Part 19

NOTE 26, p. 174.—The wit of this passage consists in its use of the expression “out-door relief.” In England the poor laws provide for two kinds of relief—that afforded in the work-houses and that afforded to the poor in their own homes. The latter is popularly known as “out-door relief.”

NOTE 27, p. 175.—When the claim of Denmark to the Duchies of Schleswig-Holstein came forward, in consequence of the death of the last ducal peer, England decided that she had no right to interfere, though the claims of Denmark were earnestly pressed by the Crown Princess of England, a daughter of the Danish king. The question was finally taken up by Prussia, in opposition to the claims of Denmark, in a manner that aroused the hostility of Austria, and brought on the war of 1866 between Austria and Prussia.

NOTE 28, p. 176.—In 1830 the governments of Great Britain, France, and Russia entered into a treaty, establishing and guaranteeing the constitutional monarchy of Greece. This was in effect acknowledging the independence of Greece from Turkey, and guaranteeing to defend that independence. Mr. Bright could hardly mean to be understood as objecting to such a guarantee. A loan, furnished by the Rothschilds, of £2,343,750 was also guaranteed by the three powers, each being responsible for one third. As the Greek Government did not pay, the guarantors were held responsible; and in 1866 the amount that had been paid by England was £1,060,385. This, of course, was held as a claim against Greece. In 1866 a convention of the powers agreed that the Greek Government should pay £12,000 a year till all is liquidated.—Martin’s “Statesman’s Year-Book for 1873,” p. 285.

NOTE 29, p. 176.—“Animated by the desire of maintaining the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire as a security for the peace of Europe,” is the avowal of the object of the treaty of July 15, 1840, entered into at London by all the powers except France. The occasion of it was the revolt of Egypt under Mehemet Ali.—Phillimore, “Int. Law,” i., 86.

NOTE 30, p. 177.—As indicated in NOTE 22, the diplomatic act which precipitated the Crimean War was the offensive alliance of England and France against Russia. The cause of this alliance was the attitude of Prussia, which at that time was very weak, and was under the powerful influence of Russia. After the practical withdrawal of Prussia from her treaty obligations to protect Turkey, Austria decided not to venture upon war without the coöperation of Prussia, unless her own Danubian principalities should be threatened. The withdrawal of Russia from the mouth of the Danube, and the transfer of the seat of war to the Crimea, left Austria free to decline to act with England and France. Some of the diplomatic correspondence was spirited, though perhaps it is going too far to call it either “offensive” or “insolent.”

NOTE 31, p. 177.—It is an established principle of international usage that no nation is obliged to accept or retain a foreign minister that is offensive to it, and any nation has a right to request the recall of a minister who is for any reason offensive to it. In 1789 Jefferson requested the French Government to recall Count de Moustier because he was “politically and morally offensive.”—Trescott’s “Am. Dip. Hist.,” 34. America requested the recall of Genet, and France in turn requested the recall of Morris, in 1794, for political reasons.—Hildreth, 2d series, i., 477. America also requested the recall of Poussin in 1849.—“Ammaire,” xl., 665. In 1872 the Russian minister Catacazy engaged in writing political articles for the _New York Herald_ offensive to the government, and his recall was requested. In 1809 the English Government was requested to recall Minister Jackson from Washington, “for questioning the word of the Government.” The case alluded to by Mr. Bright was doubtless that of Sir John Crampton, whose recall was requested in 1856, because he was found to be enlisting troops in the United States for the Crimean War.—“Am. Reg. for 1856,” 277; “Ex. Docs. Thirty-fourth Congress,” 107. In all these cases the request was acceded to without delay. According to Phillimore, ii., 149: “It is in the discretion of the receiving state to refuse the reception of a certain diplomatic agent.”

NOTE 32, p. 177.—This is a very immoderate statement, certainly not justified by the facts. Everybody conceded that “Don Pacifico” had a claim that was not “false.” The only question in dispute was whether the claim ought not to have been first presented to the Greek courts. See Note 19.

NOTE 33, p. 177.—In 1856 the conduct of the King of Naples toward political offenders was so tyrannical as to be a scandal to all Christendom. The governments of England and France addressed a remonstrance to the government of Naples “upon the general maladministration of justice in that country, and upon the danger thereby accruing to the Italian peninsula especially, and generally to the peace of Europe.” As the remonstrance was rejected by the King of Naples, England and France showed their condemnation of the internal policy of the Neapolitan Government by withdrawing their ambassadors, as under the law of nations they had a perfect right to do. See Phillimore, ii., 148, and iii. Preface, ix.

NOTE 34, p. 177.—In 1856 Lord Dalhousie, Governor-General of India, annexed the kingdom of Oude under the following circumstances: The East India Company had bound themselves by treaty “to defend the sovereigns of Oude against foreign and domestic enemies, on condition that _the State should be governed in such a manner as to render the lives and property of its population safe_.” Lord Dalhousie found on investigation that “while the Company performed their part of the contract, the King of Oude so governed his dominions as to make his rule a curse to his own people, and to all neighboring territories.” McCarthy (“Hist. of Our Own Time,” Eng. ed., iii., 61), though an extreme Liberal in his sympathies, speaks of Lord Dalhousie’s act as “not only justifiable, but actually inevitable.” The act was only one of many causes of the Sepoy rebellion. The language of the orator seems altogether extravagant and unwarranted.

NOTE 35, p. 178.—The “Opium War” of 1839, and the “Lorcha Arrow War” of 1856, are now generally and justly condemned. But to say that “no man with a spark of morality in his composition,” or “who cares any thing for the opinion of his fellow-countrymen,” “has dared to justify that war,” is scarcely less than an absurd and amusing exaggeration. The election of 1856 turned expressly on the justification of Lord Palmerston in the “Lorcha Arrow War,” and it was Bright’s opposition to the war which caused his defeat at Birmingham, and obliged him to take a seat for Manchester. The causes of both of these wars are given with admirable spirit in McCarthy’s “History of Our Own Time,” chapters viii. and ix. Cobden also lost his seat for opposition to the war.

NOTE 36, p. 179.—At the conclusion of the Chinese War in 1858 there were some who desired a foothold in Japan. Lord Elgin went to the Japanese capital and succeeded in negotiating a treaty of “peace, friendship, and commerce,” the first concluded by Japan with any Western power. This treaty, signed Aug. 26, 1858, and ratified July 11, 1859, is given in “Am. Reg.,” ci., 216, 268.

NOTE 37, p. 182.—This statement is very difficult to understand. The exports of British produce have varied not very greatly during the past twenty years. In 1873 the exports amounted to £255,164,603. This amount declined with considerable regularity till 1879, when it was £191,531,756. It then began to increase, and in 1883 reached £241,461,162. Martin, “Statesman’s Year-Book, for 1884,” 264. It seems impossible to reconcile these figures with Mr. Bright’s statements, unless he means _profit_ instead of “trade.”

NOTE 38, p. 182.—The facts do not justify this statement. At the time of the Peace of Paris, in September, 1815, the national debt of Great Britain was £900,436,845. In March of 1855 it had been diminished to £808,518,448, £91,918,397 having been paid off. The two years of the Crimean War increased the debt by £30,399,995. But since March, 1857, the decrease has been £82,541,924, leaving the debt March 31, 1883, £756,376,519, a diminution of £144,060,326 since 1815. By a law of 1875 provision was made for the gradual extinction of the debt by means of a sinking fund to be annually provided for in the budget. In 1883 a bill passed providing still further for a series of terminable annuities, by which, in the next twenty years, £173,000,000 will be paid.—Martin, “Statesman’s Year-Book, for 1884,” 230.

NOTE 39, p. 186.—This is not quite accurately stated. At the time of the _coup d’état_ Lord Palmerston was Minister of Foreign Affairs. He did indeed in a conversation with Count Walewski, the French Ambassador at London, express his approval of the course of the French Government, but so far from speaking “ostensibly for the cabinet, for the sovereign, and the English nation,” he offered simply his private opinion. The English Government formally determined upon a course of the strictest neutrality; and when it was found that Palmerston’s approval had been sent by Walewski to France, the message was not only disavowed, but Palmerston was summarily dismissed. See McCarthy, ii., chap. xxii., 148–154, Eng. ed. The _coup d’état_ was in December, 1851; but there was no alliance till August of 1853, long after the people of France had given their sanction to the empire.

NOTE 40, p. 192.—This hardly accords with what the orator said a few moments ago of India—“a vast country which we do not know how to govern.” The East India Company’s power was broken by the Sepoy rebellion, and the government was transferred to the crown in 1858. The government of Canada was made substantially what it now is, on the recommendation of Lord Durham, in 1839.

NOTE 41, p. 195.—The aggregate number of paupers has changed but slightly during the last twenty years. In 1874 the total number in England and Wales was 829,281; in 1883, 799,296. But in Ireland the number has increased from 79,050 in 1874 to 115,684 in 1883. In Scotland the number has diminished from 111,996 in 1873, to 95,081 in 1882.—Martin, “Statesman’s Year-Book, for 1884,” 253, 257, 261.

NOTE 42, p. 223.—The daily political duties of the Queen are described somewhat in detail in Ewald’s “The Crown and its Advisers,” where the influence of the crown is held to be much greater than it has sometimes been supposed to be. In 1850 the question was very fully considered by the government, and the requirement of the Queen, that no important action should be taken that had not first received her consideration and sanction, was set forth in a “memorandum” written to the Prime-Minister. Because of a violation of the principles set forth in this memorandum, Lord Palmerston was dismissed in the following year. The details of the controversy, which ended in the more complete establishment of the constitutional principle, are given in McCarthy, “History of Our Own Time,” chap. xxii., Eng. ed., vol. ii., pp. 124–163.

NOTE 43, p. 224.—The ablest and most suggestive discussion of this important topic is to be found in Bagehot’s volume on “The English Constitution.” In the second chapter the author, with characteristic ability, traces “how the actions of a retired widow and an unemployed youth became of such importance” to the English people.

NOTE 44, p. 224.—Reference is here made to Sir Charles Dilke’s speech at Nottingham adverted to in the sketch of the orator.

NOTE 45, p. 226.—The salaries of English ministers are fixed not by Parliament but by the ministers themselves. This subject was considered at length in 1831, and again in 1834, when it was held in Parliament that the determination of salaries of executive officers is an executive and not a legislative function. The salaries, therefore, are fixed by the government, and are included in the budget presented to the Commons. The ministers, of course, act in full view of their responsibility; but the estimates for salaries have never, except in one instance, been modified. The salaries of ministers in England are generally £5,000, though that of the Lord Chancellor, who is at the head of the Department of Justice, is £10,000. The salary of the President of the United States was $25,000 until 1872, when it was fixed by Congress at $50,000. On the salaries of English officials, see Todd, “Parliamentary Government in England,” i., 396–420. Members of Parliament, as such, receive no salaries whatever.

NOTE 46, 231.—In Bagehot’s “English Constitution,” chap. iv., is a very brilliant and suggestive discussion of the several political as well as social functions of the House of Lords. In this chapter, p. 100, Eng. ed., is to be found a remarkable letter of Lord Wellington to Lord Derby on “managing” the House of Lords. Bagehot argues that a second or revising chamber, to perform its work well, must have “independence,” “leisure,” and “intelligence,” and that on the whole these qualities are found in large measure in the House of Lords. Though many of the lords are ignorant of political affairs, the ignorant ones generally are so good as to remain away from the House and leave matters in the hands of those who are not ignorant.

NOTE 47, p. 232.—The question of raising persons to a life peerage has often been considered in England. In 1856 Lord Wensleydale was summoned “for and during the term of his natural life,” in imitation of what had been done four hundred years before; but the measure awakened violent opposition on the part of the House of Lords, which held that the independence of the House was thereby imperilled. The House decided that although the crown had the right to create “life peers,” such peers had no right to sit and vote in the House of Peers. After this decision, Lord Wensleydale did not attempt to take his seat, until shortly afterward he was created an hereditary peer as Baron Parke.—Hansard clviii. 1457, 1469; Todd, i. 368. In this same year a committee of the House of Lords was appointed to further consider the question, and reported recommending a statute “to confer life peerages upon two persons who had served for five years as judges, and that they should sit with the Lord Chancellor, as Judges of Appeal.” A bill founded on this recommendation passed the Lords, but was thrown out by the Commons. The principle was revived, however, in the “Appellate Jurisdiction Act of 1876,” by which provision was made for the constant presence in the House of Lords of four “Lords of Appeal in Ordinary,” to rank as Barons. They are selected from those who have held “high judicial office” and their dignity “does not descend to their heirs.”—Amos’ “Fifty Years of the English Constitution.” 19.

NOTE 48, p. 233.—This suggestion probably had its origin in the organization of the Roman Senate, which was made up of persons appointed for life from those who had been elected to the higher offices in the state.

NOTE 49, p. 235.—The period referred to was that immediately after 1832. The reformed parliament was strongly Liberal, and several measures were proposed to alter the constitution of the House of Lords. The headlong rate of the reformers was checked by the accession of the opposite party in 1835; but O’Connell was still clamorous for reform of the Lords, and in May of 1836 he introduced a resolution to make the Upper House elective, but the motion was received with universal derision.—Martineau, “Hist. of the Peace,” iii. 552.

NOTE 50, p. 238.—After the Reform Bill of 1832 was passed it was soon evident that it would have to be supplemented. Again and again attempts were made to carry a measure that would extend the franchise on the same principles as those acted on in 1832. But the nobility and the middle classes appeared to have no further interest in reform. Meantime there were others who had thought of reform in a different method. As early as 1821 Lord Durham had proposed the establishment of electoral districts, essentially according to the custom in America. In 1859, when Derby and Disraeli were in power, Disraeli introduced a bill enlarging the suffrage and essentially modifying the methods of determining qualifications. But this, too, failed. Another reform bill was introduced by Palmerston’s government in 1860, and still another by Gladstone in 1866. But all were unsuccessful till Mr. Disraeli’s bill of 1867. This was founded on the principle that the franchise should depend on permanency of interest, rather than amount of tax paid.—McCarthy, iv., 94–117; Molesworth, iii., 303–347.

NOTE 51, p. 248.—On the question here raised, there is a great variety of opinion, but the best authorities will accept the statement of the orator as substantially correct. The most careful consideration of the question has been presented in “Six Centuries of Work and Wages,” by Professor Thorold Rogers, who has devoted many years to the subject, and is unquestionably the highest living authority. On p. 522 (Am. ed.) he says: “Through nearly three centuries the condition of the English laborer was that of plenty and hope; from perfectly intelligible causes it sunk within a century to so low a level as to make the workman practically helpless, and the lowest point was reached just about the outbreak of the great war between King and Parliament. From this time it gradually improved, till in the first half of the eighteenth century, though still far below the level of the fifteenth, it achieved comparative plenty. Then it began to sink again, and the workmen experienced the direst misery during the great continental war. Latterly, almost within our own memory and knowledge, it has experienced a slow and partial improvement, the causes of which are to be found in the liberation of industry from protective laws, in the adoption of certain principles which restrained employment in some directions, and, most of all, in the concession to laborers of the right, so long denied, of forming labor partnerships.”

NOTE 52, p. 257.—The rate of increase in the population of Great Britain is such that there need be no especial alarm. In 1879, according to the official statistics, the number of births in Great Britain and Ireland in excess of the deaths was 436,780, while in France it was only 96,647. To every 10,000 inhabitants in Great Britain the annual addition is 101, while in France it is only 96. In Germany it is 115; in the United States (largely through immigration, of course) it is 260. The number of births per 1,000 in France is annually 26; in Switzerland, 30; in Denmark, 31; in Belgium, 32; in England, 35; in Austria, 38; in Saxony, 40; and in Russia, 50.—Raoul Frary, “Le National Peril”; also “Bradstreet’s” for Oct. 27, 1883, on “Vital Statistics,” 259.

NOTE 53, p. 257.—The question most prominently before the English people at the time of the fall of Disraeli’s government in December of 1868 was the bill for disestablishing the Irish Church. This was the real issue at the election in November, and is what Disraeli called the policy of “violence.” The local reference was doubtless to the fact that Mr. Gladstone and Lord Hartington were both defeated in Lancashire as candidates for the House of Commons. Gladstone, however, accepted a seat for Greenwich.

NOTE 54, p. 258.—Lord Mayo, in consequence of his successful administration of the affairs of Ireland, was appointed by Disraeli’s Ministry Viceroy of India. He was assassinated early in 1872. His administration was such as to win the admiration of all discriminating men of all parties.

NOTE 55, p. 259.—When Mr. Gladstone came into power in 1868, one of his early measures was bill for the disendowment of the Irish State Church. The controversy over the measure was one of great earnestness, but it was finally carried and went into effect January 1, 1871. This was followed by the Irish Land Bill, which aimed to overthrow the doctrine of the landlord’s absolute and unlimited rights, and to recognize certain property of the tenant in the land. This doctrine was carried still further in the Irish Land Bill of 1882.—McCarthy, chap. lviii.

NOTE 56, p. 260.—This subject is well presented in McCarthy’s chap. lix., “Reformation in a Flood.” For a list of the most important of these measures, see the Introduction to Mr. Gladstone.

NOTE 57, p. 263.—The “Captain” was a six-gun turret-ship, which, with a crew of five hundred men, foundered at sea on the 7th of September, 1870. The court of enquiry found that the disaster was owing to faulty construction of the vessel, which had been built “in deference to public opinion, as expressed in Parliament and through other channels, and in opposition to the views and opinions of the Controller of the Navy.”—“Ann. Reg. for 1870,” 107, 119. The “Megara” was an iron screw troop-ship that was run aground in a sinking state at St. Paul’s, Ireland, June 19, 1871. The commissioners of enquiry into the causes of the disaster reported their “decided opinion that the state and condition of the ‘Megara’ was such that she ought never to have been selected for the voyage.” After giving the details that led to their conclusion, the commissioners said: “It is with reluctance and pain that we express unfavorable opinions with respect to the conduct of officers and the management of a great department.”—“Ann. Reg. for 1881,” 96, and for 1882, 257, 260.

NOTE 58, p. 263.—This had been suggested by Mr. Lowe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

NOTE 59, p. 266.—Mr. Cobden was of the same opinion. In 1854 he said: “I look back with regret on the vote which changed Lord Derby’s government; I regret the result of that motion, for it has cost the country a hundred millions of treasure and between thirty and forty thousand good lives.”—Morley’s “Life of Cobden,” Eng. ed., ii., 151.

NOTE 60, p. 267.—During the Civil War Mr. Gladstone as well as Lord Russell had inclined to favor the Southern cause by a recognition of the Southern States. To this Mr. Disraeli and Lord Stanley (the present Lord Derby) were strenuously opposed. During Mr. Disraeli’s first administration Lord Stanley was Secretary of State for Foreign affairs.