundy, Sheriff of ArgyU, ii. 580 Ferrara, i. 208 Ferrara, Renee, Duchess of, i. 208 FiM, ii. 486 Fiesole, i. 205 Financial crisis (1857), ii. 89 Fireflies in Italy, i. 196 Firs, silver, at Inveraray, i. 19 Firth of Clyde, i. 46, 47 Fitzgerald, Lord Edward, i. 32, ii. 410 Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond, ' Life of Lord Granville,' ii. 102 Fitzwilliam, Lord ('Corncrake'), i. 152 • Plight of Birds,' i. 75 ; the Duke's article on, ii. 501 Florence, i. 203 ; the galleries of, i. 204 ; museum of anatomical models at, i. 205 Flower, Professor Sir William, ii. 448 ; his correspondence with the Duke i on the prospective character of rudimentary organs, ii. 488-490 Fly-catchers, ii. 339 Pontainebleau, i. 189, 190 Fontenoy, Battle of, i. 9 Forbes of CuUoden, Duncan, i. 9, 21, 23,24 Forbes, Professor Edward, i. 156, 578 Forbes, Professor J. D., i. 156, 182 Foreign Enlistment Act, i. 511, 591, ii. 48, 51, 202, 210, 211 Foreman, Mr., his correspondence with the Duke on Employers' Liabihty Bill, ii. 467, 468 Porster, W. E., ii. 355, 356 Fortification scheme, ii. 147, 164-166 Fossil leaf-beds in Isle of Mull, i. 349- 353 Fossil wood at Helmsdale, i. 355, 356 Fould, M., ii. 153 Fox, Charles James, i. 64, 122, 376 Pitt's determined enemy, i. 148 Lord Holland's likeness to, i. 152 CoaUtion (1782) of North and, i. 375 ; on Russia, i. 438 Foyers, Falls of, ii. 67 Prance and the Holy Places claim, i. 443, 444 ; and England v. Russia, i. 467 ; war with Austria, ii. 138 ; annexes Nice and Savoy, ii. 146 ; commercial treaty with, ii. 153-156 Franchise Act of 1884, ii. 384-389 ; the Duke's support for, ii. 386 Francis, Emperor of Austria, i. 377 Franco-Prussian War, ii. 293 Eraser, Professor Campbell, ii. 536 Frederick, Emperor of Germany, i. 304-306, ii. 296 Frederick VII. of Denmark, ii. 216 Frederick William IV., King of Prussia, i. 305, 306, 332, 334, 377 Free Trade, i. 158-160, 269, 274, 298, 361, 373, 389, 399, ii. 554 French invasion (1744), alarms of, i. 6, 7 ; Revolution, i. 64, 65, 189, 303 Prere, Sir Bartle, ii. 78, 99 Frigate-bird, ii. 563 Fry, Mrs. EUzabeth, the Quakeress philanthropist-reformer, i. 414 Fugitive Slave Law, ii. 55 Pyne, Loch, i. 296, 306; the mys- terious migration of herrings in, ii. 602, 503 Gadwall ducks at Tiree, ii. 508 Gannet, or solan-goose, its mode of fishing, i. 225 ; its plunging act, i. 226 Gareloch, i. 16, 17 Geikie, Professor, ii. 511 INDEX 617 General Assembly, Scotland, i. 165, 163-172, 174, 175, ii. 452 Geneva, i. 219 ; arbitration on Ala- bama claims at, ii. 213 Genoa, i. 193 Geographical Society, Scotland, the Duke's lecture to, ii. 463 Geological Museum, London, ii. 511 Geological Society of London, i. 349, 353, ii. 509 ; tribute to the Duke, ii. 591 Geology and palaeontology, ii. 509- 512 George II., i. 5 George III., i. 15 ; and Pitt, i. 64 George IV., i. 180 George Eliot quoted, ii. 580 Germany and the Schleswig-Holstein question, ii. 214-228; William I. proclaimed first Emperor of, ii. 295 Gibbon, Edward, i. 84, 190 Gibraltar, i. 243 Gibson, Miner, ii. 74, 108 Giotto's Campanile, Florence, i. 203 Glacial Age, i. 350, 351, ii. 518 Glaciation: Raised Beaches, ii. 514- 720 Gladstone, William Ewart, i. 280 ; about peers, i. 269, ii. 398 ; the Duke's relations with, i. 310-312, 479, 482, ii. 382, 408 ; his review of the Duke's ' Presbytery Examined ' in the Quarterly Review, i. 310, 311 ; gravitating towards Lord Derby, i. 363 ; his reply to Disraeli's Budget speech, i. 309, 385, 386 ; and Lord Aberdeen, i. 373, ii. 51 ; Chancellor of the Exchequer in Aberdeen's Ministry, i. 381, 382; appoints committee for income-tax, i. 385 ; his breakfast parties, i. 408 ; his income-tax proposals to the Cabmet, i. 422-426; his Budget speech, i. 429-434, 482 ; supports cause of peace, i. 456 ; no mis- givings about the war, i. 477 ; his views on Reform Bill, i. 480, 481 ; his intolerance of Irish Church, i. 481 ; exposes Russell's conduct, i. 522 ; secedes from Palmerston, i. 526, 528, 537, 588, ii. 51 ; his attitude towards Palmerston' s Ministry, i. 556-562 ; his mind ' essentially fanatical,' i. 561 ; sus- picions of Palmerston, i. 588 ; his views on Russia, i. 601, ii. i ; his ' eagerness in a personal handling of the axe,' ii. 2 ; his Church discussion with the Duke, ii. 3 ; his attitude during Crimean War, ii. 29-44 ; pro-Russian speeches, ii. 51 ; and Moore's motion of censure, ii. 52 ; and Naples, ii. 53 ; and Sir George Lewis — a contrast, ii. 72 ; abuses Lewis's Budget, ii. 73, 76; General Elec- tion of 1857, ii. 75, 76 ; a violent opponent of new Divorce Law, ii. 79 ; and Disraeli's India Bill, ii. 112-114; Disraeli and, ii. 120; Derby's Reform Bill, ii. 132; Chancellor of Exchequer in Pal- merston's second Ministry, ii. 137 ; on the ItaUan question, ii. 142 ; reviews Tennyson's poems in Quarterly Review, ii. 148 ; on peace with China, ii. 150 ; his Budget of 1860, ii. 152, 155-166 ; the Paper Duties, ii. 162 ; the Trent affair, ii. 179-181 ; his sympathies with the Southern States, ii. 193 ; on the Duke's eloquent speech at Edinburgh, ii. 197 ; at Rome, ii. 233 ; his Reform Bill of 1866, ii. 230, 231, 234 ; speech at Liverpool, ii. 230 ; leader of the Liberal party (1868), ii. 242 ; his Suspensory Bill, ii. 243 ; forms his first Ministry, ii. 246 ; his illness, ii. 261 ; dis- solves, ii. 289 ; v. Church Patronage Bill, ii. 314 ; the Bulgarian atroci- ties, ii. 327 ; the Irish Land Bill, ii. 355-366, 370-376 ; the Franchise and Redistribution Bills, ii. 384- 389 ; defeated on his 1885 Budget, ii. 393 ; Liberahsm and Radicahsm, ii. 393-401 ; his ' Gleanings,' ii. 395 ; the great apostle and prophet of the PameUite party, ii. 420 ; his third Government defeated on Home Rule, ii. 455 ; the Duke on his poUoy, ii. 458 ; his fourth Ministry, ii. 466 ; Armenian mas- sacres, ii. 469, 470, 475-480; his letters to the Duke, ii. 30, 32, 36, 37, 43, 44, 119, 142, 145, 149, 150, 153, 179, 180, 191, 207, 208, 218. 231, 252-254, 258-260, 347, 351, 353, 355, 358, 362, 370, 372, 470, 477 ; the Duke's letters to, ii. 31, 618 INDEX 33, 39, 41, 114, 135, 144, 145, 149, 150, 164, 155, 164, 166, 171, 179- 181, 185-187, 189, 190, 193-195, 202-208, 210, 229, 230, 232, 235, 236, 239-242, 244, 246, 254, 265, 293, 294, 310, 330, 341, 344, 349, 354, 356, 359-361, 363, 370-372, 375, 382, 385-387, 393, 395, 397- 399, 402-404, 406, 407, 433, 434, 436, 469, 475, 476, 478, 479 Glasgow, opening of Athenseum in, i. 337 ; the Duke's inaugural ad- dress as Lord Rector of Univer- sity, i. 546 ; meeting of British Association at, i. 572-576 ; the Duke's presidential address, i. 577- 682; the Duke's speech on Home Rule at the Unionist demonstra- tion at, ii. 437 ; the Duke's speech on Disestablishment at, ii. 450 ; Max Miiller's lectures at, ii. 537 Glassell of Longniddry, John, i. 51 Glassell, Mrs. John (nee Brown of Coulston), i. 51 Glenaray, ii. 518, 519 Glencaim, Earl of, i. 62 Glencroe, ii. 88 Glenforsa estate, i. 230 Qlenfruin, i. 47 Glen Kyle, ii. 88 Glenlee, Lord, i. 174 Glenroy, the parallel roads of, ii. 616, 517 Glenshira, i. 296, ii. 61, 518, 519; the Duke's poem on, ii. 559 Glynne, Sir Stephen, ii. 314 Gneiss, Lawrentian, Lewisian, and, Homblendic, i. 142 Golden-eye (bird), ii. 508 Gonzaga, Louis, Captain of Mantua, ii. 383 Gordon, General, his death at Khar- toum, ii. 389-391 ; the Duke's in- terview with, and description of, ii. 392 Gordon, Lord George, i. 375 Gortschakoif, Prince, i. 569 Goschen, Lord, ii. 229, 398, 443, 447; his letter to the Duke, ii. 417 ; v. Home Rule, ii. 425 Gossander, ii. 339 Gott Bay, i. 134 Graham, Lady Hermione, ii. 130 Graham, Sir James, i. 157, 360, 363, 385, 420, 474, ii. 315, 398 ; Peel's Home Secretary, i. 272, 273, 280 ; ' a coalition in himself,' i. 379 ; his sledge-hammer, i. 380 ; and Glad- stone's views on income-tax, i. 426 ; suppUes transport for French troops to Crimea, i. 516 ; secedes from Palmerston, i. 626, 637 ; ' a Cabinet weighted with two Dukes,' i. 559 ; drafting a Reform Bill with Russell, ii. 123 ; ' the big Baronet of Netherby,' ii. 130 ; Derby's Reform Bill, ii. 132 Graham, Lord William, Tory candi- date for Dumbarton, i. 68 Grampians, the i. 46 Grant of Laggan, Mrs., ' Letters from the Mountains,' i. 51 Grant, President, and the Treaty of Washington, ii. 212 Granville, Lady, i. 264 Granville, Lord, i. 152 ; Foreign Secretary in Russell's Administra- tion, i. 347 ; his Administration of 'All the Talents,' i. 375, 376; President of the Council in Aber- deen's Ministry, i. 380 ; supports peace, i. 456, 457 ; Molesworth and, i. 460 ; on Cowley, i. 564 ; the re- ported agreement between Glad- stone and Graham to join DisraeU, i. 683 ; and Napoleon, i. 689 ; wants Sidney Herbert for Colonial Office, i. 590 ; sounds the Duke as to Postmaster-General's office, i. 692, 693 ; on Austria's peace proposals, i. 693 ; denies report about Canning, ii. 81 ; on Palmer- ston's plan of Reform, ii. 94 ; on the Duke's speech in Dalhousie's defence, ii. 102 ; his views on Dis- raeU's India Bill, ii. 112 ; President of the Council in Palmerston's second Ministry, ii. 137 ; and the ItaUan question, ii. 144 ; Foreign Secretary on Clarendon's death in 1870, ii. 212, 295 ; Colonial Secre- tary in Gladstone's first Ministry, ii. 247 ; Foreign Secretary in Glad- stone's second Ministry, ii. 348 ; his letters to the Duke, ii. 94, 112, 261, 291, 324, 347, 353, 380 ; the Duke's letters to, ii. 104, 107, 111, 114, 148, 162, 291, 323, 384, 390, 468 Grassellini, Cardinal, ii. 233 INDEX 619 Gravitation, law of, i. 96 Greece, the Duke's first visit to, i. 245-250 ; the Don Pacifioo affair, i. 323 Greenland ice-sheet, ii. 517, 520 Greenshank at Tiree, ii. 508 Gregory XVI., Pope, i. 194 Gregory, Professor James, his famous ' mixture,' i. 327, 405 ; and mesmerism, i. 328, 329 Grenville, George, and the American Stamp Act, i. 394 Grenville, Thomas, i. 394, 395 Greville, Charles, ' Memoirs,' i. 29 Grey, Charles, second Earl, i. 67, 148 Grey, Henry George, third Earl, Colonial Secretary, i. 315 ; at Inveraray, i. 485 ; approves Cri- mean War, i. 486 ; his motion on War Office reorganization, i. 516 ; present East India's Company petition to House of Lords, ii. 104 ; and the East India Company stock- holders, ii. 107 ; his hostility to Reform, ii. 122, 123 Grey, Lady, i. 485 Grey, Sir George, i. 546, 564, ii. 10 ; his highmindedness, i. 517 ; ' What is this treaty ?' i. 591 ; Palmer- ston's Home Secretary, ii. 93 ; on Disraeh's India Bill, ii. Ill ; letters from the Duke to, ii. 96, 97, 98, 102, 124, 125, 134, 151 Grey, Lord de. Secretary of State for India, ii. 229 Greytown, Nicaragua, ii. 47, 48 Gros, Baron, French Plenipotentiary to China, ii. 150 Groimd Game Act, ii. 550 Grove, Sir W., ii. 520 Guadalquiver River, i. 242 Chmrdian, ii. 236 Guizot, M., i. 402, 437 Gunning, Elizabeth, Duchess of Hamilton, afterwards Duchess of Argyll, i. 12-15, 236 Haddo, Lord Aberdeen's place, i. 364 Haig, Colonel, his report on the Orisaa Works, ii. 282 HaUfax, Lord, ii. 255 Hall, Sir Benjamin, Board of Works, ii. 49 Hallam, Henry, i. 401 ; ' Constitu- tional History of England,' ' Litera- ture of Europe,' i. 407 ; on Ireland, ii. 427 Halsbury, Earl of, Lord Chancellor, letter to the Duchess of Argyll, ii. 585 Hamilton, Douglas, eighth Duke of, i. 14, 37 Hamilton, EUzabeth, Duchess of (nee Gunning), i. 12-15, 236 Hamilton, Emma, Lady, i. 13 Hamilton, James, sixth Duke of, i. 12, 236 Hamilton, Mr., agent of the Leinster estate, ii. 365 Hamilton, Sir William, i. 224, 234, 235, ii. 311 ' Hamlet ' quoted, i. 54 Hansard, ii. 102 Harcourt, Canon WilUam, i. 345, 346 Harcourt, George, i. 345 Harcourt, Dr. Vernon, Archbishop of York, i. 263, 345 Harcourt, Sir William Vernon, 1. 346, ii. 205, 409, 424 Hardinge, Lord, i. 367, 515 Harrier (bird), ii. 507 Harrowby, Dudley, second Earl of, i. 155, 557 Harrowijy, Dudley, third Earl of, i. 156, 557, 558 Hartmgton, Lord, ii. 136, 398, 409, 460 ; Lord Privy Seal in Palmer- ston's Ministry, i. 592 ; Secretary for War in Russell's Ministry, ii. 229 ; Secretary for India in Glad- stone's second Ministry, ii. 348, 353 ; and the Franchise BiU, ii. 387 ; V. Home Rule, ii. 425, 443 Hartmann, Professor, ii. 532 Hatching temperature of birds, i. 81 Havelock, Sir Henry, u. 83 Hawarden Castle, visit to, ii. 1 Hay, Drummond, Consul at Tangiers, i. 244 Hayward, i. 460 Head, Sir Edmund, ii. 198 Hebrides, the, i. 133 ; scenery of, i. 134, 321 ; famine in, i. 282-285 Hedsor parish church, i. 479, 480 Heidelberg, ii. 119 Helmsdale, fossil wood at, i. 355, 356 Hemans, Mrs., i. 103 Henry IL, ii. 16 Henry VIII., ii. 427 Herbert, Auberon, ii. 246 620 INDEX Herbert, Sidney, i. 273, 280, 590, ii. 398 ; Secretary for War in Aberdeen's Ministry, i. 380 ; sup- ports peace, i. 456 ; his attitude towards Palmerston, i. 526, 528, 556, 557 ; secedes from, i. 537 ; on Reform, ii. 121 Herons, habits at the pairing season, ii. 504 ; flight of, ii. 563 Herrings, their mysterious migration in Loch Fyne, ii. 502, 503 Hibbert Lectures, Max Mullet's, ii. 530 Higgins, Mr., ' Jacob Omnium,' i. 238, 239 Highland Agricultural Society, i. 26 Highland Society of London, their tribute to the Duke, ii. 592 Highland regiments, formation of, i. 7-10 Highland system of communal hoU- days, i. 20, 131 HiU, Sir Rowland, Permanent Secre- tary Post Office, ii. 5 ; and unpaid letters, ii. 6 ; and postal system in Ireland, ii. 7 Holland, its fanatical cleanliness, i. 222 Holland, Lord, i. 152 Holy Places, Prance's claim as to the, i. 443, 444 Home Rule, ii. 402-449 ; the Duke's speech on, ii. 428 Hook, Dr., Vicar of Leeds, i. 104 Hook, Mrs., i. 104 Hooker, Sir William, and the Duke's fir-cone, ii. 560 Hope, Admiral, ii. 147, 148 Hope, John, Dean of Faculty, after- wards Lord Justice Clerk, i. 178, 181 Hopkins, Professor, Cambridge, i. 583 Hoppner, his portrait of Lady Char- lotte Campbell, i. 29 Homblendic Gneiss, i. 142 Homer, Leonard, i. 404 Houghton, Lord (Monckton Milnes), i. 401 Hougomont farmhouse, i. 260, 261 Houm, Loch, i. 295 House of Commons, i. 267-269 Household Suffrage, ii. 235, 236 Howley, Dr., Archbishop of Canter- bury, i. 151 Howson, J. S., Dean of Chester ('Life of St. Paul'), the Duke's tutor, i. 125, 129, 182-184, 188, 200, 202, 224, 228, 229, 234, 238, 239, 252, 253 Hiibner, Baron von, Austrian Am- bassador, ii. 137 Hughes, Thomas, on the Duke's Home Rule speech at Glasgow, ii. 447 Huie family in Argyllshire, ii. 311 Humbert, King, i. 194 Hume, i. 84, 358 Hunterian Museum, Lincoln's Inn Square, i. 408 Hutton, i. 354 Huxley, Professor, i. 411 ; his use of the word ' plan,' ii. 500 ; his ag- nostic and aggressive frame of mind, ii. 526 Hymettus, i. 246-248 Income-tax, agitation in favour of differentiation of, i. 384 ; Gladstone and the, i. 421-434 ; agitation for repeal of, ii. 72 ; in India, ii. 283, 287, 288 India, the Duke Secretary of State for, in Gladstone's first Ministry, ii. 247, 269-292 ; his railway pohcy, ii. 272-274; his views on the finance question, ii. 274 ; the Land Settlement question in, ii. 280-283 ; income-tax in, ii. 283, 287, 288 ; Rent and Revenue Acts for North- western Provinces, ii. 284 ; threat- ened famine in, ii. 288 ; Military Reform, ii. 270 India Bill, i. 420, 432 ; Palmerston's, ii. 94, 95, 98, 102-104 ; DisraeU's, ii. 111-118 ; passed as amended by Russell, ii. 119 Indian Mutiny, ii. 78, 80, 82, 83, 86, 92, 99, 100, 103 ; due to a genume religious panic, ii. 81 Inglis, Sir Robert, i. 333, 334 ; Pre- sident of the Literary Society, i. 414, 415 ; a Privy Councillor, i. 416, ii. 399 Inkerman, Battle of, i. 498, 499, 604, 506 Inns, posting, i. 99 Inquiry into the causes and conduct of the Crimean War, Committee of, i. 536 INDEX 621 International Law, ii. 205-208 Inveraray, silver firs at, i. 19 ; the Queen and. Prince Consort visit, i. 296 ; Rob Roy's stronghold at, ii. 61, 62 ; fire at the castle, ii. 341 ; the Duke's speech in the hall re- stored in commemoration of the Diamond Jubilee, ii. 557, 558 lona, ii. 245, 252, 504; monks of, i. 20 Ireland, Rebellion of 1789 in, i. 31, 32; potato famine (1846), i. 66, 282 ; postal system, ii. 7 ; tenant right in, ii. 255-259 ; crime in, ii. 260 ; University Education, ii. 288; Criminal Law Amendment Bill, ii. 419 Irish Church, DisestabUshment of, ii. 242-251 Irish Land Act of 1870, ii. 350-353, 356, 357, 361-365, 368, 370, 381 Irish Land Bill (1870), Gladstone's, ii. 253-267 ; compensation for im- provements, ii. 259 ; the Duke's views and speech on, ii. 262-266 ; (1881), ii. 354-381 ; passed, ii. 382 Irvine, George Peter, i. 349 Islay, Archibald, Earl of (afterwards third Duke of Argyll), i. 4, 5, 9 Islay, quartz strata in the island of, ii. 514 Itahan lakes, i. 209 Italian question, the, ii. 137-146 Italy, misgovernment of, ii. 52, 53 ' Jacob Omnium,' Mr. Higgins, i. 238, 239 Jacobite Rebellion (1715), i. 2, 3 ; 1745, i. 2, 3, 6, 7 James II., i. 3, ii. 311 James VI., i. 13 James, Sir Henry, ii. 421, 460 ; v. Home Rule, ii. 435 Jeffrey, Lord, i. 174 Jenner, Dr., i. 582, ii. 187 Jephson, Dr., Leamington, i. 98, 101, 110, 111 Jews Bill, i. 302, 303 Job, Book of, ii. 438 Joel, Book of, i. 266 Johnson, Dr. Samuel, ' Tour in the Hebrides,' i. 18, 321 ; on lay patronage in Scotland, i. 164 ; ' the pages of Addison,' i. 358 ; his hatred of Scotland, ii. 126 Johnson, Mr., American Minister, ii. 212 Joioey, Sir James, ii. 460 Joinville, Prince de, ii. 182 Jordanhill, i. 576 Journal de Oeneve, Le, ii. 480 Journal of the Geological Society of London, i. 353 ' Junius, Letters of,' i. 84 Jura, defiles of the, i. 221 ; quartz strata in, ii. 514 ; raised beaches at, ii. 514, 517 Justinian, Pandects, i. 198 Kabul, ii. 332, 333 Karah, island of, ii. 65 Kars, captured by Russia, i. 602, ii. 9, 21, 22 Keir, Mr., ii. 643 Kelp, in the Hebrides, i. 284 Kelvin, Lord (Sir William Thomson), correspondence with the Duke on glaciation, ii. 516 ; on physics and chemistry, ii. 521 Kent, Charles A., Secretary of Elder Brethren of Trinity House, ii- 591 Kent Coast Times, ii. 433 Kertoh, capture of, i. 560 Khartoum, ii. 389-391 Khatun-jan Khanum, ii. 461 Kherson, capture of, i. 589 Khyber Pass, ii. 332 Kiaran, a follower of Columba, i. 130 Kilchearon (now Campbeltown) Loch, i. 131 Kildare, Caroline, Lady, i. 461 Kildare, Lord, i. 461 Kilkea Castle, i. 461 Kilmnn Church, i. 60 Kimberley, Lord, ii. 477 Kingfisher, i. 229, ii. 507 Kinglake, Mr., i. 460, ii. 231 Kingsley, Charles, i. 399, ii. 527 Kinnaird, Lord and Lady, ii. 120 Kintyre, i. 129-131 ; its oceanic bird fauna, i. 225 ; the tenants' address to the Duke on his marriage, ii. 550 ; the Presbytery's tribute to the Duke, ii. 589 Kite, swaUow-tailed, ii. 507 Knight, Professor, St. Andrews Uni- versity, President of the Liberal Unionist Association, ii. 465 Knock Sheep-farm, i. 286 622 INDEX Knox, John, founder of the parochial system in Scotland, ii. 302-304 KoBButh, ii. 180, 183 Labouchere, Henry (Lord Taunton), appointed to Colonial Office by Palmeiston, i. 694 ; and the Whigs, i. 595 ; and Disraeli's India Bill, ii. 112, 113 Ladn) Mary Wood, s.s., i. 238 Lago Maggiore, i. 218, 219 Laigh, Loch, i. 289, 351 Lake poets, the, i. 129 Lamarck, i. 680 Land Act of 1870, Irish, ii. 360-353 Land Bill of 1881, Irish, ii. 354-382 Land question in India, ii. 280-283 Lansdowne, Henry Petty, third Mar- quis of, i. 265, 363, 369, 506, ii. 77 ; the oldest member of Aberdeen's Cabinet, i. 375 ; represents purest traditions of Whig party, i. 376 ; and Gladstone's income-tax, i. 385, 432 ; subdued though warlike, i. 456, .457 ; on Foreign Enlistment Act, i. 512 ; ' a figure-head in politics,' i. 513 ; on Austria's peace proposals, i. 596 ; denies report about Canning, ii. 81 ; and Dis- raeli's India Bill, ii. 112, 113; Under-Secretary for India in Glad- stone's second Ministry, ii. 349 Lansdowne, William, second' Earl of Shelbume, first Marquis of, i. 375 Laplace, ' Mecanique Celeste,' i. 255 Larvae, aquatic, i. 81 Lauriston Castle, ii. 129 Lausanne, i. 219, 221 Law, International, ii. 205-208 Law Lords and life peerages, ii. 10-20 Lawrence, Sir Henry, ii. 83 Lawrence, Sir John, Lord, ii. 99-101, 336 Lawrentian Gneiss, i. 142 Layard, Sir Austen Henry, Lady Morley's mot on, i. 534 ; his violent speeches, i. 536 ; and Aberdeen, ihid. ; omitted from Palmerston's Ministry, i. 536 ; his ' Early Adven- tures in Persia, Susiana, and Baby- lonia,' ii. 461 Layman's League, organized to op- pose Disestablishment of Scottish Church, ii. 455 Lay patronage in Scotland, i. 164-166, 169, 173 ' Leaf Beds in the Isle of Mull,' the Duke's paper read before the Geo- logical Society of London, ii. 509 Learn River, i. 102 Leamington, i. 98, 110 Leasowes, the home of Shenstone, i. 358 Lecky, i. 91 Lee, General, surrenders to Federal arms, ii. 190 Leigh, Lord, of Stoneleigh Abbey, i. 102, 111 Leinster, Caroline, Duchess of {nee Leveson-Gower), i. 264 Leinster, Duke of, i. 461 Leipsic, Battle of, i. 377 Lennox, Lord and Lady Arthur, ii. 662 Leo XIII., Pope, i. 194 Leonardo da Vinci, ' Last Supper,' at Milan, i. 215 Leopold, King, i. 306 Leopold of HohenzoUern, Prince, ii. 293 ' Letters to the Peers from a Peer's Son, on the Duty and Necessity of an Immediate Legislative Inter- position on Behalf of the Church of Scotland, as determined by Con- siderations of Constitutional Law,' i. 178 Leveson - Gower, Lady Elizabeth (afterwards Duchess of Argyll), i. 185, 263 Leveson-Gower, Lord Frederick, i. 498, 499 Lewis, ' Monk,' ii. 64 Lewis, Sir George Comewall, Palmer- ston's Chancellor of the Exchequer, i. 540, 564, ii. 131 ; and Gladstone — a contrast, ii. 72 ; his Budget of 1857, ii. 73 ; abused by Gladstone, ii. 73, 76 ; on the financial crisis of 1857, ii. 89 ; on Disraeli's India BiU, ii. 112, 113; and Derby's Reform Bill, ii. 132 ; Home Secre- tary in Palmerston's second Minis- try, ii. 162 ; the anti-slavery cause, ii. 190 Lewisian Gneiss, i. 142 Liberal Unionist party, the Duke's assistance to, ii. 465 Lieven, Madame de, i. 437, 441, 443 Life peerage question, ii. 10-20 INDEX 623 Lilford, Lord, ii. 336; the Duke's letter on study of birds to, ii. 564 ; the Duke's ^Burdens of Belief,' ii. 566, 569 ; death of, ii. 569 Lincoln, President, ii. 169, 170 ' Lines to Lord Lilford,' ii. 336 Lisbon, i. 241 Literary Society, i. 414 Liturgies and prayers, i. 127, 128 Liverpool, Lord, i. 180, 378 Livingstone, David, his correspon- dence with the Duke, ii. 512 Local Government (Scotland) Bill of 1894, ii. 469 Locarno, i. 218 Loohinver, i. 295, 297 Lochleven, Lake and Castle of, i. 185 Lodi, Bridge of, i. 259 Lombardy, Plain of, i. 208 ; cultiva- tion of mulberry-trees on, i. 211 ; poplars, i. 190 ; province of, ii. 138 London riots, 1768, i. 15 London School of Medicine, i. 324 London, Treaty of, ii. 216, 217, 223, 225, 226 Londonderry, Lord, i. 367 Longfellow, ii. 145, 344 Longfield, ii. 356, 358 Longman's Magazine, ii. 522 Lome, Marquis of, marries Princess Louise, ii. 295 ; Governor-General of Canada, ii. 344 Louis PhiUppe, King, i. 304, 305 Louis XVI., i. 305 Louis XVIIL, i. 67 Louise, H.R.H. Princess, marries Marquis of Lome, ii. 295 Low Countries, i. 5 Lowe, Robert, ii. 435 Lucknow, i. 83 ; relief of, i. 84, 92 Lucretius, ii. 543 Lugano, i. 217 Lushington, Professor, 315 LyeU, Sir Charles, i. 154, 156, 349, 354, 401, 402, 577, 578 ; ' Principles of Geology,' i. 403 ; the great teacher of uniforniitarianism, i. 579, 580 ; the Duke's correspon- dence on Organic Evolution with, ii. 482-487 ; ' Antiquity of Man,' ii. 484 ; on the Duke's geology lecture, ii. 509 LyeU, Lady, i. 402, 404, 577 Lyndhurst, Lord, i. 150, 280; the Ryland case, i. 314, 315, ii. 13 ; and life peerages, ii. 12-19 ; his memorable speech, ii. 16, 17 ; ' Jealousy, my Lords, is the spirit of our Constitution,' ii. 19 ; the intolerable misgovemment of Italy,' ii. 53 ; the Canton River affair, ii. 69 Lyons, i. 190 Lyons, Admiral Sir Edmund, Lord, British Minister at Athens, Com- mander of the Black Sea Fleet during Crimean War, i. 250, 473- 475, 505, 560, ii. 179 Lyons, Bickerton, Lord, i. 250 Lyons, Miss Minnie, i. 250 Lytton, Lord, Viceroy of India, ii. 330-333 Macaulay, Lord, his dictum about Christianity, i. 303 ; his breakfast- parties, i. 401 ; his conversation, i. 404 ; the table-turning incident, i. 405, 406 ; and Mrs. Stowe, ii. 58 ; his inexhaustible stores of know- ledge, ii. 64 ; the Duke's next-door neighbour at Campden Hill, ii. 71 ; and Termyson, ii. 571 ; his death, ii. 572 MaoColl, Canon, letter to the Duchess of Argyll, ii. 587 Maodonald, of Inch Kenneth, i. 18 Macdonalds, sept of the, i. 130, 131 Macdougall, Colonel, 42nd High- landers, i. 200 Macharioch, Campbeltown, ii. 244 Mackenzie, Sir Kenneth, ii. 339 MaoUver, Mr., Sir Colin Campbell's father, ii. 84 Macmillan's Magazine, ii. 186 Macnab, Dr., i. 226 McDiarmid, shop-keeper at Bunes- san, i. 351, 352 McNeill of Colonsay, Archibald, ii. 549 McNeill, Duncan, afterwards Baron Colonsay, Lord Advocate of Scot- land and Lord President of the Court of Session, i. 268 M'Neill, Emma, Lady, i. 55 M'NeiU, Sir John, i. 55, 567 Macquarrie, Governor of New South Wales, i. 229 Macquarrie, Colonel, Scots Greys (son of above), i. 229 Macquarrie river, i. 229 624 INDEX Magadino, i. 217-219 Mahdi, the, ii. 389 Mahon, Lady, i. 402 Mahon, Lord (afterwards Earl Stan- hope), ' History of England,' i. 8, 9, 277, 401, 402 MalakofE, the, i. 576, 585 Malmesbury, Lord, Minister for Foreign Affairs in Derby's Ad- ministration, ii. 139-141, 147, 223, 239 Malta, i. 244 ; palaces of the Klnights of, i. 200 Mamelon, capture of the, i. 561 Mamore farm, i. 16 Manchester School, the, ii. 28, 70, 553 Manners, Lord John, ii. 199 Manning, Cardinal, i. 402 Mantua and Montferrat, Prince of, presents the Duke with Mantuan Medal, ii. 383 Marathon, i. 249 Maree, Loch, ii. 339 Marie Antoinette, i. 189 Maritime capture, changes in the laws of, ii. 46, 50 Markham, General, i. 586 Marlborough, John Churchill, first Duke of, i. 5 Marlborough, John Winston Spencer ChurchiU, seventh Duke of, ii. 302, 305 Marsh tit, i. 70 Mary, Queen of Scots, i. 12, 13, 185 Maskelyne, Professor Story, his sym- pathetic letter to the Duchess of ArgyU, ii. 586 Mason, Confederate Envoy on board the Trent, ii. 178 Mathematical faculties, i. 257 Maule, Fox, vide Panmure Maurice, Rev. F. D., i. 398-400 Mavrocordato, Speaker or President of the Greek Assembly, i. 250, 251 Maxwell, Sir W., ii. 543 Maynooth College, i. 461 Mayo, Lord, Viceroy of India, ii. 270 ; assassinated, ii. 275 ; the Duke's letters to, ii. 272-274, 276, 280, 281 Mechanics, animal, i. 76, 77 Mechanic's Magazine, i. 69 Mediterranean Sea, its intense blue, i. 192 ; its fish, i. 200 ; a canal to join the Bed Sea and, i. 568 Meerut, mutiny of Bengal regiments at, ii. 80 Mehemet Taki Khan, the Bakhtiyari chieftain, ii. 461 Melbourne, Lord, Queen Victoria's first Prime Minister, i. 112, 148- 151, 157-160, 269, 362 Menschikoff, Prince, i. 444 Mentone, ii. 177 Mesmerism, i. 328-331 Mesolonghi, i. 254 Messina, i. 200 Mettemich, Prince, Italy is ' nothing but a geographical expression,' i. 212 ; Austria governed by, i. 437 Michael Angelo, his group of figures on the tomb of the Medici, i. 204 Middleton, George, Secretary of the Scottish Society of Literature and Art, ii. 592 Milan, i. 214 MiUtary Reform, Indian, ii. 270 Mill, John Stuart, ii. 190 MiUer, Hugh, i. 356-359, ii. 184 ' The Old Red Sandstone,' i. 357 ' The Footprints of the Creator,' i. 680 MiUiship, his portrait of Joan, Duchess of ArgyU, i. 53 Mbnan, Dean, i. 280, ii. 63 Milnes, Monckton (Lord Houghton), i. 401 Modena, i. 258 Molesworth, Sir Williamj Board of Works in Aberdeen Ministry, i. 381 ; his habit of taking notes, i. 460 ; death of, i. 690 Moncriefi, Lord, Lord Advocate for Scotland, i. 174, ii. 239, 240 Moniteur, Le, ii. 107 Monotheism, ii. 528 Montalembort, ' Monks of the West,' i. 321 Mont Blanc, i. 191, 220 Monteagle, Lord, i. 153, ii. 159 Monza, i. 216 Moore, Mr., his motion of censure on the enUstment trouble with America, ii. 51, 52 Morea, the, i. 245, 246 Morley, John, ii. 409, 424; great apostle and prophet of the Parnel- lite party, ii. 420 Morning Post, ii. 476 INDEX 6^^ Morpeth, Lord, afterwards Earl of Carlisle, q.v. Morvern, i. 283 Mosquito Protectorate, ii. 47, 48 Motley, J. L., ii. 573 ; his letter to the Duke, ii. 172, 176, 191, 198 ; the Duke's letters to, ii. 169, 177, 181, 182, 192, 203 Mountains, ' distances stuck on end,' i. 137 Muir, Sir WiUiam, Lieutenant-Gover- nor, India, ii. 287 Mulberry-trees on Lombardy Plain, i. 211 Mull, Isle of, i. 228, 283, 286 ; beauties of, i. 229 ; fossil leaf-beds, i. 349- 353, 572 ; education in, ii. 310, 311 Miiller, Professor Max, his corre- spondence with the Duke, ii. 271, 295, 297, 627-541; his Hibbert Lectures, ii. 530 ; his Glasgow lec- tures, ii. 537 Murchison, Sir Roderick, i. 154, 166, 346, 349, 577 Murray, Charles, British Minister, Persia, ii. 65 Murray, Sir George, Duke of Wel- Ungton's Quartermaster-General in Peninsular War, i. 606 Murray, John, i. 30 Murray, Sir John, of the Challenger Expedition, the Duke's correspon- dence with, ii. 602-504, 509-511, 516- 619 ; and the annexation of Christ- mas Island, ii. 513 ; his sjrmpa- thetic letter to the Duchess of AigyU, ii. 586 Muscat and Zanzibar, ii. 277-280 Mutiny Act, i. 7 Mutiny, Indian, ii. 78, 80, 82, 83, 86, 92, 99, 100, 103 ; due to genuine religious panic, ii. 81 na Keal, Loch, i. 287, 288 Napier, Macvey, editor Edinburgh Review, i. 310 Naples, i. 197 ; misgovemment of, ii. 52, 53 Napoleon Bonaparte, first Consul, i. 33 ; seventh Duke of Argyll's description of, i. 34, 35 ; his rage, i. 36 ; orders arrest of all EngUsh- men in France, i. 40 ; his victory at Bridge of Lodi, i. 259 ; at Water- loo, i. 260 ; his ' intolerable VOL. II. tyranny,' i. 438 ; his natural son, Walewski, i. 597 Napoleon III., i. 304, 343 ; distrust of, i. 390 ; and Austria, i. 496, ii. 137, 138 ; the cowp d'etat of December, 1851, i. 344-346; his schemes in the Crimea, i. 542 ; the Duke's description of, i. 546 ; and the peace negotiations, i. 552-555, 583, 589, 593, 596, 598, 599, ii. 8 his idea of a canal to join the Mediterranean and Red Seas, i, 568 ; distrusts Walewski, i. 597; 598 ; ' France has no hatreds,' i, 698 ; and the Paris Conference, ii. 22-24 ; Orsini's attempt on ii. 107 ; Cobden and the com mercial treaty, ii. 153, 154 ; pro poses a Congress to settle PoUsh question, ii. 214 Napoleon, Prince, ' Plon-plon,' i. 552 National Defence, Royal Commission on, ii. 163 National Liberal Union meeting at Manchester, the Duke's speech v. Home Rule at, ii. 466 National Review, ii. 675 Natural history, i. 74-83 ; the Duke's ' Diary,' ii. 514 Natural selection, i. 491-493, 496 Navarino, Battle of, i. 440 Naville, Mr., the Egyptologist, his letter to the Duke, ii. 480 Negro slavery in America, ii. 54, 65 Nelson, i. 260 ; and Lady Hamilton, i. 13 Nesselrode, i. 592 ' New British Constitution and its Master Builders,' ii. 418 Newcastle, Duke of. Colonial Secre- tary in Aberdeen's Administration, i. 380 ; supports peace, i. 456 ; Russell's demand, i. 508 ; his de- spatch of officers to the Crimea, i. 615 ; offers to resign, i. 517 ; ' the obvious victim,' i. 519 ; Russell's unfair speech, i. 520 ; hardship of his position, i. 521, ii. 78 ; the Duke's opinion of, i. 531, 532 ; his work during Crimean War, i. 532 ; a great organizer, i. 633 ; succeeded by Panmure, ibid. Newman, Cardinal (' Grammar of Assent: Apologia'), the Duke's correspondence with, ii. 267, 268 ; 40 626 INBEX the human intellect a ' universal solvent,' ii. 434 Newton, discovers law of gravitation, i. 96 Ney, Marshal, i. 44 Nioaraguan question, ii. 47 Nice, annexed by Prance, ii. 146 ; the Duke at, ii. 179 Nicholas, Emperor of Russia, i. 339 ; his visit to England in 1844, i. 435- 437, 440 ; the very ideal of a great monarch, i. 437 ; his Memorandum as to Turkey, i. 442, ii. 27 ; and ^France's Holy Places claim, i. 443, 444 ; his armies cross the Pruth, i. 459 ; his overbearing pride, i. 468 Niebuhr, i. 183, 195 Nightingale, notes of the, ii. 337 NikolaiefF, Russian arsenal, i. 590, ii. 23 Nineteenth Century, the Duke's articles in, ii. 491, 494, 520 Nordenskiold, Professor, ii. 520 Norfolk, Duke and Duchess of, i. 271 North, Lord, and Fox coalition, i. 375 Northallerton, Yorkshire, i. 99 Northbrook, Lord, Viceroy of India, ii. 276 ; his India policy, ii. 288- 292 ; the army purchase system, ii. 300 ; the Duke's letters to, ii. 276, 277, 282-284, 287, 289; his letter to the Duke, ii. 290 Northoote, Sir Stafford, ii. 289 Northumberland, Duke and Duchess of, ii. 246 North - Western Provinces, India, Rent and Revenues Acts for, ii. 284 Nut-hatches, the Duke attempts to introduce them in Argyllshire, ii. 564 Oaks, in England, i. 103 O'Connell, Daniel, i. 154, 236, ii. 552 ; ' that scorpion Stanley,' ii. 426 O'Connell, Daniel, son of above, ii. 433 O'Connor, Fergus, i. 303 Olive-trees, i. 195 Olney, i. 358 Olphert estates — evictions, ii. 462 Olympus, the ranges of, i. 263, 254 Omar Pasha, i. 516 Ondins, schooner yacht, i. 295, 296 O'Niei, Miss (afterwards Lady Beecher), as ' Juliet,' i. 53 Opie, his portrait of Lady Charlotte CampbeU. i. 29 Orchids, their cultivation introduced by Duke of Devonshire, i. 339 Organic Evolution, ii. 481; the Duke's correspondence with Lyell about, ii. 482-487 ' Organic Evolution Cross-examined,' ii. 492, 498 Oriental culture, ancient, ii. 271 Orissa Works, ii. 282 Orloff, Prince, ii. 22, 23 Ornithology, the Duke's study of, ii. 336-341, 560-569 Orsini, ii. 107 Oscar I., King of Sweden, i. 592 Osprey, ii. 505 Otho, Kjng of Greece, i. 250 Oudh, i. 587 ' Our Responsibilities for Turkey,' ii. 325, 479 Outram, Sir James, ii. 83 Owen, Sir Richard, ' On the Nature of limbs,' ' On the Homologies of the Vertebrate Skeleton,' i. 76, 411, 581 ; Curator of the Hunterian Museum, i. 408-411 ; his lectures, i. 408, 409, 573, 581; the 'op- posable digit,' i. 410 ; brachiopods, ibid. ; his reference to the Duke's lecture on geology, ii. 509 ; the Duke's correspondence with, ii. 501, 502 Owl, long-eared, ii. 339, 340 ; large snowy, ii. 508 ; little, ii. 565 Oxford, the Duke receives honorary degree of D.C.L. at, ii. 267 Oxford Movement, i. 88, 103, 104, 164, 309, 313 Padua, i. 208 Psestum, Temple of, i. 199 Paget, Lord, afterwards Marquis of Anglesey, q.v. Painting, one of the Duke's favourite recreations, ii. 563 Palaeontology and geology, ii. 509- 512 Palgrave, Professor, ii. 561, 570 ; ' Golden Treasury,' ii. 577 ; the Duke's correspondence with, ii. 576 Pall MaU Gazette, ii. 406, 407 Palmer, Sir Roundell (Earl of Sel- borne), ii. 208, 210 ; 'A Defence INDEX 627 of the Church of England,' ii. 320 ; and the Duke's ' Burdens of Be- lief,' ii. 569, 570; the Duke's letters to, ii. 262, 314, 319, 320, 390 Palmerston, Lord, his speech on the Don Pacifico affair, i. 323 ; and Bunsen, i. 333 ; dismissed by Russell, i. 346-348 ; his ' tit for tat with John Russell,' i. 360 ; Home Secretary in Aberdeen's Cabinet, i. 378 ; his measures for national defence, i. 390 ; Gladstone's income- tax scheme, i. 432 ; his interven- tion in Egypt and Syria, i. 441 ; ' that sad inheritance of trium- phant wrong,' i. 444 ; his acqui- escence in the Crimean War, i. 455- 458 ; and Russell, i. 463, 508, 509, ii. 120 ; resigns upon Russell's Re- form Bill, i. 471-473 ; his war fore- cast, i. 477 ; his strong protest, i. 515 ; ' But why should this be ?' i. 516 ; Prime Minister, i. 524 ; and the Peelites, i. 529 ; forms a Ministry, i. 530-550 ; secession of Graham, Gladstone, and Herbert, i. 537 ; ' popular saviour of the army,' i. 545 ; his difficulties : Gladstone's attitude, i. 556-562 ; on General Simpson's require- ments, i. 567 ; opposes the canal scheme, i. 568, 570 ; Aberdeen and, i. 571 ; on command of the army in the Crimea, i. 585 ; quarrel between Stratford and Sultan of Turkey, i. 588 ; Russia not yet ' half beaten enough,' i. 589 ; tries his old work of fusion, i. 590 ; and the dispute with America, i. 591 ; appoints the Duke Post- master-General, i. 592, 593 ; ap- points Labouchere Colonial Secre- tary, i. 594 ; against Austria's peace proposals, i. 697, 600, ii. 9, 21 ; in favour of life peerages, ii. 10-12, 14, 20; and the Paris Conference, ii. 22-24 ; the Nioar- aguan question, ii. 47, 48 ; his easy good-humour, ii. 49 ; his growing popularity, ii. 50 ; and the Bessarabian frontier, ii. 52 ; and Naples, ii. 52, 53 ; the address to Mrs. Stowe, ii. 58 ; the war with Persia, ii. 65 ; resigns on the Canton River affair, ii. 70 ; his triumph,- ii. 74 ; and Reform, ii. 76-78, 94- 97, 134 ; loyal to his colleagues, ii. 77 ; eager for new Divorce Law, ii. 79 ; appoints Sir Colin Campbell Commander-in-Chief of army in India, ii. 83 ; the East India Com- pany, ii. 86 ; Aberdeen's irrita- tion, ii. 91 ; his India Bill, ii. 94, 95, 98, 103, 104 ; his Government defeated on Conspiracy Bill, ii. 108, 109 ; and Disraeli's India Bill, ii. 112 ; his second Ministry, ii. 137-168 ; the ItaUan question, ii. 146 ; the increasing expenditure, ii. 163 ; Edinburgh banquet to, ii. 195, 196 ; on the Sohleswig- Holstein question, ii. 219 ; death of, ii. 210 ; his letters to the Duke, i. 585, ii. 109, 113, 115 ; the Duke's letter to, ii. 117 Panmure, Lord (Pox Maule), New- castle's successor in Colonial Office, i. 533 ; calls for Lord Rag- lan's explanations, i. 543 ; ' popu- lar saviour of the army,' i. 545 ; and General Simpson's resigna- tion, i. 584, 585 ; defends his war estimates, ii. 72 Paper Duties Bill, the Duke's speech for, ii. 159 ; rejected by House of Lords, ii. 162 Papineau, the Canadian rebel, ii. 562 Paris, i. 189 ; Conference of, ii. 20- 24 ; Treaty of, ii. 24-27, 325, 326, 329 Parke, Baron (Lord Wensleydale), ii. 11, 12, 14-16 Parma, i. 258 Parnell, C. S., ii. 346, 355, 406, 407, 443, 444 Parnellite party, the, ii. 404-406, 420 Parnes range, i. 246, 247, 249 Parry, Sir Edward, i. 84 Parthenon, Athens, i. 247, 248 Paterson, Campbell, i. 286, 287 Patras, Gulf of, i. 253 Patronage in Church of Scotland, i. 164-169, 173 ; Bill for aboUtion of, ii. 312-317 Patronage Act, Queen Anne's, i. 173, 174, 177 Paulett, Lord George, i. 499 Peel, Sir Robert, i. 69, 178, 276, 278, 280, 370, 377 ; organizing the Con- servative party, i. 148 ; his speeches 40—2 628 INDEX heavy artiUerjr, i. 153 ; O'Connell on, i. 154 ; his campaign v. Mel- bourne's Government, i. 157 ; changes his Com Laws opinion, i. 159 ; his majority in the 1841 General Election, i. 160 ; on Wel- lington, i. 180 ; at Taymouth, i. 186 ; determined to prosecute O'Connell, i. 236 ; the Duke's alle- giance, i. 265 ; his Tariff Reform, i. 269, 270, 274, ii. 393 ; the splen- did political services of, i. 271 ; and the potato disease, i. 272, 273 ; Wellington praises his resolute atti- tude, i. 274 ; Disraeli's ' venomous attacks ' on, i. 275 ; his supporters, i. 277, 281 ; his Parliamentary Loan Fund, i. 285, 286, 290; EUesmere's support of, i. 306 ; his death, i. 322 ; his last tribute to Palmerston, i. 323 ; an ' all- round man,' i. 362; and the income- tax, i. 424, 432, 433 ; his eloquence, ii. 552 PeeUtes, the, i. 298, 341, 342, 362, 370, 374, 380 ; their title of Liberal Conservatives, i. 365 ; and Pal- merston, i. 529-539 Peerages, life, ii. 10-20 Peiho River, ii. 137 Pekm, ii. 150 Pehssier, General, i. 560 Peloponnesus, the, i. 246, 247, 249 Pentelicus, Mount, i. 248 Perceval, Spencer, i. 378 Persia, war with, ii. 65 Persia, Shah of, ii. 65 Persigny, Count de, French Ambas- sador, i. 593, 594, ii. 107 Perugia, i. 202 Petit Trianon, the, i. 190 Petrel, stormy, ii. 508 Philosophical or Benthamite Radi- cals, i. 381 ' Philosophy of BeUef,' ii. 645, 547, 548 Physics and chemistry, ii. 520 Piraeus, harbour of the, i. 246 Pisa, i. 206, 207 Pitt, WiUiam, i. 8; George III.'s favourite Minister, i. 64 ; one of the earliest Reformers, i. 65 ; his fear of Jacobinism, i. 67 ; the Duke's admiration of his oratory, i. 122 ; his determined enemy Fox, i. 148 ; his magnificent invective, i. 153 ; ' Oh, my country !' i. 261 ; tries to rally Europe, i. 334 ; Chan- cellor of the Exchequer, i. 376, 376 ; and the income-tax, i. 424, 432, 433 ; fears Russia, i. 438 ; his great speech for abolition of slavery, ii. 55 Pius IX., Pope, ii. 233 Playfair, Lord, ii. 324 ; the Duke's letter on Free Trade to, ii. 654 Plombi^res, Secret Treaty of, ii. 146 ' Poems ' by the Duke ' To Queen Victoria,' 556; ' Glenshira,' 689; ' Song of the Water-Ousel,' ii. 666 ; 'Selbome,' 570; 'To Tennyson,' 573 ; extracts from : ' To Truth,' ii. 577; a 'Reply' to William Watson, ii. 678 ; ' An Island Home,' ii. 579 Polish question, i. 444, 558, 583, ii. 213-215 PoUtical economy, i. 227 Pompeii, i. 197 Pope, Alexander, his couplet on John, second Duke of Argyll, i. 4 ; his inevitable-seeming rhymes, ii. 576 Porridge, and Scotland, ii. 126, 127 PortkiU farmhouse, i. 55, 57 Portsmouth, Lord, ii. 264, 357 Posting inns, i. 99 Postmaster-General, the Duke ap- pointed, i. 592, 593, ii. 3-8 Potato disease, i. 270, 271 Poulton, Professor, of Oxford, ii. 493 Power, O'Connor, ii. 360-362 Prayer-Book services, English, i. 103 Prayers and liturgies, i. 127, 128 Prendergast, Mr., on the Irish, ii. 427 Presbyterian Church, ii. 452-454 ' Presbjrtery Examined : An Essay, Critical and Historical, on the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland since the Reformation,' i. 310 Presbytery of Dumbarton, and of Kintyre, their tributes to the Duke, ii. 589 Prescott, historian of Ferdinand and Isabella, i. 412 Pretender, the, lands in Scotland, i. 6 Privateering, ii. 46 Privy Seal, the Duke appointed Lord, in Palmerston's second Ministry, INBEX 629 ii. 137 ; in Gladstone's second, ii. 348-354 ; resigns on Irish Land Bill, ii. 377 Protection and Protectionists, i. 159, 161, 270-274, 276, 278, 281, 342, 361, 368, 399, ii. 60, 457, 553 Prussia, the rise of, i. 335 ; the Duke's sympathies on the side of, in the Franco-Prussian War, ii. 293 Psalms, quoted, i. 108, 231 Punch, i. 460 Punjab, ii. 99-101 ; Tenancy Act, ii. 280, 281 Pusejdsm, i. 104 Quail, ii. 507 Quarries (Sebastopol), the, cap- tured, i. 561 Quarterly Revietv, i. 310, 311, ii. 148 Racine, ' PhSdre,' i. 39 Radicals, Philosophical or Bentha- mite, i. 381 Raffles, Sir Stamford, i. 289 Raglan, Lord, i. 475, 499-504, 506, 600 ; his silence, i. 514 ; deficient in organization, i. 516, 543 ; his mismanagement, i. 544 ; and death, i. 545 Railway poUcy in India, the Duke's, ii. 272-274 Raised Beaches: Glaciation, ii. 514-520 Ramsay, Lord (afterwards Earl of Dalhousie), i. 298-300 Reay, Lord, ii. 480 Redan, assault of the, i. 576, 585 Redistribution of Seats, ii. 231, 232 ; Bill (1884), ii. 384-389 Red Sea, proposed canal to connect Mediterranean and, i. 568 Redstart, i. 71, 72 Bedwing, H.M.S., i. 29 Reed-wren, ii. 340 Reform and Reform Bills, i. 63, 65, 68, 69, 471-473, ii. 76, 77, 94, 121- 125, 161, 162, 230, 231, 234 ; the Duke's speech (1867) on, ii. 237 ; for Scotland, ii. 239-241 Reformation in Scotland, i. 169-171, 308-310 Reid, Dr. John, i. 324 ' Reign of Law,' ii. 233, 236, 645, 646 Religious education, ii. 306-308 Rent and Revenue Acts for North- West Provinces, India, ii. 284 Revelation, ii. 549 Revue Contemporaine, ii. 154 Rheinwald, the, i. 260 Rhine, the, i. 221, 260 Rhone, the, i. 191, 219 Ricardo, i. 159, ii. 653 Richmond, Duke of, ii. 298 ; his Agricultural Commission, ii. 367 Riddell, Sir James, ii. 561, 562 Rifle-shooting match at Locarno, i. 218 Rob Roy, his stronghold at Inverary, ii. 61, 62 Robertson, Dr., i. 33, 37-45, 54, 84, 117 Robertson, Dr., factor at Balmoral, ii. 186 Roebuck, Mr., i. 516, ii. 78, 132 Rogers, Samuel, i. 393-395; and Dundas, i. 395 Rokeby, General, i. 585 Rolfe, Baron, afterwards Lord Cran- worth, q.v. Roller (bird), ii. 505 Rome, i. 193-195, 254-256, ii. 233 Romney, his portraits of Lady Hamilton, i. 13 Rookery at Ardencaple, i. 72 Rose lathes, i. 84, 87 Rosebery, Lord, i. 150, ii. 466 Rosneath, Dumbartonshire, i. Ki, 115, 265, 266, 295, 298, 301, 304, 331, 687, ii. 341 ; Castle burnt, i. 52 Ross of Mull, the, i. 287, 290 Rosse, Lord, i. 573 Rossmore, Lord, i. Ill Roubilhac, his monument of John, second Duke of Argyll, i. 4 Rouher, M., ii. 153 Royal Humane Society, tribute to the Duke, ii. 591 Royal National Lifeboat Institution, tribute to the Duke, ii. 591 Royal Scottish Geographical Society, the Duke President of, ii. 513 Royal Society of Edinburgh, ii. 484 ; the Duke's presidential address, ii. 167 ; the Duke's paper — ' Two Glens and the Agency of Glacia- tion ' — ^read to, ii. 520 Rudimentary organs, the Duke's cor- respondence with Sir WilUam Flower on the prospective char- acter of, ii. 488-490 630 INDEX Rush, the Norfolk murderer, ii. 10 i Russell, C, ii. 356 1 Russell, Dr., i. 461 j Russell, Lady, ii. 244 Russell, Lord John (afterwards Earl Russell), great charm of his char- acter, i. 265 ; leader of the Whigs, i. 270 ; his manifesto in favour of repeal of Com Laws, i. 273, 274 ; the ' proud ' British aristocracy, i. 279 ; offers office to the Duke, i. 341, 342 ; dismisses Palmerston from Foreign Office, i. 346, 347 ; fall of his Government (1852), i. 360 ; his ' leadership,' i. 362 ; a new Reform Bill, i. 363, 364; Lord Aberdeen, i. 365 ; in Aberdeen's Cabinet, i. 378, 383, 384 ; impressed by Gladstone's income-tax views, i. 426 ; ' subdued though warlike,' i. 455-458 ; his Reform BiU, i. 471, 473 ; withdrawn, i. 478 ; and Pal- merston, i. 463, ii. 120 ; demands Newcastle's dismissal, i. 508 ; medi- tates resignation, i. 514; resigns, i. 517 ; his conduct to Newcastle, i. 520, 522, 523 ; fails to form a Government, i. 524 ; the Vienna Conference, i. 536, 547-549, ii. 29 ; appointed Colonial Secretary by Palmerston, i. 539 ; his isolation, i. 650 ; and Reform, ii. 76, 151 ; Disraeli's India Bill, ii. 113 ; his amendments accepted, ii. 119 ; drafting a Reform Bill with Graham, ii. 123 ; at Knowsley, ii. 124 ; on Bright and Reform, ii. 131 ; opposes Derby's Reform Bill, ii. 133 ; ' the great body of the working classes,' ii. 134 ; his amendment to Derby's Bill, ii. 135 ; the Itahan question, ii. 142- 146 ; his non-committal speech at Aberdeen, ii. 148 ; introduces Re- form Bill (I860), ii. 152 ; the Ameri- can Civil War, ii. 171 ; on detention of Alabama, ii. 201, 209 ; Prime Minister on Palmerston's death, ii. 210 ; England's right to inter- pose in PoUsh question, ii. 213 ; and the Sohleswig-Holstein ques- tion, ii. 219-223 ; and Reform again, ii. 230 ; resigns, ii. 232 ; announces intention of retiring from public life, ii. 242 ; his illness. ii. 244 ; on the Suspensory Bill, ii. 245 ; his letters to the Duke, ii. 131, 171, 204 ; the Duke's letters to, i. 465, ii. 201 Russia, ' was the Emperor Nicholas,' i. 437 ; declaras war, i. 451 ; Eng- land's ante-Crimean War relations with, i. 438-440; and Turkey, i. 438-448, 467 ; France and England v., i. 467 ; the Crimean War, i. 435, ii. 25 {passim) ; accepts Austria's ultimatum, ii. 8, 9 ; Treaty of Paris, ii. 13 ; and Poland, ii. 213-215 ; war with Turkey, ii. 328 ; her Mission of Afghanistan, ii. 329, 330 Ryland case, the, i. 314-319, ii. 13 Sabine, Colonel (afterwards Sir Edward), President Royal Society, i. 577 St. Andrew's University, the Duke elected Chancellor of, i. 355 ; tribute to the Duke, ii. 588 St. Angelo, Monte, i. 198 St. Arnaud, French Commander, i. 475 St. Francis, his tomb at Assisi, i. 202 St. Lawrence, Gulf of, ii. 212 St. Luke's Gospel, ii. 548 St. Margaret of Norway, Queen of Scotland, i. 91 St. Paul's Cathedral, Wellington's funeral at, i. 367 St. Peter's, Rome, i. 203, 204 Sage, Bishop, i. 309, 310 Salamis, i. 246, 248, 249, 253 Salerno, i. 198 SaUsbiu-y, Marquis of. Secretary of State for India in DisraeU's Ministry, ii. 289-292 ; the Duke's opinion of, ii. 290 ; and the Fran- chise and Redistribution Bills (1884), ii. 384-389; his first Ad- ministration (1885), ii. 393, 409 ; congratulates the Duke on his anti-Home Rule speech at Glasgow, ii. 446 ; defeated 1892, in power again 1895, ii. 466; and the American massacres, ii. 477-479 ; Herbert Spencer and, ii. 494 ; the annexation of Christmas Island, ii. 513 Salo, silk factory at, i. 210 San Jacinto, U.S. sloop, ii. 178-181 mcBx 631 San Juan case, the, ii. 211 San Stefano, Treaty of, i. 328, 329 Sand, of Tiree, i. 139 Sandon, Lord (afterwards third Earl of Harrowby), i. 166, 557, 558 Sardinia, i. 516, ii. 137 ; Treaty with, i. 522 ; its disarmament demanded by Austria, ii. 138 Sargent, Mrs., i. 403 Sarpi, ' History of the Council of Trent,' ii. 572 Saussure, M. de, i. 37, 40 Savoy annexed by France, ii. 146 SoaUgeri, their family tombs at Verona, i. 213 Scenery, English, i. 100 ; Scottish, i. 321 Schaffhausen, falls of the Bhine at, i. 221 Sohleswig-Holstein question, ii. 214- 224 ; the Duke's speech on, ii. 219- 222 Schmidt, Dr., ii. 463 Science, the Duke's interest in, ii. 481- 544 Soinde, ii. 99 Sclopis, Count Frederic, an Aldbanm arbiter, ii. 213 Sooresby, i. 84 Scotland, in the eighteenth century, i. 20-26 ; migration and emigration, i. 25; Church of, i. 88-91, 163; lay patronage in, i. 164-169, 173 ; the Veto Law, i. 165 ; Reformation in, i. 169-171 ; its clanship, ii. 85 ; and oatmeal porridge, ii. 126, 127 ; Eeform Bill for, ii. 239-241 ; Edu- cation Bill for, ii. .301-312 ; Bill for Abolition of Church Patronage in, ii. 312-317 ; Disestabhshment of Church of, ii. 319, 450-456 ' Scotland as It Was, and as It Is,' ii. 392, 456 Scott, Sir Walter, 'Heart of Mid- lothian,' i. 5, 266 ; ' Waverley Novels,' i. 30 ; ' The Lord of the Isles,' i. 289 ; the great revealer of the Hebrides scenery, i. 321 ; ' Rob Roy,' ii. 60-63 ; ' Old Mor- tality,' ii. 196 Scottish Geographical Society, the Duke's lecture to, ii. 463 ; tribute to the Duke, ii. 593 Scottish Society of Literature and Art, tribute to the Duke, ii. 592 Seals at Tiree, i. 145, 146 Sebastopol, Siege of, i. 250, 474, 475, 478, 488, 494, 496, 500-502, 504, 538, 542, 548, 560, 561, 569, 574, 589 ; fall of, i. 576, 583, ii. 21, 29 Sedan, Battle of, ii. 298 Sedgwick, i. 154, 156, 345, 349 Selborne, Earl of (Sir Roundell Palmer), ii. 208, 210 ;' A Defence of the Church of England,' ii. 320 ; and the Duke's ' Burdens of Be- lief,' ii. 569, 570 ; the Duke's letters to, ii. 262, 314, 319, 320, 390 Seville, i. 242, 243 Seward, Mr., ii. 180, 182 ; denounces England's conduct during Ameri- can Civil War, ii. 212 Shaftesbury, Earl of, i., 98, 223, 266, 277, 541 ; presented with a copy of ' Uncle Tom's Cabin,' ii. 56 ; and Mrs. Stowe, ii. 58, 171 ; on the Duko's speech in defence of Northbrook, ii. 291 Shell-sand of Tiree, i. 139 Shenstone, William, i. 358 Shere AU, Amir of Afghanistan, ii. 330-333 Shrike, great gray, ii. 505 Shrimps, luminous, ii. 464 Silk factory at Salo, i. 210 Silver firs at Inveraray, i. 19 Simpson, General, i. 536, 545 ; Com- mander-in-Chief, Crimea, i. 566- 569, 583 ; resigns, i. 584, 585 Simpson, Sir James, i. 323, 578 ; hi? discovery of anaesthetics, i. 324 ; an appreciation of, i. 326, 327 ; his brain-case, i. 357 Sinope, ' massacre ' of, i. 467 Sirmio, promontory of, i. 210 Skate, electric organs of the, ii. 494, 495 Skeat, ' Dictionary,' ii. 535 Skerry vore Lighthouse, i. 140-147,290 Skye, i. 295 Slavery, negro, in America, ii. 54, 55 Slave-trade in Zanzibar, its suppres- sion, ii. 279, 280 Shdel, a confederate envoy on board the Trent, ii. 178 Smith, Adam, i. 227 Smith, Goldwin, ii. 203 Smith of Jordanhill, James, i. S2,-&'^, 157, 349-352, 576, 577 ; founder of the Glacial Theory, i. 350 632 INDEX Smith, Rev. Sydney, i. 395 ; Maoau- lay's ' flashes of silence,' i. 404 Smith, Vernon, President Board of Control, u. 102, 104 ; on DisraeU's India Bill, ii. 112, 113 Smith, W. Bosworth, ii. 448, 454; his sympathetic letter to the Duchess of Argyll, ii. 587 Smith's Sound, ii. 519 Snipe at Tiree, ii. 508 Somerset, Pitzroy, vide Raglan, Lord Somerville, Mrs., i. 255-257 Sorrento, i. 198 Soudan, the, Gordon's death, ii. 389- 393 Southey, i. 129 Spencer, Herbert, i. 401 ; on natural selection, ii. 492 ; and Lord SaUs- buiy, ii. 494 ; principles of Biology : System of synthetic philosophy, his correspondence with the Duke, ii. 496-499 Spencer, Lord, ii. 254, 353, 428-430 ; letter to the Duchess of Argyll, ii. 585 Spenser, ' Faerie Queene,' ii. 429 Spliigen Pass, i. 259 Spurgeon, Mr., on Home Rule, ii. 414 Squirrels at Inveraray, ii. 506 Stael, Madame de, i. '37-41 Staempfli, Monsieur J., an Alabama arbiter, ii. 213 Staffa, i. 288-290 Stair, Earl of, ii. 450 Stanfield, R.A., C, i. 330 Stanhope, Earl (Lord Mahon), ' His- tory of England,' i. 8, 9, 277, 401, 402 Stanhope, Lady Wilhelmina (after- wards Lady Dahneny, then Duchess of Cleveland), i. 150 Stanley, Dean, ' Life and Letters of Dr. Arnold,' i. 183, 332; at In- verary, ii. 252 ; his sympathetic historical mind, ii. 452 Stanley, Lady Augusta, ii. 452 Stanley, Lord, i. 153, 157, 276, 277, 341, 345, 552 ; Colonial Secretary under Palmerston, i. 590 ; Foreign Secretary under Derby, ii. 211 Stanley, Montague, artist, i. 181 Stanley, Sir Henry M., ii. 513 Stanmore, Lord (Hon. Arthur Gor- don), i. 181, 373, 427 I StarUngs, i. 99 ; the Duke tries to aochmatize American, ii. 505, 506 State, Church and, ii. 312-321 Stevenson, Alan, engineer of the Skerryvore Lighthouse, i. 134, 140- 147, 290 Stevenson, R. Louis, i. 134 Stewart, Dugald, i. 224 Stewart, Messrs., managers of the Kintyre estate, i. 131 Stewart of Allanbank, Sir James, i. 114, ii. 561, 562 Stewart, Lady, i. 114 Stewart, General the Hon. Sir Patrick, Governor of Malta, i. 245 Stint (bird) at Tiree, ii. 508 Stirling, of Manchester, i. 98 Stoneleigh Abbey, deer-park of, i. 102 Storks, at Basle, i. 221 ; their habits at the pairing season, ii. 504 Stormy petrel, ii. 508 Story, American sculptor, i. 194, 254 Stowe, Mrs. Beecher, ' Uncle Tom's Cabin,' her visit to England, ii. 55-64 ; the Duke's description of, ii. 66-58 ; ' Life of,' ii. 57 ; pre- sentation of address to, ii. 58 ; and Duchess of Sutherland, ii. 58, 195; 'A Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin,' ii. 59 ; at Inveraray, visits Rob Roy's stronghold, ii. 60-64 ; and Lord Shaftesbury, ii. 171 Stratford de RedcUffe, Lord, i. 443, 444, 450-453 ; his squabble with Sultan of Turkey, i. 588 StromboK, i. 200 Stuart, Lord Dudley, i. 558 Suffrage, Household, i. 235, 236 Sumner, Charles, leader of the Aboli- tionists in American Senate, i. 411, 412, ii. 182, 203, 207, 572 Sumter, Fort, ii. 170 Sundridge, Baron, the Argylls' formal title in House of Lords, i. 27, 301 Sunium, Cape of, i. 246 Suspensory Bill (1868), the Duke's speech for, ii. 243-245 Sutherland, Duchess of. Mistress of the Robes, i. 149, 185, 223, 236, 264, 295-297, 304, 319, 320, 355, 479 ; and Mrs. Stowe, ii. 58, 59, 195 ; death, ii. 246 Sutherland, George Granville, first Duke of, i. 237 INDEX 633 Sutherland, George Granville, second Duke of, i. 223, 236, 263, 264, 295, 355 ; purchases Clieveden, i. 419 Sweden, proposed treaty with, i. 563, 564, 670, 591, 592 Switzerland, i. 260 Syra, island of, i. 245 Syracuse, i. 200 Table-turning, i. 405, 406 Taganrog taken by Russia from Turkey, i. 438 Tagus River, i. 241 Talleyrand, i. 34 Tangiers, i. 244 Tarbert, Loch, ii. 514 Taunton, Lord. See Labouchere, Henry Taunton, Lady Mary {nee Howard), i. 594 Tay River, i. 185 Taymouth Castle, i. 185-187 Tchemaya, Russian defeat at the, i. 569 Temple, Sir Richard, ii. 274, 291 Tenant Right in Ireland, ii. 255- 259 Tenants' Arbitration (Ireland) Bill, 1894, ii. 469 Tennyson, Lady, ii. 462, 573-575 Tennyson, Lord, i. 129, ii. 192; quoted, i. 74, 94 ; ' Love and Death,' i. 92 ; ' The Two Voices,' i. 167 ; ' The Gardener's Daughter,' i. 233 ; ' Ode on the Death of the Duke of Wellington,' i. 366 ; his lines to V. D. Maurice, i. 400 ; his poems reviewed by Gladstone in Quarterly/ Review, ii. 148 ; his opinion of Irish Church Bill, ii. 251, 252 ; ' Sangreal,' ii. 252, 571, 572 ; iUness of, ii. 462 ; the Duke's close friendship and admiration for, ii. 571, 576 ; ' Sea Dreams,' ii. 572 ; reads proofs of the ' Idylls of the King ' to the Duke, ii. 573 ; the Duke's poem on ' The Burial of Alfred, Lord Tennyson, in Westminster Abbey,' ii. 574 ; ' In Memoriam,' ii. 580 Thatched House Tavern, i. 233, 414, 415 TheodaUnda, Queen, i. 216 Thermopylae, i. 249 Thiers, M., i. 437 Thornton, Mr. T. H., head of thePublic Works Department, India, ii, 274 Thucydides, i. 200, ii. 311 Ticino, Canton of, i. 218, 219 Tientsin, ii. 147 Times, The, i. 238, 344, 384, 536, 588, ii. 135, 205, 330, 393, 497 ; the Duke's letters to, on Italy, ii. 138 ; on Home Rule, ii. 411-416 Th-ee Island, i. 133-147 ; shell-sand of, i. 139 ; great seals of, i. 145, 146 ; famine and emigration, i. 285, 286 ; scenery of, i. 321 ; wild- fowl at, ii. 508 Titmice, i. 70 Tivoli, i. 195 Tocqueville, Alexis de, i. 402 Todleben, General, i. 494 Tone, Wolfe, i. 32, ii. 410 Tractarian Movement, Oxford, i. 184 Tree-creeper (bird), ii. 507 Trent affair, the, ii. 178-182 Trentham, i. 236 Trevelyan, Su: George, ii. 362, 409, 410, 448 Trinity House, Elder Brethren of the, tribute to the Duke, ii. 590 Tron Church, Glasgow, i. 89 Turm, Treaty of, ii. 146 Turkey, and Russia, i. 438-448 ; in- tegrity and independence of, i. 441, ii. 21 ; the Emperor Nicholas' Memorandum, i. 442 ; the con- cession to Russia, i. 467 ; and Treaty of Paris, ii. 26, 27 ; the Bulgarian atrocities, ii. 323, 327 ; war with Russia, ii. 328 ; the Armenian massacres, ii. 469-480 Turner, J. W. M., i. 393 Turnstone (bird), ii. 508 Tyndall, Professor, the Duke's corre- spondence with, ii. 341, 487, 520- 526 Ulster, ii. 430, 432 Ulster custom, ii. 254, 256, 266, 350 ' Unity of Nature,' ii. 545, 557, 576 University tests, Coleridge's Bill for aboUtion of, ii. 309 ' Unseen Foundations of Society,' ii. 551-554 Vaillant, Marshal, i. 554 Val d'Amo, i. 204, 206 Valency, doctrine of, i. 118 634 INDEX Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Bill, 1894, ii. 469 Venetia, ii. 138 Venice, i. 208 ; Piazza of St. Mark, i. 209 Verney, Lady, ii. 460 Verona, the ScAligeri tombs at, i. 213 Versailles, i. 189 VespertUio altivolana, high-flying bat, i. 105 Vesuvius, Mount, i. 197 Veto Law (Church of Scotland), i. 165, 174 Victor Emmanuel II., ii. 137 Victoria, Queen, ascends the throne, i. Ill ; the Duke's first sight of, i. 112, 113 ; opens ParUament, i. 149, 150 ; Lord Melbourne's devo- tion to, i. 151 ; her first visit to Scotland, i. 184 ; at Taymouth Castle, i. 185-187; visits Inveraray, i. 295-297 ; and the Duchess of Sutherland, i. 319, 320 ; Peel and, i. 322 ; opens Great Exhibition of 1851, i. 341 ; Palmerston's conduct, i. 348 ; sends for Lord Aberdeen, i. 369 ; swearing in new Privy Councillors, i. 416 ; second visit to Ireland, i. 461 ; her high bear- ing and courage during the Crimean War, i. 500, 501 ; her views on the Aberdeen Cabinet crisis, i. 520, 521 ; her reception of the Erench Emperor and Empress, i. 547 ; her Memorandum about General Simp- son, i. 569 ; wishes CoKn Campbell to be Commander-in-Chief, i. 587 ; and the peace proposals, i. 599 ; Lord Chelmsford, ii. 86 ; sends for Derby on Palmerston's resigna- tion, ii. 108 ; the ItaUan Question, ii. 142, 143 ; Prince Consort's death, ii. 185-188 ; Cobden on, ii. 188 ; the Duke's Memorandum on Schleswig-Holstein question, ii. 216 ; sends for Derby again, ii. 232 ; sends for Hartington and Gladstone, ii. 348 ; the Duke's Bessborough Commission speech, ii. 381 ; her letter to the Duchess of Argyll, ii. 549 ; her Diamond Jubilee, ii. 555, 556 ; the Duke's lines to, and correspondence with, ii. 557 ; her letter of sympathy to the Duchess of Argyll, ii. 584 Vienna Conference, i. 548-557, 561- 563 ; Treaty, ii. 213, 214 Vigo, i. 240 Villafranca, peace of, ii. 138, 142 VilUers, Charles, his annual motion for total repeal of duty on corn, i. 271, 274 ; a leaky Cabinet, i. 460 Virgil, his images from Nature, i. 83 Volo, Gulf of, i. 249 Volunteer system, ii. 147 Waloheren Expedition, i. 44 Wales, Prince of, ii. 591 Walewska, Madame, i. 597 Walewski, Count, French Ambas- sador, i. 346 ; Foreign Minister, i. 589, 596-598; Plenipotentiary, ii. 45, 46, 107 Wallace, Sir WiUiam, i. 266 Wallace, Mr., ii. 487 Walpole, Mr., ii. 199 Walpole, Sir Robert, i. 9, 153 Walter, Mr., of the Times, ii. 447 Warsaw, Grand Duchy of, i. 583, 584 Warwickshire scenery, i. 100 Washington, Treaty of, ii. 212 Waterloo, field of, i. 260, 261 Water-ousel (dipper), ii. 565 ; the Duke's ' Song of the,' ii. 566 Watson, WilUam, ii. 677 Wellesley, Marquis of, Governor- General of India, i. 553 Wellington, Duke of, afraid of Ire- land, i. 64, ii. 376 ; all offices of the State temporarily held by, i. 69 ; O'Connell on, i. 154 ; the case for the Church of Scotland, i. 176, 179 ; at Waterloo, i. 260, 261 ; deUghted with Peel's resolute atti- tude, i. 274 ; Disraeli's patron, i. 280 ; and the Chartists in 1848, i. 303 ; the Duke's interview with and description of, i. 315-318 ; at the 1851 Exhibition, i. 341 ; funeral of, i. 366-368 ; Peninsular War, i. 378, 505; on Thomas Grenville, i. 395 ; the Russo- Turkish War of 1828-29, i. 439 ; the ' illustrious,' ii. 552 Wemyss, Lord and Lady, i. 235, 315 Wensleydale, Lord (Baron Parke), ii. 11, 12, 14-16 Westbury, Lord (Richard Bethell), Lord Chancellor, ii. 66-69 INDEX 635 Westminster Confession, i. 90, ii. 308 Westminster, Constance, Duchess of {nie Leveson-Gower), i. 264 Westminster Hall banquet, the Duke's speech on the Unionist cause at, ii. 460 Wexford Bridge, massacre at, i. 32 Whalebone, ii. 490 Wharnoliffe, Lord, ii. 386, 387 Whately, ii. 58 WheweU, Professor, Master of Trinity, ' History of the Inductive Sciences,' i. 357, 678 ; his brain- case, i. 357 Whistling on the Sabbath, i. 91 Whitbread, ]\Ir., ii. 420 White, Gilbert, ' Natural History of Selbome,' i. 82, ii. 569 Whittier, John G. W., ii. 198 Whitworth, Lord, Ambassador at Paris, i. 34, 35 ; Napoleon's rude- ness to, i. 36 ; departure from Paris, i. 39 Wilberforce, Samuel, Dean of West- minster, Bishop of Oxford, i. 396 ; the word Presbjrterian, i. 397 ; his breakfast-parties, i. 402 ; the table- turning incident, i. 406 Wilberforce, William, i. 396, ii. 55 Wild-fowl at Tiree, ii. 508 Wilkes, Captain, U.S. sloop San Jacinto, ii. 178-183 Wilkes, John, i. 15 William I., of Prussia, i. 335 ; of Germany, ii. 295, 296 William IV., i. 30 WiUiams, General, i. 602 Williams, Rev., of Hedsor, i. 480 Willow-wren, on the Pincian Hill, Rome, i. 201 ; at Argyll Lodge, ii. 336 ; the Duke's poem on the song of, ii. 560 Wilson, Professor, ' Christopher North,' i. 234, 235 Wilson, Professor George, author of biographies of Cavendish, Dr. John Reid, etc., i. 324-326 Windsor Forest and Castle, i. Ill, 112 Wolf, the German bird-painter, ii. 338 Wood at Helmsdale, fossilized, i. 355, 356 Wood, Sir Charles, President of the Board of Control in Aberdeen's and Palmerston's Ministries, i. 381, 385 ; ii. 98 ; his India Bill, i. 420, 432 ; and Gladstone's income-tax scheme, i. 428 ; supports peace, i. 456, 457 ; defends his estimates, ii. 72 ; and the Duke's speech on India, ii. 106 ; Secretary for India in Palmerston's second Ministry, ii. 137 ; on Derby's Reform Bill, ii. 132 ; resigns India Office, ii. 229 Woodpecker, ii. 337, 338 ; great spotted, ii. 505 Wood-wren (Sylvia trochilus), i. 82, ii. 106 Wordsworth, the Duke a pupil of, ii. 570 ; ' rhymes should seem as inevitable as possible,' ii. 576 Workmen's Demonstration Com- mittee, ii. 324 Wryneck, ii. 336, 338 Yakub, Amir of Afghanistan, ii. 333 Yellow-hammer, ii. 507 Young, Lord Advocate, ii. 315 Zanzibar and Muscat, ii. 277 ; Frere's special mission to, ii. 279, 280 Zoology, ii. 500-508 THE END BILLING AND SONS, LTD., PRINTERS, GUILDFORD