THE END OF THE STRUGGLE.
The second autumn session of Mr Gladstone's Government will fill a memorable place in the Parliamentary history of the country – memorable not only for the work accomplished, but for the mode and means of its accomplishment.
Parliament was summoned in order that the Lords, duly impressed by the agitation of the recess, might be intimidated into passing the Franchise Bill by itself and without delay, while the House of Commons would find sufficient occupation in voting the necessary supplies for the Egyptian and South African expeditions.
The only distinct statement on the subject of Reform in the Queen's Speech was, "The Bill for the Extension of the Parliamentary Franchise will at once be introduced;" and the speech of Mr Gladstone on the Address was generally and justly understood as a direct warning to the House of Lords that they should pass that measure irrespective of any bill for the necessary redistribution of seats, or incur the indignation of an outraged people.
Such was the Ministerial programme. What really happened? The House of Commons, indeed, voted the supplies for the Nile and the Bechuanaland expeditions, but, before it adjourned, had to listen to a long and dreary catalogue of administrative shortcomings and deficiencies delivered on the part of the Admiralty by its new Secretary, Sir Thomas Brassey, and to face the unpleasant fact that, as the result of four years' administration of affairs by a Government pledged to Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform, an extra and abnormal expenditure of at least £5,000,000 would be added to the naval estimates of the next few years. The jubilant demonstrators of Mid-Lothian and Hyde Park as little foresaw such a financial termination of the autumn session as they did the arrangement, or compromise, or capitulation, as they variously describe it, by which, and by which alone, the Franchise Bill became law. Startling and important, however, as is the addition to our naval expenditure thus asked for, the principle which underlies it is still more so, and must entail far greater sacrifices than those named by Lord Northbrook and Sir Thomas Brassey. To suppose that our naval strength can be rendered equal to that of France and Italy combined, our foreign coaling-stations and our home commercial ports adequately protected, at a cost of only £5,000,000 above our ordinary annual navy estimates, is to indulge in the idlest of dreams; and to pretend to achieve these great and vital objects, and then to allow them to remain for years unaccomplished, is to invite the disaster which would then have been made merely the pretext for unavailing expenditure.
The country, therefore, will, in our opinion, have to date from the recent autumn session the addition of from £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 a-year to its naval expenditure, while the extraordinary and persistent blundering of the Government in Egypt will prevent for years to come any diminution of our army estimates – if, indeed,
