Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:18:49.352Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

XXVIII Herbert Gladstone, Forster, and Ireland, 1881–2 (II)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2016

A. B. Cooke  and
J. R. Vincent
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Select documents
Information
Irish Historical Studies , Volume 18 , Issue 69 , March 1972 , pp. 74 - 89
Copyright
Copyright © Irish Historical Studies Publications Ltd 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

(page no 74 note 1) 16 Dec. : full report, Freeman’s Journal, 20 Dec. 1881, p. 3.

(page no 74 note 2) What is almost certainly part of the fruit of these labours may be found in a miscellaneous volume of the Herbert Gladstone MSS (B.M., Add. MS 46110, ff 22–32), where a quite interesting but largely impersonal résumé is given of events and policy in Ireland since the formation of the government, ending on a very optimistic note. In the same volume (ff 33–99) there is a further and very detailed memorandum by Herbert Gladstone, of uncertain date, written to show that liberal policy in respect of coercion was no worse than that of the conservatives.

(page no 75 note 1) For the diarist’s view that detention was a question of public policy, not of individual innocence, see Herbert to Henry Gladstone, 5 Jan. 1882, Glynne-Gladstone MSS : ’ It is not settled so far as I know whether or not to release the suspect M.P.s when parliament meets. It must depend upon the state of the country ’. Cf. the main argument in Hawkins, R., ‘Gladstone, Forster, and the release of Parnell, 1882–8’ in I.HS., 5, Sept. 1969, pp 417–45.Google Scholar

(page no 75 note 2) The premier also revealed the drift of his mind on the question of coercion to his private secretary, stressing the need to find ways of ’ supplementing the ordinary law’ (Edward Hamilton’s diary, 26 Mar. 1882).

(page no 75 note 3) The views expressed here by the premier were almost identical with those put forward by Cowper in Oct. 1880 in a memorandum which Forster withheld from the cabinet (Earl Cowper, K.G., pp 395–7). This emphasises the point that Gladstone’s ‘Kilmainham’ thinking arose from within the bounds of existing coercionist opinion. It is true, however, that Cowper in 1881–2 became more attached to the particular brand of coercion then in force than any other minister, a fact which did not stop Forster virtually sacking him.

(page no 75 note 4) Lord Richard Grosvenor (1837–1912), liberal chief whip, 1880–85: created Lord Stalbridge, 1886, and became a liberal unionist.

(page no 75 note 5) Cf. Reid, T Wemyss Forster, 2, p. 406,Google Scholar for Gladstone’s letter of 24 Mar. to Forster on the growing opposition to the closure proposals, based on the belief that stopping them might stop the renewal of coercion later in the summer. The division on the closure proposals, which took place on 30 Mar., was carried by the government by 318 to 279.

(page no 75 note 6) The speech in question was delivered by Forster in the house of commons on 28 Mar. in a debate nominally on supply but in fact devoted mainly to Ireland. In it he said that the existing coercion act ‘certainly had not succeeded to the extent they had hoped’ giving as his explanations American money and the activities of the Irish party In an earlier part of his speech he set out the reasons why the imprisoned M.P.s should not be released, following Gladstone’s statement earlier in the day almost to the letter (Hansard 3, cclxviii, 195-203). For a similar account of Gladstone’s reaction to the debate, see Edward Hamilton’s diary, 29 Mar, 1882 which also records the premier’s indignation about Forster’s ‘premature’ and possibly ‘erroneous ’ hints as to the probability of additional coercive measures.

(page no 76 note 7) Lord F Cavendish.

(page no 76 note 8) William F. Cullinan, draftsman of bills at the Irish office.

(page no 76 note 9) Henry Robinson (1823–93), vice-president of the Irish local government board since 1879: resigned a commission in the 60th Rifles to become a local government inspector, 1848 : assistant under-secretary for Ireland and clerk of the Irish privy council, 1876–9: retired from government service in 1891, with a knighthood, to live on his family estates in Westmeath : his younger brother, Sir Hercules Robinson, was a distinguished colonial governor: his son, Henry, was the last vice-president of the Irish local government board, 1898–1922.

(page no 76 note 10) The diarist’s position on Irish government was that set out in his campaign for election at Leeds (elected, 9 May 1880), when he said ‘If you were to give Ireland a parliament, that parliament would not be a success’ but thought instead that ‘local self-government should be extended everywhere, Ireland included’ (Leeds Mercury, 1 May 1880). His autobiography (Viscount Gladstone, After thirty years, p. 266) claims that he supported, while his biography ( Mallet, Herbert Gladstone, p. 109)Google Scholar implies that he refused support to, the Irish demand for an enquiry into home rule in 1880. His first impressions of Ireland led him to think ‘I have committed myself too far at Leeds in recommending that complete management of their local affairs should be given to the Irish people ’ (Herbert to Henry Gladstone, 26 Oct. 1881, Glynne-Gladstone MSS). In party terms also he had gone too far towards home rule: cf. Derby to G. H. C. Powell of the southwest Lancashire liberal association, dismissing the idea of Herbert Gladstone standing for a Liverpool seat, on account of his unwelome views on Ireland and his poor showing in parliament (Derby to Powell, 18 July 1883, Derby MSS box 3, cited by Andrew Jones, The politics of reform, 1884, unpublished at time of writing).

(page no 77 note 11) The diarist was at this stage still a coercionist of sorts, and remained so till his interview with O’Donnell on 22 April: i.e. neither his first hand experience of Ireland, nor the supposed discredit attaching to the suspension of habeas corpus, nor even the first stirrings of a rumoured détente by the Parnellites, had led him to modify his views. ‘Crime is worse than ever. What was and is wanted is a change in the common law and increased powers to magistrates in summary jurisdiction—also fines for agrarian offences to be levied on districts and possibly a commission of judges. I expect new measures in this direction will be brought in, together with some plan for settling arrears and strengthening the Bright clauses ’ (Herbert to Henry Gladstone, 21 April 1882, Glynne-Gladstone MSS). This of course reflected his father’s wish for more severe coercion (see 23 Mar. above).

(page no 77 note 12) Frank Hugh O’Cahan O’Donnell (1848–1916), Irish politician and journalist : M.P. (H.R.) Dungarvan 1877–85: probably virtually unacquainted with Herbert Gladstone until this occasion, though O’Donnell claimed to have spoken at Leeds in connection with Herbert Gladstone’s election there. There is no memoir, and no entry in the D.N.B., but O’Donnell’s numerous literary remains include the acrid semi-autobiographical A history of the Irish parliamentary party (London, 1910, 2 vols).

(page no 77 note 13) At least seven letters had preceded this meeting. Firstly, O’Donnell had written to Herbert Gladstone an undated note asking for an interview. Secondly, Herbert Gladstone sent the note to Edward Hamilton asking him to check that it was authentic. Hamilton’s reply has not survived. However, on 9 Apr, 1882, Herbert Gladstone, then at Hawarden, wrote to O’Donnell asking what he wanted to discuss. O’Donnell definitely sent a reply, which has not survived, but which satisfied Herbert Gladstone, who on 19 Apr. said he would be glad to see O’Donnell at any time. O’Donnell replied the following day making an appointment for the 22nd at his house, 34 Craven St. (The Times, 16 July 1888, p. 7). For the sur-viving relevant letters, see B.M., Add. MS 46049, ff 184–5, 194.

What this analysis establishes is that (a) O’Donnell’s overtures to Herbert Gladstone significantly preceded the similar overtures from Capt. O’Shea to Chamberlain and W E. Gladstone, and (b) that they began before ParnelPs release on parole had been decided. (Herbert Gladstone’s idea that Parnell and O’Donnell had recently met, in Paris or elsewhere, is almost certainly unfounded speculation.) Parnell was released on parole on 10 Apr. O’Shea made his first approach to W E. Gladstone in a letter dated 13 Apr. and to Chamberlain in a letter dated 15 Apr. and received the following day. There had been no contact in previous months between O’Shea and either of his correspondents.

(page no 77 note 14) Contrary to his opinion as expressed in letters to The Times in the winter of 1881–2 attacking the act as ineffectual, and later in his A history of the Irish parliamentary party, ch. xix.

(page no 78 note 15) Though the Land Law (Ireland) Act (1881) Amendment Bill was drafted by Maurice Healy and supported by his brother Tim, it was in fact introduced by John Redmond. It embodied five major proposals: (1) rent at Griffith’s valuation for tenants while their cases were before the land court, (2) no raising of rent in consequence of improvements by tenants, (3) extension of the act to include leases made before 1870, (4) loans to tenants of 100% of purchase money, (5) arrears to be divided equally between tenant, landlord, and the Irish church fund.

(page no 78 note 16) For the other side of the story, see O’Donnell, FH., Irish parliamentary party, 2, pp 102–8,Google Scholar which gives a pompous account in very general terms of the O’Donnell-Herbert Gladstone negotiations, though it does print undated passages from O’Donnell’s letters to Herbert Gladstone, the originals of which have not survived in the Herbert Gladstone MSS. O’Donnell’s most specific point was the danger from the labourers.

(page no 78 note 17) See appendix below.

(page no 78 note 18) Chamberlain asked Capt. O’Shea on 23 Apr. whether he was aware that ‘another Irish member had made advances to the government’ O’Shea, commenting on this, remarked to Parnell that if this was so, then it was ‘without your knowledge or authority’ (O’Shea to Parnell, draft, 24 Apr., O’Shea MSS, National Library of Ireland, MS 5752, ff 74–80).

(page no 79 note 19) The following extracts from W E. Forster’s diary (now lost), confirm this :

Sat. Apr. 22. A letter from H.G. while at cabinet, detailing his interview with O’Donnell.

Apr. 23. H.G. to lunch, bringing absurd letter from O’Donnell. These extracts were printed in The Times, 3 Aug. 1888, p. 10, in a letter by H. O. Arnold-Forster, in reply to a letter from Herbert Gladstone claiming ’ Í showed Mr Forster all the correspondence which was at all material ’

(page no 79 note 20) Not extant in the Herbert Gladstone MSS : described, but not printed, in The Times, 16 July 1888, p. 7, as a ‘long letter setting forth in detail some supplementary facts ’ : according to the same source, Herbert Gladstone replied to it on 24 Apr., in a letter of whose contents nothing is known. O’Donnell wrote again, also on 24 Apr., in a letter, printed in extenso in The Times, 17 July 1888, p. 8, the original of which does not survive. In this letter O’Donnell spoke ‘with absolute certainty ’ of the change of heart among the Irish leaders. The Times (16 July 1888) refers to and cites a further letter from O’Donnell to Herbert Gladstone, dated 27 Apr. 1882, in which the ‘unmitigated brutality’ and ‘brutal blunders’ of Forster’s subordinates are denounced along with the failure to settle the arrears question. In a tactful reply (1 May 1882), printed in extenso in The Times in 1888, Herbert Gladstone looked forward to an early improvement in the situation. The following day, O’Donnell wrote praising the release of prisoners. He wrote again on 5 May, before Cavendish’s death, repeating his previous advice at great length, and warning Herbert Gladstone that pressure was being put on Parnell by extremists to attack the government (The Times, 17 July 1888). He did not write again for a fortnight. Later, in May and early June, Herbert Gladstone tried to persuade O’Donnell to moderate his opposition to coercion (B.M., Add. MS 46049, ff 205–6, 228–31). After this their correspondence ended.

(page no 79 note 21) In fact questions on the release of suspects were answered by the premier, and in a clipped and unhelpful manner.

(page no 79 note 22) I.e. debate of 26 April on Redmond’s land bill.

(page no 79 note 23) Now lost. Herbert Gladstone probably had no further contact with the Irish party until Jan. 1883 when two M.P.s brought him word of an (imaginary) plot to murder his father in Cannes ( McCarthy, J. and MrsPraed, Campbell Our book of memories (London, 1912), pp 98–100).Google Scholar

(page no 80 note 24) The Land Law (Ireland) Act (1881) Amendment Bill, in the name of Redmond and others, was read a first time on 9 Feb. 1882, and its second reading was moved by Redmond on 26 Apr. 1882. See also above, n. 15.

(page no 80 note 25) Gladstone rejected the bill as a whole but unreservedly endorsed the clauses dealing with arrears and purchase, stressing these must be settled ’ in accordance with Irish opinion from every quarter ’ setting aside ‘former differences however sharp’ (Hansard 3, cclxviii, 1488–97).

(page no 80 note 26) The text from ‘Apr. 26, Wed.’ to this point is printed in Viscount Gladstone, After thirty years, p. 275.

(page no 81 note 27) In fact both events were announced at the beginning of question time on 2 May (Hansard 3, cclxviii, 1965–70). After making the announcements, Gladstone went on to state that the existing coercion act would be allowed to expire, but that the ministry were drafting ‘ a bill to strengthen the ordinary law, and to meet difficulties such as we have experienced in the administration of justice and in defending and securing private rights in Ireland’,this bill ‘to be introduced as soon as the necessary business of the house will permit’ This shows that, after Kilmainham as before, Gladstone wished to coerce Ireland, not by Forster’s method of suspending civil liberties, but by introducing strong new penal sanctions.

Gladstone’s policy in this respect was not related to the assassinations, but preceded it, as Lady F Cavendish stressed: ‘There is one point which, almost from the first, was misrepresented : it is even wrongly described in the Annual Register I mean the idea that the coercion act of’82 was brought in, in consequence of the murders in Phoenix Park. Nothing could have been more painful to me than this untruth, knowing as I did how abhorrent it would have been to Lord Frederick to have coercion introduced, when not contemplated on public grounds. I remember asking Lord Selborne, some time in the summer of ’82, if it was not true that coercion had been decided upon before May. He replied ‘Certainly’ and added emphatically ‘There were members of the cabinet who would have resigned otherwise’ (Lady F Cavendish to John Morley,31 Jan. 1902, in connexion with Morley’s biography of Gladstone, W E. Gladstone MSS, new deposit, B.M., Add. MS 56453, unfoliated.)

(page no 81 note 28) The Gladstones’ doctor

(page no 81 note 29) Andrew Marshall Porter, Q.C., (1837–1919) cr. Bt., 1902: protestant and son of a presbyterian minister: M.P (lib.) co. Londonderry 1881–3: solicitor-general for Ireland, Nov. 1881–Jan. 1883: attorney-general for Ireland, 1883: master of the rolls in Ireland, 1883–1906. In spring 1882 he was highly regarded by Gladstone (E. Hamilton’s diary, 4 Mar. 1882, B.M., Add MS 48632, f.3) and was the first person to whom Gladstone offered the chief secretaryship on Forster’s resignation. He was again considered for the post on Cavendish’s death, but no second offer was made (W E. Gladstone to Spencer, tel., 8 May 1882, B.M., Add. MS 44308, f. 225).

(page no 81 note 30) Gladstone said he ‘would have liked to find an Irishman’ Shaw, the home rule leader, was the person first thought of, but was put aside on the grounds of his unpopularity. ‘The only other fitting Irishman was Porter, and to Porter the offer was first made’ (Edward Hamilton’s diary, 4 May 1882, B.M., Add. MS 48632, f. 38). In saying this, the premier was in agreement with Chamberlain, who told O’Shea on 2 May : ‘At present no offer has been made to me and I sincerely hope it never will be. I should like to see an Irishman in the post and I intend to press this view on Mr Gladstone.1 (O’Shea MSS, National Library of Ireland, MS 5752, ff 33–5).

(page no 82 note 31) The fact that, according to his wife, Cavendish had pressed the premier to make Hartington the new chief secretary, shows fairly clearly what Cavendish himself had in mind as the appropriate post-Kilmainham course in Irish policy ( The diary of Lady Frederick Cavendish, ed. Bailey, John (London, 1927),2, 305).Google Scholar Cf. a later passage in the diary (ibid., ii, p. 328, written 23 Oct. 1884) milder in emphasis but leaving no doubt about the similarities between Cavendish’s ‘new’ policy and the old one : ‘At one time Bobby Spencer came to see me, I think it was in 1882. He told me that Lord Spencer and Freddy had set to work at the Castle as soon as ever they were sworn in . going carefully through the different provisions of the crimes bill—putting in a plea for moderating it where he could’ Other extracts make it clear in general terms that Gladstone and Cavendish had discussed plans for a new crimes bill.

(page no 83 note 32) Daughter of W E. Gladstone: married Rev. H. Drew, 1886.

(page no 83 note 33) Spencer to W E. Gladstone, 7 May 1882, B.M., Add. MS 44308, ff 217–24, ‘laying great stress on your bringing in the bill for strengthening the hands of the magistrates on the lines laid down at the cabinet committee on Thursday and Friday last week ’ Spencer also laid heavy blame on the Irish police, and turned down Forster’s offer to return to his post.

(page no 83 note 34) ‘Reported on the very highest authority to have been inspired by Forster ! ’ (Edward Hamilton’s diary, 9 May 1882, B.M., Add. MS 48632, f. 44).

(page no 84 note 35) Yet on 7 May Justin McCarthy and Parnell called on Düke and were told ’ if Gladstone offered him the post of Irish secretary, nothing that had happened lately would in the least deter him from accepting it. He went on to say that he was a Home Ruler quand même: that he would be inclined to press Home Rule on the Irish people, even if they were not wholly inclined for it, because he so fully believed in the principle. ‘On balance, however, he thought Chamberlain should take the post ‘to smash things—meaning the Dublin Castle system ’ This account was based on nothing more substantial than personal recollections dictated in 1887 by McCarthy to his literary collaborator, Mrs Praed. Nevertheless it does give a convincing picture of the immediate reaction to the murders, both on the part of the Irish and of Düke ( McCarthy, J. and Praed, Mrs Campbell Our book of memories, pp 95–6).Google Scholar

According to McCarthy’s account, he and Parnell then visited Chamberlain who was ‘perfectly willing to go to Ireland ’ and hinted at his willingness to implement major administrative reforms. However, Chamberlain himself claims that he urged Düke to accept the chief secretaryship even without the cabinet, at the time when the offer was actually made, though this was contrary to their earlier joint opinion ( Howard, C.H.D. ed., A political memoir, p. 63).Google Scholar Düke described Chamberlain’s pressure on him on 8 May as ’ the first difference that had ever occurred between us ’ and made it plain he was not open to persuasion ( Gwynn, S. and Tuckwell, G. M., The life of the rt. hon. Sir Charles Düke (London, 1917), 1, 441–2).Google Scholar

(page no 84 note 36) Robert George Crookshank Hamilton (1836–95), career civil servant: junior posts in various government departments, 1855–72: assistant secretary to board of trade, 1872–8: secretary to civil service inquiry commission, 1874–5: accountant-general to navy, 1878–82 : secretary to the admiralty, (for one day), 8 May 1882: under-secretary for Ireland, 1882–6: advocated limited legislative devolution, 1885–6, and strongly supported Gladstone’s first home rule bill: governor of Tasmania, 1886–92: chairman of the board of customs, 1894–5: er. K.C.B., 1884.

(page no 84 note 37) Thomas Henry Burke (1829–82), under-secretary for Ireland from May 1869 to his death.

(page no 1 note 45) Brackenbury, one of Wolseley’s ‘ring’, had just organised the Cyprus police; he was appointed assistant under-secretary for police and crime by Spencer on 25 May, remaining at Dublin Castle till July 1882, when he returned to an orthodox military career, rising to director-general of ordnance. He did not succeed Hillier, who was inspector-general of the R.I.C. In June 1882 he asked for a special grant of £20,000 (later increased to £50,000) for the purpose of breaking up the secret societies which existed throughout Ireland ‘in a terribly rampant state’ (Edward Hamilton’s diary, 9 & 2 June 1882). His request was not granted, despite the high opinion which Spencer had of his abilities.

(page no 84 note 39) For a stronger version of this argument, see Corfe, T., Phoenix Park murders, pp 190–4.Google Scholar The diarist’s version, insofar as it turns on timing, is negated by the fact that the Invincibles set out for the park at about 5, while Cavendish did not leave the Castle till 6.30. This does not dispose of the question whether the murderers could have had prior knowledge, by means other than observation of his departure, that Cavendish would be walking through the park. (This does not mean, of course, that Burke was not intentionally murdered once the opportunity accidentally arose, but simply that it was not only, and not primarily, Burke who was intentionally murdered.) For the later relevance of this difference in interpretation, cf. Rosebery’s journal, 10 Nov. 1885: ‘I said in reply to a question of Mr G that I thought Hartington had always felt strongly with regard to Irish questions since his brother’s murder. He made this curious reply “But he should not allow that to influence him, he must know perfectly well they only meant to murder Burke” ‘Confirmation of Gladstone’s view is to be found in a memorandum dictated on 6 Nov. 1889 by Robert Spence Watson, a leading figure in the National Liberal Federation, recording a remarkable monologue delivered in private by Spencer who on the occasion in question revealed his innermost thoughts on an incident which he normally preferred not to discuss. Referring to Cavendish, Spencer said : ’ I am persuaded that it was a pure accident that he was killed As for Mr Burke’s murder it was deliberately planned’ (Memorandum in the Robert Spence Watson MSS, a comparatively small, but well sorted collection in the possession of W B. Morrell Esq. at 99, South End Road, London, N.W.3).

(page no 85 note 40) Lt. F. J. Ross (1848–1926), extra A.D.C. to Spencer and Carnarvon 1882–5: chief commissioner of the Dublin Metropolitan Police 1901–14: member of several commissions in intervening period: K.C.B. 1903, K.C.V.O. 1911 Ross was called military secretary simply because he acted as Dublin Castle’s liaison with the army concerning the use of troops by the civil power.

(page no 85 note 41) Hansard 3, cclxix, 462–72. The speech was full of repetitious anatomical and medical allusions. He referred at one stage to the ‘poison that courses through the veins of the Irish social system ’ for which the only adequate remedy was ‘the surgeon ‘sknife ’

(page no 86 note 42) The claim here that Parnell’s release was a unilateral administrative action, corresponds by and large with W. E. Gladstone’s later interpretation of the ‘Kil-mainham treaty’, which appeared under the title of ‘Mr Forster and Ireland ’ in the Nineteenth Century, September 1888. Gladstone may perhaps have referred to his son’s diary when writing in 1888. See Hawkins, R. op. cit. in I.H.S, 5, p. 417,Google Scholar drawing attention to Gladstone’s emphasis on a supposed (but in fact non-existent) statutory obligation binding the government to release the suspects once suspicion had passed. There were two separate elements in Gladstone’s position : the claim that the release of prisoners was a unilateral action (which in some political sense may be true) and the claim that it was a unilateral legal or administrative action (which is patently disingenuous). Gladstone held consistently to the first claim from first to last : he employed the second claim in 1882, and therefore developed rather than invented it in his article of 1888. He was therefore tolerably consistent in his disingenuousness (or ignorance of statute). As early as 2 May 1882, he claimed that the 1881 coercion act demanded ‘the release of men no longer believed to be associated with the commission of crime’ (Hansard 3, cclxviii, 1967–8). As to the denial of a bargain, Gladstone replied to Forster’s resignation speech on 4 May by saying flatly ’ There is no arrangement between the member for the city of Cork and ourselves. There is no bargain, no arrangement, no negotiations; for nothing has been asked and nothing has been given’ (ibid., cclxix, 121–4). After Parnell supposedly let the cat out of the bag on 15 May 1882 by bringing up his letter to O’Shea, Gladstone again reaffirmed ‘there never was the slightest understanding between the hon. member for the city of Cork and government’ (ibid., col. 675). Herbert Gladstone’s arguments above, therefore, simply approximate to those already being used by his father.

There is nothing to be gained by running together the separate questions of Gladstone’s erroneous statements about the law of coercion and his general denial that there was a bargain. Because Gladstone produced spurious legal reasons in support of the view that there was no bargain, it does not therefore follow that there was a bargain (other than a nationalist surrender ingeniously disguised by Parnell to resemble a bargain). Gladstone, writing in 1888, had after all excellent reasons for not suggesting that he had forced his Irish allies to surrender in 1882.

(page no 87 note 43) See above, p. 80, for W E. Gladstone’s equivocal parliamentary statement on this subject of 26 Apr.

(page no 87 note 44) Forster was in fact demanding compliance with only one, and not with all three, of the above conditions (Forster to W. E. Gladstone, 29 Apr. 1882, in Wemyss Reid, T Forster, 1889 ed., p. 560).Google Scholar

(page no 87 note 45) For the diarist’s earlier view on this point, see above, p. 74, n. 1.

(page no 88 note 46) Not traced in the W E. Gladstone MSS or the Herbert Gladstone MSS, although Herbert Gladstone found the original document in September 1888 with an endorsement by himself stating it had been read to the cabinet (The Times, 17 Sept. 1888, p. 8, misstated in Selborne, Lord, Memorials, part II: political and personal (London, 1910), 2, p. 48, n. 1.)Google Scholar

(page no 89 note 47) Seiborne, loc. cit., p. 48.