Page:Dictionary of National Biography, Third Supplement.djvu/165

 in Parr’s bank at Warrington, a step which involved giving up both his practice at the bar and his seat in parliament. But the years 1862–1868 were of great importance in his career; for to the legal ability which he had already shown he was now to add financial experience as partner in a great bank in times of exceptional difficulty (the ‘cotton famine’), and an intimate knowledge of the problems of local government. In 1865 when Parr’s bank became one of the pioneers of limited liability as applied to banking, Cross became deputy chairman, and he succeeded to the chairmanship in 1870. During these years he also became chairman or deputy chairman of every local government body then existing in his neighbourhood, including two courts of quarter-sessions, a highway board, a board of guardians, and the governing bodies of many charitable institutions. The eminent services which he afterwards rendered to the state were based on the intimate knowledge thus gained of local conditions in an industrial area.

In the general election of 1868 Cross again stood for parliament, this time for the new constituency of South-West Lancashire, where he achieved a sensational success by defeating Gladstone, then at the height of popularity and power, and heading the poll. Family connexions and the influence of his old school and college friend, the fifteenth Earl of Derby, had their share in this, but Cross’s personal popularity was the decisive factor. Yet, though he returned to parliament a marked man, he was entirely without that sparkle which attracts attention in debate: and it was, therefore, as Disraeli himself said, an ‘almost unexampled mark of confidence’ when Cross was in 1874 put at the head of the Home Office without undergoing a probation in some minor post.

From the very start, however, Cross was an unqualified success as home secretary. Disraeli had shown in his early novels, and in his Manchester speech of 1872, an appreciation of the need for social reform; but he had no idea what direction it should take, and the only promise on the subject made in his election address of 1874 was that he would give the country a rest from ‘incessant and harassing legislation’; moreover, he not only allowed but expected his colleagues to have policies of their own. It is certain, therefore, that. Cross was not merely responsible for the details, but had a large part in shaping the principles of the social reforms which are perhaps the greatest achievement of the ministry of 1874–1880.

Cross’s first bill, the Licensing Act, 1874, was dictated by the necessity of redeeming pledges which had been given to the licensed victuallers in the general election: ‘not much to be proud of’ was his own admission in after years, but at least he cut down concession to a minimum and spoke very plainly about the increase in drunkenness which had taken place. A measure more congenial to him was the Artisans’ Dwellings Act, 1875. Its preamble was apparently intended to disarm criticism by a disavowal of socialist tendencies. Nevertheless, the Act marks the definite introduction of collectivist principles into legislation, for it armed municipal authorities with compulsory powers to acquire and pull down unhealthy slums; it authorized them to undertake the building of suitable houses and to embark on the business of owning and letting them; it forbade the enhancement of compensation on the ground of compulsion; and it substituted the award of a departmental arbitrator for the proprietary and local sympathies of juries. At the same time a home office order was issued requiring all local authorities to appoint medical officers of health and sanitary inspectors; in other ways also Cross showed that the executive was determined to enforce the policy of the legislature. Joseph Chamberlain afterwards said that the reforms which have made a model city of Birmingham would have been impossible without this Act. The Factory Act, 1875, dealt with the employment of women and children in textile factories; and the Factories and Workshops Act, 1878, consolidated and codified the mass of legislation on this subject. The latter embodies the recommendations of a royal commission appointed in 1876. The Employers and Workmen Act, 1875, and its concomitant, the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, on the other hand, owe little or nothing to the royal commission which preceded them. We have Disraeli’s authority for saying that the policy of these Acts was initiated by Cross and would have been vetoed by the rest of the Cabinet but for his own support. However, the boldness and statesmanship of the policy were warmly applauded by the representatives alike of employers and employed, and provided a satisfactory settlement of their legal relations for many years. Other Acts introduced by Cross dealt with friendly societies and with the preservation of open spaces near large towns; the management of prisons 139