334 



GREAT BRITAIN" AND IRELAND. 



the Government was pursuing. Mr. Gladstone 

 was offered a public reception in London, but 

 declined it on grounds of public propriety, say- 

 ing, u I am sure that in the eyes of many, and 

 not of our political opponents exclusively, it 

 would be regarded as an attempt, made for the 

 first time, to establish a practice of public re- 

 joicing in the metropolis of the country over 

 the catastrophe of an administration and a po- 

 litical party, and would wound feelings which 

 we ought to respect as well as spare." 



On the 21st of April the Earl of Beacons- 

 field formally tendered to the Queen the resig- 

 nations of himself and his colleagues in the 

 Ministry. On the next day the Queen sent for 

 the Marquis of Hartington. On the 23d Lord 

 Hartington visited the Queen again with Lord 

 Granville, and afterward Mr. Gladstone was 

 summoned to Windsor and received the ap- 

 pointment of First Lord of the Treasury and 

 Chancellor of the Exchequer. The new Cabi- 

 net was constituted as follows: First Lord of 

 the Treasury and Chancellor of the Exche- 

 quer, the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone ; Lord 

 Chancellor, Lord Selborne ; Lord President of 

 the Council, Earl Spencer ; Lord Privy Seal, 

 the Duke of Argyll ; Secretary of State for the 

 Home Department, Sir William Harcourt; Sec- 

 retary of State for Foreign Affairs, Earl Gran- 

 ville ; Secretary of State for the Colonies, Earl 

 of Kimberley ; Secretary of State for War, Mr. 

 Childers; Secretary of State for India, Mar- 

 quis of Hartington ; First Lord of the Ad- 

 miralty, Earl of Northbrook ; President of the 

 Board of Trade, Mr. Chamberlain; Chancellor 

 of the Duchy of Lancaster, Mr. Bright ; Chief 

 Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Forster ; President 

 of the Local Government Board, Mr. Dodson. 



Earl Granville as Foreign Secretary received 

 the foreign ambassadors and ministers April 

 30th, and stated concerning the attitude of the 

 new Cabinet in regard to Continental affairs, 

 that the Treaty of Berlin, frankly adopted by 

 the new Government, would be maintained ; 

 the Cabinet would enter into no Continental 

 alliance, and would cordially continue the re- 

 lations with France ; it would support the de- 

 mands of Greece ; and it expected to maintain 

 a good understanding with respect to English 

 and French relations in Egypt. 



The new Parliament met April 23d. The 

 Right Honorable Henry Brand was elected 

 Speaker of the House of Commons. During 

 the process of swearing in the members of the 

 House of Commons, Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, 

 who had been returned from Northampton, 

 being an atheist, claimed the privilege of mak- 

 ing an affirmation instead of taking the oath. 

 The Speaker was not able to determine the 

 question thus raised, since he had grave doubts 

 of the construction placed on the meaning of 

 the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 1866 by Mr. 

 Bradlaugh. The case was referred to a select 

 committee. The House afterward adjourned 

 till May 20th. The committee appointed to 

 consider the question raised by Mr. Bradlaugh, 



decided that the oath should not be dispensed 

 with in his case, and so reported when the 

 House met again. On the 21st of May Mr. 

 Bradlaugh came forward and offered to be 

 sworn. A resolution was offered declaring 

 that he ought not to be allowed to take the 

 oath. This was rejected by a vote of 289 to 

 214. The case was then referred to a select 

 committee, with directions to inquire into the 

 facts and circumstances of the claim of Mr. 

 Bradlaugh to be sworn, into the law applicable 

 to the claim, and into the jurisdiction of the 

 House to refuse it. This committee reported 

 adversely to Mr. Bradlaugh's claim, and the 

 House decided, June 22d, after having debated 

 the question for two days, that Mr. Bradlaugh 

 should not be allowed to take the oath. On 

 the next day, Mr. Bradlaugh again pressed his 

 claim to take the oath. It was denied, and he 

 was requested to withdraw. He declared the 

 order contrary to law, and refused to obey it, 

 and for this was taken into custody. The case 

 excited great public interest, and many meet- 

 ings were held on the subject, some of which 

 were in sympathy with Mr. Bradlaugh, and 

 others with the Parliamentary majority. On 

 the 2d of July Mr. Gladstone moved a resolu- 

 tion declaring that every person returned as a 

 member of the House of Commons, who may 

 claim to be a person for the time being by law 

 permitted to make a solemn affirmation instead 

 of taking an oath, should henceforth notwith- 

 standing so much of the resolution adopted by 

 the House on June 22d as relates to affirmation 

 be permitted without question to make and 

 subscribe a solemn affirmation in the form pre- 

 scribed by the Parliamentary Oaths Act of 

 1866, as amended by the Promissory Oaths 

 Act of 1868, subject to any liability by statutes. 

 The resolution was adopted by a vote of 303 

 to 249, and was made a standing order. Mr. 

 Bradlaugh made the affirmation and took his 

 seat on the next day. 



In the opening speech of his canvass at Ed- 

 inburgh, March 17th, Mr. Gladstone attributed 

 to the Emperor of Austria a disparaging re- 

 mark concerning himself which his Majesty 

 was said to have made to Sir Henry Elliot, 

 describing Mr. Gladstone as a man who did 

 not approve the foreign policy of Austria, and 

 whom he therefore did not desire to see in 

 power. Mr. Gladstone then reviewed the for- 

 eign policy of Austria, saying: "Austria has 

 ever besn the unflinching foe of freedom in 

 every country in Europe. . . . There is not an 

 instance, there is not a spot on the whole map 

 where you can lay your finger and say, ' There 

 Austria did good.' I do not of course abandon 

 the hope of improvement in the future; but 

 we must look to the past and to the present 

 for the guidance of our judgments. At this 

 moment, and in the Congress of Berlin, Austria 

 resisted the extension of freedom, and did not 

 promote it." Sir Henry Elliot telegraphed 

 from Vienna, March 22d, that Mr. Gladstone 

 had entirely misrepresented a casual remark 



