ment of a peaceful day. What was the cause of the change? It was the gradual invasion and the firm establishment against the old Celtic habits of those higher customs and better laws which came from the Latin and Teutonic races.'
He lost office, but not influence. Irish land, Egypt, India were his subjects. In 1884, speaking of India, he had occasion to refer to the Crimean war: 'I have never been ashamed of the part which the English government took upon that occasion. We did not tight for the resurrection of Turkey. I for one never would.' They fought that the fate of Turkey 'might not rest in the hands of Russia, but might be decided by Europe' (Hansard, 10 March 1884). Later in the year he spoke in favour of the reform bill. There was a reminiscence of the Peelites. He had, he said, a cross-bench mind, and 'when I first came into this house I sat on the bench opposite with that group of statesmen of whom Lord Aberdeen was the centre and the most distinguished ornament. That group of men were essentially cross-bench men. They had come out of the great conservative party.' Home rule came forward in 1886, and the third Gladstone government was beaten in June. Here was a subject which stirred the duke to profound hostility, and completed his severance from his old chief. In 1888 he moved in the House of Lords, and carried unopposed, a vote of confidence in the Irish policy of the conservative government, and in 1891 he supported the land purchase bill on the ground that it contained the principle of 'restoration of ownership.' All these years since 1886 he had been labouring outside parliament with the greatest energy against home rule. Perhaps his best performance in these years was his Manchester speech of 10 Nov. 1891. With 1892 came the fourth Gladstone government, and presently another home rule bill. The duke was roused as before, speaking finely at Edinburgh in March 1893; in June at Leeds he described Gladstone as 'no longer a leader, but only a bait.' With the defeat of the home rule bill in September the parliamentary discussion closed; but at Glasgow on 1 Nov. of that year the duke entered upon a review of Gladstone's whole career. It was bitter, and an estrangement followed, though the quarrel was eventually made up, and disappeared when in 1895 they both were roused to defend the case of the Armenians. On the tenant's arbitration (Ireland) bill he made an interesting speech on 13 Aug. 1894; Lord Rosebery had referred to his position on the cross-benches: 'I sit on this bench because I opened my career in this house on that bench in the year in which he was born.' Clearly, amid new men and strange faces his career was drawing to its end.
The duke died on 24 April 1900, and was buried at Kilmun, the ancient burial-place of the Argylls on the Holy Loch, on 11 May. He had been created K.T. in 1856, D.C.L. of the university of Oxford on 21 June 1870, and K.G. in 1883. He married first, on 31 July 1844, Lady Elizabeth Leveson-Gower, eldest daughter of the second Duke of Sutherland, and by her, who died in May 1878, he had five sons and seven daughters. The eldest son, the present duke, then Marquis of Lorne, K.T., married in March 1871 Princess Louise, fourth daughter of Queen Victoria. The eldest daughter, Lady Edith Campbell, married in December 1868 the seventh Duke of Northumberland. The duke married secondly, on 13 Aug. 1881, Amelia Maria, daughter of Claughton, Thomas [q. v. Suppl.], bishop of St. Albans, and widow of Colonel Hon. Augustus Anson; she died in January 1894. He married thirdly, on 26 July 1895, the Hon. Ina McNeill, extra woman of the bedchamber to the queen, and youngest daughter of Archibald McNeill of Colonsay.
The following portraits of the Duke of Argyll are in the possession of the family: chalk drawings by George Richmond, R.A., and by James Swinton; a three-quarter length oil painting by Angeli, in highland dress; oil paintings of the head by Watson Gordon and by Sydney Hall; and a profile in oils by Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll. A portrait in oils, by Mr. G. F. Watts, R.A., is in the National Portrait Gallery, London.
As an orator the Duke of Argyll stood among his contemporaries next to Gladstone and Bright; he was the last survivor of the school which was careful of literary finish, and not afraid of emotion (cf. Mr. Alfred Lyttelton in Anglo-Saxon Review, December 1899, p. 158).
In estimating Argyll's career the most pregnant question that can be asked is why he did not rise to supreme place in the state. Was it that he was a Peelite and so out of touch both with liberals and conservatives? But during his lifetime there were two Peelite prime ministers, Aberdeen and Gladstone. Was it that his convictions were not as liberal as those of the party to which he belonged? But on the leading questions of free trade, Irish church, reform, Turkey, the Crimea, and Afghanistan, their views were his, and, besides, he had all the prestige that a lofty character, a noble eloquence,
