[1880-1881 A.D.]

GLADSTONE'S SECOND MINISTRY; BOER WAR OF 1881

The new minister had been swept into power on a wave of popular favour, but he inherited difficulties from his predecessors in almost every quarter of the world; and his own language had perhaps tended to increase them. He 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. Mr. 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 Bronker's Spruit; they treacherously murdered a British officer; 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 intrusted 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 Mr. 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 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 Mr. 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.

[1880-1886 A.D.]

The independence of the Transvaal was accordingly recognised,' though it was provided that the republic 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.

The Bradlaugh Question

Mr. Gladstone's government declined in popularity from the date of the earliest of these concessions. Mr. Gladstone, in fact, had succeeded in doing what Lord Beaconsfield had failed to accomplish. Ánnoyance 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 Mr. Henry Labouchere and Mr. Bradlaugh. Mr. 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 Mr. Bradlaugh's claim. Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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, 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.

[Great Britain first proposed to retain certain districts, but yielded to threats of renewed hostilities.]

[1880-1882 A.D.]

Parnell

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 organised obstruction. Their efforts had increased the difficulties of government and taxed the endurance of parliament. These tactics were destined to be raised to a fine art by Mr. Parnell, who succeeded to the head of the Irish party about the time of the formation of Mr. Gladstone's government. It was Mr. 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 18691870. 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. Mr. 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 no 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 Mr. 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. measure was passed on his initiation, in 1881, authorising him to arrest and detain suspected persons; and many well-known Irishmen, including Mr. Parnell himself and other members of parliament, were thrown into prison.

A

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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Mr. 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

[1882-1885 A.D.]

liberal party from the Irish nation. Mr. 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.

Egypt: the Death of Gordon

In the mean while another difficulty was further embarrassing a harassed government. The necessities of the khedive of Egypt had been only temporarily relieved by the sale to Lord Beaconsfield's government of the Suez Canal shares. Egyptian finance, in the interests of the bondholders, had been placed under the dual control of England and France. The new arrangement naturally produced some native resentment, and Arabi Pasha placed himself at the head of a movement which was intended to rid Egypt of foreign interference. His preparations eventually led to the bombardment of Alexandria by the British fleet, and still later to the invasion of Egypt by a British army under Sir Garnet, afterwards Lord Wolseley, and to the battle of Tel-el-Kebir, after which Arabi was defeated and taken prisoner. The bombardment of Alexandria led to the immediate resignation of Mr. Bright, whose presence in the cabinet had been of importance to the government; the occupation of Egypt broke up the dual control, and made Great Britain responsible for Egyptian administration. The effects of British rule were, in one sense, remarkable. The introduction of good government increased the prosperity of the people, and restored confidence in Egyptian finance. At the same time it provoked the animosity of the French, who were naturally jealous of the increase of British influence on the Nile, and it also threw new responsibilities on the British nation. For, south of Egypt, lay the great territory of the Sudan, which to some extent commands the Nile, and which with Sir Samuel Baker's assistance had been conquered by the khedive. In 1881 a fanatic sheikh-known as the Mahdi-had headed an insurrection against the khedive's authority; and towards the close of 1883 an Egyptian army under an Englishman, Colonel Hicks, was almost annihilated by the insurgent soldiery. The insurrection increased the responsibilities which intervention had imposed on England, and an expedition was sent to Suakin to guard the littoral of the Red Sea; while, at the beginning of 1884, General Gordon-whose services in China had gained him a high reputation, and who had previous experience in the Sudan-was sent to Khartum to report on the condition of affairs.

These decisions led to momentous results. The British expedition to Suakin was engaged in a series of battles with Osman Digna, the Mahdi's lieutenant; while General Gordon, after alternate reverses and successes, was isolated at Khartum. Anxious as Mr. Gladstone's ministry was to restrict the sphere of its responsibilities, it was compelled to send an expedition to relieve General Gordon; and at the close of 1884 Lord Wolseley, who was appointed to the command, decided on moving up the Nile to his relief. The expedition proved much more difficult than Lord Wolseley had anticipated. And, before it reached its goal, Khartum was forced to surrender, and General Gordon and his few faithful followers were murdered. General Gordon's death inflicted a fatal blow on the liberal government. It was thought that the general, whose singular devotion to duty made him a popular hero, had been allowed to assume an impossible task; had been feebly supported; and that the measures for his relief had been unduly postponed and at last only reluctantly undertaken. The ministry ultimately experienced defeat on a side issue. The budget, which Mr. Childers brought forward as chancellor of the

[1885-1886 A.D.]

exchequer, was attacked by the conservative party; and an amendment proposed by Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, condemning an increase in the duties on spirits and beer, was adopted by a small majority. Mr. Gladstone resigned office, and Lord Salisbury, who, after Lord Beaconsfield's death, had succeeded to the lead of the conservative party, was instructed to form a new administration.

LORD SALISBURY'S MINISTRY

It was obvious that the new government, as its first duty, would be compelled to dissolve the parliament that had been elected when Mr. Gladstone was enjoying the popularity which he had lost so rapidly in office. But it so happened that it was no longer possible to appeal to the old constituencies. For, in 1884, Mr. Gladstone had introduced a new Reform bill; and, though its passage had been arrested by the lords, unofficial communications between the leaders of both parties had resulted in a compromise which had led to the adoption of a large and comprehensive Reform Act. By this measure, household franchise was extended to the counties. But counties and boroughs were broken up into a number of small constituencies, for the most part returning only one member each; while the necessity of increasing the relative_weight of Great Britain, and the reluctance to inflict disfranchisement on Ireland, led to an increase in the numbers of the house of commons from 658 to 670 members. This radical reconstruction of the electorate necessarily made the result of the elections doubtful. As a matter of fact, the new parliament comprised 334 liberals, 250 conservatives, and 86 Irish nationalists. It was plain beyond the possibility of doubt that the future depended on the course which the Irish nationalists might adopt. If they threw in their lot with Mr. Gladstone, Lord Salisbury's government was evidently doomed. If, on the contrary, they joined the conservatives, they could make a liberal administration impracticable.

In the autumn of 1885 it was doubtful what course the Irish nationalists would take. It was generally understood that Lord Carnarvon, who had been made Viceroy of Ireland, had been in communication with Mr. Parnell; that Lord Salisbury was aware of the interviews which had taken place; and it was whispered that Lord Carnarvon was in favour of granting some sort of administrative autonomy to Ireland. Whatever opinion Lord Carnarvon may have formed-and his precise view is certain a greater man than he had suddenly arrived at a similar conclusion. In his election speeches Mr. Gladstone had insisted on the necessity of the country returning a liberal majority which could act independently on the Irish vote; and the result of the general election had left the Irish the virtual arbiters of the political situation. In these circumstances Mr. Gladstone arrived at a momentous decision. He recognised that the system under which Ireland had been governed in the past had failed to win the allegiance of her people; and he decided that it was wise and safe to entrust her with a large measure of self-government. It was perhaps characteristic of Mr. Gladstone, though it was unquestionably unfortunate, that, in determining on this radical change of policy, he consulted few, if any, of his previous colleagues. On the meeting of the new parliament Lord Salisbury's government was defeated on an amendment to the address, demanding facilities for agricultural labourers to obtain small holdings for gardens and pasture-the policy,' in short, which was described as "Three acres and a cow."

[This policy was vehemently attacked by Lord Salisbury in a speech, October 7th.]