conflict, the Queen earnestly trusts that he will avail himself of such means to obviate it."

The Queen then wrote to Lord Salisbury in the same sense in which she had written to the prime minister. Lord Salisbury replied that it would give him great pleasure to consult with anybody the Queen might desire, and that in obedience to her commands he would do all that lay in him to bring the controversy finally to a just and honorable issue. He went on, however, to say, in the caustic vein that was one of his ruling traits, that while cheerfully complying with the Queen's wishes, he thought it right to add that, so far as his information went, no danger attached to the prolongation of the controversy for a considerable time, nor did he believe that there was any real excitement in the country about it. The Queen, in replying (November 5), said that she would at once acquaint Mr. Gladstone with what he had said.

§ 6. Re-introduction of the Franchise Bill

The autumn session began, and the Franchise Bill was introduced again. Three days later, in consequence of a communication from the other camp, the debate on the second reading was conciliatory; but the Tories won a by-election, and the proceedings in committee became menacing and clouded. Discrepancies abounded in the views of the Opposition upon redistribution. When the third reading came (November 11), important men on the Tory side insisted on the production of a Seats Bill, and declared there must be no communication with the enemy. Mr. Gladstone was elaborately pacific. If he could not get peace, he said, at least let it be recorded that he desired peace. The parleys of Lord Hartington and Sir Michael Hicks-Beach came to an end.

Mr. Gladstone, late one night soon after this (November 14), had a long conversation with Sir Stafford Northcote at the house of a friend. He had the authority of the Cabinet (not given for this special interview) to promise the introduction of a Seats Bill before the committee stage of the Franchise Bill in the Lords, provided he was assured that it could be done without endangering or retarding franchise. Northcote and Mr. Gladstone made good progress on the principles of redistribution. Then came an awkward message from Lord Salisbury, that the Lords could not let the Franchise Bill through, until they got the Seats Bill from the Commons. So negotiations were again broken off.

The only hope now was that a sufficient number of Lord Salis

bury's adherents would leave him in the lurch, if he did not close with what was understood to be Mr. Gladstone's engagement, to procure and press a Seats Bill as soon as ever franchise was out of danger. So it happened, and the door that had thus been shut speedily opened. Indirect communication reached the treasury bench that seemed to show the leaders of Opposition to be again alive. There were many surmises, everybody was excited, and two great Tory leaders in the Lords called on Lord Granville one day, anxious for a modus vivendi. Mr. Gladstone in the Commons, in conformity with a previous decision of the Cabinet, declared the willingness of the government to produce a bill or explain its provisions, on receiving a reasonable guarantee that the Franchise Bill would be passed before the end of the sittings. The ultras of the Opposition still insisted on making bets all round that the Franchise Bill would not become law; besides betting, they declared they would die on the floor of the House in resisting an accommodation. A meeting of the party was summoned at the Carlton Club for the purpose of declaring war to the knife, and Lord Salisbury was reported to hold to his determination. This resolve, however, proved to have been shaken by Mr. Gladstone's language on a previous day. The general principles of redistribution had been sufficiently sifted, tested, and compared to show that there was no insuperable discrepancy of view. It was made clear to Lord Salisbury circuitously, that though the government required adequate assurances of the safety of franchise before presenting their scheme upon seats, this did not preclude private and confidential illumination. So the bill was read a second time.

87. Party Negotiations and Compromise

All went prosperously forward. On November 19, Lord Salisbury and Sir S. Northcote came to Downing Street in the afternoon, took tea with the prime minister, and had a friendly conversation for an hour in which much ground was covered. The heads of the government scheme were discussed and handed to the Opposition leaders. Mr. Gladstone was well satisfied. He was much struck, he said after, with the quickness of the Tory leader, and found it a pleasure to deal with so acute a man. Lord Salisbury, for his part, was interested in the novelty of the proceeding; for no precedent could be found in our political or party history for the discussion of a measure before its introduction between the leaders of the two sides. This novelty stirred his curiosity, while he also kept a sharp eye on the main party chance. He

proved to be entirely devoid of respect for tradition, and Mr. Gladstone declared himself to be a strong conservative in comparison. The meetings went on for several days through the various parts of the questions, Lord Hartington, Lord Granville, and Sir Charles Dilke being also taken into council- the last of the three being unrivalled master of the intricate details.

The operation was watched with jealous eyes by the Radicals, though they had their guardians in the Cabinet. To Mr. Bright who, having been all his life denounced as a violent republican, was now in the view of the new school hardly even so much as a sound Radical, Mr. Gladstone thought it well to write (November 25) words of comfort, if comfort were needed:

"I wish to give you the assurance that in the private communications which are now going on, Liberal principles such as we should conceive and term them are in no danger. Those with whom we confer are thinking without doubt of party interests, as affected by this or that arrangement; but these are a distinct matter, and I am not so good at them as some others; but the general proposition which I have stated is I think one which I can pronounce with some confidence. . . . The whole operation is essentially delicate and slippery, and I can hardly conceive any other circumstances in which it would be justified, but in the present very peculiar case I think it is not only warranted, but called for."

On November 27 all was well over, and Mr. Gladstone was able to inform the Queen that "the delicate and novel communications" between the two sets of leaders had been brought to a happy termination. "His first duty," he said, "was to tender his grateful thanks to your Majesty for the wise, gracious, and steady influence on your Majesty's part which has so powerfully contributed to bring about this accommodation, and to avert a serious crisis of affairs." He adds that "his cordial acknowledgments are due to Lord Salisbury and Sir Stafford Northcote for the manner in which they have conducted their difficult communications." The Queen promptly replied: "I gladly and thankfully return your telegrams. To be able to be of use is all I care to live for now." By way of winding up negotiations so remarkable, Mr. Gladstone wrote to Lord Salisbury to thank him for his kindness, and to say that he could have desired nothing better in candor and equity. Their conversation on the Seats Bill would leave him none but the most agreeable recollections.1

1 Compare this account with Churchill, Lord Randolph Churchill, Vol. I, chaps. vi. ff.

CHAPTER V

THE CABINET SYSTEM

THE great measures which transformed England into a political democracy left untouched the outward forms of the Constitution. The sovereign retained nominally at least the ancient dignities and prerogatives, and the hereditary House of Lords continued to hold its full powers as an integral part of the legislature. In external forms the government appeared very much as it did in the days of Henry VIII when the king appointed and dismissed his ministers at will and summoned Parliament at his pleasure. However, since that time the practice had grown up of compelling the sovereign to accept only those ministers who had the support of a majority of the House of Commons. This practice, which was greatly furthered in the age of Walpole, became settled custom in the nineteenth century, and must be thoroughly examined by any one who would know the actual workings of the government of Great Britain. In Mr. Bagehot's famous book on the English Constitution we have a charming account of many features of the English system.

1. The Crown and Selection of Ministers1

The efficient secret of the English Constitution may be described as the close union, the nearly complete fusion, of the executive and legislative powers. No doubt by the traditional theory, as it exists in all the books, the goodness of our Constitution consists in the entire separation of the legislative and executive authorities, but in truth its merit consists in their singular approximation. The connecting link is the Cabinet. By that new word we mean a committee of the legislative body selected to be the executive body. 1 Bagehot, The English Constitution, chap. ii.

The legislature has many committees, but this is the greatest. It chooses for this, its main committee, the men in whom it has most confidence. It does not, it is true, choose them directly; but it is nearly omnipotent in choosing them indirectly. A century ago the crown had a real choice of ministers, though it had no longer a choice in policy. During the long reign of Sir R. Walpole he was obliged not only to manage Parliament, but to manage the palace. He was obliged to take care that some court intrigue did not expel him from his place. The nation then selected the English policy, but the crown chose the English ministers. They were not only in name, as now, but in fact, the queen's servants. Remnants, important remnants, of this great prerogative still remain. The discriminating favor of William IV made Lord Melbourne head of the Whig party when he was only one of several rivals. . . . But as a rule, the nominal prime minister is chosen by the legislature, and the real prime minister for most purposes the leader of the House of Commons - almost without exception is so.

§2. The Prime Minister and Choice of his Associates

There is nearly always some one man plainly selected by the voice of the predominant party in the predominant house of the legislature to head that party, and consequently to rule the nation. We have in England an elective first magistrate as truly as the Americans have an elective first magistrate. The queen is only at the head of the dignified part of the Constitution. The prime minister is at the head of the efficient part. The crown is, according to the saying, the "fountain of honor"; but the treasury is the spring of business. Nevertheless our first magistrate differs from the American. He is not elected directly by the people, he is elected by the representatives of the people. He is an example of "double election." The legislature chosen, in name, to make laws, in fact finds its principal business in making and in keeping an executive.

The leading minister so selected has to choose his associates, but he only chooses among a charmed circle. The position of most men in Parliament forbids their being invited to the Cabinet; the position of a few men insures their being invited. Between the compulsory list whom he must take, and the impossible list whom he cannot take, a prime minister's independent choice in the formation of a Cabinet is not very large; it extends rather to the division of the Cabinet offices than to the choice of Cabinet ministers. Parliament and the nation have pretty well settled who shall have