FOOTNOTE:
See p. [516].
CHAPTER XLII.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
The Land League.—The Phœnix 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.
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.
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).
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.