Berlin treaty.
The history of Disraeli's second administration affords an exact reverse
to that of Gladstone's first cabinet. In legislation the ministry
attempted little and accomplished less. They did something to meet the
wishes of the publicans, whose discontent had contributed largely to
Gladstone's defeat, by amending some of the provisions of Bruce's
licensing bill; they supported and succeeded in passing a measure,
brought in by the primate, to restrain some of the irregularities which
the Ritualists were introducing into public worship; and they were
compelled by the violent insistence of Plimsoll to pass an act to protect
the lives of merchant seamen. Disraeli's government, however, will be
chiefly remembered for its foreign policy. Years before he had propounded
in _Tancred_ the theory that England should aim at eastern empire.
Circumstances in his second term of office enabled him to translate his
theory into practice. In 1875 the country was suddenly startled at
hearing that it had acquired a new position and assumed new
responsibilities in Egypt by the purchase of the shares which the khedive
of Egypt held in the Suez Canal. In the following spring a new surprise
was afforded by the introduction of a measure authorizing the queen to
assume the title of empress of India. But these significant actions were
almost forgotten in the presence of a new crisis; for in 1876
misgovernment in Turkey had produced its natural results, and the
European provinces of the Porte were in a state of armed insurrection. In
the presence of a grave danger, Count Andrassy, the Austrian minister,
drew up a note which was afterwards known by his name, declaring that the
Porte had failed to carry into effect the promises of reform which she
had made, and that some combined action on the part of Europe was
necessary to compel her to do so. The note was accepted by the three
continental empires, but Great Britain refused in the first instance to
assent to it, and only ultimately consented at the desire of the Porte,
whose statesmen seem to have imagined that the nominal co-operation of
England would have the effect of restraining the action of other powers.
Turkey accepted the note and renewed the promises of reform, which she
had so often made, and which meant so little. The three northern powers
thereupon agreed upon what was known as the Berlin Memorandum, in which
they demanded an armistice, and proposed to watch over the completion of
the reforms which the Porte had promised. The British government refused
to be a party to this memorandum, which in consequence became abortive.
The insurrection increased in intensity. The sultan Abdul Aziz, thought
unequal to the crisis, was hastily deposed; he was either murdered or led
to commit suicide; and insurrection in Bulgaria was stamped out by
massacre. The story of the "Bulgarian atrocities" was published in Great
Britain in the summer of 1876. Disraeli characteristically dismissed it
as "coffee-house babble," but official investigation proved the
substantial accuracy of the reports which had reached England. The people
regarded these events with horror. Gladstone, emerging from his
retirement, denounced the conduct of the Turks. In a phrase which became
famous he declared that the only remedy for the European provinces of the
Porte was to turn out the Ottoman government "bag and baggage." All
England was at once arrayed into two camps. One party was led by
Disraeli, who was supposed to represent the traditional policy of England
of maintaining the rule of the Turk at all hazards; the other, inspired
by the example of Gladstone, was resolved at all costs to terminate
oppression, but was at the same time distrusted as indirectly assisting
the ambitious views by which the Eastern policy of Russia had always been
animated. The crisis soon became intense. In June 1876 Servia and
Montenegro declared war against Turkey. In a few months Servia was
hopelessly beaten. Through the insistence of Russia an armistice was
agreed upon; and Lord Beaconsfield--for Disraeli had now been raised to
the peerage--endeavoured to utilize the breathing space by organizing a
conference of the great powers at Constantinople, which was attended on
behalf of Great Britain by Lord Salisbury. The Constantinople conference
proved abortive, and in the beginning of 1877 Russia declared war. For
some time, however, her success was hardly equal to her expectations. The
Turks, entrenched at Plevna, delayed the Russian advance; and it was only
towards the close of 1877 that Plevna at last fell and Turkish resistance
collapsed. With its downfall the war party in England, which was led by
the prime minister, increased in violence. From the refrain of a song,
sung night after night at a London music hall, its members became known
as Jingoes. The government ordered the British fleet to pass the
Dardanelles and go up to Constantinople; and though the order was
subsequently withdrawn, it asked for and obtained a grant of L6,000,000
for naval and military purposes. When news came that the Russian armies
had reached Adrianople, that they had concluded some arrangement with the
Turks, and that they were pressing forward towards Constantinople, the
fleet was again directed to pass the Dardanelles. Soon afterwards the
government decided to call out the reserves and to bring a contingent of
Indian troops to the Mediterranean. Lord Derby,[8] who was at the foreign
office, thereupon retired from the ministry, and was succeeded by Lord
Salisbury. Lord Derby's resignation was everywhere regarded as a proof
that Great Britain was on the verge of war. Happily this did not occur.
At Prince Bismarck's suggestion Russia consented to refer the treaty
which she had concluded at San Stefano to a congress of the great powers;
and the congress, at which Great Britain was represented by Lord
Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury, succeeded in substituting for the treaty
of San Stefano the treaty of Berlin. The one great advantage derived from
it was the tacit acknowledgment by Russia that Europe could alone alter
arrangements which Europe had made. In every other sense it is doubtful
whether the provisions of the treaty of Berlin were more favourable than
those of the treaty of San Stefano. On Lord Beaconsfield's return,
however, he claimed for Lord Salisbury and himself that they had brought
back "peace with honour," and the country accepted with wild delight the
phrase, without taking much trouble to analyse its justice.
Afghan wars.
If Lord Beaconsfield had dissolved parliament immediately after his
return from Berlin, it is possible that the wave of popularity which had
been raised by his success would have borne him forward to a fresh
victory in the constituencies. His omission to do so gave the country
time to meditate on the consequences of his policy. One result soon
became perceptible. Differences with Russia produced their inevitable
consequences in fresh complications on the Indian frontier. The Russian
government, confronted with a quarrel with Great Britain in eastern
Europe, endeavoured to create difficulties in Afghanistan. A Russian
envoy was sent to Kabul, where Shere Ali, who had succeeded his father
Dost Mahommed in 1863, was amir; and the British government, alarmed at
this new embarrassment, decided on sending a mission to the Afghan
capital. The mission was stopped on the frontier by an agent of Shere
Ali, who declined to allow it to proceed. The British government refused
to put up with an affront of this kind, and their envoy, supported by an
army, continued his advance. Afghanistan was again invaded. Kabul and
Kandahar were occupied; and Shere Ali was forced to fly, and soon
afterwards died. His successor, Yakub Khan, came to the British camp and
signed, in May 1879, the treaty of Gandamak. Under the terms of this
treaty the Indian government undertook to pay the new amir a subsidy of
L60,000 a year; and Yakub Khan consented to receive a British mission at
Kabul, and to cede some territory in the Himalayas which the military
advisers of Lord Beaconsfield considered necessary to make the frontier
more "scientific." This apparent success was soon followed by disastrous
news. The deplorable events of 1841 were re-enacted in 1879. The new
envoy reached Kabul, but was soon afterwards murdered. A British army
was again sent into Afghanistan, and Kabul was again occupied. Yakub
Khan, who had been made amir in 1879, was deposed, and Abdur Rahman Khan
was selected as his successor. The British did not assert their
superiority without much fighting and some serious reverses. Their
victory was at last assured by the excellent strategy of Sir Donald
Stewart and Sir Frederick (afterwards Lord) Roberts. But before the
final victory was gained Lord Beaconsfield had fallen. His policy had
brought Great Britain to the verge of disaster in Afghanistan: the
credit of reasserting the superiority of British arms was deferred till
his successors had taken office.
Zulu War.
It was not only in Afghanistan that the new imperial policy which Lord
Beaconsfield had done so much to encourage was straining the resources
of the empire. In South Africa a still more serious difficulty was
already commencing. At the time at which Lord Beaconsfield's
administration began, British territory in South Africa was practically
confined to Cape Colony and Natal. Years before, in 1852 and 1854
respectively, the British government, at that time a little weary of the
responsibilities of colonial rule, had recognized the independence of
the two Dutch republics, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State.
Powerful native tribes occupied the territory to the north of Natal and
the east of the Transvaal. War broke out between the Transvaal Republic
and one of the most powerful of these native chieftains, Sikukuni; and
the Transvaal was worsted in the struggle. Weary of the condition of
anarchy which existed in the republic, many inhabitants of the Transvaal
were ready to welcome its annexation to Great Britain--a proposal
favoured by the colonial secretary, Lord Carnarvon, who wished to
federate the South African states, after the manner in which the North
American colonies had become by confederation the Dominion of Canada.
Sir Theophilus Shepstone, who was sent to inquire into the proposal,
mistook the opinion of a party for the verdict of the republic, and
declared (April 1877) the Transvaal a part of the British Empire. His
policy entailed far more serious consequences than the mission to
Afghanistan. The first was a war with the Zulus, the most powerful and
warlike of the South African natives, who under their ruler, Cetewayo,
had organized a formidable army. A dispute had been going on for some
time about the possession of a strip of territory which some British
arbitrators had awarded to the Zulu king. Sir Bartle Frere, who had won
distinction in India, and was sent out by Lord Beaconsfield's government
to the Cape, kept back the award; and, though he ultimately communicated
it to Cetewayo, thought it desirable to demand the disbandment of the
Zulu army. In the war which ensued, the British troops who invaded Zulu
territory met with a severe reverse; and, though the disaster was
ultimately retrieved by Lord Chelmsford, the war involved heavy
expenditure and brought little credit to the British army, while one
unfortunate incident, the death of Prince Napoleon, who had obtained
leave to serve with the British troops, and was surprised by the Zulus
while reconnoitering, created a deep and unfortunate impression.
Imperialism, which had been excited by Lord Beaconsfield's policy in
1878, and by the prospect of a war with a great European power, fell
into discredit when it degenerated into a fresh expedition into
Afghanistan, and an inglorious war with a savage African tribe. A
period of distress at home increased the discontent which Lord
Beaconsfield's external policy was exciting; and, when parliament was at
last dissolved in 1880, it seemed no longer certain that the country
would endorse the policy of the minister, who only a short time before
had acquired such popularity. Gladstone, emerging from his retirement,
practically placed himself again at the head of the Liberal party. In a
series of speeches in Midlothian, where he offered himself for election,
he denounced the whole policy which Lord Beaconsfield had pursued. His
impassioned eloquence did much more than influence his own election. His
speeches decided the contest throughout the kingdom. The Liberals
secured an even more surprising success than that which had rewarded the
Conservatives six years before. For the first time in the queen's reign,
a solid Liberal majority, independent of all extraneous Irish support,
was returned, and Gladstone resumed in triumph his old position as prime
minister.
Gladstone's second ministry.
Boer War, 1881.
The new minister had been swept into power on a wave of popular favour,
but he inherited from his predecessors difficulties in almost every
quarter of the world; and his own language had perhaps tended to
increase them. He was committed to a reversal of Lord Beaconsfield's
policy; and, in politics, it is never easy, and perhaps rarely wise,
suddenly and violently to change a system. In one quarter of the world
the new minister achieved much success. The war in Afghanistan, which
had begun with disaster, was creditably concluded. A better
understanding was gradually established with Russia; and, before the
ministry went out, steps had been taken which led to the delimitation of
the Russian and Afghan frontier. In South Africa, however, a very
different result ensued. Gladstone, before he accepted office, had
denounced the policy of annexing the Transvaal; his language was so
strong that he was charged with encouraging the Boers to maintain their
independence by force; his example had naturally been imitated by some
of his followers at the general election; and, when he resumed power, he
found himself in the difficult dilemma of either maintaining an
arrangement which he had declared to be unwise, or of yielding to a
demand which the Boers were already threatening to support in arms. The
events of the first year of his administration added to his difficulty.
Before its close the Boers seized Heidelberg and established a republic;
they destroyed a detachment of British troops at Bronkhorst Spruit; and
they surrounded and attacked the British garrisons in the Transvaal.
Troops were of course sent from England to maintain the British cause;
and Sir George Colley, who enjoyed a high reputation and had experience
in South African warfare, was made governor of Natal, and entrusted with
the military command. The events which immediately followed will not be
easily forgotten. Wholly miscalculating the strength of the Boers, Sir
George Colley, at the end of January 1881, attacked them at Laing's Nek,
in the north of Natal, and was repulsed with heavy loss. Some ten days
afterwards he fought another action on the Ingogo, and was again forced
to retire. On the 26th February, with some 600 men, he occupied a high
hill, known as Majuba, which, he thought, dominated the Boer position.
The following day the Boers attacked the hill, overwhelmed its
defenders, and Sir George Colley was himself killed in the disastrous
contest on the summit. News of these occurrences was received with
dismay in England. It was, no doubt, possible to say a good deal for
Gladstone's indignant denunciation of his predecessor's policy in
annexing the Transvaal; it would have been equally possible to advance
many reasons for reversing the measures of Lord Beaconsfield's cabinet,
and for conceding independence to the Transvaal in 1880. But the great
majority of persons considered that, whatever arguments might have been
urged for concession in 1880, when British troops had suffered no
reverses, nothing could be said for concession in 1881, when their arms
had been tarnished by a humiliating disaster. Great countries can afford
to be generous in the hour of victory; but they cannot yield, without
loss of credit, in the hour of defeat. Unfortunately this reasoning was
not suited to Gladstone's temperament. The justice or injustice of the
British cause seemed to him a much more important matter than the
vindication of military honour; and he could not bring himself to
acknowledge that Majuba had altered the situation, and that the terms
which he had made up his mind to concede before the battle could not be
safely granted till military reputation was restored. The retrocession
of the Transvaal was decided upon, though it was provided that the
country should remain under the suzerainty of the queen. Even this great
concession did not satisfy the ambition of the Boers, who were naturally
elated by their victories. Three years later some Transvaal deputies,
with their president, Kruger, came to London and saw Lord Derby, the
secretary of state for the colonies. Lord Derby consented to a new
convention, from which any verbal reference to suzerainty was excluded;
and the South African republic was made independent, subject only to the
condition that it should conclude no treaties with foreign powers
without the approval of the crown. (For the details and disputes
concerning the terms of this convention the reader is referred to the
articles TRANSVAAL and SUZERAINTY.)
Bradlaugh.
Gladstone's government declined in popularity from the date of the
earliest of these concessions. Gladstone, in fact, had succeeded in
doing what Lord Beaconsfield had failed to accomplish. Annoyance at his
foreign policy had rekindled the imperialism which the embarrassments
created by Lord Beaconsfield had done so much to damp down. And, if
things were going badly with the new government abroad, matters were not
progressing smoothly at home. At the general election of 1880, the
borough of Northampton, which of late years has shown an unwavering
preference for Liberals of an advanced type, returned as its members
Henry Labouchere and Charles Bradlaugh. Bradlaugh, who had attained some
notoriety for an aggressive atheism, claimed the right to make an
affirmation of allegiance instead of taking the customary oath, which he
declared was, in his eyes, a meaningless form. The speaker, instead of
deciding the question, submitted it to the judgment of the House, and it
was ultimately referred to a select committee, which reported against
Bradlaugh's claim. Bradlaugh, on hearing the decision of the committee,
presented himself at the bar and offered to take the oath. It was
objected that, as he had publicly declared that the words of the oath
had no clear meaning for him, he could not be permitted to take it; and
after some wrangling the matter was referred to a fresh committee, which
supported the view that Bradlaugh could not be allowed to be sworn, but
recommended that he should be permitted to make the affirmation at his
own risk. The House refused to accept the recommendation of this
committee when a bill was introduced to give effect to it. This decision
naturally enlarged the question before it. For, while hitherto the
debate had turned on the technical points whether an affirmation could
be substituted for an oath, or whether a person who had declared that an
oath had no meaning for him could properly be sworn, the end at which
Bradlaugh's opponents were thenceforward aiming was the imposition of a
new religious test--the belief in a God--on members of the House of
Commons. The controversy, which thus began, continued through the
parliament of 1880, and led to many violent scenes, which lowered the
dignity of the House. It was quietly terminated, in the parliament of
1886, by the firm action of a new speaker. Mr Peel, who had been elected
to the chair in 1884, decided that neither the speaker nor any other
member had the right to intervene to prevent a member from taking the
oath if he was willing to take it. Parliament subsequently, by a new
act, permitted affirmations to be used, and thenceforward religion, or
the absence of religion, was no disqualification for a seat in the House
of Commons. The atheist, like the Roman Catholic and the Jew, could sit
and vote.
Parnell.
The Bradlaugh question was not the only difficulty with which the new
government was confronted. Ireland was again attracting the attention of
politicians. The Fenian movement had practically expired; some annual
motions for the introduction of Home Rule, made with all the decorum of
parliamentary usage, had been regularly defeated. But the Irish were
placing themselves under new leaders and adopting new methods. During
the Conservative government of 1874, the Irish members had endeavoured
to arrest attention by organized obstruction. Their efforts had
increased the difficulties of government and taxed the endurance of
parliament. These tactics were destined to be raised to a fine art by
Parnell, who succeeded to the head of the Irish party about the time of
the formation of Gladstone's government. It was Parnell's determination
to make legislation impracticable, and parliament unendurable, till
Irish grievances were redressed. It was his evident belief that by
pursuing such tactics he could force the House of Commons to concede the
legislation which he desired. The Irish members were not satisfied with
the legislation which parliament had passed in 1869-1870. The land act
of 1870 had given the tenant no security in the case of eviction for
non-payment of rent; and the tenant whose rent was too high or had been
raised was at the mercy of his landlord. It so happened that some bad
harvests had temporarily increased the difficulties of the tenantry, and
there was no doubt that large numbers of evictions were taking place in
Ireland. In these circumstances, the Irish contended that the relief
which the act of 1870 had afforded should be extended, and that, till
such legislation could be devised, a temporary measure should be passed
giving the tenant compensation for disturbance. Gladstone admitted the
force of this reasoning, and a bill was introduced to give effect to it.
Passed by the Commons, it was thrown out towards the end of the session
by the Lords; and the government acquiesced--perhaps could do nothing
but acquiesce--in this decision. In Ireland, however, the rejection of
the measure was attended with disastrous results. Outrages increased,
obnoxious landlords and agents were "boycotted"--the name of the first
gentleman exposed to this treatment adding a new word to the language;
and Forster, who had accepted the office of chief secretary, thought it
necessary, in the presence of outrage and intimidation, to adopt
stringent measures for enforcing order. A measure was passed on his
initiation, in 1881, authorizing him to arrest and detain suspected
persons; and many well-known Irishmen, including Parnell himself and
other members of parliament, were thrown into prison. It was an odd
commentary on parliamentary government that a Liberal ministry should be
in power, and that Irish members should be in prison; and early in 1882
Gladstone determined to liberate the prisoners on terms. The new
policy--represented by what was known as the Kilmainham Treaty--led to
the resignation of the viceroy, Lord Cowper, and of Forster, and the
appointment of Lord Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish as their
successors. On the 6th of May 1882 Lord Spencer made his entry into
Dublin, and on the evening of the same day Lord Frederick, unwisely
allowed to walk home alone with Burke, the under-secretary to the Irish
government, was murdered with his companion in Phoenix Park. This gross
outrage led to fresh measures of coercion. The disclosure, soon
afterwards, of a conspiracy to resort to dynamite still further
alienated the sympathies of the Liberal party from the Irish nation.
Gladstone might fairly plead that he had done much, that he had risked
much, for Ireland, and that Ireland was making him a poor return for his
services.
Egypt.
Gordon.
In the meanwhile another difficulty was further embarrassing a harassed
government. The necessities of the khedive of Egypt had been only
temporarily relieved by the sale to Lord Beaconsfield's government of
the Suez Canal shares. Egyptian finance, in the interests of the
bondholders, had been placed under the dual control of England and
France. The new arrangement naturally produced some native resentment,
and Arabi Pasha placed himself at the head of a movement which was
intended to rid Egypt of foreign interference. His preparations
eventually led to the bombardment of Alexandria by the British fleet,
and still later to the invasion of Egypt by a British army under Sir
Garnet, afterwards Lord Wolseley, and to the battle of Tell-el-Kebir,
after which Arabi was defeated and taken prisoner. The bombardment of
Alexandria led to the immediate resignation of Bright, whose presence
in the cabinet had been of importance to the government; the occupation
of Egypt broke up the dual control, and made Great Britain responsible
for Egyptian administration. The effects of British rule were, in one
sense, remarkable. The introduction of good government increased the
prosperity of the people, and restored confidence in Egyptian finance.
At the same time it provoked the animosity of the French, who were
naturally jealous of the increase of British influence on the Nile, and
it also threw new responsibilities on the British nation. For south of
Egypt lay the great territory of the Sudan, which to some extent
commands the Nile, and which had been added to the Egyptian dominions at
various periods between 1820 and 1875. In 1881 a fanatic sheikh--known
as the mahdi--had headed an insurrection against the khedive's
authority; and towards the close of 1883 an Egyptian army under an
Englishman, Colonel Hicks, was annihilated by the mahdi's followers. The
insurrection increased the responsibilities which intervention had
imposed on England, and an expedition was sent to Suakin to guard the
littoral of the Red Sea; while, at the beginning of 1884, General
Gordon--whose services in China had gained him a high reputation, and
who had had previous experience in the Sudan--was sent to Khartum to
report on the condition of affairs. These decisions led to momentous
results. The British expedition to Suakin was engaged in a series of
battles with Osman Digna, the mahdi's lieutenant; while General Gordon,
after alternate reverses and successes, was isolated at Khartum. Anxious
as Gladstone's ministry was to restrict the sphere of its
responsibilities, it was compelled to send an expedition to relieve
General Gordon; and Lord Wolseley, who was appointed to the command,
decided on moving up the Nile to his relief. The expedition proved much
more difficult than Lord Wolseley had anticipated. And before it reached
its goal, Khartum was forced to surrender, and General Gordon and his
few faithful followers were murdered (January 1885). General Gordon's
death inflicted a fatal blow on the Liberal government. It was thought
that the general, whose singular devotion to duty made him a popular
hero, had been allowed to assume an impossible task; had been feebly
supported; and that the measures for his relief had been unduly
postponed and at last only reluctantly undertaken. The ministry
ultimately experienced defeat on a side issue. The budget, which
Childers brought forward as chancellor of the exchequer, was attacked by
the Conservative party; and an amendment proposed by Sir Michael
Hicks-Beach, condemning an increase in the duties on spirits and beer,
was adopted by a small majority. Gladstone resigned office, and Lord
Salisbury, who, after Lord Beaconsfield's death, had succeeded to the
lead of the Conservative party, was instructed to form a new
administration.
Reform Act, 1884.
It was obvious that the new government, as its first duty, would be
compelled to dissolve the parliament that had been elected when
Gladstone was enjoying the popularity which he had lost so rapidly in
office. But it so happened that it was no longer possible to appeal to
the old constituencies. For, in 1884, Gladstone had introduced a new
Reform Bill; and, though its passage had been arrested by the Lords,
unofficial communications between the leaders of both parties had
resulted in a compromise which had led to the adoption of a large and
comprehensive Reform Act. By this measure, household franchise was
extended to the counties. But counties and boroughs were broken up into
a number of small constituencies, for the most part returning only one
member each; while the necessity of increasing the relative weight of
Great Britain, and the reluctance to inflict disfranchisement on
Ireland, led to an increase in the numbers of the House of Commons from
658 to 670 members. This radical reconstruction of the electorate
necessarily made the result of the elections doubtful. As a matter of
fact, the new parliament comprised 334 Liberals, 250 Conservatives and
86 Irish Nationalists. It was plain beyond the possibility of doubt that
the future depended on the course which the Irish Nationalists might
adopt. It they threw in their lot with Gladstone, Lord Salisbury's
government was evidently doomed. If, on the contrary, they joined the
Conservatives, they could make a Liberal administration impracticable.
Home Rule.
In the autumn of 1885 it was doubtful what course the Irish Nationalists
would take. It was generally understood that Lord Carnarvon, who had
been made viceroy of Ireland, had been in communication with Parnell;
that Lord Salisbury was aware of the interviews which had taken place;
and it was whispered that Lord Carnarvon was in favour of granting some
sort of administrative autonomy to Ireland. Whatever opinion Lord
Carnarvon may have formed--and his precise view is uncertain--a greater
man than he had suddenly arrived at a similar conclusion. In his
election speeches Gladstone had insisted on the necessity of the country
returning a Liberal majority which could act independently of the Irish
vote; and the result of the general election had left the Irish the
virtual arbiters of the political situation. In these circumstances
Gladstone arrived at a momentous decision. He recognized that the system
under which Ireland had been governed in the past had failed to win the
allegiance of her people; and he decided that it was wise and safe to
entrust her with a large measure of self-government. It was perhaps
characteristic of Gladstone, though it was unquestionably unfortunate,
that, in determining on this radical change of policy, he consulted few,
if any, of his previous colleagues. On the meeting of the new parliament
Lord Salisbury's government was defeated on an amendment to the address,
demanding facilities for agricultural labourers to obtain small holdings
for gardens and pasture--the policy, in short, which was described as
"three acres and a cow." Lord Salisbury resigned, and Gladstone resumed
power. The attitude, however, which Gladstone was understood to be
taking on the subject of Home Rule threw many difficulties in his way.
Lord Harrington, and others of his former colleagues, declined to join
his administration; Mr Chamberlain, who, in the first instance, accepted
office, retired almost at once from the ministry; and Bright, whose
eloquence and past services gave him a unique position in the House,
threw in his lot in opposition to Home Rule. A split in the Liberal
party thus began, which was destined to endure; and Gladstone found his
difficulties increased by the defection of the men on whom he had
hitherto largely relied. He persevered, however, in the task which he
had set himself, and introduced a measure endowing Ireland with a
parliament, and excluding the Irish members from Westminster. He was
defeated, and appealed from the House which had refused to support him
to the country. For the first time in the queen's reign two general
elections occurred within twelve months. The country showed no more
disposition than the House of Commons to approve the course which the
minister was taking. A large majority of the members of the new
parliament were pledged to resist Home Rule. Gladstone, bowing at once
to the verdict of the people, resigned office, and Lord Salisbury
returned to power.
Unionism.
The new cabinet, which was formed to resist Home Rule, did not succeed
in combining all the opponents to this measure. The secessionists from
the Liberal party--the Liberal Unionists, as they were called--held
aloof from it; and Lord Salisbury was forced to form his cabinet out of
his immediate followers. The most picturesque appointment was that of
Lord Randolph Churchill, who was made chancellor of the exchequer and
leader of the House of Commons. But before many months were over, Lord
Randolph--unable to secure acceptance of a policy of financial
retrenchment--resigned office, and Lord Salisbury was forced to
reconstruct his ministry. Though he again failed to obtain the
co-operation of the Liberal Unionists, one of the more prominent of
them--Goschen--accepted the seals of the Exchequer. W. H. Smith moved
from the war office to the treasury, and became leader of the House of
Commons; while Lord Salisbury himself returned to the foreign office,
which the dramatically sudden death of Lord Iddesleigh, better known as
Sir Stafford Northcote, vacated. These arrangements lasted till 1891,
when, on Smith's death, the treasury and the lead of the Commons were
entrusted to Lord Salisbury's nephew, Mr Arthur Balfour, who had made a
great reputation as chief secretary for Ireland.
Nationalist split.
The ministry of 1886, which endured till 1892, gave to London a county
council; introduced representative government into every English county;
and made elementary education free throughout England. The alliance with
the Liberal Unionists was, in fact, compelling the Conservative
government to promote measures which were not wholly consistent with the
stricter Conservative traditions, or wishes. In other respects, the
legislative achievements of the government were not great; and the time
of parliament was largely occupied in devising rules for the conduct of
its business, which the obstructive attitude of the Irish members made
necessary, and in discussing the charges brought against the Nationalist
party by _The Times_, of complicity in the Phoenix Park murders. Under
the new rules, the sittings of the House on ordinary days were made to
commence at 3 P.M., and opposed business was automatically interrupted
at midnight, while for the first time a power was given to the majority
in a House of a certain size to conclude debate by what was known as the
closure. Notwithstanding these new rules obstructive tactics continued
to prevail; and, in the course of the parliament, many members were
suspended for disorderly conduct. The hostility of the Irish members was
perhaps increased by some natural indignation at the charges brought
against Parnell. _The Times_, in April 1887, printed the facsimile of a
letter purporting to be signed by Parnell, in which he declared that he
had no other course open to him but to denounce the Phoenix Park
murders, but that, while he regretted "the accident" of Lord Frederick
Cavendish's death, he could not "refuse to admit that Burke got no more
than his deserts." The publication of this letter, and later of other
similar documents, naturally created a great sensation; and the
government ultimately appointed a special commission of three judges to
inquire into the charges and allegations that were made. In the course
of the inquiry it was proved that the letters had emanated from a man
named Pigott, who had at one time been associated with the Irish
Nationalist movement, but who for some time past had earned a precarious
living by writing begging and threatening letters. Pigott, subjected to
severe cross-examination by Sir Charles Russell (afterwards Lord Russell
of Killowen), broke down, fled from justice and committed suicide. His
flight practically settled the question; and an inquiry, which many
people had thought at its inception would brand Parnell as a criminal,
raised him to an influence which he had never enjoyed before. But in the
same year which witnessed his triumph, he was doomed to fall. He was
made co-respondent in a divorce suit brought by Captain O'Shea--another
Irishman--for the dissolution of his marriage; and the disclosures made
at the trial induced Gladstone, who was supported by the Nonconformists
generally throughout the United Kingdom, to request Parnell to withdraw
from the leadership of the Irish party. Parnell refused to comply with
this request, and the Irish party was shattered into fragments by his
decision. Parnell himself did not long survive the disruption of the
party which he had done so much to create. The exertions which he made
to retrieve his waning influence proved too much for his strength, and
in the autumn of 1891 he died suddenly at Brighton. Parnell's death
radically altered the political situation. At the general elections of
1885 and 1886 the existence of a strong, united Irish party had
exercised a dominating influence. As the parliament of 1886 was drawing
to a close, the dissensions among the Irish members, and the loss of
their great leader, were visibly sapping the strength of the
Nationalists. At the general election of 1892 Home Rule was still the
prominent subject before the electors. But the English Liberals were
already a little weary of allies who were quarrelling among themselves,
and whose disputes were introducing a new factor into politics. The
political struggle virtually turned not on measures, but on men.
Gladstone's great age, and the marvellous powers which he displayed at a
time when most men seek the repose of retirement, were the chief causes
which affected the results. His influence enabled him to secure a small
Liberal majority. But it was noticed that the majority depended on
Scottish, Irish and Welsh votes, and that England--the "predominant
partner," as it was subsequently called by Lord Rosebery--returned a
majority of members pledged to resist any attempt to dissolve the union
between the three kingdoms.
Home Rule Bill, 1893.
On the meeting of the new parliament Lord Salisbury's government was
defeated on a vote of want of confidence, and for a fourth time
Gladstone became prime minister. In the session of 1893 he again
introduced a Home Rule Bill. But the measure of 1893 differed in many
respects from that of 1886. In particular, the Irish were no longer to
be excluded from the imperial parliament at Westminster. The bill which
was thus brought forward was actually passed by the Commons. It was,
however, rejected by the Lords. The dissensions among the Irish
themselves, and the hostility which English constituents were displaying
to the proposal, emboldened the Peers to arrive at this decision. Some
doubt was felt as to the course which Gladstone would take in this
crisis. Many persons thought that he should at once have appealed to the
country, and have endeavoured to obtain a distinct mandate from the
constituencies to introduce a new Home Rule Bill. Other persons imagined
that he should have followed the precedent which had been set by Lord
Grey in 1831, and, after a short prorogation, have reintroduced his
measure in a new session. As a matter of fact, Gladstone adopted neither
of these courses. The government decided not to take up the gauntlet
thrown down by the Peers, but to proceed with the rest of their
political programme. With this object an autumn session was held, and
the Parish Councils Act, introduced by Mr Fowler (afterwards Lord
Wolverhampton), was passed, after important amendments, which had been
introduced into it in the House of Lords, had been reluctantly accepted
by Gladstone. On the other hand, an Employers' Liability Bill,
introduced by Mr Asquith, the home secretary, was ultimately dropped by
Gladstone after passing all stages in the House of Commons, rather than
that an amendment of the Peers, allowing "contracting out," should be
accepted.
Lord Rosebery.
Before, however, the session had quite run out (3rd March 1894),
Gladstone, who had now completed his eighty-fourth year, laid down a
load which his increasing years made it impossible for him to sustain
(see the article GLADSTONE). He was succeeded by Lord Rosebery, whose
abilities and attainments had raised him to a high place in the Liberal
counsels. Lord Rosebery did not succeed in popularizing the Home Rule
proposal which Gladstone had failed to carry. He declared, indeed, that
success was not attainable till England was converted to its expediency.
He hinted that success would not even then be assured until something
was done to reform the constitution of the House of Lords. But if, on
the one hand, he refused to introduce a new Home Rule Bill, he
hesitated, on the other, to court defeat by any attempt to reform the
Lords. His government, in these circumstances, while it failed to
conciliate its opponents, excited no enthusiasm among its supporters. It
was generally understood, moreover, that a large section of the Liberal
party resented Lord Rosebery's appointment to the first place in the
ministry, and thought that the lead should have been conferred on Sir W.
Harcourt. It was an open secret that these differences in the party were
reflected in the cabinet, and that the relations between Lord Rosebery
and Sir W. Harcourt were too strained to ensure either the harmonious
working or the stability of the administration. In these circumstances
the fall of the ministry was only a question of time. It occurred--as
often happens in parliament--on a minor issue which no one had foreseen.
Attention was drawn in the House of Commons to the insufficient supply
of cordite provided by the war office, and the House--notwithstanding
the assurance of the war minister (Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman) that
the supply was adequate--placed the government in a minority. Lord
Rosebery resigned office, and Lord Salisbury for the third time became
prime minister, the duke of Devonshire, Mr Chamberlain and other
Liberal Unionists joining the government. Parliament was dissolved, and
a new parliament, in which the Unionists obtained an overwhelming
majority, was returned.
The government of 1892-1895, which was successively led by Gladstone and
Lord Rosebery, will, on the whole, be remembered for its failures. Yet
it passed two measures which have exercised a wide influence. The Parish
Councils Act introduced electoral institutions into the government of
every parish, and in 1894 Sir W. Harcourt, as chancellor of the
exchequer, availed himself of the opportunity, which a large addition to
the navy invited, to reconstruct the death duties. He swept away in
doing so many of the advantages which the owner of real estate and the
life tenant of settled property had previously enjoyed, and drove home a
principle which Goschen had tentatively introduced a few years before by
increasing the rate of the duty with the amount of the estate. Rich men,
out of their superfluities, were thenceforward to pay more than poor men
out of their necessities.
The two jubilees.
The Unionist government which came into power in 1895 lasted, with
certain changes of _personnel_, till 1905, with a break caused by the
dissolution of 1900. History may hereafter conclude that the most
significant circumstance of the earlier period is to be found in the
demonstration of loyalty and affection to which the sixtieth anniversary
of Queen Victoria's accession led in 1897. Ten years before, her jubilee
had been the occasion of enthusiastic rejoicings, and the queen's
progress through London to a service of thanksgiving at Westminster had
impressed the imagination of her subjects and proved the affection of
her people. But the rejoicings of 1887 were forgotten amid the more
striking demonstrations ten years later. It was seen then that the
queen, by her conduct and character, had gained a popularity which has
had no parallel in history, and had won a place in the hearts of her
subjects which perhaps no other monarch had ever previously enjoyed.
There was no doubt that, if the opinion of the English-speaking races
throughout the world could have been tested by a plebiscite, an
overwhelming majority would have declared that the fittest person for
the rule of the British empire was the gracious and kindly lady who for
sixty years, in sorrow and in joy, had so worthily discharged the duties
of her high position. This remarkable demonstration was not confined to
the British empire alone. In every portion of the globe the sixtieth
anniversary of the queen's reign excited interest; in every country the
queen's name was mentioned with affection and respect; while the people
of the United States vied with the subjects of the British empire in
praise of the queen's character and in expressions of regard for her
person. Only a year or two before, an obscure dispute on the boundary of
British Venezuela had brought the United States and Great Britain within
sight of a quarrel. The jubilee showed conclusively that, whatever
politicians might say, the ties of blood and kinship, which united the
two peoples, were too close to be severed by either for some trifling
cause; that the wisest heads in both nations were aware of the
advantages which must arise from the closer union of the Anglo-Saxon
races; and that the true interests of both countries lay in their mutual
friendship. A war in which the United States was subsequently engaged
with Spain cemented this feeling. The government and the people of the
United States recognized the advantage which they derived from the
goodwill of Great Britain in the hour of their necessity, and the two
nations drew together as no other two nations had perhaps ever been
drawn together before.
Omdurman, Fashoda.
Jameson Raid.
If the jubilee was a proof of the closer union of the many sections of
the British empire, and of their warm attachment to their sovereign, it
also gave expression to the "imperialism" which was becoming a dominant
factor in British politics. Few people realized the mighty change which
in this respect had been effected in thought and feeling. Forty years
before, the most prominent English statesmen had regarded with anxiety
the huge responsibilities of a world-wide empire. In 1897 the whole
tendency of thought and opinion was to enlarge the burden of which the
preceding generation had been weary. The extension of British influence,
the protection of British interests, were almost universally advocated;
and the few statesmen who repeated in the 'nineties the sentiments
which would have been generally accepted in the 'sixties, were regarded
as "Little Englanders." It is important to note the consequences which
these new ideas produced in Africa. Both in the north and in the south
of this great and imperfectly explored continent, memories still clung
which were ungrateful to imperialism. In the north, the murder of Gordon
was still unavenged; and the vast territory known as the Sudan had
escaped from the control of Egypt. In the south, war with the Transvaal
had been concluded by a British defeat; and the Dutch were elated, the
English irritated, at the recollection of Majuba. In 1896 Lord
Salisbury's government decided on extending the Anglo-Egyptian rule over
the Sudan, and an expedition was sent from Egypt under the command of
Sir Herbert (afterwards Lord) Kitchener to Khartum. Few military
expeditions have been more elaborately organized, or have achieved a
more brilliant success. The conquest of the country was achieved in
three separate campaigns in successive years. In September 1898 the
Sudanese forces were decisively beaten, with great slaughter, in the
immediate neighbourhood of Omdurman; and Khartum became thenceforward
the capital of the new province, which was placed under Lord Kitchener's
rule. Soon after this decisive success, it was found that a French
expedition under Major Marchand had reached the upper Nile and had
hoisted the French flag at Fashoda. It was obvious that the French could
not be allowed to remain at a spot which the khedive of Egypt claimed as
Egyptian territory; and after some negotiation, and some irritation, the
French were withdrawn. In South Africa still more important events were
in the meanwhile progressing. Ever since the independence of the South
African Republic had been virtually conceded by the convention of 1884,
unhappy differences had prevailed between the Dutch and British
residents in the Transvaal. The discovery of gold at Johannesburg and
elsewhere in 1885-1886 had led to a large immigration of British and
other colonists. Johannesburg had grown into a great and prosperous
city. The foreign population of the Transvaal, which was chiefly
English, became in a few years more numerous than the Boers themselves,
and they complained that they were deprived of all political rights,
that they were subjected to unfair taxation, and that they were hampered
in their industry and unjustly treated by the Dutch courts and Dutch
officials. Failing to obtain redress, at the end of 1895 certain persons
among them made preparations for a revolution. Dr Jameson, the
administrator of Rhodesia, accompanied by some British officers,
actually invaded the Transvaal. His force, utterly inadequate for the
purpose, was stopped by the Boers, and he and his fellow-officers were
taken prisoners. There was no doubt that this raid on the territory of a
friendly state was totally unjustifiable. Unfortunately, Dr Jameson's
original plans had been framed at the instance of Cecil Rhodes, the
prime minister at the Cape, and many persons thought that they ought to
have been suspected by the colonial office in London. England at any
rate would have had no valid ground of complaint if the leaders of a
buccaneering force had been summarily dealt with by the Transvaal
authorities. The president of the republic, Kruger, however, handed over
his prisoners to the British authorities, and parliament instituted an
inquiry by a select committee into the circumstances of the raid. The
inquiry was terminated somewhat abruptly. The committee acquitted the
colonial office of any knowledge of the plot; but a good many suspicions
remained unanswered. The chief actors in the raid were tried under the
Foreign Enlistment Act, found guilty, and subsequently released after
short terms of imprisonment. Rhodes himself was not removed from the
privy council, as his more extreme accusers demanded; but he had to
abandon his career in Cape politics for a time, and confine his energies
to the development of Rhodesia, which had been added to the empire
through his instrumentality in 1888-1889.
Boer War, 1899.
In consequence of these proceedings, the Transvaal authorities at once
set to work to accumulate armaments, and they succeeded in procuring
vast quantities of artillery and military stores. The British government
would undoubtedly have been entitled to insist that these armaments
should cease. It was obvious that they could only be directed against
Great Britain; and no nation is bound to allow another people to prepare
great armaments to be employed against itself. The criminal folly of the
raid prevented the British government from making this demand. It could
not say that the Transvaal government had no cause for alarm when
British officers had attempted an invasion of its territory, and had
been treated rather as heroes than as criminals at home. Ignorant of the
strength of Great Britain, and elated by the recollection of their
previous successes, the Boers themselves believed that a new struggle
might give them predominance in South Africa. The knowledge that a large
portion of the population of Cape Colony was of Dutch extraction, and
that public men at the Cape sympathized with them in their aspirations,
increased their confidence. In the meantime, while the Boers were
silently and steadily continuing their military preparations, the
British settlers at Johannesburg--the Uitlanders, as they were
called--continued to demand consideration for their grievances. In the
spring of 1899, Sir Alfred Milner, governor of the Cape, met President
Kruger at Bloemfontein, the capital of the Orange Free State, and
endeavoured to accomplish that result by negotiation. He thought, at the
time, that if the Uitlanders were given the franchise and a fair
proportion of influence in the legislature, other difficulties might be
left to settle themselves. The negotiations thus commenced unfortunately
failed. The discussion, which had originally turned on the franchise,
was enlarged by the introduction of the question of suzerainty or
supremacy; and at last, in the beginning of October, when the rains of
an African spring were causing the grass to grow on which the Boer
armies were largely dependent for forage, the Boers declared war and
invaded Natal. The British government had not been altogether happy in
its conduct of the preceding negotiations. It was certainly unhappy in
its preparations for the struggle. It made the great mistake of
underrating the strength of its enemy; it suffered its agents to commit
the strategical blunder of locking up the few troops it had in an
untenable position in the north of Natal. It was not surprising, in such
circumstances, that the earlier months of the war should have been
memorable for a series of exasperating reverses. These reverses,
however, were redeemed by the valour of the British troops, the spirit
of the British nation, and the enthusiasm which induced the great
autonomous colonies of the empire to send men to support the cause of
the mother country. The gradual arrival of reinforcements, and the
appointment of a soldier of genius--Lord Roberts--to the supreme
command, changed the military situation; and, before the summer of 1900
was concluded, the places which had been besieged by the
Boers--Kimberley, Ladysmith and Mafeking--had been successively
relieved; the capitals of the Orange Free State and of the Transvaal had
been occupied; and the two republics, which had rashly declared war
against the British empire, had been formally annexed.
The close of 1900.
The defeat and dispersal of the Boer armies, and the apparent collapse
of Boer resistance, induced a hope that the war was over; and the
government seized the opportunity in 1900 to terminate the parliament,
which had already endured for more than five years. The election was
conducted with unusual bitterness; but the constituencies practically
affirmed the policy of the government by maintaining, almost unimpaired,
the large majority which the Unionists had secured in 1895.
Unfortunately, the expectations which had been formed at the time of the
dissolution were disappointed. The same circumstances which had
emboldened the Boers to declare war in the autumn of 1899, induced them
to renew a guerilla warfare in the autumn of 1900--the approach of an
African summer supplying the Boers with the grass on which they were
dependent for feeding their hardy horses. Guerilla bands suddenly
appeared in different parts of the Orange River Colony and of the
Transvaal. They interrupted the communications of the British armies;
they won isolated victories over British detachments; they even invaded
Cape Colony. Thus the last year of the century closed in disappointment
and gloom. The serious losses which the war entailed, the heavy
expenses which it involved, and the large force which it absorbed,
filled thoughtful men with anxiety.
The death of the queen.
No one felt more sincerely for the sufferings of her soldiers, and no
one regretted more truly the useless prolongation of the struggle, than
the venerable lady who occupied the throne. She had herself lost a
grandson (Prince Christian Victor) in South Africa; and sorrow and
anxiety perhaps told even on a constitution so unusually strong as hers.
About the middle of January 1901 it was known that she was seriously
ill; on the 22nd she died. The death of the queen thus occurred
immediately after the close of the century over so long a period of
which her reign had extended.
The queen's own life is dealt with elsewhere (see VICTORIA, QUEEN), but
the Victorian era is deeply marked in English history. During her reign
the people of Great Britain doubled their number; but the accumulated
wealth of the country increased at least threefold, and its trade
sixfold. All classes shared the prevalent prosperity. Notwithstanding
the increase of population, the roll of paupers at the end of the reign,
compared with the same roll at the beginning, stood as 2 stands to 3;
the criminals as 1 to 2. The expansion abroad was still more remarkable.
There were not 200,000 white persons in Australasia when the queen came
to the throne; there were nearly 5,000,000 when she died. The great
Australian colonies were almost created in her reign; two of
them--Victoria and Queensland--owe their name to her; they all received
those autonomous institutions, under which their prosperity has been
built up, during its continuance. Expansion and progress were not
confined to Australasia. The opening months of the queen's reign were
marked by rebellion in Canada. The close of it saw Canada one of the
most loyal portions of the Empire. In Africa, the advance of the red
line which marks the bounds of British dominion was even more rapid;
while in India the Punjab, Sind, Oudh and Burma were some of the
acquisitions added to the British empire while the queen was on the
throne. When she died one square mile in four of the land in the world
was under the British flag, and at least one person out of every five
persons alive was a subject of the queen.
Material progress was largely facilitated by industry and invention. The
first railways had been made, the first steamship had been built, before
the queen came to the throne. But, so far as railways are concerned,
none of the great trunk lines had been constructed in 1837; the whole
capital authorized to be spent on railway construction did not exceed
L55,000,000; and, five years after the reign had begun, there were only
18,000,000 passengers. The paid-up capital of British railways in 1901
exceeded L1,100,000,000; the passengers, not including season
ticket-holders, also numbered 1,100,000,000; and the sum annually spent
in working the lines considerably exceeded the whole capital authorized
to be spent on their construction in 1837. The progress of the
commercial marine was still more noteworthy. In 1837 the entire
commercial navy comprised 2,800,000 tons, of which less than 100,000
tons were moved by steam. At the end of the reign the tonnage of British
merchant vessels had reached 13,700,000 tons, of which more than
11,000,000 tons were moved by steam. At the beginning of the reign it
was supposed to be impossible to build a steamer which could either
cross the Atlantic, or face the monsoon in the Red Sea. The development
of steam navigation since then had made Australia much more accessible
than America was in 1837, and had brought New York, for all practical
purposes, nearer to London than Aberdeen was at the commencement of the
reign. Electricity had even a greater effect on communication than steam
on locomotion; and electricity, as a practical invention, had its origin
in the reign. The first experimental telegraph line was only erected in
the year in which Queen Victoria came to the throne. Submarine
telegraphy, which had done so much to knit the empire together, was not
perfected for many years afterwards; and long ocean cables were almost
entirely constructed in the last half of the reign. (S. W.)
Reign of Edward VII.
On the death of Queen Victoria, the prince of Wales succeeded to the
throne, with the title of Edward VII. (q.v.). The coronation fixed for
June in the following year was at the last moment stopped by the king's
illness with appendicitis, but he recovered marvellously from the
operation and the ceremony took place in August. His excellent health
and activity in succeeding years struck every one with astonishment. The
Boer War had at last been brought to an end in May 1902 (see TRANSVAAL),
and the king had the satisfaction of seeing South Africa settle down and
eventually receive self-government. The political history of his reign,
which ended with his death in May 1910, is dealt with in detail in
separate biographical and other articles in this work (see especially
those on Lord Salisbury, Mr A. J. Balfour, Mr J. Chamberlain, Lord
Rosebery, Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr H. H. Asquith, Mr D. Lloyd
George, and on the history of the various portions of the British
Empire); and in this place only a summary need be given. The king
himself (see EDWARD VII.), who nobly earned the title of Edward the
Peacemaker, played no small part in the domestic and international
politics of these years; and contemporary publicists, who had become
accustomed to Victorian traditions, gradually realized that, within the
limits of the constitutional monarchy, there was much more scope for the
initiative of a masculine sovereign in public life than had been
supposed by the generation which grew up after the death of his father
in 1862. Edward VII. made the Crown throughout all classes of society a
popular power which it had not been in England for long ages. And while
the growing rivalry between England and Germany, in international
relations, was continually threatening danger, his influence in
cementing British friendship on all other sides was of the most marked
description. His sudden death was felt, not only throughout the empire
but throughout the world, with even more poignant emotion than that of
Queen Victoria herself, for his personality had been much more in the
forefront.
The Crisis of 1910.
The end of his reign coincided with a domestic constitutional crisis, to
which party politics had been working up more and more acutely for
several years. The Tariff Reform propaganda of Mr Chamberlain (q.v.) in
1903 convulsed the Conservative party, and the long period of Unionist
domination came to an end in November 1905. Mr Balfour (q.v.), who
became prime minister in 1902 on Lord Salisbury's retirement, resigned,
and was succeeded by Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman (q.v.), as head of the
Liberal party; and the general election of January 1906 resulted in an
overwhelming victory for the Liberals and their allies, the Labour party
(now a powerful force in politics) and the Irish Nationalists. Just
before Sir H. Campbell-Bannerman's death in April 1908 he was succeeded
as prime minister by Mr Asquith, a leader of far higher personal ability
though with less hold on the affections of his party. The Liberals had
long arrears to make up in their political programme, and their
supremacy in the House of Commons was an encouragement to assert their
views in legislation. In several directions, and notably in
administration, they carried their policy into effect; but the House of
Lords (see PARLIAMENT) was an obvious stumbling-block to some of their
more important Bills, and the Unionist control of that House speedily
made itself felt, first in wrecking the Education Bill of 1906, then in
throwing out the Licensing Bill of 1908, and finally (see LLOYD GEORGE,
D.) in forcing a dissolution by the rejection of the budget of 1909,
with its novel proposals for the increased taxation of land and licensed
houses. The Unionist party in the country had, meanwhile, been
recovering from the Tariff Reform divisions of 1903, and was once more
solid under Mr Balfour in favour of its new and imperial policy; but the
campaign against the House of Lords started by Mr Lloyd George and the
Liberal leaders, who put in the forefront the necessity of obtaining
statutory guarantees for the passing into law of measures deliberately
adopted by the elected Chamber, resulted in the return of Mr Asquith's
government to office at the election of January 1910. The Unionists came
back equal in numbers to the Liberals, but the latter could also count
on the Labour party and the Irish Nationalists; and the battle was fully
arrayed for a frontal attack on the powers of the Second Chamber when
the king's death in May upset all calculations. This unthought-of
complication seemed to act like the letting of blood in an apoplectic
patient.
Accession of George V.
The prince of Wales became king as George V. (q.v.), and a temporary
truce was called; and the reign began with a serious attempt between the
leaders of the two great parties, by private conference, to see whether
compromise was not possible (see PARLIAMENT). Apart from the
parliamentary crisis, really hingeing on the difficulty of discovering a
means by which the real will of the people should be carried out without
actually making the House of Commons autocratically omnipotent, but also
without allowing the House of Lords to obstruct a Liberal government
merely as the organ of the Tory party, the new king succeeded to a noble
heritage. The monarchy itself was popular, the country was prosperous
and in good relations with the world, except for the increasing naval
rivalry with Germany, and the consciousness of imperial solidarity had
made extraordinary progress among all the dominions. However the
domestic problems in the United Kingdom might be solved, the future of
the greatness of the English throne lay with its headship of an empire,
loyal to the core, over which the sun never sets. (H. Ch.)