Chapter II: Member for Woodstock (2)

Again, you say I not only extenuated the conduct of the
obstructionists, but justified it. Nothing that I said at Woodstock
admits of this construction. I never even discussed the conduct of
the obstructionists; I merely discussed the remedies for
obstruction which had been proposed by many public men and by a
great portion of the English press. Surely you would not have said
that Liberal members, in advocating the Irish Land Act and the
Irish Church Act, were extenuating and justifying the Fenian
movement.

You remark, further, that what I called ‘unpalatable plain truths’
were certainly unpalatable, but were not true. Yet the
misgovernment of Ireland before the Act of Union, and the methods
used to pass that Act, are now matters of history. These were two
of my ‘plain truths’; and the third, that the great questions on
which Irish feeling is most deeply interested have been neglected
during the last four years, is in my opinion equally undeniable.
You accuse me of forgetting the Judicature Act, the improved
position of the National school teachers, the grant of 10,000_l._
towards the Irish fisheries. I do not for a moment forget them, but
would think it a mockery to say much of them to a people hungering
for moderate progressive reform, such as we have had in this
country, of their political, municipal, and educational
institutions.

It was because I hope that these questions may be settled by the
Conservative party, and not by the Liberal party or the Home Rule
party, that I made the remarks on which you have animadverted;
little dreaming, however, that the utterances of so obscure an
individual as myself, in the quiet rural locality of Woodstock,
would attract the attention of any portion of the Metropolitan
press. As, however, they have attracted your comments, I am
confident that you will, with your usual love of fair play, insert
this attempt of mine at explanation.

I remain, your obedient servant, RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.

As the differences between Butt and Parnell widened and developed into the supremacy of the latter, Lord Randolph seems to have been more amenable to his father’s influence; for in 1879 he voted _against_ a resolution for the assimilation of Irish to English privileges, and explained that, although the theoretic argument was overwhelming, the immediate extension of the franchise in Ireland would destroy the moderate and constitutional Home Rulers and secure the ascendency of the more lawless and embittered classes.

During the winter of 1877 Lord Randolph devoted himself, with the assistance of a young Dublin graduate, to the study of Irish intermediate education. He took the question up deliberately, as the first step in public life and a lesson in political work. He spared no pains. He sounded every well of information. He consulted every shade of Irish opinion. He questioned a host of Irish pedagogues and wrote to all the headmasters of the English public schools. An evidence of his activities is provided by a letter from him to the _Freeman’s Journal_, published on the last day of the year, on the extinction of the Irish diocesan schools. These had been set up by Queen Elizabeth under the Act of 1570. They were ‘diocesan’ only because the diocese was a more convenient division than a county and were not meant to be under Church control. The masters were to be appointed by the Lord-Lieutenant and the endowment was in the form of a charge on the property of the Church. But the system had only been partially established and the Irish Church Act of 1869 had, by a strange blunder, treated the schools as Church property, and, as amended in 1872, it allowed the masters to compound like incumbents, a proportion of the commutation money accruing to the ‘Church Surplus.’ Money had therefore actually been diverted from education and Lord Randolph was intent on reclaiming an equivalent sum for intermediate instruction.

[Sidenote: 1878 ÆT. 29]

But the main purpose of his labours was to draw up a pamphlet taking the form of a letter to his friend Sir J. Bernard Burke, Ulster King-at-Arms--who, it appears, had first interested him in this question--and dealing completely with Irish intermediate education. This letter was finished in the beginning of 1878, was published in Dublin, and sold at 6_d._ It showed, on the evidence of various Royal Commissions, that intermediate education in Ireland was positively declining, yet that a system of intermediate education had existed since the days of Elizabeth, in the shape of Royal Free Schools, the Diocesan Grammar Schools, and the Erasmus Smith Schools, which only required rearrangement and development. It proposed to extend the system of Royal Free Schools and to provide more money out of the Church surplus. The religious difficulty was to be surmounted by appointing lay Catholic masters in Catholic districts and Protestant masters in Protestant districts, with a conscience clause, control by local boards (chiefly lay) and a scholarship system, so as to enable the religious minority in any district to get education elsewhere. This plan, admirable in itself, would probably have been found to underrate the religious difficulty and especially the reluctance of the Roman Catholic Church, evinced in every country, to tolerate education that it does not absolutely control.

Lord Randolph’s early efforts in the cause of Irish education were not confined to Ireland or to pamphleteering. From the day when he took it up to the close of his life, he never ceased his endeavours to promote progress and reform and to satisfy real wants and aspirations in that department. In the session of 1878, with a perseverance and persistence which disgusted the Irish Tories, he brought forward a motion (June 4) for a Select Committee of the House of Commons to inquire into the condition and management of the endowed schools of Ireland, with instructions to report ‘how far those endowments are at present promoting, or are applicable to the promotion of, intermediate education in that country, without distinction of class or religion.’ In support of this he delivered a considerable speech, moderate and argumentative in tone and crowded with figures and quotations, to prove the many abuses and anomalies of the Irish education system and the urgent need of co-ordination and reform.

He had induced Mr. Chamberlain, with whom he was already on friendly terms, to second the motion; and the case unfolded in these two speeches was sufficiently strong to impress the Government and the House. The Irish Nationalists were profuse in their expressions of pleasure that English members should display so keen an interest in an Irish question. The O’Conor Don expressed his deep obligation and that of all the members connected with Ireland, to Lord Randolph for the manner in which he had introduced the motion. The Government, through its Chief Secretary, Mr. Lowther (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach having by this time been transferred to the Colonial Office), offered, in lieu of a select Committee, a small Commission specially appointed to inquire into the condition, management, and revenues of the schools; and this being thought generally acceptable, the motion was withdrawn. The Commission was duly appointed, Lord Rosse being Chairman and Mr. FitzGibbon and Lord Randolph both among its members. It laboured zealously and Lord Randolph travelled all over Ireland--north, west, and south--collecting information and examining schools. In what manner its researches issued ultimately, but not until 1885, in an Act of Parliament will presently be related.

The session of 1878 was dominated by the Eastern Question. The Russian armies were at the gates of Constantinople. The British fleet lay at Besika Bay. The early months of the year were passed under the shadow of imminent war. Resignations broke the Cabinet circle; patriotic choruses resounded in the streets; the Reserves were called out, native Indian troops were brought to Malta, and a vote of credit of six millions was granted by the House of Commons. The course of British diplomacy and action in Lord Beaconsfield’s hands was tortuous and dramatic. Absolutely supreme in the Cabinet after Lord Derby’s withdrawal, the Prime Minister led an enthusiastic party and a puzzled nation through the Salisbury-Schouvaloff secret agreement and the Anglo-Turkish Convention to the Congress of Berlin, to the acquisition of Cyprus, to ‘Peace with Honour’ and the Knightsbridge banquet. It is not my purpose to comment on this or to compare it with that other note which now began again to resound with ever-growing vehemence and intensity through the land, until it broke in a storm of passionate appeal and triumphant eloquence from Midlothian. Never in their life-long conflict were Mr. Gladstone and his great antagonist so fiercely opposed. Their differences cut down to the roots of thought. In policy, in principle, in feeling, in aspiration, they clashed together at every point, large or small, of political method or morality, and behind them all Britain was divided into two furious camps. On both sides their colleagues in Parliament faded into insignificance. On both sides their followers in the country were whole-hearted in their allegiance. The Conservative majorities in the House of Commons were tremendous and inflexible on every issue. The great newspapers, the powers of fashion and clubland, the pledged partisans in the constituencies, had never before found a leader so much to their temper as Lord Beaconsfield. Outside Parliament, with its baffled and divided Opposition and triumphant Ministry, the Liberal electors hung upon Mr. Gladstone’s words as though he were, as he often seemed, inspired. And while the imposing array of Toryism marched proudly and confidently forward, enormous multitudes gathered eagerly and not less confidently to encounter them.

It is perhaps only in these great stirrings of the national mind that a man may discover to which of the main groupings of political opinion he naturally belongs. In all this conflict Lord Randolph Churchill took no public part. An occasional sarcasm used at some small function, an unadvertised abstention from some important division, might have revealed his personal inclinations. But he did nothing to attract public notice and it is only from his private letters that we may learn how decided were his sympathies and by what circumstances he was prevented from action which might easily have altered his whole career.

Parliament met in January 1878, amid conditions of the keenest excitement and of grave crisis, and the Government forthwith demanded their vote of credit for six millions to make special naval and military preparations. Having listened to Ministerial explanations Mr. Forster moved a reasoned amendment amounting to a flat refusal.[6] After a debate extending over a week, disturbed by the wildest reports from the East, Mr. Forster was glad to withdraw his amendment, and, upon the motion to go into Committee the Government, obtained a majority of more than three to one (295 to 96).

_Lord Randolph Churchill to Sir Charles Dilke._

St. James’s Club, Piccadilly: February 7, 1878.

My dear Sir Charles Dilke,--As I suppose this debate will come to a
close with an enormous and disproportionate majority for the
Government, and as I think the Opposition have made their stand on
unfortunate ground, and that another fight might yet be fought with
far greater chances of commanding sympathy in the country, I want
to know whether, if an Address to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to
use her influence at the Conference in favour of the widest
possible freedom to Bulgaria, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Thessaly, and
Epirus, and in favour of totally and finally putting an end to
direct Turkish Government in these provinces, was moved by me from
the Tory side of the House, it would be supported by the Liberal
party. I think I could almost make sure of a strong Home Rule vote
on this. I think some Conservatives would support it. If Northcote
does not give some very clear information as to what is going to be
the policy of the Government, I think a motion of this sort should
be made on the Report. The real cry for the country is--not
sympathy with Russia, still less with Turkey, but complete freedom
for the Slav and Hellenic nationalities.

I am off to Ireland to-night. I don’t care enough for the
Government to vote for them.... I shall see Butt in Dublin and
shall sound him on what I have written to you. My address is
Phœnix Park, Dublin.

Yours truly, RANDOLPH S. CHURCHILL.

And the next day:--

The Castle, Dublin: February 8, 1878.

Many thanks for your two letters. As you say, while everything is
in such an uncertain state nothing can be done. The Government have
too great an advantage; but I think if we are led into taking any
decisive steps hostile to Russia a great effort should be made for
an authoritative declaration that the ultimate aim and object of
any move on our part is the complete freedom and independence of
the Slav nationality, as opposed to any reconstruction of the
Turkish Empire. This, I am sure, should be the line for the Liberal
party and not the ‘Peace-at-any-price’ cry, which it is evident the
country will not have. In this I shall be ready to co-operate
heartily as far as my poor efforts can be any good. It is just
possible that if any movement of this kind be made, it would be
better to originate it from the Conservative side of the House. I
regret to see so much excitement getting up among the masses. It is
dangerous material for Beaconsfield to work on. Will you think me
very foolish or visionary if I say I look for a Republican form of
government for Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina as far more to be
preferred to setting up some Russian or German Prince as a puppet
under the name of a constitutional monarchy? Perhaps if these ideas
seem at all to your liking, and if you think they will command the
support of the Liberal party, you would advise me what would be the
most favourable moment for bringing them forward. I shall have some
conversation with Butt, and have great hope of securing a solid
Irish vote on any proposition which might seem to favour the
principle of self-government for nationalities.

A few days later, he telegraphed to Sir Charles Dilke:--

Careysville, Fermoy.

I shall be in London Monday morning. Am not ambitious of taking any
prominent part, unless it might contribute to the advantage of
ideas which we have in common, that a motion should be made from my
side of the House. I leave it absolutely to your judgment.

CHURCHILL.

On this, Sir Charles Dilke wrote to Lord Granville, who replied:--

18 Carlton House Terrace.

My dear Dilke,--Such a motion as Lord Randolph Churchill proposes,
supported by a certain number of Conservatives, might be well worth
consideration, but I doubt his getting any Conservative support,
and a contingent of Home Rulers would hardly justify us for making
another attack on Plevna just now, with the probable alternative of
a crushing defeat or withdrawal in the face of the enemy. I gather
that you are doubtful. What did Hartington think?

Yours sincerely, GRANVILLE.

Meanwhile Lord Randolph wrote again:--

_Lord Randolph Churchill to Sir Charles Dilke._

February 15, 1878.

I have sent you a telegram which I think you will understand. I am
sure that my views, whatever they are worth, are in accordance with
your speech and Harcourt’s and Gladstone’s on the question of the
future policy of this country. I am convinced under the present
circumstances no motion should be unduly hastened on. There is lots
of time. If I were asked to move a resolution, my speech would be
an attack on Chaplin, Wolff, and the rest of the pro-Turkish party,
confidence in the Government, and an invitation to the Liberal
party to act as a whole. I feel I am awfully young to endeavour to
initiate such a motion; but I am so convinced of the soundness of
our view that I would risk a smash willingly to have that properly
brought forward. If only your party would agree as a whole to
support such a resolution moved from my side, the Government would
at the best have only a majority of 80 after 190; and that would be
a check. I shall see Butt before arriving in London and endeavour
to make him take up a position on this question. The Government
seem to be doing their level best to keep the peace, and perhaps
another debate would not be unwelcome to them.

Lord Hartington, however, agreed with Lord Granville that it would be useless to attack again without assurance of substantial Conservative support. Sir Charles Dilke accordingly pressed Lord Randolph as to who might be expected to vote with him; but Lord Randolph could not be sure even of one, though he hoped that Mr. Spencer Walpole, the ex-Home Secretary, would do so. The question of balloting for a private members’ night seems also to have been considered.

_Lord Randolph Churchill to Sir Charles Dilke._

Castle Bernard, Bandon.

My dear Sir Charles,--I shall be over in London on the 26th
instant, and I think it will be time enough then to make my motion.
I should not like to make it unless it would command the support of
a large number of members. Such support could only come from your
side. I think the Conservative party are gone mad. Their speeches
are calculated to provoke war. As it is so uncertain whether we
shall go to war or a conference, I think I had better wait a little
as--though the motion should, I think, be made in any case--the
terms would vary very much according to either alternative.... I
know of no one but Forsyth whom I could ask to ballot for me. If it
commands much support, I should like to press it even to a
division. Cowen’s speech and the vociferous cheers of the
Conservative party evidently show that the idea of the integrity
and independence of the Turkish Empire is still predominant on our
side; and against that I would try to go a great way. I send a
sketch of the motion and I should of course be very glad if you
would second one of this nature.

Yours very truly, Randolph S. Churchill.

_Draft of Motion._

That, in view of the extreme suffering so long undergone by the
Slav, Bulgarian, and Hellenic nationalities of Bosnia, Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Thessaly, and Epirus, and considering that the Turkish
rule over these provinces has now been definitely put an end to,
the efforts of Her Majesty’s Government should in the opinion of
the House of Commons be principally directed towards the
establishment of complete freedom and independence for the
population of these provinces.

All this, however, remained unknown. The Conservative Administration pursued their course, with the unbroken assent of their followers and amid the acclamations of London Society, through a succession of diplomatic sensations and Parliamentary triumphs, towards a vast electoral disaster.

Devoted as he was to his party, Lord Randolph was by this time thoroughly out of sympathy with them in their Irish and foreign policy. The great Minister whose talk had fascinated him at Blenheim ten years before inspired him no longer. He describes Lord Derby’s resignation as ‘a thunderclap.’ ‘I cannot,’ he writes to his father, ‘like the war tactics. Calling out the Reserves is like throwing down the glove to Russia, and I fear she will not hesitate to take it up.’ He was irritated by the movement of Indian troops to Malta. His college friend, Lord Rosebery--the partner of those early conversations--was now the ardent supporter of Mr. Gladstone’s Midlothian campaign. A very little, I think, at this time might have led Lord Randolph into open quarrel with the Government. Indeed, it is not improbable, had he in fact moved his resolution as he wished, that he would have been driven out of the Conservative ranks altogether. When even Radicals and Liberals like Cowen and Roebuck were proud and glad to swim with the stream, when every man who stood against it, was liable to be called a ‘Russian’ or even a traitor, a single Tory-Democrat must have been overwhelmed. Lord Randolph no doubt realized this; for he must have felt that, unless he could take striking and decisive action, it was useless taking any action at all. But he seems to have looked for an occasion to strike at the Government safely, and for a victim to appease his wrath. He found the first in the County Government Bill and the second in Mr. Sclater-Booth.

The rejection of this measure, which proposed to transfer county government from Quarter Sessions to boards elected partly by the county magistrates and partly by Boards of Guardians, was moved, upon its coming into the Committee, by Mr. Rylands (March 7) from the Liberal benches. Lord Randolph seconded the motion on totally different grounds and in a different tone. Inspired by a strong hostility to the Government, he made his attack from that quarter most dangerous to a Conservative Minister. The Bill was contrary to Tory principles. The Cabinet were not responsible for it. All their time had been taken up by considering how they could possibly get the Fleet into the Dardanelles, and now their whole time was taken up in considering how they could possibly get the Fleet out of the Dardanelles. In these agitating circumstances it would be highly unfair to hold them responsible for ‘the legislative freaks of a minor colleague.’

Wrath was concentrated on the President of the Local Government Board, who would annihilate Quarter Sessions and descend in all the pomp of Ministerial authority and ‘a double-barrelled name,’ so often associated with mediocrity, upon some unfortunate and over-awed Board of Guardians. A President of the Local Government Board might deal, if he chose, with amendments to the Poor Law or with sanitary questions, or with the salaries of inspectors of nuisances. He should not come down to the House, with all the appearance of a great lawgiver, to reform according to his own views and to improve in his little way the leading features of the British Constitution. He urged the Conservative party not to barter away the old institutions of the country for such ‘Brummagem trash.’ Lord Randolph professed himself utterly unable, though he had ransacked the whole arsenal, to find words in which to characterise the measure. In default he described it as ‘just the sort of little dodge that would be proposed by a President of the Local Government Board called upon to legislate on a great question;’ ‘another of those futile attempts to make that impossible mixture of Radical principles and Conservative precautions;’ and ‘to conciliate the masses by the concession of principles dear to them, which concessions were immediately nullified or modified by the details of the legislation.’ ‘The Government think the populace will be deceived. They are themselves the only dupes. “O infortunati nimium sua si mala norint.”’ ‘I have raised,’ he concluded, ‘the last wail of the expiring Tory party. They have undergone a good deal. They have swallowed an immense amount of nastiness. They have had their banner dragged along many a muddy path. It has been slopped in many a filthy puddle, until it is so altered that nobody can possibly recognise it. I shall cry “No!” when this motion is put from the Chair; and if I can only get any support--I care not whence it comes or from what motive it is given--I should be prepared to offer an opposition to this most Radical and democratic measure, this crowning desertion of Tory principles, this supreme violation of political honesty.’

Such language had not been heard in the House of Commons since Lord Cranborne had fought the Franchise Bill, and, coming as it did from a member who so seldom addressed the House, at a time when party discipline was so good and the prestige of the Government so high, it created quite a commotion. Mr. Chamberlain, in following, criticized the Bill from the extreme Radical’s standpoint, but was markedly friendly in his reference to Lord Randolph’s speech. By the time he had finished, the surprise of the Ministerialists had subsided sufficiently to reveal their wrath, and they protested at once against the attack. Mr. Chaplin, whose political antagonism to Lord Randolph was fated to develop early, retorted roughly that if such were his opinions he should ‘lose not a moment in going over to the other side of the House’--advice which is often given and sometimes accepted. The unfortunate Mr. Sclater-Booth had hardly the spirit to reply. The Bill had passed its second reading by a large majority. Its further progress was delayed by Nationalist obstruction and Ministerial apathy. It was never again debated by the House, and on July 15 was definitely dropped by the Government. The Duke of Marlborough does not seem to have been very stern in his rebukes on this occasion, and no doubt a large and influential section of the Conservative party secretly rejoiced at the fate of the Bill. ‘I do not think,’ wrote Lord Randolph to his father, ‘the Government is at all ill-disposed towards me for my speech against them. I have found them lately singularly civil. Nobody regrets the Bill, except Sclater-Booth, who is unapproachable on the subject.’ Thus for the first time the House of Commons had learned that this silent youth could bite.

[Sidenote: 1879 ÆT. 30]

For the rest of the Parliament Lord Randolph was mute. Scarcely a mention of his name occurs in the ‘Debates.’ He was absent from many important divisions. His relations and feelings towards the Government seem somewhat to have improved as the Russian war crisis receded, and he remained an impassive spectator of their doings in Afghanistan, in Zululand, and the Transvaal. Meanwhile the reader may be reminded of the swift passage of time and of the considerable period which this account has already covered.

_To his Mother._

Ireland: April 15, 1879.

I write to wish you very many happy returns of your birthday
to-morrow, which is also, as perhaps you may remember, our
wedding-day; and having been married five years I begin to feel
highly respectable.

This weather is certainly very wintry and does not seem to lend
itself to anything congenial, while anything more odious or
unfortunate for fishing cannot be well imagined. I fished for two
days in the Suir and never moved a fish, nor did anyone else.
However, I have added another Irish county (Tipperary) to my
peregrinations in this island.

This is now the fifth birthday you have spent in Ireland and I am
sure it must be satisfactory to you to look back on the years you
have spent there. I do not think you can recollect a _contretemps_
or a cross; and I am sure, if I may say so, no one deserves a
pleasanter retrospect: and believe me, I sincerely hope next 15th
of April will find you as happy and untroubled as I hope you will
be to-morrow.

The wet summer of 1879 produced something like a ‘food and fuel famine’ in the South and West of Ireland. The potatoes failed, grain would not ripen, and the turf could not be dried. The Government met the danger by offering the landlords loans on easier terms than those recognised by law, and cautioned the Irish Poor Law authorities to be ready to administer additional relief. But official aid was wholly insufficient without private charity and in these straits, the Duchess of Marlborough came forward and appealed to the public. She was a woman of exceptional capacity, energy, and decision, and she laboured earnestly and ceaselessly to collect and administer a great fund. Its purposes were to supply food, fuel, and clothing, especially for the aged and weak; to provide small sums to keep the families of able-bodied men in temporary distress out of the workhouse; and thirdly, while carefully guarding against any kind of proselytism, to give grants to schools, so as to secure free meals of bread and potatoes and, if possible, a little clothing for the children attending them. The plan unfolded in her letters to the _Times_ was welcomed not only by the Irish Conservative press, but by the _Freeman’s Journal_, which then supported Mr. Butt’s policy and which bore handsome testimony to the efforts made by the Viceregal family to become acquainted with the Irish people, and to their great popularity even in the disturbed district near Portarlington, which was their country seat. The ultra-Nationalist papers were less kindly, but the fund was warmly supported and grew apace. The Queen sent 500_l._ and the Prince of Wales 250_l._ By the end of the year 8,300_l._ had been subscribed; by March the receipts were 88,000_l._; and, before the Viceroy left Ireland (April 21) on the change of Ministry, the fund was 117,000_l._ Although many subscriptions were diverted to a separate fund raised by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, the Duchess of Marlborough’s fund ultimately reached 135,000_l._ Its administration was entirely free from sectarian or party influence, Roman Catholics and Protestants being equally represented on the Committee. Upwards of 80,000_l._ was distributed in relief to the local committees, 37,000_l._ expended in seed, and 10,000_l._ upon clothing. The working expenses were under 1,700_l._ In all this Lord Randolph bore an active part. His whole time was given up to the work of organisation and distribution and before he left Ireland in the spring of 1880 he had visited nearly every Irish county and had come into intimate contact with every class in Irish life. His knowledge of Ireland was soon to be of service to him.

[Sidenote: 1880 ÆT. 31]

The Government of Lord Beaconsfield approached the election of 1880 with some inward misgivings. Their party was united and contented. The _Times_ declared that Mr. Gladstone’s language was extravagant and out of proportion to any feeling that might exist in the country. The by-elections were not especially unfavourable to Ministers. But nevertheless there were causes for anxiety. The lustre had gradually faded from the ‘spirited foreign policy’ and from the Imperialism of Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Lytton. Taxation had been increased; deficits had taken the place of surpluses; no legislative achievements could be discovered. In India and South Africa useless bloodshed, clotted by disaster, seemed to be the outcome of British activities. The policy of the Government in the Near East was stridently asserted by its opponents to be a failure, if not a fraud. Trade depression, as a reaction from the ‘boom’ after the Franco-German war, was continuous. Revival was delayed by the uncertainty of the European situation. Economic weakness followed diplomatic strength and military exertion. There had been serious strikes in 1878, and the winter of 1878-9 was marked by acute distress. The elements of Nature were adverse. Agriculture was vexed with wet summers and bad harvests and low prices. All Ireland was dark with gathering storm. There was, no doubt, sufficient reason for apprehension; but no one foresaw the extent of impending defeat.

‘Lord Beaconsfield,’ wrote Lord Randolph Churchill in 1883,[7] ‘was very old and very worn when he got to the top of the tree, and he was but indifferently served by some of his colleagues. Advancing years, an enfeebled constitution, a singularly exhausting and painful form of disease, had compelled him to give way to a disposition naturally indolent and unsuited to the constant mastery of dry administrative detail. He must often have thought that he had done nearly enough; that he might with justice allow himself to seek in the distractions of London society a pleasure and a repose to which, during most of his life, he had been a stranger. Only the most captious mind could blame him for this; but this it was, nevertheless, which greatly conduced to the downfall of his Government. What time he gave to public affairs was absorbed in studying, with the assistance of the Foreign Secretary, the various phases of the Eastern complication. All else was neglected. Finance was left entirely to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in whose unaided hands deficits and floating debts grew apace. The other heads of departments were all allowed to go their own way, doing what seemed good in their eyes. There was no master mind pervading and controlling every branch of the Administration. Election affairs and organisation went to the dogs. The care, the experience, the personal supervision which Mr. Disraeli, assisted by a few practised hands, had bestowed upon the preparations for the General Election of 1874 disappeared. A weak but wide-spreading centralisation enervated the vigour of the provincial organisation. A stupefying degree of over-confidence, a foolish contempt for the adversary, a fatally erroneous estimate of the revived influence of Mr. Gladstone--these causes, and these alone, all of them preventable, slowly but surely worked the ruin.

On March 8, 1880, Sir Stafford Northcote announced to the House of Commons its approaching dissolution. The next morning there appeared in the papers Lord Beaconsfield’s letter to the Duke of Marlborough, assigning to Ireland the foremost place among the perils and embarrassments of British dominion. The memorable and prophetic words of this celebrated document, familiar though they be, require to be recorded here:--

‘Nevertheless, a danger, in its ultimate results scarcely less disastrous than pestilence and famine, and which now engages your Excellency’s anxious attention, distracts that country. A portion of its population is attempting to sever the constitutional tie which unites it to Great Britain in that bond which has favoured the power and prosperity of both. It is to be hoped that all men of light and leading will resist this destructive doctrine. The strength of this nation depends on the unity of feeling which should pervade the United Kingdom and its widespread Dependencies. The first duty of an English Minister should be to consolidate that co-operation which renders irresistible a community educated, as our own, in an equal love of liberty and law.

‘And yet there are some who challenge the expediency of the Imperial character of this realm. Having attempted, and failed, to enfeeble our Colonies by their policy of decomposition, they may perhaps now recognise in the disintegration of the United Kingdom a mode which will not only accomplish, but precipitate, their purpose.

‘The immediate dissolution of Parliament will afford an opportunity to the nation to decide upon a course which will materially influence its future fortunes and shape its destiny.’

Members of Parliament were forthwith scattered to defend their seats and above the tumult and babel which arose from so many contests little was heard except the reverberating thunders of Midlothian. Lord Randolph hurried back to Woodstock and arrived, as we may judge from the account he gave his mother, none too soon. The Blenheim estates had suffered from the absence of their owner and those dependent upon them felt acutely the diversion to Ireland and Irish purposes of that personal sympathy and care without which the administration of landed property becomes so often at once wasteful and harsh.

_Lord Randolph Churchill to his Mother._

Blenheim: March 21, 1880.

I have to thank you very much for your many letters, which have
been so welcome to me. I have now been round the constituency and
seen everybody, except a few people in Woodstock whom I have not
yet seen, and a few in other parts who were not at home when I
called. I shall take them all up this week, but the work will be
easier now, and I shall have some time for writing to you.

I assure you it has been hard work, and I have not spared time or
trouble; every day this last week I was out by nine and not home
till eleven at night. The results of the canvass will be arrived at
to-morrow when the Chairmen of the various Committees hand in their
reports, but I have no doubt the result will be satisfactory to
you. Every day, however, confirms what I wrote last week; the
continual expression of the labourer in Stonesfield, Coombe,
Handborough, and Bladon is, ‘Yes, I voted for you last time, but I
have been very badly served since,’ and then follows half an hour’s
complaint. The other Party admit that they would never have tried
again, had it not been for these complaints of the labouring men
and the great scarcity of employment.

I know well how difficult, almost impossible, it is to please poor
people. Nor do I blame your agent for not doing all they ask or for
not finding employment for them; that no doubt was out of his
power. What I do blame him for, and what I am sure my father and
you will blame him for, is for having provoked against himself a
great deal of ill-will, and having treated these poor people, and
farmers, with rudeness and worse than rudeness, and this, too,
during your absence, and at a time when the greatest discretion and
temper were wanted for the management of a great estate.

You cannot think how people are looking forward to your return
here; they feel quite jealous of all you are doing and have done in
Ireland. You have made for yourself a great name among the Radical
working men, several of them have spoken to me about you. Several
of them who perhaps would have gone for Hall will vote for me, or
rather for you; but at the same time I feel as I never felt before
how greatly this place and all the neighbourhood depends upon your
care and my father’s attention.

I have a public meeting, probably the last, to-morrow night in
Kidlington. The election will be on April 2, but much work is
needed for the proper preparation and organisation for polling day,
so that the Liberals may this time get their ‘quietus.’

I hope you liked my speech at Woodstock. I was prepared for a row,
but though I had no one with me to help, and although the other
Party was there in great force, helped by a preacher and stump
orator, they heard me with the greatest patience for forty minutes.
The preacher asked some questions and made some remarks, but I am
told that what I said on the Foreign Policy and Home Questions
pleased them much, and that I was considered to have had the best
of the preacher.

I feel so sorry for all this expense coming on at such a time, but
I hope things are going to mend this year. The weather has been
perfect--fine, bright, cold days, worth pounds to the farmers, who
are cleaning their fields with great activity and advantage. A good
harvest this year will do much to set things going; but the serious
part of the matter is that the farmers are so much worse off in
point of capital, and in addition the land is four years to the
bad, suffering from weeds and reduced manure. I fear that even with
good harvests the future is full of difficulties to the landlords.

The outlook here at the outset was very alarming, but it is
clearing rapidly. I think I must attend more regularly this
session. Hall hit me rather hard on account of my slack attendance.
I think the Party will keep a fair majority, but they cannot expect
to have quite so many as they had nor do I think it would be a good
thing. I am afraid you will think I have become rather Jingo, but
any lukewarmness at such a moment would be most dangerous.

The election at Woodstock took place on the second day of the polling (April 1), and Lord Randolph Churchill was returned--in a total electorate of 1,060--by 512 votes to the Liberal candidate’s (Mr. W. Hall, of Lancing, Sussex) 452. Thus Woodstock was snatched from the burning; but throughout the kingdom general disaster overwhelmed the Conservatives. In the first four days the Conservative majority had been destroyed by their losses in the boroughs. The counties endorsed and even emphasised the decision. When the returns were complete, Mr. Gladstone had obtained a Liberal majority of 54 over all other sections in the House. The dissolved Parliament had numbered 351 Conservatives, 250 Liberals, and 51 Home Rulers. The new Parliament assembled with 353 Liberals, 237 Conservatives, and 62 Home Rulers.

In two chapters two-thirds of Lord Randolph’s life have been described. Starting with many advantages, he was still at thirty-one obscure. Four or five speeches in as many years had made no particular impression, and the House of Commons had scarcely formed an opinion about him. Stirred on the one hand by liberal and pacific sentiments and restrained on the other by affection for the Conservative party, to which he was bound by so many ties of friendship and tradition and above all by respect for his father, he was prevented during those years from taking any clear or decided action which might have enlisted sympathy or commanded attention. Out-of-doors among the people he was unknown. Adverse social influences denied the recognition of such ability as he had shown. His party was now humbled in the dust. His own family borough lay under the shadow of an approaching Reform Bill. New Ministers and new measures occupied the public mind. Grave and violent dangers beset the State and no one troubled to think about an undistinguished sprig of the nobility. Nevertheless his hour had come.