it might be inferred
either, on the one side, that coercion failed in its object, or, on the
other, that more coercion was still indispensable. The precise state in
which matters were left at the eleventh hour before the crisis, now
swiftly advancing, (M78) was set out by Mr. Gladstone in a letter written
by him to the Queen in the autumn (October 5), when he was no longer her
Majesty's minister:--

_To the Queen._

... He has perceived that in various quarters misapprehension
prevails as to the point at which the deliberations of the late
cabinet on the question of any renewal of, or substitution for,
the Crimes Act in Ireland had arrived when their financial defeat
on the 8th of June caused the tender of their resignation.

Mr. Gladstone prays your Majesty's gracious permission to remove
this misapprehension by simply stating that which occurred in the
cabinet at its latest meetings, with reference to this particular
question. Substantially it would be a repetition, or little more
(and without any mention of names), of his latest reports to your
Majesty, to the effect--

1. That the cabinet had long before arrived at the conclusion that
the coercion clauses of the Act, properly so called, might be
safely abandoned.

2. With regard to the other clauses, which might be generally
described as procedure clauses, they intended as a rule to advise,
not their absolute re-enactment, but that the viceroy should be
empowered to bring them into action, together or separately, as
and when he might see cause.

3. But that, with respect to the intimidation or boycotting
provisions, it still remained for consideration whether they
should thus be left subject to executive discretion, or whether,
as the offence had not ceased, they should, as an effective
instrument of repression, remain in direct and full operation.

It is worth noticing here as a signal instance of Mr. Gladstone's
tenacious and indomitable will after his defeat, that in a communication
to the Queen four days later (June 12), he stated that the single
outstanding point of difference on the Crimes bill was probably in a fair
way of settlement, but that even if the dissent of the radical members of
the cabinet had become operative, it was his firm intention to make new
arrangements for filling the vacant offices and carrying on the
government. The overthrow