Page images

sition, and the division showed 128 in favour and 122 against the proposal; and emboldened by this result motions for the adjournment followed pretty quickly one upon the other, and at length at three o'clock in the morning the Government gave way, and the demand for special facilities to pass the Bill fell through. On May 10 Mr. Bradlaugh, freed from his tacit understanding not to disturb the proceedings of the House, again presented himself at the table to be sworn, whereupon Sir Stafford Northcote, after a brief pause, proposed a resolution excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House. No division was taken, and Mr. Bradlaugh, who up to this time had been allowed to sit in the House, quietly withdrew, and from that time devoted himself to public meetings in various parts of the country, defending his course of action, and protesting in the name of popular right and freedom against the ostracism to which, for his opinions, he was subjected. Meanwhile, although Mr. Bradlaugh's name and case occasionally cropped up in Parliament, especially during question time, and in the Law Courts, little of importance connected with either took place, beyond a formal notice to the Speaker from the member for Northampton that he would come to the House and claim his right to be sworn. The case of Clarke v. Bradlaugh came on for hearing before Mr. Justice Grove and a special jury towards the end of July. The point turned upon whether Mr. Bradlaugh, who had not taken the oath, had voted in the House of Commons on a particular occasion before the writ was issued; the informer, Mr. Clarke, claiming half the amount of the fine (500l.) leviable in such cases. As the House of Commons keeps no official record of the hour at which divisions are taken, there was a good deal of contradictory evidence, but in the end the jury found for the plaintiff. Mr. Bradlaugh conducted his own case with considerable acumen, but affected to regard Mr. Newdegate, M.P., not the nominal plaintiff, Mr. Clarke, as his real assailant. This view was somewhat supported by the discovery that in one case at least the counsel's brief had been marked with Mr. Newdegate's name, and scarcely had the trial finished than Mr. Bradlaugh attempted to take proceedings for Maintenance' against the member for Warwickshire. Maintenance is, according to Blackstone, an officious intermeddling in a suit that no way belongs to one, by maintaining or assisting either party, with money or otherwise, to prosecute or defend it.' Sir J. Ingham, however, before whom the application for a summons against Mr. Newdegate was heard, dismissed the plea as frivolous; and Mr. Bradlaugh was left to take more ordinary means for obtaining a reversal of the verdict given against him. The meaning and need of so much hurry in taking out the writ arose from the ascertained fact that many others were waiting to follow Mr. Clarke's example, and of these it was surmised that one or more had a friendly object in view. Before the expiration of the legal period, Mr. Bradlaugh had applied to Mr. Justice Lindley and Mr. Justice Grove for a



new trial, on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The judges, although they admitted the evidence to be very conflicting, refused to grant a fresh trial. On the following day (August 2), Mr. Bradlaugh held a meeting in Trafalgar Square to support his claim to take his seat. The numbers assembled were variously estimated at from 8,000 to 20,000. In a speech of some length Mr. Bradlaugh declared his intention to go to the House of Commons and insist upon his right. The crowd dispersed quietly, about five thousand going towards Palace Yard, which they found strongly guarded by policemen and its gates closed.

On the following day the House of Commons, according to custom, met at noon, and as soon as prayers were over Mr. Bradlaugh advanced to the door of the House with the intention of entering. He was met by the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms and other officials, who barred the passage, and on Mr. Bradlaugh's attempting to force his way past them, a number of policemen who had been posted in the side lobbies rushed forward and seized Mr. Bradlaugh, who struggled in vain against unequal numbers, and was finally carried down a small staircase into the courtyard, where he arrived overcome with exertion and his clothes torn and in disorder. The issue of this unseemly contest was no sooner known within the House than Mr. Labouchere, rising with a question of privilege, asked the House to say that the order excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from the House did not extend to the lobbies, and therefore the Speaker had exceeded his duties. The Speaker explained that he had given a wider interpretation to the order of the House than its words justified, because he conceived that by excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from the building he could carry out the spirit of the resolution. This view was supported by Mr. Gladstone and Sir Stafford Northcote. It was thought that a vote might at once have been taken on Mr. Labouchere's question of privilege. Several members, however, endeavoured to widen the basis of the debate, including Sir Wilfrid Lawson and Mr. Bright, both of whom were called to order, whilst the latter succeeded by a few words in raising bitter recriminations. Mr. Biggar's contribution to the discussion was the most original, and did much to restore good humour in an assembly where passion was beginning to show itself on both sides. Although not sympathising with Mr. Bradlaugh, and resenting his conduct during the coercion debates, yet he objected to the treatment to which that member had been subjected, because it was a precedent' which might provoke or even justify its repetition. Finally, an amendment proposed by Sir Henry Holland, to the effect that the House approved of the action of the Speaker, was on the recommendation of the two leaders adopted by 184 against 7, the great body of the independent Liberals not voting. Mr. Bradlaugh, having partially recovered from the violent treatment he had received, at once drove to the Westminster Police Court to apply for a summons for assault against

the police-sergeant. The magistrate, however, after adjourning the case, decided that the police were protected by the privilege of Parliament, the alleged assault having been committed in the precincts of Westminster Palace. The Session closed without any further intrusion on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh, but the question of his right to sit was discussed with more or less ardour at public meetings in various parts of the country. On the reopening of the Law Courts after the Long Vacation, Mr. Bradlaugh again appeared before them, and in the Court of Appeal obtained the first verdict in his favour. By this the rule refusing a new trial was reversed, and the year closed with the prospect that the whole of the legal proceedings in the case would have to be again gone through.

The last division of the Session took place in the House of Lords, on a resolution proposed by Lord Salisbury to disagree with certain amendments introduced by the House of Commons into the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (Statutes) Bill. The object of this measure was to wind up the work of the two expiring University Commissions, by creating a body with power to amend any statutes disapproved on petition or rejected by Parliament. The Bill, which was originally discussed in the House of Lords, proposed to commit the duty to a body consisting of the Chancellors of the two Universities, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Council, and Sir Montagu Smith-the original Oxford and Cambridge University Commissioners. When the Bill came before the House of Commons, a clause was added empowering the Government to add two new members to the Committee. Lord Salisbury opposed this on the ground that it would give a large influence to the Ministry of the day, and would empower the University Committee to legislate for the University authorities in all controverted points. These views were supported by 36 against 13, and the Bill was lost for the Session.

At length, on August 27, Parliament was prorogued after one of the longest and most arduous sessions of the present reign, having assembled on January 6, and sat, with but short intermissions at Easter and Whitsuntide, for nearly eight months. The Queen's Message gave the summary of what had taken place in the interval. Outside Parliament peace had been maintained; Thessaly had been ceded to Greece, the British Treaty rights in Tunis, though they had led to an interchange of views with France, had been fully recognised, as had also the relations between the Regency and Tripoli. The wars in Basutoland and in the Transvaal had been brought to an end, and the Convention with the latter, although not fully ratified, had been signed by the local government; British troops had been withdrawn from Candahar, and the prospects of peace with a friendly and independent Afghanistan were reassuring. The results of the sessional work inside Parliament had not been so extensive, and compared in

[ocr errors]

somewhat meagre fashion with the promises made at its commencement. Nevertheless, the measure for improving the relations between the owners and occupiers of land in Ireland, and for otherwise bettering the condition of the agricultural population,' had after much pains and labour become law; and the Act for the Regulation of the Forces, connecting regiments with the districts in which they were to be mainly raised would, it was hoped, render more efficient the military organisation of the country.

The changes in the administration during the year were scarcely more than departmental. The withdrawal of the Duke of Argyll was followed by no other apparent consequences than the advancement of Lord Carlingford to a seat in the Cabinet, thereby giving an official position to the most able and willing champion of the Ministerial Land policy in Ireland. The succession of Mr. Grant Duff to the Governorship of Madras enabled Mr. Gladstone to transfer Mr. Courtney to more congenial work at the Colonial Office, and to leave to him the official defence of his department in the House of Commons. Mr. Courtney's place as Under Secretary of the Home Department was filled by the Earl of Rosebery, who accepted it with a sort of tacit understanding that his responsibility would be extended to, and especially connected with the transaction of Scotch business, so far as it was not of a legal nature. The status of the Lord Advocate on the promotion of Mr. Maclaren to the Bench was in no degree lessened, but his successor was relieved of the non-legal duties of the office, and by this means the frequently recurring request of the Scotch members for more specific representation in the Administration was in a measure recognised. In like manner Mr. Herbert Gladstone was added as a supernumerary Lord of the Treasury (without salary), with the understanding that he should especially take charge of Irish business, and as far as possible relieve Mr. Forster of some of the extra pressure of work which both in Dublin and the House of Commons was thrown upon him as Chief Secretary for Ireland.



§1.-Colonial Affairs-The Transvaal Policy-Sir Wilfrid Lawson's and Mr. Rylands' Resolutions-The Peers on Colonial Policy-The South African Debates in Lords and Commons-North Borneo Company.

ALTHOUGH external affairs occupied only the languid attention of Parliament and of the public, the Government had some cause for self-congratulation on being able to carry out almost unchecked the programme they had laid down for themselves. This programme was based upon the policy of friendships rather than of alliances; and the one notable exception in which they allowed themselves to be drawn into an alliance proved so unsatisfactory as to encourage the belief that in the main the Ministry had honestly gauged their own aptitudes. The year on opening still found our troops in Candahar and on the frontier of the Transvaal, and Mr. Goschen still urging upon the Porte its obligations under the Berlin Treaty. The close of the year showed all our troops withdrawn from Afghanistan as far as Quettah; the Transvaal evacuated and the Convention ratified; and Greece nearly doubled in area by the cession of the provinces south of the Balkans. All these results were obtained without bloodshed or cost of money; and even the verdict of opponents was unanimous in admitting the success, within party lines, of the foreign and colonial policy of the Ministry.

We will pass briefly in review the policy so far as it was brought under discussion in Parliament or in public meetings in the country.

When the Government called Parliament together in the early days of January, the Boers of the Transvaal were in full revolt, but the hope was expressed in the Speech from the Throne that, in presence of Sir George Colley's force, which had been ordered to cross the frontier, the patriots' would return to their allegiance. A very few days sufficed to dispel this hope; and on the very day on which Parliament was opened, the news arrived that the Boers had crossed the border of Natal and had occupied the important position of Laing's Nek. It seemed therefore that the assurance in the Speech from the Throne, that measures would be taken for the prompt vindication of the Queen's authority, would be likely to entail serious responsibility. In the debate which ensued, Sir Wilfrid Lawson twitted the Government on its change of front since the previous year, when the Prime Minister and many of his colleagues had denounced the policy in Zululand which they were

« PreviousContinue »