The Conservative government, which thus fell, will be chiefly recollected for its remarkable concession to democratic principles by the passage of the Reform Act of 1867; but it deserves perhaps a word of praise for its conduct of Abyssinian war. a distant and unusual war. The emperor of Abyssinia had, for some time, detained some Englishmen prisoners in his country; and the government, unable to obtain redress in other ways, decided on sending an army to release them. The expedition, entrusted to Sir Robert Napier, afterwards Lord Napier of Magdala, was fitted out at great expense, and was rewarded with complete success. The prisoners were released, and the Abyssinian monarch committed suicide. Disraeli—whose oriental imagination was excited by the triumph—incurred some ridicule by his bombastic declaration that “the standard of St George was hoisted upon the mountains of Rasselas.” But the ministry could at least claim that the war had been waged to rescue Englishmen from captivity, that it had been conducted with skill, and that it had accomplished its object. The events of the Abyssinian war, however, were forgotten in the great political revolution which had swept the Conservatives from office and placed Gladstone in power. His government was destined to endure for more than five years. During that period it experienced the alternate prosperity and decline which nearly forty years before had been the lot of the Whigs after the passage of the first Reform Act. During its first two sessions it accomplished greater changes in legislation than had been attempted by any ministry since that of Lord Grey. In its three last sessions it was destined to sink into gradual disrepute; and it was ultimately swept away by a wave of popular reaction, as remarkable as that which had borne it into power.
It was generally understood that Gladstone intended to deal with three great Irish grievances—“the three branches of the upas tree”—the religious, agricultural and educational grievances. The session of 1869 was devoted Gladstone’s first ministry. to the first of these subjects. Gladstone introduced a bill disconnecting the Irish Church from the state, establishing a synod for its government, and—after leaving it in possession of its churches and its parsonages, and making ample provision for the life-interest of its existing clergy—devoting the bulk of its property to the relief of distress in Ireland. The bill was carried by large majorities through the House of Commons; and the feeling of the country was so strong that the Lords did not venture on its rejection. They satisfied themselves with engrafting on it a series of amendments which, on the whole, secured rather more liberal terms of compensation for existing interests. Some of these amendments were adopted by Gladstone; a compromise was effected in respect of the others; and the bill, which had practically occupied the whole session, and had perhaps involved higher constructive skill than any measure passed in the previous half-century, became law. Having dealt with the Irish Church in 1869, Gladstone turned to the more complicated question of Irish land. So far back as the ’forties Sir R. Peel had appointed a commission, known from its chairman as the Devon commission, which had recommended that the Irish tenant, in the event of disturbance, should receive some compensation for certain specified improvements which he had made in his holding. Parliament neglected to give effect to these recommendations; in a country where agriculture was the chief or almost only occupation, the tenant remained at his landlord’s mercy. In 1870 Gladstone proposed to give the tenant a pecuniary interest in improvements, suitable to the holding, which he had made either before or after the passing of the act. He proposed also that, in cases of eviction, the smaller tenantry Irish land. should receive compensation for disturbance. The larger tenantry, who were supposed to be able to look after their own interests, were entirely debarred, and tenants enjoying leases were excluded from claiming compensation, except for tillages, buildings and reclamation of lands. A special court, it was further provided, should be instituted to carry out the provisions of the bill. Large and radical as the measure was, reversing many of the accepted principles of legislation by giving the tenant a quasi-partnership with the landlord in his holding, no serious opposition was made to it in either House of Parliament. Its details, indeed, were abundantly criticized, but its principles were hardly disputed, and it became law without any substantial alteration of its original provisions. In two sessions two branches of the upas tree had been summarily cut off. But parliament in 1870 was not solely occupied with the wrongs of Irish tenantry. In the same year Forster, as vice-president of the council, succeeded in carrying the great measure which for the first time made education compulsory. In devising his scheme, Forster endeavoured to utilize, as far as possible, the educational machinery which had been voluntarily provided by various religious organizations. He gave the institutions, which had been thus established, the full benefit of the assistance which the government was prepared to afford to board schools, on their adopting a conscience clause under which the religious susceptibilities of the parents of children were protected. This provision led to many debates, and produced the first symptoms of disruption in the Liberal party. The Nonconformists contended that no such aid should be given to any school which was not Elementary education. conducted on undenominational principles. Supported by the bulk of the Conservative party, Forster was enabled to defeat the dissenters. But the victory which he secured was, in one sense, dearly purchased. The first breach in the Liberal ranks had been made; and the government, after 1870, never again commanded the same united support which had enabled it to pursue its victorious career in the first two sessions of its existence.
Towards the close of the session of 1870 other events, for which the government had no direct responsibility, introduced new difficulties. War unexpectedly broke out between France and Prussia. The French empire fell; the Black Sea neutrality. German armies marched on Paris; and the Russian government, at Count Bismarck’s instigation, took advantage of the collapse of France to repudiate the clause in the treaty of 1856 which neutralized the Black Sea. Lord Granville, who had succeeded Lord Clarendon at the foreign office, protested against this proceeding. But it was everywhere felt that his mere protest was not likely to affect the result; and the government at last consented to accept a suggestion made by Count Bismarck, and to take part in a conference to discuss the Russian proposal. Though this device enabled them to say that they had not yielded to the Russian demand, it was obvious that they entered the conference with the foregone conclusion of conceding the Russian claim. The attitude which the government thus chose to adopt was perhaps inevitable in the circumstances, but it confirmed the impression, which the abandonment of the cause of Denmark had produced in 1864, that Great Britain was not prepared to maintain its principles by going to war. The weakness of the British foreign office was emphasized by its consenting, almost at the same moment, to allow the claims of the United States, for the depredations of the “Alabama,” to be settled under a rule only agreed upon in 1871. Most Englishmen now appreciate the wisdom of a concession which has gained for them the friendship of the United States. But in 1871 the country resented the manner in which Lord Granville had acted. Whatever credit the government might have derived from its domestic measures, it was discredited, or it was thought to be, by its foreign policy. In these circumstances legislation in 1871 was not marked with the success which had attended the government in previous sessions. The government succeeded in terminating a long controversy by abolishing ecclesiastical tests at universities. But the Lords ventured to reject a measure for the introduction of the ballot at elections, and refused to proceed with a bill for the abolition of purchase in the army. The result of these decisions was indeed remarkable. In the one case, the Lords in 1872 found it necessary to give way, and to pass the Ballot Bill, which they had rejected in 1871. In the other, Gladstone decided on abolishing, by the direct authority of the crown, the system which the Lords refused to do away with by legislation. But his high-handed proceeding, though it forced the Lords to reconsider their decision, strained the allegiance of many of his supporters, and still further impaired the popularity of his administration. Most men felt that it would have been permissible for him, at the commencement of the session, to have used the queen’s authority to terminate the purchase system; Army purchase. but they considered that, as he had not taken this course, it was not open to him to reverse the decision of the legislature by resorting to the prerogative. Two appointments, one to a judicial office, the other to an ecclesiastical preferment, in which Gladstone, about the same time, showed more disposition to obey the letter than the spirit of the law, confirmed the impression which the abolition of purchase had made. Great reforming ministers would do well to recollect that the success of even liberal measures may be dearly purchased by the resort to what are regarded as unconstitutional expedients.
In the following years the embarrassments of the government were further increased. In 1872 Bruce, the home secretary, succeeded in passing a measure of licensing reform. But the abstainers condemned the bill as inadequate; 1872-1874. the publicans denounced it as oppressive; and the whole strength of the licensed victuallers was thenceforward arrayed against the ministry. In 1873 Gladstone attempted to complete his great Irish measures by conferring on Ireland the advantage of a university which would be equally acceptable to Protestants and Roman Catholics. But his proposal again failed to satisfy those in whose interests it was proposed. The second reading of the bill was rejected by a small majority, and Gladstone resigned; but, as Disraeli could not form a government, he resumed office. The power of the great minister was, however, spent; his ministry was hopelessly discredited. History, in fact, was repeating itself. The ministry was suffering, as Lord Grey’s government had suffered nearly forty years before, from the effect of its own successes. It had accomplished more than any of its supporters had expected, but in doing so it had harassed many interests and excited much opposition. Gladstone endeavoured to meet the storm by a rearrangement of his crew. Bruce, who had offended the licensed victuallers, was removed from the home office, and made a peer and president of the council. Lowe, who had incurred unpopularity by his fiscal measures, and especially by an abortive suggestion for the taxation of matches, was transferred from the exchequer to the home office, and Gladstone himself assumed the duties of chancellor of the exchequer. He thereby created a difficulty for himself which he had not foreseen. Up to 1867 a minister leaving one office and accepting another vacated his seat; after 1867 a transfer from one post to another did not necessitate a fresh election. But Gladstone in 1873 had taken a course which had not been contemplated in 1867. He had not been transferred from one office to another. He had accepted a new in addition to his old office. It was, to say the least, uncertain whether his action in this respect had, or had not, vacated his seat. It would be unfair to suggest that the inconvenient difficulty with which he was thus confronted determined his policy, though he was probably insensibly influenced by it. However this may be, on the eve of the session of 1874 he suddenly decided to dissolve parliament and to appeal to the country. He announced his decision in an address to his constituents, in which, among other financial reforms, he promised to repeal the income tax. The course which Gladstone took, and the bait which he held out to the electors, were generally condemned. The country, wearied of the ministry and of its measures, almost everywhere supported the Conservative candidates. Disraeli found himself restored to power at the head of an overwhelming majority, and the great minister who, five years before, had achieved so marked a triumph temporarily withdrew from the leadership of the party with whose aid he had accomplished such important results. His ministry had been essentially one of peace, yet its closing days were memorable for one little war in which a great soldier increased a reputation already high. Sir Garnet Wolseley triumphed over the difficulties which the climate of the west coast of Africa imposes on Europeans, and brought a troublesome contest with the Ashantis to a successful conclusion.
The history of Disraeli’s second administration affords an exact reverse to that of Gladstone’s first cabinet. In legislation the ministry attempted little and accomplished less. They did something to meet the wishes of the publicans, Disraeli’s second ministry. whose discontent had contributed largely to Gladstone’s defeat, by amending some of the provisions of Bruce’s licensing bill; they supported and succeeded in passing a measure, brought in by the primate, to restrain some of the irregularities which the Ritualists were introducing into public worship; and they were compelled by the violent insistence of Plimsoll to pass an act to protect the lives of merchant seamen. Disraeli’s government, however, will be chiefly remembered for its foreign policy. Years before he had propounded in Tancred the theory that England should aim at eastern empire. Circumstances in his second term of office enabled him to translate his theory into practice. In 1875 the country was suddenly startled at hearing that it had acquired a new position and assumed new responsibilities in Egypt by the purchase of the shares which the khedive of Egypt held in the Suez Canal. In the following spring a new surprise was afforded by the introduction of a measure authorizing the queen to assume the title of empress of India. But these significant actions were almost forgotten in the presence of a new crisis; for in 1876 misgovernment in Turkey had produced its natural results, and the European provinces of the Porte were in a state of armed insurrection. In the presence of a grave danger, Count Andrassy, the Austrian minister, drew up a note which was afterwards known by his name, declaring that the Porte had failed to carry into effect the promises of reform which she had made, and that some combined action on the part of Europe was necessary to compel her to do so. The note was accepted by the three continental empires, but Great Britain refused in the first instance to assent to it, and only ultimately consented at the desire of the Porte, whose statesmen seem to Bulgarian “atrocities.” have imagined that the nominal co-operation of England would have the effect of restraining the action of other powers. Turkey accepted the note and renewed the promises of reform, which she had so often made, and which meant so little. The three northern powers thereupon agreed upon what was known as the Berlin Memorandum, in which they demanded an armistice, and proposed to watch over the completion of the reforms which the Porte had promised. The British government refused to be a party to this memorandum, which in consequence became abortive. The insurrection increased in intensity. The sultan Abdul Aziz, thought unequal to the crisis, was hastily deposed; he was either murdered or led to commit suicide; and insurrection in Bulgaria was stamped out by massacre. The story of the “Bulgarian atrocities” was published in Great Britain in the summer of 1876. Disraeli characteristically dismissed it as “coffee-house babble,” but official investigation proved the substantial accuracy of the reports which had reached England. The people regarded these events with horror. Gladstone, emerging from his retirement, denounced the conduct of the Turks. In a phrase which became famous he declared that the only remedy for the European provinces of the Porte was to turn out the Ottoman government “bag and baggage.” All England was at once arrayed into two camps. One party was led by Disraeli, who was supposed to represent the traditional policy of England of maintaining the rule of the Turk at all hazards; the other, inspired by the example of Gladstone, was resolved at all costs to terminate oppression, but was at the same time distrusted as indirectly assisting the ambitious views by which the Eastern policy of Russia had always been animated. The crisis soon became intense. In June 1876 Servia and Montenegro declared war against Turkey. In a few months Servia was hopelessly beaten. Through the insistence of Russia an armistice was agreed upon; and Lord Beaconsfield—for Disraeli had now been raised to the peerage—endeavoured to utilize the breathing space by organizing a conference of the great powers at Constantinople, which was attended on behalf of Great Britain by Lord Salisbury. The Constantinople conference proved abortive, and in the beginning of 1877 Russia declared war. For some time, however, her success was hardly equal to her expectations. The Turks, entrenched at Plevna, delayed the Russian advance; and it was only towards the close of 1877 that Plevna at last fell and Turkish resistance collapsed. With its downfall the war party in England, which was led by the prime minister, increased in violence. From the refrain of a song, sung night after night at a London music hall, its members became known as Jingoes. The government ordered the British fleet to pass the Dardanelles and go up to Constantinople; and though the order was subsequently withdrawn, it asked for and obtained a grant of £6,000,000 for naval and military purposes. When news came that the Russian armies had reached Adrianople, that they had concluded some arrangement with the Turks, and that they were pressing forward towards Constantinople, the fleet was again directed to pass the Dardanelles. Soon afterwards the government decided to call out the reserves and to bring a contingent of Indian troops to the Mediterranean. Lord Derby,[8] who was at the foreign office, thereupon retired from the ministry, and was succeeded by Lord Salisbury. Lord Derby’s resignation was everywhere regarded as a proof that Great Britain was on the verge of war. Happily this did not occur. At Prince Bismarck’s suggestion Russia consented to refer the treaty which she had concluded at San Stefano to a congress of the great powers; and the congress, at which Great Britain was represented by Lord Beaconsfield and Lord Salisbury, Berlin treaty. succeeded in substituting for the treaty of San Stefano the treaty of Berlin. The one great advantage derived from it was the tacit acknowledgment by Russia that Europe could alone alter arrangements which Europe had made. In every other sense it is doubtful whether the provisions of the treaty of Berlin were more favourable than those of the treaty of San Stefano. On Lord Beaconsfield’s return, however, he claimed for Lord Salisbury and himself that they had brought back “peace with honour,” and the country accepted with wild delight the phrase, without taking much trouble to analyse its justice.
If Lord Beaconsfield had dissolved parliament immediately after his return from Berlin, it is possible that the wave of popularity which had been raised by his success would have borne him forward to a fresh victory in the constituencies. His omission to do so gave the country time to meditate on the consequences of his policy. One result soon became perceptible. Differences with Russia produced their inevitable consequences in fresh complications on the Indian frontier. The Russian government, confronted with a quarrel with Great Britain in Afghan wars. eastern Europe, endeavoured to create difficulties in Afghanistan. A Russian envoy was sent to Kabul, where Shere Ali, who had succeeded his father Dost Mahommed in 1863, was amir; and the British government, alarmed at this new embarrassment, decided on sending a mission to the Afghan capital. The mission was stopped on the frontier by an agent of Shere Ali, who declined to allow it to proceed. The British government refused to put up with an affront of this kind, and their envoy, supported by an army, continued his advance. Afghanistan was again invaded. Kabul and Kandahar were occupied; and Shere Ali was forced to fly, and soon afterwards died. His successor, Yakub Khan, came to the British camp and signed, in May 1879, the treaty of Gandamak. Under the terms of this treaty the Indian government undertook to pay the new amir a subsidy of £60,000 a year; and Yakub Khan consented to receive a British mission at Kabul, and to cede some territory in the Himalayas which the military advisers of Lord Beaconsfield considered necessary to make the frontier more “scientific.” This apparent success was soon followed by disastrous news. The deplorable events of 1841 were re-enacted in 1879. The new envoy reached Kabul, but was soon afterwards murdered. A British army was again sent into Afghanistan, and Kabul was again occupied. Yakub Khan, who had been made amir in 1879, was deposed, and Abdur Rahman Khan was selected as his successor. The British did not assert their superiority without much fighting and some serious reverses. Their victory was at last assured by the excellent strategy of Sir Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick (afterwards Lord) Roberts. But before the final victory was gained Lord Beaconsfield had fallen. His policy had brought Great Britain to the verge of disaster in Afghanistan: the credit of reasserting the superiority of British arms was deferred till his successors had taken office.
It was not only in Afghanistan that the new imperial policy which Lord Beaconsfield had done so much to encourage was straining the resources of the empire. In South Africa a still more serious difficulty was already commencing. At the time at which Lord Beaconsfield’s administration began, British territory in South Africa was practically confined to Cape Colony and Natal. Years before, in 1852 and 1854 respectively, the British government, at that time a little weary of the responsibilities of colonial rule, had recognized the independence of the two Dutch republics, the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. Powerful native tribes occupied the territory to the north of Natal and the east of the Transvaal. War broke out between the Transvaal Republic and one of the most powerful of these native chieftains, Sikukuni; and the Transvaal was worsted in the struggle. Weary of the condition of anarchy which existed in the republic, many inhabitants of the Transvaal were ready to welcome its annexation to Great Britain—a proposal favoured by the colonial secretary, Lord Carnarvon, who wished to federate the South African states, after the manner in which the North American colonies had become by confederation the Dominion of Canada. Sir Theophilus Shepstone, who was sent to inquire into the proposal, mistook the opinion of a party for the verdict of the republic, and declared (April 1877) the Transvaal a part of the British Empire. His policy entailed far more serious consequences than the mission to Afghanistan. The first Zulu War. was a war with the Zulus, the most powerful and warlike of the South African natives, who under their ruler, Cetewayo, had organized a formidable army. A dispute had been going on for some time about the possession of a strip of territory which some British arbitrators had awarded to the Zulu king. Sir Bartle Frere, who had won distinction in India, and was sent out by Lord Beaconsfield’s government to the Cape, kept back the award; and, though he ultimately communicated it to Cetewayo, thought it desirable to demand the disbandment of the Zulu army. In the war which ensued, the British troops who invaded Zulu territory met with a severe reverse; and, though the disaster was ultimately retrieved by Lord Chelmsford, the war involved heavy expenditure and brought little credit to the British army, while one unfortunate incident, the death of Prince Napoleon, who had obtained leave to serve with the British troops, and was surprised by the Zulus while reconnoitering, created a deep and unfortunate impression. Imperialism, which had been excited by Lord Beaconsfield’s policy in 1878, and by the prospect of a war with a great European power, fell into discredit when it degenerated into a fresh expedition into Afghanistan, and an inglorious war with a savage African tribe. A period of distress at home increased the discontent which Lord Beaconsfield’s external policy was exciting; and, when parliament was at last dissolved in 1880, it seemed no longer certain that the country would endorse the policy of the minister, who only a short time before had acquired such popularity. Gladstone, emerging from his retirement, practically placed himself again at the head of the Liberal party. In a series of speeches in Midlothian, where he offered himself for election, he denounced the whole policy which Lord Beaconsfield had pursued. His impassioned eloquence did much more than influence his own election. His speeches decided the contest throughout the kingdom. The Liberals secured an even more surprising success than that which had rewarded the Conservatives six years before. For the first time in the queen’s reign, a solid Liberal majority, independent of all extraneous Irish support, was returned, and Gladstone resumed in triumph his old position as prime minister.
The new minister had been swept into power on a wave of popular favour, but he inherited from his predecessors difficulties in almost every quarter of the world; and his own language had perhaps tended to increase them. He Gladstone’s second ministry. was committed to a reversal of Lord Beaconsfield’s policy; and, in politics, it is never easy, and perhaps rarely wise, suddenly and violently to change a system. In one quarter of the world the new minister achieved much success. The war in Afghanistan, which had begun with disaster, was creditably concluded. A better understanding was gradually established with Russia; and, before the ministry went out, steps had been taken which led to the delimitation of the Russian and Afghan frontier. In South Africa, however, a very different result ensued. Gladstone, before he accepted office, had denounced the policy of annexing the Transvaal; his language was so strong that he was charged with encouraging the Boers to maintain their independence by force; his example had naturally been imitated by some of his followers at the general election; and, when he resumed power, he found himself in the difficult dilemma of either maintaining an arrangement which he had declared to be unwise, or of yielding to a demand which the Boers were already threatening to support in arms. The events of the first year of his administration added to his difficulty. Before its close the Boers seized Heidelberg and established a republic; they destroyed a detachment of British troops at Bronkhorst Spruit; and they surrounded and attacked the British garrisons in the Transvaal. Troops were of course sent from England to maintain the British cause; and Sir George Colley, who enjoyed a high reputation and had experience in South African warfare, was made governor of Natal, and entrusted with the military command. The events which immediately followed will not be easily forgotten. Wholly miscalculating the strength of the Boers, Sir George Colley, at the end of January 1881, attacked them at Laing’s Nek, in the north of Natal, and was repulsed with heavy loss. Some ten days afterwards he fought another action on the Ingogo, and was again forced to retire. On the 26th February, with some 600 men, he occupied a high hill, known as Majuba, which, he thought, dominated the Boer position. The following day the Boers attacked the hill, overwhelmed its defenders, and Sir George Colley was himself killed in the disastrous contest on the summit. News of these occurrences was received with dismay in England. It was, no doubt, possible to say a good deal for Gladstone’s indignant denunciation of his predecessor’s policy in annexing the Transvaal; it would have been equally possible to advance many reasons for reversing the measures of Lord Beaconsfield’s Boer War, 1881. cabinet, and for conceding independence to the Transvaal in 1880. But the great majority of persons considered that, whatever arguments might have been urged for concession in 1880, when British troops had suffered no reverses, nothing could be said for concession in 1881, when their arms had been tarnished by a humiliating disaster. Great countries can afford to be generous in the hour of victory; but they cannot yield, without loss of credit, in the hour of defeat. Unfortunately this reasoning was not suited to Gladstone’s temperament. The justice or injustice of the British cause seemed to him a much more important matter than the vindication of military honour; and he could not bring himself to acknowledge that Majuba had altered the situation, and that the terms which he had made up his mind to concede before the battle could not be safely granted till military reputation was restored. The retrocession of the Transvaal was decided upon, though it was provided that the country should remain under the suzerainty of the queen. Even this great concession did not satisfy the ambition of the Boers, who were naturally elated by their victories. Three years later some Transvaal deputies, with their president, Kruger, came to London and saw Lord Derby, the secretary of state for the colonies. Lord Derby consented to a new convention, from which any verbal reference to suzerainty was excluded; and the South African republic was made independent, subject only to the condition that it should conclude no treaties with foreign powers without the approval of the crown. (For the details and disputes concerning the terms of this convention the reader is referred to the articles [Transvaal] and [Suzerainty].)
Gladstone’s government declined in popularity from the date of the earliest of these concessions. Gladstone, in fact, had succeeded in doing what Lord Beaconsfield had failed to accomplish. Annoyance at his foreign policy had rekindled the imperialism which the embarrassments created by Lord Beaconsfield had done so much to damp down. And, if things were going badly with the new government abroad, matters were not progressing smoothly at home. At the general election of 1880, the borough of Northampton, which of late years has shown an unwavering preference for Liberals of an advanced type, returned as its members Henry Labouchere and Charles Bradlaugh. Bradlaugh. Bradlaugh, who had attained some notoriety for an aggressive atheism, claimed the right to make an affirmation of allegiance instead of taking the customary oath, which he declared was, in his eyes, a meaningless form. The speaker, instead of deciding the question, submitted it to the judgment of the House, and it was ultimately referred to a select committee, which reported against Bradlaugh’s claim. Bradlaugh, on hearing the decision of the committee, presented himself at the bar and offered to take the oath. It was objected that, as he had publicly declared that the words of the oath had no clear meaning for him, he could not be permitted to take it; and after some wrangling the matter was referred to a fresh committee, which supported the view that Bradlaugh could not be allowed to be sworn, but recommended that he should be permitted to make the affirmation at his own risk. The House refused to accept the recommendation of this committee when a bill was introduced to give effect to it. This decision naturally enlarged the question before it. For, while hitherto the debate had turned on the technical points whether an affirmation could be substituted for an oath, or whether a person who had declared that an oath had no meaning for him could properly be sworn, the end at which Bradlaugh’s opponents were thenceforward aiming was the imposition of a new religious test—the belief in a God—on members of the House of Commons. The controversy, which thus began, continued through the parliament of 1880, and led to many violent scenes, which lowered the dignity of the House. It was quietly terminated, in the parliament of 1886, by the firm action of a new speaker. Mr Peel, who had been elected to the chair in 1884, decided that neither the speaker nor any other member had the right to intervene to prevent a member from taking the oath if he was willing to take it. Parliament subsequently, by a new act, permitted affirmations to be used, and thenceforward religion, or the absence of religion, was no disqualification for a seat in the House of Commons. The atheist, like the Roman Catholic and the Jew, could sit and vote.
The Bradlaugh question was not the only difficulty with which the new government was confronted. Ireland was again attracting the attention of politicians. The Fenian movement had practically expired; some annual motions for the introduction of Home Rule, made with all the decorum of parliamentary usage, had been regularly defeated. But the Irish were placing themselves under new leaders and adopting new methods. During the Conservative government of 1874, the Irish members had endeavoured to arrest attention by organized obstruction. Their efforts had increased the difficulties of Parnell. government and taxed the endurance of parliament. These tactics were destined to be raised to a fine art by Parnell, who succeeded to the head of the Irish party about the time of the formation of Gladstone’s government. It was Parnell’s determination to make legislation impracticable, and parliament unendurable, till Irish grievances were redressed. It was his evident belief that by pursuing such tactics he could force the House of Commons to concede the legislation which he desired. The Irish members were not satisfied with the legislation which parliament had passed in 1869-1870. The land act of 1870 had given the tenant no security in the case of eviction for non-payment of rent; and the tenant whose rent was too high or had been raised was at the mercy of his landlord. It so happened that some bad harvests had temporarily increased the difficulties of the tenantry, and there was no doubt that large numbers of evictions were taking place in Ireland. In these circumstances, the Irish contended that the relief which the act of 1870 had afforded should be extended, and that, till such legislation could be devised, a temporary measure should be passed giving the tenant compensation for disturbance. Gladstone admitted the force of this reasoning, and a bill was introduced to give effect to it. Passed by the Commons, it was thrown out towards the end of the session by the Lords; and the government acquiesced—perhaps could do nothing but acquiesce—in this decision. In Ireland, however, the rejection of the measure was attended with disastrous results. Outrages increased, obnoxious landlords and agents were “boycotted”—the name of the first gentleman exposed to this treatment adding a new word to the language; and Forster, who had accepted the office of chief secretary, thought it necessary, in the presence of outrage and intimidation, to adopt stringent measures for enforcing order. A measure was passed on his initiation, in 1881, authorizing him to arrest and detain suspected persons; and many well-known Irishmen, including Parnell himself and other members of parliament, were thrown into prison. It was an odd commentary on parliamentary government that a Liberal ministry should be in power, and that Irish members should be in prison; and early in 1882 Gladstone determined to liberate the prisoners on terms. The new policy—represented by what was known as the Kilmainham Treaty—led to the resignation of the viceroy, Lord Cowper, and of Forster, and the appointment of Lord Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish as their successors. On the 6th of May 1882 Lord Spencer made his entry into Dublin, and on the evening of the same day Lord Frederick, unwisely allowed to walk home alone with Burke, the under-secretary to the Irish government, was murdered with his companion in Phoenix Park. This gross outrage led to fresh measures of coercion. The disclosure, soon afterwards, of a conspiracy to resort to dynamite still further alienated the sympathies of the Liberal party from the Irish nation. Gladstone might fairly plead that he had done much, that he had risked much, for Ireland, and that Ireland was making him a poor return for his services.