The opening of the session of 1881 at once brought obstruction into full view. The Irish took up their position as a party of action. They spoke incessantly; as Mr. Gladstone put it, "sometimes rising to the level of mediocrity, and more often grovelling amidst mere trash in unbounded profusion." Obstruction is obstruction all the world over. It was not quite new at Westminster, but it was new on this scale. Closure proposals sprang up like mushrooms. Liberal members with a historical bent ran privately to the Speaker with ancient precedents of dictatorial powers a.s.serted by his official ancestors, and they exhorted him to revive them.
Mr. Forster brought in his bill. Its scope may be described in a sentence.
It practically enabled the viceroy to lock up anybody he pleased, and to detain him as long as he pleased, while the Act remained in force.(38) The debate for leave to introduce the bill lasted several days, without any sign of coming to an end. Here is the Speaker"s account of his own memorable act in forcing a close:-
_Monday, Jan. 31._-The House was boiling over with indignation at the apparent triumph of obstruction, and Mr. _G_., yielding to the pressure of his friends, committed himself unwisely, as I thought, to a continuous sitting on this day in order to force the bill through its first stage.
On Tuesday, after a sitting of twenty-four hours, I saw plainly that this attempt to carry the bill by continuous sitting would fail, the Parnell party being strong in numbers, discipline, and organisation, and with great gifts of speech. I reflected on the situation, and came to the conclusion that it was my duty to extricate the House from the difficulty by closing the debate of my own authority, and so a.s.serting the undoubted will of the House against a rebellious minority. I sent for Mr. G. on Tuesday (Feb.
1), about noon, and told him that I should be prepared to put the question in spite of obstruction on the following conditions: 1.
That the debate should be carried on until the following morning, my object in this delay being to mark distinctly to the outside world the extreme gravity of the situation, and the necessity of the step which I was about to take. 2. That he should reconsider the regulation of business, either by giving more authority to the House, or by conferring authority on the Speaker.
He agreed to these conditions, and summoned a meeting of the cabinet, which a.s.sembled in my library at four P.M. on Tuesday while the House was sitting, and I was in the chair. At that meeting the resolution as to business a.s.sumed the shape in which it finally appeared on the following Thursday, it having been previously considered at former meetings of the cabinet. I arranged with Playfair to take the chair on Tuesday night about midnight, engaging to resume it on Wednesday morning at nine.
Accordingly at nine I took the chair, Biggar being in possession of the House. I rose, and he resumed his seat. I proceeded with my address as concerted with May, and when I had concluded I put the question. The scene was most dramatic; but all pa.s.sed off without disturbance, the Irish party on the second division retiring under protest.
I had communicated, with Mr. G."s approval, my intention to close the debate to Northcote, but to no one else, except May, from whom I received much a.s.sistance. Northcote was startled, but expressed no disapproval of the course proposed.
So ended the memorable sitting of January 31. At noon, on February 2, the House a.s.sembled in much excitement. The question was put challenging the Speaker"s conduct. "I answered," he says, "on the spur of the moment that I had acted on my own responsibility, and from a sense of duty to the House. I never heard such loud and protracted cheering, none cheering more loudly than Gladstone." "The Speaker"s firmness in mind," Mr. Gladstone reported to the Queen, "his suavity in manner, his unwearied patience, his incomparable temper, under a thousand provocations, have rendered possible a really important result."
IV
After coercion came a land bill, and here Mr. Gladstone once more displayed his unequalled mastery of legislative skill and power. He had to explain and be ready to explain again and again, what he told Lord Selborne was "the most difficult measure he had ever known to come under the detailed consideration of a cabinet." It was no affair this time of speeches out of a railway carriage, or addressed to excited mult.i.tudes in vast halls. That might be, if you so pleased, "the empty verbosity of exuberant rhetoric"; but n.o.body could say that of the contest over the complexities of Irish tenure, against the clever and indomitable Irish experts who fought under the banner of Mr. Parnell. Northcote was not far wrong when he said that though the bill was carried by two to one, there was hardly a man in the House beyond the Irish ranks who cared a straw about it. Another critic said that if the prime minister had asked the House to pa.s.s the _Koran_ or the _Nautical Almanac_ as a land bill, he would have met no difficulty.
The history of the session was described as the carriage of a single measure by a single man. Few British members understood it, none mastered it. The whigs were disaffected about it, the radicals doubted it, the tories thought that property as a principle was ruined by it, the Irishmen, when the humour seized them, bade him send the bill to line trunks. Mr. Gladstone, as one observer truly says, "faced difficulties such as no other bill of this country has ever encountered, difficulties of politics and difficulties of law, difficulties of principle and difficulties of detail, difficulties of party and difficulties of personnel, difficulties of race and difficulties of cla.s.s, and he has never once failed, or even seemed to fail, in his clear command of the question, in his dignity and authority of demeanour, in his impartiality in accepting amending suggestions, in his firmness in resisting destructive suggestions, in his clear perception of his aim, and his strong grasp of the fitting means. And yet it is hardly possible to appreciate adequately the embarra.s.sments of the situation."
Enough has already been said of the legislation of 1870, and its establishment of the principle that Irish land is not the subject of an undivided ownership, but a partnership.(39) The act of 1870 failed because it had too many exceptions and limitations; because in administration the compensation to the tenant for disturbance was inadequate; and because it did not fix the cultivator in his holding. Things had now ripened. The Richmond Commission shortly before had pointed to a court for fixing rents; that is, for settling the terms of the partnership. A commission nominated by Mr. Gladstone and presided over by Lord Bessborough had reported early in 1881 in favour not only of fair rents to be settled by a tribunal, but of fixity of tenure or the right of (M23) the tenant to remain in his holding if he paid his rent, and of free sale; that is, his right to part with his interest. These "three F"s" were the substance of the legislation of 1881.
Rents could not be paid, and landlords either would not or could not reduce them. In the deepest interests of social order, and in confirmation of the tenant"s equitable and customary ownership, the only course open to the imperial legislature was to erect machinery for fixing fair rents. The alternative to what became matter of much objurgation as dual ownership, was a single ownership that was only a short name for allowing the landlord to deal as he liked with the equitable interest of the tenant.
Without the machinery set up by Mr. Gladstone, there could be no security for the protection of the cultivator"s interest. What is more, even in view of a wide and general extension of the policy of buying out the landlord and turning the tenant into single owner, still a process of valuation for purposes of fair price would have been just as indispensable, as under the existing system was the tiresome and costly process of valuation for purposes of fair rent. It is true that if the policy of purchase had been adopted, this process would have been performed once for all. But opinion was not nearly ready either in England or Ireland for general purchase. And as Mr. Gladstone had put it to Bright in 1870, to turn a little handful of occupiers into owners would not have touched the fringe of the case of the bulk of the Irish cultivators, then undergoing acute mischief and urgently crying for prompt relief. Mr.
Bright"s idea of purchase, moreover, a.s.sumed that the buyer would come with at least a quarter of the price in his hand,-an a.s.sumption not consistent with the practical possibilities of the case.
The legislation of 1881 no doubt encountered angry criticism from the English conservative, and little more than frigid approval from the Irish nationalist. It offended the fundamental principle of the landlords; its administration and the construction of some of its leading provisions by the courts disappointed and irritated the tenant party. Nevertheless any attempt in later times to impair the authority of the Land Act of 1881 brought the fact instantly to light, that the tenant knew it to be the fundamental charter of his redemption from worse than Egyptian bondage. In measuring this great agrarian law, not only by parliamentary force and legislative skill and power, but by the vast and abiding depth of its social results, both direct and still more indirect, many will be disposed to give it the highest place among Mr. Gladstone"s achievements as lawmaker.
Fault has sometimes been found with Mr. Gladstone for not introducing his bill in the session of 1880. If this had been done, it is argued, Ireland would have been appeased, no coercion would have been necessary, and we should have been spared disastrous parliamentary exasperations and all the other mischiefs and perils of the quarrel between England and Ireland that followed. Criticism of this kind overlooks three facts. Neither Mr.
Gladstone nor Forster nor the new House of Commons was at all ready in 1880 to accept the Three F"s. Second, the Bessborough commission had not taken its evidence, and made its momentous report. Third, this argument a.s.sumes motives in Mr. Parnell, that probably do not at all cover the whole ground of his policy. As it happened, I called on Mr. Gladstone one morning early in 1881. "You have heard," I asked, "that the Bessborough commission are to report for the Three F"s?" "I have not heard," he said; "it is incredible!" As so often comes to pa.s.s in politics, it was only a step from the incredible to the indispensable. But in 1880 the indispensable was also the impossible. It was the cruel winter of 1880-1 that made much difference.
In point of endurance the session was one of the most remarkable on record. The House of Commons sat 154 days and for 1400 hours; some 240 of these hours were after midnight. Only three times since the Reform bill had the House sat for more days; only once, in 1847, had the total number of hours been exceeded and that only by seven, and never before had the House sat so many hours after midnight. On the Coercion bill the House sat continuously once for 22 hours, and once for 41. The debates on the Land bill took up 58 sittings, and the Coercion bill 22. No such length of discussion, Mr. Gladstone told the Queen, (M24) was recorded on any measure since the committee on the first Reform bill. The Reform bill of 1867 was the only measure since 1843 that took as many as 35 days of debate. The Irish Church bill took 21 days and the Land bill of 1870 took 25. Of the 14,836 speeches delivered, 6315 were made by Irish members. The Speaker and chairman of committees interposed on points of order nearly 2000 times during the session. Mr. Parnell, the Speaker notes, "with his minority of 24 dominates the House. When will the House take courage and reform its procedure?" After all, the suspension of _habeas corpus_ is a thing that men may well think it worth while to fight about, and a revolution in a country"s land-system might be expected to take up a good deal of time.
V
It soon appeared that no miracle had been wrought by either Coercion Act or Land Act. Mr. Parnell drew up test cases for submission to the new land court. His advice to the army of tenants would depend, he said, on the fate of these cases. In September Mr. Forster visited Hawarden, and gave a bad account of the real meaning of Mr. Parnell"s plausible propositions for sending test cases to the newly established land commission, as well as of other ugly circ.u.mstances. "It is quite clear as you said," wrote Mr.
Gladstone to Forster in Ireland, "that Parnell means to present cases which the commission must refuse, and then to treat their refusal as showing that they cannot be trusted, and that the bill has failed." As he interpreted it afterwards, there was no doubt that in one sense the Land Act tended to accelerate a crisis in Ireland, for it brought to a head the affairs of the party connected with the land league. It made it almost a necessity for that party either to advance or to recede. They chose the desperate course. At the same date, he wrote in a letter to Lord Granville:-
With respect to Parnellism, I should not propose to do more than a severe and strong denunciation of it by severing him altogether from the Irish people and the ma.s.s of the Irish members, and by saying that home rule has for one of its aims local government-an excellent thing to which I would affix no limits except the supremacy of the imperial parliament, and the rights of all parts of the country to claim whatever might be accorded to Ireland.
This is only a repet.i.tion of what I have often said before, and I have nothing to add or enlarge. But I have the fear that when the occasion for action comes, which will not be in my time, many liberals may perhaps hang back and may cause further trouble.
In view of what was to come four years later, one of his letters to Forster is interesting (April 12, 1882), among other reasons as ill.u.s.trating the depth to which the essence of political liberalism had now penetrated Mr. Gladstone"s mind:-
1. About local government for Ireland, the ideas which more and more establish themselves in my mind are such as these.
(1.) Until we have seriously responsible bodies to deal with us in Ireland, every plan we frame comes to Irishmen, say what we may, as an English plan. As such it is probably condemned. At best it is a one-sided bargain, which binds us, not them.
(2.) If your excellent plans for obtaining local aid towards the execution of the law break down, it will be on account of this miserable and almost total want of the sense of responsibility for the public good and public peace in Ireland; and this responsibility we cannot create except through local self-government.
(3.) If we say we must postpone the question till the state of the country is more fit for it, I should answer that the least danger is in going forward at once. It is liberty alone which fits men for liberty. This proposition, like every other in politics, has its bounds; but it is far safer than the counter doctrine, wait till they are fit.
(4.) In truth I should say (differing perhaps from many), that for the Ireland of to-day, the first question is the rectification of the relations between landlord and tenant, which happily is going on; the next is to relieve Great Britain from the enormous weight of the government of Ireland unaided by the people, and from the hopeless contradiction in which we stand while we give a parliamentary representation, hardly effective for anything but mischief without the local inst.i.tutions of self-government which it presupposes, and on which alone it can have a sound and healthy basis.
We have before us in administration, he wrote to Forster in September-
a problem not less delicate and arduous than the problem of legislation with which we have lately had to deal in parliament.
Of the leaders, the officials, the skeleton of the land league I have no hope whatever. The better the prospects of the Land Act with their adherents outside the circle of wire-pullers, and with the Irish people, the more bitter will be their hatred, and the more sure they will be to go as far as fear of the people will allow them in keeping up the agitation, which they cannot afford to part with on account of their ulterior ends. All we can do is to turn more and more the ma.s.ses of their followers, to fine them down by good laws and good government, and it is in this view that the question of judicious releases from prison, should improving statistics of crime encourage it, may become one of early importance.
VI
It was in the autumn of 1881 that Mr. Gladstone visited Leeds, in payment of the debt of grat.i.tude due for his triumphant return in the general election of the year before. This progress extended over four days, and almost surpa.s.sed in magnitude and fervour any of his experiences in other parts of the kingdom. We have an interesting glimpse of the physical effort of such experiences in a couple of his letters written to Mr.
Kitson, who with immense labour and spirit had organized this severe if glorious enterprise:-
_Hawarden Castle, Sept. 28, 1881._-I thank you for the very clear and careful account of the proposed proceedings at Leeds. It lacks as yet that _rough_ statement of numbers at each meeting, which is requisite to enable me to understand what I shall have to do. This will be fixed by the scale of the meeting. I see no difficulty but one-a procession through the princ.i.p.al thoroughfares is one of the most exhausting processes I know as a _preliminary_ to addressing a ma.s.s meeting. A ma.s.s meeting requires the physical powers to be in their best and freshest state, as far as anything can be fresh in a man near seventy-two; and I have on one or more former occasions felt them wofully contracted. In Midlothian I never had anything of the kind before a great physical effort in speaking; and the lapse even of a couple of years is something. It would certainly be most desirable to have the ma.s.s meeting first, and then I have not any fear at all of the procession through whatever thoroughfares you think fit.
_Oct. 2, 1881._-I should be very sorry to put aside any of the opportunities of vision at Leeds which the public may care to use; but what I had hoped was that these might come _after_ any speeches of considerable effort and not _before_ them. To understand what a physical drain, and what a reaction from tension of the senses is caused by a "progress" before addressing a great audience, a person must probably have gone through it, and gone through it at my time of life. When I went to Midlothian, I begged that this might never happen; and it was avoided throughout. Since that time I have myself been sensible for the first time of a diminished power of voice in the House of Commons, and others also for the first time have remarked it.
Vast torchlight processions, addresses from the corporation, four score addresses from political bodies, a giant banquet in the Cloth Hall Yard covered in for the purpose, on one day; on another, more addresses, a public luncheon followed by a ma.s.s meeting of over five-and-twenty thousand persons, then a long journey through dense throngs vociferous with an exultation that knew no limits, a large dinner party, and at the end of all a night train. The only concessions that the veteran asked to weakness of the flesh, were that at the banquet he should not appear until the eating and drinking were over, and that at the ma.s.s meeting some preliminary speakers should intervene to give him time to take breath after his long and serious exercises of the morning. When the time came his voice was heard like the note of a clear and deep-toned bell. So much had vital energy, hardly less rare than his mental power, to do with the varied exploits of this s.p.a.cious career.
The topics of his Leeds speeches I need not travel over. (M25) What attracted most attention and perhaps drew most applause was his warning to Mr. Parnell. "He desires," said the minister, "to arrest the operation of the Land Act; to stand as Moses stood between the living and the dead; to stand there not as Moses stood, to arrest, but to spread the plague." The menace that followed became a catchword of the day: "If it shall appear that there is still to be fought a final conflict in Ireland between law on the one side and sheer lawlessness upon the other, if the law purged from defect and from any taint of injustice is still to be repelled and refused, and the first conditions of political society to remain unfulfilled, then I say, gentlemen, without hesitation, the resources of civilisation against its enemies are not yet exhausted."(40)
Nor was the pageant all excitement. The long speech, which by way of prelusion to the great ma.s.s meeting he addressed to the chamber of commerce, was devoted to the destruction of the economic sophisters who tried to persuade us that "the vampire of free-trade was insidiously sucking the life-blood of the country." In large survey of broad social facts, exposition of diligently a.s.sorted figures, power of scientific a.n.a.lysis, sustained chain of reasoning, he was never better. The consummate mastery of this argumentative performance did not slay a heresy that has nine lives, but it drove the thing out of sight in Yorkshire for some time to come.(41)
VII