He

explanation with regard to the alleged atrocities. Reading extracts from Sir Henry Elliot's report, he showed that in the opinion of the Ambassador many of the horrible stories were inventions, and most exaggerations. However, a special envoy, Mr. Baring, had been for some time engaged in visiting the scenes of insurrection, and his report would be at once communicated to the House. But this long-expected report did not appear before the month of September, after the end of the session, and before this two more debates took place on our general Eastern policy (July 30), that in the Lower House remarkable for a long and elaborate defence of the Crimean War from Mr. Gladstone. criticised freely the past policy of the Government, and strongly maintained the necessity of restoring the European Concert; for without that nothing could be accomplished, and this he hoped would be followed by measures conceived in the spirit and advancing in the direction of self-government. The application of the principle of local administration had been successful in other parts of the Turkish Empire, principally in the Principalities. He was in favour of maintaining the territorial integrity of the Ottoman Empire, and, believing that the prolongation of hostilities could be of no use to the Porte, he hoped that no time would be lost in this concerted action.

Mr. Disraeli commented on the vague character of the motion and amendments, which expressed no opinion, but rather a sentiment, and remarked that as the conduct of the Government was not censured, he would not defend, but merely explain it from the beginning. The policy of the British Government was throughout a policy of non-interference, and that was the reason why, until earnestly pressed by Turkey, we refused to join in the Andrassy Note. The Government refused to sanction the Berlin Memorandum because they knew that the Turks could not possibly carry out the promises they were asked to give; and at the end of the Memorandum there was a mention of ulterior measures which would have led to occupation. As to Lord E. Fitzmaurice's suggestion that we should have been ready with a counter-project, nothing could have been more unwise than to make propositions which we had no means of carrying out. The despatch of the fleet to Besika Bay, Mr. Disraeli explained, was first of all to protect the English residents at Constantinople, but the fleet was strengthened because it was thought that our Power ought to be adequately represented and her interests in the Mediterranean asserted. There was no threat to anybody-it was not sent to protect the Turkish Empire, but the British Empire.

Mr. Ashley had for some time been attempting to find a night for his motion on the Bulgarian Atrocities, but owing to the mass of business which seems to grow more complicated and more extensive even after the annual "massacre of the Innocents," he had been unsuccessful. He availed himself, accordingly, of a constitutional privilege open to every member on the third reading

of the Appropriation Bill, viz.: to question the past action of those "Services of the Crown" who obtain public money by its enactment. Naturally the "Service" implicated was the Diplomatic, and Mr. Ashley's blame was equally divided between Sir Henry Elliot, our Ambassador at Constantinople, and the Foreign Secretary. The gist of Mr. Ashley's charge was that "both Turkish and English Governments knew exactly the character of the Circassians and Bashi-Bazouks," and that Lord Derby had not made known adequately to the Porte the earnest indignation which he professed. Sir Henry Elliot's negligence, he thought, merited a recall. Far more moderate views, especially as regards the conduct of the Government, were expressed by Mr. Forsyth and Mr. Forster, the latter declaring his warm approval of Lord Derby's last despatch; but both censured the dilatory tactics of the Ambassador. Mr. Bourke maintained that many of the stories of atrocities were grossly exaggerated, and as their only foundation was newspaper correspondence, he considered himself at liberty to read a statement in the Levant Herald, which gave an account of the insurrection in Bulgaria, and showed that cruelties had been committed by the Christians. He contended by quotations from the correspondence, that Sir H. Elliot had done all that was possible for them; pointed out that the Austrian and French Ambassadors were equally ignorant; and urged the intense labour and anxiety to which the Ambassador was exposed in the midst of exciting events at Constantinople. After what had happened, Sir H. Elliot no doubt would be more on the look out and would be more prepared for such contingencies, and he deprecated censuring an old public servant without inquiry.

A point of order was raised by Mr. Edward Jenkins trying to make some remarks in the nature of a review of the session, and an impeachment of the Ministers seriatim, in the style of the late Lord Lyndhurst. But this the Speaker prohibited, as not coming within even the elastic tether of the Appropriation Bill, and so Mr. Jenkins delivered some general observations on our Eastern Policy instead of the intended philippic. After Sir W. Harcourt had denounced the Turks, and extolled the moderation of Russia, in an oration full of that weighty eloquence for which that hon. and learned member is famed, the Prime Minister rose. Not one of those present dreamt for a single instant that it was the last time that Benjamin Disraeli would speak in that House.

It would be an exaggeration to say that he made one of his greatest speeches, but as an impromptu reply at the end of a debate, and as exemplifying his special characteristics of felicitous persiflage mingled with declamation, it could hardly be surpassed.

Mr. Disraeli commented on the unprecedented nature of this debate, and twitted Mr. Ashley with having chosen the doubtful privilege of the Appropriation Bill to insinuate an offensive opinion against the Government and a distant Ambassador, instead of moving a direct vote of censure. He denied altogether

that the Government had no knowledge of the atrocities in Bulgaria until they had learnt them from the newspapers. What he had disclaimed in answer to Mr. Forster was not the existence of atrocities, but certain specific statements which were brought forward, and of which he said that the knowledge in the possession of the Government did not justify them. It was stated by the newspaper on which Mr. Forster relied that 32,000 Bulgarians were slain, 10,000 imprisoned, that 1,000 girls had been sold in open market, that 40 girls had been burnt, and that cartloads of heads had been carried about, &c. All these statements were fabrications; there had been no open sale of women and no burning of women, and neither Mr. Forster nor his journal had ever produced the slightest evidence of them. As to the Levant Herald, he believed its statements were deserving of as much credit as any other journal, and no doubt if it came out tomorrow with information agreeable to Mr. Forster's views, its authority would be lauded to the skies. After bantering Sir W. Harcourt on the "Herodian" or (as a subsequent correction amended it)" Rhodian" eloquence of his speech, and ridiculing the statesmanship of his suggestions for the settlement of the Turkish difficulty, Mr. Disraeli went on to give a flat contradiction to the assertion that we were peculiarly responsible for what occurred in Turkey, or that the Turks were our especial protégés.

The peroration of the speech in which the Prime Minister took the high ground of Imperial policy, was as follows:

"What may be the fate of the Eastern part of Europe it would be arrogant for me to speculate upon, and if I had any thoughts on the subject I trust I should not be so imprudent or so indiscreet as to take this opportunity to express them. But I am sure that as long as England is ruled by English Parties who understand the principles on which our Empire is founded, and who are resolved to maintain that Empire, our influence in that part of the world can never be looked upon with indifference. If it should happen that the Government which controls the greater portion of those fair lauds is found to be incompetent for its purpose, neither England nor any of the Great Powers will shrink from fulfilling the high political and moral duty which will then devolve upon them. But, Sir, we must not jump at conclusions so quickly as is now the fashion. There is nothing to justify us in talking in such a vein of Turkey, as has, and is being at this moment entertained. The present is a state of affairs which requires the most vigilant examination and the most careful management. But those who suppose that England ever would uphold, or at this moment particularly is upholding, Turkey from blind superstition and from a want of sympathy with the highest aspirations of humanity are deceived. What our duty is at this critical moment is to maintain the Empire of England. Nor will we ever agree to any step, though it may obtain for a moment comparative quiet and a false prosperity, that hazards the existence of that Empire."

Next morning the well-kept secret was disclosed to the world. Mr. Disraeli was to become Earl of Beaconsfield, while his responsible post as leader of the House of Commons was to devolve upon the well proved abilities of Sir Stafford Northcote. Forty years had elapsed since he had assured the laughing House of Commons that they would hear him some day; and now, after having been twice Premier, after having created peers and prelates, and having made his Royal Mistress an Empress, he leaves the stormy arena of the Lower, for the quiet atmosphere of the Upper House. Not a single newspaper attributed this step to any motive but physical incapacity to bear the strain of late hours and noisy debates. Ore student, indeed, discovered that Vivian Grey had intended to be equally distinguished successively in both Houses of the Legislature. But there was a singular unanimity of opinion that the reward—if reward it could be called-was the well-deserved climax to a brilliant career.

The session was brought to a close on the following day by the Speech from the Throne. It minutely reviewed the results of legislation, regretted the temporary failure of several important schemes, and declared that the state of affairs both at home and abroad betokened firm national prosperity. So ended the session of 1876.

CHAPTER IV.

The Queen's visit to the East-end-Army Mobilization: Manoeuvres at Salisbury and Aldershot-Return of the Arctic Expedition-Home-Rule disturbances in Ireland: Mr. Butt and Mr. Smyth-The Keighley Guardians-Legal changes and promotions-State of Trade-School-Board Election in London-Judgment on the Franconia case.

APART from the session of Parliament there were but few occurrences in England during the first half of the year which can be regarded as material for history. Crimes and accidents were not wanting, but these are recorded in another part of this volume. Public meetings were held at Exeter Hall and other places to ventilate opinion about the Slave Circulars, and support the Parliamentary protests of Professor Fawcett and his allies; but in comparison with the agitation in the summer and autumn on another topic, the effect was small. In fact the various progresses of Her Majesty, and two remarkable ecclesiastical cases occupied the attention not given to proceedings in Parliament.

On March 7, the Queen visited the East end of London for the first time, and opened a new wing of the London Hospital. Notwithstanding the inclement weather, the crowd was immense, and the enthusiasm unquestionable. The Hospital gained largely in funds by the visit, and the City gave up a business-day to loyalty a contribution rather difficult to estimate in figures.

Of the ecclesiastical cases referred to, one was especially remarkable as being the first tried under the new Court for the regulation of Public Worship. Mr. Ridsdale, a Folkestone vicar, was prosecuted for various practices, and was condemned on all points by the judge. The appeal to the newly constituted High Court has not at present been heard, owing to delay in appointing the Episcopal assessors. It is awaited with eagerness, as the legality of the "Eastward Position" is one of the points at issue.

The Secretary of State for War had pledged himself to carry out a series of experiments on a large scale with regard to Army Mobilisation, with a view to testing the new machinery for working regular and auxiliary troops together. But the word "Mobilisation" has a wider meaning. In its full sense it is the conversion of a peace into a field army, the bringing it up to its full strength, the providing it with transport of every description, and, in short, fitting it to enter on a campaign. Distribution is not necessarily connected with mobilisation; but in our case we were so thoroughly unprovided with anything but the materials for a military edifice that we were forced to distribute before we thought of mobilising. It must be admitted that the distribution has been carried out on an ingenious and sound principle-that of considering, not particular troops, but merely the tenants of certain barracks. Mr. Hardy determined this year to apply the test to two of the eight corps d'armée. Three months before, all who were to be mobilised received intimation of the fact, and during at least six months the authorities at the War Office had been making preparations. Now these conditions (as a military critic remarked in the Times) were "altogether artificial and exceptionally favourable," and it would still remain doubtful whether in the hurry of actual service the same results could be obtained. But, at any rate, very cheering information was furnished by the critics who were present at the manœuvres, "The appearance of officers and men," said one reporter, "would almost lead one to suppose that they were enjoying a gigantic picnic, so cheerful and healthy do they look. The sun must, however, have tried them pretty well, for their complexions are as brown as if they had just come off a Central Indian campaign in the hot season. Far otherwise is it as to physique, for both horses and riders seem fit for any amount of work and in the finest condition. I have seen much of soldiers in many lands and in various circumstances, but I never beheld a brigade who looked, as far as health goes, better prepared for a campaign. The horses are simply perfect in condition, neither too fat nor too thin, but it is evident that they have been steadied by the knocking about they have undergone. The food is the usual ration, and no complaints are made about it, which is somewhat surprising, for the British soldier always relieves the monotony of leisure by cursing the Commissariat. It would however be odd indeed if that much-abused and perpetually reorganised department