d Granville says in the memorandum
already referred to), stating why on public and personal grounds
it was desirable that he should meet you. I said that although it
would be difficult for us to initiate suggestions, yet from your
personal regard for him such a conversation would advance matters.
He consented, stating that he was in communication as to
amendments with Lord Cairns and the archbishop. He was extremely
desirous that no one should know of the interview. You were of
opinion that the interview had done good, and I wrote to ask Lord
Salisbury whether he would like me to put dots on some of your
i's. He declined, and considered the interview had been
unsatisfactory, but gave me an assurance of his desire to avoid a
conflict.... On the 4th of July I wrote again suggesting a
compromise on Lord Carnarvon's clause. He declined, that clause
being the one thing they cared about. He ended by telling me his
growing impression was, that there would be no Church bill this
session.

The general result of the operations of the Lords was to leave
disestablishment complete, and the legal framework of the bill
undisturbed. Disendowment, on the other hand, was reduced to a shadow. An
additional sum of between three and four millions was taken for the
church, and the general upshot was, out of a property of sixteen millions,
to make over thirteen or fourteen millions to an ecclesiastical body
wholly exempt from state control. This, Mr. Gladstone told the Queen, the
House of Commons would never accept, and the first effect of persistence
in such a course would be a stronger move against the episcopal seats in
the House of Lords than had been seen for more than two hundred years. He
ridiculed as it deserved the contention that the nation had not passed
judgment on the question of disendowment, and he insisted that the
government could not go further than three quarters of a million towards
meeting the extravagant claims of the Lords. Confessing his disappointment
at the conduct of the episcopal body, even including the archbishop, he
found a certain consolation in reflecting that equally on the great
occasions of 1829 and 1831, though 'the mild and wise Archbishop Howley
was its leader,' that body failed either to meet the desires of the
country, or to act upon a far-sighted view of the exigencies of the
church. One point obstinately contested was the plan for the