THE NEW ERA OF REFORM.
A “Little War” in Abyssinia--King Theodore’s Arrest of Vice-Consul
Cameron--The Unanswered Letter to the Queen--A Skilful but
Expensive General--Sir Robert Napier’s Expedition--An Autumnal
Session--Addition to the Income Tax--Parliament in 1868--A
Spiritless Legislature--Fishing for a Policy--Apologetic
Ministers--Mr. Bright on Repeal--The Irish Church Question--Fenian
Alarms--Illness and Resignation of Lord Derby--Mr. Disraeli Prime
Minister--His Quarrel with Lord Chelmsford--Lord Derby
Arbitrates--The “Giant Chancellor”--Mr. Disraeli’s New
Policy--Discontented Adullamites--Public Executions--Lord Mayo and
Concurrent Endowment--“The Pill to Cure the Earthquake”--Mr.
Gladstone Attacks the Government--The Irish Church
Resolutions--Resignation or Dissolution--Mr. Disraeli’s “No Popery”
Cry--Lord Chelmsford’s Bad Pun--Defeat of the Ministry--Mr.
Disraeli and the Queen--“Scenes” in the House of Commons--Charges
of Treason--Mr. Disraeli’s Relations with the Queen--A
Parliamentary Duel between Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Bright--The
Dissolution of Parliament--Mr. Ward Hunt’s Budget--Conclusion of
the Abyssinian War--The General Election--Triumph of Mr.
Gladstone--Resignation of the Ministry--Mr. Gladstone’s New
Cabinet--The Queen’s Politeness to Mr. Bright--Illness of Prince
Leopold--Attempted Assassination of the Duke of Edinburgh--The
Queen’s Book--The Queen Accused of Heresy--The West-End Tradesmen
and the Queen--Mr. Reardon, M.P., suggests Abdication--A Bungled
Volunteer Review at Windsor--A Hot London Season--Serious Illness
of the Queen--Her Tour in Switzerland--Death of the Archbishop of
Canterbury--Conflict between the Queen and Mr. Disraeli as to
Church Patronage--The Revolution in Spain--Rupture between Turkey
and Greece--Another War-Cloud in the East.
An autumn Session of Parliament had been held in November, 1867, in
order to vote supplies for one of those “little wars’ in which England
has so frequently been engaged during the Queen’s reign, a war which
arose out of a dispute with the King of Abyssinia. This swarthy and
half-savage potentate had detained in captivity several British
subjects, one of them being Captain Cameron, a British Vice-Consul on
the Red Sea littoral. Theodore of Abyssinia had seized them to mark his
indignation at Lord Russell’s culpable discourtesy in neglecting to
answer a letter which he had addressed to the Queen. Mr. Hormuzd Rassam,
a Syrian emissary of the Foreign Office, had endeavoured to procure the
release of the prisoners, but in his turn he, too, was seized and
compelled to share their fate. When Parliament was prorogued the Queen’s
Speech had intimated that the captives would have to be rescued by
force, and an army of 10,000 men, under Sir Robert Napier, was equipped
at Bombay for that purpose. At the end of 1867 a portion of it had
landed in King Theodore’s country. Napier was a skilful but an expensive
general. At the outset he spent £2,000,000 on his Expedition, and a
further demand for an equal sum was made. Hence Parliament had to be
summoned in November to vote these supplies. An additional penny was put
on the Income Tax, and the Government was authorised to use the
Exchequer balances for the expenses of the campaign. The most caustic
critic of the Ministry was Mr. Lowe, who condemned it for declaring war
without the authority of Parliament.
The New Year (1868) found Parties and politicians preparing for the
great electoral struggle for power. But there could be no General
Election till the new register of voters became operative. Hence the
country passed
[Illustration: SIR ROBERT NAPIER (AFTERWARDS LORD NAPIER OF MAGDALA).]
through a Parliamentary interregnum during which it was ruled by a House
of Commons that had exhausted its mandate, and by its own act had ceased
to represent the bulk of the enfranchised classes. It lacked authority
to legislate, and was too spiritless to intrigue. All that could be done
by its leaders was to prepare the ground for the General Election; in
other words, they began to seek for a policy with which they could go to
the country. Many Cabinet meetings were held in January, but with no
very obvious result. Ministers seemed unable to hit on a programme, and
when Lord Stanley and Mr. Gathorne Hardy addressed a great political
meeting at Bristol on the 22nd, their chief object appeared to be to
apologise for the Reform Act. It had been demanded in a manner that it
would have been dangerous to refuse, and the “innovating impulse” which
it might create would soon spend itself. Such, at least, was Lord
Stanley’s view. The Liberals, on the other hand, had been openly fishing
for a policy. Some, like Mr. Lowe, Mr. Stansfeld, and Mr. Forster,
pressed for radical measures of educational reform. “We must educate our
masters,” said Mr. Lowe, and so he now demanded national compulsory
unsectarian education. A few rising young men, like Mr. Fawcett, gave
prominence to Land Law Reform, the creation of peasant-proprietorship,
abolition of primogeniture, and the like. Mr. Bright, however, like most
thinking men at the time, contended that the Irish Question must hold
the first place in the Liberal programme of the future. The recent
activity of the Fenians, and the discovery that the Irish patriots had
found in America a new fulcrum for their agitation, convinced Englishmen
that a new departure must be taken in Irish policy. Unless England could
dictate a Conspiracy Bill to the United States, the American-Irish could
keep Ireland in revolutionary restlessness so long as Irishmen despaired
of getting grievances redressed by the Imperial Parliament. But what
should be done for Ireland? Some said the Land Question must be settled;
others that concessions to the priesthood in the matter of education
would suffice; others, like Lord Stanley, thought the Irish case was
hopeless, and they talked of the impossibility of conceding anything to
noise and menace.
Mr. Bright’s great speech at Birmingham on the 3rd of February, however,
advanced the position of the Liberal Party in the boldest manner. There
had been some talk of giving Ireland political autonomy, but it had
failed to touch the sense of the nation. Oddly enough, however, Mr.
Bright did not show himself strongly antipathetic to this policy. He was
opposed to the Repeal of the Union, but on the other hand he declared
that Repeal was a course which was open to consideration if remedial
legislation failed. And he was at great pains to prepare the ground for
a Repeal agitation by reconciling the English mind to the discussion of
such a policy. It was for this reason that he dwelt on the fact that
Repeal of the Union with Scotland was once defeated in a full House
merely by a majority of two. That, said Mr. Bright, was a high
precedent, if any one wished to adopt a Repeal agitation as a remedy for
Irish discontent. But in the meantime Mr. Bright’s plans were (1), to
disestablish the Anglican Church in Ireland and secularise its property,
distributing the spoil in fair proportions among the chief sects of
Ireland; (2), as to the land question, he proposed that a Land
Commission should buy up the estates of absentee landlords and sell them
to tenants, who were to pay the purchase-money in a certain term of
years by a slight addition to their rent. In the meantime London was
swarming with special constables. The garrison at Woolwich stood to its
guns every night expecting a Fenian attack from the river. Special
precautions had also to be taken to guard Windsor, and Lord St.
Leonards, with unconscious humour, wrote a letter to the _Times_
imploring the Fenians to confine their operations to Ireland, because by
annoying Englishmen they rendered the Irish cause increasingly unpopular
in England. In these circumstances Ministers committed the fatal mistake
of resolving to do nothing--except pass the Scottish and Irish Reform
Bills, a Boundary Bill, and a Bribery Bill. They said that in two or
three years’ time they might be in a position to consider other matters,
such as that of National Education. The Irish Church could obviously not
be assailed by a Party closely dependent on the goodwill of the English
clergy. As for the Irish Land Question, Lord Stanley disposed of it by
simply declaring that every proposal to deal with it which he would not
like to see applied to England was pure “quackery.”
On the 13th of February Parliament met, and on the 16th the town was
startled to hear alarming accounts of the Prime Minister’s health.
Repeated attacks of gout had broken up his constitution, and on the 24th
of February he resigned, Mr. Disraeli being chosen by the Queen as his
successor. Here again the Queen showed her good sense. A foolish
intrigue had been directed against Mr. Disraeli by some members of his
Party, who having trusted him with carrying out a revolution, refused to
trust him with the work of Government. Neither Lord Stanley nor the Duke
of Richmond--whose names it is understood were mentioned as his
rivals--had Mr. Disraeli’s ability, experience, fame, and dexterity in
managing men. They had in truth no qualification whatever, save their
rank, which could put them in competition with Mr. Disraeli, and the
Queen had naturally grave doubts whether, on the eve of an appeal to the
new Democracy, it would be seemly to go to it with an open declaration
that, when Capacity and Rank competed for the Premiership of England,
Rank must carry the day. Mr. Disraeli’s elevation had been, however,
foreseen by many shrewd observers. During the vacation Bishop
Wilberforce met a brilliant company of statesmen and men of letters at
the late Lord Stanhope’s place at Chevening. The events of the Session
were frequently discussed, and their conversations are summed up by
Wilberforce in his Diary as follows:--“No one even guesses at the
political future: whether a fresh election will strengthen the
Conservatives or not seems altogether doubtful. The most wonderful thing
is the rise of Disraeli. It is not the mere assertion of talent, as you
hear so many say. It seems to me quite beside that. He has been able to
teach the House of Commons almost to ignore Gladstone; and at present
lords it over him, and I am told, says that he will hold him down for
twenty years.”[278]
Mr. Disraeli took an early opportunity of showing his colleagues that he
meant to be master in his own house. His first act set the Tapers and
Tadpoles of the Carlton Club by the ears. He sent Lord Chelmsford--whom
he had not forgiven for his venomous opposition to the emancipation of
the Jews--an intimation that he must resign. His next act was to offer
the Lord Chancellorship to Lord Cairns, in order to strengthen the
debating power of the front Ministerial Bench in the House of Lords.
According to Bishop Wilberforce’s Diary, when Lord Chelmsford handed his
seals to the Queen he held them back for a minute, and said, “I have
been used worse than a menial. I have not even had a month’s
warning.”[279] Certainly he might have been treated with more courtesy,
but technically speaking Mr. Disraeli was well within his right in
dismissing Lord Chelmsford. In 1866, when Lord Derby formed his
Government, Lord Chelmsford took office on the distinct understanding
that one day he must make way for Sir Hugh Cairns. “This being the
case,” says Lord Malmesbury, “he had no right to be angry at Disraeli’s
arrangement, but he was so, and appealed to Lord Derby, who confirmed
the decision as being consistent with his original agreement.” Mr.
Disraeli did not withdraw Sir S. Northcote from the India Office, but
conferred the Chancellorship of the Exchequer on Mr. Ward Hunt. “He is a
giant in body,” writes Lord Malmesbury, “being six feet four, and
weighing twenty stone. When he knelt to kiss hands he was even in that
position taller than the Queen.” A still better qualification for
office, however, was possessed by Mr. Hunt. As the hero of the debates
on the compensation clauses of the Cattle Plague Bill, he had become the
idol of the squirearchy, and his presence in the Cabinet did much to
reconcile them to Mr. Disraeli’s elevation to the Premiership. The
constitution of the Government and disposal of the offices curiously
reflected the influence which the new electors were already exercising
on the ruling classes. The most striking thing about the reconstructed
Ministry was the concentration of its power in the House of Commons. For
the first time for many years there sat in the popular Chamber the Prime
Minister (Mr. Disraeli), the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
(Lord Stanley), the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Ward Hunt), the
Home Secretary (Mr. Hardy, appointed on the retirement of Mr. Walpole),
the War Secretary (Sir J. Pakington), the First Lord of the Admiralty
(Mr. Corry), and the Secretary for India (Sir Stafford Northcote). In
the House of Lords the representatives of the Government held offices of
secondary importance.
The new Prime Minister met his followers in Downing Street on the 5th of
March, and promised them that his policy would be truly Conservative. At
half-past five he rose in the House of Commons, amidst general cheering,
to explain his position, which he did with some superfluous humility. In
Foreign Affairs his policy, he said, would be Lord Stanley’s--one of
peace without isolation--and in Home Affairs it would be “a Liberal
one--a truly Liberal one.” The Reform Bills for Ireland would proceed,
an Education Bill was promised, and on the following Tuesday Lord Mayo
would explain the views of the Cabinet as to Ireland--views which
doubtless would
[Illustration: ST. JAMES’S PALACE, LONDON.]
satisfy “enlightened and temperate men” of all Parties. Some of the
Adullamites thought that a mistake had been made in not attempting to
form a Coalition, and Mr. E. P. Bouverie gave voice to their querulous
discontent. Before the sitting was over, Mr. Hardy succeeded in carrying
a measure in which the Queen was interested--the Bill for abolishing
the demoralising spectacle of public executions. But it was quite clear
that Mr. Gladstone and Lord Russell would now give the new Cabinet no
mercy. Every one therefore felt that the crisis in its fate would be
determined when Lord Mayo expounded its Irish policy. The Irish Church
Question divided Reformers least, and it was known that to this question
Lord Mayo would address himself. There were now three plans before the
country for getting rid of the anomaly of supporting in Ireland out of
national funds, the Church of a small, a rich, and an anti-national
sect. Lords Hardwicke and Ellenborough had proposed to “level up” the
Roman Catholics to an equal footing with the Protestants by raising
£3,000,000 a year for their endowment. Lord Russell proposed to “level
down” the Protestants to the same plane of equality as the Catholics, by
diverting six-eighths of the Protestant endowments to Catholic purposes.
Mr. Bright proposed to secularise all the Protestant endowments and
devote them to purely national purposes, reserving £3,000,000 to break
the fall of the Protestant churches, and provide each Roman Catholic
parish with a small piece of glebe land. On Tuesday, the 10th of March,
Mr. Maguire opened the debate on the affairs of Ireland, and Lord Mayo,
with verbose embarrassment, gave an exposition of Irish policy, which
sealed the fate of the Government. He promised (1) a small Bill for
registering tenants’ improvements and encouraging leasehold tenures,
which nobody treated seriously; (2) Commissions of inquiry into the Land
Question and into the Irish railway system, with a hint at granting
Imperial subsidies to Irish railways; (3) the endowment of a separate
Catholic University; (4) an inquiry into the Irish Church, with a
suggestion that the right policy was to “level up” the Catholics to the
same condition of endowment as the Protestants, and to increase the
_Regium Donum_, or annual subvention of the Presbyterians. As Mr.
Horsman said, Lord Mayo seemed to be looking everywhere for a policy
without being able to find it. Inaction as regards the Church,
procrastination as regards the Land, reaction as regards Education--such
was the Irish policy of the Government. The idea of “levelling up” the
endowments of the Catholics was felt to be impracticable, for it would
have involved an expenditure of about £3,000,000 a year. If this sum
were raised by Irish taxation, the Irish Catholics would naturally
object to pay to their priests through the State the stipends which they
already paid them as free-will offerings. If it were raised by Imperial
taxation, it was hopeless to expect the Protestants of England and
Scotland to endow an Ultramontane Catholic Church in Ireland. The scheme
for a new Catholic University was equally objectionable. It was to have
no connection with the State. Hence it would be a standing challenge to
the accepted national policy of education, which links State control
with State aid. As a remedy for Irish grievances, Mr. Bright likened it
to the pill which Addison’s quack sold “to cure the earthquake.” Mr.
Gladstone attacked the Government with all the eloquence of action. His
policy he declared to be the disestablishment and disendowment of the
Irish Protestant Church, and he announced that he would take the opinion
of the House on a definite proposal for carrying it out. For that
purpose he produced three Resolutions on the 23rd of March, which
affirmed the necessity for creating no new interests in the Irish
Church, “pending the final decision of Parliament.” In a letter to Lord
Dartmouth, Mr. Disraeli met the attack by raising a false issue. It was
not, he said, the Irish Church that was at stake. What Mr. Gladstone
challenged was really “the sacred union of Church and State, which has
hitherto been the chief means of our civilisation, and is the only
security of our liberty.” It was obviously indiscreet for a Tory
Minister to assert that the principle of a State Church was involved in
the maintenance of an ecclesiastical establishment which served no State
purpose whatever, save that of making the Irish people hate England. Mr.
Gladstone’s scheme was to terminate the existence in Ireland of any
salaried or stipendiary clergy paid by the State, whether Catholic or
Protestant; though, by way of compensation for life-interests, he
promised to leave three-fifths of their endowments in the hands of the
Anglican clergy. Lord Stanley moved an amendment which pleaded for
delay. After a new Parliament had been elected, the Government, he said,
would bring in a scheme to reform the Church of Ireland. Coupled with
his admission that “considerable modifications in the temporalities” of
the Irish Church would be necessary, his speech disgusted Mr. Disraeli’s
Orange supporters, and dispirited his English followers. What, asked
Lord Cranborne, would anybody think of a man on the other side of the
hedge, if he expressed an opinion that there must be “considerable
modifications” in the money in the traveller’s purse? Mr. Hardy
completed the confusion of his Party by practically answering Lord
Stanley, and declaring that he, at least, would never lay a sacrilegious
hand on Church temporalities. The “Cave,” too, broke up under pressure
from the constituencies. Even Mr. Lowe assailed the Irish Church,
averring that “the curse of barrenness” was upon it. “Cut it down!” he
exclaimed; “why cumbereth it the ground?”
It is easy to see why Mr. Disraeli’s strategy was at fault. He should
either have nailed up the standard of “No surrender,” or have boldly
said the Irish Church must be disestablished, and appealed to the
country to trust the work to Conservative hands that would deal tenderly
and reverently with such an ancient institution. As it was, he made Lord
Stanley hint that Ministers were ready next Session to produce a plan
which Liberals could accept, and he made Mr. Gathorne-Hardy soothe his
followers with assurances that no harsh hands would ever be laid on the
Irish Church. Mr. Gladstone carried his motion to go into Committee on
his Resolutions, and on the 5th of April Lord Malmesbury writes in his
Diary, “Government has been beaten on Lord Stanley’s amendment. We shall
not resign, but dissolve and meet a new Parliament.” There is some
reason to think that it was the intention of the Government not to
dissolve Parliament till January, 1869, when the new electors came to
power. And it is certain that the Radicals were by no means anxious to
turn Mr. Disraeli out till they had convinced the now yielding Whigs
that the era of inaction had passed away, and that the next Liberal
Executive must be as Liberal as the new Parliament which it was going to
lead. Mr. Disraeli’s course of action at this time was therefore
unintelligible. Though he knew that Mr. Gladstone’s proposal had pleased
the new Democracy, he made no attempt to “educate” his party up to a
compromise[280] with the Opposition, who, after the first flush of
victory, became a little nervous as they saw the great practical
difficulties of Disestablishment looming larger every day. He missed his
golden opportunity and raised a “No Popery” cry, declaring that the
attack on the Irish Church was a conspiracy between the High Churchmen
and the Roman Catholics to destroy the institutions of a Protestant
Monarchy. This naturally alienated the votes of the High Churchmen, who
were mostly Tories.[281] Nor did the Low Churchmen respond to the “No
Popery” cry. They noted that it came from a Government which was
prepared to endow a second Maynooth on a more sumptuous scale than the
first, and from a Statesman who jeered at “the shallow fanaticism” of
the Liberation Society. Perhaps this was fortunate. To have effected a
compromise might have removed some of the practical evils of the Irish
Church. But it would not have removed the sentimental grievance of the
Irish people, who must have regarded even a reformed Protestant Church
Establishment, as a badge of English conquest and a mark of Protestant
ascendency. A war of words and wits between the Prime Minister and Lord
Cranborne, whose invective he dismissed compassionately by saying it
“wanted finish,” did not tend to bring harmony into the Tory party,
which seemed fast breaking into fragments. “The old Government,” said
Lord Chelmsford--a bad though sportive punster--to some friends, “was
the Derby--_this one is the Hoax_.” After the Easter recess Mr. Disraeli
took no notice of his defeat. Mr. Gladstone therefore kept pressing on
his Resolutions, and as they embodied an Address to the Queen, everybody
was speculating as to her answer. After three weeks’ debate the first
Resolution was carried on the morning of the 1st of May by a majority of
65--an increase of 5 on the majority for going into Committee. It was
now impossible to conceal from the Queen that on a vital question the
Cabinet had completely lost the confidence of the House of Commons. That
very day Mr. Disraeli accordingly went to Osborne to see her Majesty,
thereby giving dire
[Illustration: MR. GATHORNE-HARDY (AFTERWARDS LORD CRANBROOK).]
offence to his colleagues, who rightly considered that, following
precedent, he should have called a Cabinet meeting before communicating
with the Sovereign. The Duke of Marlborough, indeed, insisted on
resigning, but was dissuaded from taking that step by Lord
Malmesbury.[282] Then there came a series of sensational “scenes” in the
House of Commons. The position was most embarrassing, for several
reasons. To suspend the creation of fresh interests in the Irish Church
was to interfere with the prerogative of the Queen, who appointed
bishops and archbishops. It was therefore impossible to proceed by Bill
to disestablish the Irish Church. Resolutions had to be first adopted as
the basis of an Address, praying the Queen to permit a measure,
retrenching the prerogatives of the Crown in respect of Irish Church
patronage, to be debated. This prevented the Government from accepting
defeat in the Commons on a Bill, which they could have quashed in the
Lords, on the plea that it would be better to refer the matter to the
new constituencies. In view of the Address to the Crown, which was now
inevitable, Mr. Disraeli had, however, to advise the Queen either to
accept or reject it. If the Queen were advised to accept it, the Tory
Party would be disheartened. It would be said that such advice implied
the Queen’s sanction to some form of disendowment. If the Queen, on the
other hand, were advised to reject the Address, then the Minister would
be responsible for embroiling the Sovereign with a House of Commons, the
majority in which had been rendered aggressive by Parliamentary
victories and popular sympathy. Lord Derby, in a moment of passionate
unwisdom, urged the Ministry to reject the Address when it was drawn up.
The lobbies of the House of Commons and the political clubs were then
electrical with excitement. The leaders of parties almost came into
personal collision with each other. Charges of “treason” were bandied
about, when Tory partisans foolishly declared in private that the Queen
was with them, and would never let the Radicals despoil the Irish
Church. As for the Radicals, they retorted by saying that at the General
Election when they marched to the polls, they would substitute Ebenezer
Elliott’s hymn, “God Save the People,” for the National Anthem, “God
Save the Queen.”
The management of the business by the Prime Minister must have been
maladroit indeed, when it raised such fierce and passionate antagonisms.
But the question was--What advice did Mr. Disraeli really give the Queen
when he saw her at Osborne? His own statement, on Monday the 4th of May,
was so ambiguous that it further compromised the Sovereign, by dragging
her into a war of factions. He said he had a constitutional right to
dissolve a Parliament “elected when he was in Opposition,” and he had
advised the Queen on the previous Friday to dissolve. To render this
course easy he had tendered the resignation of the Ministry--an offer
made, it is now known, without consultation with his colleagues. The
Queen had asked him to give her a day for consideration. Then she had
ordered him not to resign, but had given him permission to dissolve as
soon as the state of public business permitted it. The vital part of the
statement occupied ten minutes in delivery. In it the name of the Queen
was mentioned thirteen times, and it was so used as to convey the idea
that it was her Majesty, and not her Minister, who had decided that a
Cabinet which had lost the confidence of the House of Commons should
hold office in the teeth of a hostile majority. What made matters worse
was that the Duke of Richmond in the Upper House said that the Queen, in
refusing Mr. Disraeli’s resignation, had given him permission to
dissolve “in the event of any difficulties arising.” Again, by the
stupidity or unfaithfulness of her Ministers, was the Queen held up to
public odium. It was immediately inferred from the Duke of Richmond’s
statement that the Sovereign had delegated to her Minister the highest
of her prerogatives--that of dissolving Parliament--not for a special
occasion, all the circumstances of which had been studied by her, but in
a vague general kind of way, to enable him to coerce the Commons of
England, whenever he thought fit. All through the week passionate
conflicts raged in the House, greatly to the vexation of the Queen,
whose attitude had been misrepresented as unconstitutional. On Thursday,
the 7th of May, the two last Resolutions on the Irish Church passed
without a division.[283] In the debate, however, Mr. Disraeli got up a
turbulent “scene,” by dropping quite casually a quiet sarcastic remark
to the effect that those who introduced the Resolutions after throwing
the country into confusion, were already quarrelling over the spoil. Mr.
Bright could no longer restrain himself. He accused Mr. Disraeli of now
abandoning, for the sake of office, the Irish Ecclesiastical policy he
had advocated twenty-five years before.[284] He had talked of his
interviews with the Queen “with a mixture of pompousness and servility,”
but he had deceived his Queen, if he still held the views which he
advocated twenty-five years ago, and he had been guilty of a crime in
skulking behind her authority, after he had pushed her to the front in a
great party struggle. This turned the House into a scene of dreadful
strife, and Mr. Disraeli retorted to the effect that Mr. Bright was not
a gentleman. If Mr. Disraeli really desired to dissolve at this time it
is strange that he missed this opportunity. Mr. Bright’s vituperation,
together with the growing rancour of Mr. Gladstone and his supporters,
might have enabled the Premier to plead the factious violence of his
opponents as an excuse for a penal dissolution. But he did not dissolve.
It was thenceforward clear that if it be a vital principle of the
constitution that the Government must enjoy the confidence and support
of a majority of the House of Commons, the country was without any
constitutional Government at all. Though it was expected up to the last
moment that the Queen would give an evasive reply to the Address on the
Irish Church, her answer was a frank declaration that she did not desire
her interest in the temporalities of the Irish Church to obstruct the
discussion of a Bill for dealing with them. A Suspensory Bill,
preventing the creation of new personal interests, was accordingly
passed by the Commons, though it was rejected by the House of Lords. At
length Mr. Disraeli, after the Whitsuntide holidays, agreed to dissolve
Parliament in October, and Mr. Ward Hunt passed a Bill to facilitate
registration, so that the lists of new voters might be made up on the
1st of November, the new writs for the General Election being issued on
the 9th.
Little remains to be said as to the political events of the year. Mr.
Ward Hunt, in producing his Budget on the 24th of April, admitted that
the expenditure had increased from £66,780,000 in 1866-67 to £71,236,242
in 1867-68. The revenue received in the past year having only amounted
to £69,600,000, there was a deficit of £1,636,000. Of course the
£2,000,000 voted for the Abyssinian War accounted for part of the
increased expenditure. For the rest, most of it arose from the
carelessness of the Government in not insisting on keeping down the
expenditure within the fixed limit of the estimates.[285] As for the
coming year, Mr. Ward Hunt’s estimated expenditure was £70,428,000. To
this had to be added £3,000,000 for the Abyssinian War. From Revenue he
expected to get £71,350,000, so that there was a deficit to make good.
He therefore added twopence to the Income Tax, which within the year he
expected to yield £1,800,000, but which still left him with a probable
deficit to carry over of £278,000. Apart from the increased expenditure
the Budget was a sensible one. On the 9th of June Mr. Hunt also moved
the Second Reading of a Bill enabling the Government to buy all the
telegraph lines in the hands of private companies at their highest price
before the 25th of May next, estimating the cost at between £3,000,000
and £4,000,000.
Reference has already been, made to the Abyssinian Expedition. At first
the public took a dismal view of the enterprise. It was said that the
mixed native and European force would fight well, but that on the road
from the sea to King Theodore’s fortress, it would be bled to death by
mismanagement and maladministration. The result of the expedition was
entirely satisfactory; indeed, there was but one fault to find with it,
namely, that it had cost too much. The Viceroy of India and the Duke of
Cambridge selected one of the ablest engineers in India--Sir Robert
Napier--as Commander-in-Chief, and gave him _carte blanche_. His task
was described as that of building a bridge four hundred miles long
between Annesley Bay and Magdala. As to the road he had to traverse,
when one of the soldiers was told he was marching over the table-land of
Abyssinia, he replied, “Well, the table must have been turned upside
down, and we’re now a-marching over the legs!” Between Napier and his
enemy there were many formidable native chiefs, who could only be
conciliated by consummate diplomatic skill. How he succeeded in doing
that, and in dragging his guns over the mountains by means of elephants,
then used for the first time in African warfare since the days of
Carthage; how he supplied his
[Illustration: THE QUEEN REVIEWING THE VOLUNTEERS IN THE GREAT PARK,
WINDSOR. (_See p._ 318.)]
army with water by boring Artesian wells; how he stormed Magdala with an
impetuous rush on the 12th of April, when King Theodore, having
previously released the captives, committed suicide, need not be now
dwelt on. It was a brilliant little achievement, and the story of it was
read with pride and emotion by the Queen. Napier’s skilful adaptation of
means to ends, and the nicety of his calculations may be simply
illustrated. At the beginning of the war he was asked when he could be
at Magdala. He replied, “About the end of March.” He was asked when he
could get back to Zoulla. He said, “Early in June.” As a matter of fact,
he was at Magdala on the 10th of April, and he returned to Zoulla on the
18th of June, after which the country was at once evacuated. The thanks
of both Houses of Parliament were voted to Sir Robert Napier on the 2nd
of July, Mr. Disraeli complimenting him on having “planted the standard
of St. George on the mountains of Rasselas,” and “led the elephants of
Asia, bearing the artillery of Europe, over African passes which might
have startled the trapper and appalled the hunter of the Alps.” As
trappers hunt the beaver, which lives in water and not in mountains, the
metaphor was a little mixed; but the orator’s intention was good, and
his gaudy phrases served to divert the town during the languor of
perhaps the sultriest London season on record. On the 9th of July Mr.
Disraeli brought to the House a message from the Queen conferring a
Peerage on the leader of the Expedition--who thus became Lord Napier of
Magdala--together with an annuity of £2,000 a year for two lives. As
Napier’s eldest son was an adult, and the usual grant in such cases had
hitherto been for three lives, the Queen’s message was a distinct
concession to the economists.
Parliament was prorogued on the last day of July, and a curious passage
in the Queen’s Speech referred with satisfaction to the fact that the
Government had not seen cause to use the power given them for suspending
_Habeas Corpus_ in Ireland. Then came the struggle for power in the new
democratic constituencies. The usual preparation, said Mr. John Morley,
in a Jeremiad in the _Fortnightly Review_, was made for the unlimited
consumption of beer all over the land. Candidates of the old sort were
put up. Reactionary Whigs, like Mr. Horsman, were suddenly transformed
into iconoclastic Radicals, and were pledging themselves, not merely to
abolish the Irish Church, but even to reform the House of Lords. Tories
boasted that they were the only true democrats. Hardly any new men were
brought to the front, and rich nobodies in many cases thrust aside true
and tried servants of the people. Bloodshed was expected at Blackburn,
and cavalry were drafted into the district. In short, Reform appeared to
have changed nothing, and the first General Election under it seemed
painfully like all its predecessors.
Mr. Disraeli’s Electoral Address, which was issued in October, had three
defects. It appealed to the country to return the Ministry to power in
order to prevent the Pope from becoming master of England--a perfectly
absurd attempt to revive the “bogey” of Papal aggression. It proclaimed
no positive policy, for it merely pledged the Government _not_ to
disestablish the Irish Church. It was as stilted in its rhetoric as
Tancred’s revelation on Mount Sinai. Mr. Gladstone’s Address, issued a
week later, was much more seductive and business-like. It proclaimed a
positive policy of administrative reform and of retrenchment, justified
a policy of conciliation to Ireland, and pressed for the
disestablishment of the Irish Church. The result of the appeal to the
new electors was fatal to the Government. The Liberals carried the
country by a majority of over 100 seats. Lancashire strongly supported
the Conservatives--whereas Yorkshire was strongly Liberal. The Liberals
showed themselves weak in some of the Home Counties where “villadom,” as
Lord Rosebery calls it, reigns supreme. Though the Tory Party was sadly
shattered in Essex, the counties were, however, on the whole,
wonderfully faithful to Mr. Disraeli, and he came within one vote of
dividing with Mr. Gladstone the thirteen electoral boroughs, with a
population between 100,000 and 60,000. The Liberals, on the other hand,
were strongest in boroughs with a population between 60,000 and 20,000,
and in those with a population above 100,000 they captured 41 seats out
of 49. Mr. Gladstone was rejected by South-West Lancashire, but the
Greenwich electors, having taken the precaution to return him, rendered
his defeat of little practical importance. Mr. Mill lost his seat for
Westminster, and thus his Parliamentary career closed, his only
contribution to the Statute-Book being the law compelling railway
companies to attach smoking carriages to passenger trains. Lord
Hartington was beaten in North Lancashire, and Mr. Bernal Osborne, one
of the wits of the House, lost his seat at Nottingham. Scotland returned
only seven Tories, nicknamed by the late Mr. Russel, editor of the
_Scotsman_, the “Seven Champions of Constitutionalism.” Roughly
speaking, the Liberals won in counties where Dissent was strong, whereas
the Tories won in counties where the influence of the Church of England
prevailed. The boroughs that were carried by the Tories were those where
the competition of Irish labour was most felt, or where anti-Papal
agitators had most influence, and in Lancashire, where Anglican clergy
and laymen had, during the Cotton Famine, been most assiduous in
administering the Relief Fund.
Mr. Disraeli met defeat with manliness and dignity. Mr. Gathorne-Hardy
advised him to resign, but Lord Derby, on the other hand, urged him to
hold on to office. On the 28th of November a Cabinet Meeting was held,
and Ministers decided to resign rather than wait to be ejected from
their places by a vote of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister went
down to Windsor on the 2nd of December, and not only tendered the
resignation of the Cabinet to the Queen, but advised her to send for Mr.
Gladstone. In fact, Mr. Disraeli, like a highbred player, having lost
his game paid the stakes without a grudge or a murmur. Mr. Gladstone was
summoned by telegraph to Windsor on the 3rd, and was commissioned to
form a Government. Mr. Disraeli refused all honours for himself, though
he was offered a peerage, but Mrs. Disraeli was created Viscountess
Beaconsfield in her own right. On the 18th of December Parliament met,
and the Ministry was complete. It consisted of fifteen members, of whom
six were peers, one an eldest son of a peer, and eight were Commoners.
The only Radical appointed was Mr. Bright--unless Mr. Gladstone could be
counted a Radical--and in all questions between the middle-class and the
masses Mr. Bright was already a Conservative. It was a Ministry of All
the Talents--formidable in debate, great in administrative capacity, and
strong in intellectual power--but it was unmistakably Whiggish. It was
the Whigs who were first consulted about the disposal of the offices,
and the spirit of Palmerston, who gave Mr. Milner Gibson a seat in his
Cabinet “just to keep the Radicals quiet,” still prevailed. In forming
the Ministry, Mr. Gladstone thus ignored the fact that his Cabinet
inaugurated a new democratic era, in which the relative importance of
Whigs and Radicals had been reversed. By admitting Radicals merely to
minor offices he disappointed the combative wing of his party, whose
unbought zeal had really carried him to power.[286] Some Tories of the
“baser sort” put about the report that the Queen would refuse to receive
Mr. Bright as a Minister. The Queen, however, as if to mark her
disapproval of such insinuations, went out of her way to pay Mr. Bright
special attention when he was presented to her. With delicate tact she
sent word to him that in deference to his hereditary scruples as a
Quaker, she would not expect him to kneel before her when he came to
“kiss hands” on taking office.
The stirring events now described had severely tried the nerves of the
Queen. Early in the year she had been rendered anxious by a severe
illness of the Prince Leopold, who was at one time so sick that it was
supposed he was dying. Then she was still more shocked and alarmed by
news of an attempt which had been made by a man, O’Farrell, to
assassinate the Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Alfred) on the 12th of March
at Clontarf, near Port Jackson, in New South Wales. O’Farrel’s motives
were never quite satisfactorily explained, though it was said at the
time that he was a Fenian emissary. He was hanged for the crime on the
21st of April, and the Duke, who had been shot in the back, gradually
recovered from his wound.
The great and unexpected popularity with which a little book from the
Queen’s pen--“Leaves from the Journal of our Life in the
Highlands”--containing a diary of her holiday rambles, was received
during the season, gratified her
[Illustration: THE QUEEN INSPECTING THE “GALATEA” IN OSBORNE BAY. (_See
p._ 319.)]
much. It delighted the people, to whom it showed the homely, matronly,
sensible business-like qualities which Englishmen value in the women of
their race, reflected in the daily life of their Sovereign. It was a
book that reproduced the wife and the house-mother rather than the
Monarch, and it was written with great tenderness of feeling and artless
simplicity of expression. The sketches, too, with which it was
illustrated were amazingly popular, and in truth they were really bold
and telling. But the little work had no public importance, save that it
served to establish between the Queen and her people relations that were
not only affectionate, but almost confidential. The extreme High
Churchmen, however, were greatly alarmed to find from the Queen’s
Journals that she had strong leanings to the Presbyterian Church. This
notion was due to the fact that she took great delight in the preaching
and spiritual ministrations of the Scottish Chaplains Royal, who were of
course Presbyterians, and who officiated at the Court when it was in
Aberdeenshire. It was not easy to understand why the High Churchmen
should desire to prevent the Queen from following the bent of her own
mind and heart in such a matter. It was absurd to argue that her
position as Head of the Church of England bound her to Anglican
orthodoxy, for she was also Head of the Church of Scotland. Nor did her
Coronation Oath, which merely binds the Sovereign to uphold the
Protestant faith, restrict her to the services of the Church of England.
The fact is, personages belonging to the great family of European
Princes have so many relationships and cross-currents of sympathy with
kinsfolk of various creeds, that they become instinctively tolerant in
religious matters. Still the attacks of the High Churchmen did neither
the Queen nor her book any harm. It had merely revealed the fact that
she was a Christian woman, personally pious and God-fearing, with a
reverent and almost puritanical sense of duty, though rather
indifferent, perhaps, to external religious forms. The Queen had shown
that she understood the distinction between Christianity and
Churchianity, and hence the outcry of the extreme Anglicans against her
book. The truth was that her Majesty never made any secret of her
personal liking for the ministrations of Dr. A. P. Stanley, Dean of
Westminster, and one of the leaders of the Broad Church Party in the
Church of England. When she exhibited a similar preference for his
Presbyterian friends, Dr. Norman Macleod and Principal Tulloch in the
Scottish Church, her offence was complete in the eyes of violent High
Churchmen.
After receiving the Address based on Mr. Gladstone’s Resolution, and
laying the foundation stone of the new St. Thomas’s Hospital, the Queen
fled to Balmoral to recover from the nervous excitement of political
warfare. It unfortunately happened that when the Scottish Members in
discussing the Scottish Reform Bill substituted a household franchise
pure and simple for a rating franchise, a Ministerial crisis was
produced. Mr. Disraeli, in fact, desired authority to coerce Members by
threatening a dissolution. For this purpose he had to consult the Queen,
and certainly the three days lost in communicating with Balmoral gave
rise to some inconvenience. This tempted Mr. Reardon, M.P. for Athlone,
in the interests of the West End tradesmen, to put a question on the
notice-paper of the House of Commons, as to the cause of the Queen’s
absence from the capital. The Speaker, however, refused to let it
appear, because it impudently suggested her Majesty’s abdication in
favour of the Prince of Wales. In June the Queen had recovered her
health, and on the 22nd she gave a brilliant garden party at Buckingham
Palace. Six hundred invitations were issued, and she received her
company, says Lord Malmesbury, “very graciously.” She was, he adds,
“looking remarkably well, and everybody said she seemed to enjoy her
party.” Two days before that she had reviewed 27,000 Volunteers in
Windsor Park. This affair was very badly managed. There were no
commissariat arrangements, and there was no ambulance. Hungry officers
wandered away to get food, and when the marching past was over, some of
the troops--faint from hunger and thirst, and having lost their
leaders--ignored discipline altogether, and on the return to Datchet
Station heaped vituperation on any officers of rank they came across.
On the 9th of July both Houses of Parliament congratulated the Queen on
the birth of a little grand-daughter, who had been brought into the
world by the Princess of Wales on the 6th. On the same evening (the 9th)
the Duke of Edinburgh, who had brought his ship, the _Galatea_, home,
landed at Osborne and dined with the Queen; and on the 13th she visited
her son’s vessel, which she inspected under his guidance.
The season of 1868 was one of the hottest that had ever been
experienced, and the Queen has all through life suffered so much from
sultry weather, that in summer she has to do most of her work in the
open air under the shade of a verandah or a tent. The heat, together
with the worry of Ministerial crises, again broke down her nerves and
brought on fainting fits, which alarmed her physicians. When Parliament
was prorogued they urged her to go to Switzerland, and on the 6th of
August she reached the Lake of Lucerne, travelling privately under the
title of the Countess of Kent. Writing on the 10th of August to the
Queen, the Princess Louis of Hesse says:--“I have just received your
letter from Lucerne, and hasten to thank you for it. How glad I am that
you admire the beautiful scenery, and that I know it, and can share your
admiration and enjoyment of it in thought with you.” Her Majesty and her
companions--the Princess Louise, Prince Arthur, and Lord Stanley--went
up the Righi and Mount Pilatus, and made a short stay on the Furka Pass.
“How, too, delightful,” writes the Princess Louis of Hesse, “your
expeditions must have been! I do rejoice that, through the change of
weather, you should have been able to see and enjoy all that glorious
scenery. Without your good ponies, Brown, &c., you would have felt how
difficult such ascents are for common mortals, particularly when the
horses slip, and finally sit down. I am sure all this will have done you
good; seeing such totally new beautiful scenery does refresh so
immensely, and the air and exertion--both of which you bear so well
now--will do your health good.” She returned to England on the 11th of
September, having broken her journey at Paris, where she stayed with
Lord Lyons at the British Embassy. “I am so grieved,” writes the
Princess Louis, “that you should have been so unwell on the journey
home. Dear, beautiful Scotland will do you good.” But the return to
Balmoral was not a return to rest. The preparation for the General
Election involved much harassing business, and Mr. Disraeli, Minister in
attendance, was not always in the sweetest humour. On a great many
points he found the Queen rather more difficult to “educate” than his
Party. This gave a tone of acerbity to many of his communications
written at the time, which was quite foreign to his character. In a
letter, dated Balmoral Castle, 28th September, written to Bishop
Wilberforce, Mr. Disraeli, while scolding some High Churchmen for
following Dr. Hook, Dean of Chichester, whom he terms a “provincial
Laud,” because he intrigued with the Party of Disestablishment,
apologises for not having sent it sooner. “I have delayed writing to
you,” he says, “several days because I wanted to get a quiet half-hour;
and there is not a sentence in this in which I have not been
interrupted. Carrying on the government of a country six hundred miles
from the metropolis doubles the labour. The stream of telegrams and
boxes is really appalling.”[287] A collision of will, if not a conflict
of opinion, now occurred between the Queen and Mr. Disraeli regarding
the disposal of certain Church patronage. Dr. Longley, the Archbishop of
Canterbury, had died in October, and the Queen has always claimed the
right of controlling appointments to the see of Canterbury, on the
ground that the Primate is, in a sense, the chief of the Court
Chaplains. At coronations, royal marriages, baptisms, and funerals he
is, of course, the principal celebrant. It was felt all over England
that the time had come for appointing to this great office a man of
strong individuality and firm character, not merely a “Benevolent
Smile,” as one of Dr. Longley’s predecessors--the amiable Howley--had
been called. At the same time, though the public desired to see in the
new Primate a real leader of men, they did not desire a bigot or a
brilliant intriguer, whose life had been consecrated to strategy and
finesse. The Queen not only sympathised with this general feeling, but
she had, with singularly sound judgment, selected as her favourite
candidate perhaps the only prelate in England whose appointment could
satisfy it. Unfortunately Mr. Disraeli ignored the general sentiment of
the nation, and what was still worse, he did not seem to be capable of
suggesting any candidate for the Primacy whose personal qualities
corresponded with the desire of the people. There was a strong party,
headed by the Dean of Chichester (Dr. Hook), who favoured the
candidature of the Bishop of Oxford, far and away the ablest Anglican
ecclesiastic whom England has produced during the Queen’s reign. But at
the time he was, despite his marvellous gifts, “an impossible” aspirant.
His daughter and her husband, Mr. and Mrs. Pye, had just “gone over to
Rome,” and his enemies unjustly insinuated that the Bishop himself was
at heart “a Papist.” His public life had been, to a great extent, one of
finesse and intrigue. He had offended Mr. Disraeli by supporting Mr.
Gladstone’s candidature at Oxford, and it was feared his appointment
would cause the Tory party the loss of many votes in the General
Election then pending. It was said at the time that the Queen,
remembering the argument between Wilberforce and the Prince Consort as
to the miracle of the swine, was personally opposed to his selection.
This, however, was not true. She would have accepted Wilberforce, whose
brilliant intellect, flashing wit and charm of manner fascinated every
one with whom he came in contact, though her personal preferences were
in favour of another prelate. But Mr. Disraeli having expressed his
personal antipathy to the Bishop of Oxford, her Majesty forbore to hint
at his claim. But, in the end, she insisted on the
[Illustration: THE CATHEDRAL, LINCOLN.]
appointment of Dr. Tait, then Bishop of London. Dr. Jackson, Bishop of
Lincoln, was in turn appointed to the see of London, to which
Wilberforce had the strongest claim. To the see of Lincoln, Archdeacon
Wordsworth, a nephew of the poet, and a theological antiquarian of great
repute among the High Churchmen, was preferred. The selection of Dr.
Tait procured for Mr. Disraeli the cordial congratulations of all
parties, and it was admitted even by the Radicals that it immensely
increased the popularity of a moribund Ministry. As a matter of fact,
however, the credit was really due to the Queen, and not to the
Minister. During November Wilberforce was at Blenheim, and in his Diary
he records a conversation which he had with the Duke of Marlborough on
this subject. “The Duke,” writes Bishop Wilberforce, “told me of
Disraeli’s excitement when he came out of the royal closet. Some
struggle about the Primacy. Lord Malmesbury also said that when he spoke
to Disraeli he said, ‘Don’t bring any more bothers before me; I have
enough already to drive a man mad.’” Then a few days later (18th
November) Dr. Wilberforce had a conversation at Windsor with Dean
Wellesley, an ecclesiastic deep in Court secrets, who said to him, with
reference to the struggle for the Primacy, “The Church does not know
what it owes to the Queen. Disraeli has been utterly ignorant, utterly
unprincipled: he rode the Protestant horse one day; then got frightened
that he had gone too far, and was injuring the county elections, so he
went right round and proposed names never heard of. Nothing he would not
have done; but throughout he was most hostile to you [Wilberforce]; he
alone prevented London being offered to you. The Queen looked for
Tait,[288] but would have agreed to you.... Disraeli recommended[289]
... for Canterbury!! The Queen would not have him; then Disraeli agreed,
most reluctantly and with passion, to Tait. Disraeli then proposed
Wordsworth for London. The Queen objected strongly; no experience;
passing over bishops, &c.; then she suggested Jackson and two others,
not you [Wilberforce], because of Disraeli’s expressed hostility, and
Disraeli chose Jackson.... Disraeli opposed Leighton with all his
strength on every separate occasion. The Queen would have greatly liked
him, but Disraeli would not hear of him. You cannot conceive the
appointments he proposed and retracted or was over-ruled in; he pressed
Champneys for Peterborough;[290] he had no other thought than the votes
of the moment; he showed an ignorance about all Church matters, men,
opinions, that was astonishing, making propositions one way and the
other, riding the Protestant horse to gain the boroughs, and then when
he thought he had gone so far to endanger the counties, turning round
and appointing Bright and Gregory; thoroughly unprincipled fellow. I
trust we may never have such a man again.”[291] The importance of Dr.
Tait’s appointment to the Primacy could hardly be exaggerated. In the
great Church controversies he had distinguished himself by his intrepid
and masculine good sense. His orthodoxy was unimpeachable, but whenever
a heretic was being prosecuted his voice was always loud in demanding
fair play and in pleading for toleration. He had congratulated the
Church on being able to utilise Professor Jowett’s irrepressible “love
of truth” and Dr. Pusey’s “personal holiness.” In short, he represented
the national principle of comprehension--the national desire to include
within the State Church all good men, no matter what their theological
views might be, who recognised the divinity of Christ, and were prepared
to abide by the legal ritual of the Reformed Anglican Communion.
On the 3rd of October the infant son of the Princess Mary of Teck was
christened in the dining-room of Kensington Palace, among the sponsors
being the Queen and the Princess of Wales. On the 21st the Crown
Princess of Prussia, travelling as the Countess Lingen, visited England,
and was very warmly greeted wherever she went. Most of her time was
spent at St. Leonards-on-Sea.
On the 5th of December the Queen was informed that Mr. George Peabody
had presented £100,000 to the poor of London. This was his second gift,
so that his whole donation came to £350,000. It was felt that it was
somewhat unfortunate that it had been left to a foreigner to point the
path of duty out to English millionaires. On the other hand, there were
critics who tried to depreciate the practical value of Mr. Peabody’s
charity. The money was to be expended in housing the poor. “But,” said
these critics when the first blocks of Peabody Buildings were built, “it
was not the poor who were housed in them, for clerks and young
middle-class people took the new rooms.” It was apparently not noticed
that the clerks must, in that case, leave their dwellings empty for
others, so that the housing of the poor would in any case be facilitated
by reduced pressure on house accommodation.
The 14th of December was the seventh anniversary of the Prince Consort’s
death. Accordingly the Queen and her family proceeded to the Mausoleum
at Frogmore, which had now been completed, and where a special service
was held. It was a matter of great regret that the Princess Louis of
Hesse had been unable to be present, and she gives expression to that
feeling in one of her letters (20th of November). But she was recovering
from her _accouchement_, and it was impossible for her to leave her
home.
As the year ended, the mind of the country was disturbed by tales of
impending war. The Princess Louis of Hesse and the Crown Prince of
Prussia both warned the Queen of the dangers which menaced Europe.
France had arranged to withdraw her troops from Rome in order to attack
Germany, and a Spanish garrison was to be substituted as the Pope’s
guard. From the letters of the Princess, it is plain that the Queen
comforted her relatives by assuring them that, from her information, it
was clear there would be no war. Napoleon’s scheme for garrisoning Rome
by Spanish troops was upset by the sudden outbreak of a revolution in
Spain, provoked partly by the reactionary policy, but mainly by the
personal misconduct of the Queen Isabella. Violent measures of
repression were adopted to crush the conspiracy. On the 18th of
September a revolt broke out at Cadiz, and the Queen and her dynasty
were dethroned. General Prim and Marshal Serrano formed a Provisional
Government, which, however, relegated to the Cortes the task of
determining the destinies of the nation. Much more serious was the
sudden rupture between Greece and Turkey at the end of the year. It was
remembered that Lord Clarendon--who had been appointed Foreign Secretary
in deference to the Queen’s partiality for him--was the Minister
[Illustration: WINDSOR CASTLE, FROM THAMES STREET, AND “BIT” OF THE
OUTER WALLS.]
under whose guidance England had drifted into the Crimean War. The
re-opening of the Eastern Question immediately after he took office was
considered to be ominous of mischief. For two years there had been
friction between Greece and Turkey, the cause being that the Greeks had
been assisting the Cretan insurgents both with men and money. The Sultan
at last, in a fit of impatience, sent an Ultimatum to Greece threatening
war unless the Government made reparation to Turkey for the support
which it had given to the Cretan rebellion. The Great Powers obtained
for Greece an extension of time for her reply to the 17th of December,
and on that date the Athenian Government rejected the Ultimatum. But the
rise of Germany had altered all the conditions under which Russia as
patron of Greece could attack Constantinople, and it rendered the
Anglo-French alliance no longer desirable. Still a Conference was
proposed by Count Bismarck in the closing days of 1868 to prevent war,
whilst the Greeks were arming in hot haste, and Hobart Pasha was
blockading Syria. The great danger lay in Clarendon’s possible adherence
to Palmerstonian traditions. If he declared for war in defence of Turkey
with France as an ally, the prospect was dismal. Such a policy meant
that England would have to face the combination of Germany, and
perchance Italy with Russia, and it is certain that the Queen, like the
nation, would have resisted it to the last. The Conference did its work
well--as might have been expected. It had been proposed by Bismarck, who
had a reputation for never associating his name with failures, and the
event proved that he had judged rightly of the exigencies of the
nations.