ENGLAND SINCE THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA.
THE THREE CHIEF MATTERS.--English history since the close of the
Napoleonic wars embraces a multitude of events. A short chapter covering
the entire period will possess no instructive value unless it reduces the
heterogeneous mass of facts to some sort of unity by placing events in
relation with their causes, and thus showing how they are connected with a
few broad national movements or tendencies.
Studying the period in this way, we shall find that very many of its
leading events may be summed up under the three following heads: 1.
Progress towards democracy; 2. Expansion of the principle of religious
equality; 3. Growth of the British Empire in the East.
1. PROGRESS TOWARDS DEMOCRACY.
EFFECTS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION UPON LIBERALISM IN ENGLAND.--The French
Revolution at first gave a fresh impulse to liberal tendencies in England.
The English Liberals watched the course of the French Republicans with the
deepest interest and sympathy. It will be recalled how the statesman Fox
rejoiced at the fall of the Bastile, and what auguries of hope he saw in
the event (see p. 652). The young writers Coleridge, Wordsworth, and
Southey were all in sympathy with democratic sentiments, and inspired with
a generous enthusiasm for political liberty and equality. But the wild
excesses of the French Levellers terrified the English Liberals. There was
a sudden revulsion of feeling. Liberal sentiments were denounced as
dangerous and revolutionary.
But in a few years after the downfall of Napoleon, the terrors of the
French Revolution were forgotten. Liberal sentiments began to spread among
the masses. The people very justly complained that, while the English
government claimed to be a government of the people, they had no part in
it. [Footnote: The English Revolution of 1688 transferred authority from
the king to the Parliament. The elective branch of that body, however,
rested upon a very narrow electoral basis. Out of 5,000,000 Englishmen who
should have had a voice in the government, not more than 160,000 were
voters, and these were chiefly of the rich upper classes. At the opening
of the nineteenth century the number of electors in Scotland did not
exceed 3000.]
Now, it is instructive to note the different ways in which Liberalism was
dealt with by the English government and by the rulers on the continent.
In the continental countries the rising spirit of democracy was met by
cruel and despotic repressions. The people were denied by their rulers all
participation in the affairs of government. We have seen the result.
Liberalism triumphed indeed at last, but triumphed only through
Revolution.
In England, the government did not resist the popular demands to the point
of Revolution. It made timely concessions to the growing spirit of
democracy. Hence here, instead of a series of revolutions, we have a
series of reform measures, which, gradually popularizing the House of
Commons, at last renders the English nation not alone in name, but in
reality, a self-governing people.
THE REFORM BILL OF 1832.--The first Parliamentary step in reform was taken
in 1832. To understand this important act, a retrospective glance becomes
necessary.
When, in 1265, the Commons were first admitted to Parliament (see p. 480),
members were called only from those cities and boroughs whose wealth and
population fairly entitled them to representation. In the course of time
some of these places dwindled in population, and new towns sprang up: yet
the decayed boroughs retained their ancient privilege of sending members
to Parliament, while the new towns were left entirely without
representation. Thus Old Sarum, an ancient town now utterly decayed and
without a single inhabitant, was represented in the Commons by two
members. Furthermore, the sovereign, for the purpose of gaining influence
in the Commons, had, from time to time, given unimportant places the right
of returning members to the Lower House. In 1793 less than 200 electors,
or voters, sent to the Commons 197 members. Of course, elections in these
small or "pocket boroughs," as they were called, were almost always
determined by the corrupt influence of the crown or of the resident lords.
The Lower House of Parliament was thus filled with the nominees of the
king, or of some great lord, or with persons who had bought the office,
often with little effort at concealment. At the same time, such large,
recently grown manufacturing towns as Birmingham and Manchester had no
representation at all in the Commons.
Agitation was begun for the reform of this corrupt and farcical system of
representation. The contest between the Whigs and the Tories, or Liberals
and Conservatives, was long and bitter. The Conservatives of course
opposed all reform. Bill after bill was introduced into Parliament to
correct the evil, but most of these, after having passed the Commons, were
lost in the House of Lords. At last the public feeling became so strong
and violent that the lords were forced to yield, and the Reform Bill of
1832 became a law. [Footnote: The popularizing of the House of Commons led
to a series of acts of a popular character. Among them was an act (in
1833) for the abolition of slavery throughout the British colonies.
780,993 slaves in the British West Indies were freed at a cost to the
English nation of L20,000,000.]
By this act the electoral system of the kingdom was radically changed.
Fifty-six of the "rotten boroughs" were disfranchised, and the 143 seats
in the Lower House which they had filled were given to different counties
and large towns. The bill also greatly increased the number of electors by
extending the right of voting to all persons owning or leasing property of
a certain value. We can scarcely exaggerate the importance of this Reform
Bill.
CHARTISM: THE REVOLUTIONARY YEAR OF 1848.--But while the Reform bill of
1832 was almost revolutionary in the principle it established, it went
only a little way in the application of the principle. It admitted to the
franchise the middle classes only. The great laboring class were given no
part in the government. They now began an agitation,--characterized by
much bitterness,--known as Chartism, from a document called the "People's
Charter," which embodied the reforms they desired. These were "universal
suffrage, vote by ballot, annual parliaments, the division of the country
into equal electoral districts, the abolition of the property
qualifications of members, and payment for their services."
The agitation for these changes in the constitution went on with more or
less violence until 1848. That year the Chartists, encouraged by the
revolutions then shaking almost every throne on the European continent,
indulged in riotous demonstrations which frightened the law-abiding
citizens, and brought discredit upon themselves. Their organization now
fell to pieces. The reforms, however, which they had labored to secure,
were, in the main, desirable and just, and the most important of them have
since been adopted and made a part of the English Constitution.
THE REFORM BILL OF 1867.--The Reform Bill of 1867 was simply another step
taken by the English government in the direction of the Reform Bill of
1832. Like that measure, it was passed only after long and violent
agitation and discussion both without and within the walls of Parliament.
Its main effect was the extension of the right of voting,--the
enfranchisement of the great "fourth estate, or the masses." By it also a
few small boroughs in England--for the bill did not concern either Ireland
or Scotland, separate bills of somewhat similar provisions being framed
for them--were disfranchised, and several new ones created.
THE REFORM BILL OF 1884.--One of the conservative leaders, the Earl of
Derby, in the discussions upon the Reform Bill of 1867, said, "No doubt we
are making a great experiment, and taking a leap in the dark." Just
seventeen years after the passage of that bill, the English people were
ready to take another leap. But they were not now leaping in the dark. The
wisdom and safety of admitting the lower classes to a participation in the
government had been demonstrated.
In 1884 Mr. Gladstone, then prime minister, introduced and pushed to a
successful vote a new reform bill, more radical and sweeping in its
provisions than any preceding one. It increased the number of voters from
about 3,000,000 to about 5,000,000. The qualification of voters in the
counties was made the same as that required of voters in the boroughs.
Hence its effect was to enfranchise the great agricultural classes.
ONLY THE FORMS OF MONARCHY REMAIN.--The English government is now in
reality as democratic as our own. Only the forms of monarchy remain. It
does not seem probable, that these can long withstand the encroachments of
democracy. Hereditary privilege, as represented by the House of Lords and
the Crown, is likely soon to be abolished.
HOME RULE FOR IRELAND.--In connection with the above outline of the
democratic movement in England, a word must be said about the so-called
Home Rule movement in Ireland.
The legislative independence secured by Ireland in 1782 (see p. 632), was
maintained only a short time. In 1798, England being then engaged in war
with the revolutionists of France, the Irish rose in revolt, with the
purpose of setting up an Irish republic. The uprising was quelled, and
then as a measure of security the Irish Parliament was abolished (1801)
and Ireland given representation in the English Parliament, just as had
been done in the case of Scotland at the time of the legislative union of
England and Scotland (see p. 629).
The Irish patriots bitterly resented this extinction of the legislative
independence of Ireland, and denounced as traitors those members of the
last Irish Parliament who, corrupted by the English minister, William Pitt
(the younger), had voted away Irish liberties. Consequently from the day
of the Union to the present, there has been more or less agitation for its
repeal and the re-establishment of the old Irish Parliament. In 1841,
under the inspiration of the eloquent Daniel O'Connell, Ireland was
brought to the verge of insurrection, but the movement was suppressed. In
1886 Mr. Gladstone, then prime minister, introduced a bill in Parliament,
granting a separate legislation to Ireland. This led to bitter debate both
within and without the walls of Parliament, and at the present time
(1889), the question of Home Rule for Ireland is the leading issue in
English politics.[Footnote: Closely connected with this political question
of Home Rule for Ireland, is the agrarian, or land trouble. At bottom,
this is a matter that involves the right of private property in land, and
touches questions that belong to the Industrial Age (see p. 729) rather
than to that of the Political Revolution.]
2. EXPANSION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF RELIGIOUS EQUALITY.
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM AND RELIGIOUS EQUALITY.--Alongside the political
movement traced in the preceding section has run a similar one in the
religious realm. This is a growing recognition by the English people of
the true principle of religious toleration.
At the opening of the nineteenth century there was in England religious
freedom, but no religious equality. That is to say, one might be a
Catholic or a dissenter, if he chose to be, without fear of persecution.
Dissent from the Established Church was not unlawful. But one's being a
dissenter disqualified him from holding certain public offices. Where
there exists such discrimination against any religious sect, or where any
one sect is favored or sustained by the government, there of course is no
religious equality, although there may be religious freedom. Progress in
this direction, then, has consisted in the growth of a really tolerant
spirit, which has led to the removal from Catholics, Protestant
dissenters, and Jews all civil disabilities, and the placing of all sects
on an absolute equality before the law. This is but a completion of the
work of the Protestant Reformation.
METHODISM AND ITS EFFECTS UPON TOLERATION.--One thing that helped to bring
prominently forward the question of emancipating non-conformists from the
civil disabilities under which they were placed, was the great religious
movement known as Methodism, which during the latter part of the
eighteenth and the beginning of the nineteenth century revolutionized the
religious life of England. [Footnote: The leaders of the movement were
George Whitefield (1714-1770) and John Wesley (1703-1791). Whitefield
became the leader of the _Calvinistic_ Methodists, and Wesley the founder
of the sect known as _Wesleyans_. The Methodists at first had no thought
of establishing a church distinct from the Anglican, but simply aimed to
form within the Established Church a society of earnest, devout laymen,
somewhat like that of the Young Men's Christian Association in our present
churches. Petty persecution, however, eventually constrained them to go
out from the established organization and form a Church of their own. This
of course constituted them dissenters.] By vastly increasing the body of
Protestant dissenters, Methodism gave new strength to the agitation for
the repeal of the laws which bore so heavily upon them.
DISABILITIES REMOVED FROM PROTESTANT DISSENTERS (1828).--One of the
earliest and most important of the acts of Parliament in this century in
recognition of the principle of religious equality, was the repeal of the
Corporation and Test Acts, in so far as they bore upon Protestant
dissenters. These were acts passed in the reign of Charles II., which
required every officer of a corporation, and all persons holding civil and
military positions, to take certain oaths, and partake of the communion
according to the rites of the Anglican Church. It is true that these laws
were not now strictly enforced; nevertheless, the laws were invidious and
vexatious, and the Protestant dissenters demanded their repeal. The result
of the debate in Parliament was the repeal of such parts of the ancient
acts as it was necessary to rescind in order to relieve Protestant
dissenters,--that is, the provision requiring persons holding office to be
communicants of the Anglican Church.
DISABILITIES REMOVED FROM THE CATHOLICS (1829).--The bill of 1828 gave no
relief to Catholics. They were still excluded from Parliament and various
civil offices by the declarations of belief and the oaths required of
office-holders,--declarations and oaths which no good Catholic could
conscientiously make. They now demanded that the same concessions be made
them that had been granted Protestant dissenters. The ablest champion of
Catholic emancipation was the eloquent Daniel O'Connell, an Irish patriot.
A threatened revolt on the part of the Irish Catholics hurried the
progress of what was known as the _Catholic Emancipation Act_ through
Parliament. This law opened all the offices of the kingdom, below the
crown,--save that of Lord Chancellor of England and Ireland, the
Viceroyalty of Ireland, and a few others,--to the Catholic subjects of the
realm.
DISABILITIES REMOVED FROM THE JEWS.--The Jews were still laboring under
all the disabilities which had now been removed from Protestant dissenters
and Catholics. In 1845 an act was passed by Parliament which so changed
the oath required for admission to corporate offices--the oath contained
the words "on the faith of a Christian"--as to open them to Jews.
In 1858, after a long and unseemly struggle, the House of Commons was
opened to the long-proscribed race; and about a quarter of a century
later, the House of Lords admitted to a seat Baron Rothschild, the first
peer of Hebrew faith that had ever sat in that body.
DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE IRISH CHURCH (1869).--Forty years after the
Catholic Emancipation Act, the English government took another great step
in the direction of religious equality, by the disestablishment of the
State Church in Ireland.
The Irish have always and steadily refused to accept the religion which
their English conquerors have somehow felt constrained to force upon them.
The vast majority of the people are to-day and ever have been Catholics;
yet up to the time where we have now arrived these Irish Catholics had
been compelled to pay tithes and fees for the maintenance among them of
the Anglican Church worship. Meanwhile their own churches, in which the
great masses were instructed and cared for spiritually, had to be kept up
by voluntary contributions. The proposition to do away with this grievance
by the disestablishment of the State Church in Ireland was bitterly
opposed by the Conservatives; but at length, after a memorable debate, the
Liberals, under the lead of Bright and Gladstone, the latter then prime
minister, carried the measure. This was in 1869, but the actual
disestablishment was not to take place until the year 1871, at which time
the Irish State Church, ceasing to exist as a state institution, became a
free Episcopal Church. The historian May pronounces this "the most
important ecclesiastical matter since the Reformation."
PROPOSED DISESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATE CHURCH IN ENGLAND AND IN SCOTLAND.
--The perfect application of the principle of religious equality demands,
in the opinion of many English Liberals, the disestablishment of the State
Church in England and in Scotland. [Footnote: The Established Church in
Scotland is the Presbyterian.] They feel that for the government to
maintain any particular sect, is to give the State a monopoly in religion.
They would have the churches of all denominations placed on an absolute
equality. Especially in Scotland is the sentiment in favor of
disestablishment very strong.
3. GROWTH OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE IN THE EAST.
THE CLEW TO ENGLAND'S FOREIGN POLICY IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.--Seeking
the main fact of modern English history, Professor Seeley [Footnote: J. R.
Seeley, in his work entitled _The Expansion of England_.] finds it in
the expansion of England. He says, in substance, that the expansion of
England in the New World and in Asia is the formula which sums up for
England the history of the last three centuries. As the outgrowth of this
extension into remote lands of English population or influence, England
has come successively into sharp rivalry with three of the leading powers
of Europe, her competitors in the field of colonization or in the race for
empire. The seventeenth century stands out as an age of intense rivalry
between England and Spain; the eighteenth was a period of gigantic
competition between England and France; while the nineteenth has been an
age of jealous rivalry between England and Russia.
England triumphed over Spain and France; it remains to be seen whether she
will in like manner triumph over Russia.
We have space simply to indicate how England's foreign policies and wars
during the present century have grown out of her Eastern connections, and
her fear of the overshadowing influence of the Colossus of the North.
RISE OF THE ENGLISH POWER IN INDIA.--And first, we must say a word
respecting the establishment of English authority in India. By the close
of the seventeenth century the East India Company (see p. 603) had founded
establishments at Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras, the three most important
centres of English population and influence in India at the present time.
The company's efforts to extend its authority in India were favored by the
decayed state into which the Great Mogul Empire--founded in Northern India
by the Tartar conquerors (see p. 461)--had fallen, and by the contentions
of the independent native princes among themselves.
For a long time it was a matter of doubt whether the empire to be erected
upon the ruins of the Great Mogul Empire and of the contending native
states should be French or English. About the middle of the eighteenth
century the former had the stronger foothold in the peninsula, just as
previous to the French and Indian War in the New World they had the
stronger hold upon the North American continent.
A terrible crime committed by the Nabob Surajah Dowlah of Bengal, a
province lying along the lower courses of the Ganges, determined the fate
not only of that native state, but of all India. Moved by jealousy of the
growing power of the English, and encouraged by the French, the Nabob
attacked and captured the English post at Calcutta. His one hundred and
forty-six prisoners he crowded into a close dungeon, called the Black
Hole. In the course of a sultry night the larger part of the unfortunate
prisoners were suffocated.
The crime was avenged by Robert Clive, the English commander at Madras.
With only 100 English soldiers and 2000 sepoys (native soldiers in
European employ), he sailed for Calcutta, recaptured that place, and on
the memorable field of Plassey, scattered to the winds the Nabob's army of
60,000 (1757).
The victory of Plassey established upon a firm basis the growing power of
the Company. During the next one hundred years it extended its authority
throughout almost every part of the peninsula. Many of the native princes
were, and still are, allowed to retain their thrones, only they must now
acknowledge the suzerainty or paramount authority of the English
government.
We will now speak briefly of the most important wars and troubles in which
England has been involved through her interests in India.
THE AFGHAN WAR OF 1838-1842.--One of the first serious wars into which
England was drawn through her jealousy of Russia was what was known as the
Afghan War. It was England's policy to maintain the Afghan state as a
barrier between her East India possessions and Russia. Persuaded that the
ruler of the Afghans, a usurper named Dost Mahommed, was inclined to a
Russian alliance, the English determined to dethrone him, and put in his
place the legitimate prince. This was done. The Afghans, however, resented
this interference in their affairs. They arose in revolt, and forced the
English army to retreat from the country. In the wild mountain passes
leading from Afghanistan into India, the fleeing army, 16,000 in number,
counting camp-followers, was cut off almost to a man. The English took
signal vengeance. They again invaded the country, defeated the Afghans,
punished some of their leaders, burned the chief bazaar of Cabul, and then
withdrawing from the country, left the Afghans to themselves.
OPIUM WAR WITH CHINA (1840-1842).--The next war incited by British
interest in India was the so-called Opium War with China.
During the first half of the present century the opium traffic between
India and China grew into gigantic proportions, and became an important
source of wealth to the British merchants, and of revenue to the Indian
government. The Chinese government, however, awake to the enormous evils
of the growing use of the narcotic, forbade the importation of the drug;
but the British merchants, notwithstanding the imperial prohibition,
persisted in the trade, and succeeded in smuggling large quantities of the
article into the Chinese market. Finally, the government seized and
destroyed all the opium stored in the warehouses of the British traders at
Canton. This act, together with other "outrages," led to a declaration of
war on the part of England. British troops now took possession of Canton,
and the Chinese government, whose troops were as helpless as children
before European soldiers, was soon forced to agree to the treaty of
Nanking, by which the island of Hong-Kong was ceded to the English,
several important ports were opened to British traders, and the
perpetuation of the nefarious traffic in opium was secured.
THE CRIMEAN WAR (1854-1856).--Scarcely was the Opium War ended before
England was involved in a gigantic struggle with Russia,--the Crimean War,
already spoken of in connection with Russian history. From our present
standpoint we can better understand why England threw herself into the
conflict on the side of Turkey. She fought to maintain the integrity of
the Ottoman Empire, in order that her own great rival, Russia, might be
prevented from seizing Constantinople and the Bosporus, and from that
point controlling the affairs of Asia through the command of the Eastern
Mediterranean.
THE SEPOY MUTINY (1857-1858).--The echoes of the Crimean War had barely
died away before England was startled by the most alarming intelligence
from the country for the secure possession of which English soldiers had
borne their part in the fierce struggle before Sebastopol.
In 1857 there broke out in the armies of the East India Company what is
known as the Sepoy Mutiny. The causes of the uprising were various. The
crowd of deposed princes was one element of discontent. A widespread
conviction among the natives awakened by different acts of the English,
that their religion was in danger, was another of the causes that led to
the rebellion. There were also military grievances of which the native
soldiers complained.
The mutiny broke out at Bengal. At different points, by preconcerted
signals, the native regiments arose against their English officers and put
them to death. [Footnote: The East India Company at this time had an army
of nearly 300,000, of which number not more than 45,000 were English
troops. The chief positions in the native regiments were held by English
officers.] Delhi and Cawnpore were seized, and the English residents and
garrisons butchered in cold blood. Fortunately many of the native
regiments stood firm in their allegiance to the English, and with their
aid the revolt was speedily quelled.
At the close of the war, the government of India, by act of Parliament,
was taken out of the hands of the East India Company and vested in the
English crown. Since this transfer, the Indian government has been
conducted on the principle that "English rule in India should be for
India." [Footnote: Within the last two or three decades the country has
undergone in every respect a surprising transformation. Life and property
are now as secure in India as in England, The railways begun by the East
India Company have been extended in every direction, and now bind together
the most distant provinces of the empire. All the chief cities are united
by telegraph. Lines of steamers are established on the Indus and the
Ganges. Public schools have been opened, and colleges founded. Several
hundred newspapers, about half published in the native dialects, are
sowing Western ideas broadcast among the people. The introduction of
European science and civilization is rapidly undermining many of the old
superstitions, particularly the ancient system of caste.]
LATER EVENTS: THE ENGLISH IN EGYPT.--It only remains for us to refer to
some later matters which are more or less intimately connected with
England's Eastern policy.
In 1874 Mr. Disraeli, who had then just succeeded Mr. Gladstone as prime
minister, purchased, for $20,000,000, the 176,000 shares which the Khedive
of Egypt held in the Suez Canal. This was to give England more perfect
control of this all-important gateway to her East India possessions.
In 1878, towards the close of the Russo-Turkish War, England, it will be
recalled, interfered in behalf of the Turks, and, by the presence of her
iron-clads in the Bosporus, prevented the Russians from occupying
Constantinople. In the treaty negotiations which followed, England
received from Turkey the island of Cyprus.
In the year 1882 political and financial reasons combined led the English
government, now conducted by Gladstone, to interfere in the affairs of
Egypt. A mutinous uprising against the authority of the Khedive having
taken place in the Egyptian army, an expedition was sent out under the
command of Lord Wolseley for the purpose of suppressing the revolt, and by
the restoration of the authority of the Khedive to render secure the Suez
Canal, and protect the interest of English bondholders in Egyptian
securities.
Three years later, in 1885, a second expedition had to be sent out to the
same country. The Soudanese, subjects of the Khedive, encouraged by the
disorganized condition of the Egyptian government, had revolted, and were
threatening the Egyptian garrisons in the Soudan with destruction. Lord
Wolseley was sent out a second time, to lead an expedition up the Nile to
the relief of Khartoum, where General Gordon, a representative of the
English government, was commanding the Egyptian troops, and trying--to use
his own phrase--to "smash the Mahdi," the military prophet and leader of
the Soudanese Arabs.
The expedition arrived too late, Khartoum having fallen just before the
advance relief party reached the town. The English troops were now
recalled, and the greater part of the Soudan abandoned to the rebel Arabs.
Further complications seem likely to grow out of England's presence in
Egypt.
CONCLUSION: THE NEW AGE.
The Age of Material Progress, or the Industrial Age.--History has been
well likened to a grand dissolving view. While one age is passing away
another is coming into prominence.
During the last fifty years the distinctive features of society have
wholly changed. The battles now being waged in the religious and the
political world are only faint echoes of the great battles of the
sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries. A new movement of human
society has begun. Civilization has entered upon what may be called the
Industrial Age, or the Age of Material Progress.
The decade between 1830 and 1840 was, in the phrase of Herzog, "the cradle
of the new epoch." In that decade several of the greatest inventions that
have marked human progress were first brought to practical perfection.
Prominent among these were ocean steam navigation, railroads, and
telegraphs. [Footnote: Ploetz in his _Epitome of History_, instructively
compares these inventions to the three great inventions or discoveries--
the magnetic needle, gunpowder, and printing--that ushered in the Modern
Age.] In the year 1830 Stephenson exhibited the first really successful
locomotive. In 1836 Morse perfected the telegraph. In 1838 ocean steamship
navigation was first practically solved.
The rapidity with which these inventions have been introduced into almost
all parts of the world, partakes of the marvellous.
Within the last fifty years the continents have been covered with a
perfect network of railroads, constructed at an enormous cost of labor and
capital. The aggregate length of the world's steam railways in 1883 was
about 275,000 miles, sufficient, to use Mulhall's illustration, to girdle
the earth eleven times at the equator, or more than sufficient to reach
from the earth to the moon. The continental lines of railways are made
virtually continuous round the world by connecting lines of ocean
steamers. Telegraph wires traverse the continents in all directions, and
cables run beneath all the oceans of the globe.
By these inventions the most remote parts of the earth have been brought
near together. A solidarity of commercial interests has been created.
Thought has been made virtually cosmopolitan: a new and helpful idea or
discovery becomes immediately the common possession of the world.
Facilities for travel, by bringing men together, and familiarizing them
with new scenes and different forms of society and belief, have made them
more liberal and tolerant. Mind has been broadened and quickened. And by
the virtual annihilation of time and space, governmental problems have
been solved. The chief difficulties in maintaining a confederation of
states widely separated have been removed, and such extended territories
as those of the United States made practically as compact as the most
closely consolidated European state. England, with her scattered colonies,
may now, Professor Seeley thinks, well enough become a World Venice, with
the oceans for streets. Furthermore, the steps of human progress have been
accelerated a hundred-fold. The work of years, and of centuries even, is
crowded into a day. Thus Japan, on the outskirts of the world, has been
modified more by our civilization within the last decade or two, than
Britain was modified by the civilization of Rome during the four hundred
years that the island was connected with the empire.
But a still more important feature of the new epoch is the use of steam
engines, electric motors, and machinery in the manufactures and the
various other industries of mankind. At the beginning of the nineteenth
century the great manufactures of the world were in their infancy. Under
the impulse of modern inventions they have been carried to seeming
perfection at a bound. New motors and improved machinery have increased
incalculably the productive forces of society. This enormous augmentation
of the power of production is one of the most significant features of the
age.
The history of this wonderful age, so different from any preceding age,
cannot yet be written, for no one can tell whether the epoch is just
opening or is already well advanced. It may well be that we have already
seen the greatest surprises of the age, and that the epoch is nearing its
culmination, [Footnote: "It is probable," says Professor Ely, "that as we,
after more than two thousand years, look back upon the time of Pericles
with wonder and astonishment, as an epoch great in art and literature,
posterity two thousand years hence will regard our era as forming an
admirable and unparalleled epoch in the history of industrial invention."
--_French and German Socialism in Modern Times._] and that other than
material development--let us hope intellectual and moral development--will
characterize future epochs.