DEMOCRACY AND IMPERIALISM.
1865-1885.
The death of Lord Palmerston forms a convenient point at which to
draw the line between the earlier and the later history of the two
great English political parties. Down to 1865, the Liberals and the
Conservatives alike retained in a great measure the characteristics
of their forefathers the Whigs and Tories. The Liberal host was still
largely officered from the old aristocratic Whig houses; many of its
members disliked and distrusted democracy, and thought that in all
essential things the constitution had reached a point at which it
needed no further reform. As long as Palmerston lived, there was no
chance that the more militant and progressive wing of the Liberals
would draw the whole party into the paths of Radicalism. In a similar
way, the Conservative party still kept somewhat of the old Tory
intolerance and inflexibility, though for the last twenty years the
younger of its two chiefs, Benjamin Disraeli, had been striving hard to
guide it into new lines of thought.
[Sidenote: =The New Liberalism.=]
After 1865 the new Liberalism and the new Conservatism came into direct
opposition, personified in the two men who were soon to take up the
leadership of the two parties--Gladstone and Disraeli. Liberalism
when divested of its Whiggery was practically Radicalism. Its younger
exponents took up as their official programme the ideas that had been
afloat for the last forty years in the brains of the more extreme
section of their party. Their main aim was the transference of
political power from the middle classes to the masses, by means of a
wide extension of the franchise; the new voters were to be made worthy
of the trust by compulsory national education, while to guard them
against influences from without, the secret ballot--one of the old
Chartist panaceas--was to be introduced.
[Sidenote: =State interference and "laissez faire."=]
The party which proclaimed itself the friend of democracy was bound
to promise tangible benefits to the working classes. But the Liberals
were still divided on the question of the advisability of State
interference in the private life of the citizen. The younger men were
already dreaming of "paternal legislation" for the amelioration by
law of the conditions of life among the poorer classes, hoping to
secure them cheap food, healthy dwellings, shorter hours of labour,
and opportunities of recreation and culture by means of State aid
and public money. But in the sixties the "Manchester School," as the
adherents of _laissez faire_ and strict political economy were called,
was still predominant, and social legislation and extensive State
interference were not yet enrolled among the official doctrines of the
Liberal party. Its war-cry at election time was "Peace, retrenchment,
and reform." The first cry was one that had not been so much heard in
Palmerston's day, but on his death his successors showed themselves
very cautious in dealing with all foreign powers. Moreover, they wished
to win popularity by cheap government, a thing incompatible with a
spirited foreign policy. Their opponents accused them of allowing the
army and navy to grow too weak, and of being compelled in consequence
to assume a meek tone in dealing with the powers whom Palmerston
had been wont to beard and threaten. Wrapped up in their schemes of
domestic reform, they gave comparatively little attention to external
affairs.
[Sidenote: =The New Conservatism.=]
The new Conservatism of which Disraeli was the exponent was a creed
of a very different kind. It was the aim of that statesman to lay the
foundations of his party on a combination of social reform and national
patriotism. Since his first appearance in Parliament, he had striven
to persuade the people that the Conservatives were truer friends of
the masses than the Liberals. The latter, he maintained, offered
them barren political privileges; the former were ready to aid them
by benevolent legislation to secure a practical amelioration of the
conditions of their life. They would govern _for_ the people, if not
_by_ the people.
[Sidenote: =Disraeli and Reform.=]
Even in the direction of enlarging the franchise, Disraeli was prepared
to go far, though at first he shrank from granting so much as his
rivals, and wished to give an extra voting power to education and
wealth.
[Sidenote: =Disraeli and Imperialism.=]
But the feature of the new Conservatism which was most attractive to
the public was one of which Palmerston would have thoroughly approved.
Disraeli had a great confidence in the imperial destiny of Great
Britain, and a firm belief that she ought to take a bold and decided
part in the councils of Europe. With this end in view, he was anxious
to keep our armed strength high, and his expenditure on military and
naval objects was one of the things most frequently thrown in his
teeth by his opponents. The Liberals accused him of a tendency towards
"Imperialism," meaning, apparently, to ascribe some discredit to him
thereby. He himself never denied the charge, but made his boast of it,
though in his mouth it had another shade of meaning. To the Liberals it
meant presumption, a love of show and of sounding titles, a readiness
to annex to the right hand and the left, a proneness to intervene in
foreign quarrels, "a policy of bluster," in short. But in the mouth of
its exponents Imperialism meant a desire to knit more closely together
Great Britain and her colonies; to treat the empire as a whole, and to
govern it without any slavish subservience to the "parochial politics"
of England; to make the British name respected by civilized and feared
by barbarous neighbours.
At the opening of the new period, therefore, the nation was about to
be confronted by two rivals, one of whom offered it internal political
reform, the other imperial greatness. But at first the issues were not
clear; the two parties were still, to a certain extent, draped in the
remnants of the old wardrobe of Whiggery and Toryism. Till these were
torn away, the meaning of the new movements could not be distinctly
seen.
[Sidenote: =Lord John Russell Premier.--The Reform Bill of 1866.=]
On Palmerston's death, the leadership of his cabinet fell to the aged
Lord John--now Earl--Russell. His accession to power was followed by
the bringing forward of the first of the Reform Bills which were to
occupy the forefront of English politics for the next three years.
It was proposed to reduce the qualification for the franchise to the
possession of a £14 holding in the counties, and a £7 house in the
boroughs. Lord Derby and his Conservative followers opposed it, though
Disraeli had long ago pointed out that a Reform Bill of some sort was
inevitable. But the Tories were strengthened by seceders from the
ministerial camp, followers of the old Palmerstonian policy, who hated
the idea of unrestrained democracy. By their aid the bill was thrown
out, and Lord John Russell immediately resigned (June, 1866).
[Sidenote: =Ministry of Lord Derby.=]
For the third time, Lord Derby and Disraeli were charged with
the thankless task of forming a ministry, though they had only a
minority in the House of Commons to back them. On this occasion
they were destined to stay in office for more than two years (June,
1866-December, 1868), a far longer period of power than they had
enjoyed in 1852 and 1858-9. Apparently Disraeli, into whose hands the
age and failing health of Lord Derby were throwing more and more of
the real guidance of the party, had resolved to imitate the action of
William Pitt in 1784--to display to the nation his readiness to take in
hand all rational and moderate measures of reform, and then to appeal
to the country at a general election.
[Sidenote: =Disraeli's Reform Bill.=]
Accordingly, in the spring of 1867 he introduced a series of
resolutions, pledging his party to pass a Reform Bill, but announcing
that he should stipulate for the "fancy franchises" on which the
Conservatives had laid such stress during previous discussions of
the question. Persons (1) owning £30 in the savings bank, or (2) £50
invested in Government funds, or (3) paying £1 year and over in direct
taxes, or (4) possessed of a superior education, were to have a second
vote. In spite of these safeguards, the more unbending Conservatives
refused to follow Disraeli, and their chiefs, Lord Carnarvon and Lord
Cranborne (the present Marquis of Salisbury) seceded from the cabinet.
The bill was introduced, but the Liberal majority cut it about by
all manner of amendments, and utterly refused to accept the "fancy
franchises." Forced to choose between dropping the bill altogether and
resigning, or passing the bill shorn of all its safeguards against the
introduction of pure democracy, Disraeli chose the latter alternative,
and "took the leap in the dark," as was said at the time. The bill so
passed reduced the franchise in town to a rating of £5, thus granting
what was practically household suffrage, and added to the householders
all lodgers paying £10 a year. In the counties the franchise was
lowered to £12. This still left the agricultural labourer without a
vote, but made electors of well-nigh every other class in the kingdom.
At the same time thirty-five seats were taken away, partly from corrupt
boroughs, partly from places which had too many members in proportion
to their size, and were distributed among London and the great northern
shires, which had been still left much under-represented in the
redistribution of 1832 (August 15, 1867).
[Sidenote: =The Fenian outbreaks.=]
While the Reform Bill was engrossing the attention of politicians, the
United Kingdom had been passing through a dangerous crisis. Ireland, of
which little had been heard since the Potato Famine and Smith O'Brien's
rebellion, was once more giving trouble. The end of the American Civil
War in 1865 had thrown on the world large numbers of exiled Irish and
Irish-Americans, who had learnt the trade of war, and were anxious
to let off their energies by an attack on England. It was they who
organized the "Fenian Brotherhood," a secret association for promoting
rebellion in Ireland. They planned simultaneous risings all over the
country, which were to be aided by thousands of trained soldiers from
America. To distract the attention of the government, an invasion of
Canada was projected, and a number of outrages planned in England
itself. The Fenians failed, partly from want of organization, partly
from shirking at the moment of danger, partly from secret traitors in
their own ranks. The horde which invaded Canada ran away from a few
hundred militia. The national rising in Ireland was a fiasco: a few
police-barracks were attacked, but the assailants fled when they heard
of the approach of regular troops (February, 1867). A hare-brained
scheme to surprise the store of arms in Chester castle failed, because
the 1500 men who had secretly assembled in that quiet town saw that
they were watched by special constables. In fact, the only notable
achievements of the Fenians were two acts of murder. A band of
desperadoes in Manchester stopped a police-van and rescued two of their
comrades who were in custody, by killing one and wounding three of the
four unarmed policemen who were in charge. A still more reckless party
in London tried to release some friends confined in Clerkenwell prison
by exploding a powder-barrel under its wall. This did not injure the
prison, but killed or wounded more than a hundred peaceable dwellers in
the neighbouring streets (December, 1867). For these murders several
Fenians were executed.
[Sidenote: =Irish policy of the Liberals.=]
The abortive revolt of 1867 called English attention once more to
Ireland. The Liberal party insisted that the Fenian disturbance was due
not so much to national grudges as to certain practical grievances,
such as the existence of the Protestant Established Church of Ireland,
supported on the tithes of the country, and the unsatisfactory
condition of the peasantry, still tenants-at-will at rack rents, and
often in the hands of absentee landlords.
[Sidenote: =Defeat of the Government.=]
The experience of the last twenty years has shown that Irish discontent
is far more deeply seated than the Liberals supposed. But in 1868
they seriously thought that it could be pacified by legislation on
these two points. Mr. Gladstone selected the Church question as the
first battle-ground, and carried against the ministry a resolution in
the Commons, demanding the abolition of the establishment. Disraeli,
now prime minister in name as well as in fact (for Lord Derby had
retired from ill health in February, 1868), appealed to the country by
dissolving Parliament. But the Conservatives suffered a decisive defeat
at the polls, and were forced to resign (December, 1868).
[Sidenote: =The war between Prussia and Austria.=]
Abroad the Derby-Disraeli ministry had witnessed one very stirring
episode of European history, but had not intervened in it. In 1866,
Count Bismarck guided Prussia into war with Austria, crushed the great
empire at the battle of Königgrätz, annexed Hanover and Hesse, and
united all the lands north of the Main, under Prussian headship, into
the "North German Confederation." The struggle did not directly affect
England, and the Conservative ministry made no attempt to interfere,
and watched with equanimity Prussia supplant Austria as the chief power
in Central Europe.
[Sidenote: =The Abyssinian expedition.=]
The only warlike enterprise of the years 1866-8 was the costly but
almost bloodless Abyssinian expedition, Disraeli's first attempt to
vindicate British prestige in remote corners of the earth. Theodore,
King of Abyssinia, a savage despot, had imprisoned some British
subjects. To deliver them, Sir Robert Napier led an Indian army to
Magdala, the Abyssinian capital; he stormed the place, and released
the captives. Theodore blew out his brains when he saw his stronghold
taken, and on his death the victors retired unmolested.
[Sidenote: =Gladstone Prime Minister.--The Irish Church
disestablished.=]
Mr. Gladstone came into office in December, 1868, with a majority of
120 votes in the Commons, and at once proceeded to carry out his Irish
policy. The position of the Irish Church was very open to attack, for a
Protestant establishment in a country where seventy-five per cent. of
the population were Romanists was too anomalous to be easily defended.
This was felt by the Conservatives themselves, and, in spite of the
protests of the Irish Protestants, a bill for disestablishing the
Church passed both Houses (June, 1869). Its endowments were taken away
at the same time, but the churches and buildings were retained by their
old owners, and compensation was granted to all incumbents and curates.
So far from being ruined by the blow, the Irish Church has remained a
vigorous and increasing body.
[Sidenote: =The Land Act of 1870.=]
Having dealt with the Irish Church, Mr. Gladstone then turned to the
second grievance, whose removal, as he then hoped, would do away with
Ireland's grudge against England. By his Irish Land Act of 1870, he
gave the tenants a right to be compensated for any improvements they
might have made on their holdings, when they resigned them or were
evicted from them. He also permitted the outgoing tenant to sell his
good-will to his successor. To facilitate the creation of a peasant
proprietary, the government undertook to lend money to any tenant who
wished to buy his farm from his landlord, if the latter was willing to
sell it.
[Sidenote: =Agrarian troubles continue.=]
But the Land Bill was far from contenting the Irish peasantry, who
were seeking not merely a reasonable rent and a fair compensation for
improvements, but complete possession of their holdings. Agrarian
outrages, which had been widespread ever since the Fenian rising of
1867, remained as numerous as ever. So far was Ireland from being
quieted, that the government had to pass a stringent Peace-Preservation
Act, and to send additional troops across the Channel. The policy of
conciliation had thus far proved a complete failure.
[Sidenote: =The Education Act.=]
Mr. Gladstone's tenure of office was signalised by a long series of
domestic reforms, the most momentous of which was the Education Act,
introduced in 1870 by Forster, the Vice-President of the Council of
Education, for providing sufficient school-accommodation for the whole
infant population of the country, and making the attendance of all
children at school compulsory.
[Sidenote: =The Ballot.=]
Another important measure was the introduction of the secret ballot
at parliamentary elections. This act tended to diminish bribery, by
depriving the buyer of votes of the power of ascertaining whether the
elector with whom he had trafficked had kept his word or no; but it was
far from destroying it altogether, and actually enabled many corrupt
voters to sell their promise to both sides. It was not till stringent
penalties were imposed, both on the briber and the bribed, by laws
passed ten years later, that English parliamentary elections attained
their present high standard of purity.
[Sidenote: =The Franco-German war.=]
The leading event of this period in the sphere of foreign affairs was
the great Franco-German war of 1870-71, in which England preserved a
strict neutrality. The French Emperor had provoked the contest in the
most wanton way, in the hope of making firm his tottering throne. His
defeat and capture at Sedan (September 1, 1870) swept away a power
which had, since its first creation in 1852, formed a public danger
to Europe from its purely selfish and personal policy. When Bismarck
substituted united Germany for imperial France as the chief state of
the continent, the world was the gainer.
[Sidenote: =Russia and the Treaty of Paris.=]
But the fall of Napoleon III. affected English interests in the East
in a less satisfactory fashion. The united power of France and Great
Britain had hitherto compelled Russia to abide by the stipulations of
the treaty of Paris,[64] but the moment that the fall of the Emperor
was known, the Czar issued a declaration that he should no longer
consider himself bound by its terms. He began to rebuild his Black Sea
fleet, and to refortify Sebastopol, and the English government could
not resent the affront.
[Sidenote: =The "Alabama" arbitration.=]
About the same time, England was involved in an awkward dispute
with the United States, who, ever since the American civil war, had
been clamouring for compensation for the ravages committed by the
_Alabama_ on Northern shipping.[65] Lord Derby's cabinet had staved
off the question, but in 1870 the language of the Americans grew so
threatening, that the Liberals had to choose between submission or
the chance of a war. They took refuge in a middle course, preferring
to refer the liability of England for the doings of the _Alabama_
to a court of arbitration, composed of foreign lawyers. But in the
principles laid down, on which the arbitrators were to give their
decision, so much was conceded to the Americans, that the result, if
not the amount, of the award was a foregone conclusion. The referees
met at Geneva, and compelled England to pay £3,000,000, which sufficed
not only to pay all the claims made against the _Alabama_, but to leave
a handsome surplus in the American treasury (1872).
[Sidenote: =Cardwell's military reforms.=]
The knowledge that the people were growing alarmed and impatient at
the military weakness of England, especially after the sudden collapse
of France in 1870-71, induced the government to bring in a scheme
for improving the national defences. Cardwell, the minister of war,
introduced in 1872 a bill to reorganize the army on the short-service
system, which had been found to work so well in Germany. For the
future, instead of enlisting for the "long service" of twenty years,
the soldier was to engage for seven years with the colours and five in
the Reserve. The Reserve was only to be called out in time of danger;
but when war was at hand it was to join the ranks. Thus the strength
of the army could be raised by 60,000 trained and seasoned men on the
outbreak of hostilities. It must be allowed that in peace-time the
battalions are prone to be filled with very young men, all under seven
years' service. But as the reserves, when they have been called out,
have always appeared promptly and in full numbers, the change was
undoubtedly wise and beneficial. An attempt made at the same time to
localize all the regiments in particular districts, whence they were to
draw all their recruits, has not been so successful, owing to the fact
that some counties supply men in much greater proportion than others.
One more military reform, the "Abolition of Purchase," formed part
of Cardwell's scheme. It put an end to the system by which retiring
officers sold their commissions to their successors--a practice that
had often kept poor men of merit for many years unpromoted. The
measure was obviously right, but Mr. Gladstone provoked much criticism
by putting it forth in a Royal Warrant, instead of passing it through
the two Houses in the usual form.
[Sidenote: =Fall of Gladstone's ministry.=]
After the rush of legislation in the period 1869-72, the last years of
the Gladstone ministry seemed tame and uneventful. In the spring of
1873 they were beaten, on the comparatively small question of a bill to
establish a secular university in Ireland. Next winter Mr. Gladstone
dissolved Parliament, and, on appealing to the constituencies, suffered
a crushing defeat (January, 1874).
[Sidenote: =Disraeli's ministry.--The Home Rule party.=]
For the first time since 1846, Parliament was in the hands of a solid
Conservative majority in both Houses, and Disraeli, seated firmly in
power, was able to display the characteristics of the "New Toryism."
He announced that he took office to secure a space of rest from
harassing legislation at home, and to defend the honour and interests
of England abroad. His first two years of power (1875-76) were among
the quietest which the century has known. They were only marked by some
excellent measures of social and economic reform, such as the Artisans'
Dwellings Act, which permitted corporations to build model houses for
workmen; and the Agricultural Holdings Act, which granted to farmers
compensation for unexhausted improvements on their land, when they gave
up their farms to their landlord. But signs of coming trouble were
soon apparent both at home and abroad. In the Commons the ministry was
beginning to be harassed by the Irish members, who had latterly banded
themselves together, under the leadership of Isaac Butt, to demand Home
Rule.
[Sidenote: =Egypt and Ismail.=]
This trouble, however, was as yet but in its infancy. A more pressing
cause of disquietude was arising in the East, on which England had
always kept a watchful eye since the Crimean War. Two separate
difficulties were beginning to arise in that quarter. The first was in
Egypt, a land which had grown very important to England since the use
of the overland route to India by Alexandria and the Red Sea had been
discovered, and still more so since de Lesseps had constructed the Suez
Canal in 1868. The thriftless and ostentatious Khedive Ismail, by his
extravagance and oppression at home and his unwise conquests in the
Soudan, had reduced Egypt to a state of misery, and seemed not far from
bankruptcy. To get ready money, he proposed to sell his holding--nearly
one-half--of the shares of the Suez Canal Company. Disraeli at once
bought them by telegram for £4,000,000. The investment was wise and
profitable; the shares are now worth five times the sum expended, and
their possession gives England the authority that is her due in the
conduct of this great international venture.
[Sidenote: =The Russo-Turkish war.=]
But a far more ominous storm-cloud was rising in the Balkan Peninsula.
England had been very jealous of the action of the Czar in the East
since the abrogation of the treaty of Paris in 1870. She had been
greatly stirred by the activity of the Russians in Central Asia, where,
by overrunning Turkestan and reducing Khiva and Bokhara to vassalage,
they had made a long step forward in the direction of India. But now a
new trouble arose nearer home, in the shape of sporadic insurrections,
which broke out all over European Turkey. The misgovernment of the
Porte was enough to account for them; but it was suspected, and with
good cause, that they were being deliberately fomented by Russian
intriguers with the tacit approval of the imperial government. The
rising began in Bosnia in 1875; in the summer of 1876 the princes of
Servia and Montenegro took arms to aid the Bosnians, and thousands of
Russian volunteers flocked across the Danube to join the Servian army.
Next, while the Turks were sending all their disposable troops against
the two princes, a rising broke out in Bulgaria. This insurrection was
put down by bands of Circassians and armed Mussulman villagers, with
a ruthless cruelty which had a most marked effect on English public
opinion. Hitherto the government had been showing some intention of
resenting Russian interference in the Balkans. But the news of the
Bulgarian atrocities so shocked the country that any such design had
to be abandoned. Mr. Gladstone, who had given up the leadership of the
opposition for the last two years, emerged from his retirement and made
a series of speeches against the Turks which had a profound effect, and
when in 1877 the Czar openly declared war on Turkey and sent his armies
across the Danube, the English government stood aside in complete
neutrality. The Turks held out with unexpected firmness; but in the
early winter of 1877-78 their resistance broke down, and the Russians
came pouring on towards Constantinople.
[Sidenote: =Attitude of England.=]
The English government, though prevented from interfering in behalf
of the Sultan by public opinion, had been watching the advance of the
Russians with much anxiety. When the victorious armies of Alexander II.
approached the Bosphorus, Disraeli--who had now taken the title of Earl
of Beaconsfield and retired to the Upper House--began to take measures
which seemed to forebode war. He asked for a grant of £6,000,000 for
military purposes, and ordered up the Mediterranean squadron into the
Sea of Marmora, placing it within a few miles of Constantinople. If
the Czar's troops had struck at the Turkish capital a collision must
have occurred, and a general European war might have followed. But the
Russian ranks were sorely thinned by the late winter campaign, and
their generals shrank from provoking a new enemy. Instead of attacking
Constantinople they offered the Sultan terms, which he accepted (March
3, 1878).
[Sidenote: =The Treaty of St. Stefano.=]
The treaty of St. Stefano gave Russia a large tract in Asia round
Kars and Batoum, and advanced her frontier at the Danube-mouth to its
old position in the days before the Crimean war. Servia, Roumania,
and Montenegro received large slices of Turkish territory; but the
great feature of the treaty was the creation of a new principality of
Bulgaria, reaching from the Danube to the Aegean, and cutting European
Turkey in two.
[Sidenote: =The Berlin Conference.=]
Persuaded that the treaty of San Stefano made all the states of the
Balkan Peninsula vassals and dependents of Russia, Lord Beaconsfield
refused to acquiesce in the arrangement. He called out the army
reserves, hurried off more ships to the Mediterranean, and began to
bring over Indian troops to Malta by way of the Suez Canal. In view of
his menacing attitude, the Czar consented to a complete revision of
the treaty of San Stefano. At the Berlin Conference (June-July, 1878)
its terms were modified: the new Bulgaria was cut up into two states,
and its frontier pushed back from the Aegean. The Sultan undertook
to introduce reforms into his provinces, and England guaranteed the
integrity of his remaining Asiatic dominions. In return for this,
Abdul Hamid placed the island of Cyprus in British hands, though
retaining his nominal suzerainty over it.
Lord Beaconsfield returned triumphant from Berlin in July, 1878,
claiming that he had obtained "Peace with Honour" for England, and had
added a valuable naval station to our possessions in the Mediterranean.
But the advantages which he had secured were in some ways more apparent
than real. He had checked and irritated Russia without setting up any
sufficient barrier against her. He had pledged England to introduce
reforms in Turkey, a promise which she was never able to induce
the Sultan to perform. Cyprus turned out harbourless and barren--a
source of expense rather than profit. Later events showed that the
partition of Bulgaria was a mistake, and that the creation of a strong
principality on both sides of the Balkans would have been the most
effective bar to a Russian advance towards Constantinople.
[Sidenote: =Fall of Lord Beaconsfield's ministry.=]
The scarcely averted war between England and the Czar had a tiresome
and costly sequel in the East, the Afghan war of 1878-80, which we
describe in Chapter XLIV.--a struggle which was not without its
disasters, and formed one of the chief reasons for the gradual loss
of popularity by the Beaconsfield cabinet in the years that followed
the treaty of Berlin. A similar result was produced by the mismanaged
Zulu war and the disaster at Isandula (1879),[66] while at home the
ministry was kept in perpetual difficulties by the obstructive tactics
of the Irish party, who were now headed by the astute and unscrupulous
Charles Stewart Parnell. They wasted time and provoked perpetual
scenes. In June, 1880, Lord Beaconsfield dissolved Parliament, and
a Liberal majority of 100 was returned to the House of Commons from
Great Britain, while in Ireland the Home Rulers swept almost every
constituency except those of Ulster.
[Sidenote: =Gladstone's second ministry.--The Boer war.=]
Mr. Gladstone now took office for the second time, pledged to pacify
Ireland, and to carry out a policy of peace abroad, and of reform and
Liberal measures at home. But the years 1880-84 were full of costly and
unsatisfactory wars. Scarcely was the new cabinet installed when the
Boers, the inhabitants of the recently annexed Transvaal, revolted.
The small English force in South Africa suffered a crushing defeat at
Majuba Hill, whereupon the government, ere reinforcements could arrive,
made peace with the rebels, and granted them independence (1880-81).
[Sidenote: =Arabi's rebellion.=]
Soon after the Transvaal war had reached its disastrous conclusion,
fresh troubles broke out in Egypt. Since Lord Beaconsfield first
interfered in that country by buying for England the Suez Canal shares
of the Khedive Ismail, Egyptian affairs had been going from bad to
worse. After driving the country to the verge of bankruptcy, the old
Khedive abdicated in 1879, in favour of his son Tewfik; but England and
France joined to establish the "Dual Control" over the young sovereign,
and appointed ministers to take charge of the finances of Egypt. Tewfik
himself made little or no objection to this assertion of foreign
domination, but some of his officers and ministers resented it, and
in 1882, Arabi Pasha, an ambitious soldier, executed a _coup d'êtat_,
drove away the foreign ministers, and raised the cry of "Egypt for the
Egyptians." It was expected that the two powers who had established the
Dual Control would unite to put down Arabi. But the French ministry,
jealous of England, and hoping to draw its private profit out of the
complication, refused to join in any action against him. It is probable
that the Gladstone cabinet had no intention at first of provoking a
war. But the English Mediterranean squadron was ordered to Alexandria,
which Arabi was busily engaged in fortifying. On June 11, a great
riot broke out in that city, and the mob massacred many hundreds of
European residents. This made hostilities inevitable; when the Egyptian
authorities refused to dismantle their new forts, Admiral Seymour
bombarded the place (July 11), and drove out the garrison. Shortly
after, English troops landed and seized the ruined city.
[Sidenote: =The Egyptian war.=]
The struggle which followed was brought to a prompt end by the quick
and decisive action of Sir Garnet Wolseley, who seized the Suez Canal,
and marched across the desert on Cairo, while the Egyptians were
expecting him on the side of Alexandria. By a daring night-surprise, he
carried the lines of Tel-el-Kebir (September 13), and routed Arabi's
host. A day later, his cavalry seized Cairo by a wonderful march of
fifty miles in twelve hours, and the rebellion was at an end. Arabi
was exiled to Ceylon, and the Khedive was restored to his palace in
Cairo; but for all intents and purposes the war left England supreme in
Egypt--a very anomalous position, which Mr. Gladstone soon proceeded
to make yet more so, by promising France and Turkey that the English
troops should be withdrawn so soon as order and good government should
be restored.
[Sidenote: =The war in the Soudan.--Gordon at Khartoum.=]
He might, perchance, have carried out his engagement but for the
outbreak of the disastrous Soudan war of 1883. During Arabi's rebellion
troubles had broken out in the Egyptian provinces on the Upper Nile,
where the pashas had been subjecting the wild Arab tribes to cruel
oppression. A fanatic named Mohamed Ahmed, of Dongola, put himself
at the head of the rising, proclaiming that he was the _Mahdi_, the
prophet whom Mussulmans expect to appear in the last days before
the end of the world. When the English had put down Arabi, they
found themselves forced to cope with the insurrection in the Soudan.
Accordingly General Hicks was despatched with a raw native army to
attack the Mahdi; but he and all his troops were cut to pieces (October
3, 1883). The government then resolved to send to the Soudan Charles
Gordon, a brave and pious engineer officer, who had won much credit
for his wise administration of the land in the days of the old Khedive
Ismail. But he was given no troops to aid him, and was merely told to
withdraw the Egyptian garrisons from the Upper Nile, as the cabinet
did not wish to reconquer the lost provinces, and thought that the
insurgents had been justified in their rebellion by the atrocious
misgovernment of their Egyptian masters. Gordon reached Khartoum, the
capital of the Soudan, but, immediately on his arrival there, was
beleaguered by the hordes of the Mahdi (February, 1884). With two
or three Europeans only to aid him, and no troops but the cowed and
dispirited Egyptians, who had been driven into Khartoum from their
other posts in the lost provinces, Gordon made a heroic defence. But
as he could not withdraw his garrison without help from outside,
he besought the cabinet for English troops, pointing out that the
Soudanese enemy were not patriots struggling to be free, but ferocious
fanatics, who massacred all who refused to acknowledge the Mahdi, and
believed themselves destined to conquer the whole world.
[Sidenote: =The fall of Khartoum.=]
The English ministry ultimately sent a small force, under Lord
Wolseley, the victor of Tel-el-Kebir, with orders to rescue Gordon and
his garrison, and then to retire. But the expedition was despatched too
late. After forcing their way in small boats up the Nile, and marching
180 miles across the waterless Bayuda desert, the main column of the
relieving army beat the Mahdi's hordes at the hard-fought fight of
Abu-Klea (January 22, 1885), and forced their way to within 100 miles
of Khartoum, but there learnt that the place had been stormed, and
Gordon, with the 11,000 men of his garrison, cut to pieces, four days
after the battle of Abu-Klea (January 26, 1885).
[Sidenote: =Progress of the Mahdi.=]
The English then retired and abandoned the whole Soudan to the Mahdi's
wild followers, who soon threatened Egypt itself. Two successive
expeditions were sent to Suakim, on the Red Sea, to endeavour to attack
the Mahdists from that side. Both had to withdraw after advancing a
few miles inland, foiled by the waterless desert and the incessant
harassing of the rebels. Somewhat later the fanatics twice endeavoured
to force their way up the Nile from the south, and were only cast back
after heavy fighting at Wady Halfa, on the very frontier of Egypt.
[Sidenote: =The Land Act of 1881.=]
The war in the Soudan dealt a heavy blow to the reputation of the
Gladstone cabinet. In the mean time, it was beset by even greater
difficulties arising out of the Irish question. In 1880 the government
brought in a bill forbidding any landlord to evict a tenant without
paying him "compensation for disturbance;" the bill was rejected by the
House of Lords. In 1881 they brought forward and carried the second
Irish Land Bill, appointing a commission or Land Court to fix all rents
for fifteen years.
[Sidenote: =The Land League.--The Phoenix Park murders.=]
But the peasantry were far from being satisfied, and aimed at making
an end of "landlordism" altogether. Their leaders had founded the
celebrated "Land League," which organized a system of terrorism all
over the country. Outrage grew more and more rampant, and at last
the government, abandoning the idea of pacification, seized and
imprisoned Parnell and forty other prominent chiefs of the Land League.
In revenge for this, the "No-Rent Manifesto" was published by the
surviving leaders of the League, and largely acted upon in the south
and west of the country. Chaos seemed to have set in, and matters
were made no better by the release of Parnell and his friends, under
the so-called "Kilmainham Treaty," in which the premier consented to
negociate with his prisoners for a cessation of hostilities. Forster,
the Irish Secretary, and Lord Spencer, the Viceroy, resigned, to show
their disapproval of the cabinet's policy. To replace Forster, Lord
Frederic Cavendish was made Secretary for Ireland; but six days after
his appointment he and his under-secretary, Mr. Burke, were murdered in
broad day in Phoenix Park by some members of a Dublin secret society
known as the "Invincibles" (June, 1882).
Universal horror was excited by this murder, but the country did not
quiet down, and a stringent Crimes Bill passed in the same autumn did
not suffice to stop the agrarian outrages which reigned throughout
Ireland. All through the days of the Gladstone cabinet the island
remained in the most deplorable condition, and the Irish parliamentary
party continued to be a thorn in the side of the government.
[Sidenote: =The Reform Bill of 1884.=]
Unhappy both at home and abroad, and fearing the results of a general
election, the prime minister reverted to the old Liberal cry of
Parliamentary reform, and produced the Reform Bill of 1884, which
conferred the franchise on the agricultural labourers, the last
considerable class in the country who still lacked the vote. It was
urged by the Conservative opposition that "redistribution"--the
adjustment of seats to population in due proportion--ought to accompany
this change. The House of Lords threw out the Reform Bill on this
plea. Mr. Gladstone then consented to combine redistribution with
enfranchisement, and the bill was passed in its new shape. The small
boroughs with less than 15,000 inhabitants, which had escaped the bill
of 1832, were deprived of their members, and the seats thus obtained
were divided among the more populous districts and towns.
[Sidenote: =The Home Rulers and the balance of parties.=]
In June, 1885, a chance combination of Conservatives and Home Rulers
beat the government on the budget. Mr. Gladstone resigned, and the
opposition took office, though, like Lord Derby in 1852 and 1866, they
had only a minority in the House. Beaconsfield had died in 1882, and
the Conservatives were now led by Lord Salisbury, the foreign minister
of the years 1878-80. When the session was over, Lord Salisbury
dissolved Parliament, and a general election followed. The Liberals
gained many of the new county seats, but the Conservatives did so
well in the boroughs that the numbers of the two parties in the new
Parliament were not far from equal. This put the balance of power into
the hands of the Home Rulers, who could give the majority to the party
with whom they choose to vote. The first use of their strength was to
turn out the Conservative ministry (January, 1886).
[Sidenote: =The Home Rule Bill.=]
Mr. Gladstone then took office, though he too had a majority in the
Commons only so long as it pleased the Irish members to vote with him.
But soon it appeared that he was prepared to secure their allegiance
by promising them Home Rule. Several members of his cabinet thereupon
resigned. In April a bill for conceding practical legislative
independence to Ireland was brought in. It was thrown out by the action
of 97 English and Scotch Liberals, who voted against their party. The
Gladstone cabinet at once resigned; a general election followed, and a
large majority of "Unionists" was returned.
FOOTNOTES:
[64] See p. 691.
[65] See p. 697.
[66] See pp. 754, 755.