ENGLAND IN EGYPT.
The Duke of Albany’s Marriage Announced--Mr. Bradlaugh
Again--Procedure Reform--The Closure at Last--The Peers Co-operate
with the Parnellites--Their Attacks on the Land Act--Mr.
Forster’s Policy of “Thorough”--A Nation under Arrest--Increase
in Outrages--Sir J. D. Hay and Mr. W. H. Smith bid for the
Parnellite Vote--A Political Dutch Auction--The Radicals Outbid
the Tories--Release of Mr. Parnell and the Suspects--The
Kilmainham Treaty--Victory of Mr. Chamberlain--Resignation of Mr.
Forster and Lord Cowper--The Tragedy in the Phœnix Park--Ireland
Under Lord Spencer--Firm and Resolute Government--Coercion
Revived--The Arrears Bill--The Budget--England in Egypt--How
Ismail Pasha “Kissed the Carpet”--Spoiling the Egyptians--Mr.
Goschen’s Scheme for Collecting the Debt--The Dual Control--The
Ascendency of France--“Egypt for the Egyptians”--The Rule of
Arabi--Riots in Alexandria--The Egyptian War--Murder of Professor
Palmer--British Occupation of Egypt--The Queen’s Monument to Lord
Beaconsfield--Attempt to Assassinate Her Majesty--The Queen’s Visit
to Mentone--Marriage of the Duke of Albany.
The Parliament of 1882 was opened on the 7th of February, and
the Queen’s Speech announced the approaching marriage of the
Duke of Albany. Foreign affairs were hopefully touched on. Local
self-government, London municipal reform, bankruptcy reform, corrupt
practices at elections, the conservancy of rivers, and the codification
of the Criminal Law, were the subjects of promised legislation. Very
early in the Session Mr. Bradlaugh renewed his attempt to take the
Parliamentary Oath, but was again excluded from the precincts of the
House by a resolution moved by Sir Stafford Northcote. On the 21st of
February the House refused to issue a new writ for Northampton, and Mr.
Bradlaugh, after the division, proceeded to swear himself in at the
Clerk’s table. Sir Stafford Northcote accordingly moved and carried a
resolution expelling him from the House. This caused a fresh election
to be held at Northampton, the result of which was that Mr. Bradlaugh
was again returned by a triumphant majority. On the 6th of March Sir
Stafford Northcote proposed a resolution excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from
the precincts of the House, and then, sated with its saturnalia of
intolerance, the Opposition permitted Ministers to get on with the most
pressing question of the hour--the reform of Procedure. The proposals
of the Government were, in the main, identical with those which the
Speaker had designed to defeat obstruction in the previous Session;
but they were to be of permanent application, and not dependent on
the carrying of a vote of urgency. It was provided that a debate
might be closed, on the Speaker’s initiation, by a bare majority,
only there must, in that case, be at least two hundred Members voting
in favour of closure if as many as forty members opposed it; but if
fewer than forty opposed, at least one hundred would be required
to carry it. Non-contentious business relating to Law and Commerce
might be delegated to two Grand Committees. The Tories objected to
closure by a bare majority, and they fortunately found a Liberal--Mr.
Marriott, Q.C.--to move an amendment to this part of Mr. Gladstone’s
plan, and the debate began on the 20th of February. In the meantime
the Irish Home Rulers, who had not scrupled to impede the working
of the Land Act, found unexpected allies in the Conservative Peers.
They attacked the Act as a failure, and carried a motion appointing
a hostile Committee to inquire into its working. It has always been
the practice of the Peers, when they dared not cut down the plant of
Reform, to insist on pulling it up to see if its roots were growing,
and in this case their strategy was ingeniously adapted to suit the
policy of obstruction in the Commons. It was necessary to neutralise
the hostile vote of the Peers by a Resolution in the Commons condemning
the proposed inquiry as mischievous; and, though this was carried, it
gave the Tory and Parnellite opponents of the Government an excellent
chance of wasting time by re-opening and discussing the whole Irish
Land Question. The Procedure debates were thus suspended for about a
month, Mr. Marriott’s amendment being rejected on the 30th of March.
Negotiations for a compromise between Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr.
Gladstone were interrupted by a catastrophe which revolutionised the
Irish policy of the Government, namely, the murder of Lord Frederick
Cavendish and Mr. Thomas Burke in the Phœnix Park, Dublin.
During the first two months of the Session the Irish Party vied
with the Conservatives in assailing the Land Act. Radicals began to
murmur against the development of Mr. Forster’s coercive policy,
every incident and detail of which was subjected by the Irish Members
to bitter criticism and violent denunciation. In the meantime, Mr.
Forster’s scheme for pacifying Ireland was not prospering, and it
was seen that he had made a fatal mistake when he pledged himself to
suppress agitation, if he were only empowered to arrest the leading
agitators. From the day they were imprisoned, Ireland drifted towards
anarchy and terrorism. Then the experiment was tried of arresting, not
only the leaders, but their lieutenants. Finally Mr. Forster crowded
the prisons with the rank and file of the Home Rule host. Men began
to wonder whether the gaol accommodation of Ireland was adequate for
Mr. Forster’s policy. But the more people he put in prison the worse
the country grew, the more did evictions increase, and the less rent
was paid. A bid for the Irish vote was now made by the Tories. They
put up Sir John Hay to move that the detention of the “suspects” was
“repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution.” Through Mr. W. H. Smith,
in one of the debates on the Land Act, they offered the Nationalists
a scheme for buying out the landlords at the expense of the State,
and establishing peasant proprietorship in Ireland, such as had
been advocated by Mr. Davitt and Mr. Parnell. It was clear that the
Tory-Parnellite alliance was becoming a formidable combination, and
the Radicals urged the Government to make terms with the Nationalist
Party whilst there was yet time. But Mr. Gladstone hesitated, and
then the Radicals moved without him. An intrigue, instigated by Mr.
Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke, was set on foot to get Mr. Forster
removed from his place as Irish Secretary. Through Captain O’Shea as
an intermediary, Mr. Parnell was approached. He had certainly seen
with alarm the increase in evictions, and knew that if the struggle
were prolonged the financial resources of the Leaguers must fail them.
He was, therefore, disposed to come to terms. Letters were exchanged,
in one of which Mr. Parnell said that a promise to deal with the
question of arrears would do much to bring peace to Ireland, for the
Nationalists would then be able to exert themselves, with some hope
of success, in stopping outrages. But the Land Act would have to be
extended to leaseholders, and the Purchase Clauses enlarged. If this
programme were carried out, wrote Mr. Parnell on the 28th of August
to Captain O’Shea, it “would enable us to co-operate cordially for
the future with the Liberal Party in forwarding Liberal principles;
and I believe that the Government at the end of the Session would,
from the state of the country, feel themselves thoroughly justified in
dispensing with future coercive measures.” This letter was shown to
Mr. Forster, and it seems that the Cabinet was also put in possession
of Mr. Parnell’s views. Mr. Forster was not of opinion that they
justified his release. Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Dilke thought
that they displayed a reasonable spirit which would justify a new
departure of conciliation in Irish policy. Mr. Parnell, Mr. Dillon,
Mr. Davitt, and the other suspects were therefore released, and Lord
Cowper, the Irish Viceroy, and Mr. Forster resigned office. Mr.
Forster was of opinion that Mr. Parnell should have been compelled
to promise publicly not to resist the law, or failing that, that a
stronger Coercion Act should have been passed before he was set at
liberty. Lord Spencer was appointed to succeed Lord Cowper, and Lord
Frederick Cavendish succeeded Mr. Forster as Chief Secretary. On
the 6th of May, within forty-eight hours of their appointment, Lord
Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke, the Under-secretary for Ireland,
were butchered by a band of assassins in broad daylight in the Phœnix
Park, Dublin. Mr. Forster, in fact, had allowed a secret society of
assassins, calling themselves “Invincibles,” to organise itself at his
own doors, whilst he was scouring the country far and wide to arrest
and imprison the patriotic but respectable _bourgeoisie_ of Ireland as
suspects. In his speech condemning the release of the suspects, whilst
he maintained that Ireland was not yet quiet, he had declared that the
country was quieter than it had been, that the Land League was crushed,
and boycotting checked! He had never suspected that the place of the
Land League had been taken by a secret society of desperadoes called
the “Invincibles” and that assassination was to be substituted for
boycotting. His administration had been indeed singularly ineffective.
With power in his hands, as absolute as that of a Russian Minister of
Police, he seems never to have suspected the existence of the band of
murderers who had organised themselves in Dublin, and who had dogged
his own steps in sight of the detectives who watched over him day after
day seeking for a chance of slaying him. This tragic event upset the
scheme for “a new departure,” which Mr. Chamberlain had induced the
Government to essay. Though Englishmen behaved with great calmness and
self-restraint after the first shock of horror which the Phœnix Park
murders sent through the nation had passed away, they were resolved to
offer no more concessions to Ireland till the Government took fresh
powers for enforcing law and suppressing outrages. Mr. Gladstone
interpreted the national will accurately when he determined not to
withdraw the conciliatory portion of his Irish programme. But he recast
his plans, and gave his coercive precedence over his remedial measures.
[Illustration: LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
(_From a Photograph by the London Stereoscopic Company._)]
The Irish Party were probably sincere in regretting and in condemning
the murders. The _prestige_ of their Parliamentary policy was
sullied when it ended in a new Coercion Bill for Ireland, and in the
demonstration of their impotence to control the forces which they
pretended to have in hand. The Tories and Ministerialists were alike
discredited by the untoward mishap. The alliance between the Tory Party
and the Home Rulers had influenced every Parliamentary bye-election
and every division in the House of Commons. The motion of Sir John Hay
condemning the imprisonment of the “suspects” and the offer of Mr.
W. H. Smith’s scheme for expropriating the landlords were palpable
bids for the Parnellite vote. By releasing the “suspects,” promising
to deal with the question of arrears, and to take the Land Purchase
Question in hand, the Ministry outbade their rivals. But the Opposition
and the Cabinet were alike guilty of intriguing and negotiating with
men whom in people they pretended to denounce as irreconcilable
enemies of the Empire; and the end of it all was the tragedy in the
Phœnix Park! That affair had only a coincidental relation to the
antecedent Party intrigues; but the people saw connection where there
was only coincidence. Hence Englishmen for a time lost faith in their
public men. They felt towards them as their forefathers did towards
Charles I. when the Glamorgan Treaty was revealed, and towards Lord
Melbourne and Lord John Russell when the “Lichfield House” compact
between O’Connell and the Whigs was unmasked. For a time this feeling
cowed partisans below the gangway on both sides who had been mainly
responsible for the negotiations and intrigues with the Home Rulers.
The Government tried to atone for its misfortune by continuing Lord
Spencer as Irish Viceroy and appointing Mr. George Otto Trevelyan as
Irish Secretary, Lord Spencer to be entirely responsible for Irish
policy in the Cabinet. This was the best possible selection that could
be made. Lord Spencer represented the type of Englishman who, from
his courage, common sense, love of justice, business-like habits,
administrative skill, and disinterested patriotism, was most likely to
establish an enduring and endurable system in Ireland, if that were
to be done by firm and resolute government tempered by strong popular
sympathies. Mr. Trevelyan was patient, industrious, and courteous as
an administrator, and his success as a man of letters rendered him in
some degree a _persona grata_ to the Irish Party, most of whose leaders
were writers for the Press. The new Coercion Bill was introduced on
the 11th of May, and read a second time on the 19th. It suspended
trial by jury in certain cases and in proclaimed districts; gave the
police fresh powers of arrest and search, and revived the Alien Act;
it defined as punishable offences intimidation, incitement to crime,
and participation in secret conspiracies and illegal assemblies; it
rendered newspapers liable to suppression for inciting to violence,
widened the summary jurisdiction of stipendiary magistrates, and levied
fines of compensation on districts stained with murderous outrages. It
was at once seen that the chief merit of the Bill lay in the fact that
it frankly attacked and punished criminals, thereby reversing, and by
implication condemning, the feeble and futile policy of Mr. Forster,
who attacked and imprisoned at will persons who were merely suspected
of crime or of inciting to crime. Great doubts were expressed as to
the utility of the Press clauses, Englishmen who are not political
partisans being at all times sceptical as to the good that is done
by suppressing newspapers and bottling up all their evil teaching in
private manifestoes for secret circulation in disaffected districts.
Some Radicals also thought the powers of arrest after nightfall given
to the police were rather vague, and suggested too painfully a revival
of Mr. Forster’s fatal principle of coercion on suspicion. But, on the
whole, the Bill was well received by the best men of both parties, the
responsible Tory leaders giving the Government much loyal support,
though some of their followers carped at the measure.[177] The Bill was
obstructed in the usual manner by the Irish Members, who had but few
Radical allies. On the 16th of June only seven clauses out of thirty
had gone through Committee. On the 29th it was clear a crisis had come,
and on the 30th there was a disorderly all-night sitting, which ended
in the suspension of sixteen Irish Members. Later in the day nine
others were suspended, and, after sitting for twenty-eight hours, the
Bill passed through Committee. Urgency was voted for its next stages,
and the Bill read a third time on the 7th of July. The Lords passed it
promptly, and it became law on the 12th of July.
Along with the Coercion Bill the promised Arrears Bill was introduced,
and read a second time before Whitsuntide. It applied to holdings under
£30 of rental, and empowered the Land Courts to pay half the arrears
of poor tenants out of the Irish Church Surplus--but no payment was
to exceed a year’s rent, and all past arrears were to be cancelled.
After prolonged opposition from the Conservatives and from the House
of Lords, the measure was passed on the 10th of August. These Bills
exhausted the legislative energies of the Government; indeed, Mr.
Fawcett’s Bill establishing a Parcel Post, and Mr. Chamberlain’s
Bill enabling corporations to adopt Electric Lighting by obtaining
provisional orders from the Board of Trade, were the only measures
that had not to be abandoned. The Budget estimated expenditure at
£84,630,000 and revenue at £84,935,000, a reduction of between £900,000
and £800,000 respectively on the preceding year’s disbursements and
receipts. The surplus was small. The revenue was stagnant, and there
was no scope for fiscal changes. A Vote of Credit for the Egyptian
Expedition had to be provided, which caused Mr. Gladstone to raise the
Income Tax to 6¾d. in the pound.
The Egyptian difficulty, in fact, during this Session, became acute.
It was seized by the Fourth Party as a peg on which to hang an endless
series of questions to the Government, of an embarrassing character.
From questioning, Lord Randolph Churchill proceeded to wage an
irregular guerilla warfare, most harassing to Ministers engaged in
delicate diplomatic negotiations on which depended the issues of peace
and war. In this unusual course he and his friends were supported by
Mr. Chaplin and Lord Percy, and aided by many fiery assaults made
by Lord Salisbury. Sir Stafford Northcote and the majority of the
ex-Ministers in the House of Commons disapproved, at first, of tactics
which seemed to them an unprecedented violation of the decencies of
English party warfare. But Sir Stafford’s reserve and prudence, though
appreciated by the country, were so distasteful to his followers that
ere the Session ended he found he had to submit to be their instrument
in using the foreign complications of the nation for the interests
of faction. Had he refused, the combatant section of his followers
would have rebelled against his authority. It was part of the irony
of the situation that the Egyptian difficulty was one of the evil
legacies which the Foreign Policy of the Tory Party in 1879-1880
left the country to deal with. In fact, the Egyptian crisis of 1882
was the logical consequence of the system of Dual Control with which
Lord Salisbury had afflicted Egypt when he went into partnership with
France in managing the finances of that country for the benefit of its
usurious foreign creditors. It was in 1866 that Ismail Pasha took the
first step that gradually led to his downfall. To use his own phrase,
he “kissed the carpet” at Constantinople--in other words, bribed the
Porte to grant him the title of Khedive and confirm the succession of
the Pashalik in his family. Again and again did he “kiss the carpet,”
till in 1872 he was practically an independent Sovereign wielding
absolute personal power over Egypt--the suzerainty of Turkey being
marked only by the annual tribute, the Imperial cypher on the coinage,
the weekly prayer for the Sultan in the Mosque, and the preservation of
the _jus legationis_. In 1875 he abolished the Consular Courts before
which suits between Egyptians and foreigners were tried, substituting
for them the Mixed Tribunals on which representative judges of the
Great Powers sat. At this period the crop of financial wild oats which
Ismail Pasha had sown had ripened. He had spent money lavishly not only
on the Suez Canal, but on every conceivable scheme that wily European
speculators could persuade him was an improvement. He had borrowed
this money on the principles that regulate the financial transactions
of a rich young spendthrift and a usurer of the lowest class. In 1864
he borrowed £5,700,000. In the succeeding years loans for £3,000,000,
£1,200,000, and £2,000,000 were added. In 1873 there was another
loan for £32,000,000--which, according to Mr. Cave, swallowed up
every resource of Egypt.[178] The Khedive’s private loans came to
£11,000,000, and the floating debt to £26,000,000 in 1876. How these
last loans were to be met, seeing that the 1873 loan swallowed up all
the resources of the country, was a perplexing point. The usurers would
lend the Khedive no more money, and in 1875 England helped him to meet
the interest on existing loans by giving him £4,000,000 for the Suez
Canal Shares.
[Illustration: THE KARMOUS SUBURB, ALEXANDRIA, AND POMPEY’S PILLAR.]
Something might have been done for Egypt, even at this time, if England
had occupied the country; but Mr. Disraeli lost the golden opportunity,
which did not return till France and Russia were in a position to offer
an effective resistance which could not be bought off. The Khedive
appealed for money to England, and Mr. Disraeli sent Mr. Cave to report
upon his affairs. Mr. Cave said in effect that it was impossible to
help the Khedive with money unless Englishmen were prepared to lose
it. That report, however, did not touch the position of those who held
with Mr. Edward Dicey that if England could establish a Protectorate in
Egypt, and administer her affairs like an Indian Native State, it would
be quite possible to extricate her from her financial difficulties
without inflicting injustice on her creditors. In the meantime, the
foreign bondholders sued the Khedive in his own Mixed Tribunals. They
got judgment against him, but were unable to execute it. In May, 1876,
his Highness met this judgment by a decree of repudiation, whereupon
Germany indignantly protested, and France and England followed suit on
behalf of the bondholders of their respective nationalities. It was
here that Lord Salisbury first left the traditional lines of sound
Foreign Policy. He interfered in Egypt, not on the ground that national
interests had to be safeguarded, but--like Lord Palmerston in the case
of Greece--to protect the interests of a few speculative individuals
who had a bad debt to collect from Ismail Pasha. British national
interests in Egypt, when really imperilled, can only be protected
effectively in one way--by the occupation of the country, or its
administration under a British Protectorate. They cannot be protected
by entering into an ambiguous partnership for regulating the Khedive’s
finances with Powers whose interests in Egypt are not national, but are
represented by those of their subjects who have lent Egypt money on bad
security. The Imperial interests of England demand that the government
of Egypt shall be good and effective all round, so that the highway to
India shall be through an orderly and contented people. The interests
of the other Powers demand that the government of Egypt, whether good
or bad, must be such as will enable her to give the Shylocks, whom they
represent, their pound of flesh. It was for the interest of England to
aim at a Protectorate, just as it was for the interests of the other
Powers to aim merely at obtaining financial control over Egypt; and the
fatal blunder which Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury made was in
identifying England, not with British, but with foreign interests in
Egypt. The French and English bondholders could not agree on the steps
which should be taken to extort their money from the overtaxed Egyptian
peasantry; and Mr. Goschen and M. Joubert were sent out to devise a
scheme for consolidating the Egyptian debt in the common interests of
all bondholders. By estimating the annual average revenue which could
be extracted from the wretched fellaheen at £12,000,000 instead of
£8,000,000, which would have been high enough, the Goschen-Joubert
scheme showed in 1876 that the Khedive could pay, as interest and
sinking fund, seven per cent. interest on a consolidated debt of
£100,000,000. Ismail agreed to pay this at first, but soon resisted,
on the ground that the estimate of revenue was erroneous. The French
Government then determined to appoint a Commission to investigate the
resources of Egypt, which England was induced to join. This Commission
reported that as the Khedive had appropriated to himself one-fifth of
the land of Egypt,[179] the first thing he should do was to hand a
million acres of it over to the creditors of the State.
The Khedive now formed a Ministry under Nubar Pasha, in which Mr.
Rivers Wilson, the English Commissioner, was given the Ministry of
Finance. The French Government displayed so much jealousy of this
step, that Lord Salisbury, yielding to their demands, permitted the
Khedive to appoint M. de Blignières as Mr. Wilson’s colleague. This
was the beginning of the Dual Control of Egypt by two Governments
with opposite interests, from which all subsequent mischief arose.
The Khedive soon dismissed Nubar’s Ministry, and then France and
England, on the threat of Germany to interfere, arranged with the
Sultan to depose Ismail Pasha. He was succeeded by his son Tewfik, in
whose Ministry the care of finance was entrusted to M. de Blignières
and Mr. Baring, who was afterwards succeeded by Mr. Colvin. The effect
of the Dual Control was very simple. It increased the bureaucracy
but diminished its efficiency, for wherever an English official was
appointed M. de Blignières insisted on planting a French colleague by
his side to watch and hamper him. A similar vigilance was exhibited
by the English Controller. But above the Dual Ministry of Finance
there was established the International Commission of the Public
Debt, representing England, France, Italy, Austria, and Germany. This
Commission watched over the administration of the Dual Ministry of
Finance. It was entitled, if it could agree on a course of action, to
demand from the Ministry of Finance more efficient management, and
of course it distributed the sum handed over by that Ministry for
payment of the public creditors. The French and English Ministers or
Controllers of Finance were not removable save by consent of their
Governments. They had the right to seats in the Ministerial Council,
and to advise on all measures of general importance. As nothing can
be done in Egypt without money, nothing could be done without them. At
first, Major Baring was the most active of the controllers. But he was
removed, and Mr. Colvin, who took his place, played a subordinate part
to M. de Blignières, who had more experience and force of character.
Virtually De Blignières governed the country. History does not record
the occasion on which England as a Great Power occupied a position more
ignominious than the one she now held in. Egypt, where her influence
had been paramount till Lord Salisbury consented to share it with
France. The government of the Dual Control was conducted on simple
principles. Egypt was managed not for the Egyptians, but for the
bondholders. Everything and everybody were sacrificed for the Budget,
and the Budget was constructed primarily with a view to securing the
Debt and the payment of the European officials, who swarmed over the
land like locusts. At the time when Cyprus was occupied it must now be
stated that Lord Salisbury conciliated France, ever
[Illustration: AHMED ARABI PASHA.
(_From the Portrait by Frederick Villiers in A. M. Broadley’s “How we
Defended Arabi and his Friends.”_)]
jealous of her Syrian interests, by supporting an extension of her
influence in Tunis. Tunis, however, in 1881 had, in spite of protests
from England and Italy, become simply a French dependency, and the
growing power of Blignières at Cairo forced acute observers to say of
Egypt--
“Mutato nomine, de te
Fabula narratur.”
The natives now grew restless under the Dual Control, and this
restlessness ended in a military revolt, headed by Colonel Arabi Bey,
whose watchword was
[Illustration: LORD WOLSELEY.
(_From a Photograph by Fradelle and Young._)]
“Egypt for the Egyptians.” This rising the Khedive pacified by
dismissing the Ministry of Riaz Pasha, who was succeeded by Cherif
Pasha. But though Cherif reigned Arabi ruled, and it soon became
evident that the partners in the Dual Control could not agree on the
course that should be adopted towards him. The Egyptian Assembly of
Notables, on the 18th of January, 1882, asserted their right to
control the Budget. The French and English Controllers disputed this
right, and then a new Ministry was formed, of which Mahmoud Samy was
the nominal, but Arabi Bey, now Minister of War, the real head. M.
Gambetta, who had vainly endeavoured to induce England to join France
in coercing Arabi and the national party, fell from power; M. de
Freycinet succeeded him, and his policy was one of non-intervention.
The Chamber of Notables refused to withdraw from their position. M.
de Blignières, finding he could get no support from M. de Freycinet,
resigned, and thus ended Lord Salisbury’s experiment of the Dual
Control. Arabi was loaded with decorations. The rank and title of Pasha
were given him, and he was virtually Dictator of the country, with
no policy save that of “Egypt for the Egyptians.” Alarmed by menaced
massacres of foreigners, France and England now sent their fleets to
Alexandria. The English and French Consuls, in a Joint Note to the
Khedive, advised the expulsion of Arabi, who had been intriguing with
the Bedouins. Arabi resigned, but no new Ministry could be formed, and
the army threatened to repudiate any authority save that of the Sultan,
who sent Dervish Pasha to quiet the country. On the 11th of June there
was a riot in Alexandria; the British Consul was injured, and many
French and English subjects were slain. This was the signal for a
stampede of the terrified foreign population of Alexandria, where the
Khedive held his Court, and of Cairo. A Cabinet, patronised by Germany
and Austria, under Ragheb Pasha, was formed; but Arabi was again
Minister of War. In July Arabi ostentatiously strengthened the forts of
Alexandria, but on the 10th Sir Beauchamp Seymour warned him that if
the forts were not surrendered for disarmament, they would be bombarded
by the British fleet. The French Government refused to join in this
coercive measure, and sent their ships to Port Said. On the 11th the
fortifications were shattered by the British cannonade; but as the town
was not occupied, it was seized by a fanatical mob, who wrought havoc
in it for two days. A force was then tardily landed by Admiral Seymour,
who restored order, and brought back the Khedive from Ramleh, where he
had fled, to Ras-el-tin. Arabi and the Egyptian army had taken up an
entrenched position at Tel-el-Kebir, but were still professedly acting
in the Khedive’s name. An English military expedition, under Sir Garnet
Wolseley, was sent to disperse them, and secure the protection of the
Canal.
A diplomatic mission under Professor Palmer of Cambridge, an
accomplished Oriental scholar, who had acquired a great personal
influence over the tribes of the Sinai, was sent to detach the Bedouins
from Arabi, and engage them to assist in defending the Canal. The
other members of the mission were Lieutenant Charrington, R.N., and
Captain Gill, R.E., officers with a record of distinguished service
which fitted them for their hazardous employment. They had no military
escort, because the presence of one would have rendered their mission
hopeless. A reconnaissance conducted with great skill by Professor
Palmer, who travelled from Joppa through the Sinai desert disguised as
a Syrian Mahometan of rank, had given every promise of success. But
the members of the expedition were led by a treacherous guide into an
ambuscade soon after starting from the Wells of Moses, and murdered
and robbed by a band of brigands[180] (10th of August). But despite
this melancholy occurrence the safety of the Canal was secured. By a
movement conducted in swift secrecy Sir Garnet Wolseley sailed with his
force from Alexandria to Ismailia on the 19th of August, his plan being
to advance on Cairo by the Freshwater Canal. On the 28th Arabi, after
a repulse at Kassassin, retired to his entrenchments at Tel-el-Kebir,
which were carried by the British, on the 13th of September, after a
long march by night over the desert sands. General Drury Lowe and a
small force of cavalry pushed on to Cairo, which surrendered to them at
the first summons, Arabi Pasha and Toulba Pasha, his lieutenant, giving
themselves up as prisoners. The Khedive was reinstated in Cairo by the
British troops, who were paraded before him on the 30th of September.
By a unique stroke of fortune, Mr. Gladstone’s Government had thus
been enabled to secure for England the position of ascendency in Egypt
which had been sacrificed by the Dual Control. France and the other
Powers, having cast on England the burden of supporting the Khedive’s
authority, had to accept a _fait accompli_, and submit to see a
British army of occupation of 10,000 men quartered in Egypt. But the
occupation was emphatically declared by Mr. Gladstone to be temporary,
and he pledged England to terminate it whenever the Khedive could
maintain himself without foreign aid. The war cost England £4,600,000,
and it did much to restore for the time the waning popularity of the
Ministry. Rewards and decorations were showered upon the victors.
Peerages were bestowed on Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour and Sir Garnet
Wolseley. As for Egypt, her Government was really under the control
of the British Consul-General. England forbade the restoration of the
Dual Control, and set limits to the organisation of the native Army.
The native Police was put under the command of Baker Pasha, and the
English Government rescued Arabi and the leaders of the insurgents from
the native court-martial, which would have doomed them to death. When
tried, they pleaded guilty to a charge of treason, and were exiled to
Ceylon.
On the 27th of February a monument, which the Queen had commissioned
Mr. Belt to prepare for the perpetuation of the memory of Lord
Beaconsfield, was erected in Hughenden Church. It was a touching
record of rare friendship between Sovereign and subject. The centre of
the memorial is occupied by a profile portrait carved in low relief.
Beneath, is a tablet bearing the following dedication penned by the
Queen herself:--
To
the dear and honoured Memory
of
BENJAMIN, EARL OF BEACONSFIELD,
This memorial is placed by
his grateful and affectionate
Sovereign and Friend,
VICTORIA R.I.
“Kings love him that speaketh right.”--Proverbs xvi. 13.
February 27, 1882.
[Illustration: THE DUCHESS OF ALBANY.]
The year was marked by an attempt to assassinate the Queen, which
created much public alarm. On the 2nd of March her Majesty was driving
from Windsor Station to the Castle, when a poorly-dressed man shot at
her carriage with a revolver. Before he could fire again a bystander
struck down his arm and he was arrested. He was a grocer’s assistant
from Portsmouth, named Roderick Maclean; his excuse was that he was
starving, and he probably desired to draw attention to his case. He
was tried next month at Reading Assizes, where it was shown that he
had been under treatment as a lunatic for two years in an asylum in
Weston-super-Mare, but had been dismissed cured. He was acquitted on
the ground of insanity, and ordered to be placed in custody during her
Majesty’s pleasure. The sympathy which was expressed by all classes
with the Queen, when tidings of the outrage were published, was
universal. On the night of Maclean’s arrest the National Anthem was
sung in all the theatres, and from every quarter messages came pouring
in congratulating her Majesty on her escape. These demonstrations
caused her to address a touching letter of heartfelt thanks to the
nation.
[Illustration: THE DUKE OF ALBANY.]
Another outrage on the Queen has to be set down in the record of 1882.
On the 26th of May a young telegraph clerk, named Albert Young, was
tried before Mr. Justice Lopes, and found guilty of threatening to
murder the Queen and Prince Leopold. He sent a letter, purporting to
come from an Irish Roman Catholic priest and fifty of his parishioners
who had been evicted by their landlords, warning the Queen of her
peril, and saying that if paid £40 a head these men would all emigrate.
The money was to be sent to “A. Y.,” at the “M., S., & L.” Office,
Doncaster. Young was sentenced to ten years’ penal servitude.
On the 14th of March her Majesty left Windsor for Portsmouth,
accompanied by the Princess Beatrice. From thence she sailed to
Cherbourg, and proceeded to Mentone, where she arrived on the 17th.
The Chalêt des Rosiers, where the Queen lived, was a newly-built
villa, standing on a small artificial plateau, fifty yards from the
railway, and a hundred from the shore, about half-a-mile from the
old town, and three-quarters of a mile from the ravine and bridge of
St. Louis which divide Italy from France. Precipices, rugged steeps,
abysmal ravines, and rocky beds of old torrents rise from behind the
villa in wild confusion. Five miles away, mountains whose bases are
traversed by terraces covered with orange groves, soar grandly into
the sky. Her Majesty was soon joined by Prince Leopold, the King and
Queen of Saxony, and Lord Lyons, and she made daily excursions in the
neighbourhood. On the 21st of March there was a great _fête_, with
splendid illuminations held in her honour, and she witnessed the scene
from the balcony of her villa. Before leaving, on the 14th of April,
the Queen thanked the authorities and the residents for contributing
so cordially to the pleasure of her visit. As a memento of it, she
presented the chief of the municipal band, who had composed a cantata
in her honour, with a diamond breast-pin.
The marriage of the Duke of Albany was now approaching, and it was
with deep regret that the Queen found it necessary to leave him at
Mentone, as he had not recovered from the effects of an accident he had
met with. The grant of £25,000 a year for his Royal Highness had been
moved by Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons on the 23rd of March,
and carried by a vote of 387 to 42. Mr. Labouchere, however, opposed
the vote, because he said the savings from the Civil List ought to be
returned to the State by the Queen before any Royal grants were voted
by Parliament. Mr. Broadhurst also thought that £25,000[181] a year was
too much to vote for such a purpose in a country where the majority
lived on weekly wages. Mr. Storey opposed voting public money save
for public services, and described the House of Commons as “a large
syndicate interested in expenditure.” But there was no new point raised
in the debate, save Mr. Labouchere’s argument, based on the fact that
George III., who had £1,000,000 a year of Civil List, maintained his
own children. Mr. Gladstone, of course, challenged the precedent, by
pointing out that Parliament had not entered into an implied contract
with George III. to provide for his children. But for the first time
he admitted that savings were hoarded up out of the Civil List. Only,
he said, they were not large enough to provide for the maintenance
of the Queen’s children, and he assured the House that after he had
come to know the amount of them, his conclusion was that they were not
more than were called for by the contingencies which might occur in
such a family. As has been stated before, the Royal savings represent
an insurance fund against family emergencies, which it would not be
agreeable for the Queen to ask Parliament to meet for her.
On the 27th of April the marriage of the Duke of Albany with the
Princess Hélène of Waldeck-Pyrmont was solemnised in St. George’s
Chapel, Windsor, with a sustained pomp and splendour rarely seen even
in Royal pageants. Most extensive and elaborate arrangements had been
made for the reception and processions of the Royal and illustrious
guests, the Queen, the bridegroom, and the bride. On the morning of
the 27th the earliest aspect of animation was lent to the peaceful
tranquillity of the chapel by the arrival of a strong detachment
of the Yeomen of the Guard, arrayed in their quaint Tudor costume,
consisting of plaited ruff, low-crowned black velvet hat encircled
by red and white roses, scarlet doublet embroidered with the Royal
cognisance and initials in gold, purple sleeves, bullion quarterings,
ruddy hose, and rosetted shoes. The Yeomen of the Guard were ranged
at intervals throughout the length of the nave, and were speedily
joined by a contingent of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms,
resplendent in scarlet uniforms profusely laced with gold. After the
opening of the doors the edifice soon filled with ladies of rank,
nobles, statesmen, warriors, and diplomatists. The day was recognised
by the decorated as “a collar day”--_i.e._, the Knights did not wear
the robes of their Order, but only the ribbons of the Garter, the Bath,
the Thistle, and St. Patrick, with the collars and badges of gold.
Constellations of stars, crosses, and ribbons marked the uniforms of
the English generals, foreign ambassadors, and Ministers present in the
choir, and flashed light on the grey and timeworn walls associated with
the memories of Anne Boleyn, Catherine of Arragon, and Jane Seymour.
At noon the drapery veiling the door was thrown aside, and the first
procession--that of the Queen’s family and their Royal guests from
the Continent--entered. After this glittering group had passed into
the choir, the Queen’s procession appeared at the west door, when
the brilliant array in the nave stood up, and the organ burst into
the strains of Handel’s _Occasional Overture_. Her Majesty, who was
in excellent health and spirits, bowed her acknowledgments to the
salutations of the assembled guests. She was clad in widow’s sables
with long gauze streamers, and wore the broad riband of the Garter
and a magnificent parure of diamonds. The Koh-i-noor sparkled on her
bosom, while her head-dress was surmounted with a glittering tiara
girt by a small crown Imperial in brilliants. On entering the choir the
Queen was conducted to her seat close to the south of the altar. The
bridegroom’s procession next made its appearance. The Duke of Albany
wore the scarlet and gold uniform of a colonel of Infantry. The Prince
walked with some slight difficulty with the assistance of a stick.
The bridegroom was supported by the Prince of Wales in the uniform of
a Field Marshal, and by his brother-in-law, the Grand Duke of Hesse,
also clad in scarlet. Last came the procession of the bride, heralded
by the sound of cheering outside and the blare of trumpets. She was
supported by her father, the Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont, and by her
brother-in-law, the King of the Netherlands, her train being borne by
eight unmarried daughters of dukes, marquises, and earls, decked in
white drapery trimmed with flowers. The celebration of the marriage
ceremony was performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by an
array of Church dignitaries ranged behind the altar rails. The service
was brief, with no enlarged choral accompaniments, but the spectacle
was unusually impressive. There was not a vacant spot in the chapel;
it was gorgeous with diverse colours and flashing with jewels and with
the insignia of many grand Orders of chivalry. The scene, too, was at
intervals suddenly wrapped in gloom and as suddenly bathed in light
as the fitful sunshine streamed through the painted windows. As the
ceremony was being completed a cloud must have passed from the sun,
for its beams darted through the stained windows, and revealed the
bride and bridegroom in a tinted halo of radiance. After the ceremony
the Queen affectionately embraced her son and daughter-in-law, whose
united processions were formed and left the chapel whilst Mendelssohn’s
_Wedding March_ pealed forth from the organ and the cannon thundered in
the Long Walk. Her Majesty interchanged salutations with her relatives,
after which her own procession departed, and the regal pageant was
suddenly dissolved. After the signing of the register, which took place
in the Green drawing-room, the bride and bridegroom were conducted to
the State drawing-room, where the Royal guests had assembled, and where
the usual congratulations were exchanged. In the evening a grand State
banquet was given in St. George’s Hall, at which the health of the
bride and bridegroom and other toasts were honoured, Mr. John Brown,
her Majesty’s Scottish gillie, standing behind the Queen and giving, as
her toastmaster, the toast of the newly-wedded pair. Immediately after
the toast of the Queen--the last of the list--had been honoured, two
of the Royal pipers entered and marched twice round the tables playing
Scottish airs, to the astonishment of some of the guests, who had never
heard such music before. Then the Queen rose and left the hall, and the
other guests quitted the scene. The Duke and Duchess of Albany drove
from the Castle, amidst a shower of slippers and rice, to Claremont.
Unusual interest was taken in this wedding, partly on account of the
splendour of the ceremony, and partly because it was understood that
the Duke of Albany had won a bride admirably suited to be the companion
of his refined and studious life. As he seemed destined to form a link
between the Court and Culture, so it was hoped that the Duchess might
become
[Illustration: THE MARRIAGE OF THE DUKE OF ALBANY.
(_From the Picture by Sir J. D. Linton, P.R.I., by Permission of the
Glasgow Art Union._)]
the social head of a growing school ambitious of showing the world
that the lives of women of rank, need not necessarily be absorbed by
frivolity and philanthropy.
After the marriage of Prince Leopold the Queen visited the East End
to open Epping Forest, which had been saved from further enclosure by
the efforts of the Corporation of London. On the 4th of December her
Majesty also visited in State the Royal Courts of Justice.
[Illustration: MENTONE.
(_From a Photograph by Frith and Co., Reigate._)]
The death-roll of the year was a heavy one. On the 19th of April
the death of Charles Darwin robbed not only England but Europe of
a singularly original, painstaking, and conscientious scientific
investigator. No man of his stamp has so profoundly affected the
thought of the Victorian age or surveyed so wide a field of nature, in
such a fair, patient, and humble spirit. His keenness of observation
was only equalled by his wonderful fertility of resource. The caution
with which he felt his way to just inductions, the unerring instinct
with which his eye detected, amidst the maze of bewildering phenomena,
the true path that led him to the secrets he sought to discover,
and the masculine sagacity with which he reconciled, under broad
generalisations, facts seemingly irreconcilable, confer immortality
on the great work of his life. That work was his demonstration of the
extraordinary effect produced on every living thing by the pressure
of the conditions under which it lives--conditions which help or
hinder its existence or its reproduction. The organisms which are
so formed that they most easily meet the strain of these conditions
survive, and their offspring bend to the same destiny. In other words,
those organisms that inherit peculiarities of form and structure
and stamina that best fit them to survive in the struggle for life,
live. Those that do not inherit these advantages die. Such was the
Darwinian hypothesis of Evolution, or the doctrine of Survival of the
Fittest, and it gave to Science an impetus not less revolutionary and
far-reaching than that which it received from the Baconian system.
A trusted and valued friend and servant of the Queen passed away on
the 3rd of December, when Dr. Tait, Archbishop of Canterbury, died
after a long and painful illness. Though he was not a man of brilliant
parts, or commanding intellect, he was the only Primate who, since
the House of Brunswick ruled England, had left a distinct mark on the
Anglican Church. He was in truth the only Primate, since the days of
Tillotson, who had a definite policy, and a will strong enough to carry
it out. Tait’s policy was to make the Church of England popular with
the governing class of his day--that is to say, with the intelligent
and respectable _bourgeoisie_. So long as they supported the Church it
could, in his opinion, defy disestablishment; and it is but fair to
say that he secured for it their support. He never alarmed the average
Englishman by intellectuality, or irritated the middle classes by any
obtrusive display of culture. He was careful not to offend them by
indecorous versatility. They were never frightened by flashing wit, or
bewildered by scholastic sophistry. He was faithful and zealous in the
discharge of his pastoral duties, generous and tolerant to opponents,
eager for what he called “comprehension,” slow in the pursuit of
heresy. In every relation of life he was the incarnation of common
sense and propriety. The Queen placed such unbounded confidence in his
judgment that it was generally supposed Dr. Tait virtually nominated
his successor. At all events, it was well known that Dr. Benson, Bishop
of Truro, who succeeded to the Primacy, was the candidate specially
favoured by the Sovereign, and that he was, of all the younger
prelates, the one whom Dr. Tait most desired to see reigning in his
stead.
The death of Garibaldi on June 2, and of M. Gambetta on December
31, profoundly moved the English people. Garibaldi’s life of heroic
adventure, unselfish patriotism, and disinterested devotion to the
cause of liberty, had endeared him to the masses. M. Gambetta’s amazing
energy in endeavouring to lift France out of the mire of defeat in 1870
had won for him the admiration of the world. His tempestuous eloquence
gave him an almost magical power over the French democracy, a power
which he wielded for no sordid personal aims. If latterly his policy
seemed to revive the restless aggressive spirit of his countrymen,
it was admitted that he sought nothing save the glory of France. And
yet for Europe it may be conceded that the death of Gambetta was not
a mishap. Had he lived it would have been hard to have avoided a
collision between France and England in Egypt. He encouraged those who,
in Paris and St. Petersburg, had for many years been intriguing for
a Russo-French alliance against Germany.[182] His death and that of
Garibaldi were followed by Signor Mancini’s disclosure to the Italian
Senate, of the adhesion of Italy to the Austro-German Alliance, and the
formation of the Triple League of Peace.[183]
[Illustration: LAMBETH PALACE.]