GENERAL GORDON’S MISSION.
Success of the Mahdi--Difficult Position of the Ministers--Their
Egyptian Policy--General Gordon sent out to the Soudan--Baker
Pasha’s Forces Defeated--Sir S. Northcote’s Vote of Censure--The
Errors on Both Sides--Why not a Protectorate?--Gordon in
Khartoum--Zebehr, “King of the Slave-traders”--Attacks on
Gordon--Osman Digna Twice Defeated--Treason in Khartoum--Gordon’s
Vain Appeals--Financial Position of Egypt--Abortive Conference
of the Powers--Vote of Credit--The New Speaker--Mr. Bradlaugh
_Redivivus_--Mr. Childers’ Budget--The Coinage Bill--The Reform
Bill--Household Franchise for the Counties--Carried in the
Commons--Thrown Out in the Lords--Agitation in the Country--The
Autumn Session--“No Surrender”--Compromise--The Franchise Bill
Passed--The Nile Expedition--Murder of Colonel Stewart and Mr.
Frank Power--Lord Northbrook’s Mission--Ismail Pasha’s Claims--The
“Scramble for Africa”--Coolness with Germany--The Angra Pequena
Dispute--Bismarck’s Irritation--Queensland and New Guinea--Death
of Lord Hertford--The Queen’s New Book--Death of the Duke of
Albany--Character and Career of the Prince--The Claremont
Estate--The Queen at Darmstadt--Marriage of the Princess Victoria
of Hesse--A Gloomy Season--The Health Exhibition--The Queen and the
Parliamentary Deadlock--The Abyssinian Envoys at Osborne--Prince
George of Wales made K.G.--The Court at Balmoral--Mr. Gladstone’s
Visit to the Queen.
Parliament met on the 5th of February, 1884. The Queen’s Speech
admitted that the unexpected success of the Mahdi in the Soudan had
delayed the evacuation of Cairo and the reduction of the British army
of occupation. It also referred to the steps that had been taken to
relieve Khartoum by the despatch of General Gordon--accompanied by
Colonel Stewart--to that doomed city. An imposing programme of domestic
legislation was put forward. There was to be a Reform Bill, a Bill to
improve the government of London, and legislation was promised dealing
with shipping, railways, the government of Scotland, education, Sunday
Closing in Ireland, and intermediate education in Wales. The Egyptian
Policy of the Government was naturally taken as the point for attack by
the Opposition in the House of Lords and in the House of Commons. The
position of England in Egypt was now so peculiar and embarrassing that
any policy open to the Government was open to objection. So far as the
interests of the English and Egyptian people were concerned, the best
thing that could have been done for them would have been to render the
frontier at Wady Halfa impregnable, to forbid any further interference
with the Soudan, and to leave the Egyptian garrisons and colonies there
to make the best terms they could with the Mahdi. This would not have
been a noble or heroic, but it would have been a sensible course, and
it would have prevented the perfectly useless expenditure of precious
blood and treasure. On the other hand, only a Minister unselfish enough
to brave the obloquy which would be cast on him by his rivals for
adopting a sordid policy in the interests of his country, could venture
on such a policy. It would have been possible to a Bismarck, who can
boast that he will never break the bones of a Pomeranian grenadier for
the sake of the Eastern Question. It was not possible to Mr. Gladstone,
some of whose colleagues were already in a bellicose mood. Assuredly,
too, it would in 1884 have been unpopular with the electors. In foreign
complications, involving the issues of peace or war, their
“Affections are
A sick man’s appetite, who desires most that
Which would increase his evil.”
Ministers therefore chose the course which, on the whole, divided the
country least. They decided to cut the connection between Egypt and
the Soudan, but at the same time to arrange for the safe return of the
Egyptian garrisons and colonists to Lower Egypt. They selected General
Gordon--better known as “Chinese” Gordon--who, as Gordon Pasha, had
been Viceroy of the Soudan, to make the best arrangements he could for
the future of the country, and bring back the garrisons and colonists
in safety. Gordon’s great name and unbounded popularity caused this
plan to be hailed with unalloyed delight by the people. He arrived at
Cairo on the 23rd of January, and was permitted to receive from the
Khedive a firman appointing him Governor-General of the Soudan, and
vesting him, as the Khedive’s Viceroy, with absolute power. Gordon thus
held two commissions--one from the English Government as the Agent of
the Foreign Office, another from the Khedive as Viceroy of the Soudan.
He crossed the desert without an escort, and was making his way to
Khartoum when Parliament met. It was a dramatic coincidence that when
the debate on Egypt was going on, news of a serious disaster from the
Soudan came to hand. Baker Pasha had advanced from Trinkitat on the
4th of February, and near Tokar his force was attacked by the Mahdi’s
followers and driven back to Suakim. By an accident the discussion
collapsed without any Ministerial reply being given to the Tory attack.
Then Sir Stafford Northcote, on the 7th of February, moved his vote
[Illustration: GENERAL GORDON.
(_From a Photograph by Adams and Scanlan, Southampton._)]
of censure, on the ground that the disasters in the Soudan were due to
“the vacillating and inconsistent policy” pursued by the Government.
Possibly the disaster of the division in the Commons when this motion
was rejected may have in turn been traceable to the “vacillating and
inconsistent” tactics of the Opposition. They toiled with wearisome
iteration to prove that England, having incurred responsibility for
the government of Egypt after Tel-el-Kebir, was responsible for the
massacre of Hicks Pasha and his army. So she was; but instead of
drawing the logical inference from the facts, namely, that the English
authorities in Egypt were to blame for not vetoing Hicks’s expedition,
Sir Stafford Northcote and Lord Salisbury blamed the English Government
for not helping him with “advice,” and for not forcing the Khedive
to make his army strong enough for its task. Here it became manifest
to the House of Commons that the Opposition had only got up a sham
faction fight. For when Sir Stafford Northcote hotly repudiated the
notion that he would have sent a British army to reinforce Hicks or
avenge his death, he gave up his whole case. It was then seen that the
alternative policy of the Opposition was to have goaded the Egyptian
Government to a war of re-conquest in the Soudan, and in the event of
failure to leave it in the lurch. Alike in the Commons and in the Lords
the responsible leaders of the Opposition admitted that Mr. Gladstone
was right in advising Egypt to abandon the Soudan, and in refusing to
send British troops there to conduct the evacuation. What they argued
was that he was wrong in not telling the Khedive’s Cabinet how to
get out of the Soudan, though he would in that event, according to
them, have been quite right to refuse the Khedive aid, if, in acting
on Mr. Gladstone’s suggestions, his Highness met with disaster in
the rebellious province. It was a sad surprise to Lord Salisbury to
find his censure carried in the Upper House only by a vote of 181 to
81--for the majority did not represent half of a Chamber two-thirds of
which were his followers. It was, however, no surprise to Sir Stafford
Northcote to find his motion rejected in the House of Commons, though
he had the advantage of the Irish vote. As for the country, its verdict
was that there was no difference between the two parties except on one
point. The Tories would have pestered the Khedive with instructions,
but would have repudiated responsibility for them if when acted on they
had ended in failure. The Government had, through fear of incurring
this responsibility, left the Khedive too much to his own devices, and
when these brought trouble they found they could not get rid of all
responsibility for it.
What ought to have been said was what neither Lord Salisbury nor Sir
Stafford Northcote dared say. It was that England, after Tel-el-Kebir,
should have boldly proclaimed a Protectorate over Egypt, the moral
authority of which would have sufficed to hold her fretful and mutinous
provinces in awe, till steps for their reconstruction could be
taken.[190] Failure seemingly rendered the Opposition reckless. Even
the heroic and high-hearted envoy of the Government at Khartoum did
not escape the shafts of their malice. He had proclaimed the Mahdi as
Sultan of Kordofan in order to induce him to negotiate for the peaceful
withdrawal of the garrisons. He had burned in public the archives of
the Egyptian Government, in which the arrears of taxes were recorded,
as a pledge that the oppressed people of Khartoum should be no longer
the prey of corrupt extortioners. He had set free the prisoners who
were unjustly pining in the gaols. He had proclaimed that the right of
property in domestic slaves would be recognised--thereby neutralising
the intrigues of the Mahdists, who were persuading the wavering people
that if they remained true to Egypt, the Government would rob them of
their household servants. Finding it impossible to discover a less
objectionable native chief fit to undertake the task of keeping order
at Khartoum, Gordon recommended for that purpose his old enemy, Zebehr
Pasha, once known as “King of the Slave-Traders.”
The Tories now attacked Gordon and his policy with much bitterness.
They jeered at him as a madman. They denounced him for sanctioning
slavery--he who had given the best days of his life to the suppression
of the trade. They tried to rouse public opinion against the Government
for tolerating his proceedings. In fact, no effort was wanting to
embarrass him and the Ministry in solving the difficult problem of
extricating the military and civil population of Khartoum from their
dangerous position. The factiousness of the Opposition had one bad
result. It frightened the Government into refusing their sanction
to Gordon’s proposal for handing over Khartoum to Zebehr Pasha. For
at this time the Tories delighted to describe Zebehr as the kind of
monster of savagery, with whom a statesman of Mr. Gladstone’s character
naturally sought a close alliance.
When the tidings of General Baker’s defeat at Teb were followed by news
of the massacre of the garrison of Sinkat, Ministers, in obedience to
public opinion, decided to abandon their policy of inaction in the
Soudan. On the 10th of February, Admiral Hewett took supreme command
at Suakim. On the 18th a small British force under General Graham
landed at that place. By this time Tokar had fallen, but Graham,
advancing from Trinkitat, fought and beat the Arabs under Osman Digna
at El Teb. Osman retired to Tamanieb, and was attacked there by Graham
on the 13th of March. At first the British force wavered and broke
under the impetuous shock of the Arab charge, but in the end the
Arabs were defeated, and Osman Digna’s camp was destroyed. Gordon had
made an unsuccessful sortie from Khartoum on the 16th of March, and
he had found not only his army but the civil population of the city
honeycombed with treason. In vain he implored the Government to send
two squadrons of cavalry to Berber to aid the escape of two thousand
fugitives whom he proposed to send down the Nile. The Government, on
the contrary, recalled General Graham and his troops from Suakim,
thereby leading the Arabs to believe that Gordon was abandoned by his
countrymen. His negotiations with the Mahdi proved to be a failure.
In May his protests against the desertion of Khartoum were published
in official form, and the Opposition then gave expression to popular
opinion when they moved, though they did not carry, another vote of
censure on the Ministry. The defence of the Government was that Gordon
was in no danger, and that when he was, Ministers would quickly send
him aid. The financial position of Egypt was now so bad that Mr.
Gladstone resolved to ease the pressure of her debt at the expense
of the bondholders. For this purpose it was necessary to summon a
Conference of the Powers. France opposed the English project, and the
diplomatic negotiations between England and France were seriously
embarrassed by incessant interpellations from the Opposition in
Parliament, and by their abortive votes of censure. In spite of these
difficulties, however, Ministers were able, on the 23rd of June,
to announce that they had come to an arrangement with France. She
formally abandoned the Dual Control, which had really been destroyed
by the Khedive’s decree in 1882, and bound herself not to send troops
to Egypt unless on the invitation of England. England, on the other
hand, agreed to evacuate Egypt on the 1st of January, 1888, unless
the Powers considered that order could not be kept after the British
troops were recalled. The question of the debt was virtually left to
the Conference, but it was agreed that after the 1st of January, 1888,
Egypt was to be neutralised and the Suez Canal put under international
management. Even these arrangements were, however, to depend on the
decisions of the Conference, which, Mr. Gladstone said, would in turn
need Parliamentary sanction before they could be considered binding
on the British Government. The Conference broke up owing to the
impossibility of reconciling English and French interests, and Mr.
Gladstone on the 2nd of August told the House of Commons that England
had regained entire freedom of action. With this freedom the Government
acquired fresh energy. They sent Lord Northbrook to Egypt to report
upon its condition, and obtained from Parliament a Vote of Credit of
£300,000 with which to send succour to Gordon if he required it. At
this time, though Khartoum was isolated and surrounded by the Mahdi’s
troops, Lord Hartington refused to admit that Egypt was in danger from
an Arab invasion, or to give any definite promise to send Gordon aid.
The Egyptian Question sadly exhausted the energies of the House of
Commons. Mr. Arthur Peel had been chosen as Speaker on the 26th of
February, in succession to Sir Henry Brand, who was elevated to the
Peerage as Viscount Hampden. Sir Stafford Northcote again succeeded in
preventing Mr. Bradlaugh from taking his seat, and when Mr. Bradlaugh
resigned it, and was again re-elected for Northampton, the resolution
excluding him from the House was once more revived on the 21st of
February.
The Budget was not presented till the last week of April, and Mr.
Childers
[Illustration: KHARTOUM.]
then confessed that for the coming year he could not expect a surplus
of more than £260,000,[191] which admitted only of a small reduction
in the Carriage Duties. The unexpected costliness of the Parcel
Post caused Mr. Childers to abandon in the meantime the scheme for
introducing sixpenny telegrams; but he made proposals for the reduction
of the National Debt and the withdrawal of light gold coin from
circulation, that led to some controversy. Mr. Childers’ method of
dealing with the Debt was to give holders of Three per Cent. Stock the
option of taking Two and Three-quarters per Cent. or Two and a Half
per Cent. Stock at the rate of £102 and £108 respectively for every
£100 of Stock so exchanged. Mr. Childers argued that he would thus
reduce the annual burden of the charge for the Debt (after providing
for a Sinking Fund to cover the nominal increase in the capital cf
the converted Stock) by £1,310,000. His Coinage Bill was lost because
the Tories roused popular prejudice against it. Mr. Childers proposed
to demonetise the half-sovereign by putting in it a certain amount
of alloy and giving it a mere token-value. The charge that he was
“debasing the currency” wrecked his project. A Bill strengthening
the hands of the Privy Council in excluding diseased cattle was
passed. But the great measure of the Session was the Reform Bill,
which was introduced on the 28th of February. By it Mr. Gladstone
extended household franchise to the counties, and a vigorous effort
was made to compel him to introduce along with the Franchise Bill,
a Bill for the Redistribution of Seats. The Second Reading of the
Reform Bill was carried on the 7th of April, a majority of 340 to 210
having rejected the hostile amendment of the Conservatives, which
was moved by Lord John Manners. The Tories then made many futile
efforts to coerce Mr. Gladstone into disclosing his Redistribution
Scheme, which he had, however, sketched in outline in his speech
introducing the Franchise Bill. Ultimately the Third Reading was
carried on the 26th of June--_nemine contradicente_. The Bill was
read a first time in the House of Lords on the 27th of June, where
Lord Cairns and the Tory Peers opposed it by an amendment, in which
they refused to assent to any extension of the Franchise, without any
provision for a redistribution of seats. The country began to murmur
against this attitude of the Tory Peers, many of whom even deprecated
the policy of supporting Lord Cairns’s amendment. It was, however,
carried by a majority of 205 against 146. After that the Peers, by
way of conciliating public opinion, agreed, on the motion of Lord
Dunraven, to assent “to the principles of representation in the Bill.”
Ministers immediately announced that they would take steps to prorogue
Parliament in order to hold an autumn Session for the reintroduction
of the Measure. This involved the sacrifice of all their projects
of legislation, including Sir William Harcourt’s Bill for reforming
the Government of London, Mr. Chamberlain’s Merchant Shipping Bill
(prohibiting shipowners from making a profit out of the wreck of
over-insured ships), the Railway Regulation Bill (which prevented
railway companies from burdening traders and farmers with extortionate
transport rates), the Scottish Universities Bill, the Welsh Education
Bill, the Police Superannuation Bill, the Medical Acts Amendment Bill,
the Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections Bill, the Law of Evidence
Amendment Bill, the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, and the Irish Land
Purchase Bill. These, as well as many useful measures, perished in the
legislative holocaust of the 10th of July, which the opposition of the
Peers had brought about.
The Recess was spent in violent agitation. Party leaders on both sides
strove to rouse public opinion against or on behalf of the action of
the House of Lords. The country, on the whole, seemed day by day to
gravitate towards the Liberals, and the general opinion soon came to
be that the time had come for settling the question of Parliamentary
Reform, and that, the Peers having accepted the principle of Mr.
Gladstone’s Bill, a compromise as to details ought to be effected. The
monster procession which passed through London on the 21st of July,
together with Mr. Gladstone’s political campaign in Midlothian, did
much to strengthen the hands of the Reformers. As might be expected,
the Radicals took advantage of the occasion to direct a fierce and
violent attack against the House of Lords as an institution. When the
Session opened on the 23rd of October party spirit ran high, and both
sides took “No Surrender!” as their watchword. Lord Randolph Churchill
attempted to fix on Mr. Chamberlain a charge of inciting a Radical mob
to break up a great Conservative demonstration which had been held
in Aston Park, Birmingham, on the 13th of October. Mr. Chamberlain
proved his innocence by quoting affidavits made by certain men, who
swore that “Tory roughs” had provoked the riot. The genuineness of
those affidavits was questioned, but to no purpose. When, however,
they were made the basis of legal proceedings, it was noted as a
curious coincidence that, with one exception, all the witnesses who
had supplied Mr. Chamberlain with his exculpating affidavits, somehow
vanished from the scene. The Franchise Bill was rapidly passed through
the House of Commons, and the enormous majority of 140 in favour
of the Second Reading brought the Tory Peers to a more reasonable
state of mind. Moderate Conservatives began to build a golden bridge
of retreat for their lordships. Nor was the task hard. It was soon
discovered, as the result of private communications, that there was
now no substantial difference of opinion between Conservatives like
Sir Richard Cross and Liberals like Mr. Gladstone on the general
principles of Redistribution. Nobody, in fact, had the courage to
defend the continued enfranchisement of petty boroughs while large
towns were not represented in Parliament save by the county vote. It
was finally arranged by plenipotentiaries representing both parties
that Mr. Gladstone’s draft Redistribution Bill should be submitted
confidentially to Sir Stafford Northcote and his friends--that they
should suggest, and in turn submit to Mr. Gladstone their amendments
to it--that when both Parties agreed, Mr. Gladstone should receive
from the Tories “an adequate assurance” that they meant to carry the
Franchise Bill through the House of Lords, that upon the strength
of this assurance Mr. Gladstone should introduce the Redistribution
Bill in the House of Commons, and carry it to a Second Reading while
the Peers were passing the Third Reading of the Franchise Bill. The
whole understanding rested simply on an exchange of “words of honour”
between the leaders on both sides, and it was loyally adhered to. Lord
Salisbury, Sir Stafford Northcote, Mr. Gladstone, Lord Hartington,
and Sir Charles Dilke, met and settled all serious disputes over the
question of redistribution, and the Bill was introduced on the 1st of
December. On the 4th of the month the measure was read a second time,
the House of Lords having passed the Franchise Bill. On the 6th of
December Parliament adjourned till the 19th of February, 1885, when the
Redistribution Bill was to be finally dealt with in Committee, _de die
in diem_.
The autumn Session did not close till the Government obtained a vote of
credit of £1,000,000 for military operations in Egypt. The decision to
send an expedition to Khartoum by way of the Nile was arrived at with
manifest reluctance by the Ministry, and of all the courses open to
them, including those which had been suggested by Gordon and rejected
by Mr. Gladstone and Lord Granville, it was the most objectionable and
hazardous.[192] Lord
[Illustration: SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE (AFTERWARDS LORD IDDESLEIGH).
(_From a Photograph by Barraud, Oxford Street._)]
Wolseley arrived at Cairo early in September, and the Mudir of Dongola
not only held back the Mahdi, but furnished a base of operations to
the English force. Down to the end of 1884 Lord Wolseley contrived to
shroud his proceedings in a veil of mystery. Beyond the facts that he
had railway transport to Sarras, that after that point, the expedition
and its transport were conveyed up the falling river in whaleboats
guided by Canadian boatmen,[193] that Lord Wolseley’s sanguine
anticipation of a rapid advance had been falsified, that dangers and
difficulties, which he ought to have foreseen, had been encountered,
that it had been necessary to stimulate the
[Illustration: THE CITADEL, CAIRO.]
energies of the Army by offering a money reward to the first detachment
which reached Debbeh, and that by the first week of January, 1885,
Lord Wolseley would have about 7,000 men at Ambukol, of whom, perhaps,
2,000 might be ready to dash across the desert to Shendy, from whence
the decisive blow at the Mahdi must be struck--beyond these facts
and conjectures nothing was known. Dim rumours of Gordon’s futile
sorties, of his feeling of disgust at being abandoned, and tidings
that could not be doubted of the wreck of the steamer in which he had
sent his gallant lieutenant, Colonel Stewart, and the British Consul
at Khartoum, Mr. Frank Power, down to Berber, filled the minds of the
people with the deepest anxiety. Gordon had sent Stewart to Berber with
instructions to appeal to private munificence in the United States and
British Colonies for funds with which to organise the relief expedition
which he had ceased to beg from England. Stewart and his companions
were murdered by natives after their steamer was wrecked. Hence the
journals and diaries which Stewart carried were conveyed to the Mahdi,
who, finding from them that Gordon was in dire straits, pressed the
siege with redoubled energy.
After the failure of the Conference to adjust the financial
difficulties of Egypt, England “regained her freedom of action.”
Lord Northbrook, as we have seen, was sent to Cairo to report on the
situation, which in reality was a very simple one. Egypt could not
pay the annual interest on her debt, and the Foreign Powers would
not, in the interests of the bondholders, submit to have it reduced
unless better security were given for the principal. The only course
open, therefore, was either repudiation, or the acknowledgment of
British responsibility for the financial administration of Egypt,
which would have enabled Mr. Gladstone to have cut down, not only the
bondholders’ interest, but also the taxes extorted from the Egyptian
people. Lord Northbrook’s appointment was caustically criticised by
the Tory Opposition, who connected his family name of Baring with a
mission undertaken in financial interests. His mission thus did much to
destroy the confidence of the populace in the Government, and when he
returned, his recommendations, so far as they could be discussed, still
further discredited Mr. Gladstone’s Government. For Lord Northbrook had
discovered a third course open to him in Egypt. It was to leave the
interest of Shylock untouched, but to meet the deficit in the Egyptian
Budget, caused by the payment of Shylock’s bond, by transferring from
Egypt to England the burden of supporting the Army of Occupation.[194]
As for the existing emergency, Lord Northbrook suggested temporary
repudiation, and his suggestion was adopted. The Law of Liquidation
was suspended, and the creditors of Egypt were asked to be satisfied
with less than their due, till matters could be set right. The
Queen’s Government early in December attempted to meet the financial
difficulty, by proposing to advance a 3½ per cent. loan to Egypt
on the security of the Domain lands,[195] or personal estate of the
Khedive. The Powers did not receive this proposal cordially. Necessity,
which knows no law, having compelled the Egyptian Government, with the
sanction of England, to suspend for the moment the Sinking Fund of the
Unified Debt, a distinct violation of the Liquidation Law, the Debt
Commission prosecuted the Egyptian Government before the International
Tribunals. They of course gave judgment in favour of the Commission.
Germany and Russia at this juncture insisted on their representatives
sharing all the rights and powers of the Debt Commission, indeed,
Germany, irritated by the Foreign and Colonial policy of England,
showed signs of supporting certain inconvenient claims to the Domain
lands which the ex-Khedive, Ismail Pasha, put forward.[196]
The coolness between Germany and England which marked the last half
of 1884 arose out of what was at the time termed the “scramble for
Africa.” The regions opened up by Mr. H. M. Stanley on the Congo had
been practically occupied by an International Association, the head
of which was the King of the Belgians. In fact, General Gordon was
under an engagement to take up the government of this vast tract of
land when he went to Khartoum. England, however, in order to exclude
dangerous rivals, recognised the obsolete claims of Portugal to hold
the outlet of the Congo; but, as Portuguese officials were alleged
by commercial men to be obstructive and corrupt, this policy was not
very popular. Germany, indeed, united the Powers in quashing it, and
finally it was agreed that an International Conference should meet at
Berlin to determine the conditions under which the outlet of the Congo
should be controlled. But at this point Germany was sorely irritated
by the provokingly vacillating policy of Lord Derby. There was a strip
of territory, extending from Cape Colony to the Portuguese frontier on
the Congo, in which a Bremen firm had established a trading settlement
at Angra Pequena. They applied to Prince Bismarck for protection.
He, in turn, asked Lord Granville if England claimed any sovereignty
over this region (in which there was only a small British settlement
at Walwich Bay), and whether the British Government could give the
German traders the protection which they sought. Lord Kimberley, in
his despatch to Sir Hercules Robinson of the 30th of December, had
warned him that the Government refused to extend British jurisdiction
north of the Orange River. But Lord Granville now told Prince Bismarck
that, though English sovereignty had only been proclaimed formally
at certain points along this coast, any encroachment on it by a
foreign Power would be regarded by England as an encroachment on its
rights. Again (31st of December, 1884) Prince Bismarck repeated his
question--Did England propose to give the German traders protection,
and, if so, what means had she at her disposal for that purpose? This
despatch was referred to Lord Derby. He left it unanswered for six
months, whereupon Prince Bismarck, stung by the affront, answered
it in his own way by annexing Angra Pequena to Germany. Englishmen
were indignant; but what was there to be said? The British Government
refused at first to recognise the annexation. Then they said they
would recognise it if Germany would pledge herself not to establish
a penal colony on the coast, a demand which Prince Bismarck bluntly
refused. Finally, when Lord Derby induced the Cape Colony to retaliate
by annexing the coast round Angra Pequena between the Orange River and
the Portuguese frontier, Prince Bismarck declined to recognise such an
act of annexation. After this event Germany, concealing her designs,
despatched an expedition to seize the Cameroons, over which the British
Government, in response to the desire of the native chiefs, had already
decided to extend a British Protectorate. Disputed land-claims, which
German subjects in Fiji preferred in 1874, were also revived. In 1874
England had refused even to investigate them. Now, however, Lord
Granville agreed to submit them to a mixed Commission. The British
Government surrendered to Germany on these questions, by a curious
coincidence, at the very time they issued their invitations to the
London Conference on Egypt, in which they were expecting the support
of Germany for their Egyptian policy.[197] As a matter of fact, this
support was not obtained. In the Conference Count Münster, on behalf
of Germany, stood neutral between France and England, who were unable
to reconcile their interests. But he persisted in thrusting before the
meeting the question of the imperfect administration of quarantine in
Egypt by English officials, and on the 5th of August Lord Granville
abruptly dissolved the Conference, because this matter was beyond the
scope of its discussion. Nor was Prince Bismarck wrathful against
England merely because he imagined that Lord Derby had some deep design
of thwarting the sudden desire of Germany for colonial expansion.
In a moment of weakness, and when the laurels of victory had not
quite faded from the brows of the heroes of Tel-el-Kebir, the British
Government had applied to Prince Bismarck for hints and suggestions as
to what they should do in Egypt. According to Lord Granville, Prince
Bismarck’s advice was “Take it.”[198] According to Prince Bismarck,
whilst he assured Lord Ampthill that Germany would not oppose the
British annexation of
[Illustration: BALMORAL CASTLE, FROM CRAIG NORDIE.]
(_From a Photograph by G. W. Wilson and Co._)
Egypt, his advice was that England should “establish a certain security
of position in this connecting link between her European and Asiatic
possessions” by administering Egypt as a leaseholder from the Sultan.
In this way England, he thought, would attain her purpose, and yet
escape a conflict with existing treaties, and “avoid putting France and
other Powers out of temper.”[199] His counsel was not followed, which
was the first affront. The feeble course actually adopted--that of
attempting to govern Egypt by advice--had ended in a financial crisis
that alarmed all the German bondholders, and they in turn put pressure
on Prince Bismarck, that still further increased his irritation against
England. Hence, when towards the end of 1884 he meditated a stroke of
Colonial policy at the Antipodes, he showed little respect for British
susceptibilities. In this new departure he was materially assisted by
the incredible folly of Lord Derby. At the end of 1883 the Government
of Queensland had sent a police magistrate to annex New Guinea, or
rather that portion of it not claimed by the Dutch. It had already
been annexed by wandering British navigators, but rumours of foreign
designs on the island had quickened the apprehensions and action of
the Australians. Lord Derby repudiated this act of annexation. As Lord
Derby had been sedulous in warning the Colonists that in war they must
defend themselves, it was not easy to understand why he objected to
their occupying a territory which, if held by a foreign enemy, would
give him a good base of operations against Australia. Ultimately, he
nerved himself to the hazard of annexing the southern portion of New
Guinea, east of the Dutch possessions, provided the Australian Colonies
would enter into a federal engagement to bear part of the expense of
holding and governing the country. Lord Derby had not, however, taken
care in proclaiming in October, 1884, his intention of annexation to
warn foreign Powers off other portions of the island and adjacent
archipelago. He virtually invited rival Governments to slip in and
seize what he had left untouched. The end of the year, therefore, saw
the German flag flying over the unoccupied portion of New Guinea, and
the archipelago of New Ireland and New Britain, and all Australia was
in an uproar. These events stirred the sluggish heart of Lord Derby.
He promptly forestalled a project of German annexation in South Africa
by hoisting the British flag at Saint Lucia Bay and over the region
between Cape Colony and Natal, known as Pondoland.
On the 25th of January the Marquis of Hertford, one of the ornaments
of the Queen’s Court in her happier days, passed away from the scene.
Lord Hertford had distinguished himself as an ideal Lord Chamberlain
from 1874 to 1879, and he had won the confidence of her Majesty whilst
serving as Equerry to the Prince Consort. This, he used to say, was
the most interesting part of his career, and among his friends he
occasionally told many curious stories, brightly illustrative of
Court life in the Victorian period. He had a profound and warm regard
for the Prince Consort, who talked more freely to him than to most
men, chiefly, he said, because he knew his Equerry kept no diary.
Lord Hertford’s stories all tended to throw light on the singularly
unselfish nature of his Royal master. One of them, for example, was to
the effect that when the Queen and the Prince were crossing the Solent,
Lord Hertford, on appearing on deck, found the Prince pacing about
and enjoying the fresh breeze, whereas the Queen had been compelled
to retire to her cabin. He said to the Prince he was surprised to
find him on deck in such a breeze, as he had always heard that his
Royal Highness was a bad sailor. The Prince replied, “I know people
say that about me, and imagine that the Queen never suffers from
sea-sickness. It is better it should be so. The English laugh so much
at sea-sickness, that I prefer the laugh should be against me rather
than against the Queen.”
In the second week in February the Queen published a continuation
of her “Leaves from the Journal of a Life in the Highlands,” the
dedication of which was in these words:--“To my loyal Highlanders, and
especially to the memory of my devoted personal attendant and faithful
friend, John Brown, these records of my widowed life in Scotland are
gratefully dedicated.”[200] In this volume she displayed much of the
latent Jacobitism which one is apt to develop in the atmosphere of
the northern mountains, and again and again, when she records her
visits to the scenes, rich in the storied memories of “the ’15 and the
’45,” she expresses her feeling of pride and gratitude that she has
inherited, not only the throne of the Stuarts, but the fervent loyalty
that bound so many gallant hearts to the cause of “bonnie Prince
Charlie.” Her reminiscences are somewhat tinged with melancholy, but
the great and motherly loving-heartedness of the book is its chief
charm, and secured for it an amazing popularity. It was said that the
circulating libraries ordered copies by the ton, and the Press teemed
with favourable reviews, in which her Majesty took great interest. As
usual, however, she only read those that were marked for her perusal by
her ladies. The cover was designed by the Princess Beatrice, and was in
every way tasteful and artistic. But the portraits which embellished
the work were badly reproduced. That of Brown, however, it may be
noted, was an exception, for he was “flattered” by the artist out of
all recognition.
The year 1884 was one that brought much sorrow to the Royal Family.
During the months of January and February, whilst the Court was at
Osborne, though her Majesty’s health had visibly improved, yet she
was still suffering from the effects of her accident, and was quite
unable to remain long in a standing position. On the 19th of February
the Court removed to Windsor, and it was rumoured that the Queen would
spend Easter in Germany. She was, in truth, desirous of being present
at the marriage of her granddaughter, the Princess Victoria of Hesse,
to Prince Louis of Battenberg. On the 26th of March she received
Lieutenant W. Lloyd, R.H.A., at Windsor, when he presented to her
one of the Mahdi’s flags which had been taken at Tokar, and just as
preparations for the German tour were being made, the Royal Household
was plunged into grief by sudden tidings of the death of the Duke of
Albany, on the 28th of March. He had been living at Cannes for a few
weeks. He had taken part with great glee in the festivities of the
gayest season that had ever been witnessed in Nice. He returned to
Cannes on the 27th, and it seems he had, in mounting the stairs of the
Naval Club in the afternoon, fallen and hurt his right knee. He was
attended to by Dr. Royle, and, though he went to bed, conversed quite
gaily with those round him. At half-past two on the morning of the 28th
Dr. Royle was roused by the sound of his stertorous breathing, and, on
going to his bedside, found him dying in a fit. The news of his death
reached Windsor at noon, and Sir H. Ponsonby broke it gently to the
Queen, who was at first so prostrated with grief that her condition
alarmed her attendants. As soon as she rallied her Majesty sent the
Princess Beatrice to Claremont House to
[Illustration: FUNERAL OF THE DUKE OF ALBANY: THE PROCESSION ENTERING
WINDSOR CASTLE.]
comfort the Duchess of Albany, then in a delicate state of health. In
the afternoon the ex-Empress Eugénie, clad in the deepest mourning,
visited the Queen, and stayed till about seven in the evening. She
informed those to whom she spoke when she left that her Majesty had
apparently obtained some relief by giving expression to her anguish
in the sympathetic presence of a friend who had herself suffered many
sorrowful bereavements. To none did the sad news convey so severe a
shock as to the Prince of Wales. The telegram was handed to him whilst
he was chatting with some friends in Lord Sefton’s box on the Grand
Stand at the Aintree Race-course, and at first the Prince seemed
dazed with the message. He was only able to mutter to Lord Sefton
in broken accents, “Albany is dead.” Having retired to his private
room to compose his nerves, he drove off immediately to Croxteth. The
rumour of the Duke’s death flew round the race-course, but at first
was disbelieved. Then the sports were stopped, and the stampede of the
pleasure-seekers to Liverpool, where it was hoped that the news would
be contradicted, will long be remembered. In London the event was
the theme of sympathetic discussion in every train and omnibus and
tramcar in the afternoon, as men were returning home from business. The
workmen’s clubs at night adjourned their political debates as a mark
of sympathy for the Queen. On the following day her Majesty and the
Princess Beatrice visited the Duchess of Albany, and the meeting was
most touching and mournful. All the details of the funeral arrangements
were superintended by the Queen, but the body of the Prince was brought
back to England under the personal direction and care of the Prince of
Wales, and buried on the 5th of April with solemn pomp in St. George’s
Chapel, Windsor. Six of the pall-bearers--Lord Castlereagh, Lord
Brook, Lord Harris, Mr. Sidney Herbert, Mr. Walter Campbell, and Mr.
Mills--were undergraduates with the dead Prince at Christ Church.
[Illustration: VIEW IN CLAREMONT PARK.]
The Duke of Albany once said, “I do not understand why people should
always be so kind to me.” The reason was not far to seek. He was a
young man with an interesting and amiable personality. He had a pensive
turn that recalled his father, but with a dash of gaiety of heart which
rendered him more acceptable to society than the Prince Consort ever
managed to become. His long life of suffering and pain secured for
him the sympathies of the people. Despite his ill-health he was even
in childhood a bright and promising boy. Professor Tyndall has spoken
highly of his capacity at this period, and Dean Stanley, one of his
early mentors, so deeply influenced him that at one time the Prince
indicated a desire to take Orders in the Anglican Church. At Oxford he
was prohibited by the physicians from reading for honours, and after he
became a member of the House of Lords, the Queen, noticing his eager
interest in politics, had some trouble in dissuading him from plunging
into the debates, as a free lance who loved to “drink delight of battle
with his peers.”
When he was thwarted in this design, the Prince suggested that his
services might be utilised in another direction. At the time Lord
Normanby resigned the Governorship of Victoria Prince Leopold applied
to Mr. Gladstone for the post, and the Tory newspapers and orators
of the period heaped the most extravagant abuse on Mr. Gladstone for
refusing the offer. Mr. Gladstone was even challenged in the House
of Commons on the subject, but his lips being sealed by the Queen,
he was unable to defend himself, or do more than make an evasive and
ambiguous statement. The truth, however, was that Mr. Gladstone did
not refuse the Prince’s offer. He referred it to Mr. Murray Smith,
Agent-General for Victoria in London, with a request for his opinion.
Mr. Smith replied that the appointment would give great satisfaction
in Australia, but when the matter was laid before the Queen she
peremptorily vetoed the project, assigning as a reason her fear that
the Prince’s ill-health unfitted him for the duties of the position to
which he aspired. Obvious reasons of State have, however, always made
the Sovereigns of the Hanoverian dynasty reluctant to permit Princes
of the Blood-Royal to serve as satraps in distant colonies where
aspirations to independence are not always dormant.
Prince Leopold was a pleasing and polished orator, and being the only
member of his family who spoke the English tongue without any trace
of a German accent, his platform performances were always successful.
His addresses reflected the thoughtful, cultivated mind of a young man
who had lived much in the companionship of books, and who had read
discursively without studying deeply. He was never commonplace, and
his merely formal utterances were usually marked by a distinction of
style, that well became a princely scholar. In the singularly beautiful
preface which the Princess Christian wrote for the “Biographical Sketch
and Letters” of her sister, the Grand Duchess of Hesse (Princess
Alice), she says that as the Duke of Albany was the last to see her
gifted sister in life, so he was the first of the Queen’s children
“to follow her into the silent land.” It is a curious fact that, as
with her, the shadow of early death seems to have cast itself in the
form of presentiment over his young life. Mr. Frederick Myers, in
his eulogistic reminiscences of the Duke of Albany, alludes to this
circumstance in the following passage:--“The last time I saw him [the
Duke of Albany] to speak to,” writes a friend from Cannes, March 30th,
“being two days before he died, he _would_ talk to me about death,
and said he would like a military funeral, and, in fact, I had great
difficulty in getting him off this melancholy subject. Finally, I
asked, ‘Why, sir, do you talk in this morose manner?’ As he was about
to answer he was called away, and said, ‘I’ll tell you later.’ I never
saw him to speak to again, but he finished his answer to another lady,
and said, ‘For two nights now the Princess Alice has appeared to me in
my dreams, and says she is quite happy, and that she wants me to come
and join her. That’s what makes me so thoughtful.’”[201]
The death of the Duke of Albany hushed the gaiety of a highly
promising season, and West End tradesmen were full of lamentation when
it was rumoured that the Court would shroud itself in gloom during the
whole summer, though the official period of Court mourning was to end
in May. But it was not alone in London that the Prince was mourned.
His neighbours at Esher, rich and poor alike, felt his loss severely.
They all spoke well of him and of his young wife, and recalled pleasant
memories of his kindliness--how he joined the local chess club, sang
at local concerts, and interested himself in the Duchess’s schemes for
boarding out pauper children. After the death of the Duke the Queen
announced her intention of maintaining Claremont as a residence for
the widowed Duchess, a generous act, because Prince Leopold used to
say that even with £20,000 a year to live on, Claremont kept him a
poor man. But for the £20,000 which the Queen spent on the property
during 1883 and 1884, this residence would in truth have seriously
embarrassed him.[202] As a matter of fact, the favourite dwelling of
the Duke of Albany was not Claremont but Boyton Manor, near Warminster
in Wiltshire, of which place he was tenant when he died, and in the
neighbourhood of which his memory is still lovingly cherished.[203]
Soon after the funeral of the Duke of Albany the Queen was recommended
by Sir William Jenner to go to Germany, and she thus resolved to visit
her son-in-law and grandchildren at Darmstadt, where the marriage of
the Princess Victoria of Hesse with Prince Louis of Battenberg was to
be celebrated at the end of the month (April). Sir William believed
that the change of scene and surroundings would do the Queen more
good than a mournful sojourn at Osborne, where everything must recall
reminiscences of her dead son. Her Majesty accordingly left Windsor
on the 15th of April for Port Victoria, whence she embarked on the
_Osborne_ and arrived at Flushing next morning. Therefrom she went
by rail to Darmstadt, arriving early on the morning of the 17th. The
voyage was unpleasant, and the weather between the Nore and the Scheldt
so heavy that the Queen had to remain in her cabin during the greater
part of her journey. Only the Grand Duke of Hesse and his daughters
were on the platform to meet her Majesty, who had desired her reception
to be as private as possible. Ere she left England she forwarded to the
newspapers through the Home Secretary a letter expressing her gratitude
to the people for their loving sympathy with her and the Duchess of
Albany in their bereavement.
On the 30th of April the marriage of the Queen’s granddaughter, the
Princess Victoria of Hesse, with Prince Louis of Battenberg, was
solemnised in the small whitewashed Puritanical-looking chapel at
Darmstadt, which was thronged with a brilliant crowd of specially
invited guests, among whom the Queen, in her sombre mourning, was
one of the most striking figures. With the Queen there were present,
besides the family of the bride and bridegroom, the young Princess of
Wales. The German Crown Prince led in the Princess of Wales, and the
German Crown Princess was escorted by her brother, the Prince of Wales;
Prince William of Prussia led in the Princess Beatrice, and the dark,
Jewish-looking Prince of Bulgaria (brother of the bridegroom) escorted
with obsequious gallantry the Princess Victoria of Prussia. The
ceremony was short, simple, and touching; but the sermon on the duties
of marriage which the Court preacher delivered was long and prosy. The
Queen, after the ceremony was over, retired to the Palace, and did not
attend the wedding banquet in the Schloss. The weather, which had been
cold and bleak when the Queen arrived, suddenly became fine and mild,
and she was, therefore, able to amuse herself in the public gardens.
She had gone to Darmstadt rather reluctantly, but was now glad that
she had taken Sir William Jenner’s advice. By her own wish she was
lodged in the Neue Schloss, which she had built, at a cost of nearly
£25,000, as a palace for the Princess Alice and her husband, and in
the beautiful grounds of this place she drove about every morning in
a pony-carriage with the Princess Beatrice. She took long drives every
afternoon, and visited Auerbach (the chief country seat of the Grand
Duke) and his shooting-lodge at Kranichstein. The ex-Empress Eugénie
had offered to lend Arenenberg (a charming villa near Constance) to the
Queen, but she did not desire to extend her tour beyond Darmstadt, and
so the offer was not accepted. Accompanied by the Princess Beatrice,
the Grand Duke, and the Princess Elizabeth of Hesse, her Majesty
returned to Windsor on the 7th of May.
[Illustration: THE LINN OF DEE. (_From a Photograph by G. W. Wilson and
Co._)]
London was still dull and gloomy. Court mourning and the absence of
the Prince of Wales (who was visiting his sister in Berlin) made
the season of 1884 melancholy. On the 10th of May the Queen, the
Grand Duke of Hesse, and the Princess Elizabeth paid a visit of
condolence to the Duchess of Albany at Claremont, and on the 22nd
her Majesty left Windsor for Balmoral. That she was much improved in
health was evident, because not only were the public admitted to the
railway-station at Perth, and Ferryhill, Aberdeen, but at the former
she was able to walk from her carriage to the reception-room with a
firm step and without assistance. It was a lovely warm day when her
Majesty and suite drove along the north side of the Dee from Ballater
to Balmoral. The sixty-fifth anniversary of her Majesty’s birthday was
observed in London officially on the 24th of May, but Ministerial State
dinners were not given owing to the Royal Family being in mourning.
The anniversary was not to be kept at Balmoral, but at last the Queen
directed that her servants, with those from Abergeldie and Birkhall,
should dine in the Ball Room of the Castle, under the presidency of her
Commissioner, Dr. Profeit. In the morning Mr. Boehm’s life-size statue
of John Brown arrived, and it was placed on a pedestal in the grounds
of Balmoral at a spot about two hundred yards north-west of the Castle,
the site being selected by the Queen. The great sculptor superintended
the ceremony of unveiling his work. On the 15th of June the Queen
attended Crathie Church, for the first time since October, 1882,
greatly to the relief of her God-fearing neighbours, who had begun to
entertain a shocking suspicion that she had given up attendance at
“public worship.” On the 25th the Court returned to Windsor, after a
delightful holiday spent in the brightest and sunniest of weather.
Every afternoon the Queen had been able to drive about Deeside, and
she had even visited, though she had not stayed at, her cottage at
the Glassalt Shiel. Though the return of the Prince of Wales to town
from Wiesbaden early in June had given a fillip to a chilling season,
Society was dull in the summer of 1884. Lord Sydney and Lord Kenmare
had gently suggested to the Queen that her refusal to permit Drawing
Rooms and State Concerts to be held was causing much disappointment
at the West End, but without avail. Her Majesty, however, showed much
tenacity in forbidding these functions, the proposal of which by the
great officers of the Household she deemed disrespectful to the memory
of her dead son. Nor was she conciliated by being reminded that during
the season of 1861, after the death of the Duchess of Kent, she had
held Drawing Rooms herself, whereas now she had the Princess of Wales
ready to relieve her of the burden of attending them. Londoners,
however, had their compensations. They discovered, in the gay and
glittering gardens of the Health Exhibition at South Kensington, with
their English and German bands and their brilliant combinations of
Chinese lanterns and electric lamps, a delightful _al fresco_ lounge.
Here in the summer evenings the pursuit of pleasure was combined with
a chastened homage to the cause of scientific enlightenment and social
improvement. This was one of a series of specialised exhibitions, the
organisation of which had been the work of the Prince of Wales, who
also earned the gratitude of the town at this time by persuading the
Queen to let him hold two Levees on her behalf. On the 20th of July
the Queen and Princess Beatrice were at Claremont, where the Duchess
of Albany gave birth to a son; after which her Majesty proceeded to
Osborne on the 30th of the month, where she was visited by the German
Crown Prince and Princess. An interesting event in the life of the
Court in the season of 1884 was the reception given by the venerable
Duchess of Cambridge at St. James’s Palace on the 25th of July to
celebrate the completion of her eighty-seventh year. The season of 1884
virtually ended with the Garden Party which the Prince of Wales gave
at Marlborough House on the same day. It ended, as it began, gloomily,
and the social chroniclers lamented the poorness of the entertainments,
the badness of the dinners, the mournfulness of the balls. They only
brightened up when they recorded, with a transient gleam of joy,
that, though all the “great houses” attended by Royalty had been
closed, three had opened their doors since Easter, namely, Devonshire
House, where Lord Hartington entertained guests twice; Norfolk House,
where Lord and Lady Edmond Talbot gave a ball that was endurable; and
Stafford House, where, at a small party in the middle of July, the
Prince and Princess of Wales made their first appearance in Society
since their mourning.
During August the Queen was much troubled as to the issue of the
political crisis arising out of the Reform Bill debates, and the
threatened conflict between the democracy and the House of Lords. She
earnestly deprecated an attack on the Peers during the Recess, and Mr.
Gladstone and his colleagues paid due deference to her opinions. She
sent twice for Lord Rowton--better known, when Mr. Disraeli’s private
secretary, as Mr. Montagu Corry--whom she regarded as the inheritor
of Lord Beaconsfield’s ideas, to consult him on the situation. She
made it clear to him that she was unwilling to use her Prerogative for
the purpose of creating new Peers to force the Reform Bill through
the Upper House. From this it was inferred that if the House of Lords
resisted to the bitter end, the Queen would prefer to coerce them
by a dissolution rather than by Prerogative. Lord Wolseley and Lord
Northbrook were also summoned about this time to consult with her
on the prospects of a campaign in Egypt. These anxious conferences
were held after she had received the Abyssinian Envoys on the 20th
of August. They had come to England bearing copies of a Treaty which
had been concluded at Adowah with King John of Abyssinia. They were
received by the Queen at Osborne, and at their audience they presented
her Majesty with letters from King John and with various gifts, among
which were a young elephant and a large monkey. Ere the Court left
Osborne the Queen surprised the country by announcing her decision to
confer the Order of the Garter on Prince George of Wales, for there
was no precedent for giving the Garter to a junior member of the Royal
Family in his minority. When the Queen came to the Throne there were
only four Royal Knights of this Order, and pedants of heraldry now
complained that there were twenty-eight, and that the Royal Knights
outnumbered the ordinary ones.
On the 1st of September the Court proceeded to Balmoral, the Queen
being accompanied by the Crown Princess and Princess Beatrice. The
arrival of the Court at Balmoral, and the visit of Mr. Gladstone to
Invercauld, had filled Braemar to overflowing. On the 18th of September
the Queen held a Council at
[Illustration: THE QUEEN RECEIVING THE ABYSSINIAN ENVOYS AT OSBORNE.]
Balmoral, at which Mr. Gladstone, Lord Fife, and Sir H. Ponsonby
were present, Mr. Gladstone afterwards dining with her Majesty. Lord
Ripon having resigned office as Viceroy of India, his successor,
Lord Dufferin, visited the Queen at Balmoral in October. One by one
the Royal guests fled southwards, and finally the Queen and Princess
Beatrice left the Highlands for Windsor on the 20th of November--her
Majesty’s return being hastened by grave political anxieties caused
by the threatened collision between the two Houses of Parliament. Mr.
Gladstone had at Balmoral so earnestly deprecated the obstinacy of
the Peers, and so clearly pointed out to the Queen the difficulty of
avoiding this collision whilst they persisted in their anti-Reform
policy, that her Majesty subsequently used all her influence to bring
about a compromise. It was with a view to renew her efforts in this
direction that she returned to Windsor at the time when Lord Granville
was offering to submit a draft Redistribution Bill for friendly but
private inspection by the Tory leaders, provided the Peers would
give a pledge to pass the Franchise Bill during the autumn Session.
The appearance of Mrs. Gladstone’s name among the list of those who
were at Lady Salisbury’s reception in Arlington Street on the 19th of
November, was taken as an auspicious omen, and as indicating that the
Conservative chiefs had not been insensible to the advice which the
Queen had given to the Duke of Richmond in the Highlands. The supreme
difficulty of bringing about the Reform compromise lay in breaking
down the resistance of Lord Salisbury and the Tory Peers, who were
resolved to force a dissolution on the basis of the old franchise. This
resistance gradually weakened after Mr. Gladstone’s visit to Balmoral.
That it finally disappeared was mainly due to the firm but gentle
pressure which the Queen put on the Duke of Richmond in order to induce
him and his colleagues to accept a compromise. The actual details of
the Treaty between Mr. Gladstone and the Peers were settled in London.
But the preliminaries of Peace were really negotiated by the Queen and
the Duke of Richmond in Aberdeenshire, after the memorable “gathering
of the clans” at Braemar in the autumn of 1884. After the return of the
Court from Scotland many guests were received at Windsor, among whom
Lord Sydney--who audits her Majesty’s private accounts, and, since the
death of the Prince Consort, has been her confidential adviser--was
one of the most favoured. On the 17th of December the Court removed to
Osborne.